From: A Torah
Commentary on James 1-2 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
[Page 466]
Chapter 2B:
Old Testament Precedents
Invoking of Explicit Old
Testament
Quotations to Justify His
Teaching:
2:8: Love of neighbor. James reminds his readers that they “fulfill
[ATP: live by] the royal law” when they
obey the scriptural command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The CEV may be paraphrasing the intent but it
is surely an accurate paraphrase, “It is the law that commands us to love
others as much as we love ourselves.”
[Page 467] This
fundamental love command--so often considered as uniquely a New Testament
innovation--is firmly rooted in the teaching of the Torah. Indeed, it is found in the book of
Leviticus, a book that is far more often associated with ritual teaching rather
than moral instruction.
In Leviticus 19:18 the teaching is not only found but, in part, love
itself is defined--though in the negative sense of avoiding evil to
others rather than the positive one of supportive acts toward them: To accomplish this, loving our neighbor is
contrasted with taking “vengeance” and bearing a “grudge.” Love, in other words, excludes such destructive
and harmful behavior and attitudes.
The New Testament also stresses this prohibitive nature of true love
(Romans 13:9),
For the commandments, “You
shall not commit adultery,” “You shall
not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not
bear false witness,” “You
shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up
in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Romans
13:9).
It would be useful to notice the
verses coming before the admonition in Leviticus 19 that clearly show that the
injunction was to have a general impact on all forms of behavior rather
than be applied in as narrow a manner as possible. In other words it was to be interpreted in a
fashion that made it most beneficial to others rather than restricted to
as small a range of life as possible,
[Page 468]
[Humanitarian
concern for your neighbor:] 9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you
shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the
gleanings of your harvest. 10 And you shall not glean your
vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave
them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God.
[Honest treatment of your neighbor:] 11 You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie
to one another.
[Not abusing God’s name to hide
mistreatment:] 12 And you
shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God:
I am the Lord.
[No stealing from others in any form:] 13 You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not
remain with you all night until morning.
[No gratuitous insults:] 14 You shall not curse the deaf, nor
put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
[No favoritism in any direction:] 15 You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor
honor the person of the mighty. In
righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.
[No stirring up of strife:] 16 You shall not go about as a
talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of
your neighbor: I am the Lord.
[Page 469]
[No hatred and no commission of sin because of them either:] 17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart.
You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of
him.
[It is in this lengthy context of just
treatment of our neighbor—note the repeated use of the term “neighbor”--that we
reach the commandment James invokes:]
18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the
children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
Hence love must affect behavior or it is not true love, just as James
argues that faith must affect conduct or else it is not adequate faith. Jesus defined the Torah command of love as one
of the two most fundamental of the entire Old Testament system, second only to
one’s obligation to God (Mark
Some have considered Leviticus
However 19:15 is about making judicial style judgments; verse 18
is about one’s general frame of mind regardless of whether formal
verdicts of judgment are involved or not.
Hence it serves as a broader and better foundation for the argument that
James is making—that love should ground our behavior toward anyone and, surely
implied, under all circumstances.
[Page 470] In
a context of a Jewish
This is both true and blatantly misleading. In the context in which James is using it, he
is talking about their fellow Jewish
Christian: For this epistle comes way
early in the church’s history and is specifically written to “the twelve tribes
which are scattered abroad” (1:1). That
makes them Jews ethnically Neighbors in
the same original sense as Leviticus.
Furthermore in regard to the original context, as in James, the
underlying message is clearly intended to include “you can’t mistreat or
ignore the needs of your co-religionists just because he or she is such.”
Hence we have a double relevance in James’ appeal to the passage.
Even in just an Old Testament context, this direct application
specifically to Jews still remains a limitation without any great
significance. In a country intended to
be exclusively Jewish who else would be your neighbor? It is addressed in a way that is relevant to
the expected reality and not to some fictitious theoretical world they hoped
would not exist.
[Page 471] Even in this “Jewish world,”
it was still recognized there would be non-Jews—not presumably dominant
but because no place in the world has ever been a totally sealed vacuum. People come and they go over any extended
period of time. Hence the very same
chapter enjoins love on Gentiles who are temporary residents, “The stranger
who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you
were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:34).
The GW, in language closer to how we would express the idea, “Foreigners
living among you will be like your own people.
Love them as you love yourself, because you were foreigners
living in
Here the commandment for love is explicitly demanded even though
he is not part of your people: he
is a “stranger” and you once were too.
Is there not an undercurrent in the passage that Jesus would develop--of
treating others as you wish(ed) you yourself were treated (Matthew 7:12)? How much they would have valued such
generosity of spirit in the days they themselves were the outsiders!
Jewish
Interpretations of the Love Command
No doubt there were those who
restricted the love commandment to just Jews.
The famous medieval scholar Maimonides writes,[2]
But as to the Gentiles, with whom we have
no war, and likewise to the shepherds of smaller cattle, and others of that
sort, they do not so plot their death; but it is forbidden them to deliver them
from death if they are in danger of it.
