From: A Torah
Commentary on James 1-2 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth,
Jr. © 2014
[Page 207]
Chapter 1A:
Overview: How the Themes are
Developed
Author’s Greeting
(1:1)
ATP text: 1
James, a bondservant of both God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve
tribes which are scattered throughout the civilized world: Greetings!
Development of the
argument:
Traditionalist Jews spoke in terms of serving God; Christian
Jews certainly embraced this as well.
But to them, since Jesus had come as the long promised Messiah, the
commitment now had to be dual—hence “a bondservant of [AT: of both] God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ.” It wasn’t a matter of choosing
between them, but of fully embracing both.
[Page 208] Among
other things, this double fealty recognized that Jesus’ regal powers had been bestowed
upon Him, willingly and ungrudgingly, by the Father: “All authority has been given
to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). “The Father loves
the Son, and has given all things into His hand” (John 3:35). “For ‘He has put all things under His feet.’ But when He
says ‘all things are put under Him,’
it is evident that He who put
all things under Him is excepted” (1 Corinthians 15:27).
Since the same “slave”
status is claimed in relationship to both, it is easy to read the text
as carrying the implicit “freight” of saying that they are both of an
“equality” of nature. How else could one
be equally a slave of both, when the uniqueness of the Father would
otherwise put that master-servant relationship on a vastly superior
level in regard to reverence, obedience, and everything else?[1]
In other words we may well have here an
implicit overtone of the deityship of Jesus; a “glimmer,” a hint of that which is
made explicit in other New Testament texts.[2] If one prefers a relatively late dating for
the epistle, what we have here may well be an allusion backward to a truth so
deeply accepted that only a passing reference would be necessary for it to come
to the readers’ minds. On the other
hand, if one embraces a very early date, it would recognize how easily early
disciples embraced rhetoric that would make that view quite natural. It led to it as straight as an arrow
flies.
Indeed, the text can
be validly translated as “servant of Jesus Christ, God and Lord,”[3]
which would make it explicit. Since a
powerful direct Christological assertion was not needed--since Jesus’ status is
not an issue in the epistle--and since a (predominantly) Jewish audience might
well feel more comfortable with leaving a certain verbal ambiguity, it seems
inherently probable that the introduction was intended to be read in the way
traditionally translated.
[Page 209] The author’s description of himself
as a “slave” of God and Christ—and implicitly, in behalf of serving his readers’
needs—carries much theological freight through the choice of that word to
describe the relationship. It leaves no
doubt as to who is in charge and who is the one following orders. “It emphasizes the qualities of obedience,
loyalty, and service that mark the relationship.”[4]
He does not identify
himself beyond the vague “a bondservant,” clearly relying upon his recipients
knowing full well the identity of who was writing and why he would be concerned
about them. He is a man who had
credibility not only in one geographic region but whose reputation had become
generally know and accepted: note that
he does not have to argue why it should be accepted by Jewish believers
throughout the known world. They already
knew.
The author’s targeted
audience is Jewish believers, as evidenced by their designation of belonging
“to the twelve tribes which are scattered about” and the lack of anything
Gentile specific in the letter. This
description of them is standard ethnic terminology of the time to describe
those Jews living outside of what later generations called geographic Palestine.[5]
We generally think in
terms of the epistle being sent throughout the Roman world. However Persia was a major empire in its own
right and relationship between the two empires was always skittish. Within the Parthian Empire, however, was a
major Jewish [Page 210] community and
it received sporadic communications from the religious authorities of the
Temple.[6] Assuming that there were Christians there by
the time this epistle was written--and Parthians were present at Pentecost,
Acts 2:9--it reasonably follows that it was sent there as well. The designated recipients (“twelve tribes
which are scattered abroad,” 1:1) would have required it.[7]
The self-designation
as “bondservant” or “slave” is a strange self-designation for modern, non-slave
holding societies. To call one such is
virtual self-denigration and insult.
But in a society in
which the vast bulk of the population were slaves, part of your status surely
came from whose slave you were. Once
one acknowledges—as all scholars seem to do—that Rome was a status obsessed
society, such could hardly have avoided happening. However, obnoxious Roman senators (for
example) undoubtedly were, it is unlikely that any slave avoided claiming a
kind of “second hand glory and honor” from his status. Others were servants of nobodies; they
were slaves of the highest of the elite.
When James instructs others and identifies
himself as slave of God and Christ, he is—in effect—presenting himself as speaking
on their behalf.[8] He needs to be heard for that reason, if for
no other. He may personally have
authority or he may not; what is unquestionable is those he is speaking
on behalf of do possess it.
This authority as representative of the
Divine is implicit in chapter 3’s admonition “let not many of you become
teachers” (verse 1). Yet he is
doing exactly that. Would he have been
willing to be one of that number without such a confidence? At the very least, it has to imply his
complete and passionate conviction that whatever he has written is undeniably
true.
[Page 211] Indeed,
the entirety of what he writes is presented as certainty, as unquestionable, as
absolutely reliable. There is no hedging
of his insights. “As Demetrius puts
it: the tone of the discourse is not
that of a friendly letter; this is an ex cathedra address.”[9]
Aside: If this book comes from a pseudonymous author--wishing
to be received as authoritative though he has no objective grounds on which to
claim such—the authority point would surely have been driven home far more
explicitly and emphatically. It would
not merely be an understated “James” but “James” with the clearest spelling
out of which James who was known to have such teaching
authority. Quite possibly, with an explicit assertion of the authority itself
as well.
The lack of such argues strongly that the
readers were well aware of who this James was and that James was secure enough
in the authority that he did have that he felt no need to “pound them
over the head” with it. Hence the very
restraint in “power assertions” seems a significant argument against the work
coming from someone pretending to be an authoritative person he really is
not.
[Page 212]
Premise of the Entire Work:
The Tests of Our Faith Can
Better Us
(1:2-1:27)
The Principle Laid Down
(1:2-4)
ATP text: 2 My comrades in the faith,
consider it unmitigated joy
when you face the various difficulties of life 3 because you
know that such
testing of your commitment produces strength to endure whatever happens
in the future. 4 Let
endurance be fully developed so that you may be totally
mature and complete, lacking nothing.
Development of the
argument:
After a brief identification of authorship and destination (1:1), the
author jumps into the underlying them of the book (1:2-4). This is the need to endure the “trials
[ATP: difficulties of life]” (1:2) that
are the “testing of your faith [ATP:
commitment]” (1:3). The attitude
to have in facing these things is not despair but “joy.” That doesn’t mean you are enthused about yet
another intense difficulty to deal with.
