From: A Torah
Commentary on James 3-5 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
[Page 283]
Chapter 4C:
Problem Texts
4:2:
The nature of
the “murder” that was committed.
[Page 284] The reference to “murder” (or
“killing” in some translations) seems so startling in a Christian context, that
scribal error has been suggested. As far
back as the 1519 Greek text compiled by Erasmus[1] some
have advocated substituting the word envy (phthoneite) for murder (phoneuete). The two words are sufficiently close that one
can imagine how handwritten manuscripts could make the mistake. More difficult to imagine is how such a
surprising substitution as “murder” for “envy” would become universal since
there is no manuscript evidence in which the proposed alternate reading is
actually found.[2]
In the sixteenth century, Luther
accepted the substitution as the basis of his German rendition of the
verse. The twentieth century
translations of Moffat and, later, that of Phillips also adopt the conjecture.[3]
If the lack of positive evidence is insufficient to cause
one to lay aside such reconstructions, it should also be remembered that “this
is not the only time James warns his readers about the sin of murder; he
mentions it (with the same verb) in 2:11 and 5:6.”[4] Is its presence there any less startling than
in the current context? Indeed, its
presence in any context concerning the behavior of first century
Christians is unexpected.
Furthermore,
as George M. Stulac suggests, “The frequent parallels we have found with
Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount make it not at all improbable for
James to be thinking with Jesus’ categories, as in Matthew 5:21-22 where sins
of hatred and insult are treated in the same category as murder. It is very likely, then, that ‘murder’ did
not strike James as incongruous at all.”[5]
To these passages
might be added 1 John
[Page 285] Finally, the linking of
“covet” and “murder” together in James 4:2 would also suggest a contrast
between inward attitude and outward behavior.
Hence it can’t be just a misrendering of “envy.” “Envy” is internal just as much as “coveting.” As an external manifestation of coveting,
“murder” fits quite well, but “envy” falls short because that is also within
us.
A figurative sense is clearly
intended since the “fight and war” of the same verse makes no sense “literally”--barring
a civil war or international war situation, of which there is no
indication. Not to mention the
improbability that members of the same receiving congregation(s) would find
themselves on opposing sides in such a situation.
Likewise the ethical connotation is reinforced by the fact that the
term “murder” is joined to their overwhelming desire to possess what others
have, “You murder and covet.” The
idea then is that they stop short of nothing they can get away with in order to
gain that which the other person possesses.
They “covet” it so much that they will “destroy” anyone who gets in the
way.
Hence murder here is at least a
“hyperbole for hatred.”[7] But hatred that leads to the most extreme of
actions, limited only by convenience and opportunity. “Murder” is surely a highly appropriate idiom
to describe the outer limits of what can occur.
[Page 286] We use a similar image to
“murder” in modern English: “stabbing in
the back”--which when done literally means to kill or murder.[8] But we use the imagery far more commonly with
the idea of destroying, removing, exterminating. Sometimes it is their reputation. Sometimes it is their influence. Sometimes it is their hopes and dreams or
what they wish to accomplish. For
excuses minor or large, we simply can’t permit it: we show our “superiority” by diminishing and
belittling them, even by sabotaging their efforts—by “killing” them.
Belittling language, distortions, misrepresentations, turning others
against them. “Subtle manipulation” of
third parties to drag them into the turmoil and to use as additional tools to
obtain our goal.[9] Such are some of the “daggers” of murder that
are too often found in the corporate work place and, far more horribly, within
churches.
You “go to church” to be with ones who
share your convictions and goals. When
you feel like you go in spite of the people who are there, you are
carrying a burden that you should not have to carry.
Nor does doctrinal controversy
justify using “any tool available.”
Defending the “truth” is just cause for careful argumentation against
what is wrong. It is never carte
blanche for saying anything and everything and laying aside the obligation to
be truthful and fair. Because a person
may have a major conceptual flaw in their beliefs provides no justification for
denying those strengths and virtues they continue to possess. (It’s called intellectual honesty.)