For [Page 472] instance, “A Jew
sees one of them fallen into the sea; let him by no means lift him out thence: For it is written, ‘Thou shalt not rise up
against the blood of their neighbour;’ but this is not thy neighbour.
From some source I have now misplaced,
I gained the following appropriate commentary, “Unfortunately for him this gets
him off the hook only in regard to the love commandment of
But there was another stream of
interpretation besides that of Maimonides—one far more radical than the limited
reach he placed on
Both the great
first century rabbi Hillel and the famous philosopher Philo were attributed the
saying, “Do not do to anyone what you would hate to have that person do to
you.”[3] This has been regarded as a capsule summary
of what—at least in part—Leviticus
Actually Hillel’s version, in full,
read a little differently, “What is hateful to you, do not to
your neighbour; that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary [Page
473] thereof; go and learn it.”
Rendering the beneficiaries of this attitude as “anyone” easily opens
the door to the deduction quoted above; working from the rendering “neighbor” provides
some dodging room. For one is required
to make a decision as to just who is a neighbor—a point that the parable
of the Good Samaritan was intended to teach.
Both of these instructions come from
the Ten Commandments (Exodus
[Page 474] James
invokes the passage to prove that it was a combination of intellectual faith
and active faith--“works” that grew out of it--that both carried out and
verified that earlier embracial of faith (James: “fulfilled”).
In that original context he had not had any children by Sarah and he was
gaining in age. It seemed impossible it
would occur. But he had faith anyway
for the Lord gave His word.
The same occurs in regard to
sacrificing Isaac, his promised child by Sarah.
It took vast faith that God could still fulfill the promise even
if the son were to perish. The offering of his only son could hardly
have been a more difficult “work” to ever be demanded!
Genesis 15:6, though describing what happened years earlier than this,
was applicable to the sacrifice because Abraham again proved that he
truly and fully believed the Lord would do whatever He promised. No matter how impossible it seemed.
Interestingly, Paul introduces the same text but uses it to hammer home
the first half of the equation, that of the faith standing by itself—which it
effectively does since the patriarch was also being asked to believe something
else that was “impossible,” that at his advanced age that he could still
father a child and that at his wife’s advanced age she would be able to
successfully bear it:
20 He did not waver at the promise
of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was
also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was [Page 475] accounted to him for righteousness.” 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone
that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him
who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (Romans 4).
The first century Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo quotes the text
this way, “Shall I hide [this] from Abraham my friend?”[5] The “standard” Septuagint Greek of Genesis
Although this reason is quite possible, its usage seems even more
likely to arise from the fact it had become such a widespread portrayal of Abraham’s
special status in God’s sight, that anyone might use it without special
reference to any specific text.[8]
[Page 476] The
wording is used outside Genesis in such a manner that it sounds as if it
had become a standard description regardless of at what point it
originated. It was invoked as grounds
for God’s intervention in behalf of the nation.
Jehoshaphat prayed publicly before the assembled nation, “Are you not
our God, who drove out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel,
and gave it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?” (2 Chronicles 20:7).
Note that His plea for Divine intervention to stop the massive invasion
force coming his way is rooted in the special relationship of
From the other side of the
relationship with Deity, God Himself cites these two reasons in explanation for
intervening against their alien enemies, “But you, Israel, are My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen, the descendants of Abraham My friend” (Isaiah
41:8). God remembered that bond long
after Abraham had gone to the grave and it continued to influence God’s
behavior toward his descendants.
It should be remembered that the only
person in the Hebrew Bible who is given the appellation “friend of God” was
Abraham. It carries with it the
obvious connotation of a special
closeness that others did not share.
(Not even Moses is described as God’s “friend!”)
One would not go wrong in seeing in
the terminology an intertwining of the elements of loyalty and dependability[9]
since the first is proved by the demonstration of the second. Jesus told His disciples, “You are My friends
if you do what I command you” (John
And in offering his only son, Abraham provided a vague but
powerful foreshadowing of the Heavenly Fathering offering His Son on the
cross. They shared, if you will, a
“commonality” no other human ever had with the Father.
[Page 477]
How Old Testament Concepts
Are
Repeatedly Introduced and
Woven
into the Heart of His Argument
2:1-4: When the poor are not respected in the
church assembly one is guilty of partiality and evil judgement. The contrast is between how a well-to-do
individual will be treated and a poor person, both—it is often
thought—previously unknown to the members of the congregation.[10] The logic of the criticism, however, would be
the same if known to the congregation and even members of it.
The text describes the wealthy person as wearing “gold rings”
(2:2). The plural points to exceptional
wealth. Some have speculated that the
text may hint that the person enjoyed equestrian status--the second highest
rank in the
A play on words is found in these
verses: they were not literally sitting
in judicial judgement upon the poor.
(For a consideration of that possibility, however, see the Problem Texts
chapter.) Instead they were making a personal
(and biased) judgement of the relative value or disrepute of an individual based
upon the kind of criteria that all knew should be abhorrent to any
impartial court of law. Why then should
they contaminate their private values with attitudes that were out-of-order in
a formal setting?
