From: A Torah
Commentary on James 3-5 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth,
Jr. © 2014
[Page 227]
Chapter 4B:
Old Testament Precedents
Invoking of Explicit Old Testament
Quotations to Justify His
Teaching:
4:5: “Or do you think that the Scripture says
in vain, ‘The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously’?”—The source of the
text. There are four other
scriptural quotations in James besides the one currently of interest to
us. Two are explicitly introduced as a
statement of “scripture” (2:8;
[Page 228] All four of the quotations in James identified as
from “scripture” or from “God” come from the Old Testament. Hence the Old Testament is the most
natural location for the text being cited in 4:5 as well. The four other quotes are all derived from
the Septuagint (Greek, LXX) Old Testament[1] and
we would naturally expect this one to be as well. But the problem is that we can’t tie the
quote in 5b into any such LXX passage. Hence
it is reasonably alleged that if the old Torah or prophets are being quoted at
all, then James is utilizing “a lost variant from a Greek Old Testament
version.”[2]
Not impossible, of course, but far from reassuring. Nor is it comforting to note that there is no
relevant Hebrew language OT text to appeal to either.
A New Testament
allusion? Others suspect an allusion to New
Testament texts. To be likely, this
requires a late first-early second century date for James—itself highly
questionable. Nor are the suggested text
allusions (an intermingling of Matthew
James 4:5: Or do you think that the Scripture says in
vain, “The
Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?
Matthew 6:24: No one can serve two masters;
for either he will hate
the one and love the other, or else he will
be loyal to the one and despise the
other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Romans 8:7:
Because the carnal mind is
enmity against God; for it is
not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
[Page 229] 1 John 2:15: Do not love the
world or the things
in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not
in him.
The paraphrase/summation option of
explaining the “quotation”—a reference to a specific
text.
James D. Yoder suggests that we are dealing here not with a
quotation but, rather, “a paraphrase from Scripture.”[4] But that still leaves us with the problem of what
scripture James has in mind—whether as a paraphrase or translation. A number have been suggested.
Exodus 20:5 (on Yahweh being
a “jealous God”) is considered the likely source by some, though one such
commentator concedes that it is “a free and somewhat poetic rendering of the
thought. . . .”[5]
Exodus 34:14 makes the same assertion that Yahweh is a “jealous
God” and this text,[6]
quite naturally, has been introduced by some who appeal to Exodus 20:5 as well.[7]
Genesis 6:5 (on the
depravity of antediluvian civilization) has been one suspected source,[8] but
there is nothing even verbally similar with the James text.
Genesis 6:3:[9] “And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not
strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one
hundred and twenty years.’ ” One could
easily imagine the first part of the verse being paraphrased as, “God resists
the proud;” the second half about “giving grace to the humble” would,
presumably, be James’ interpretive deduction from that premise.
Deuteronomy 32:11, 19 use the
image of God’s love (verse 11) and refers to how God “spurn[s]” those who
reject His will (verse 19). The
Septuagint version, which refers to God’s “jealousy,” is cited as evidence of a
possible intended reference by James.[10]
[Page 230] Job
27:4 makes the challenge,[11]
“Who is able to stand before jealousy?”
The context is human jealousy, rather than Divine, however.
Zechariah 1:14: Here the jealousy is for “
The cumulative paraphrase/summation option
of explaining the “quotation”—a summation of multiple texts.[12]
As one scholar words it: It
“refers to a theme rather than to a specific quotation (e.g., John
Steven J. Cole concurs, “The best solution is probably that James is
referring generally to the many the Old Testament references to God’s jealousy
for the undivided devotion of His people. For example, in the second
commandment forbidding idolatry, God says, “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous
God …” (Exodus 20:5; also, Exodus 34:14; Zechariah 8:2).”[14]
[Page 231] Making
verse 5a refer to the scripture in verse 6. A
few translations—accidentally or on purpose—encourage this approach. For example, the ASV puts question marks in
two places, “Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us
long unto envying?” This would certainly
permit both to refer to verse 6.
In this approach (adapting the NKJV) you create a modified context
something like this, “4b Whoever
therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that the Scripture
says [speaks] in vain? The Spirit who
dwells in us yearns jealously! 6 But [Hence] He
gives more grace. Therefore He
says: ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to
the humble.’ ” Alternatively one might
substitute an exclamation point for the question mark since James is surely
stressing this point.
Having
done this, one could reasonably argue that the scripture under consideration is
Proverbs 3:34, the one introduced at the end of verse 6. Verse 5a does not function to introduce
a quote but to make more emphatic the point being emphasized—that God
rejects the proud and gives favor to the humble.[15]
In this approach, 5:5b is a paraphrase
(or summary) of the truth that will be directly quoted in the next verse.[16] Hence all of verse 5 is only intended as an
interpretive lead-in to the quotation of verse 6 and not an independent
scriptural citation.[17]
In
other words . . .
[Page 232]
·
We have the challenge: “Or do you think the Scripture says in vain?”
(4:5a).
·
Then we have the summary that
since “the Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously” (4:5b) . . .
·
As a result God “gives more
grace” (4:6a).
·
Then we have the quote of the
scriptural proof text to vindicate that assertion in 4:6b.
·
Which provides us with the
exact wording of what “Scripture says [not] in vain” (4:5a).
Alternative approach: Making
verse 4 the reference point of 5a. When we read in verse 4 that,
“Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of
God,” we certainly recognize what “the Scripture says” in implication
time and again. Hence “do you think that the Scripture says in
vain” could refer to this--as a
Scriptural summary rather than direct quote.
John Calvin thought along this line when he contended that the
“Scripture” referred to was the doctrine of enmity between the world and God
referred to in verse 4. Since this has
clear Old Testament precedent (as to underlying concept) he embraced this
approach as the best explanation of the text.[18] In this scenario, verse 5 is an assertion
that God’s word is neither empty nor futile--in regard to teaching “the
friendship of the world [being] enmity against God etc.”[19] It explains further the asserted point.
[Page 233] Just as making 5b the text
referred to in 5a has the advantage of the two being immediately adjoining,
so does this approach. I would develop
such a reconstruction along this line--5b begins a new thought: Because “the Spirit who dwells in us yearns
jealously,” therefore “God gives more grace”--as is proved by the fact
that the Scripture testifies that He gives “grace to the humble” and rejects
the proud.
A non-Biblical source? Some have
theorized the possibility that James is quoting from “an apocryphal work”[20] or
from the writings that guided the
Others have suggested that some lost Christian work
is quoted as “scripture.”[22] If the term “scripture” is equated with the
concept of supreme written authority--and that certainly is the normal Biblical
connotation of the term--one is perplexed by how a volume with that
recognized a status managed to disappear.
An orally preserved
“scripture?” That something might be
regarded as inspired (think the prophetic messages at
And why would it be labeled “scripture” as well? As
[Page 234]
Having searched for specific Old Testament sources for the text of the quotation,
we will leave the matter of Old Testament precedents for what is being taught
to the next chapter. This is because
which passages are relevant hinge upon the specific interpretation place on the
quotation—whatever its source.
4:6: “But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to
the humble.’ ” The apparent
text under consideration is normally identified as Proverbs 3:34.[23] The Hebrew is rendered in English, “Surely He
scorns the scornful, but gives grace to the humble.” The second half of the verse is explicitly
the same; in the first half the target is changed from “scornful” to
“proud.” Yet the two concepts go so hand
in hand, it seems fair to say that they represent little more than a different
way of saying the same thing. Apparently
the translators of the Septuagint reasoned similarly, since their Greek
translation of the Hebrew renders it the way James quotes.[24]
The text, in its original setting,
constitutes part of the writer’s argument against “envy[ing]” the unjust
“oppressor” (
The scorn is not, contextually,
targeted at God—at least not directly.
