From: A Torah
Commentary on James 3-5 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth,
Jr. © 2014
[Page 357]
Chapter 5B:
Old Testament Precedents
Invoking of Explicit Old
Testament
Quotations to Justify His
Teaching:
None
[Page 358]
How Old Testament Concepts
Are
Repeatedly Introduced and
Woven
into the Heart of His Argument
5:1: Wealth
was not adequate to protect against the coming “miseries” (alternate
translations: “terrible things,” ATP,
CEV; “hardships,”
The wealthy of chapter four versus those in chapter five. It is normally assumed that the men of the
close of chapter four are substantially well off. Most probably either wealthy or the agents of
wealthy individuals since they intend to travel to other (presumably distant) places
and trade for an extended period--activities that required a considerable
investment not only of time but of money.
Their sin was pride and not recognizing the definitive role God plays in
determining whether our plans become reality.
Of course the principle also applies
to others and to destinations not as far distant. These would envolve those working on a much
slimmer margin, who had scraped together sufficient funds and support that they
could responsibly envision undertaking the risks of such foreign mercantile
travel. The earlier category would be
those who already had great success and expected more; these would be those who
expected their trade to move them further up the social-status totem pole
toward greater economic security and recognition.
[Page 359] In both types of cases, their
problem is more what they do not do (
James does not deny that wealth is
useful--it is tempting to even say desirable.
But he is describing individuals who had utilized their wealth to enable
them to deny wages to their workers (5:3) and even to have the innocent
unjustly executed (5:6). The oppressed
may be Christians or may not be;[2] it
is irrelevant to the argument. What is relevant is that such oppression
is evil and obnoxious in the sight of God.
What is developed at considerable
length in this introductory section to chapter five, is summed up in a few
words in Proverbs 11:28, “He who trusts in his riches will fall. . . .” The poor are the righteous and the rich the
evil not because the pattern lacks exceptions or is somehow inevitable,[3] but
because this is how things are usually like in the real world.
Psalms 49 mocks the rich who plague the
sufferer by their evil in language similar to Proverbs, “Why should I fear in
the days of evil, when the iniquity at my heels surrounds me? Those who trust in their wealth and boast in
the multitude of their riches” (verses 5-6).
They can’t redeem anyone from death even themselves and their kin (verse
7). The sufferer may die—but they are
just as exposed.
[Page 360] The oppressor looks around
himself and, in self-delusion, thinks that he will be an exception to that reality,
11 Their inner thought is that their
houses will last forever, their dwelling places to all generations; they call
their lands after their own names. 12
Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain; he is like the beasts
that perish. 13 This is the way
of those who are foolish, and of their posterity who approve their sayings.
A
later Psalm speaks of how those who act and think this way will be mocked by
those who survive them,
5 God shall likewise destroy you
forever; He shall take you away, and pluck you out of your dwelling place, and
uproot you from the land of the living. 6
The righteous also shall see and fear, and shall laugh at him,
saying, 7 “Here is the man
who did not make God his strength, but trusted in the abundance of his riches,
and strengthened himself in his wickedness” (Psalm 52).
Job is pictured by the book bearing
his name as an extremely wealthy individual before catastrophe struck. Yet the verbal self-portrait presented is
also one of an individual who recognized the limits of his wealth. Obsession with such is branded “iniquity”
(31:28), “If I have made gold my hope, or said to fine gold, ‘You are my
confidence’; if I have rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my
hand had gained much” (31:24-25).
[Page 361] James’ warning of “miseries”
coming upon the rich--also found in the current verse--was a danger spoken of
in the Old Testament as well. Even being
able to “anoint yourselves with the best ointments” and being able to “recline
at banquets” did not protect from the danger of foreign exile in the days of
Amos (6:6-8).
5:1 Wailing in horror that Divine judgment is
approaching. The undercurrent
throughout these verses is that a Divine intervention to punish evil is coming
their way. They are living in “the last
days” (5:3)—presumably their “last days” regardless of any other
connotations it may have.
The time or event in mind is described as “the coming of the Lord”
(5:7) and they are warned that “the Lord is at hand” (5:8) and “at the door,”
ready to act as Judge (5:9). In light of
their abuse of wealth and others, the appropriate reaction has to be horror--which
is conveyed by the logical instruction to “weep and howl for your miseries that
are coming upon you” (5:1). They do not
have good times to look forward to; they face catastrophic times.
The Old Testament prophets
repeatedly invoked these two concepts of imminent judgment and horror--as to
the certainty of the first and the proper cause of the second. Isaiah 13:6 speaks of the need to, “Wail for
the day of the Lord is at hand! It will
come as destruction from the Almighty.” The
New Living Translation’s rendering of the first words “scream in terror,” sums
up the idea very well.
[Page 362] Without explicit nearness
language (but requiring the idea to be present for the plea to make much
sense), various groups are spoken to in a similar manner. The priests are urged to “lament . . . in
sackcloth” because the offerings were “withheld from the house of your God”
(Joel
Sailors are warned that they should
“wail” because their ships’ home
Even non-Israelites, facing Yahweh’s
wrath, had occasion to “wail” and whine “woe to the day for the day is near”
that God acts against the Gentiles in Egypt and Ethiopia (Ezekiel 30:1-4). Likewise
Sometimes the opportunity for
repentance is explicitly mentioned or called for as in Zephaniah 2,
1 Gather yourselves together, yes, gather
together, O undesirable nation, 2 before the decree is issued, or the day passes like chaff, before
the Lord's fierce
anger comes upon you, before the day of the Lord's anger comes upon
you! 3
Seek the Lord, all you meek of the earth, who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility. It may be that you will be hidden in the day
of the Lord's anger.
[Page 363]
Although “the decree” to act against
rebellious humankind has not yet been made, it is going to be: “the day of the Lord’s anger” is mentioned as
if as inevitable as the rising of the sun.
Only the timing is left open and whether they will take advantage of the
great blessing of that additional time in order to change for the better.
Many denunciations do not explicitly
lay out such a plea. But the very fact
that it is given at all, and that God had not yet acted in such cases, implies
that there was still time to reform for them as well. Assuming one was wise enough to take
advantage of the opportunity.