The need for absolute neutrality in
decision making is stressed in public decision making in Deuteronomy 1:17, “You
shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the
great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is
God’s. . . .” They were not even to
permit nationalistic bias against the foreigner to prevent ruling in that
person’s behalf (verse 16). As a matter
of course, following this mind frame prohibited bribe taking, a prohibition
that is made explicit in other places (Deuteronomy 16:19).
James’ censure of “judging”
individuals on the basis of their clothing echoes Jewish rabbinic tradition
about legal judgments not being done on such a basis,[12]
[Page 479]
Commenting on Deuteronomy 16: 19 R. Ishmael says: “If before a judge
two men appear for judgment, one rich and another poor, the judge should say to
the rich man: ‘Either dress in the same
manner as he is dressed, or clothe him as you are clothed’ ” (Dt. R. Shofetim, V, 6). In another place the instructions read: “You must not let one stand and the other
sit” (Sifra, Kedoshim Perek, 4, 4).
The demand for absolute impartiality
is presented this way in Leviticus 19:15, “You shall do no injustice in
judgment. You shall not be partial to
the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.
In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.” Or as the New International Version puts it,
“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to
the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”
The God’s Word translation is wordier but develops the point well,
“Don't be corrupt when administering justice.
Never give special favors to poor people, and never show preference to
important people. Judge your neighbor
fairly.”
Why?
Obviously because God had commanded it!
But also because such impartiality reflects God’s own inner nature. Jehoshaphat demanded judges reflect this
principle as part of his campaign to restore the land to God’s favor,
4 So Jehoshaphat dwelt at
[Page 480] In
Proverbs, the concept of fair judgment is broadened into a general
life-principle as found in James.
Proverbs 24:23-25 develops it at length, “These things belong to the
wise: It is not good to show partiality
in judgment. He who says to the wicked,
‘You are righteous,’ him the people will curse; nations will abhor him. But those who rebuke the wicked will have
delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”
The frame of reference is no longer the judicially wrong but the
broader moral category of the “wicked” in general. Nor is he speaking of what is peculiarly
Israelite in nature. Rather he is
speaking of what other contemporary peoples would also have recognized as evil
behavior: Note how he argues that those
who praise the character of the “wicked” will be condemned not just by the
Jewish people but even by those of other “nations” who learn of it.
In light of its textual context, the misjudgment condemned in Proverbs
18 is of exactly this nature, calling good bad and looking for ways to justify
behavior that is deeply repugnant,
Proverbs 18:1 A man who isolates himself
seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment. 2
A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own
heart [i.e., his own preferences and
desires]. 3 When the wicked comes, contempt comes also; and
with dishonor comes reproach. 4 The words of a man's mouth are
deep waters; the wellspring of wisdom is a flowing brook. 5 It
is not good to show partiality to the wicked, or to overthrow the righteous in
judgment. 6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his
mouth calls for blows. 7 A fool's mouth is his destruction, and
his lips are the snare of his soul (Proverbs 18).
[Page 481]
2:5: God had “chosen the poor” who “love Him”
to be spiritually rich and to receive rewards from Him. It isn’t that the poor had some peculiar
moral character unique to themselves.
(Also see our discussion of 5:1 under Problem Texts.) This is seen by James limiting those
“poor” to that minority who actually “love” God. It was a sociological reality of his day that
the overwhelming bulk of the population was either poor or near-poor. Hence the statistical odds were that the bulk
of those who served God would come from that socio-economic background.
Yet there remained something to be praised nonetheless. Of all the people in the world, they had the
most reason to wring their hands in despair and bitterness and give up
hope. The fact that those who loved God
had not done so revealed that there was a depth of character in them that even
the worst life-situation had not destroyed.
The theme of God’s respect for the
poor comes out in various Old Testament texts.
Specific reasons are given why the poor should be interested in God in
spite of their lowly earthly status. To begin with, He hears their prayers--their lack
of earthly status hinders it not in the least, “He shall regard the prayer of
the destitute, and shall not despise their prayer” (Psalms 102:17). “For He has not despised
nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from
Him; but when He cried to Him, He heard” (Psalms
[Page 482] He
is their protector: Isaiah
In a similar vein Job 5:15-16 speaks of how God saved “the needy” from
“the mouth of the mighty and from their hand,” giving them “hope” for the
future. Here the oppressors are pictured
with the imagery of hungry and vicious animals who will eat them alive. Reasons not needed. They are simply there and available and they
can get away with it.
Not only can God deliver them, there is a flip side to this: He can act
against these foes, even destroy the danger itself. “He will
bring justice to the poor of the people; He will save the children of the
needy, and will break in pieces the oppressor” (Psalms 72:4). Returning to the oppressed element of society
in verses 12-14, a further reason for intervention is given, “precious
shall be their blood in His sight” (verse 14).
In the context of the ultimate Messianic intent of this Psalm, it applies
to what Jesus would do on His Father’s behalf in dealing out justice to the
unjust.