(Though by showing contempt for God’s law through violating its moral
demands, it is certainly showing indirect scorn for the Lawgiver as well.) Indeed since the second half of the verse
discusses the “humble,” the scorn—it has reasonably been argued--has as its
direct target other humans whom they can mock as inferior while they themselves
are manifestly “superior or greater than others.”[25]
[Page 235] The
scorner receives back exactly what he gave out, however—scorn. Worst, it comes from God. To dismiss the resentment of one’s fellow
mortals may be unwise, but to live in a manner that it brings forth the
Creator’s condemnation is suicidal. The
only question is how soon it will be.
Imagine an annoyed earthly King, but with countless greater power.
No information is provided as to how sinful the “humble” person may be,
only the assurance that “grace” will be the reward instead of contempt.[26] At the worst, he is assumed to be a sinner
who acknowledges the fact and humbly seeks Divine mercy while the
scorner is content doing whatever he/she wishes and acknowledging no responsibility
to anyone else.
Allusions
to the teaching of Proverbs are scattered throughout the book of James. Daniel J.
Treierer documents well the fact that the teaching of Proverbs 3 is embraced
repeatedly in the book of James.
Although this is not the only OT root of James’ teaching, of course,
this fact is worthy of recognition on its own merits,[27]
Proverbs
3 indicates that wisdom focuses on our money and our
mouths. Do we honor the Lord by
giving back what we have received? Do
we give to others in need? Or do
we attack those God loves, especially with
our speech? Those are the
diagnostic questions by which to recognize
whether we are wise.
[Page 236] Resonances
with the book of James are therefore
obvious. The vocabulary of
blessing appears in both (James
as do the theme of trusting God
wholeheartedly instead of leaning on one’s own understanding (James 1:1-8;
Proverbs 3:5-8);
the requirement of wisdom to triumph over
desire (James 1:13-21; Proverbs 3:14-15);
wise people being known by good deeds,
especially regarding uses of words and wealth (James 1:22-27; 2:1-3:18;
exhortations that people must be generous
when able to help their neighbors, instead of dismissing them with well-wishing
platitudes (James 2:14-26; Proverbs 3:27-28);
and prohibitions of self-interested
quarreling (James 3-4; Proverbs
James even quotes the Septuagint (Greek
translation) of Proverbs 3:34: “God
opposes the proud, / but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). Augustine rightly suggests that “there is
hardly a page in the holy books” in which this truth about humility does not
appear.
The conclusion of this chapter (Proverbs
[Page 237] The unity of theological depiction
and social-ethical
exhortation in Proverbs, like two sides of a coin, is evident and
important. Words such as “grace” are not
only present (e.g.,
His last remark is especially
useful: It is very easy to fall into the
trap of Old Testament equals rigid Law and New Testament equals abundant
Grace. The truth of the matter is that
grace was given even in the times of the Torah and obligatory Divine law
remains embedded in the New Testament of grace as well.
Without grace there was no way out of the tragedy of sin in any age;
without authoritative and required rules of behavior, we would have carte
blanche to do any evil we wished without the fear of any consequences. However God has never taken kindly to mortals
trying to take advantage of His love, tolerance, and forgiveness. Within the velvet glove of kindness remains a
fist of the hardest steel for when and where it is needed.
[Page 238]
How Old Testament Concepts
Are
Repeatedly Introduced and
Woven
into the Heart of His Argument
4:1-2: Conflicts among Christians arise from
making the fulfillment of our own desires more important than anything else. The term “wars” may be used to stress the
element of “protracted or widespread disputes,” while “fighting” refers to the
constituent parts of the larger war, “the conflicts and skirmishes” that occur
periodically or daily.[28] In Greek language ethical literature, this
kind of terminology was used “to refer to quarrels and disputes.”[29]
The “wars and fights” are described
not as those with outsiders but “among you,” i.e., with other Christians. Their root is the desire for the “pleasure”
that most satisfies us. Here the
“pleasures” (and the “lust” in the following verse) virtually have to emphasize
things of a nonsexual nature since they involve something that causes us to be
locked in conflict with others. It could
be their position, their prestige--even their possessions. Whatever it is that we have desire for but do
not have.
The
desires that motivate unneeded conflict with fellow believers include the
desire to preserve one’s own status.
This may be on inconsequential matters or because we do not want to
compromise our pride by admitting that the other man is teaching a truth we do not want to accept: This motivation can be seen in the protracted
rebelliousness of Israel against her prophets.
Because there were far more priests than prophets, one would expect them
to be especially honored but that was usually not the case. (Unless they sold out the truth of course.)
[Page 239] Those who remained loyal to
their mission were to be rejected, scorned, undermined, and even punished
unjustly to discredit or silence them.
God warned Jeremiah, for example, “ ‘And I will make you to this people
a fortified bronze wall; and they will fight against you, but they shall
not prevail against you; for I am with you to save you and deliver you,’ says
the Lord” (15:20).
It injured the egos of the priests
and leaders that they were supposed to change behavior or teaching. (It challenged the self-importance of the
masses as well for they, too, would have had to admit major error.) For many it would mean the admission that in
spite of their titular position in organized religion or society, they had fundamentally
misjudged a matter. This would be
intolerable to their sense of pride and entitlement.
And this did not end with the coming
of Jesus. A Bible teaching would require
us to act differently in our position of leadership? Or change a conviction that is shaky however
well intentioned? You know I—as elder,
preacher, influential member--have only the best in mind for everyone. Out with you—you troublemaking
church-divider!
Sound familiar? (It will to
many) And no matter how flagrant the challenged
behavior, many would prefer peace and quiet and noninvolvement while those who
are openly questioning get rolled over.
“Going along to get along” may be the policy of prudence but not of
spiritual commitment.
(This is not to deny that the situation can be reversed, in which the
“reformer” actually has his or her private “axe to grind” and the challenge serves
as “cover” for similar intentions! In
other words, for some specific personal gain in status or influence. Truth becomes the tool rather than the
motive for action.)
[Page 240] Sometimes, even in the more
petty ante and nonreligious conflicts within the church, its often just
egotistical head butting to prove who is the most important “goat” on the
mountain. Personal “preference” winning
is the issue and “truth” was never envolved in the first place. Hence status preservation (or its increase)
can become a major motivating factor in virtually any type of intra-church
disagreement on everything from doctrine to the new type of church carpet.
On the other hand, reckless
combativeness may represent a fundamental psychological discontent that no
outcome ever resolves: For example, the proud discontented drunk is
described in Habakkuk 2:5 as being “like death and cannot be satisfied.” He is an aggressive empire builder that rolls
over one and all, “He gathers to himself all nations and heaps up for himself
all peoples.” There is nothing that can
stop him—he thinks.
Such broad discontent is described as a case where “the eye is not
satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing” (Ecclesiastes
1:8). Or as the TEV puts verse 8,
“Everything leads to weariness--a weariness too great for words. Our eyes can never see enough to be
satisfied; our ears can never hear enough.” The person finds contentment impossible to
obtain and will repeatedly find himself in conflict with others as the
result. It won’t really matter, in the
long term, for the world has a strange way of always remaining the same (verses
9-10).
This is so common a phenomena, that the writer pictures it as a species
wide characteristic. “Hell and
Destruction are never full,” warns the Proverbist; “so the eyes of man are
never satisfied” (Proverbs 27:20).
[Page 241] Wealth can be used as an
example. No matter how much one gains,
there are those to whom it is never enough, “He who loves silver will not be
satisfied with silver; nor he who loves abundance, with increase. This also is vanity” (Ecclesiastes
4:3: Unanswered prayers because of praying out
of the wrong reasons: “You
ask amiss, that you may spend it
on your pleasures” (4:3). In other words
unanswered prayer was caused by wrong motives and intents.