5:2: The imagery of moth-eaten clothing. Inexpensive, mass-produced clothing was not
the commonplace of the ancient world that it is of the beginning of the
twenty-first century. In those days the
clothes one possessed were of greater relative cost and carefully held on to
since one did not know when one might be able to replace it. Hence one sign of wealth was possession of
abundant (as well as expensive) clothing (cf. 2 Kings 5:5; 1 Maccabees
All clothing is inherently liable to
both wear and tear and even its disintegration after the passage of time. Since this was a potential problem in earlier
ages as well, the image is used to portray the proneness of mortals to the
ravages of age and disease, “Man decays like a rotten thing, like a garment
that is moth-eaten” (Job
[Page 364] The image of a moth-eaten
garment is also used to describe God’s punishment upon those who mock others
for obeying God’s law; it is held up as a warning to the righteous not to give
in to them (Isaiah 51): “7 Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, you
people in whose heart is My law: Do not
fear the reproach of men, nor be afraid of their insults. 8 For
the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool;
but My righteousness will be forever, and My salvation from generation to
generation.”
In Hosea
After all, the moth is “a small and seemingly insignificant insect” and
it works “imperceptibly and slowly as it destroys whatever it is feeding on.”[5] Ephraim / Judah were so arrogant and full of
themselves in their rebellion against God, they were unable to notice the moral
and spiritual disintegration that was slowly killing them. God used their own sin against them,
just as he did the Gentiles in Romans 1.
Yet the delay also brought them time and opportunity to repent—if
they were astute enough to recognize what their sin was doing to them. Some can in all ages, but self-indulgence far
too often blots out such self-awareness.
5:4: The wages of
workers unjustly denied them by “fraud [ATP:
dishonesty].” In the
Torah, the demand that earned wages be promptly paid is linked to avoiding such
dishonesty, “You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not
remain with you all night until morning” (Leviticus
[Page 365] This requirement is repeated
in Deuteronomy 24: “14 You shall not oppress a hired servant who is
poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in
your land within your gates. 15 Each day you shall give him
his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his
heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the Lord, and it be sin to you.”
National origin (“brethren or one of the aliens”) made absolutely no
difference: he had earned the money; he
must be paid it. To the illegality was
added a blunt moral element: “it be sin
to you.” You don’t just mistreat your
fellow man, you anger God as well. This
reminds us that such regulations were not merely part of a civil code,
they were also part of the fundamental religious code of the
nation.
Why such a heavy insistence on
prompt payment? Laying aside the not
exactly inconsequential matter of it being a legitimate debt, in a cash-poor
society where the underclass had little or no financial reserves at all, such
immediate payment was a way of assuring that they would be able to purchase
food for themselves.
One way to improve one’s own cash flow was
to delay these payments or to find a way to avoid paying them entirely. In mining areas of the
What techniques were used in ancient Israel is unknown, but one can
imagine a number that sound credible:
there could be disputes over how many hours / how much of [Page
366] the day that the person “really”
worked; there could be disputes over the actual wage level promised; there
could be the refusal to pay part of what was promised; there could be the
threat that one could not “afford” to pay both one family member and others and
that the price of having a job at all would be for one or more to work without
wages. In a rural society and facing a
powerful landlord, the excuses for abuse were certainly there in
abundance. And clearly excuses, of some
kind were well known or the Torah would not have decreed against the denial of
wages.
As so often happens, the fact that
behavior is considered forbidden and even a social evil does not guarantee that
the law will be honored. The abuse of
workers remained a problem in Jeremiah’s day:
“3 Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness and his
chambers by injustice, who uses his neighbor's service without wages and
gives him nothing for his work, 14 who
says, ‘I will build myself a wide house with spacious chambers, and cut out
windows for it, paneling it with cedar and painting it with vermilion.’ ”
(chapter 22). He literally uses the
unjustly withheld wages to build his dream home!
This was part of the rebuke to “the
king of
Jeremiah’s prophecy warned the people of such unjustly gained wealth,
“As a partridge that broods but does not hatch, so is he who gets riches, but
not by right; it will leave him in the midst of his days, and at his end he
will be a fool” (17:11). To use the same
example from chapter 22: the mansion is
left unfinished or destroyed by invaders; the prestige has been stripped from
your name and those (rich) who were so wonderfully laudatory because they hid
behind your example now curse your very name.
[Page 367] Malachi attacks such power
abuse as well: “ ‘And I will come near
you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against sorcerers, against adulterers,
against perjurers, against those who exploit wage earners and widows and
orphans, and against those who turn away an alien--because they do not fear
Me,’ says the Lord of hosts” (3:5).
Today’s English Version renders key words in this manner: “those who cheat employees out of their
wages, and those who take advantage of widows, orphans, and foreigners.”
Note why they act this way:
“because they do not fear Me.” It
is often said that “fear of God” refers to either literal fear or reverential
fear, something that is virtually a synonym for respect. A few translations explicitly render it in
the latter sense here, “who do not revere Me” (
Although this is true enough—they clearly weren’t showing God
even a modicum of respect, the behavior is so excessive it implies that
they did not have the least concern over retaliation either, the total absence
of any concern about what His unleashed power could do. Even with reverential fear there is always a
touch of that kind of “fear” as well, knowing that God prefers to deal
with softly gloved hands, but that He is quite capable of substituting sturdy
brass knuckles if He should be provoked enough.
Their God was so meaningless that He could be totally ignored whenever
they wished.
[Page 368]
5:5: “Pleasure and luxury [ATP: self-indulgence and wasteful luxury]” as a
lifestyle. James does not
assert that the luxuries were necessarily wrong in themselves nor that the
pleasures were, for that matter. They
may well have been. But even if they
weren’t, in both there was an ever present danger of the degrading of one’s
proper moral values.
Although the underlying
two Greek terms “pleasure” and “luxury” are virtually synonymous in the
original language, there remains a shade of difference. “Luxury” easily carries with it the idea of
the kind of prosperity that breeds a lazy attitude in which the important
things of life become secondary; all that matters (to use a modern expression)
are the “toys” of life. The term “pleasure”
tends to carry with it the idea of expensively costing means of
self-indulgence.[6]
In this context James is
concerned not with the morality of either the “pleasure” or the “luxury” as an
end in itself, but, rather, with the injustice that obtained the wealth
that made the indulgence possible (5:1-6).
Of course the removal of the inhibitions against social injustice could
easily blot out scruples holding back sexual or other excess as well. If you have no moral criteria to limit your
behavior in getting the wealth, are you likely to recognize any in spending
it?