The original context is that of Solomon, however, “A Psalm of
Solomon. Give the king your judgments, O
God, and Your righteousness to the king’s son” (2:1). Although the “s” in “son” is properly
capitalized for the ultimate reference is to the Messiah, the immediate
reference is to the royal writer of the psalm and his offspring—that they might
rule justly and apply God’s “judgments” to the people, including protecting the
oppressed poor.
[Page 483]
Those who are well blessed are actually
working in their own long-term interests in helping the needy—God remembers them in their own time of distress. The need for help most likely arise from
facing unscrupulous foes and from the danger of severe diseases and death. Even the prosperous face human and disease
parasites who as readily “feed” off of them as well as anyone else who is
vulnerable. Regardless of income strata
or personal prestige no one can ever be free of such dangers. Hence the Psalmist writes,
1 . . . Blessed is he who considers the poor;
The Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. 2 The Lord
will preserve him and keep him alive, and he will be blessed on
the earth; You will not deliver him to the will of his enemies. 3 The
Lord will strengthen him on his bed of illness; You will sustain him
on his sickbed. 11 By this I know
that You are well pleased with me, because my enemy does not triumph
over me. (Psalm 41)
41:1:
“deliver him” = “rescue him” (GW)
41:2:
“preserve him and keep him alive” = “protects and preserves them (NIV)
41:3a:
“strengthen him” = “support(s) him” (GW, NET)
41:3b:
“sustain him” = “restore(s)
him/them” (ESV, GW, NIV); “heal him” (Holman) and “completely heal him” (NET)
[Page 484] Why
God is interested in the poor. It surely begins with the fact that they are
part of His creation just as much as the richer and He retains an interest in all
of His creation. The Proverbist reminds
his readers that, “The rich and the poor have this in common, the Lord
is the maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2).
Job stresses the fact in these words, “Did not He who made me in the
womb make them? Did not the same One
fashion us in the womb?” (Job
31:15). We may have gained far more
temporal blessings than they, but we share an identical Father. How can we treat our “brother” with contempt
without showing contempt for our shared Father as well?
In addition there is the fact that He wishes them to understand and
accept His message—it is not just for their “betters.” Zechariah speaks of how he broke his staff in
the eyes of the people (
The broadening of the concept of “poor”
into a moral class of the righteous: The
evidence of Isaiah. In Isaiah 29 we seem to see a shift to a
different definition of poor and that dual usage—monetary and humble--seems
clearly intended to allow the text to apply to both judicial/justice situations
as well as confrontations over competing standards of behavior,
[Page 485]
19 The humble also shall
increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in
the Holy One of
The “poor” and the “humble” are equated in verse 19, showing that
financial lack is not all that is under consideration; it is those who have a
good moral attitude, “humble” enough to recognize that the world does
not revolve around them and that they have no more right to be arrogant and
spiteful than those who abound in the world’s goods. Hence “poor” takes on moral attitudes rather than just monetary poverty.
Those who represent real or potential intimidators are warned that they
will ultimately be crushed. “The
terrible one,” “the scornful one,” and “all who watch for iniquity” (i.e., for
opportunities to do it or to cast aspersions for misconduct real or imagined)--those
are the ones God will come down on (verse 20).
These are individuals who will take “a word” you speak and blow it so
out of proportion or out of the context you intended, that that you are
transformed into a terrible “offender.”
They transform the guiltless into the guilty. Those who teach publicly against moral evil
would not escape their attacks (verse 21), utilizing such dishonorable
maneuvers.
[Page 486] The “gates” mentioned were
typically where groups met to discuss things in general and, specifically, to
hold judicial meetings; to “reprove” in such a context, could easily refer to
allegations in court. But the previous
correlating of “humble” and “poor” argues that the text was actually—or, at
least additionally--intended to cover other settings as well, any
censure of any improper conduct given anywhere.
What more likely public place (other than the synagogue) would such matters
be likely to be openly discussed? The
modern parallel would be some organized or informal meeting of a number of
people who share the same goals and hopes, but are at a point where nothing is
on their formal or informal “agenda.” In
that setting virtually anything can and will be brought up.
In either judicial or discussion settings, those who were unwilling to
accept God’s moral standards would “turn aside the just by empty words” (verse
21). There is always some way to
defend anything. Virtually no
behavior lacks its defenders; in the modern world it often comes down to it’s
their “right” to do it—as if the lack (or presence!) of legal censure
determined what is moral and what is immoral! It doesn’t take a law on the books
specifically prohibiting child murder to make it wrong, does it?
The broadening of the concept of “poor”
into a moral class of the righteous: The
evidence of Amos. Amos 5 seems to
even more clearly refer to the poor at the gates as those who advocate moral
right as well as being the targets of legal judgment,
10 They hate the one who rebukes
in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks uprightly. 11 Therefore,
because you tread down the poor and take grain taxes from him, though
you have built houses of hewn stone, yet you shall not dwell in them; you have
planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink wine [Page 487] from them. 12 For I know your
manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: Afflicting the just and
taking bribes; diverting the poor from justice at the gate. 13
Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time.
