From: A Torah
Commentary on James 3-5 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth,
Jr. © 2014
[Page 181]
Chapter 4A:
Overview: How the Themes are
Developed
Fifth Test of Our Faith:
Strife and Arrogance
(4:1-17)
[Page 182]
Conflicts Between Church Members Arise From
Unfulfilled Desires and Self-Centeredness
That Leave God Out of the Picture
(4:1-3)
ATP text: 1 What is the source of the “wars”
and conflicts that are
waged among you? Do they not originate in the various desires
that are
waging war within you? 2 You passionately desire and do
not obtain so you
virtually resort to murder to do so. You covet and cannot obtain so you fight
and act like you are in a military campaign
to gain your goal. Yet you do not
have because you do not bother to pray for
it. 3 Furthermore, even when
you
ask you do not receive, because you ask out
of the wrong intentions so that
you may spend it on your pleasures.
Development of
argument:
At this point we discover that James was
not merely concerned with how the poor were treated or human control of the
tongue. There was something envolved that went far beyond such a narrow
context. There was a rottenness in their
souls, a self-centeredness that made the abuse of the tongue quite
logical. And contempt for the poor as
well, for that matter: Of what possible
importance could they be compared to me?
[Page 183] This
had a “spill over” effect not just on individuals but upon the congregation in
general. His language in verse 1 makes
plain that their intra-church conflicts were sometimes so serious that they
amounted to little short of “wars” and “fights” (“conflicts,” ATP) among
themselves.
Think the divisiveness in 1 Corinthians but
without, apparently, being done in the interest of supporting factional leaders
or by them to egg it on. This sounds far
more like “every man for himself and against everyone else” who
might stand in the way.
Hence the problem springs not from external
encouragement but from internal desires for “pleasures” (“desires,” ATP, 4:1)
in their many forms (4:2). Facing
roadblocks to the fulfillment, they lash out to “fight and war” (4:2).
That there is no moral justification for
what they are doing is seen in the use of “murder” to describe these actions
(4:2). That word also suggests the utter
unscrupulousness of the “fighting” and “wars”—there seems nothing they are
unwilling to stoop to.
On a literal level, the “murder” is
hypothetical. Yet we still speak of
destroying, killing (i.e., “murdering”) a person’s influence or
reputation. What we would be horrified
at on a literal level, we are self-indulgent about on these “intangible”
levels. But the pain, the horror, the
anguish—the permanent psychological and spiritual damage can be just as
intense and lasting.
[Page 184] If you
have needlessly driven someone from the faith, aren’t you just as guilty of
murder as if you blew their brains out?
Indeed, perhaps the latter would have been more merciful.
Irony: In a very real way, after all the fussing and
fighting, they still aren’t satisfied.
They still haven’t obtained what they wanted. (Perhaps a hint that they have fundamentally
misjudged what they truly desired in the first place?) Since the path of chaos has proved itself a
failure, there is still another option available to them: pray and have God help them obtain their
wishes.
That possibility has occurred to some of
them, but not all. For James begins with
how they don’t bother to ask (4:2) but then notes that if and when they do
ask, it still does no good for all they seek is purely self-centered; they
simply wish to obtain whatever provides them their desired “pleasures”
(4:3). Even when they go to the right
place (God), they are still foredoomed to failure because of their
self-centeredness and selfishness.
The common translation here of “pleasures”
(plural or singular) is occasionally rendered “passions” (RSV), which also—to
us--conveys a clear-cut sexual overtone.
Hence it is common to put the most negative and sinful connotation on
the term: “James shows that while they
lust, and pursue their sinful craving, that desire becomes a frustrated
desire.”[1]
But the term is actually broad enough to
convey anything that would please us, whether sexual or not. Hence such occasional translation as “you
pray just for selfish reasons” (CEV) and
[Page 185] Indeed
these fit the context far better: they
have a major problem with teachers and their behavior (chapter 3) and they have
“wars and fights among you” (4:1).
Whether in regard to self-absorbed troublemakers in general or
ego-driven teachers in particular, the thrust is on those “pleasures” that are
self-centered and building up their personal sense of importance and influence.[2] Building up their wisdom is not in the
mix, probably because people like this assume they already have all the
wisdom they need. More might be nice,
but without it they won’t be missing much.
Such “pleasures” can include “position”
(secular or religious) that permits one to claim “superiority” over
others. It may even be nothing more than
purely social recognition, to be a recognized “leader,” with or without a
confirming title. But to do it—and to
keep others from sharing in the privilege—no behavior is off limits that might
accomplish the goal. “Wars and fights,”
pretty much does sum it up—concisely and to the point (4:2).
The self-centered aspect of these goals and
prayers should not be overlooked either:
“that you may spend it on your pleasures” (4:3). Not that long ago people spoke of the “me
generation.” Truth be told, is there any
generation that is not?
They were certainly manifesting that
mentality—“I must get what I want and because I want it
any and all means are fair to keep others from denying it to me.” Hence the “gloves” come off their behavior
and they do whatever they “have to do” to obtain their goals. Victims are mere collateral damage because the
almighty “I” must be reverently served.
[Page 186] If we
limit the goal to merely material things rather than including position and
recognition, the self-serving aspect is still singled out as unworthy and to be
condemned. Blomberg and Kamell suggest
that this provides a blunt condemnation of a popular contemporary theology,[3]
They are apparently asking for material
“things” so that they can spend their money and flaunt their possessions. James makes it clear that believers ought not
to be asking for selfish gain and that God does not honor those requests. How dramatically this verse contrasts with
the so-called “health and wealth” gospel!
The evil in James’ audience’s asking is evident, because “the
gift-giving God is being manipulated as a kind of vending machine precisely for
the purpose of self-gratification” (Johnson, The Letter of James,
278).
Implicit in James’
rebuke is the need for them to bring these desires / pleasures under control
and under restraint. They need to control
the desires rather than the desires control them. The book of 4 Maccabees, chapter 3, deals
with it explicitly in terms that James would likely have found quite congenial—your
reasoning and thinking abilities exist for the very reason to enable you
to do it!