The potential for personal disaster
due to an excessive interest in even honorable pleasures is warned of in Old
Testament texts. Proverbs 21:17 cautions
that being preoccupied with the seeking of pleasure can reduce one to poverty,
“He who loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not
be rich.” It becomes an obsession and
the cost does not matter.
[Page 369] Here the idea is probably the
pleasures of expensive feast-giving to impress one’s “friends” and
neighbors. Providing them with the best
wine and the ointments (“oil”) to make their feet and body feel good. It comes at a cost—and a large one at
that. And to stop doing so, makes one lose
reputation in their eyes. Hence once
started, there is no way to rein in the excess.
Especially since the type of person under discussion has come to “love”
it so much: He has become addicted
to the excess.
Now, obviously, a good number do stay rich in spite of such
self-limiting obsessions—in his day and ours.
But the fundamental admonition remains sound in both ages: let the ego run wild and the odds are far
better of self-destruction than of the preservation and increase of one’s
assets.
Isaiah 47:7-9 diagnoses the reason
that people are “given to pleasures” (“lover of pleasure(s),” ESV, GW, NIV;
“lover of luxuries,” Holman) in the fact that they think they are unreachable
by calamity. In this case it is presented
as a society wide problem. But the
calamity is still going to come—quickly and overwhelmingly (“in a
moment, in one day,” verse 9).
The danger in preoccupation with
wealth at any cost is also warned against.
Such individuals are described as those whose “eyes bulge with
abundance; they have more than heart could wish” (Psalms 73:7) and they openly
plot oppression to maintain it (cf. verses 8-9).
The vivid word picture of Amos 6:1-8 pictures how the idle wealthy can
become unconcerned with the “affliction” that others suffer and can reap the
bitter fruit of their [Page 370] own
oppression. They become so obsessed with
earthly status that it destroys their very humanity. In a twenty-first century context, think of
those corporate heads who fire left and right and “lean on” the surviving staff
with a harshness to rival the literal lash of an earlier age. If we are truly free men and women why do we still
hurt and bleed so much from the abuse of power?
The image presented in
both James 5:5 and the immediate context is that of those whose misconduct has
been so blatantly grievous that common sense ought to cry out in their
hearts that it is time to set matters aright.
They have eyes to see their bank balance but not their abuses. (As we travel through the current year, can
we escape the same thought of our corporate “betters?”) Yet they are so pleased and preoccupied with
the good fortune of the moment that they could care less for any possible
consequences that might come the way of their subordinates and employees.
And for crushing evil to roll over them,
that’s inherently impossible. Such
people ancient and modern are pictured in James 5:5 as the human equivalents of
animals fattened for “a day of slaughter.”
In the immediate situation everything is fine, just as it is for the
fat and contented animal--until it is taken to the temple to be sacrificed or
given to the hired slaughterer to be prepared as the central entree for a
joyous feast. And the feast will
be in their “honor”—but it won’t bring them the slightest joy for they are the
main dish.
The modern rural adage fits
well: “The chickens come home to roost.”
[Page 371]
5:5: The unrepentant abusers of power to be
“sacrificed [ATP: butchered]” at the
very time they seemed at their peak of well-being. The imagery of verse 5 might well lead a
prophetically literate Jewish reader to Isaiah, where that seer notes that it
was a time for “weeping and for mourning” but instead the people reacted with
“joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating meat and drinking
wine: ‘Let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we die!’ ” (Isaiah 22:12-13).
Rather than feel guilt over their sin, they are going to celebrate their
excess until the very last moment. To
them, it is far better to die with a full stomach than with an honest heart.
Those who enjoyed the feast were so deep in evil that “for this
iniquity there will be no atonement for you, even to your death. . . ’ ”
(verse 14). Or to put it a bit more
colloquially, “The Lord All-Powerful has spoken to me this solemn promise: ‘I won't forgive them for this, not as long
as they live’ ” (CEV). Just as they had
sacrificed the animals for personal pleasure, God would, so to speak,
“sacrifice” them on the holy altar of injustice avenged.
The image of the powerful themselves
becoming a sacrifice on God’s altar of justice, is presented in a fascinating
manner in Ezekiel 39. There we read of
the birds of the sky and the animals of the field--the very type of creatures
that themselves could easily become temple sacrifices or items for the private
feasts of the powerful. Their roles
would be reversed and they would get to enjoy a banquet composed of the
powerful who are struck down for them to consume,
And as for you, son of
man, thus says the Lord God, Speak to every
sort of bird and to every beast of
the field:
[Page 372] “Assemble yourselves and gather together from all
sides
to My sacrificial meal which I
am sacrificing for you, a great sacrificial meal
on the mountains of
shall eat the flesh of the mighty, drink the blood of the princes of
the earth, of
rams and lambs, of goats and bulls, all of them fatlings of
“You shall eat fat till
you are full, and drink blood till you are drunk,
at My sacrificial meal which I am sacrificing for you. You shall be filled at
My table with horses and riders, with mighty men and with all the men
of
war,” says the Lord God (verses 17-20).
Or as Jeremiah 51:40 puts it, “I
will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with male
goats.” They think they have the upper
hand; their think their triumph is inescapable.
What is inescapable is the wrath of the Lord, who will offer them
as if animals in a sacrifice--to exhibit His mighty, overwhelming triumph over
the arrogant.
As Jeremiah 46:10 expresses the
concept, “For this is the day of the Lord God of hosts, a day of vengeance,
that He may avenge Himself on His adversaries.
The sword shall devour; it shall be satiated and made drunk with their
blood; for the Lord God of hosts has a sacrifice in the north country by the River
[Page 373] 5:6: The powerful were guilty of even “murder”
against the powerless.
Although this could refer to murder in the sense of uncontrolled hate
rather than literal murder, the sociopolitical reality in any age is that
certain of the rich and influential will stop at nothing to achieve
their way. In the last decades of the
twentieth century, the careful reader of the press would repeatedly come across
references to vigilante style groups in various nations around the world. Allegedly financed by the wealthy and
enjoying government acquiescence if not outright support, they terrorized and
violently suppressed the “second class” social and ethnic peoples in their respective
nations.
It is unlikely that any age has seen the phenomena totally
missing. Hence, it is quite consistent
with both human nature and human history to suspect that some of the condemned
“murders” were literally such rather than the language “merely” reflecting a “preachtorial”
hyperbole of rebuke.
Of course, other means also existed
to produce the same result of brazen injustice.