14 Seek good and not evil, that you may live; so the Lord God of
hosts will be with you, as you have spoken. 15 Hate evil, love
good; establish justice in the gate. It may be that the Lord God of hosts will
be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
Note how “the just” and “the poor”
are equated in verse 12 and how the powerful wicked have general contempt for
whoever wants proper moral standards to be met (verse 10). The situation is so bad that it does no good
to cite God’s law and doing so may only inflame their rage and heighten their
wrath on you (cf. verse 13).[14] A nautical allusion may well explain the
advice to be silent: There’s a time to
“batten down the hatches” and ride out the storm because you are powerless to
change the situation. He does not
say that this is always the case but simply asserts that there are times when
prudence should outweigh boldness.
The direct subject is, as
commentators note, that of judicial hearings held at the gate of a city
(Deuteronomy
Billy K Smith and Frank S. Page note
that, “ ‘One who reproves’ translates a participle that can refer to a judge
who decides the case, but the context here suggests that it is either a
plaintiff who has been wronged or an advocate of right (cf. Isaiah 11:3; 29:21;
Job 13:3; 32:12).”[15]
[Page 488] Yet
it is hard to believe that the prophet was speaking only of judicial
settings. Did the poor suddenly stop
being poor because they were no longer before a court; did their humility
suddenly evaporate because they were no longer before judges? Hence we seem required to regard the equating
of poverty and humility in the same person as ongoing qualities that
would persist in all situations.
2:5: A reward for those who love Him. In the previous section we emphasized the
“poverty” that characterized those James was addressing. Here we wish to shift the emphasis to the
remainder of the statement, of how God rewards those who love Him. In James the specific reward mentioned is
that of the kingdom (2:5). In the Torah,
blessings were promised to those who loved God, but it was a love--like in
James--that expressed itself not merely in words but in obedience.
For example, in the Ten Commandments Divine “mercy” is promise “to
those who love Me and keep My commandments” (Exodus 20:6). God did not chose them for His people because
of their vast number since they “were the least of all peoples” comparatively
speaking (Deuteronomy 7:7)--but to carry out the oath to their ancestors by
bringing them out of
Hence being His people was not a blank check to set on their bottoms
and think there was nothing more to do.
Rather it imposed a sacred obligation to act upon their
“chosenness” and conform themselves to the Divine will.
[Page 489] Likewise Deuteronomy 11:13
similarly links love and obedience together with, if you will, a super glue that
keeps one from legitimately trying to separate the two: “And it shall be that if you earnestly obey
My commandments which I command you today, to love the Lord your God and
serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul,” then and only
then are Divine blessings promised to them in their new land (verses 14-15).
Hence active love was not a detachable item. You could not use love as an excuse to avoid
living up to His commandments. You proved
love by doing what He said. If one can
not separate the two in relationship to God’s love and law, how much
more scornful He must be of those who use human “love” as an excuse to
avoid Divine “thou shalt nots!”
If, by a distortion of “love” we violate God’s will, can we truly say we
love Him? As it has been said: Words are cheap; actions far harder.
2:6: Oppression
of the poor by the rich and through the courts. It is uncertain whether James intends to
imply that the desired judicial verdict has been purchased through money or
influence. Even in cases where courts
attempt to be fair the wealthy have time to spin out a case and to bring the
best legal talent to bear; the poor do not.
In such an unequal contest the poor usually lose even when fairness and
equity would be on their side. It is a
“legal” manipulation of the judicial system.
The mentality that does this, however, would be unlikely to hesitate at
outright bribery--if it were deemed necessary and the risks were modest.
[Page 490] A
phenomena found in some third world countries is the direct use of violence by
the wealthy (either directly or through their paid agents)—actions that are
targeted at the person or property of the poor.
It is referred to in Job 20:19, which discusses people who had
“oppressed and forsaken the poor” and how “he has violently seized a house
which he did not build.” Isaiah
The poor were disposable
commodities. They could be physically
destroyed if they excessively got in the way.
Psalms 37:14 refers to those who used “the sword” in order “to cast down
the poor and needy” and to slaughter them
Psalms 10 provides a vivid word
picture of the unscrupulous powerful who take any advantage they can find of
the poor, to strip him of what little he may have--even of life itself,
2 The wicked in his pride persecutes the poor; let them be caught
in
the plots which they have devised. . . . 7 His
mouth is full of cursing and
deceit and oppression; under his tongue is trouble and iniquity. 8 He
sits in
the lurking places of the villages; in the secret places he murders the
innocent; his eyes are secretly fixed on the helpless. 9 He
lies in wait secretly,
as a lion in his den; he lies in wait to catch the poor; he catches the
poor when
he draws him into his net. 10 So he crouches, he lies low, that the
helpless
may fall by his strength. 11 He has said in his heart, “God has
forgotten; He
hides His face; He will never see.”