[25]
In pleasure (utilizing the same Greek word in 4:1;[4]
“desires,” ATP) there exists even a malevolent tendency, which is the most
complex of all the emotions. [26] In the soul it is boastfulness,
covetousness, thirst for honor, rivalry, and malice; [27] in the body, indiscriminate eating, gluttony, and solitary
gormandizing.
[Page 187] [28]
Just as pleasure and pain are two plants growing from the body and the
soul, so there are many offshoots of these plants, [29] each of which the master cultivator, reason, weeds and prunes
and ties up and waters and thoroughly irrigates, and so tames the jungle of
habits and emotions.
[30]
For reason is the guide of the virtues, but over the emotions it is
sovereign. Observe now first of all that
rational judgment is sovereign over the emotions by virtue of the restraining
power of self-control. [31] Self-control, then, is dominance
over the desires. [32] Some desires are mental, others
are physical, and reason obviously rules over both (Revised Standard Version).
Or should.
Note how James’ rebuke in this section seems
structured to cover both possibilities that can occur: the person who thinks they are so entitled to
something that they don’t even bother to pray (verse 2). It is—or should be—there’s by right. Everyone should recognize it without being
told. Why then pray? (Or if you wish a kinder interpretation: Why bother God with it?)
Then there are those
who believe that since it should be there’s, who better to go to--to
seek it from--than God Himself? Fellow
mortals might not understand for reasons good or bad, but surely He will
readily grasp the situation!
James’ response to
both mentalities is that they’ve elevated the criteria of getting what they
wish from what they need and is best for them to getting what
will make them feel emotionally satisfied with having their individual “pleasures”
(good, bad, or neutral) sated. The fact
that they’ve ignored every other criteria and acted as if they are the center
of the entire universe hasn’t phased them in the least. At least not yet.
[Page 188]
These Misplaced Priorities Are a Form of
World-Centeredness that Makes God our Enemy.
Yet They Can Still Be Overcome.
(4:4-6)
ATP text: 4 You are like spouses unfaithful
to their mate! Do you not
know that friendship with the world shows
you are hostile toward God?
Therefore whoever desires to be a friend of
the world turns God into an
enemy.
5 Do you think that the Scripture speaks empty words when it
says,
"God passionately cares about the
spirit which He has made to dwell in us"?
6 Since He gives strong abundant
favor, He reminds us, "God opposes
everyone who is arrogant, but gives His
generous support to the humble."
[Page 189]
Development of
argument:
Some suggest we should interpret the
beginning of verse 4 as the powerful conclusion for what had been said in the
previous verse, “You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you
may spend it on your pleasures.
Adulterers and adulteresses!”
Luke T. Johnson argues the case this way,[5]
Is the Greek word adequately translated by
“wrongly”? Better would be
“wickedly.” Why is this important? For one thing, the term “wrongly” could be
taken to mean that they did not follow the right method of prayer, whereas it
is really a question of praying wickedly, in a perverted way. How is this?
They are trying to use God as one more means of gratifying their
desires: “[You ask] to spend it on your
passions.” They see God as part of a
closed system with themselves. This is,
of course, the attitude characteristic of idolatry: to regard God solely as the fulfiller of our
desires.
In this case the desires are what we
want regardless of whether it is compatible with what God wants
and His moral standards.
[Page 190] Interpreted
either “backwards” (in connection with verse 3) or “forward” (in light of what
comes next in verse 4), in either case the language of sexual betrayal carries
the image of believers being pictured as if married to God and the
“world” as the other party in the adultery.
This is surely building on Jesus’ assertion about the eternal gap
between God and the things of this world, “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” (Matthew
The “adultery” being described here is not
sexual—at least that is a very distant secondary concern at best—since the text
immediately goes on to tell us why he utilizes that description, “Do you
not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God.” Its not that you’ve “crawled in bed with” a
human lover; it’s that you’ve embraced yourself passionately and with full
interest in whatever the current world offers.
Which covers a whole lot more than the mere sexual.
“Spiritual adultery,”[6] would
be the expression most would likely favor, though one may wonder if even the
word “spiritual” is broad enough to encompass the degree of enmeshing intended. Most strictly, the term “spiritual” might
seem to more naturally refer to just “spiritual” alternatives to Jehovah, such
as the pagan gods in the Old Testament. What the ancient Israelites did with the rival
gods, Christians were doing with the world and everything within it. Something far broader since there is no hint
that they were falling back into the older errors of polytheism.
Conversion is based upon the assumption
that we’ve made a drastic break with the past and entered into a new and
exclusive relationship. We’ve divorced
the world and, so to speak, married the Lord.
I liked the way this preacher described it,[7]
[Page 191]
Take
your pick: Are you married to God or to the world? Can you
imagine a couple that gets married, and a
month later the husband tells his
wife, “I’m going out tonight with my old
girlfriend”? “I love you, but I want
to keep in touch with her, too!” Needless to say, that marriage is in big
trouble! When you get married, you vow to forsake all
others and be
devoted exclusively to your spouse.
In
the same way, when you come to Christ as Savior and Lord, you
say goodbye to the world. It used to be your companion and [closest]
friend.
You spent many hours running with it. But you can’t bring it into your
marriage to Jesus Christ. He brooks no rivals. You are either [closest]
friends with the world and an enemy of God,
or friends with God and an
enemy of the world.
Neither James here nor Jesus in Matthew
The problem arises when these become so
much the center of attention that any price will be paid—in the sacrifice of
our core moral principles and in lies and deceit toward others. The things of this world become our
highest priority and even our religion is lucky to run second best. They cease being the blessings of this
life and become the reason for this life.
[Page 192]
Perhaps more challenging is that the people of this world become
our highest priority rather than the things
of this world since they are the ones that facilitate obtaining the latter. After all, it is normally through them that
the physical niceties of life are obtained:
People who can recommend us for the best jobs, individuals whose
friendship brings us higher status in our positions and communities. On the other side of the coin, individuals
who expect that we will speak well of them, boost their reputation, and do
whatever they stand in need of when the occasion arises.