The courts could be abused[7]
through false testimony or the favoritism of the judge(s) to strike out at
one’s poor laborers. The poor being late
or not present (such can be “arranged,” of course) would provide a simple
pretext for an automatic judgement in behalf of the wealthy. The rich asking for a delay time and again
would be very likely to be receptively received—but how many times could the
poor financially afford to show up again?
How could they, in fact, afford any delay?
Whatever the chosen technique that was used, the systematic denial of
wages would deny them the ability to feed and care for themselves, easily
leading to them sickening and dying.
“Legal” murder in any of these cases.
[Page 374] The presence of such a pointed
rebuke in an epistle addressed to Christians (rather than unbelievers) has
perplexed many. This has given rise to
the theory that James is only giving general moral teaching equally applicable
to everyone. He has no intention to
imply that such extremes were actually already present in the community of
faith.[8] They could be, not necessarily were.
More often the argument seems to go much further and assumes that
Christians aren’t actually being addressed at all. If this is the case, then the implicit
argument would be: this is where
your hard-heartedness that I have rebuked could lead to! You can see it in the world around you!
The element of specifically Christian
faith, at the most, lies almost beneath the surface both here and, for example,
in the discussion of faith and works in chapter two. When the uniqueness of Christianity is a
secondary concern and the epistle is written (as this one) in such broad terms
that Jewish traditionalists would have had little difficulty considering it
wise counsel, the societal rather than strictly believer application has a
great appeal. Also in support of this is
the fact that the Old Testament is also full of general rebukes that applied to
some or many of the intended audience but definitely not all.
Having provided all the necessary caveats, it still seems impossible to
get then contemporary Christians fully off the hook. The epistle is written to them, after
all! “I’m writing this to you
Christians, but ignore what I’m saying:
It’s not really about you at all.
Not in the least!” Is that really
credible?
It either concerns what they had done or that which their
attitudes and actions created the dangerous precedent for in the future. At the worst, “a real and present danger”
rather than an already existing practice. And even that concession is extremely
hard to reconcile with the powerful indictment, presented by James as if it unquestionably had already occurred!
[Page 375]
Be that as it may, the emphasis on the abuse of power against the
innocent was still a clear Old Testament concern—both in its paganized Jewish
context and its “faithful” Jewish form as well.
Jeremiah 2 speaks of how in his day
the polytheism was pervasive and involved “their kings and their princes, and
their priests and their prophets” (
Hence, there was no real effort to hide it; they simply went out and
did it. They had the naked power and
that was all there was to it.
In spite of all this, they were
confident that Jehovah, whom they so clearly spit in the face of, would rescue
them for they weren’t actually such bad folk were they? (Not to mention with the right
ancestors!) “You say, 'Because I am innocent,
surely His anger shall turn from me.'
Behold, I will plead My case against you, because you say, 'I have not
sinned' “ (
[Page 376] They had become so morally and
spiritually calloused that they were no longer capable of judging
themselves as sinners: They could look
at themselves and only see an “innocent” person, no matter what they had
done or were doing. They had
convinced themselves that wrong was right and therefore the condemnation for
their actions could not possibly be valid. A person enslaved by any particular
sin can easily fall into this trap even today.
Likewise in the alternative possible interpretation: Some find the blindness as produced by their
temporal prosperity and their regarding it as a sign of Divine blessing. But some blessings God sends on all: “He makes His sun rise on the
evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust”
(Matthew
It fully appears that even those “loyally” dedicated to serving the
Torah were not above the same power abusing fault. It reflects a mental attitude far more than
any specific religious background.
The Psalmist, for example, warned of “the wicked [who] have drawn the
sword and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, to slay (“slaughter,”
GW, Holman, NET) those who are of upright conduct” (37:14). In that case the fatal outcome referred to in
James is apparently averted, “Their sword shall enter their own heart, and
their bows shall be broken” (verse 15).
In Psalms 10 we find the picture of
the individual who is confident that “adversity” can never come his way (verse
6) and therefore feels no reluctance to engaging in “deceit and oppression”
(verse 7). Not to mention outright
violence, “He sits in the lurking places of the villages; in the secret places
he murders the innocent; his eyes are secretly fixed on the helpless. He lies in wait secretly, as a lion in his
den; he lies in wait to catch the poor; he catches the poor when he draws him
into his net” (verses 8-9).
[Page 377] Unlike the earlier case, there
is every indication that in this situation the oppressor is quite
successful. What the Psalmist prays for,
therefore, is that such individuals might receive their well deserved
punishment (verses 14-15).
They are not depicted as if
outsiders; nor any they presented as if having fallen into idolatry. So far as religious practice and custom, they
give the outward appearance of being fellow Jews and followers of Jehovah. But just because they embraced the twin
truths of monotheism and Judaism conspicuously did not make them
automatically acceptable to God. The
same core truth (substituting Christianity for Judaism) is the point James is
making.
Such people can even be overtly religious—more
or less. Though they may carefully limit
it as far as they can without losing face or appearing the blatant
hypocrite. Amos 8 describes them this
way,
4 Hear this, you who swallow up the needy, and make the poor of the
land fail, 5 Saying: “When will
the New Moon be past, that we may sell grain?
And the Sabbath, that we may trade wheat? Making the ephah small and the shekel large,
falsifying the scales by deceit, 6 That we may buy the poor for
silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—even sell the bad wheat?” 7 The Lord has sworn by the pride of
Jacob: “Surely I will never forget any
of their works.
They had a vested interest in
“mak[ing] the poor of the land fail”—then they could enslave the poor (verse
6) They abused them by falsifying prices
and, when they collapse into debt induced penury, buying them up dirt cheap--for
no more than a pair or shoes (verse 6).
A win / win situation—for the well to do.
[Page 378]
5:7: “The early and latter rain” refer to the
two rainy seasons in
The earliest Torah text on the theme
is found in Deuteronomy 11:14, “Then I will give you the rain for your land in
its season, the early rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your
grain, your new wine, and your oil.” The
idea would seem to be an allusion to a reality true of agriculture in any place
and at any time—you need rain . . . not just at an early point in the growing
season, but later as well.
The rain is necessary to make a crop
begin growing and then, later in the process, to continue growing. It may stop for a while, but unless it is
repeated, in sufficient abundance, the crop will almost certainly perish.
The allusion could also be an allusion to the fact that different crops
need rain at different times and that what is necessary for one crop will be
too late (or too early) for a different one.