[Page 491] This man is not an atheist for
the cynicism “God has forgotten” implies that Someone exists who can
forget. What both this and the closing
words have in common is the conviction that (1) He won’t hold it against you
(hence “God has forgotten”) and (2) he doesn’t really care (“He hides His face;
He will never see”). In other words,
it’s a no-lose situation for the aggressor:
If God doesn’t see the action, it doesn’t matter; if He does see,
it still doesn’t matter because nothing is going to be done about it.
The usually unstated reasoning
behind such conduct is that wealth and might make right and any one without
such assets must be worthless. One deuterocanonical work describes the
rationalization this way, “Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not
spare the widow or regard the gray hairs of the aged. But let our might be our law of right, for
what is weak proves itself to be useless” (Wisdom of Solomon
[Page 492] (Barring repentance, a
subsidiary theme of such condemnations of evil:
cf. Ezekiel 33:11, “Say to them: ‘As
I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure
in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.
Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why
should you die, O house of
The same point of reaping one’s own lack of generosity is found in the
parable of the debtor, in which an individual who is forgiven a vast fortune
refuses to show mercy to a man who owes only a little (Matthew 18:23-35). The flip side of the concept is explicitly
stated in Psalms 18:25, “With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful. . .
.”
Both the positive and the negative sides of the concept of judgement are
found in the words quoted of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:32, “Then hear in heaven, and
act, and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked, bringing his way on his
head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his
righteousness.”
“Bringing his way on his head:”
“bringing down on their heads what they have done” (NIV); “bringing back
to him the consequences of his choices” (ISV); “condemn the guilty person with
the proper punishment” (GW).
Today we might call it “the chickens coming home to roost.” The brothers of Joseph recognized a form of
justice in the false accusations being made against them. Had they not sold their selling their brother
into slavery over his protests?
21 Then they said to one
another, “We are truly guilty concerning
our brother, for we saw the anguish of his soul when he pleaded with
us, and
we would not hear, therefore this distress has come upon us.” 22 And
Reuben answered them, saying, “Did I not speak to you, saying, ‘Do not
sin
against the boy;’ and you would not listen? Therefore behold, his blood is
now required of us.”
[Page 493]
In spite of their past behavior, the “Egyptian”—actually their brother
years later—conspicuously avoided giving them the full punitive restitution
they had earned, though he did manage to scare them half to death. Even so, still a modest “return” on their ill
will, however.
One other example. This one a
mistaken judgement: Eliphaz was
convinced that the disasters that had come upon Job were the result of showing
no mercy,
“4 Is it because of your fear
of Him that He corrects you, and enters
into judgment with you? 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. 8
But the
mighty man possessed the land, and the honorable man dwelt in it. 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. (Chapter 22)
Eliphaz functions as a warning not to assume that every case of
disaster coming upon a person is the result of their own sin. Some are; some aren’t. Job’s sterling life did no good when calamity
hit. It became a vast trial of faith and
strength. But he was successful
in enduring it and, when it was over, greatly rewarded for the difficulties he
had undergone.
[Page 494] He worked from a sound
principle but misapplied it: you
ultimately do reap what you sow.
But that doesn’t justify you applying the principle negatively to a
specific person unless you have your facts straight and injustice has
been done. Eliphaz was content to assume
the worst. Far too many people remain
that way.
The same psychology would surely have been present in the Old Testament
era as well. The commandments, for
example, to protect the property of one’s neighbor and to treat with dignity
the resident foreigner, imposed demands of mercy that needed to be exercised
when one might well--rightly or wrongly--wish the worst for that person because
of past encounters.
The second question is: How does mercy triumph over condemnatory
judgement from God? The short
answer is changing how we behave and seeking forgiveness. Which results in God abstaining from punitive
actions against us.
[Page 495] David pleaded in Psalms 51:1,
“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; according to the
multitude of Your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions.” This was simultaneously an admission
of sin and a plea for its removal on the basis of Divine mercy. In obtaining it, mercy would triumph over the
condemnation that would otherwise be received.
But the warning is also given that this did not represent some kind of
“blank check”--that one would not be permitted to get away with using it to
continue in the same course. The
encouragement to
But lest Divine mercy and patience be misunderstood, the warning is
immediately given that the consequences of not seeking mercy were grievious
indeed: “by no means clearing the
guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the
children’s children to the third and the fourth generation” (verse 7). People have often been horrified by this,
taking “visiting the iniquity” as implying “passing on the moral guilt.”
It need only have the more limited meaning of “visiting the sinful consequences”
to following generations. On the other
hand, if one is raised without moral values, one is highly likely to pass on to
the next generation that same lack of standards until a generation
breaks the pattern by discovering that there is an elevated alternative
to it. A call to holiness. A call to our full moral potential rather
than our deepest degradation.
Continued mercy was conditional upon rejecting one’s worst instincts
and it was stressed that this was an ongoing reality rather than one
imposed strictly upon some one [Page 496] particular generation. Psalms 103:
“17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting
on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, 18 to
such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them.”
Here we find that the mercy would be available to every
generation but that it was also only for the obedient that Divine mercy
triumphed over Divine wrath.