Anyone who has been through an
intrachurch bloodbath—especially if as the intended sacrificial victim—should
have no great problem accepting the validity of James’ language. They may not be ready to bury you “six feet
under the ground,” but they have done their best to leave you
“dead”—stripped of position and respect. So why should it be surprising if the
behavior is labeled what it is at its heart—murder?
[Page 287] Hence the language makes a
great deal of sense—hyperbolic though it is, because it is so very relevant to
their extreme behavior. Indeed
“hyperbolic” is arguably itself an exaggeration. Is the effective murder of another person’s
reputation and spirituality any less a real murder?
Other
approaches:
The hostility is coming from non-Christians rather than believers. The unbelievers “are thought of as driving
Christians to martyrdom and death through their aggressive or provocative
behavior.”[10] Though this fits nicely with the theory that
James intends to have both a Christian and a nonchristian readership, it
falters because James refers to how they “murder and covet.” What is it that Christians would have that would
be so “coveted” that nonbelievers would stoop at nothing to obtain it?
Participation in literal
wars is under discussion. Perhaps a
better way to express this (unless we are to date the epistle as describing the
Great Jewish Revolt which began in 66 A.D.), would be to acts of insurrection
not quite rising to the level of open war, but destabilizing varying parts of
geographic Palestine due to the excesses Rome either perpetuated or turned a
blind eye toward.
You always have some people
who prefer this route, if they think they can get away with it. But you have a broader group who will
encourage, cheer, hide, and support such individuals. Especially when circumstances are so unstable
that the bands of troublemakers actually offer an element of local stability
compared to the chaos caused by officialdom virtually capitulating on its duty
to preserve law, order, and justice.
[Page 288] In this theoretical setting
for the epistle, Christians are either being the victims of the unrest or are
actively participating in it.
It
is wise not to lose sight of what the initial verses of this chapter actually
say, however,
1 Where do wars and fights come from among
you? Do they not come from your desires
for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and
do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.
`
The Christians are not merely the
victims, they are also the instigators:
“You lust . . . You murder . . . You fight and war.” Not a hint of outsiders being envolved.
Note also what their root motivation
is: They wish to gain things so “that
you may spend it on your pleasures.”
Survival is not an issue here.
Oppression is not an issue—personal happiness (however defined)
is the goal. Hence this is no radical,
oppressed individual(s) rising up in fury at injustice.
Finally these are “wars and fights”
that come about “from among you”—not with or originating among
outsiders. These involve things “that
war in your members” (= “within you,” ESV, Holman, NIV, NLT,
[Page 289]
False teaching and oppression of
the poor are under consideration.
This rather startling scenario is embraced by S. H. Ong as he attempts
to bind chapter 2’s rebuke of the doctrinal error of separating faith from
works with our current text, “Murder is mentioned in 4:2 as another result of
envy. This law also applies to the
errant teachers who ‘poison’ the church body, thus committing metaphorical
murder.”[12]
Yet our passage says, “You lust and
do not have. You murder and covet and
cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not
ask. You ask and do not receive, because
you ask amiss, that you may spend it
on your pleasures” (4:2-3). How does one
possibly get from seeking what one should not have to being a false
teacher? How does one get from
unanswered prayers and its goal of obtaining self-serving pleasures, to being a
heretic?
Presumably Ong means that this would
be one valid application of the same language—taken metaphorically. As sermonic illustration and application of
the word “murder,” certainly. But
as genuine intended purpose behind James 4:2? Of course not! You have a text that clearly does not
have “murder” in the sense of poisoning doctrinal purity in mind at all.
Even in the context of chapter 2,
the critique is seemingly not aimed at teachers per se, but those many individual
believers who fall into the trap of reasoning this way. No one has to “teach” this line of reasoning
to them. It is an instinctive
self-defense or their attitude and failure to act.