There would need to be a “season” for both types of rains for a
range of crops to prosper (Jeremiah
Yet more than once the people
blinded themselves to God’s role in assuring such things occurred, became
self-centered, and thought they could get away with anything—indefinitely, as
the last passage clearly shows in broader context,
[Page 379]
23 But this people has a defiant and
rebellious heart; they have revolted and departed. 24 They do not say in their heart, “Let
us now fear the Lord our God, who gives rain, both the former and the latter,
in its season. He reserves for us
the appointed weeks of the harvest.” 25 Your iniquities have
turned these things away, and your sins have withheld good from you.
26 'For among My people are found
wicked men; they lie in wait as one who sets snares; they set a trap; they
catch men. 27 As a cage is full of birds, so their houses are full
of deceit. 30 An astonishing and horrible thing Has been
committed in the land: 31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the
priests rule by their own power; and My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end? (Jeremiah 5)
Or as the CEV renders those final
words, “But on the day of disaster, where will you turn for help?”
In spite of the attitude and behavior
of so many being so flagrantly wrong, those truly dedicated to God were to still
take such “natural blessings” as Divine blessings as well since the hand
of man has no absolute way of assuring it.
“Be glad then, you children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God;
for He has given you the former rain faithfully, and He will cause the rain to
come down for you--The former rain, and the latter rain in the first month”
(Joel 2.23). Hence it was right and
proper to pray for its continuance (Zechariah 10:1).
[Page 380] 5:8,
9: The imminence of judgment. “The coming of the Lord is at hand” (5:8) is
echoed even more vigorously, “Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!”
(5:9). Setting aside the texts above,
the nearness aspect of judgement is also stressed in Biblical texts that do not
specifically label it as coming from the Lord.
(It would be implicit, of course, but the authors do not choose
to stress that element.)
In Psalms 37:1-2 comes the encouragement, “Do not fret because of
evildoers, nor be envious of the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like
the grass, and wither as the green herb.”
He returns to this in verse 10, “For yet a little while and the wicked
shall be no more; indeed, you will look carefully for his place, but it shall
be no more.”
Deep into the Psalm, he speaks of how he had seen them disappear so
quickly that he did not even know they were dead until he tried to get in
contact with them! “I have seen the
wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a native green tree. Yet he passed away, and behold, he was no
more; indeed I sought him, but he could not be found” (verses 35-36).
Job stresses that at the very time that folk enjoy temporal success,
God is keeping an eye on their behavior and is quite prepared to quickly
terminate their joy,
22 But God draws the mighty away with His power;
He rises up, but no man is sure of life. 23 He gives them
security, and they rely on it; yet His eyes are on their ways. 24 They
are exalted for a little while,
then they are gone. They are brought
low; they are taken out of the way like all others; they dry out like the heads
of grain. 25 Now if it is not so, who will prove me a liar,
and make my speech worth nothing? (Job 24).
[Page 381]
Obviously this does not happen in all cases. Many live a pleasantly long life and are
buried with pious ceremonies in their old age.
But this early fate can overtake anyone. Hence the nearness emphasis may not be
intended to convey literal nearness but the certainty of Divine
retribution—it will happen regardless of the time frame.
We should point out that a variety of other passages seem to have the
same concept in mind. Indeed the
scriptures themselves warn us that in the course of our life the time gap
may seem the very reverse of
“quickly”—by our normal human duration standards--but that does not change
the irrevocable certainty that God can and will act at the moment He deems
best. And “quickly” by His
standards.
To us it may seem that nothing is happening; that all we ever do is
wait. We are warned not to allow that
reality to drive us to despair. The
warning is implicit in Micah 7, as we behold an individual who is waiting for
God to act, knowing it will happen—but that it is clearly not “near” or
“fast” as we normally use those terms.
It is such in God’s time scheme but not in our own, and that is
fully enough to provide the needed strength to persevere,
Habakkuk 2 also hits on this
paradox: the promise is fulfilled
quickly, but no it is not. Do the final
words of verse 3 blatantly contradict or is the core idea of nearness language
its inevitability and not necessarily chronological day or year
closeness?
[Page 383]
2 Then the Lord answered me and
said: "Write the vision and make it
plain on tablets, that he may run who reads it. 3 For the vision
is yet for an appointed time; but at the end it will speak, and it will
not lie. Though it tarries, wait
for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.
Is not “sureness”—the absolute reliability of promise and pledge--the
intended definition of “it will not tarry,” of the closeness/imminence language
that is used?
Quickness language is also used, not of the time until they are
judged but of how swiftly disaster overtakes them when God determines it is time to act, “Surely You set them in
slippery places; You cast them down to destruction. Oh, how they are brought to desolation, as
in a moment! They are utterly
consumed with terrors. As a dream when
one awakes, so, Lord, when You awake, You shall despise their image” (Psalm
73:18-20).
Isaiah 47:9 speaks in similar conceptual language, “But these two things
shall come to you in a moment, in one day: The loss of children, and widowhood. They shall come upon you in their fullness
because of the multitude of your sorceries, for the great abundance of your
enchantments.”
What then is the meaning of the nearness language in such Old
Testament texts and, reasonably arguable, the meaning of it in our James passage
as well? The nearness of judgment is an apt assertion for at least three
reasons without a literal chronological relationship of short duration
between issuance of the threat and the time it is carried out inherently being envolved. (In other words, these factors would be
present whether only a few years, decades, or even far longer in the future is covered
by the “duration” language.)
[Page 384] (1) We have no control over it; so it comes at
any time and any way in which the Lord decides.
When its time, its there and we can neither delay it nor speed it up. The usage in Psalms 73:18-20.
(2) When a millennium is viewed
by God as no more than a mere day (Psalms 90:4), then any certain and
inevitable judgement will be—in His terms—“soon” and “imminent.”
(3)
The allusion to grass that quickly grows and quickly dies as proof that
the abusive rich will not be with us indefinitely (James 1:10-11),
is—inherently—a claim that all of us “soon” die. As Hebrews
Our goal at this point is simply to
show that some qualifications on the intent of imminency language grow
inevitably out of other Biblical assertions as well, especially how such
language is used in various Old Testament passages. James may or may not have one of these ideas
in mind.