You aren’t joyous because you face difficulty; you are joyous in
spite of facing difficulty.
You aren’t even going to permit harsh circumstances to alter your
fundamental, upbeat attitude in serving Christ.
The intended idea would surely be something alone the line of that
produced by these two interpretive additions to the NKJV, “Count it all joy even
when you fall into various trails” or “count it all joy in spite of
falling into various trials.” And the reason
you can encounter such problems with a positive attitude is that, ironic as it may
sound, it will actually produce good for you in spite of the pain and
discomfort (verses 3-4).
[Page 213] Many theorize that James has
in mind by “trials” and “testing,” the persecution of believers but the
expression “various trials” (“trials of any kind,” NRSV; “all kinds of
trials,” TEV; “tests of every sort,” BBE; “various difficulties of life,” ATP)
argues for “a much broader setting” that includes all the forms of adversity
that may come upon the Christian, from whatever source.[10]
Scot McKnight, has observed
that, “Various options have been offered by the church’s many commentators,
including daily trials such as food shortage, being laid off, or a fire
in the home, internal trials in the sense of moral temptations, which in
James revolve often around verbal sins and violent reactions (1:19-21; 3:-12)
and political mongering (3:13-4:12), or external trials in the sense of
persecution.”[11]
James is candid enough to recognize that many of our discomforts may
be at the hand of fellow believers rather than outsiders. For example, in James 2, the “trials” come
from our spiritual “location”--we are victims due to easier access caused by both
parties being from within the community of faith. If they treat us, their spiritual kin,
in such an off-handed manner, there’s every reason to expect them to treat
everyone else at least equally badly in non-religious settings. Indeed, by their standards they may regard
themselves as being unusually benevolent in permitting us to remain at all! Would non-believers be even that
accommodating? Probably not.
The criticisms of chapter 5 come immediately after a section rebuking
the certainty of traders that they will make piles of money through their work
(4:13-17). Those words are introduced by
the admonition to such individuals, “Come now, you who say” (4:13)--words which
make little sense unless addressed to believers. And chapter 5
begins with, “Come now, you rich” (5:1).
[Page 214] Hence the criticisms in 5:1-6
seem to have in mind the moral blindness of fellow Christians as well. In that case they provide a vivid example of those
“believers” who do not permit even the most fundamental principles of justice
toward others to control their behavior.
Unfortunately, there are always those whose religion is only skin deep
and has never penetrated to reform the soul.
As explained by James himself, their behavior only makes them that much
more the enemies of God.
Although one would anticipate that Christians are particularly in mind
as the evil-doers, we run into the problem of whether there were that
many economically well off Christians at this time for a significant amount of such
mistreatment to exist. One option is to
argue that the church was significantly bigger than often assumed though still
a small percentage of the total population.
There is also a possible clue in the introductory “to the twelve
tribes” (1:1). Since most Jewish
Christians would presumably prefer to work for fellow monotheists, the bulk
were probably laborers for ethnic Jews, though of a traditionalist
thought. Yet they also had been taught
the same things. (See the Old Testament
precedents section.) Those of “the
twelve tribes” would hear the same message if they paid attention to the
Old Testament prophets who spoke of the evil of such injustices. These were likely the perpetuators James had
in mind when Christians themselves were not.
In this approach, the “Come now”
language of 4:13 and 5:1 is rhetorical:
James is not actually addressing them; it is his way to rhetorically get
his point across: To act as if the
transgressors are present and he is personally addressing them. It is a way of vividly getting across the
idea, “This is what I would say to you if I were there and addressing you.” Furthermore, “It is what I am saying
to those of you who claim to be followers of Christ.”
[Page 215] The
prominence of this theme of trials is the perfect introduction for a book that
will deal with the various ways a person’s faith may be tested or tried—not
only by others but also by our own pride and moral weaknesses. In ways these may be the most dangerous: when faced with the unjust acts of others,
human pride can easily become involved.
We won’t give in because—well, we simply won’t. It’s a matter of “face,” personal image, self-respect. But when our own preferences and weaknesses
threaten to subvert us, we stand “stark naked:”
we are faced with our most dangerous of enemies—ourselves when we are
inclined to follow the path of indulgence rather than duty.
Nor does he claim that being faced with
temptation is somehow itself a moral virtue, standing alone. Rather it is successfully facing such
stumbling-blocks. Both short term and
long-term.
If successfully resisted, it produces
“patience” (1:3; “endurance,” Holman, ISV, NASB, Rotherham; “steadfastness, RSV;
“strength to endure whatever happens in the future,” ATP). Our learned patience / endurance shows us
that difficulties and temptations can be faced successfully and, by repeated
exposure, create in us the habit of doing so.
Weymouth has the interesting reading of “power
of endurance.” The English
translation of “patience” easily carries the overtone of passivity; the Greek
term carries one of something that is active and manifests personal strength through
the endurance.[12] [Page 216]
Hence the appropriateness of Weymouth’s rendition: the endurance manifests your power and
strength. Plato (Leg. 12.942)
uses it in this sense when speaking of the patience of the soldier.[13]
That is why James speaks of letting it
develop further so that we can reach full maturity—“that you may be perfect and
complete, lacking nothing” (1:4) Here
we’ve gone far beyond just dealing with the immediate problem. Picture temptation as the weeds and
undergrowth that prevent our faith from growing. By creating a pattern of resisting
temptation, we’ve poured gallons of “weed killer” on that which would hinder
us. By getting rid of this underbrush we
are allowing ourselves to spiritually grow into the best person we could
possibly be.
Not necessarily the person we would—in our
dreams—be. That heroic and ideal
individual could be mere fantasy. But
the best person we could ever be in real life.
In contrast, allowing temptation to run the
life diverts attention from personal growth to self-indulgence. From the seeking of maturity to the pleasure
of tearing down the inhibitions that restrain us. It is inherently destructive—self-destructive
at least. Often it goes far beyond
that. How many lives can be ruined by
one person “enjoying themselves” at the cost of others? If our mind-frame is “how can we use that
person” (financially, sexually, in any other way), then we see others as mere things
and objects and not as real human beings.
So our control over our temptations can
have tremendous side-effects. Not only
in permitting our own full growth but in assuring that others do not suffer
from our making ourselves “happy.”