At its best, it is a wonderful relationship
to have. At its most abusive—by us or
them or both—it becomes a moral corrosive that eats away our
integrity. Religion, principle,
honesty—virtually anything can be bent to preserve it and develop it further.
It is not merely a one way occasional
relationship; it is developed as an ongoing one. This becomes
the kind of “friendship with the world [that is] enmity with God”
(4:4b). This is not mere “casual”
friendship; this is bonded-to-one-another friendship. Friendship of the closest and most intimate
nature.
And “friendship” had exactly that kind
of connotation in Greco-Roman society. Laelius’ friendship with Scipo was described
by
[Page 193] Of
course James is dealing with the flip-side of this—where friendship has not
been an elevator of the individual but a denigrator. Since there is so much evil in the world and
so much evil is accepted, embraced, and endorsed by the world, the kind
of close intimacy that results—when accepted and desired as our primary goal
(as James assumes) inevitably has a destructive impact on Christian
spirituality. As Luke T. Johnson
explains the Greco-Roman concept of the closeness of friendship,[10]
The word “friend” was not used lightly in
these circles, nor was friendship considered simply a casual affection. On the contrary, it was regarded as a
particular intense and inclusive kind of intimacy, not only as the physical
level but, above all, at the spiritual.
Already in the Orestes friends are called “one soul” and
Aristotle quotes this among other proverbial expressions of the sort by means
of which the Greeks typically expressed their deepest perceptions. To be “one soul” with another meant, at
the least, to share the same attitudes and values and perceptions, to see
things the same way. Indeed, the
friend was, in another phrase frequently repeated, “another self.” Still another proverb had it that “friends
hold all things in common.” ”
In such cases it was vital to remember that
Scripture provides a warning about the spirit and jealousy (4:5). (The divine spirit or the human? See the Old Testament precedents and Problem
Texts chapters.)
[Page 194] Philip
W. Comfort notes that the two alternative Greek readings are “The spirit which
He caused to dwell in us” (i.e., the language of the purpose being
given) while the alternative is the more restricted “the Spirit which dwells in
us”—which only conveys a fact rather than giving us the reason behind
the fact as does the Greek text more normally accepted.[11] He argues, however, that the two have “nearly
the same meaning.”[12] To this commentator there seems a clear-cut
and major difference, however, between expressing a fact and providing an explanation
for it.
Assuming that the “purpose” language is
genuine—rather than that it expressing the “mere” fact that the spirit is in us
that is under discussion--then, “This could mean that God placed His Spirit
within the believers He wanted it to protect them from straying in their love
for him (God).”[13]
The reaction of many
to such a rebuke would still be, “I just have to.” It’s where acceptance and success lie. It is where those who can advance my
interests are and if I don’t embrace their world interests, it will lower my
own acceptance among those whose approval is absolutely essential. Hence, again, “I have to”—but in different
words.
To be blunt, however, in life there is only
one thing we ever have to do and that is die. Everything else is what we want to do
or permit ourselves to do or time and circumstance impose upon us. And yes, it’s a lousy fact of life that
things have to work out this way, but life is always full of decisions to make
and some have to be made out of “outdated” principles such as personal honor
and integrity. And might we throw in as
well, a love of God?
James assaults the
denial that one can ever change for the better by insisting that grace is not
static: God can give “more
grace;” in this context surely the strength to handle the pressures steering us
in the wrong direction. Another way of
expressing the [Page 195] Pauline
thought given to the Corinthians who might give in to similar pessimism, “No
temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is
faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but
with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to
bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).
The truth is that our
own underlying arrogance and conceit is getting in our way of both accomplishing
what we wish and to admitting that we have given up far too much scruple and
principle seeking success at, literally, any cost: Quoting the Old Testament, “God resists the
proud, but gives grace to the humble” (4:6).
But He sure won’t be pouring it out on those to whom the only thing is
victory and to whom personal honor is a detachable virtue that we can hang in
our closet till its time to get dressed for church on Sunday.
To Overcome These Failures
Requires Resisting Those Allures
and Admitting Our Guilt to God
So That He Will Forgive Us
(4:7-10)
[Page 196]
ATP text: 7 The conclusion then is to submit
to God. Furthermore
you must battle against the devil and he
will flee the fight against you. 8
Draw near to God and He will come near to
you. Clean up your behavior,
you who violate God’s will; purify your
hearts, you who are of two minds as
to what to do. 9 Lament your behavior and grieve and cry in sorrow over
it!
Let your laughter be turned into grief and
your jubilation into gloom. 10
Humble yourselves in the presence of the
Lord and He will lift you up back
into acceptance.
Development of
argument:
It may sound odd to
speak of a Christian being able to defeat Satan. He’s like a heavyweight champion while we, at
our best, seem like mere lightweight amateurs.
S. Michael Houdmann asks the obvious question that follows that
recognition, “Why will resistance cause the devil to flee? Because he knows he cannot have victory over
us if we are prepared to do battle against him.”[14] Our strength alone won’t do it; but God’s
strength working through and with us can.
[Page 197] Houdmann
explains why we can have that certainty by invoking Paul’s instruction to put
on the whole armor of God (Ephesians
James clearly
does not have that degree of confidence in his readers. Hence he provides them the needed rebuke so they
can get to the point of being able to wear and use that armor. He does this in this four verse
section (4:7-10), by painting a verbal picture of the repentance that is
essential, though without actually utilizing the word. This repentance involves three aspects. First is
committing ourselves wholeheartedly to God.
(1) Obeying him: “submit to” (4:7). “Place yourself under” (GW). In the Biblical scheme of things we aren’t
self-directed; God is in charge. His
standards and what He has revealed. We
are the implementers of that will and not its writers.
An interviewer on television in December
2012 actually told a prominent preacher that “you need to amend the
Bible”—because it didn’t agree with dominant society’s present stance on a
certain matter. Will a person with that
kind of mind frame ever obey God? Highly
unlikely, isn’t it? Until we recognize
that there is a Higher Power than us and that it is recklessness to needlessly
offend Him, it isn’t likely to happen.