However, when there is a viable and reasonable interpretation of the
language as referring to literally near-term events, where is the wisdom
in reading into the language a reference to the physical, bodily return
of Jesus at the end of this planet? Why
read into nearness language more than a two millennium delay in fulfillment? Does this not result in theory driven
exegesis when it is not needed at all?
In our
discussion of the imminence of the judgment in our “overview” chapter, we
argued that James’ words make the most sense of a wartime context. So far as the Palestinian Jews, the allusion
makes us think primarily of the time of the Great Jewish Revolt of 66-70 A.D.
although one would be unwise to exclude the preceding decades in which the
Roman rule sometimes allowed chaos to prosper within Judaea.
[Page 385] So far as more distant
regions, the description would amply fit similar outbursts in those areas,
though few if any lived up to the intensity or duration of what happened in
geographic Palestine during the Revolt. As
to intensity, one obvious possible exception would be Boudica’s nearly
successful rebellion in 60 or 61 A.D. that tempted Nero to consider withdrawing
imperial forces from
As to the time of the Jewish War itself and with an empire wide view in
mind, remember that this is a world in which there were four emperors in one
year (69 A.D.) and in which the Empire seemed within an inch of collapse. With various regions throwing up their own
would be emperors and with the inevitable crumbling of much of international
trade and economic well-being during the conflicts.
In spite of the logic of this, one should still consider the
alternatives developed above. I summed
up the relevance to the book of James in somewhat this manner in an earlier
draft:
Unlike the judgment coming “quickly”
upon nations, these texts are talking about specific individuals. They are not talking about the judgment of
destruction via war—at least there is no sense or mention of it. The condemnation of James is of individuals—yes,
many individuals—who had abused their power and influence and economic
clout to treat the less blest as nothing but human cattle.
It is not condemnation aimed at
specific nations or cities but to a specific life style. Hence there is no reason to interpret the
passage as a reference to the coming destruction of
Even so, when is the easiest time in this world for the
well-to-do to receive “pay back”? When
is the time when all their power and influence is at its weakest? We still seem to be forced back to a time of
societal unrest, revolt, and even war.
If God uses such conditions to bring Divine judgement upon nations, why
would it seem strange if He also uses it to bring judgement on
individuals as well?
[Page 386] This does not exclude the
elements of “nearness” conveying the ideas of inevitability and certainty
nor does it exclude other interpretations.
It simply expresses the reality that in a wartime / societal unrest
context is the time that we most obviously and clearly see it happen.
That jumps such a setting to the top of the list of precipitating events
that produces this kind of result. And
the most likely intended frame of fulfillment in James 5.
[Page 387] Yet we may safely say that of
the two options, God much prefers to be the God of compassion and mercy. Indeed, that characterization is a repeated
description of Him in the Old Testament.
When Yahweh gave Moses the Ten Commandments the second time (the first
tablets having been destroyed by Moses in anger at the people’s idolatry), He
laid great stress upon the positive aspects of the Divine character. He is described as “the Lord, the Lord God, merciful
and gracious, long-suffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping
mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin . . . ”
(Exodus 34:6-7a)
In Psalms 103:8-10, the Divine mercy
and grace is illustrated by God being “slow to anger, and abounding in
mercy.” It is further demonstrated by
the fact that He does not stay angry forever (verse 9) nor punishes us for “our
sins” and “our iniquities” the way we deserve (verse 10).
In effect, God “pulls His punches,” either in how many He hands out or
in their intensity or duration. Far
greater than His willingness to punish is His preference for forgiveness, “The
Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great
in mercy. The Lord is good to all, and
His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:8-9)
“Great in mercy” can carry several overtones. The CEV suggests “always loving” and the TEV
“full of constant love.” The NIV “rich
in love.” God’s Word, “always read to
forgive.” All drift away from literalism,
but it is hard to imagine any of them actually miss the intended “freight”
carried by the words “great in mercy.”
God’s willingness to provide
temporal blessings for His people also reflects that core attitude of His. For example, in Psalms 111:4-5, we find how
Yahweh’s “gracious[ness]” and “compassion” (verse 4) is expressed by His
providing the temporal needs that are required.
[Page 388]
Daniel
In the Old Testament itself, Job is
held out as one of three exemplars of proper behavior whose actions resulted in
a person saving himself even in times of disaster that overwhelmed everyone
else. We find this in the only other Old
Testament text referring to him, Ezekiel 14:
14 “Even if these three men, Noah,
Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their
righteousness,” says the Lord God. 15 “If I cause wild beasts to
pass through the land, and they empty it, and make it so [Page 389] desolate that no man may pass through
because of the beasts, 16 even though these three men were in it,
as I live,” says the Lord God, “they would deliver neither sons nor daughters;
only they would be delivered, and the land would be desolate. 17 Or if I bring a sword on that land, and say,
‘Sword, go through the land,’ and I cut off man and beast from it, 18 even
though these three men were in it, as I live,” says the Lord God, “they would
deliver neither sons nor daughters, but only they themselves would be
delivered. 19 Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour
out My fury on it in blood, and cut off from it man and beast, 20 even
though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,” says the Lord God, “they
would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by
their righteousness.”
These verses may or may not tell us
anything directly about Job’s “patience” but they certainly show him in
such an ideal light that if anyone had it, would it not have been
him?
Furthermore the other two certainly showed patience. In all those many years building the ark,
does anyone doubt for a minute that Noah was repeatedly ridiculed and made fun
of--the people mocking that his gigantic vessel would never be used and that he
was nothing but an aging fool?
Do we doubt that as the monotheist outsider in a pagan court, that
Daniel faced repeated periods of harassment trying to embarrass or intimidate
him into polytheism? In light of this,
would we not expect Ezekiel to have regarded Job as another example of
“patience?” The use might seem a bit
strange to us, but in this context would it have seemed strange to the
Hebrews?
[Page 390]
In one sense nothing that came
afterwards could erase what Job had gone through. The memories would be present forever. The children of his who had perished remained
dead. Even so, God arranged a kind of
crude compensation, within the limits imposed by these two continuing
realities.
One was that “the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before” (Job
42:10) in regard to his possessions (verse 12).
Furthermore, he successfully fathered a new generation of children who
he lived to see grow up and produce their own offspring (verses 13-16). For an individual who looked death in the
face and who seemed doomed to see his lineage come to an end, this was no small
comfort and reversal of fortune.
What is particularly surprising is
that God’s compassion and mercy would be illustratable from a story that,
initially, appears to only be one of stark tragedy. Yet Job’s ultimate restoration to prosperity and
having a new family makes it a quite reasonable example of restoration and
blessing after enduring heavy hardship.