[Page 217] We
strive to become morally “complete” and “perfect,” in the language of this
verse (1:4) This does not refer to
sinlessness. That is delusional. We strive to be better but none of us will
reach perfection in that sense (1 John 1:8, 10). “Perfect(ion)” in this text, as often
throughout the New Testament, carries the connotation of “complete(ness)” and
full development. (Hence “mature and
complete, lacking nothing,” ATP).
For parallels one might think of the Jewish
priest who is in his full regalia and totally prepared for the day’s
rituals. Or one might think of the
soldier who is fully ready to face whatever may face him in battle—expected or
unexpected.[14] All the necessary preparations have been
taken for success. Likewise the
Christian who has morally prepared in these ways is fully prepared and
expecting success on the battlefield of faith.
If You Lack the Wisdom to
Understand This,
Pray to God for Assistance
(1:5-8)
ATP text: 5 If any of you lacks
wisdom, it should be requested of
God—who gives to all generously and without criticism--and it will be
given
to the requester. 6 But
let it be asked with conviction, with no doubting it will
be answered, for one who doubts is like an ocean wave--driven and
tossed
about by the wind of the storm. 7
Let not that person suppose that anything
will be received from the Lord! 8 Such a person is of two minds about
what
will really happen, never certain about anything.
[Page 218]
Development of the
argument:
How is one to come to accept the reality
that the turmoil and discomfort of trials may actually produce good for
us? By nature, we are adverse to discomfort;
it takes a conscious act of will to see a value in it. (Otherwise who would be nervous about going
to a dentist? Or about their next
college exam?) James suggests that his
readers pray to God for wisdom--wisdom and insight on this subject is
the specific type most natural to the context.
If that is done, God will grant it (1:5-8), though the mechanism of how this
is accomplished is not spelled out.
The instruction “let
him ask of God” (1:5) implies that even having successfully traveled
through the stormy waters of trials does not necessarily mean we have learned
from them the moral lesson that God wants them to convey. To do that, he insists that we seek Divine
assistance.[15] Just as prayer for our daily food does not
eliminate our role in seeking it out, neither does seeking for wisdom from our
earthly difficulties come by prayer independently of also enduring the troubles.[16] The exercise maxim of “pain means growth” is
also true of other areas of life as well.
Like most answered prayer, one can never
determine the “how,” only whether the desired result has been granted. There is one underlying condition, however,
to that happening: one must truely
believe that the result is obtainable.
Otherwise one is nothing better than a wave of the sea that gets driven
from one place to another (1:8) and accomplishes nothing. We dwell in chaos rather than stability.
[Page 219] Three
characteristics of God’s willingness to answer prayer are spelled out in verse
5. Each of them touch on an aspect of why
we are often hesitant to ask for help from others as well:
(1)
He is willing to give to “all”
(“to everyone,” God’s Word) who seek
enlightenment. Divine generosity
is not unexpected (what else would Deity do?), but the scope of it is
still a bit startling by the unmitigated broadness of the pledge.[17]
Many people will help their friends or
those they think they can get something out of.
Few are willing to help whoever asks.
God doesn’t care. He wants us to
understand truth better no matter who we are or how many times we have failed.
(2)
He gives “liberally” (“generously,”
ATP, ESV, God’s Word, Holman, NASB, NIV, RSV; “freely,” BBE, Rotherham). Jack Benny, a brilliant comedian on radio and
then television from the 1930s into the 1960s made an entire career around the
(fake) image of being a tightwad.
Unfortunately when it comes to helpfulness, there are many who are the
genuine article. They will give—a
little. And please don’t ask for
more. God’s attitude is not, “how
little” but “how much” He can give. He wishes our insight to be a growing one so
we can both help ourselves better and others as well.
Aside:
A. T. Robertson points out that the connotation of the Greek term can
also permit it to mean with a single purpose, with the Divine intent
being centered on benefiting our insight
rather than the emphasis being on the amount supplied (“generosity”) of the
gift,[18]
[Page 220]
“Liberally” we have it in the standard
versions. It is a rather difficult word
to translate into English. It means
simple, single-fold, sincere. Compare
the “single” eye in Matthew 6:22; Luke 11:34.
In Romans 12:8 it is not clear whether “singleness” or “liberality” is
the idea, but “liberality” is obviously correct in 2 Corinthians 8:2, “the
riches of their liberality.” So in 9:11,
13, but “singleness of heart” in Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22.
Oesterley finds the notion of James to be
“singleness of aim, the aim being the imparting of benefit without requiring
anything in return.” Likewise Bengel
interprets it by simpliciter.
Either idea makes good sense, for surely
God gives to us all with singleness of purpose and also with wealth of
liberality. Certainly it is without
bargaining on God’s part, for there is no mention of reciprocity.
(3)
God gives “without reproach” (“without criticism,” ATP; “without a
rebuke,” ISV; “without an unkind word,” BBE; “without finding fault,” NIV;
“doesn’t find fault with them,” God’s Word.)
In dealing with many people we fear (rightly) some form of backbiting in
response to a question. If the person is
at least trying to be polite he may simply give a loud “sigh” of exasperation
or quietly shake his head back and forth in amazement that we should need
assistance. In total contrast, God looks
upon seeking needed help with respect, as a positive act, as a praiseworthy
one.
Hence God has every desire and
every reason to respond to our prayer.
What will become an obstacle is within us: It has to be “in faith, with no doubting”
(1:6). In short, if you don’t really believe
anything is going to happen—nothing will happen. Ironically enough, you are getting just the
response you expected!
[Page 221] The real point could be
somewhat different, however—not to doubt that He will act but, rather, not to
doubt His fundamental character that motivates Him in everything He does. Having trust in Him rather than in the
certainty of action, i.e., that whatever is done or not done will be for
the best.[19] The simple fact is that God will not
answer all prayers with a “yes,” but our full confidence in His character means
that He will do the right and best thing—whatever that might be.
“With no doubting” may be a more accurate
translation, but the KJV’s original rendering conveys the meaning perhaps even
more powerfully, “in faith, nothing wavering.”
Verse 6 explains the reason: such a person is so unsettled that he “is
like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.” The waves don’t try to be waves, they
are created by the forces around them.
Likewise the believer who prays for spiritual insight had better have
self-control or he will be no better than that.
First inclined in one direction and then another. Tossed about by internal and / or external
factors that control his life. Self-control
has been abandoned.
How can even God help those who don’t help
themselves? (This is not some type of
advanced theology here; it is simple down-to-earth practical realism.) Or perhaps you would be more comfortable with
this verbal formulation of the same principle:
Why should God help those who don’t help themselves? If our actions—and non-actions—show no real
concern and effort on our part, how is the prayer to be taken seriously?