[Page 290]
Ong immediately and without
interruption then throws this additional interpretation of the intended
meaning at us, “Taking the view that murder is a metaphor for the oppression of
the poor, the author is saying that even if favoritism is not a sin that one
practices, oppression of the poor in other ways is still a sin.”[13] A useful sermonic tie-in, I would admit.
But it’s still not what James is driving at in 4:1-2. For that matter, murder is not mentioned in
chapter 2, just neglect. (Yes, that
could lead to death, but James does not choose to make that application. Why should we impose it on the text?) And when murder is mentioned in
chapter 2, it is literal murder not symbolic (
4:3:
Is “selfish
prayer” being condemned as well?
It is quite easy to put the interpretive gloss on James that he is
prohibiting “selfish” prayer. At the
extreme, it is easy to understand the logic:
If our prayer is always about me—me—me and everything else gets dropped
out, how in the world can we expect such prayers to be granted from a God who
sent His only Son into this world to obtain our forgiveness rather than
anything for Himself?
[Page 291] Indeed the “me only” style of
prayer neglects or omits the many other things both testaments tell us is
proper to pray for. Why should God pay
attention to our prayer when so much is omitted from it?
This truth needs to be “flipped over” however: Just as the Bible instructs us to pray about
other matters, it just as strictly enjoins us to pray about our own
needs and wants. Troy Hillman wisely
cautions us that “selfish” (if it can be called that) is not always the same as
evil or to obtain something evil,[14]
There are no specific verses in Scripture
that teach that selfish prayers are not answered. Actually, Christians are highly encouraged to
pray for what they want--forgiveness, daily food, deliverance from
Satan, etc. descendants. These prayers
are for things that people want for themselves, so you may say that they are
selfish, and you may not. Think of
this. A child may be selfish in asking
for food and drink, but it is not wrong.
However, if your desires are not pleasing
to God, that's when the prayer might not be answered [citing James 4:3] . . .
So to answer your question, “Are Selfish Prayers Answered,” the answer is: It depends on the motives.
This analysis certainly fits well
with what James actually says. The prayers specifically under consideration
are ones that are motivated out of the desire to hurt or injure others and to
further and advance our own sinful preferences regardless of
their impact on others. “You ask amiss,
that you may spend it on your
pleasures” (4:3) argues not so much that it was the “self-centeredness” of the
prayer that was wrong or even that it was for enjoyable “pleasures.” Rather it was because they “ask[ed] amiss,”
i.e. for wrong or evil “pleasures” instead of honorable and just ones.
[Page 292] This is confirmed by the
context that refers to how their wishes and behavior to accomplish their goals
envolved “murder and covet(ing).” These
are evils in and of themselves and the tools to accomplish yet other
evils. Having established their lack of
scruples requires us to put the most hostile reading on the “fight and war”
that is mentioned next in the same verse (4:2):
There seems nothing—that they can get away with—that will stop them
doing the most outrageous and harmful acts.
Then there is the labeling of them as “adulterers and adulteresses,”
which, again, makes no interpretive sense unless outright evil was
envolved. Not merely innocent pleasures
and honorable personal preferences.
Of the positive kind of
“self-centered” prayer, Philippians 4:6 would surely be germane, “Be anxious
for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving,
let your requests be made known to God.”
This kind of prayer is a recognition
that none of us has super powers and can do everything for ourselves. It expresses the kind of realistic
humility God expects and demands from all believers. Some things are beyond our certainty
of accomplishing and far many more things beyond our capacity to
accomplish: none of us can be certain of
what tomorrow will bring, what our health will be, or what events will occur
that might have a major impact upon us.
To pour out our “self-centered”—but honorable—goals and desires is,
simultaneously, both a plea that they might occur and an honest admission of
just how much we rely upon God’s help.
[Page 293]
4:5:
“Or do you
think that the Scripture says in vain,
‘The Spirit who
dwells in us yearns jealously’?”
—The point of
the text.