The idea of God being concerned with
treating his people with compassion and mercy is a generalization referred to
in a number of contexts in the Old Testament.
In some places it is simply a blanket assertion: “Gracious is the Lord, and righteous; yes,
our God is merciful” (Psalms 116:5).
“For His merciful kindness is great toward us, and the truth of the Lord
endures forever. Praise the Lord!” (117:2).
[Page 391] In other places the concept is
fleshed out with comparisons and illustrations.
For example, His mercy is an expression or proof of His love: “I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the
Lord and the praises of the Lord, according to all that the Lord has bestowed
on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which He has bestowed
on them according to His mercies, according to the multitude of
His lovingkindnesses” (Isaiah 63:7). In
other words, it was not expressed in only one manner but in a “multitude” of
ways.
In addition, His mercy is linked
with His being “longsuffering” (Numbers
Even when He acts, He typically (to
use a modern phrase), pulls His punches and restrains from pouring out all the
wrath justly due. The Psalmist points to
how His mercy causes Him to avoid inflicting upon us all the temporal
punishment we justly deserve: Because He
is “merciful” and “abounding in mercy,” “He has not
dealt with us according to our sins, nor punished us according to our
iniquities.” (Psalms 103:8-10;
cf. Nehemiah 9:31).
This restraint grows out of the recognition that we are His children
(Psalms 103:13) and of our mortal weaknesses (Psalms 103:14). Hence His mercy is linked to an unwillingness
to stay angry with His creation (Nehemiah
[Page 392]
Nor should it be overlooked that the very giving of the Law of Moses
represented a display of compassion and mercy.
Due to our quite human limitations, we are unable to reason our way to a
perfect understanding of right and wrong.
And even when we do get things right, self-interest and our human
limitations easily carve out self-serving exceptions. Hence the need for the recognition that, “O Lord,
I know the way of man is not in
himself; it is not in man who
walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah
Yet since the Torah was law, it would have been easy to think of
it just in terms of obligation rather than recognize that God had
ordained it for their good and that by obeying it they demonstrated the
sureness of purpose that showed His mercy and love were yielding the fruit He
sought.
5:12: Oaths in the Old Testament and their
limitation—being in the name of Israel’s God not being so much a command that oaths by taken but as a prohibition of them being taken in the
name of (i.e., out of loyalty to or to honor) any rival deity. Hence there is a “small” but vital difference
between a command saying “thou shalt make oaths” and one instructing “thou
shall make oaths in the name of your God”—with an “only” either stated or
implied. The first showed oaths were
permissible; the second banned invoking anyone’s name in the oath but that of
Jehovah.
Patrick J. Hartin argues that “the Hebrew tradition readily upheld the
taking of oaths” and quotes the following texts (from a different translation
than we do) to prove the point:[9]
[Page 393]
Deuteronomy 6:13: You shall fear the Lord
your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.
(The God’s Word translation has as the
conclusion, “take your oaths only in His name;” New Revised Standard
Version: “by His name alone you
shall swear.” Another minority of
translations put “only” in front of “fearing the Lord your God” [NASB,
NIV]. If one is “only” to fear Jehovah,
then it seems inescapable that the oaths, also, must “only” be in His
name. Not to mention Israelite
monotheism leaving no room for other gods in the first place.)
Psalms 63:11: But the king shall
rejoice in God; everyone who swears by Him shall glory; but the mouth of
those who speak lies shall be stopped.
(Note how swearing by Yahweh is contrasted with “speaking lies,” with
all its implicit “freight” that what is said will be fully truthful.)
Isaiah 65:16: So that he who blesses
himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he who
swears in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former
troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My eyes. (“In the earth,” i.e., an earth/world-wide
requirement; it is the rule not only for where they currently are but anywhere
else time and events might place them.)
[Page 394] Jeremiah
12:16: And it shall be, if they will
learn carefully the ways of My people, to swear by My name, ‘As the Lord lives,’ as they taught My people to swear by
Baal, then they shall be established in the midst of My people. (Not “so help me God,” but “As the Lord
lives,” i.e., as surely as He genuinely exists I am telling the truth.)
1 Kings 17:1: And Elijah the Tishbite, of the inhabitants
of
1 Kings 22:14: And Micaiah said, “As the Lord lives, whatever the Lord
says to me, that I will speak.”
Hartin also appeals to an Old Testament example of the oath taking
tradition, how it is applied to Yahweh’s own action, and how such behavior is described
in the New Testament:[10]
Genesis 22:16: And said: “By Myself I have sworn, says
the Lord, because you have done this thing,
and have not withheld your son, your only son—“
Hebrews 6:16-17: For men indeed swear by the greater, and an
oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. 17 Thus God,
determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of
His counsel, confirmed it by an oath.
[Page 395] Hebrews
7:21: (for they have become priests
without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest
forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
In other words, the New Testament accepted the validity and
desirability of certain oaths. They
could be so honorable that even God Himself was willing to invoke them.
It should be noted that none of these various texts enjoin “swear[ing]
either by heaven or by earth”—that which James prohibited: they reasonably have the “silent prohibition”
of swearing by earthly things because they are not mentioned at all. Furthermore, they have the explicit command
that any swearing be done by Yahweh alone.
It is not heaven they are to swear by but the God who dwells
there.
There should be no distinction between the two, of course. Although “swearing by heaven” may merely be
an euphemism for swearing by the God of heaven, anyone who has observed human
behavior for seven decades—as I have--will find it quite credible that there
would be others who would exploit the difference for all its worth: Since they were swearing by heaven rather
than God, their truth telling commitment, or their promise to do something, only
represented a current intent and not a duty. They hadn’t committed themselves to anything
truly obligatory.
[Page 396] This is the way the human mind
works when it wants to weasel its way around a commitment. Are we to believe for a second there weren’t
many of that mind frame in the first century?
In fact, does not Jesus refer to them in His criticism of contemporary
oath taking (Matthew
On the other hand, Jesus concludes His rebuke in Matthew 23 with the
words, “Whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by
him who sits upon it” (verse 22). In
other words swearing by heaven must be taken as swearing by God.
This is the way it should be—and so
far as Jesus goes is--but the fact that His contemporaries made thin
distinctions to justify ignoring their oaths argues that in practice it was not this way. And Jesus firmly rebukes such disentangling heaven from the God who
dwells there. However much it was done
in practice it was regarded as abhorrent by Him.