The same individuals are described in the following verse as
adulterers. This may suggest a shift
from seeking sinful desires in general to seeking sinful sexual ones in
particular. At the least, they
would have to be desires that can harm others or envolving folk who simply do not care what the impact is on
others.
That there are situations where God will simply ignore an individual’s
prayer is a well attested Old Testament teaching (Job 27:9; Psalms
[Page 242] Normally—and we find it quite
common in the Old Testament—the emphasis explaining unanswered prayer is on how
evil actions cause that result.
For example, Micah 3:4: “Then they will cry to the Lord, but He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from them
at that time, because they have been evil in their deeds” (“were so
wicked in what they were doing,” ISV).
Hence a general “evil” lifestyle would produce the result of
rejected prayer.
Since evil actions flow out of evil or
morally warped intentions, it is not surprising that later in the same chapter
those are mentioned in passing, “Now hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob
and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all
equity” (verse 9; “despise justice and distort all that is right,” NIV). They did wrong because they thought
wrong.
Yet we outside witnesses can’t prove that
the inward motivations are impure; we can only prove that the outward
actions are. (Though in really
extreme cases it is hard to imagine any other alternative.) Hence it is far from surprising that the
emphasis in explaining rejected prayer should be so much on the external
results that bear the clear condemnation of Divine revelation.
Zechariah 7 also slides into its
condemnation of the Israelites’ evil behavior, mention of how their underlying motivations
had also been corrupted—and how it caused Yahweh to turn His back on their
pleas,
[Page 243]
8
Then the word of the Lord came to
Zechariah, saying, 9 Thus says
the Lord of hosts: “Execute true justice,
show mercy and compassion
everyone to his brother. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the
fatherless, the
alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart [“plot evil in your
hearts,” Holman; “secretly plot evil,” NET] against
his brother.
11 But they refused to heed, shrugged their
shoulders, and stopped
their ears so that they could not hear.
12 Yes, they made their hearts like
flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent
by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the
Lord of hosts. 13 Therefore it happened, that just as He proclaimed and they
would not hear, so they called out and I would not listen,” says
the Lord of
hosts. 14
“But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations
which they had not known. Thus
the land became desolate after them, so
that no one passed through or returned; for they made the pleasant land
desolate.”
In “non-religious” language, God
warned in Malachi that they would never dare treat earthly authorities the way
they were treating Him. Disobeying
reflected disrespect and the
examples He gives make no sense unless their hearts had decided that going
through rituals stripped of their honor was all that was necessary to keep
their God happy. In other words a
callous heart lay behind their callous and unconcerned outward actions—even
when it concerned not their fellow mortal, but even the Mighty One Himself!
[Page 244]
7
“You offer defiled food on My altar, but say, ‘In
what way have we
defiled You?’ By saying, ‘The table of the Lord is contemptible.’ 8 And
when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the
lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it
then to your governor! Would he be
pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably?” Says the Lord of hosts
(Malachi 1).
The outward form was all that
was counted as necessary. In other words
twisted thinking led to disrespectful behavior. Action again reflects inward mind frame.
They had their own form of what today we would call “situation ethics”
in which one could justify any and all evils while maintaining an acceptable
Jewish religious veneer. To God it
wasn’t enough. They were only fooling
themselves. Not even intercessory prayer
by others would do any good:
Jeremiah 7: 8 "Behold, you
trust in lying words that cannot profit.
9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn
incense to Baal, and walk after other gods whom you do not know, 10 and
then come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name, and
say, 'We are delivered to do all these abominations'? 11 Has
this house, which is called by My name, become a den of thieves in your
eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen
it," says the Lord. 16 Therefore do not pray for this people, nor
lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not
hear you.”
[Page 245] They were pious—just enough—to
where they thought they had a “legitimate” claim on God’s generosity. Unfortunately, “just enough” can easily be
like a family that prepares for a food shortage only to discover that most of
it has been eaten by rats.
But this did not spring up
overnight. It did not occur without them
becoming accustomed to thinking there was nothing wrong with their attitude and
behavior. Thought and action were
intertwined and interlocked. Each
reinforced the other. And grew more and
more out of alignment with the Divine standard as time passed.
Hence it is not surprising that the Psalmist speaks of the source of human
actions and how God will reject prayers if that source has been defiled, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear”
(Psalms 66:18). If we embrace the evil;
cherish it. As NET has it, “If I
had harbored sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.” And the GW is even more emphatic, “If I
had thought about doing anything sinful, the Lord would not have listened
to me.”
4:4: Spiritually
and morally adulterous “friendship with the world” guarantees “enmity” with God. Adultery as envolving the non-physical. It is unlikely that any would deny
that “world” stands for anything in creation--whatever its nature or form--that
diverts one from being whole-heartedly in service to God. Normally this means that we have embraced as
our own the standards the world works by and have blotted out much of the
distinction that should exist between our behavior and that of unbelievers.
[Page 246] However “friendship” with the
world can carry with it, not necessarily participation in its evils but--at
a minimum—moral acceptance of, sympathy with, non-condemnatory “understanding”
of their behavior, condolence of those evils even if one does not personally
participate in them. (The thin line
between this mind frame and actual participation is extraordinarily thin and
presumably due to opportunity, interest, and personal preference rather than
any fundamental opposition.)
What the world demands you be is not “tolerant”—that word got bent all
out of shape years ago—but to be “endorsingly tolerant,” being
“supportive” of the individual in his or her personally preferred moral
blight. Never, ever to mention that
there is a better and objectively superior lifestyle out there. To be convinced that there is such a “gold
standard” for behavior makes you a “bigot” in their morally twisted minds and
guilty of being “hateful” if you dare openly reject their “anything goes” mind
frame. And, of course, the term “sin”
must never, ever be applied to their behavior while they are free to use all
the four letter obscenities they wish to mock and demean you.
On the other hand, they are the ones who will have an extremely hostile
reception in eternity. What “goes
around, comes around”—even if it isn’t until the judgment day. And God will remember every single action
and insult they’ve inflicted in their hateful animosity toward His will and
those who are faithful to it.
It is well known that in the Old
Testament a large number of specific evils are pointed to as earning the enmity
of God: lies, false witness, dishonesty
in business, etc. It is but a step from specific
evils antagonizing Yahweh to all evils (the “world”) doing the
same. From this standpoint, James’
assertion is a natural development--the creation of a broad principle based
upon the fact that so many specific condemnations are found.
[Page 247] The mind frame of finding the
evils of pagan society acceptable is denounced by James under the image of
adultery: “Adulterers and adulteresses!”
he begins his rebuke and then gives the warning that this attitude makes one an
“enemy of God” (4:4). The image of
adultery is used in the Old Testament both in its literal sense as well as a
symbolic description of engaging in idolatry.
Both are identified as antagonizing God.
Literal adultery in such texts as Jeremiah 5:7-9. Idolatrous adultery in passages like Psalms
73:27 and Ezekiel 6:9. Ezekiel 16:35-43
is a powerful extended example of this usage.
Although the references to spiritual
adultery are typically in a collective sense—to the entire people--this
“collective” degradation occurred as many individuals became
guilty. When it reached a certain level
of pervasiveness, how else could the situation be described than the collectivity
of a nation or a city itself committing the adultery?
Isaiah 54:5 sums up the reason such metaphors are used: “For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of
hosts is His name; and your Redeemer is the Holy One of
The intended image is that the nation specifically--and, by analogy,
all the individuals within the nation--have been married to God, so to speak,
in a solemn covenant and that by entering into an intimate relationship with
the polytheistic gods one has as assuredly violated that covenant as if a
married person had bedded someone else’s spouse.