[Page 198]
The Bible is full of the recognition that
in varied areas of life, submission to others is essential,[15]
You can go to seminars on how to be more
assertive, but I’ve yet to see a seminar on how to learn to submit! It’s not a popular concept, but it is a
biblical one. The word means “to put yourself in rank under” someone, implying
a hierarchy of authority. It is used of
the obligation to submit to government authorities (Romans 13:1, 5; 1 Peter
The mythology that a degree of hierarchy is
not required in the world is one that personal pride and political
ideology argues vehemently in favor of.
Without a reasonable degree of it, militaries collapse in defeat. Governments crumble due to inbuilt,
uncorrected and uncorrectable incompetence.
And relationships are destroyed because we are so self-centered that we
refuse to recognize the fact that we are not the center of everything—that
there are times that autonomy needs to, at least partially, be surrendered.
And if that is ever the case, surely it has
to be in the case of the Creator of our race and our planet.
[Page 199] But
note how the admonition is made: “submit to.”
It is presented as a voluntary act. No one has the proverbial “gun to your
head.” You are doing it because you
realize—finally?—that it is the right thing to do.
The prodigal in Jesus’ story had to suffer
the bitter fruit of his misjudgment, but in the end—if there was to be a return
to his father at all—he had to make the decision. God deals with us in a similar manner. He may even send us through the “school of
hard knocks,” but even then it remains our decision whether to learn our lesson
and start to change.
(2) “Draw near to
God” (4:8). “Come near to” (NIV);
“come close to” (GW, ISV). The
implication here is that our living independent of the Lord has driven us
further and further apart. Curing this
requires action on our part—the “draw(ing) near.” God’s willingness to be reconciled is already
guaranteed (“He will draw near to you,” 4:8). But since we created the rupture, it is up to
us to do our part and take advantage of His generosity.
For illustration,
think of the prodigal son. It took a lot
of disaster before he finally “came to himself” and vowed to return to the
Father he had rejected (Luke
He was insane, so to speak, and tragedy
broke him through to reality. Or (far
more likely the intent) he had acted stupidly and unwisely and wisdom was
finally penetrating the proverbial “thick skull.” He could now see what was wise, while
previously he had been blind to it.
Either way, initiative was required by the person who caused the problem—in
order to right the situation.
[Page 200] The concept
of “drawing near” is easy enough. But how
do we accomplish it? Obviously it
involves actions—our actions.
It means becoming God-conscious in all aspects of our life. “Drawing near to God is spending time with
Him, worshiping Him, praying and talking to Him, inviting Him into every aspect
of our lives.”[16]
This envolves honesty with ourselves rather
than whitewashing what may well already be obvious to others. “I learned a long time ago that I am not
going to get very far with God by playing spiritual games. God doesn't play games! I soon discovered that the only people
playing the game were me, myself, and I.”[17] Self-deception will block reconciliation;
only honesty and candor will make it possible.
The results affect our attitude and
behavior both. These alterations might
vary according to the individual person, their age, their status in life, and
the many other factors that make us unique individuals. As to James’ audience in particular, he
spells out that two of them envolved, for example, controlling of what they
said and helping the needy among them.[18] Being concerned about both rather than being
oblivious to the difficulties their actions and omissions had created. The need for a fundamental change in attitude
to accompany such changes is also elaborated on further in this verse (see
below).
[Page 201] (3) “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord”
(
The second aspect of repentance is embracing the good and opposing
the evil: changing both what we think and what we do.
We have to acknowledge that evil is
evil. Without that we are merely claiming
to be on God’s side but are avoiding doing anything that might demonstrate in
word or behavior that we are actually opposed to evil. We are willing to go through the outward forms
that are demanded: Prayer,
certainly. Public decorum instead of
crass disrespect for good.
A studious neutrality if you will. But in war, ultimately, there are no
neutrals! Hence the two aspects that
must go together of obeying God (“submit to”) and opposing the devil
(“resist:” “battle against,” ATP; “make
war on,” BBE; “withstand,”
The image here is one of battle and the devil
recognizes himself as loser for “he will flee from you” (4:7) because now God
and His superior power is being brought to bear on your behalf. Before you fought alone; now you have the
Ultimate Power on your side!
In 4:8 the transformation in the individual
is expressed as involving,
[Page 202]
(1) A change of
behavior: “Cleanse your hands:” “Wash your hands” (NIV); “clean up your lives
(GW). Symbolic of outward behavior for
we use our hands to do things. The
imagery of “cleanse” implies that those hands are dirty—not from the taint of
hard work but from the taint of sin.
This kind of cleansing, soap will never cure; only God.
Note once again the
emphasis on the individual making his own decision. However desirable your change would be, He is
not going to turn you into a robot.
Since you have the freedom to act “programmed” into you, you have
to make that decision of what to do. God
will tell you through the Scriptures what the decision should be, but to
preserve your independence, He leaves it totally in your hands whether to act
upon it.
(2) A change of inner
attitude and priorities: “Purify your hearts:” “make your hearts pure” (
Hence to produce the
outward actions that are necessary, the inner “heart” has to be purged of its
slavery to sin as well. Behavior can
subvert the purity of the heart, but the subversion of the heart can likewise
ultimately change, for worse, the outward conduct as well. Indeed, the inward desire normally comes
before the outward misconduct for what makes us most receptive to a
temptation is that part of us that finds it—well, rather appealing.
[Page 203] In Old Testament days both
“cleansing” and “purifying” were required in a ceremonial sense to be prepared
for various religious rituals. Here
James applies the language in a moral reformatory sense for it fits so perfectly
what he is driving at.[19]
Upon occasion the Old Testament uses this
language in a similar moral sense, however, “3 Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who may stand in His holy place? 4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not
lifted up his soul to an idol, nor sworn deceitfully. 5 He shall receive blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation” (Psalm 24).
The obvious parallelism in 4:8 between
“cleanse your hands” and “purify your hearts” should be noted as a further
indication of the vital interlocking of behavior and impetus. If one’s inner motivational standards of
right and wrong are skewed, then one’s behavior is going to be affected. Only when the right standards are being acted
upon, will that behavior measure up to the ideal.