2:15-16: Need for concrete action to help the
ill-clad and the hungry. The
person is described as “naked” (
Just as the lack of needed clothing (
The topic then is not some theoretical need that may arise in the
future, but one that is currently existing.
Not in some far away country, but in front of one’s own eyes.
[Page 497] To
say “no” to such individuals (however verbally disguised the refusal) would
have outraged both the devout Jewish traditionalists and the humanitarian
instinct in the bulk of Gentiles as well.[20] Perhaps the example was chosen for that very
reason: lesser illustrations might be
quibbled with. This one cut to
the quick.
This was especially true of those
well acquainted with the Torah and other writings of the Old Testament. Proverbs 21:13 warns that God will treat us
the way we treat others, “Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will
also cry himself and not be heard [ = ‘not be answered: ESV, GW, Holman, NASB, NIV].” That is not necessarily a threat of poverty;
it could refer to any of the crises of life that come our way and which
threaten to overwhelm us. Death,
disease, financial loss, anything and everything. But in whatever form it takes, our lack of
mercy will not be forgotten.
Hence those who have the ability to
help others have the obligation to do so.
“Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the
power of your hand to do so. Do not
say to your neighbor, ‘Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it,’ when
you have it with you” (Proverbs
In Isaiah 58:6-7 this prompt
helpfulness is pictured as the kind of
“fast” (self-denial) that God expects from His people, “Is this not the
fast that I have chosen: To loose the
bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free,
and that you break every yoke? Is it not
to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring to your house the poor
who are cast out; when you see the naked, that you cover him, and not hide
yourself from your own flesh?”
Only if one acts this may will one’s “righteousness” be acknowledged by
God (verse 8). Likewise one will be able
to confidently call out to God for help in prayer, knowing that He will answer
(verse 9).
[Page 498] Job goes on at length—not just
in passing—to stress that if he had not routinely treated the vulnerable and
needy in a constructive, helpful manner, Divine vengeance would deserve to come
upon him. And be fully justified,
31:16 If I have kept the poor from
their desire, or caused the eyes of the widow to fail, 17 or
eaten my morsel by myself, so that the fatherless could not eat of it 18
(but from my youth I reared him as a father, and from my mother's womb I
guided the widow). 19 If I have seen anyone perish for lack of
clothing, or any poor man without covering. 20 If his heart has
not blessed me, And if he was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep. 21
If I have raised my hand against the fatherless, when I saw I had help in
the gate. 22 Then let
my arm fall from my shoulder, let my arm be torn from the socket. 23 For
destruction from God is a terror to me, and because of His magnificence I
cannot endure (Job 31).
There is not a multiplicity of
really existing deities, there is only one.
Isaiah 44 has Him reminding Israel that this was a long-standing claim,
that He had both made in the past and continued to make in the present. Furthermore it was an assertion that there could
be no rival: He was the “first” God
to be and simultaneously “the last.”
Seeking spiritual refuge anywhere else was, therefore, inherently
futile,
[Page 499]
6
Thus says the Lord, the King of
Verse 6 impresses upon the audience
the pivotal importance of God through the “titles” He deserves and through His
self description. Allen Ross sums up the
implications of these descriptions in this manner,[21]
The passage begins with
the claims of Yahweh for absolute authority
as the one true God. As is
typical of this section of the book, the prophet
introduces Him with names and epithets: “Yahweh, the King of
Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies.” [Page 500]
It would take some time
to explain fully all these titles, but the
exposition will at least have to capture the point of each one. The first one is
“Yahweh,” the personal name of the covenant God. The second one, “the
king of
Redeemer,” shows how the Lord delivered His people from sin and
bondage.
Each of these first three has been used by the prophet before; but the
next
one is new to these oracles—“Yahweh of Armies.” It is often translated
“Lord of hosts.” It indicates
that Yahweh has at His disposal all armies,
terrestrial and celestial. . . .
It means that God has the resources to carry out
anything He desires or decrees. . . .
Now Yahweh speaks to
reveal Himself: “I am the first and I am the
last, and beside Me there is no God.”
This exclaims His exclusive
sovereignty: He begins
everything and He ends everything, He is the Creator
and He will be the Judge. But He
also is eternally present . . . the eternal I
AM. The New Testament will use
similar motifs for our Lord Jesus Christ:
“I am the alpha and the omega.”
He is the beginning and the end, the full
revelation, the final authority, the Living Word. Such expressions attest to
His eternality as well as His sovereignty over everything.
Jehovah had proved His claim to being
the exclusive true Deity during the Exodus by means that should have made
denial an absurdity—but didn’t,
32 For ask now concerning the days that are past,
which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask
from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has
happened, or anything like it has been heard. 33 Did any
people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as
you have heard, and live? 34 Or did God ever try to go
and take for Himself a nation from the midst of another nation, by
trials, by signs, by wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm,
and by great terrors, [Page 501] according
to all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? 35
To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God;
there is none other besides Him. 36 Out of heaven He let you
hear His voice, that He might instruct you; on earth He showed you His great
fire, and you heard His words out of the midst of the fire (Deuteronomy
4).