Nick Nowalk suggests additional evidence why the physical and the
spiritual forms of adultery were inevitably linked,[30]
[Page 248]
Consider now how
frequently idolatry and sexual immorality appear in
tandem throughout the biblical narrative (see Exodus 32, Isaiah 57:7-8,
Hosea 4:12-14, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5,
Colossians 3:5, Revelation 2:14, 20,
pairing:
“The link
between idolatry and sexual immorality is
established by the
frequent use of ‘prostituting themselves’ or
‘adultery’ to describe Hebrew idolatry [in
the Old Testament].
prostitution or adultery, but it also
led to the physical acts
themselves.” (Dennis P. Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex:
Christian Ethics and the Moral Life, pp. 64-65).
Indeed, these particular sins are the only
two that always occur in the many vice lists in Paul’s letters, which
otherwise tend to vary considerably. . . .
Nowalk then points out how Paul in Romans 1:18-32 argues that the
rejecting of God as our central point of reverence and respect inevitably leads
to a diseased and decayed “morality” as well; self-deprived as we are of what
would lift us up and make us truly honorable men and women, God throws us to
the “wolves” of our worst instincts.
James seems to expand the imagery of physical and spiritual adultery from
those two acts in particular to an improper fraternization with the world’s
evil in general when he speaks of the “friendship of the world.” Or has he expanded the use--or have we
too narrowly restricted the Old Testament’s meaning of the image of adultery to
the physical act and idolatry?
[Page 249] It should be remembered that
the mores of the people condemned for idolatry were inevitably described or
assumed to be morally corrupt as well.
Indeed, if one has removed the inhibition of monotheism in order to
embrace various other religions simultaneously, are the moral restrictions
going to be held to either?
After all the same God and code of revelation that instructed one not
to worship idols, also instructed not to commit physical adultery, lie,
murder, and other grievous acts. How could
the original moral code be upheld under such circumstances?
Remember that that idolatry included the sexual evils sometimes
associated with it and, in certain cases, even the offering of one’s children in
human sacrifice. Was it feasible to act
to such extremes without coming to at least a friendly acceptance of the
polytheistic concept of morality in general?
(Immorality, as viewed from the standpoint of strict Yahwehistic
monotheism.) Indeed how could that
avoid, over time, becoming precedent for even wider breaches of God’s moral
code?
Hence
buying into polytheism and idolatry meant buying into the mind frame and value
system that went with it. If not
overt participation in all its excesses, at least an understanding
acceptance of it when practiced by others.
In short a “friendship” not just with idols in the strict sense but of
the entire world view that accompanied it.
And this was the dominant “world” as the ancients knew it for
monotheism was a distinct minority movement.
Is there not latent, therefore, in the Old Testament rebuke of
polytheism as adultery an implicit critique of everything that went with it,
of “the world” to use the rhetoric of James?
[Page 250]
Passages
intermingling spiritual and idolatrous adultery with embracing the spectrum of moral
evils of the world (“friendship with the world”). Jeremiah 3:1-13 speaks of the spiritual
adultery of the people. Yet as the
chapters roll by we read that it went hand in hand with physical adultery
(5:7-9). They engaged in acts of
violence (
In the condemnation of an apostate
people the polytheistic element is occasionally almost secondary in the
criticism. In Isaiah 1:21, the prophet
is horrified at the fact, “How the faithful city has become
a harlot!” Yet the wider moral
condemnation pours out immediately: the
city has substituted the search for “justice” with opening its doors to
“murderers” (verse 21).
Its leaders are “companions of
thieves,” “bribes” were not limited to the usual and inevitable hardcore but
“everyone loves” them. The most exposed
elements of society (the “fatherless” and the “widow”) are to be pushed out of
the mind as unimportant (verse 23). For
such things God will act punitively against the people and use His
justice to bring about their repentance (verses 24-28). It is only after all this, that He
introduces the condemnation of their places of idol worship (verse 29)!
[Page 251] James’
immediate concerns. We have
provided the above analysis according to the way the passage is normally
approached for James certainly intends to include such matters. But it is not the core point he is
driving at: he is talking about how
those with every outward appearance of being loyal to God and no one else, can
use attitudes and behavioral norms of the world in behalf of what they
deceive themselves into believing are spiritually desirable outcomes. It is carefully disguised worldliness
masquerading as “true faith.”
An Australian preacher reminds us of this reality in these words,[31]
"Friendship with the world. " The
phrase makes us think of doing worldly things, things quite acceptable in the
world but forbidden by God. . . . As it
turns out, brothers and sisters, this understanding is not how James uses that
phrase ‘friendship with the world’.
That James does not refer to the weak and straying is evident from the
fact that in the entire passage before us James keeps on addressing
"you", in other words, his addressees in general. And those addressees are not unbelievers or
Christians who are consciously straying from the Lord. Rather, James addresses this letter to
"the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," i.e., to the New
Testament people of God as they live scattered throughout the world. . . .
In the context of James 4, the term
‘friendship with the world’ does not imply that one has drifted from the Lord,
that one condones blatant worldliness.
But the term means here that the twelve tribes of the dispersion served
God and loved the brethren with a worldly attitude. They served God alright, and they gathered in
prayer around the kitchen table and in church too, but the way they treated
each other was not at all Christian; it was worldly, the product of having
earthly wisdom.
[Page 252] That
attitude, says James, produces fights, wars amongst the brethren.
. . . bickering and squabbling, fighting
with words. But why, then, does James
use this heavy terminology? The reason,
beloved, is simply to point up the deadly consequences of this bickering
and squabbling.
War: that’s destruction, it’s death. War
makes misery out of life, it destroys, annihilates, kills. And there’s the point the apostle
wants to make: the self-centered desires of these Christians, the desire to
have things go their own way, the wish to be personally vindicated,
produces on the surface only bickering and disputing over words, but underneath
it leads to death in the church of Jesus Christ, it chokes the spiritual life
out of God’s people; it fills spiritual body-bags as fast as bombs do.
In other words quite “respectable worldliness.” The kind of worldliness that, at its extreme,
turns an individual into the type of person rebuked by Jesus:
27 “Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like
whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of
dead men's bones and all
uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear
righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23)
[Page 253]
4:8: Reconciliation with God requires
“draw[ing] near” to Him and personal purification. The warning of this verse is that
reconciliation will not be arbitrarily granted by God. He will meet us, if you will, “half-way.” Or, as our text puts it, God drawing near to
us has the prerequisite of our willingness to “draw near” to Him as well.
The picture of mutual action is one utilized in the warning to King Asa
in 2 Chronicles 15:2, “The Lord is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but
if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.”
The mutual forsaking is explicit; for the parallel to be perfect, the
finding also had to be by mutual action though that is only implied rather than
directly asserted.
In Zechariah 1:3 the action of both
parties is made explicit however, “Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord
of hosts: Return to Me,’ says the Lord
of hosts, ‘and I will return to you,’ says the Lord of hosts.” That “return” is defined in the following
verse as that of a moral transformation, “Turn now from your evil ways and your
evil deeds” (verse 4). ISV: “It's time to turn from your evil lifestyles
and from your evil actions.”
The last book of the Old Testament
includes the hope for a mutual “return[ing]” of God and His people (Malachi
3:7). In this case the people were blind
as to the fact of what their transgressions were (verses 8-10); they simply had
no idea that they existed. Not because
God’s law didn’t exist or had somehow disappeared; they simply weren’t paying
attention to its admonitions.