The text can be read in three different ways. If it is God feeling jealous
for the Spirit/spirit, then the emphasis is on God’s protectiveness of that
which has been placed within us. If
it be the Holy Spirit being jealous, then the intense interest would grow out
of the shared deityship of the Father and Spirit. If it be the human spirit, the fervent
concern would be the result of it being part of God’s creation, placed within
us to function as our inner watchdog and conscience.
First, it could refer to the inner “spirit”
(nature/soul) being inherently “jealous” or, at least, inclined to “jealousy.”
This would be because our inner essence
yearns for full and total commitment and rejects a divided one. The rendering of the New American Bible goes
in this direction, “The spirit that he has made to dwell in us tends toward
jealousy.”
[Page 294] ` Hence
we yield our inner spirit either to the “world” (4:4) or God (4:6)--but either
way, our inner nature makes a fundamental commitment to one and a rejection of
the other. It simply can’t provide full
dedication to both at the same time.
Implicit here is the idea of Jesus that ultimate loyalty cannot be
divided, “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
In a positive sense, the spirit is jealous for God when facing the
temptations of the world. That’s where
its “heart” is at. In a negative sense,
it would be that the spirit is jealous for the things of the world and wishes
it could participate in them. Which
leads to finding a way (excuse) to do so.
In the first case, it is a sign of strength and in the second a sign of
weakness. In either case it reflects the
yearning of our spirit to get its priorities aligned in one direction.
The Old Testament teaching on the inner person
“jealously” desiring either service to God or evil.[15] The Old Testament refers to how outward
conduct grows out of the thinking and decisions of the inner person. Psalms 77:6 refers to how “I meditate within
my heart, and my spirit makes diligent search.”
The spirit is also the source of our will to live (Proverbs
[Page 295] Without using either “heart”
or “spirit” other texts refer to that inward drive that strives for
understanding and obedience. “I long for
Your salvation, O Lord, and Your law is my delight” (Psalms 119:174) That inner compulsion is like an animal
panting for water to drink, “I opened my mouth and panted, for I longed for
Your commandments” (Psalms 119:131).
A good number of commentators on the
meaning of our text contend that the second century Shepherd of Hermas
constitutes the earliest commentary on James 4:5.[16] It speaks of the importance of the state in
which we return this spirit to God who gave it,[17]
Again he said to me, “Love the truth, and
let nothing but truth proceed from your mouth, that the spirit which God has
placed in your flesh may be found truthful before all men; and the Lord,
who dwelleth in you, will be glorified, because the Lord is truthful in every
word, and in Him is no falsehood. They
therefore who lie deny the Lord, and rob Him, not giving back to Him the
deposit which they have received. For they
received from Him a spirit free from falsehood. If they give him back this spirit untruthful,
they pollute the commandment of the Lord, and become robbers.”
Second, the
text could refer to God’s Holy Spirit within us being inherently “jealous”
of all competitors.[18] Those translations that capitalize references
to deity carry this concept when they capitalize the “s” in “spirit.”
[Page 296] The New Testament repeatedly
refers to an indwelling of the Spirit in the heart of the Christian (Romans
8:9, 11; 2 Corinthians
Hence what fits the context
best: If it is the Holy Spirit
doing the desiring, it would likely be a desire for our complete and full
loyalty. James had just warned that the
“world” wishes to subvert our loyalty (4:4) and the Spirit has no room for a
split loyalty between that world and Yahweh.
The Spirit wants us to be wholly and exclusively the Father’s. To gain that commitment and break the ties of
the world, God will give “grace” (4:6); to refuse to do so brands us as “proud”
and assures that God will “resist” us (4:6).
Direct
Old Testament teaching on the Holy Spirit in particular being “jealously”
desiring full loyalty from God’s people.
Genesis 6:3 in those versions that follow the KJV precedent, “My Spirit
shall not strive with man forever. . . .”
“Strive:” “contend,” NIV;
“struggle with,” GW. That would
seemingly carry with it the idea that the Holy Spirit has a special interest in
human individuals and securing conformity to God’s will.