[Page 222] At
this point, the argument seems to become even more sharp. James began speaking in terms of how the one
who lacks wisdom should ask God for it (1:5) and then points out that without
self-control--in this context, the consistent, persistent desire for
wisdom and insight as contrasted with it only being a sporadic interest and effort--God
can not act for we are not helping ourselves.
But then he suddenly takes this narrow faceted subject of answered
prayer and seemingly applies it to all subjects, “For let not that man
suppose that he will receive anything
from the Lord” (1:7).
Perhaps our broadening the theme is not the
intent of the verse but the conclusion to be drawn from it,
however. For if the person who does not
believe he will receive what he is praying for on one subject (wisdom), how can
he ever expect to receive an affirmative answer on any other subject? The required unwavering faith is simply not
present in either case!
James deals with an unpleasant reality of
life: our mind frame has a carry over
effect from one part of life to another.
What shapes us in a negative direction in one area can hardly escape
from steering us wrong in any other area where it has an impact. We get used to a life of wavering in one part
of life and it easily becomes the status quo for all. Or as James words it, “he is a double-minded
man, unstable in all his ways” (1:8)
Precedent creates pattern. Lack of commitment becomes the norm.[20]
Some believe that James is
creating this imagery from two earlier types of Biblical teaching.[21] We have Jesus talking about the impossibility
of “serv[ing] two masters” and how the inevitable result is loyalty to one and
a despising of the other (Matthew 6:24).
A useful sermonic illustration, but James is talking about the person who
can’t make up his mind rather than one has done so—to serve two
people with contradictory interests.
[Page 223] Perhaps more germane is the Old
Testament demand that one love God “with all your heart, with all your soul,
and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5).
In other words with no divided heart, with full, total, and sole
commitment.
Remember to Keep Your Earthly
Status
in Perspective:
God Has in Store Its Opposite
(1:9-12)
ATP text: 9 Let the comrade of lowly
status take pride in being made
important, 10 just as the
rich should in being reduced to their true
importance. After all, wealth
passes away like a flower of the field: 11
For
the sun rises with a scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower
falls off
and its beauty is destroyed.
Similarly the rich will fade away in the midst of
their pursuits. 12 Benefited
is the one who successfully endures the
enticements of life, for when one has been approved, then the crown of
life is
received that the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
Development of the
argument:
James next presents another illustration of
an area in which wisdom is required to both accept and understand its
consequences: the fact that lower class
coreligionist will eventually receive an “exaltation” while the rich (so far as
this life goes at least) “will pass away” (1:9-11). This flies in the face of earthly common
sense. In the here and now, one takes
little comfort in being poor and can hardly imagine ever receiving an
“exaltation” that takes one above it.
Likewise the rich individual can rarely imagine being poor. Both are always “possibilities,” but they
never seem more than “idle fantasies” that will ever occur in real life.
[Page 224] Not usually, that is.
Not except when they do
happen. Though the devastation of the
rich is more likely than the enrichment of the under class. Economic crashes have occurred and the
mythologists notwithstanding will ultimately hit even this country once again. In the past these have occurred when the
United States was an agricultural land and at least the minimals of existence
could usually be maintained even under the worst economic conditions.
Now that we are extremely urban, the dislocation and societal
consequences of a Great Depression style crash are frightening to even think
of. I write the revision of this
commentary in 2012 as the Great Recession is ready to finish its fourth
year. The economists claim it is over
but few outside committed partisans can see but modest improvements here and
there—improvements nullified by inflation (officially lower than what shoppers
actually pay) and unemployment (“reduced” in major part by those who have given
up looking and by the partially employed being counted as “employed” even
though they used to be so full time).
We aren’t up to the Great Depression catastrophe level of the 1930s. Hopefully we won’t be. But the “Wasted 2010s” are waiting to become
a historian’s catch phrase for this period.
And as I do the final “polish” of the manuscript in January of 2014, we
continue our slow crawl out of the mire and the politicians still brag of how
much “success” they’ve brought the economy.
Worse yet: The cycle of boom and
bust will happen again. It’s the nature
of history.
[Page 225] James does not claim that the
equaling out he speaks of will necessarily occur in this life. Indeed, the vivid picture he paints of grass
and flowers as perishing (equated with the rich in both verses 10 and 11)
argues that he has the “great equalizer” of death in mind. At that point the right living “lowly”
Christian has a reward ready, while the amoral and unconcerned rich only has
the memories of passed away wealth. The
amoral wealthy actually has nothing permanent left, while the right-doing poor
person has the “crown of life” mentioned in verse 12.
Indeed, verse 12 has a
vital lesson for those at both ends of the economic totem pole, “Blessed is the
man who endures temptation [ATP:
successfully endures the enticements of life].” The poor “end” of the spectrum is tempted by
despair, rage, and wrath and the other by unconcern and contempt. There are the temptations of poverty and the
temptations of wealth and economic prosperity.
But each does contain temptations and how we respond to them
shapes whether we treat others justly in the current life and how God treats us
when the time of the Great Accounting finally arrives.
At that time wealth
won’t matter in the least. How wealth
was used will matter everything.
We run the great danger of “pigeon-holing” this concept into a
description of, say, the top 1% of money-earners. But the reality is that there are degrees
of economic prosperity just as there are of economic want. Compared to others in the world, most of us
are somewhere in the “wealthy” spectrum.
(Incredible as that reality seems.)
The modern American “poor” (more or less commonly)
have cell phones, cable television, and even the internet—not to mention ipods
and tablets and other electronic [Page 226]
“toys,” though they likely lag a few years behind the more prosperous in
obtaining them. But they still have
them. They are “poorer” and are
often economically struggling (just as millions a few step higher on the
economic totem pole). Hence, just about
every American has to take into consideration that the warnings to the rich
apply to all of us and not just the blessings applied to the poor.
Hence the admonition of Galatians 6:10 has
a pressing application to one and all, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let
us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Even when cash is unavailable, if time is,
then that can often be just as vital in helping someone as the dollars in the
pocket.
Aside:
It has been suggested that the imagery of the flowers of the field is
derived from the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 40:6 where the Hebrew “flower of
the field” is rendered as “flower of grass.” In contrast, when the same Hebrew expression
is rendered by the LXX in Psalms 103:15 it retains the proper wording of
“field.”[22]
When James utilizes the image he speaks of
the “flower of grass,” as in Isaiah 40, pointing to greenery of all types and
not only or strictly flowers.[23] In English, however, the rendering may still
speak of “flower of the field” (as in Holman and the NKJV) though some will
reflect the broader reach of the language (“flowering grass,” NASB; “flower of
grass,” ESV; “like flowers among the herbage,” Weymouth).