He worked miracles in
Earlier in the address Moses had
used this type of evidence to show that God should never be represented
in fashioned form and worshipped: the very
fact that He had clearly manifested Himself in non-tangible form abundantly
proved that the One True God simply did not exist in the form of temporal
beings (Deuteronomy 4:15-20).
Historical Allusions
to the Old Testament
[Page 502]
Abraham’s
offering of his son as a sacrifice (
From the standpoint of obedience it was extremely difficult for the two
obvious reasons presented in verse 2 of Genesis 22: (1)
the young man was his “only son” and at Abraham’s advanced age there was
hardly likely to be another; and (2) he “love[d]” his son--an attitude we take
as natural but which does not always occur in a parent-child relationship.
The sacrifice had proceeded to the
point that Isaac lay bound on the alter (verse 9) and Abraham had raised the
knife to act (verse 10). Only at that
point does the text tell us that an angel intervened and ordered him to stop
(verses 11-12). At that point, a ram
caught in a nearby thicket became the substitute sacrifice (verse 13).
As the result of the willingness to sacrifice his most cherished
“possession” (for lack of a better term), God reaffirmed His promise that he
would have numerous descendants (verses 16-17) and that through his descendants
“all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (verse 18).
[Page 503] Rahab’s hiding of the Israelite spies (
Even in the ancient world, it is
extremely unlikely that many wives liked the necessity of living near such a
“home” however legal and openly utilized it might be. Hence there would tend to be a “social
distance” even in that historical context.
In either case, the home of an openly acknowledged prostitute was a
place where strange men could come and go and little attention be paid to
them. In the crowded urban conditions of
the city of
Somehow their presence became
suspected and at this point even gold would not normally outweigh the danger to
her own life from the angry authorities.
Yet Rahab still risked her life to hide them until they could safely
escape. The reason, as described in the
text, was her confidence that the Israelites would successfully triumph over
the existing native powers (verses 9-11).
Not only did this manifest faith in the outcome, her behavior manifested
faith in the honor of the spies themselves, for their pledge of protection was
all that she had to rely on.
As an outsider--a non-Jew--Rahab served as a useful example to ethnic
Gentile Christians (whether proselytes to Judaism or direct converts to the new
faith) to illustrate the rewards that could accompany faith. But to Jews themselves, she functioned as
evidence that ethnicity had never counted for as much to God as faith in Him
and His willingness to fulfill His promises.
[Page 504]
Notes
[1] For
example, Roy Gane, The NIV Applications Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers ([N.p.]: Zondervan, 2004. e-book edition
utilized: 2011), unnumbered page.
[2] Quoted by Charles Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the
[3] As quoted by
E. P. Sanders, “Jesus and the First Table of the Law,” in The Historical
Jesus in Recent Research (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study,
Volume 10), edited by D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight ([N.p.]: Eisenbauns, 2005), 226, who also notes that
it is attributed to a third party as well.
[4] Ibid.
[5] W. H.
Bennett, The General Epistles: James,
Peter, John and Jude, in the Century Bible commentary series
(Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1901),
162.
[7] Ibid.
[8] For a
variety of ancient examples, see Deppe, 37.
[9] A concept elaborated on by the unknown author of “Why
Was Abraham Called ‘the Friend of God’?” (1994), part of the (Australian)
.
[10] See the
discussion of this point in Laws, 99-100.
[11] For an
interesting discussion of the possibility, see Ibid., 98-99.
[12]
William Dyrness, “Mercy Triumphs Over Justice: James
[13] The
NKJV marginal comment notes that “poor” is the reading of the traditional
Massoretic text as well as the Vulgate, but that the Septuagint opts for
“Canaanites.” The New American Bible and
the NRSV both render the term “sheep merchants” though with no attempt at
justification. Since the prophet
received wages from them (verse 12) it does make a certain inherent sense that
since he had functioned as a shepherd (verse 7) that these would be the owners
of the sheep.
[Page 506] [14] For a
case that “keep silent” is a misunderstanding and misinterpretation see Hanok
ben-Isaak, “Is It Time for the Wise to Remain Silent? (Amos 5:13).
First posted March 2009. At:
http://jewsandjoes.com/is-it-time-for-the-wise-to-be-silent-amos-513.html. [March 2014.] He argues that the context shows, “It simply
cannot mean that ‘the wise keep silent,’ but instead: ‘the wise are put to death’ for it is an evil
time.”
Billy K.
Smith and Frank S. Page seem at war with themselves, insisting that “the
righteous could not keep silent” but then provides two different (and
reasonable) explanations of why they would keep silent! (New American Commentary: Amos, Obadiah, Jonah [Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 1995], 105.)
[15] Smith and Page,
102.
[16] See the
discussion in Laws, 120. Cf. Bratcher,
27.
[17] Stulac,
109.
[18]
Sidebottom, 43.
[19] Cf. the
alternative translation pointing in this direction of Bratcher, 27.
[21] Alan
Ross, “Dead Idols or the Living God—Isaiah 44:6-23.”