In a similar vein in Isaiah 63:10
(cf. verse 12) we read of how the people of
[Page 297]
Third: The
passage refers to the Father being jealous for either the Divine Spirit or the
human spirit He has placed within us. The reading of the NRSV embraces this
approach, “God yearns jealously for the spirit that He has made to dwell in
us.” The idea would be that God has a
protective interest in His Spirit--either Holy Spirit or individual spirit,
depending upon which construction one places on the author’s intent. (The NRSV, like a goodly percentage of other
modern translations, avoids capitalization of deityship references, leaving it
to the reader / interpreter whether to mentally do so.)
The Spirit / spirit has been placed within us for a purpose; to
frustrate that purpose would naturally anger the Lord and He would be “jealous”
that we have allowed anything to hinder its proper function.
The Old Testament teaching on God being
interested in the Spirit / spirit within us. This could be taken in terms of either the
Holy Spirit or of our personal spirit. As
to the first possibility: Since God, according
to 2 Samuel 23:1-2, spoke to Israel through “the Spirit of the Lord” inside
David, it would be natural for Him to retain an interest in that Divine
spirit. In a similar vein, Nehemiah
Of the human spirit, Ecclesiastes
[Page 298]
James attributes this teaching to
“Scripture” (4:4). The problem always
has been where is that Scripture?
There is no such explicit text, but a number have been suggested
as conveying a good part of the idea.
Approached this way, James is presenting a deduction from
“scripture” rather than an explicit quotation.
(See the Old Testament precedents chapter for a detailed discussion of
the options.)
The same core idea is presented if we argue that James is summing up in
his own words the central thrust of Old Testament teaching rather than directly
quoting or paraphrasing it. The lack of
any clearly intended text makes this approach a very appealing one.
For more on this passage see the Old Testament Precedents chapter.
4:6:
Is there any
real significance intended
in the specific
gender reference of the verse?
[Page 299] Following
differing Greek underlying texts, most renderings speak of people throwing
moral restraint aside in pursuit of their temporal goals as “adulteresses”
while others like the minority Greek tradition of “adulterers and
adulteresses” (4:4). If the latter is
valid, then this would be driving home to any overly gendered centered
individuals that such foolishness knows absolutely no sexual boundaries—it
isn’t any more acceptable if the male does it than if the female. Just as being either shows that one has been
unfaithful to the marital covenant, undue friendship with the world shows that
one has been unfaithful to their religious covenant with God as well.[19]
The use of the feminine form alone
(“adulteresses”) strikes one as odd since it seems impossible to read the text
without concluding that the males are the primary target or, at worst, are
assuredly included in the condemnation.
Although some have gone so far as to argue that here James does, indeed,
shift to the female members of the congregation and is censuring them in
particular, the male fondness for such behavior makes this seem more than a
little implausible!
In the unlikely case that this was
his intent, however, the thrust of the term would be: “You act just like those unfaithful women you
are so ready to condemn!” Which would
make the males, implicitly, adulterers regardless of whether the term is
directly used of them.
Furthermore Philip W. Comfort stresses the
firm Old Testament precedent of describing male violators of God’s covenant
with such language. He cites in
particular Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 13:27, and Ezekiel 16:38.[20] Indeed, any text in which the people
at large are clearly targeted, virtually has to be considered as
inherently including both for how could the same sin be called
adulterous of one and not of the other?
Did the evil suddenly become acceptable to God because the gender
was changed?
[Page 300]
The use of sexual terminology in James makes
one suspect their desire for sexual affairs was high on the list of the
“pleasures” they were seeking and which has produced James’ condemnation. Yet the author has far more than just this in
mind for the adultery seems clearly adultery with the world, as shown by
the immediately following words, “Do you not know that friendship with the
world is enmity with God? Whoever
therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of
God” (4:4).