Although this provides a fascinating hint
of which text James may have in mind, what is of greater interest here is the context
of the statement in Isaiah. After
predicting in its New Testament interpretation the coming of John the Baptist
and the Messiah Jesus (“prepare the way of the Lord,” Isaiah 40:3), the Old
Testament prophet hears the [Page 227] supernatural
voice, “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
its original setting the warning of the impermanence of life is addressed to
all humankind. Those aware of that
original context would surely be intended to take away the lesson: what is true of every one else, is also true
of the wealthy and prestigious. They
have no more exemption from this inevitability than the rest of us. Whether they like it or not, they
unquestionably share in our fate!
But it is also a reminder to the poorer as
well: just as it applies to the rich it also
applies to us. So to speak, a “shot
across the bow” to remind them that God’s standard applies to one and all. The poorer aren’t exempt either! God’s abiding truth cuts in both directions.
[Page 228]
What Tempts Us to Evil Comes
from Within
Rather than Being Sent by God
(1:13-18)
ATP text: 13 Let
no one say when tried, "I am being tempted by God"; for God is
incapable of being enticed by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when
lured away by personal desires and trapped.
15 Then, when hungering for something has been conceived
within us like a pregnancy, we give birth to sin; and sin, when it grows to
maturity, brings forth death. 16 Do
not be fooled, my dearly loved comrades!
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and
comes down from the Father who created the heavenly lights. Unlike these, this light never vanishes nor
is there darkness due to His changing. 18
By His own decision He gave us birth by the word of truth so that we
might be the first of His people.
Development of the
argument:
Having established the need to endure
trials and testing, in the previous section, James made a remark that has
application both to the preceding discussion of wealth and poverty and to
temptation in general, “Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he
has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has
promised to those who love Him” (verse 12).
This has an obvious application to the one who is not carried away by either
poverty (verse 9) or riches (verse 10).
Hence we have included it in the preceding segment.
Yet it also does
double duty, not merely as a conclusion of not being wrecked by the limitations
of poverty or the excesses permitted by wealth.
He now applies that truism to the broader discussion about the source of
any temptation that any person faces. He stresses the fact that the inclination to
do any sort of thing that will inflict ourselves or others with spiritual,
moral, or physical hurt and injury never comes from God but from within
(1:13-15). It is not poverty or wealth in
itself or any other aspect of life—the problems arise from how we handle
the desires and difficulties that arise.
Here we have a paradox: Such testing of our character has been laid
out as essential and desirable, yet God has nothing personally to do with
it. The implicit concept is that God uses
the adversities and difficulties of life to evaluate us and better us, rather
than directly inflicting them.
[Page 229] Even
if one points to the possible exceptions to this generalization that are given
in the Scriptures, they are still just that, exceptions--James is targeting
the typical, every-day situation of his readers. Rules-of-thumb originate come what is the
case 99% of the time, not the 1% of exceptions. The inward origin of our temptations is a
theme that Jesus developed during His ministry (Matthew 15:7-12, a text where
He quotes from Isaiah describing an earlier generation; cf. Jesus’ explanation
in verses 17-20.).
This is an important concept. If God originated all our temptations then
would not yielding to them be required in order to accept the Divine will? In a sense, not yielding would itself
be a rebellion against God’s intents.
This would carry the corollary that
we are not responsible for what we’ve done.
The responsibility actually lies with God.
On the other hand, if our temptations--at least normally--originate
from human sources then the resisting of them is natural in order to conform to
the demands of God. Those few not coming
from that direction would represent God testing us in the hope that
we will not fail the test. That we will not yield. In both types, the stubborn refusal to surrender
represents the result that God wants.
(For additional approaches to the relationship of God to the
difficulties of this life see the difficult texts section in a following
chapter.)
[Page 230] According to verse 14, temptations
come from the coming together of what we would like to do and the
opportunity to act upon that desire.
“What we would like to do” is found in the description of temptation as
a person being “drawn away by his own desires [ATP: lured away by personal desires]” (“our own
desires that drag us off,” CEV; “lured . . . by his own desire,” RSV; “dragged
away,” NIV.) It isn’t like some powerful
force has reached down into us and forced us to consider something totally
alien to our own dreams, fantasies, and, perhaps, even preferences.
The Jewish philosopher
Philo spoke of the wars of antiquity erupting from that kind of inner
drive: “For all the wars of Greeks and
barbarians between themselves or against each other . . . are sprung from one
source, desire; the desire for money or glory or pleasure. These it is that bring disaster to the human
race.”[24] But it was not, of course, the desire by
itself. Only when the desire encountered
opportunity did the two merge and commander the warrior’s life.
The same is true of us—and
he does include us and every other human being by his all inclusive
language “but each one is tempted when he is drawn away” (verse 14). A simple illustration from our non-warrior,
more typical lives: If a person
cherishes their regular dose of internet hardcore pornography, what is going to
happen when—even inadvertently—the opportunity for adultery actually occurs?
The opportunity hasn’t created the
temptation all by itself. We’ve made
ourselves predisposed by our past behavior. We’ve created and strengthened the desire and
now we are simply being given the opportunity to act upon our “innocent
fantasy.” Which turns out not to be so
“innocent” after all. And a whole lot
harder to resist.
[Page 231] This brings us to the second half of
the equation--being “enticed” by the opportunity to act upon our fantasies
(1:14; “that trap us,” CEV; “trapped by it,” ISV). As the apocryphal writer puts it quite
accurately, “For the fascination of wickedness obscures what is good, and
roving desire perverts the innocent mind” (Wisdom 4:12, New Revised Standard
Version).
Yes, it has power. But we are the ones that multiplied its
strength far beyond what it would have had--through our dreams and fantasies in
which we pretended to have just that opportunity to act. And having been given it in real life, what
are the chances of evading it? We
imagined it. We drooled for
it. Presented with the reality, it
requires almost super-human guts to turn our back on it.
So you might
just have enough strength to resist, but you are having to fight yourself
rather than just the opportunity to do the wrong thing. Does a long distance runner like to run the
Olympics with an extra ten pounds attached to each leg during the race? If victory occurs, it will be far more good
fortune than good preparation for the competition!