However it remained fully authoritative whether they did so or
not. Let us not think of them too
harshly, though: In this age in which so
many millions have one or more copies of the Bible, how many actually pay
attention to what it has to say today?
[Page 254] In Hosea 6:1 the plea that his
listeners “return to the Lord” is balanced by the promise in verse 3 that God
is also willing to “come to us” as well.
Of course the texts that embrace
drawing near to God carry with it the implicit baggage of “in sincerity” and
“in reality.” Pretense does no good;
going through empty forms provides no benefit.
God can see through it all.
As Isaiah 29:13 puts the criticism, “Therefore the Lord said: ‘Inasmuch as these people draw near with
their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far
from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,”
i.e., they say the right words but only because they are repeating what they’ve
been taught by figures they regarded as authoritative. It’s not the “real them.” They have little or no interest in doing what
they’ve been told. Just knowing the
right things to say.
However these words can have a more
extreme connotation as well. It may not
be God’s real words that they are repeating at all. Today’s English Version has it this way,
“Their religion is nothing but human rules and traditions, which they have
simply memorized.”
4:8: The
need to“cleanse your hands” and “purify your hearts.” The former refers to outward behavior while
the other “refers to inner motives and desires.”[32] Inward attitude and mind frame were to walk
hand-in-hand with outward lifestyle.
The Psalmist speaks of how this combination must be present for the
individual to acceptably enter God’s presence (in other words, to acceptably
worship Him), “Who may [Page 255] ascend
into the hill of the Lord? Or who may
stand in His holy place? He who has
clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul, to an idol, nor
sworn deceitfully” (Psalms 24:3-4).
The demand to “cleanse” and “purify”
are very reminiscent of the admonition of Isaiah, “Wash yourselves, make
yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil” (
Or as verse 17 puts their new course, “Learn to do good; seek
justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.” It may not come “naturally,” but it can
develop if one consciously sets out to live the right kind of life. One “learns” that new lifestyle by regular
repetition. Like one learns and masters
a new skill.
This washing imagery is a vivid one used to express the injunction,
“Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts . . .”
(Isaiah 55:7). In a bath we wash away
the dirt. In our moral transformation,
we similarly remove the moral dirt.
Jeremiah 4:14 has the admonition, “O
[Page 256] Note that the admonition is
not addressed to individuals per se, but to the entire city—“O
4:9: Setting one’s life right by “cleans[ing]
your hands” and “purify[ing] your hearts” (4:8) requires sorrow and guilt over
our past behavior. Life
reversal does not begin with a laugh; it begins with a tear, “Lament and mourn
and weep! Let your laughter be turned to
mourning and your joy to gloom.”
These are intense words, “lament,
mourn and weep.” The first isn’t quite
identical with “be sad” (CEV), “be troubled” (BBE), and “be sorrowful”
(TEV). The word more easily carries the
overtones of “be miserable” (Holman, ISV, NASB) and “be wretched” (RSV), which reveal
the intensity of what one is going through.
“Mourn” and “weep” are retained in
the bulk of translations for the other two.
A few will go with alternatives—in particular, “be . . . sorry” (CEV)
for the first and “cry” (Holman) for the second. The ATP opts for “grieve and cry in sorrow
over it.”
Hitting the reader with one after
the other of these is clearly intended to remind the reader that true guilt
isn’t superficial; it penetrates to the very essence and requires an admission
that we have fundamentally erred. It
isn’t a mere “mistake;” it has been a “sin.”
In Jeremiah, the exiles are pictured
as going through such a radical period of rage at their own infidelity to their
God, that it has caused Jehovah to be willing to return them to their original
homeland,
[Page 257]
Jeremiah
31:18 " I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself: 'You have chastised me, and I was chastised,
like an untrained bull; restore me, and I will return, for You are the Lord my
God. 19 Surely, after my turning,
I repented; and after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh; I was ashamed,
yes, even humiliated, because I bore the reproach of my youth.' 20
Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he a
pleasant child? For though I spoke
against him, I earnestly remember him still; therefore My heart yearns for him;
I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord. 21 Set up signposts, Make landmarks; set your
heart toward the highway, the way in which you went. Turn back, O virgin of
In Ezekiel the self-loathing comes
after the return from captivity as the people recognize how good God has been
to them when they were totally undeserving of it,
Ezekiel 20:41 "I will accept
you as a sweet aroma when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you out
of the countries where you have been scattered; and I will be hallowed in you
before the Gentiles. 42 Then you
shall know that I am the Lord, when I bring you into the
[Page 258]
Can we responsibly speculate on the
specific nature of the “evil” in James’ mind?
In chapter two it was a matter of economic/class prejudice and we
examined in that context the Old Testament rebuke of making unfair judgments
based upon such factors. That could
be the allusion here. In verses 13-15
the image is of a successful businessman planning on business journeys that
would last years and which seemed sure to reap a nice profit. Such individuals could easily have been
looking down upon the poorer coreligionists who were not able to launch such
endeavors themselves.
On the other hand, the idea of
“speak[ing] evil”--barring some clear-cut textual indication--would more
naturally refer to unjust censure of others for any reason. Hence the text is more likely to be censuring
unjust condemnation and censure of anyone rather than emphasizing the
economic status of the person being criticized.
[Page 259] In this vein, Psalms 50 quotes
God as delivering to “the wicked” (verse 16) a stern rebuke that they had acted
in this manner, “You give your mouth to evil, and your tongue frames
deceit. You sit and speak against your
brother; you slander your own mother’s son” (verses 19-20). In this case, it wasn’t just the poorer they
slandered, but their own close kin.
This was but an application of the
demand not to go around belittling one’s spiritual brothers in the Jewish
people. “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” (Leviticus
Some suggest we seek the root of James’ point in the broad principle of
love of one’s neighbor found in Leviticus 19:18,[35]
which is part of the context of the above verse. In favor of this is the fact that
Leviticus 19:18’s commandment to
love comes in a context of rebuking the mind frame that would lead to
“speak[ing] evil of” others: Verse 17
rebukes “hate” of one’s coreligionist.
Verse 18 itself condemns “bear[ing] any grudge against the the children
of your people” and contrasts the need to love them with this type of
behavior. Going back to verse 16, we
find a rebuke of being a “talebearer,” which directly describes--at least in
part--what James is rebuking.
[Page 260]
The Psalmist echoed a similar
sentiment against unjustly attacking one’s neighbors / spiritual brethren, “Let
the lying lips be put to silence, which speak insolent things proudly and
contemptuously against the righteous” (31:18).
The person who acts in such a self-centered
manner looks with contempt upon others.
And if they in any way get in his or her way, they “deserve” the harsh
words that are thrown their way. Their
feelings and pains don’t count.
Psalms 101:5 parallels their lies with their arrogance, showing that
they are but two faces of a self-centeredness that has no interest in justice
toward others, “Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy; the
one who has a haughty look and a proud heart, Him I will not endure.”
The old adage is, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can’t
hurt me.” This is often true. Unfortunately when there are enough of such
lies and misrepresentations, they wear a person down into the ground. The Psalmist was well aware of this, “Have
mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us!
For we are exceedingly filled with contempt. Our soul is exceedingly filled with the scorn
of those who are at ease, with the contempt of the proud” (Psalms 123:3-4).
Note the plural throughout—“us” and “our.” It wasn’t just happening to one person;
everyone they could treat this way was being treated this way. God was fully aware of what was
happening. And what happens when He has
decided: Enough is enough? “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands
of the living God” (Hebrews
[Page 261]
Deuteronomy
32:39: “Now see that
I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I
wound and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.” (Paul A. Cedar goes even further than finding
an allusion, asserting that this is a “direct quotation.”)[37]
1 Samuel 2:6: “The Lord kills and makes alive; He
brings down to the grave and brings up.”