Hence their internal desires for “pleasure”
in its varied forms—specifically here, it seems, in forms that the world
could grant and favor—and true faith would not--is what concerns him. In our technological world, we speak in terms
of “an actor willing to sell his (or her!) soul for a choice leading
role.” Actually they aren’t selling
their soul in the mundane fictional form—why should the Devil negotiate for
your soul when you are already giving it to him for free?—but in the equally
dangerous sense of being willing to give up every scruple, bend every fact,
destroy every relationship to assure that role goes to no one else. You get what the world can give at the cost
of the soul that God gave you.
In their own way, these ancients were doing
the same thing.
[Page 301]
Are those
merchants addressed in this section
non-Christians
or believers?
In our discussion of chapter two, we saw that there is a significant
contingent of interpreters who believe that the rich man who comes into the
assembly is a non-believer and that the setting is even a kind of church
judicial hearing. Here we again face the
insistence that those being discussed are not Christians as well.
Patrick J. Hartin makes this case
for a theoretical outsider audience being addressed even though they aren’t actually
present at all,[21]
It is hard to imagine the Christian
community of that early stage being made up of business people. This address would correspond more to the way
the prophets singled out nations around
Yet the condemnation of other
nations was for sins that either tempted or were already duplicated among
Israelites. Hence the words might be
addressed externally, but their targets were internal.
[Page 302] Now if you have a particular
sin of outsiders targeted in order to get the message across to insiders to
avoid it, aren’t you doing so because you either have insiders in
exactly that situation already or anticipate that such will be the case not
far down the road? To use Hartin’s own
words: “The rhetorical purpose was for
Israelites to hear the message and change their actions
accordingly.” How could this be so unless
merchants were already among them or regarded as certain to become so in a
matter of time as the church grew?
Now one could argue that James’
illustration refers to big time merchants, but the warning would still be
relevant to smaller and presently existing Christian merchants as well,
who only differed in regard to their scale of operations. Furthermore, they are pictured as going “to
such and such a city.” Note the singular
“city;” they are not explicitly depicted as wide-ranging merchants who will
visit various communities over a large geographic territory—though the
principles of the message would obviously apply to them as well. (In all fairness, the wording would also fit
them having one city as their primary destination, permitting varied
stops going there and returning.)
The most that can be convincingly
challenged is whether they had such traveling merchants in the upper range
of the category rather than in the more modest and lower range. Yet James has carefully crafted his language
to cover far more than just the narrowest category; he has laid down
language of general and wide application in “real life” circumstances—laying
down a principle applicable to all of them.
And we are to believe they had none
in that category?
In an epistle consciously written to
Jewish Christians throughout the world?
Is that credible? How could there avoid being such in a
letter written to such a wide area?
[Page 303] Furthermore, consider chapter
2 and the alleged non-Christian there:
“If there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings,
in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes”
(2:2). Whether you wish to consider this
a worship service or a church trial setting, it was still “in your
assembly.”
If that rich person is “in your assembly” why would we
expect the prosperous—but not necessarily extremely rich--merchant being
addressed in chapter 4 as being anywhere else?
Christian or not, would not the parallel argue that the words are
written to be read to / taught to the merchants who are members of or
visiting in the assembly? In other
words, the construct of a totally alien, outside, “theoretical” audience need
not exist at all for the text to make full sense.
4:13-15:
The propriety
of business planning.
“If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that;” ATP: “if the Lord thinks it best, we will survive
and carry out this or that plan.” These
should be the words on our lips, insists James, instead of bravado about our
future endeavors. The importance is not
that the words are there (they easily become mere ritual); instead, “the
important thing is not a formula but the dependent attitude of mind.”[22] We can properly make any and all plans we
wish, but it is vital that we recognize them as tentative, rather than
things guaranteed or prepared in unbreakable concrete.
[Page 304] We find this mind frame
exhibited in Paul. He consciously planned
(and told others) ahead of time of his intention to attend one of the important
annual “feasts” held in
Yet he recognized the limits of human power to assure that one’s
preferences become reality when he told the Ephesians of his intention to
travel to
Paul also utilizes a different
type of language that carries the same import.