It has been suggested
that the imagery in verse 14 comes from fishing: You “entice” the fish with the bait and then
you catch / trap it and drag it away. Or
to quote Philo once again, “There is no single thing that does not yield to the
enticement of pleasure, and get caught and dragged along in her entangling
nets.”[25] You could say that the Devil is the fisherman
in James’ presentation, trying to catch us.
You could also say that we play both roles, we are the fish and
the fisherman for we “catch ourselves” on the very “bait” we have put out.
[Page 232] This process of falling into sin is
pictured as if a pregnancy in verse 15:
having “conceived” the desire for the moral evil, the desire “gives
birth to sin” by yielding to the opportunity.
But that is only the beginning stage of the pregnancy, so to
speak: “when it is full-grown, [it]
brings forth death.” Instead of the
maximization of our pleasure it, perversely, brings forth disastrous
self-inflicted spiritual death.
This is not the beginning stage; this is
the reaping stage. When the proverbial
“chickens come home to roost.”
We never thought it
would end this way. But it does.
We never thought it could
end this way. But it does.
We always thought we
could find a way to keep things from getting out of hand. But we didn’t.
At this point we
should stress that the language James uses of “tempted,” “his own desires,”
“enticed,” and the pregnancy comparison, lead us to think in terms of sexual
sin and it is in accord with how we normally read such imagery that we have
developed our preceding analysis. Yet
the language is broad indeed and properly has other applications as well.
It is talking about
wishing for anything so much—and the logic even if not the immediate
illustration, applies even to things that are right in themselves—that we
abandon all restraints to obtain them. Even
when we have to act dishonorably and dishonestly to obtain them. That is just as much true as fantasizing sex
and yielding to adultery as to fantasizing a promotion and yielding to the
temptation of dishonorable backstabbing and lies and even fraud to obtain it.
[Page 233] Just as the
temptations to act dishonorably do not originate with God but with our own
human weaknesses, the remaining verses of this section make the same point by
emphasizing the “other side of the coin”—they stress that, unlike destructive
impulses, only good and desirable gifts come from God (1:16-18). As the text develops it, this is part of the
unchanging essence of the Divine nature. “There is no variation or shadow of turning
[ATP: this light never vanishes nor is
there darkness due to His changing]” (1:17), i.e., He doesn’t change at
all—what He was yesterday, He will be today, and permanently. That means we can count on His demands, His
intentions, and His promises staying uniform.
He won’t cut us “a special break,” but he
won’t impose a special demand either. That last is not to be underestimated in its importance: In dealing with human superiors, you never
know what “innovation” they will come up with that will make your life more
difficult.
With God that will never happen. There won’t ever be an unexpected and unheard
of order. We won’t have to worry
about Him changing His mind and imposing something unforeseen and unwarned of in
the future. What His law is, will
remain so—nothing less but nothing more either.
In short, we can fully count on stability in our relationship with the
Divine. He has goals He expects us to
live up to. But not continually
changing ones.
It isn’t just that He
wants mortals to avoid evil. He wants them
to be examples of what His people could be if they wish to be: “a kind of firstfruits of His creatures”
(1:18). These were early converts being
addressed. As such they had the
responsibility—and opportunity—to set an example for those who would come
later.
[Page 234] So do we.
We speak of the
difficulties and hardships we’ve been through due to our faith. And we think the upcoming generation will
somehow—miraculously?—avoid them? By
what we accomplished they will learn that their dedication can be
equally profound and fulfilling. The
hurt and pain is not in vain.
Rage at Provocation by Others
Should Be Reined In
(1:19-20)
ATP text: 19 Therefore,
my beloved comrades, let every individual be quick
to listen, but slow to respond and slow to become outraged; 20 for human
wrath does not cause the kind of right behavior God approves of.
Development of the
argument:
Self-control and restraint in what we say sounds
like an idle truism and little more. How
else are we supposed to act? Isn’t it a
“given?”
Yet it is especially difficult when faced
with the kind of trials and temptations and difficulties discussed earlier in
the chapter.[26] We are not to permit those injustices we ourselves
have suffered to become an excuse to pour out similar abuses upon others. What we are to avoid is summarized under the
generic concept of anger (1:19-20), probably because this is the emotion and
attitude that is most likely to motivate the retaliation and vindictiveness
that will harm others (1:21).
[Page 235] To
avoid inflaming a situation, three steps are laid out in verse 19. The principles are intended for all
Christians, no matter who they are or their earthly status. This is shown by the fact that James speaks
of how “every man” is to act this way.
No exceptions.
The
first step is to be “swift to hear”
(“quick to hear,” ESV, NASB, RSV; “quick to listen,” ATP, CEV, God’s Word, ISV,
NIV, TEV). We speak of our “tuning out”
what others say. James insists that we
are to “tune in” and listen. This way we
can be sure we actually heard what we thought was being said and that we
have the facts right.
The
second step is to be “slow to speak” (“slow to respond,” ATP). This assures we ourselves don’t say something
without thinking it through. If that
happens, one is either locked into a position a little thought would have
avoided or one is forced to an embarrassing backtracking. Human nature, though, often argues for
stubbornness even in those cases where we know we are in the wrong. We refuse to back off because—well, simply
because “we won’t,” which often translates into, “our pride won’t let us.”
The
third step is “slow to wrath” (“slow to anger,” NASB, RSV; “slow to
become outraged,” ATP). We can take this
as anger expressed in words or anger expressed in deeds. Either way, this restraint assures that you don’t
do anything without thinking it through.
The proverbial “big mouth” or other extreme reaction can make a bad
situation degenerate even further.
This policy of
restraint is insisted upon because human wrath “does not produce the
righteousness of God” (1:21; “God’s righteous purpose,” TEV). Weymouth renders [Page 236] the entire verse in an especially useful
manner, “For a man’s anger does not lead to action which God regards as
righteous.” (Note “the kind of right
behavior God approves of” in the ATP).
Anger / wrath inevitably tends to think in
terms of retaliation and not justice. God’s
vengeance seeks both. Human wrath tends
to force aside all restraining factors possible. God would have man to always recognize
that there are limits to what is appropriate and right. In short, even as “justified retaliation,”
human rage can easily carry us far beyond anything acceptable to God.
We have interpreted
the verse in light of its emphasis on wrath / anger. “The other side of the coin,” however, is
equally important for the verse contrasts “wrath” with “righteousness of
God.” “Righteousness” is a constructive
term and refers to the kind of behavior and character God wants us to manifest—positive,
upright, and uplifting. We are to
exhibit that type of mind frame rather than a punitive and destructive
one.