Also note the parallelism in the verse
between “sinners” and “double-minded.”
This may seem an odder combination at first, but if one’s standards are
dual—seeking two different and significantly inconsistent goals—how can one’s
actual behavior avoid crossing the line into actions that are also
inconsistent? And since some of those
goals are presented as inherently sinful, how can it avoid pushing an
individual into transgression and into becoming an open and obvious “sinner”?
[Page 204] (3) Eliminate one’s “double-minded(ness)”: “you doubters” (GW); “you who are
half-hearted towards God” (
Yet the principle is
true of other areas of life as well. One
can not serve both God and woman chasing as the highest purpose of life. One can not serve both God and being elected
to office as the highest rationale of life.
One can not serve both God and being popular as the highest accomplishment
of life.
None of these
alternatives is likely to be verbalized as our ultimate goal, but from
the time and effort put into them, they often are such. This creates a person who is “double-minded,”
trying to fulfill two contradictory purposes at the same time. One or the other ultimately has to take
second priority.
At its most extreme it
becomes a matter of being virtually two separate identities, two different
people—living two dramatically different lives at the same time . . . yet within the same body. A kind of moral schizophrenia. It is no longer focused on some one
particular strength or weakness but infects virtually all areas of life. One preacher describes one form this can
take,[20]
Sometimes you think this double minded man
is all for the Lord, and then you conclude he is all for the world. He may talk nicely in Bible Class on Sunday
morning, but he talks as nicely around the bar or perhaps the x rated movie
house the rest of the week. He may even
teach a Bible Class, but on Monday he can just [Page 205] as easily gather around the crew at work and
tell or listen to obscene stories. He
thinks the church good and ok, and perhaps even online pornography. He can show a very pious face when with
Christians, but his week day associates would never suspect that he was a
Christian. He may say grace at the table
at home, but then swear at the shop.
Either in its more
limited form or in its more comprehensive one, it leaves the person torn
between two worlds. And never being
willing to decide which is preferred.
Unless he or she is willing to heed James’ admonition.
The third aspect of repentance that is mentioned is feeling
and expressing guilt: “Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and
your joy to gloom” (4:9).
“Lament:” “Grieve” (NET, NIV) “be wretched” (ESV); “be
miserable”
(Holman,
GW, ISV, NASB); “afflict yourselves” (
“Weep:” “Weep aloud” (
“Mourning:” “grief” (
“Joy to gloom:” “joy to sorrow” (Holman); “joy into despair”
(NET);
“gladness
into shame” (
[Page 206] Normally
we cry and mourn because something bad has happened to us—a personal health
disaster, a death of someone we love, an unexpected firing that has gutted our
ability to pay our bills.
In this case, the
sorrow is produced by our candid self-evaluation compelling us to admit how far
we have fallen beneath the Divine standard.
Having, theoretically, committed ourselves to God, we discover that we
are frighteningly far from measuring up to that standard in our daily
lives. To use a drinking analogy, “we
have sobered up.”
And the natural
result of our self-inflicted failure is humiliation as expressed inwardly
and outwardly. We have “made fools of
ourselves” and the delusion of acceptability is gone. Would any other reaction possibly be
appropriate? We “weep” at our madness
and “mourn” at our blindness.
This, of course, is in
contrast to the gloating pride that we had been taking in our “successes” that
involved taking advantage of others—morally, financially, or in any other
way. We came off happy and satisfied;
they went away abused and misused. Perhaps,
in some way, the opportunity will occur to at least partially right the wrong
we previously did? For some (many? most?)
earthly situations there is no practical way to remedy the past, but one
can always feel guilt and the obligation never to repeat our folly
again.
To avoid
misunderstandings: James is not
advocating depression and grief merely because we “should” have it. An act to go through because it is—well, commanded. Instead, he is advocating it because there
was a profound reason for it: If
one’s basic relationship to God has been seriously compromised and on shaky
ground, what other appropriate reaction would there be? What other could there be?
[Page 207] Just
as one would look ludicrous mourning during the time of rejoicing at a wedding
feast (Matthew
Indeed the final two sections of the verse,
in part, may use the words they do—“Let your laughter be turned to
mourning and your joy to
gloom”—because what brings “laughter” and “joy” to us may be coming from the
very evils we need to shun. A few of
the many ways this can be true are suggested by Paul Shirley,[21]
The question that we must ask
ourselves is what are we laughing
about and what brings us joy? Is our laughter at the expense of other
people?
Does our laughter come from inappropriate things that we see on
TV or in movies? Where does your joy come from? Does it come from the
pursuit of your earthly desires like the
adulteresses we read about [in verse
4]? . . .
The truth of the matter is that all
people will eventually mourn over
their sin.
If you have not already done so, trust me, you will. You can keep
putting it off until it is too late. And mourn over your sin in eternal
judgment.
Or, you can mourn now, repenting of your sin and the Lord will
give you grace.
[Page 208]
Hence the reason why
James had to include his rebuke: Its
presence would make absolutely no sense if he believed there would never be
answerability for our moral lapses and that grievous consequences would never
flow from them being uncorrected. Since
these don’t always occur in the present life, his teaching carries the unspoken
“freight” of an ultimate time of Judgement beyond any that may occur in our own
lifetime.
We may mourn now and have “joy in
the morning” or we may ignore reality and have the tears in the morning of the
resurrection. God made us free to
choose. And with that freedom comes
answerability for how we use it.
The result of this change in mind and behavior is that God
accepts us back. “Humble
yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (
It’s a matter of
taking it one step at a time. “Sow an
act, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a
destiny.”[22] But that is in regard to what humility
ultimately leads into in the next life.
In the current
life, all of our repentance and humility may come too late to change our
personal earthly consequences of disease, loss of respect from others,
justified retribution and punishment.
Having shot the “boat of life” full of holes, God hasn’t promised to
remove those earthly consequences of our actions. Yet even there, there may yet be grounds for
hope.
[Page 209]
1 Now it came to pass, when Rehoboam
had established the kingdom
and had strengthened himself, that he forsook
the law of the Lord, and all
that
Shishak king of
transgressed against the Lord.