The apostle prayed that “in the will of God” there would come a way for
him to carry out his desired trip to
James has in mind business
travelers,[23]
who intend to make a profit by their journey (
[Page 305] Such travel was not uncommon
in the first century. We read of
Indeed, travel for the purpose of enjoyment and pleasure was uncommon;
few could afford it and there were significant potential dangers as one moved
into unfamiliar regions and cultures.
Most who traveled did so as part of their effort to earn a living and
advance their economic interests.[24] Hence the bulk of James’ readers were
unlikely to undertake such extensive travel.
On the other hand, it still provided a telling example of a mind frame
desirable in those who never wandered many miles from the place of their birth.
4:13-15:
The practice of
trade and regional / international
commerce in the
first century.
[Page 306] James’ silence as to ethical
misbehavior argues that he is working from the assumption that the people he is
discussing will avoid the excesses that were so easy and common in that
day. There was, as in the modern world,
a vast difference between a modest profit, a good profit, and an exorbitant one. There was always the temptation to go for the
most whether justified by circumstances and costs or not. Not to mention other forms of dishonesty,
such as shoddy products or misrepresentation of their origin.
Ecclesiasticus (= Sirach) 26:20-27:3
stresses that unethical behavior is a constant danger to such individuals, “A
merchant can hardly remain upright, nor a shopkeeper free from sin. 1
For the sake of profit many sin, and the struggle for wealth blinds the
eyes. 2 Like a peg driven between fitted stones, between buying and
selling sin is wedged in. 3
Unless you earnestly hold fast to the fear of the Lord, suddenly your
house will be thrown down.”
Verse 3 may be intended to stand with these preceding verses—it
certainly makes an appropriate conclusion—or it may be intended as a “stand
alone” remark, the context allowing for this as well. (New American Bible) Their advice “about business” is as
unreliable as a coward talking about making war or a lazy man talking about
work (37:11).
The Mishnah speaks of efforts to
avoid merchant excess by establishing official prices for goods. None ever worked well in practice, however.[25]
Local, regional, and international
trade involved a myriad of different players from the prestigious wealthy elite—or ones far
more modest in wealth--to the lowly peon who actually got the work done on theirs
behalf. As James B. Adamson sums it up,[26]
[Page 307]
It is clear that the Jews played a key role
in the commerce of the Roman
Throughout the
As to
There were ten markets in
[Page 308] Even through referring to “ten
markets,” the source only lists five.[29] The reference to various types of attire
being worn by the merchants suggests each group was striving for a snobbery
aimed at whatever particular cross section of population they were targeting: In effect, “Yes, I’m one of those
merchants you can rely on. Not like
those other folk.” It could also have
been encouraged by the fact that in the Roman world, particular markets tended
to be associated with special types of products,[30]
making the wearer of such attire an obvious person to stop on the street for
current pricing and availability information.
(Rabbinic sources claim 365 market
areas for
In addition, periodic markets were
held throughout the Empire at the time when specific goods were expected to
become available. A step above these
come the fairs, normally once a year but sometimes more often or every set
number of years.[32] These fell into three broad categories
Local fairs were held within or
easily accessible to a city, lasting two to three days. People might come from up to 50 kilometers
away but the bulk of sales would be to whoever intended to actually use the
purchase. In contrast regional fairs lasted
two to three weeks and normally were located at sites where two or more major
crossroads for goods intersected each other.
These could count on a clientele of perhaps three hundred kilometers in
range and sales to middlemen merchants were common.[33]
When you reached the level of
inter-regional ones, we are talking about ones that would tap into sources
coming from even longer distances and which could last as much as two
months. This would be the prime source
of supply for those planning on making their money from the regional and local
fairs and local markets.[34]
[Page 309] We can easily imagine a
merchant planning to attend such a regional or international location and how
it could easily involve a year or better for arriving, trading, and then
trading and reselling at lesser sites as well before returning home (James
4:13)--selling off his well stocked lauder and purchasing or trading for additional
substitute products, the residue of which he would bring back home to sell as
well.