Perhaps, in part, that is because even the
most “justified” human retaliation still can’t force a person to change
and adopt the behavioral standards that God encourages and expects. Much less admit that an injustice has been
done to us as well.
The various aspects of
life are often interlocked in subtle ways, but the correlation between verbal
provocation and rage is one of the easier ones to see. “Anger inflames one to hasty and unguarded
talk. In turn the words act as fuel to
the flames. The talk inflames the anger
and the anger inflames the talk. The more
one talks the angrier he becomes, like a spit-fire. If one stops talking, his anger will cool
down for lack of fuel.”[27]
[Page 237] In the apocryphal works, Sirach also
stressed this need to control what comes out of the mouth in language that
James would surely have been receptive to,
13 Be swift to hear, but slow
to answer. 14 If you have the knowledge, answer your
neighbor; if not, put your hand over your mouth. 15 Honor
and dishonor through talking! A man's
tongue can be his downfall. 16 Be not called a detractor; use not your
tongue for calumny; 17 For shame has
been created for the thief, and the reproach of his neighbor for the
double-tongued (Chapter 5, New American Bible).
The use of the male
specific for “man” in James 1:20 has led some to argue that it is the male
shortcoming that is specifically under consideration. In behalf of this can be introduced the fact
that males were your normal synagogue leaders and at least some ancient works
pointed to the male as the greater offender than women when it came to anger
(Longinus, On the Sublime, 32).[28]
This works best if one
assumes that James has teachers (way over in chapter 3:1!) as the subject
matter here as well. In the present
context there seems no obvious reason to assume that is the case or that the
author is even limiting himself to congregational relationships.
Nor that we should
assume women would be so unlikely to resort to excesses that they could not and
would not be included in the condemnation.
Is this not a case where “male” language—as it has been in English until
recent decades—has done double duty, referring to both males in particular and
humans in general, according to the specific context? (Remember the use of “brethren” to cover both
genders?)
[Page 238] Furthermore, surely experience
proves that the female can be just as vindictive and revenge seeking as any
male alive. Personally, I still recall a
certain woman from decades back and wonder whether she ever managed to get her
husband killed in one of the confrontations she manipulated. In “real life” humans of both genders can make
fools of themselves through their behavior.
The scriptures are surely not oblivious of that social reality!
Rage and Retaliation Should
Be Replaced
with Carrying Out
God’s Will and Benefiting
Others
(1:21-27)
ATP text: 21 Therefore set aside all
your vile and abundant
wickedness. In place of it
embrace with humility the word implanted within
you, which is able to save your souls.
22 Do what the word instructs rather
than merely hearing the words.
Otherwise you just deceive yourselves!
23
For if anyone is just a hearer of the word and not a doer, that person
is like
one examining their real image in a mirror; 24 yet after
observing it, leaves,
and immediately forgets the true self that had been seen.
25 In
contrast, one who studies intently the perfect law—the law of
liberty--and abides by its teachings—one who does not forget what is
heard,
but is a doer of the commanded
work--this person is the one blessed in
obedience. 26 If
anyone among you considers yourself religious, yet does not
control personal speech--but deceives the heart within--your religion
is
worthless. 27 Pure
and spotless religion in the eyes of God and the Father is
this: to assist orphans and
widows during their time of need, and to keep
oneself from being corrupted to any degree by the world.
[Page 239]
Development of the
argument:
Note the linkage between verses 20
and 21: “(20) For the wrath of man does
not produce the righteousness of God.
(21) Therefore lay aside
all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the
implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” If you had given in and spoken without
thinking (1:19) what would have been manifested—justice, prudence, sound
reasoning, and the demand for the triumph of character and justice?
Far from it! What would have been poured out would have
represented the worst of us, the “filthiness” and the “wickedness” rather than
the nobility and the constant search for improvement. Unleashed anger is like taking the top off of
a shaked soda bottle and letting the contents explode outwards.
One way to avoid this
is to think matters through before we speak—the course enjoined in verse
19. The other means is stressed
here: bleed these things out of our
nature. It is as if he seeks out the
worst possible description he can provide of human faults. (Or is this, in part, his way of puncturing
our delusion of vast superiority to others?)
He refers to our “filthiness”
(“vile . . . wickedness,” ATP). Note
that he stresses that “all” of it should be purged. Every human being has their own specific pet
quirks that represent their strongest vulnerabilities. Others may have the same inclinations but barely
recognize their presence for they are so weak.
They are little more than mere “background noise.”
[Page 240] But
for us they represent our core faults that vie to control us instead of us
controlling them. In extreme cases, we
would do virtually anything not to give them up. It is like being hooked on a “psychic” rather
than physical drug.
“Filthiness” itself is
a term that, in its literal usage, “refers to external grime, as with filthy
clothes, stained and muddy.”[29] What that is to our fleshly appearance, their
moral equivalents are to our spiritual appearance in the sight of God and those
who are spiritually alert.
The second term James
invokes stresses how much there is of it, our “overflow of wickedness”
(“abundant wickedness,” ATP; “rampant wickedness,” ESV; “superabundance of
evil,” Young’s Literal). Picture your
bathtub overflowing, full of dirty water.
The thrust is that this evil exists in
us—all of us and in quantity.
This is an important principle in its own right. In this epistle James jumps vigorously on
injustice within the Christian congregation as some abuse others. Yet he makes abundantly clear in this first
chapter that every single believer has his or her own faults and has little
grounds to retreat into a smug superiority to everyone else.
From the poorer
person’s standpoint, the message is this:
Yes, you’ve been verbally and physically abused but don’t think for a
second that you aren’t just as capable of similar behavior if given the
opportunity. Your own poor neighbor,
what did you do to him when you got annoyed?
The warning to the
richer person is this: Yes, you may be
able to get away with it for now, but remember that time and circumstance can
force you to have to endure people [Page 241] with the same temperament and excess. Look around you . . . haven’t you noticed
those quite more successful competitors who are openly polite but seem to be
sneering when you aren’t looking? What
will they do when they have you, their “friend,” at a disadvantage? Oh—you really think so? Fat chickens can be plucked just like thin
ones!
The seeds that breed injustice are
human-wide and not merely class specific.