5 Then
Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and the leaders of
Judah, who were gathered together in
Jerusalem because of Shishak, and
said to them, “Thus says the Lord: ‘You have forsaken Me, and therefore I
also have left you in the hand of Shishak.’
” 6 So
the leaders of
king humbled themselves; and they said,
“The Lord is
righteous.” [Note that
they are
not even going to make the pretense that they had done the right thing
previously. They knew better. Just like the penitent in James 4.]
7
Now when the Lord saw that they humbled
themselves, the word of
the Lord came
to Shemaiah, saying, “They have humbled themselves;
therefore
I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance. My
wrath shall not be poured out on
Nevertheless they will be his servants,
that they may distinguish My service
from the service of the kingdoms of the
nations.” 12 When
he humbled
himself, the wrath of the Lord turned from him, so as not to destroy him
completely; and things also went well
in
[Page 210]
They endured pain and injury, but nowhere
near as much as it could have been. So,
paradoxically, even in God’s retribution they had something to be thankful for.
A Manifestation of Such Strife and Arrogance:
Needless Condemnatory Judgments
Upon Our Co-Religionists
(4:11-12)
ATP text: 11 Do not speak reputation
destroying unjustified things of
each other, comrades. The one who speaks evil of a comrade and
unjustly
judges spiritual kin, speaks evil of law
and gives a condemnatory judgment
against the law itself. If you sit in judgment on law, you are no longer
an
obeyer of law but claim to be a judge
superior to it. 12 There is
only
one real Lawgiver and Judge, One who is
able to both save and to destroy.
Who then are you to act as judge against
another?
[Page 211]
Development of
argument:
James now rebukes the individual who makes
unfair and unjust accusations against his or her coreligionists (
Although these remarks are a continuation
of those in chapter 3, which began with teachers specifically in mind (3:1), James’
language throughout has been broad enough to encompass both them and
everyone else. Since the kind of
faults discussed are never limited in the “real world” to teachers alone, it
seems certain that he wanted all church members to pay attention to his
admonitions and recognize the potential personal application. Does any student of the text really
believe that James was going to “let off the hook” other members when
they were doing the exact same thing?
The ATP renders “speak
evil of one another” as “speak reputation destroying unjustified things
of each other.” The reason is to make
explicit the implicit claim that the “evil” is imaginary or blown drastically
out of proportion to the real situation.
In short, unjustified. Not
something right and deserving to be said because they are really guilty. (Like the evils Paul points out in the
Corinthian church.)
[Page 212] If
things were otherwise then we would be in the right and they in the wrong for
their sin. Any transgression on our part
would relate to motive and behavior in the criticism and not, as here, in the
mere fact of criticism.
The NIV has the same
thought as the ATP: “do not slander one
another,” an approach favored by the GW, which speaks of “stop slandering each
other.” Indeed, this is the meaning of
the Greek term utilized[23] and
we have simply chosen to stress what slander is: destructive, reputation destroying,
falsehoods.
Some commentators who admit that it can
have this connotation, insist that the term could have a less biting edge as
well—“speaking carelessly, foolishly, or the like.”[24] In a context of spiritual “wars and fights”
(4:1) and of excessive pride (
It should be
remembered that one can slander and gut reputations through unverified stories
and not just through tales invented out of whole cloth. If you are going to repeat a story you should
think long and hard about whether you understood things rightly and
whether the earlier source did as well.
If not, you have better have a whole bunch
of caveats to hedge what you say. The
fact that you are sincerely trying push the matter “for the good of the
congregation” doesn’t change facts one iota:[25] if you don’t have the facts right, your good
intentions will not compensate for it.
The Marxists had the telling phrase “useful
idiots” for individuals blind enough to readily swallow their most twisted
misrepresentations and thereby further their agenda. We should never allow ourselves to blindly
embrace tales that others are pushing for their own biased agenda either.
[Page 213]
The point of “law” is
to set standards and condemn us if we violate them—it lays down the rules and
regulations. When we substitute our own
independent critique, then we are condemning the law for we are treating it
as if inadequate to fulfill its purpose (
Judges in all ages are supposed to follow
the law but inherent in their position is the power to arrogate to themselves,
effectively, a superiority to it.
Political cynics today call this “judge made law”—with considerable or
total justice since gymnastics are played with the actual language to make sure
it condemns or allows just what they want it to. Original intent or responsible exegesis need
not apply. We have “evolved” in our
understanding of what is truly desirable and the text must be made to “evolve”
with it. That way the law now
demands what would once have been considered impossible to attribute to it. And we have the judge(s) decision(s) to prove
it!
Doing this with human
law, we are manipulating a manmade concoction.
Indeed, our manipulations may actually sometimes result in an improvement since the writers of that human
law were also mere mortals.
But when we are dealing with Divine
law, we are dealing with the one, unique Lawgiver (
[Page 214] If we
think we can finesse it to create a more perfect understanding of what scripture
“really” means, we should proceed with the greatest caution. There is a fine line between exegesis and
imagination, between necessary inference and fanciful invention. The further we get from a clear-cut violation
of explicit teaching or principle, the greater carefulness that should be
exercised.
Hence the arrogance,
the pure arrogance when we act like we can rewrite the scriptural rules for
other people—either to permit or
prohibit--when we don’t even have the
right to rewrite them for ourselves. A
reality demonstrated in the previous section in the discussion of how one who
wanders from the Divine will needed to set his or her personal world right and
return to serving the Lord they claim to reverence and obey.
Our negative and unjustified judging can
take two forms. In one version it is
all a pretext; it is merely a tool to “get” someone and damage them. They are in the wrong so anything they
do can and will be “spun” in a direction to make them look even worse. Since James seems to have outright slander in
mind that is what is at the forefront of his attention: not just verbal “barbs” but verbal “knives”
intended to do serious harm.
What others cannot see—but God can—are the
psychological motives for our behavior that we may even be hiding from
ourselves. The hidden arrogance behind
it has us acting like we can better and more authoritatively read what is their
true intentions and motives than we can sometimes read our own! Cathy Deddo discusses one form of this type
of character assault,[26]
[Page 215]
The kind of judging James has in mind here
is when we speak a "final" word about another's character, behavior,
or value. We may be dismissing them as a
"hopeless case." When we make
statements like "he'll never..." or "she always..." then we
are in danger of pronouncing judgement.