2 Kings 5:7: “And it happened, when the king of
Note here how “make alive” is extended to
including “making a better and happier life possible” through miraculous
healing. From this example we can
reasonably conclude that the expression “make alive” was readily understood as
including far more than just rescue from physical death.
From there it is but a modest step to Hosea
6:1: “Come, and let us return to the Lord; for He has torn, but He will
heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up.” The healing and recuperation we need, He will
be sure to provide.
[Page 262]
There are three additional elements that are of special interest to us. (1) The first is the expression “lawgiver.” In the narrowest sense this could refer to
Yahweh but since this epistle refers to Jesus as “Lord” it probably has Him in
mind (exclusively—or in addition), either as an authority figure in His own
right (Matthew 28:18-20) or as spokesman for God (John 16:13-15). Having an inherent shared supernatural nature
and speaking in full unity on all things, they are de facto “one
lawgiver.” The Old Testament speaks of
the God of Israel as exercising this law-giving prerogative (repeatedly in
Psalms 119, for example) as well as being “judge” over creation (Psalms 9:7-8;
Psalms 50:4-6; Psalms 58:11; etc.).
(2) Joining together the two elements of giving
law and enforcing it. James 4:12 links together the concepts of
“lawgiver” and “judge” and that is quite natural: who better to judge the meaning and intent of
law and whether it has been defied or observed than the person who wrote
it? (In constitutional law disputes, we
call this idea “original intent”.) As
the lawgiver, He is in the unique position of undoubtedly knowing exactly what
the law was given to cover and what is a violation of that law. Isaiah 33:22 also links the two concepts,
“For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He
will save us.”
[Page 263] (3) The judge’s ability to punish. The ability
to reward and penalize—as a judge does--are described in James
When admission of transgression finally comes from the guilty in the
Old Testament, it is usually only after they’ve been through the “meat grinder”
of Divine wrath and have been shaken to their senses. (Like by being sent into exile.) In normal times they take for granted Divine
assistance—they are Abraham’s descendants, aren’t they?—or believe that
God is somehow oblivious or unconcerned with their actions.
Could this be because there is part of us as mere mortals that cringes
at the thought of Divine fury and pushes it aside, preferring to act and think
as if only “good” can come from the God who has actually laid both
possibilities before us?
Of course, the hostile judgments
don’t have to remain negative.
“And in that day you will say: ‘O
Lord, I will praise You; though You were angry with me, Your anger is turned
away, and You comfort me’” (Isaiah 12:1).
“The Lord has taken away your judgments, He has cast out your
enemy. The King of
What makes the difference between wrath and forgiveness is repentance,
a change of priorities and behaviors.
Unfortunately, having to endure the consequences of our excess is often
the prerequisite for the truth to finally dawn upon us. Just as it was with them.
[Page 264]
On this final point James, in part, departs from the human parallel for
human justice—as outlined in the Old Testament it simply did not cover all the
things that God will judge for.
It only covered a relatively limited minority of sins. Ron McKenzie makes the point in this manner,[38]
Biblical law distinguishes between crime
and sin. Judges do not deal with all
sin. They are limited to dealing with crimes
According to the Old Testament, only a few
sins are also crimes. For example,
coveting is listed as a sin in the Ten Commandments (Ex
Theft is specified as a sin in the Ten
Commandments, but in this case the Bible also specifies a punishment. This means that theft is both a sin
and a crime (Exodus 22:1-4). Once a man
acts on his coveting and steals from his neighbour, judges have authority to
act against him. His actions are
visible, so witnesses can observe and testify against him. This provides judges with a basis for dealing
with theft.
Crimes are a small subset of all of
sins. They can be identified by
determining whether biblical law specifies a remedy or penalty. If a sanction is specified, the sin is the
crime. If there is no sanction, the sin
is not a crime.
[Page 265]
When God starts warning of how a judge is both able to save and
to punish that covers that frighteningly wide set of behaviors that human law
is incapable—by its very nature—of setting in punitive judgment upon. But Jehovah, is able to do so. By right because of creation. By obligation because He promised to
do it. By competency because He
can see the intertwining of motives and behaviors that no mortal can. He can competently judge what no human or
angel can even fully grasp.
The human judge who does not punish when guilt is established has
betrayed his responsibilities. That we
take for granted and the Old Testament is full of rebukes of biased justice and
omitted justice. But that is of the
limited spectrum of acts that fall under human jurisdiction. Do we really believe that God will abandon His
warnings of Divine justice and count everyone “innocent” when He vigorously
demanded that even human justice not neglect its responsibilities? Will God really demand more of human
justice than He does of Divine justice?
The image of perpetual prosperity is
referred to in Isaiah 56:12, not in the context of morally neutral business
dealing—as in James--but of clear-cut excess:
“ ‘Come,’ one says, ‘I will bring wine, and we will fill ourselves with
intoxicating drink; tomorrow will be as today, and much more abundant.’ ” “Tomorrow will be even better than today!”
(TEV)
[Page 266] This is often taken to mean that they will
be able to get drunk just as good tomorrow; indeed, even better. They are going to have a joyous two day
drunk. What more could they possibly ask
for? Unless one of them dies. Or the king discovers some chicanery of
theirs and interrupts their feast.
Even when one is confident that the excesses will “roll on and on,”
there is no absolute certainty of that.
Nor that one will be able to participate in the next anticipated get
together. Not to mention the more recent
disaster scenarios that modern technology makes possible—like finding an uncut
video of our drunken [orgy?] landing up on the internet where it may not look
so great in retrospect.
Sometimes prosperity is so
long-lasting the confidence that extravagant pleasure seeking will always be
available even seems justified. Psalms
10:5 speaks of those who “are always prospering” and how “he has said in his
heart, ‘I shall not be moved; I shall never be in adversity’ ” (verse
6). They have long going precedent
on their side.
In all candor we must admit that in a way this is a quite natural way
of thinking. Barring grievous external
crisis, we all work from the assumption that tomorrow will pretty much
duplicate today. And it does, of
course—until it doesn’t. Yet a grain of
caution should always be present since there is a profound difference between
“probability” and “certainty.” And what
the Lord will tolerate for the moment and finally have no more patience with.
[Page 267] Note that “he has said in
his heart,” not necessarily aloud.
(Even friends might laugh at such blind optimism—or be so drunk not to
notice he even said it.) This is his
inner frame of mind, the way he’s constructed reality. Since the present situation has brought him
prosperity and the opportunity for excess, surely there isn’t anything that
could possibly change it—is there? Neither the continued joys of the current
gathering nor the continued happiness after one returns home to one’s “everyday
life.”
Even the God-fearing can fall into
that trap of assuming permanent success.
The Psalmist speaks of how “in my prosperity I said, ‘I shall never be
moved” (Psalms 30:6). But he did (verse
7), causing him to seek God’s assistance (verses 8-10), which he was provided
(verses 11-12).
The two ideas of uncertainty about
the future (James
[Page 268] The same idea of brevity is
portrayed by a different image in Psalms 102:3.
In that text life is pictured like “smoke” that quickly vanishes. In Psalms 90:9, the shortness is depicted as
being as brief as a mere “sigh.”
Although this is true of the human race in general, it is a fact that
unrepentant sinners should especially keep in mind (Hosea 13:1-2): “Therefore they shall be
like the morning cloud and like the early dew that passes away, like chaff
blown off from a threshing floor and like smoke from a chimney” (13:13).
As we get older that is the way we look back on things. The Cuban Missile Crisis. I remember it vividly. (Being five miles from a prime nuclear target
in
Turning the brevity of life into an excuse
for sin. From God’s viewpoint, the brevity of human
life is also true. We appear—and then
vanish, while He’s been here literally forever.