How do these Christian
listeners and readers know what right and wrong behavior actually is? Well they have “the word” (1:22)—spoken and,
depending upon the date of the epistle, some of it in writing. Furthermore, they had the Old Testament Torah
and prophets who also inveighed against such conduct—as we will see in the Old
Testament precedents section. Because of
the limited literacy of the bulk of the population and the high cost of
copying, personal copies of specific Biblical books were probably
uncommon. Hence being “hearers” (1:22)
and “hearer(s) of the word” (1:23) would normally carry a literal connotation—they
had heard it read, in the church services in particular.[30]
There were clearly those
who showed up at services and thought that assured their acceptability to
God: they were regularly present and
were “a hearer of the word” (1:23). But
that revelatory word shows us the image of ourselves—warts and all—just like a
mirror (1:23). But if we then walk away
and forget that picture of us as we really are (1:24), of what abiding value
is the knowledge? We have promptly
managed to “forget” it.
[Page 242] There is something transparently
absurd and ludicrous in the behavior that is described: We have someone carefully absorbed in using
the mirror and examining his appearance and then treating what he’s been so
concerned with as if it were nothing at all.
Walking away and forgetting about it.
Or it could be just a quick glance to see
how we are that is foredoomed to be of no value by its very brevity: for example, you quickly glance at your
appearance with your mind on something else.
As Adamson translates the nuances, “He catches sight of himself,
and (at once) is gone, and forthwith forgets what he was like (in
the mirror).”[31]
Either way, this is such bizarre behavior
that it has been suggested that it was James’ very aim to make that point[32]—not
by saying it was such, but by using an example that would prove it. We look to learn
something. If we don’t, we’ve wasted our
time.
Because of their
foolish behavior, arose their individual need to “look into the perfect law of
liberty” and “continue” in what it teaches, not being “forgetful” of its
instruction but being a “doer” of what they have heard (1:25). In short, the gospel is not merely something
to be listened to. Not even just
something to be believed and embraced.
It is also something to be lived.
And the result is being “blessed” by God as we do so (1:25).
What comes next argues
that James’ society was much like ours:
one may say anything--however profane or insulting or derogatory it may
be--and still count oneself as religious in the inner “heart.” James dismisses this as delusion: he warns that “this one’s religion is
useless” (1:26). Instead, true religion
is being personally “pure and undefiled” [Page 243] and this is manifested by retaining one’s individual
purity and through helping those in need.
The most exposed elements of any society (“orphans and widows”)—the ones
most likely to have no one to fall back upon[33]--are
specified because of their greater potential for suffering (1:26-27).
He does not claim that
such charitableness is required for a healthy religion in society’s view. But it is required for “pure and
undefiled religion before God and the Father,” i.e., in His sight
and mind.[34] The NASB makes this clearer by rendering it
“in the sight of” and the TEV speaks of “what the Father considers to be
pure and genuine religion.”
Note also that he
singles out the “social welfare” side of religion and not the “ritual” side of
matters. This is not to suggest that he
regarded worshipping God exactly in the way He instructed as something of no
concern or that they were free to modify it in all the ways they might consider
attractive. But their problem was how to
treat others and it was in light of their particular problem that he
defined religion.
Everything else might be done perfectly
right but so long as this was
missing, they were still falling dangerously short. It wasn’t that this was all that was
necessary to have “pure and undefiled religion,” but that here was the
specific aspect that desperately needed to be addressed by them. In
other words he defines proper religion as including the needs of the
unfortunate but not as exclusively being just that.
James is certainly not intending to lay out
a complete list of what Christianity involves.[35] Indeed, he lays out only one moral principle
(“to keep oneself unspotted from the world) and two specific behavioral actions
(“to visit orphans and widows in their trouble”). The latter often involved doing both
simultaneously (helping the widows along with their orphans). Worship of God is not mentioned. What one is to believe is not specified. His assumption seems clearly to be: If you get this right, the rest isn’t
likely to cause you major problems.
[Page 244] Although
we have implied it already, it would be best to make it explicit regarding the
admonition to “lay aside” evil and to
“receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your
souls.” In a different context this
would suggest that they were non-Christians who needed to embrace the gospel
for their salvation.
“Because the letter is already addressed to
those who are a part of the believing community (1:1), this phrase must be
directed toward believers. Consequently
the notion of ‘putting off’ should not be viewed as ‘conversion” language but
as ‘repentance’ language.”[36] This is confirmed by how chapter 5 describes
those who have done wrong as those who “wander from the truth and
someone turns him back” (verse 19).[37] They once had the truth but had drifted away
from it.
Notes
[1] The concept is developed in different language by
McCartney, 78.
[2] [McKnight, James, 63-64.
[4] Hartin, James, 49.
[5] For a fascinating analysis of the evidence for this,
see McKnight, James, 66-67.
[6] Bauckham “James and Jesus,” 103.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Wesley
L. Wachob, “The Languages of ‘Household’ and ‘Kingdom’ in the Letter of
James: A Socio-Rhetorical Study,” in Reading
James with New Eyes: Methodological
Reassessments of the Letter of James, edited by Robert L. Webb and John S.
Kloppenborg, Library of New Testament Studies / Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplement 342 (London:
T&T Clark International, 2007), 156-157.
[9] Ibid.,
157.
[10]Yoder,
1174.
[11] McKnight, James, 75.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 88.
[15] Ibid., 88-89.
[16] Ibid., 89.
[17]
Blomberg and Kamell, James, 51.
[18] Robertson, 64.
[20] Implying but not directly saying it, Hartin, James,
61.
[21] Blomberg and Kamell, James, 54.
[23] Ibid., 62-63.
[25] Philo, Husbandry
(paragraph 103), as quoted by Moo, 75.
[26]Stulac,
64.
[27] Robertson, 91.
[28]
Witherington, 439-440.
[29] Blomberg and Kamell, James, 87.
[30] Hartin, James, 98.
[31]
Adamson. James: The Man, 184-185. Pages 410-411 and footnote 57 (same pages)
argues that the Greek wording conveys a brevity of look far shorter than the
shaving scenario used to explain it.
[32] Blomberg and Kamell, 91.
[33] Hartin, James, 102, 109.
[Page 248] [34]
Darian Lockett, “ ‘Unstained by the World:’
Purity and Pollution as an Indicator of Cultural Interaction in the
Letter of James,” in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of
James, edited by Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg, Library of New
Testament Studies / Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 342
(London: T&T Clark International,
2007), 57.
[35] McCartney, 130.
[36] Darian
Lockett, Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James, Library of New
Testament Studies / Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 366
(London: T&T Clark, 2008), 109.
[37] Ibid., Note
7, page 109.