It seems to me that often our jealousy of others can lead us to this
place of speaking evil against them. We
want to put them down, to get back at them somehow because they seem so much
happier or better off than we think we are and we are angry and upset. It makes us feel superior to someone else
when we speak as if we know who he or she is and their "real"
problem.
. . . It is funny to me when I stop and
think about it--how ridiculous it is that I think I know all of what is going
on in someone else's life and that I can analyze them and explain away their
behavior. The truth is that I don't even
know all of who I am and what makes me behave as I do. I can't even be the judge of myself and I am
placing myself in God's shoes when I berate [others] as a hopeless case.
How great that God alone knows us and can
discern the truth about us. And if He
still has hope about me or someone else, who am I to be hopeless? If God has not yet pronounced the final word,
who am I to do so? . . . When we are tempted to speak evil against others or
ourselves, we can hand those thoughts over to God, realizing that He alone
knows "the whole truth" and can be confident that He will handle all
things according to His good and gracious character.
[Page 216]
The other form of unjustified judging is unmentioned,
but should not be forgotten, however: matters
that may be unwise, but not necessarily sinful. We need to provide “breathing room” between
considering something bad judgment that could lead to sin . . . and
something that is unquestionably sinful.
Not to mention when, where, and how we make
our criticism even when it is fully justified.
“Going volcanic” immediately—will it be likely to convince them or
merely send them into an immediate rage?
For that matter are there many situations in which it would ever
be justified to become that angry?
One preacher provides this example, “I know
of another case in
But even in that case, was that really the place
to be having a hissy fit—even if one was right?
(And seeing so much of what passes for dancing today it wouldn’t
particularly surprise me if it did fall into the category of
lasciviousness!)
Would it not have been far wiser to raise
the matter in a less explosive context?
Both sides might well still get upset, but when one undertakes
correction under conditions that guarantee the most unreceptive
response, we can only make the situation that much worse.
[Page 217]
A Second Manifestation of Such
Conflict and Overconfidence:
Absolute Certainty
of Our Inevitable Economic Success
(4:13-17)
ATP text: 13 Listen now, you who say, “Today
or tomorrow we will go
to such and such a city and spend a year
there--to do business and turn a
profit.”
14 You do not know what will happen tomorrow! How certain is
your life?
It is like a mist that appears for a short while and then
disappears.
15 Instead of blind confidence,
the proper course would be to say, “If the
Lord thinks it best, we will survive and
carry out this or that plan.” 16
Instead you manifest your arrogance by
boasting. All such bragging is
evil.
17 Therefore, whoever knows what is the right
thing to do but fails to do it,
has committed sin.
[Page 218]
Development of
argument:
The rest of the chapter seems to
dramatically change direction (
delusion that the success of the endeavor is inevitable.
They might encounter
serious safety problems in their foreign travels—they were foreigners after
all and in a tense and uncertain situation guess who is going to get the blame
for unexpected local problems? For that
matter things might go awry and they might not even make a profit.[28] The places they are going to might be going
through a bad period economically and the money simply isn’t there. Or . . . they could be lucky to break
even. Weather might turn foul and a ship
they are on goes down—along with their goods.
(Think the shipwreck of Paul on
But let us give them
the benefit of the doubt. They are going
into regions they are well known and the economy is going well there. But, even so, are they as sure of the future
as they think they are?
James zeroes in on only one of the things
that might abort even the most reasonable plans: unexpected death (
Let us briefly look at each of these
strains of thoughts:
[Page 219] (1) Unexpected death. Death is inevitable. At some level of ourselves we all recognize
that as a reality. What we don’t
know is the timing. James is telling
them that even in the midst of their most confident plans, they should
recognize that even the life span to accomplish them was far from a guaranteed
certainty.
In a sense, they surely already knew all of
these cautions. What merchant hasn’t
seen things go the wrong way? Optimism
is always desirable, but what is the fall-back plan if things don’t go right?
Worst come to worse, death may be out there
as well. I had a heart attack in my
cardiologist’s office! I knew a church
member who dropped dead—immediately after walking out the door from his
physician’s office! The same thing could
happen to one of them. It wasn’t
something to become obsessed over, but something to never fully forget either.
(2)
In particular, they had left out the possibility that God will have
significantly different plans for them than they have for themselves. His role in their thinking is conspicuous by its
very absence. They were Christians but
in a sense they were “practical atheists”—God never enters their planning and
the impact He could have on them.[29] They aren’t doing evil as are so many others
criticized in the epistle,[30]
they are simply leaving out of their planing an indispensable element—God’s
concurrence.
The Bible doesn’t encourage idle
chatter. Hence when James speaks of how
“you ought to say, ‘If the Lord
wills, we shall live and do this or that’ ” (verse 15), he isn’t giving a
formula to idly recite. After all, Jesus
had warned that “for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of
it in the day of judgment” (Matthew
[Page 220] Do
words stop being idle simply because they have a religious content? No, they become “idle” when they become mere
“filler,” words used because they are expected and not because they are
meant. Hence when James urges them to
say “if the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that,” he is referring to
them adopting that principle as part of their mind frame—as a
fundamental part of their plan making.
Just as much as they must consider when to
go and what to take, they must also keep in mind the possibility that
God may yet alter whether those plans will succeed or only be partially carried
out. This reins in their pride and makes
God’s co-operation an acknowledged essential part of their way of thinking.
Not to mention it reminds them that wherever
they go, God will be there as well.
Knowing how they act and how honest they are when away from those they
most desire to keep a good reputation in front of.
If one insists upon using these words
aloud,[31]
they certainly haven’t done anything wrong.
But if they haven’t also made it part of their core thinking, then they
may only have a form of religion without having the substance of
it. Haven’t we all seen how much easier
it is to recite expected words, than to embrace them as part of our way of
thinking?