As the Psalmist said, “For a thousand years in Your sight are like
yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night” (90:3). This does much to explain why God doesn’t
always act “now” to remedy injustice aimed at His people. To Him the time is little more than the
blinking of an eye. Yet act He
ultimately does, on His own time schedule and when, where, and how He has
determined it will do the most good.
(Some or none of which may agree with our own preferences.)
[Page 269] James’ emphasis on the
shortness of life is, in part, to encourage the cultivation of a proper
lifestyle since we do not know how long our life will be. The time for correction is all too
short.
Ironically, the deuterocanonical
Wisdom of Solomon 2:1-11 points out how the fact could be twisted into
an excuse to live a life of abuse of others since we do not have but so
much life in us! And then it will be all
gone: “But let our strength be our norm
of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets
himself against our doings, reproaches us for transgressions of the law and
charges us with violations of our training” (
Hence he strikes out at those who
are trying to walk the right way, “To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us, because his life is not like other
men's, and different are his ways. He
judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He
calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father” (
This illustrates how even the most
profound truth can be twisted into an excuse for the most evil behavior.
The
brevity of life in pagan thought. Polytheists were also aware of the
brevity of life though most no more wished to face up to it than we do. When Seneca did, he wrote about it this way,[39]
What am I to do? Death is on my
trail, and life is fleeting away; teach me something with which to face these
troubles.
[Page 270] Bring
it to pass that I shall cease trying to escape from death, and that life may
cease to escape from me. Give me courage to meet hardships; make me calm
in the face of the unavoidable. Relax the straitened limits of the time
which is allotted me. Show me that the good in life does not depend
upon life's length, but upon the use we make of it; also, that it is
possible, or rather usual, for a man who has lived long to have lived too
little.
Say to me when I lie down to sleep: "You may not wake again!" And when I have waked: "You may not go
to sleep again!" Say to me when I go forth from my house: "You may
not return!" And when I
return: "You may never go forth
again!"
You are mistaken if you think that only on
an ocean voyage there is a very slight space between life and death. No, the
distance between is just as narrow everywhere. It is not everywhere
that death shows himself so near at hand; yet everywhere he is as near
at hand. (Letter XLIX).
Or to use the Biblical phrase, life
is “like a vapor” that quickly dissipates.
Oddly enough Seneca also tells us of
a merchant--the subject of James’ own cautionary remarks, but James leaves the
actual economic status of his extremely vague.
(Beyond the fact that he can afford to undertake a year or longer
business journey.) In contrast, that of
Seneca already is well established and faces the question of what comes next. Though the quote is rather long, it is
especially useful in showing the awareness the ancients had of how quickly
death could sneak upon the unsuspecting,[40]
[Page 271]
Every day and every hour reveal to us what
a nothing we are, and remind us with some fresh evidence that we have forgotten
our weakness; then, as we plan for eternity, they compel us to look over our
shoulders at Death. Do you ask me what this preamble means?
It refers to Cornelius Senecio, a
distinguished and capable Roman knight, whom you knew: from humble beginnings
he had advanced himself to fortune. . . .
Senecio was already bordering upon wealth, helped in that direction by
two very powerful assets--knowing how to make money and how to keep it also;
either one of these gifts might have made him a rich man. Here was a
person who lived most simply, careful of health and wealth alike.
He had, as usual, called upon me early in
the morning, and had then spent the whole day, even up to nightfall, at the
bedside of a friend who was seriously and hopelessly ill. After a
comfortable dinner, he was suddenly seized with an acute attack of quinsy, and,
with the breath clogged tightly in his swollen throat, barely lived until
daybreak. So within a very few hours after the time when he had been
performing all the duties of a sound and healthy man, he passed away.
He who was venturing investments by land
and sea, who had also entered public life and left no type of business untried,
during the very realization of financial success and during the very onrush of
the money that flowed into his coffers, was snatched from the world!
. . . But how foolish it is to set out
one's life, when one is not even owner of the morrow! O what madness it
is to plot out far-reaching hopes! To say: “I will buy and build, loan and call in
money, win titles of honour, and then, old and full of years, I will surrender
myself to a life of ease.” Believe me
when I say that everything is doubtful, even for those who are prosperous.
[Page 272] . . .
We plan distant voyages and long-postponed home-comings after roaming over
foreign shores, we plan for military service and the slow rewards of hard
campaigns, we canvass for governorships and the promotions of one office after
another--and all the while death stands at our side; but since we never think
of it except as it affects our neighbour, instances of mortality press upon us
day by day, to remain in our minds only as long as they stir our wonder.
Yet what is more foolish than to wonder
that something which may happen every day has happened on any one day?
There is indeed a limit fixed for us, just where the remorseless law of Fate
has fixed it; but none of us knows how near he is to this limit.
Therefore, let us so order our minds as if we had come to the very end. . .
. One who daily puts the finishing touches to his life is never in want
of time.
He who has thus prepared himself, he whose
daily life has been a rounded whole, is easy in his mind; but those who live for
hope alone find that the immediate future always slips from their grasp. . . .
(Epistle CI).
[Page 273]
“If the Lord wills” recognizes the
contingency that without God’s approval—or at least tolerance—what we want to
obtain won’t get accomplished.
Antagonizing Him is the quickest step to assure that our hopes turn to
ashes. Perhaps the closest to this as a
general principle can be found in Number 14:8, “If the Lord delights in us,
then He will bring us into this land and give it to us, ‘a land which flows
with milk and honey.’ ”
Time and again in the prophets we read of the determination of people
and rulers to undertake one course or another--and the rebuke that God will
bring it all to nought. Psalms 33:10
sums up that theme in a few words, “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations
to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.” Or as the God’s Word translation renders it,
“The Lord blocks the plans of the nations. He frustrates the schemes of the
people of the world.”
On an individual basis, the reminder
is, “A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps” (Proverbs
16:9). Note the contrast between what an
individual intends to do with what the Lord will ultimately assure
happens.
In Psalms 127:1 the warning is
given, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it;
unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” What we mortals--in our enthusiasm, power,
and even arrogance--plan out to do may or may not come to fruition; God
reserves the power to abort our best laid endeavors. Indeed, God will even take the plans of our
enemies and use them to accomplish the Divine will (Isaiah 44:28)
[Page 274] The grim reality is that our
predictions of the future are at best only educated guesses and nothing
more. As the Proverbist said, “Do not
boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth.” It might be the brilliant success you’ve
worked so hard for. Or it might be your
death. If the latter, then your dreams
have disappeared as quickly as—if you are a smoker—the vapors that disappeared
from your cigarette last night.
Using a feminine image Isaiah,
speaks at length of those bragging that their self-centered pleasures are just
as inescapably coming in the future as in the past. To him, it is clearly arrogance of the same
brazen, delusional nature as that which James rebukes,
[Page 275]
Isaiah
47:7 And you said, 'I shall be a lady forever,' So that you did
not take these things to heart, nor remember the latter end of them. 8 Therefore hear this now, you who are given to
pleasures, who dwell securely, who say in your heart, 'I am, and there is no
one else besides me; I shall not sit as a widow, nor shall I know the loss of
children' [= everything will remain just as perfect as it is right now, RW].
9 But these two things shall come to
you in a moment, in one day: the loss of children, and widowhood. They shall come upon you in their fullness
because of the multitude of your sorceries, for the great abundance of your
enchantments. 10 For you have trusted
in your wickedness; you have said, 'No one sees me'; your wisdom and your
knowledge have warped you [“deluded you,” NASB]; and you have said in your
heart, 'I am, and there is no one else besides me' [= I am the only one who
matters since no one can do anything about it, RW] 11 Therefore evil shall come upon you;
you shall not know from where it arises.