It helped secure an increased supply
of goods for such fairs—as well as giving merchants yet more reason to come—in
that local taxes were often spared on the goods envolved. Indeed, customs duties were commonly reduced
or even eliminated to increase the number of participants and the goods to be
available.[35]
There was also a brand of largish wholesalers
who made their living by following a more or less prescheduled trading routine,
selling goods to more localized wholesale resellers who had enough money to buy
a large supply that would then be sold to small local retailers as the market
needed it. These individuals would
routinely serve a more or less smallish local market.
This permitted the point-of-final-purchase retailer to minimize his own
short-term costs by buying the required goods whenever needing it (or as close
to that as feasible) and without the existence of the intersecting wholesaling
supply chain that made this possible, his own ability to function might easily
be destroyed. Wholesalers on any level
of this “supply chain” might well time their travel route to end up at a major local
or regional fair where they would endeavor to dispose of the rest of their
product.[36]
These traveling merchants would naturally carry whatever they felt
comfortable with handling and which would turn a profit,[37]
[Page 310]
Alongside the activity of the local town
merchants, the rabbinic texts include numerous descriptions of traveling
merchants. The reference is to merchants
who travel from place to place, transporting their goods with them, buying in
one location and selling in another.
The merchants are portrayed in the sources
as suppliers of a variety of products, from vegetables, grain, and wine, to
fruit, clothing and vessels, spices, and frankincense, as well as scrolls of
the Torah, mezuzahs, and ritual prayer shawls.
The wide variety of products bought and sold by them points to a
profession whose chief characteristic entailed traveling from one destination
to another with merchandise.
Large scale traders hit the urban and international markets. Smaller scale ones cultivated the rural
regions within what they regarded as a reasonable distance of their home. Even so it envolved visiting a wide variety
of villages since the population was so spread out outside the major cities. Furthermore, the goods were inherently
expensive. “Transporting merchandise [by
land] for a distance of 80 to 100 kilometers doubled the price of the product.”[38]
Hence wise planning was essential to
obtaining prosperity. What James wished
to both intellectually and emotionally convince his readers of was that it
still did not guarantee success. That
required God’s blessing.
[Page 311]
Notes
[1] Songer,
127.
[2] Songer,
127, and George Stulac, James, in the IVP New Testament Commentary series
(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 1993), 142. For an evaluation of
the evidence where similar Greek words are confused in some manuscripts see
Mitton, 49-150.
[3] Laws,
171.
[4] Stulac, 142.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Burdick,
192.
[8] [Anonymous], “Can Christians Commit Murder? – James
4.” Posted
[9] Ibid.
[11] Witherington, 508.
[12] S. H.
Ong, A Strategy for a Metaphorical
[13] Ibid.
[14] Troy Hillman, “Are Selfish Prayers Answered.” Dated:
[15] For a
significantly different presentation of this same basic view, see Laws,
178-179.
[16] McKnight, James, 339.
[18]
[19] Lockett,
“Unstained by the World,” 58.
[20] Comfort, 229.
[21] Hartin, James, 223.
[22]
[23] Timothy
B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora;
Discursive Sturcture and Purpose in the Epistle of James, Number 144
in the Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series (Atlanta,
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1993), 177.
[24] Leahy,
375.
[25] Adamson. James: The Man, 248.
[26] Ibid.,
250.
[27] Ben-Zion
Rosenfeld and Joseph Menirav, Markets and Marketing in Roman Palestine,
Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, volume 99 (
[28] Midrash
Ruth Zuta, 1.8, as quoted by Rosenfeld and Menirav, 21-22.
[29] Ibid.,
n. 40, p. 22.
[30] Ibid.,
48.
[31] Pesahim
II8b of the Babylonian Talmud, as cited by Rosenfeld and Menirav, 21.
[32] Ibid.,
51.
[33] Ibid.,
53-54.
[34] Ibid., 54.
[35] Ibid.,
55-56.
[36] Ibid.,
132.
[38] Ibid.,
128.