(3) Their
confidence had clearly crossed into a kind of arrogance akin to this: I have decided it; so it will be. They were under the delusion that they were
in control[32]
or, to put it better, that they were in full control. Without even mentioning God in their plans at
all, they are boastfully confident that there is no doubt that they can do
exactly what they have decided. No one
should question it. It simply can’t be
any other way! James bluntly rebukes
them: “You boast in your arrogance”
(verse 16).
[Page 221] Steven
J. Cole points out that, “ ‘Arrogance’ (4:16) was originally used of wandering
hucksters who were full of empty and boastful claims about their cures and
other feats that they could accomplish (R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New
Testament). It came to apply to any
braggart.”[33] Braggarts have mere words behind them; until
they actually accomplish what they claim, they only have dreams. And that was true of these merchants as well.
James wants them to be as humble as others
and recognize “it might not just work out the way you plan.” Even doing what is right and desirable and
honorable does not guarantee success.
Even having the best and most reasonable plans does not guarantee the
desired outcome.
Some of the most spectacular examples of
this come from military history and tell us of generals and political leaders
who were so overwhelmingly self-assured that anything about God and His
feelings on their behavior and actions were irrelevant. Perhaps the twentieth century’s most vivid
example of this was Adolph Hitler. When
warned that one of his policies would deeply anger the current Pope he
responded, “How many divisions does he have?”
Nothing else mattered.
From the previous century, the example of
Napoleon is even more germane because of its verbal similarity to James’ point,[34]
[Page 222]
Napoleon Bonaparte was a military genius,
but his pride led to his downfall. He
was about to invade
Napoleon angrily snapped back, “I dispose
as well as propose.” A Christian upon
hearing this remark said, “I set that down as the turning point of Bonaparte’s
fortunes. God will not suffer a creature with impunity to usurp His
prerogative.” Sure enough, Napoleon’s
invasion of
James’ rebuke (along
with the content of the first third of the following chapter) reminds us that
the early church not only had many poor people but that it also had individuals
who were traveling businessmen (4:13) and even those who were outright rich
(5:1). The first century church was, in
short, a varied group, as was contemporary Judaism and contemporary society at
large.
But that still brings us back to why
does James place this where he does in his letter. Is there a scenario that would explain this without
there being that dramatic a drastic change in direction after all? Perhaps it is found in the denunciation of
pride and arrogance throughout the current section. Is not pride and arrogance at least one of
the major causes they would feel justified in whatever criticisms they gave of
others (section
[Page 223] Indeed is it not part of the
undercurrent in verses 1-10 as well, which ends in the quotation, “God resists
the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (4:10)? In short, the dangers of a puffed up mind
frame is dealt with throughout this chapter and the reason he places this
particular criticism where he does might well be because of his repeated used
of that implied or explicit theme.
One other thing all of the matters
discussed in chapter four have in common is that we have the opportunity to do
good and we will be judged according to how we use it. In fact this segment of text contains the
quite emphatic, “to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is
sin” (
Sometimes folk argue about “the sins of the ignorant” and to what
extent does God hold them accountable.
James prefers to center on “the sins of the knowledgeable.” People who know better—or should—and choose
the wrong path in spite of that. They
are simply without excuse.
Some commentators have called
[Page 224]
Notes
[1] Dan
File, “True Faith is Not a Friend of this World—Part 2: James 4:1-6.”
[2] McKnight, James, 330.
[3] Blomberg and Kamell, 189.
[4] Moo, 181.
[5] Luke T. Johnson, “Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James,” in Discipleship
in the New Testament, edited by Fernando F. Segovia (
[6] Among
very many, Steven J. Cole, “Spiritual Adultery and Resolving Conflicts (James
4:4-6).” At:
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-15-spiritual-adultery-and-resolving-conflicts-james-44-6. [May 2014.]
[7] Ibid.
[8] Amic.
[9] Amic.
[10] Johnson, “Friendship with God,” 173.
[11] Comfort, 730 .
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] S. Michael Houdmann.
“What does it mean to
resist the devil, and why will resistance cause the devil to flee?” At:
http://www.gotquestions.org/resist-the-devil.html. [May 2014.]
[15] Steven J. Cole, “Resolving Conflicts
God’s Way (James 4:7-10). At:
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-16-resolving-conflicts-god%E2%80%99s-way-james-47-10. [May 2014.]
[Page 225] [16] David M. Edwards, “Draw Near to
God.” Posted
[17] Ibid.
[18] Blomberg and Kamell, 194.
[19] Ibid. 194.
[20] [Anonymous,]
“A Double Minded
[21] Paul
Shirley. “James 4:9.” Part of the “Cup of Coffee Talk”
website. Dated
[22] Andrew Murray. “Humility.”
At:
http://www.heavenreigns.com/read/
read_html/humility/humility_13.html.
[May 2014.] -- 18 words quoted.
[23] McCartney, 220.
[24] McKnight, James, 360.
[25] McCartney, 220.
[26] Cathy Deddo. “James 4:11-17.” At:
http://www.trinitystudycenter.com/james/ james_4-11-17.php. [May 2014.]
[27] Jacob
Prasch. “Judge Not?” At:
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/ judgenot.html. [May 2014.]
[28] On safety and profit see Blomberg and Kamell, 207.
[29] Glen
Jones, “James
[30] Ibid.
[Page 226] [31] Well worth reading is the unidentified
author with the Sovereign Redeemer Assembly who argues that these words must always
be used. For one thing, he provides a
good illustration of how they can actually be abused into a verbal
justification for not actually doing what was said! His article is also interesting in showing
what would seem to many to be the verbal gymnastics required to recognize
situations where it would not be necessary to use the expression . . .
while simultaneously arguing that it is “always” necessary. Except in these particular cases. To distinguish between the two would seem to
guarantee anguished souls and needless guilt trips. [Anonymous,] “If the Lord Wills.” At:
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/index.htm.
[May 2014.]
[32] McKnight, James, 370, 377.
[33] Steven
J. Cole, “Life Is a Vapor.” At:
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-18-life-vapor-james-413-17. [May 2014.]
[34] Ibid.
[35] Wall,
222.