And trouble shall fall upon you; you will not be able to put it
off. And desolation shall come upon you
suddenly, which you shall not know.
Nothing is guaranteed in the
future. Especially not the triumph of
the oppressor, as these folk were, over those who follow God’s will.
Going to the deuterocanonical work
of Wisdom we have a text specifically on bragging by the type of people under
discussion by James—merchants. In it,
they come to recognize their foolishness, but only too late, when they are
confronted by the triumph of the oppressed (bringing in James’ theme of
oppression by the rich in his immediately following verses, 5:1-6). It is a long reading, but well worth the time
because its sentiments are clearly very much those of James,
[Page 276]
1
Then shall the just one with great assurance confront his oppressors who
set at nought his labors. 2 Seeing this,
they shall be shaken with dreadful fear, and amazed at the unlooked-for
salvation. 3 They shall say among
themselves, rueful and groaning through anguish of spirit: “This is he whom once we held as a laughingstock
and as a type for mockery, 4 fools that
we were! His life we accounted madness,
and his death dishonored. 5 See
how he is accounted among the sons of God; how his lot is with the saints!
6 We, then, have strayed from the way of
truth, and the light of justice did not shine for us, and the sun did not rise
for us. 7 We had our fill of the ways of
mischief and of ruin; we journeyed through impassable deserts, but the
way of the Lord we knew not.
8 What did our pride avail us? What have wealth and its boastfulness
afforded us? 9 All of them passed like a
shadow and like a fleeting rumor; 10
like a ship traversing the heaving water, of which, when it has passed, no
trace can be found, no path of its keel in the waves.
11 Or like a bird flying through the air;
no evidence of its course is to be found--But the fluid air, lashed by the beat
of pinions, and cleft by the rushing force of speeding wings, is traversed: and
afterward no mark of passage can be found in it. 12 Or as, when an arrow has been shot at a
mark, the parted air straightway flows together again so that none discerns the
way it went through-- 13 Even so we,
once born, abruptly came to nought and held no sign of virtue to display, but
were consumed in our wickedness.”
[Page 277] 14
Yes, the hope of the wicked is like thistledown borne on the wind, and like fine,
tempest-driven foam; like smoke scattered by the wind, and like the passing
memory of the nomad camping for a single day.
15 But the just live forever, and in the Lord is their recompense, and
the thought of them is with the Most High.
16 Therefore shall they receive the splendid crown, the beauteous
diadem, from the hand of the Lord--For he shall shelter them with his right
hand, and protect them with his arm (New American Bible).
We have no idea of how much (if any)
acquaintance James had with the book of Wisdom, but it is clear that—on this
point at least—the two authors thought very, very much alike.
[Page 278] Ezekiel 20 is a good example
of the explicit correlation of how, in everyday life, sins of omission went
hand-in-hand with to sins of commission.
Verse 8 begins with the words “But they rebelled against Me and would
not obey Me.” In verse 16 it is
stressed that, “Because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My
statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their
idols.”
This did not mean that they did not have a set of standards to live by,
but that they were either incomplete or the wrong standards that led them to
omit the right ones. Because they omitted
loyalty to God and His law, they committed the sin of idolatry and
Sabbath desecration—surely intended as illustrations rather than a
complete list of the transgressions they had stumbled into by not having the
right set of priorities.
Sins of omission were wrong, but sins of substituting something else
were wrong as well. Leviticus
The most obvious example of the sin
of omission recorded in the Old Testament lay in the area of circumcision, the
initiatory action that symbolized one being cut off from the world at large and
becoming part of God’s people. Although
many readers of the chronicles of the Old Testament often do not grasp its
significance, Joshua 5:2-9 [Page 279] bluntly
admits that no one was circumcised during the entire decades of wilderness
wandering. In spite of the fact that it
was the basic initiatory rite into the Jewish people, it had been abandoned for
several decades.
It is intriguing that James goes
immediately from the sin of omission (
Historical Allusions to
the Old Testament:
None
[Page 280]
Notes
[1] Laws,
177.
[2] Leahy,
375. For some specific possibilities
where a different Greek reading of the Hebrew might yield something approaching
what is found in verse 5, see Davids, James:
A Commentary, 162.
[3] See
Adamson, Epistle of James, 171, who does not embrace the approach.
[4] Yoder,
1180.
[5] Morris,
87.
[6] Nystrom,
227.
[7] Burdick,
194.
[8]
Williams, 127.
[9]
Suggested as a second choice possibility by John Stevenson, “Quarrels and
Conflicts: Sources & Solutions –
James 4:1-12.” At: http://www.angelfire.com/nt/
theology/js4-01.html. [July 2012.]
[10] T.
Carson, 579.
[11] Woods,
214.
[12] Woods, 214.
[13] D. A. Carson, “James,” in Commentary on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Beale, G. K., and D. A.
Carson, editors (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2007), 1007.
[14] Steven
J. Cole. “Spiritual Adultery.”
[15] McCartney, 216, endorses a form of this
scenario.
[17] The
first of two possibilities by Stevenson, “Quarrels and Conflicts.”
[18] Mitton,
153.
[19] R. C.
H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the
Epistle of James (Columbus, Ohio:
Wartburg Press, 1946), 631.
[20] Leahy,
375.
[21] 1 QS
4:9ff (Qumran Rule of the Community) has been suggested as the source of the
allusion. See Adamson, Epistle of
James, 171, who does not embrace the theory.
[22] Cf.
Davids, James: A Commentary, 62.
[23] Batten, Friendship, goes so far as to call it
“an obvious reference.”
[24] Bratcher,
45, says the translation matches the LXX.
McCartney, 21, however, insists
that James “differ[s]” from the text as rendered by the Septuagint.
[25] William D. Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook
on Proverbs, in the United Bible Societies Handbook series (
[26] Barry
Bowen, Proverbs: An Exposition of the
Book of Proverbs (
[27] Daniel
J. Treierer, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes, in the “Brazos Theological
Commentary on the Bible”series (
[28]
Plumptre, 89. Cf. Songer, 127.
[29] Songer,
127.
[30] Nick
Nowalk, “Idolatry and Sexual Immorality (1):
Cause and Effect.” Posted
[31]
Clarence Bouwman, “Friendship with the World Is Enmity with God.” Sermon dated
[33]
Burdick, 196.
[34] Ibid. Cf. Songer, 129.
[35]
Burdick, 196.
[36] Hartin, James, 218. He also refers to Psalms 68:20 as an example
(“Our God is the God of salvation; and to God the Lord belong escapes from
death”) but this only mentions one of the two elements in James.
[37] Paul A.
Cedar, James, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, in the Communicator’s Commentary
series (Waco, Texas: Word Books,
Publisher, 1984), 87. This seems an
overstatement of the case.
[38]Ron
McKenzie, “Sin and Crime.” At: http://kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Govern ment/crime_and_punishment.htm. [June 2014.]
This article is well worth at least scanning through.
[39] Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, Moral Epistles,
translated by Richard M. Gummere (Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press, 1917), part of the
Loeb Classical Library series. Reprinted
on the internet as Seneca’s Epistles,
Volume 1. Part of the Stoic
Legacy to the Renaissance web site.
At: http://www.stoics.com/ seneca
_epistles_book_1.html. [January 2013.]
[40] Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, Moral Epistles,
translated by Richard M. Gummere (Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press, 1917), part of the
Loeb Classical Library series. Reprinted
on the internet as Seneca’s Epistles,
Volume 3. Part of the Stoic
Legacy to the Renaissance web site.
At: http://www.stoics.com/
seneca_epistles_book_3.html. [January
2013.]