[Page 397] Yet the fact that they were so
obligatory in being carried out meant (1) the need to be restrained in how
often they were made, (2) caution in their subject matter, and (3) careful
consideration of whether one had fully thought out the implications of the
commitment being made.
Although oaths—including the related form of making “vows” in which a
similarly serious pledge is made about conduct or behavior—was common under the
Torah and the prophets, tolerating untruth in them was regarded as
reprehensible and sinful. Leviticus 5
begins with the need to provide the entire truth and not a partial account in
legal proceedings and “parallels” it with making a rash oath as to what one
will do and then realizing we were acting foolishly—branding both as sinfulness
that needed to be confessed before God in one’s sacrifices:
1 If a person sins in hearing the utterance
of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter--if he
does not tell it, he bears guilt. 4 Or if a person swears,
speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is
that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it --when he realizes
it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters. 5 And it shall be,
when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has
sinned in that thing; 6 and he shall bring his trespass offering to the
Lord for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a
kid of the goats as a sin offering. So
the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin. 13 The
priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has committed in any
of these matters; and it shall be forgiven him. . . .
[Page 398]
The seriousness of non-legal oaths
or vows is heavily emphasized here by putting the punishment for the violation
of both types on a par. In real life, one
has to assume that being called for legal testimony would be a rare
occasion (or at least a very uncommon one).
The greatest temptation for the abuse of oaths or vows would be in
regard to every day commitments and promises to others.
Note the emphasis on how such things could easily get out of hand: he may easily promise things that are
inherently wrong or unwise or simply undoable in the time available or with the
resources he has. The text is written to
cover all such contingencies: “if
a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good,
whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it.”
The CEV calls this “a hasty promise” and the RSV “a rash oath;” the
TEV, less pointedly, “a careless vow.” In
common to these various renderings is the idea of carelessness and lack of
taking the matter seriously enough: it’s
the easiest thing to say and it’s probably doable so you mutter a solemn
promise to get the person off your back.
And the context puts it on the same level as a legal oath, thereby showing us just how serious the offense is.
In the context of the book of James, Leviticus 5 shows that even in the
Old Testament, whatever swearing was acceptable was not to contain
irresponsible, idle words. It was to be
taken seriously as an important and binding commitment.
Ecclesiastes 5 comes down hard on
what are clearly oaths, vows, and solemn promises made to God. The reasoning surely applied to legal oaths
and oaths of various types in regard to other people as well—running one’s
mouth antagonizes God and is tempting His retribution,
[Page 399]
2 Do not be rash with your mouth,
and let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you on earth;
therefore let your words be few. 3 For a dream comes through much
activity, and a fool's voice is known by his many words. 4 When
you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; for He has no pleasure in
fools. Pay what you have vowed-- 5
Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. 6 Do not let your
mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was
an error. Why should God be angry at
your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? 7 For in
the multitude of dreams and many words there is also vanity. But fear God.
Once again, the promiscuous use of
oaths in their various forms is warned against.
It is clear that oaths could get out of hand and the writer is appalled
at the danger of it happening. And in traditional
oath taking and using societies there was and is the tendency for such
to be abundant, of course.
Indeed the warning against “let[ting] your mouth cause your flesh to
sin” sounds like the situation where one has promised to do something that one
knows beforehand is sinful.
Alternatively, that upon reflection one discovers that one has unwisely
promised something that is horribly out of line. Few better illustrations of this is possible
than that of Jephthah in Judges 11:
[Page 400]
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people
of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that
whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace
from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's,
and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah,
there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and
she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came
to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my
daughter! You have brought me very low! You
are among those who trouble me! For I
have given my word to the Lord, and I cannot go
back on it.” 39
And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father,
and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. . . .
This text has created considerable
perplexity, dividing interpreters between those who think Jephthah carried out
his solemn but unwise pledge and those who think his obligation was to
considerably less,[11]
Much to his dismay, his daughter came
forth. It has been argued that his vow only pertained to the service in the
sanctuary or
[Page 401] Human
sacrifice, moreover, is utterly condemned in the Bible (Deuteronomy
Jephthah’s vow had two
elements: the first object seen “shall
surely be the Lord’s” and, secondly, “I will offer it up as a burnt
offering.” The second aspect most
naturally means “in this manner
the object will become the Lord’s.” It
isn’t presented as either/or “be the Lord’s” or “be a burnt offering,”
but of it being both.
Either way, Jephthah’s promise is
the perfect illustration of a well meant and logical pledge—of the “hasty
promise” in Leviticus 5 and the “let[ting] your mouth cause your flesh to sin”
in Ecclesiastes 5 . . . oaths and vows having repercussions far beyond the
comprehension at the time the words were first offered. If he offered his daughter as a literal
sacrifice, he not only killed her for no honorable reason but also blotted
out the possibility of having descendants.
The death penalty for him for murder was not really called for—he
himself had “murdered” his own lineage.
Yet if he “merely” forced her into perpetual service, he still
eliminated his own future, exterminated it from any existence. His verbal rashness—well intentioned though
it was—had humiliated him at the time of his great victory.
[Page 402]
James speaks of “not swear[ing],
either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath.” The Old Testament certainly does not take
that dramatic a step—but by its implicit and explicit limitations on swearing
it has made major steps on inhibiting how common they should be. As the Chinese adage goes, “A journey of a
thousand miles begins with one step.” In
a similar manner, eliminating oaths begins with limiting them.
When we get beyond the time of the
traditional Hebrew Bible we find Jews becoming increasingly skittish about
oaths in general—trying to limit them even further than the situations covered
in the above texts. Moving to the
deuterocanonical works we find in Sirach 23:9-11 (NRSV) words that warn against
the danger of idly multiplying oaths,
Do not accustom your
mouth to oaths, nor habitually utter the name
of the Holy One; for as a servant who is constantly under scrutiny will
not
lack bruises, so also the person who always swears and utters the Name
will
never be cleansed from sin. The
one who swears many oaths is full of
iniquity, and the scourge will not leave his house. If he swears in error, his
sin remains on him, and if he disregards it, he sins doubly; if he
swears a
false oath, he will not be justified, for his house will be filled with
calamities.
Moving into the first century we
find the Jewish philosopher, Philo of
[Page 403]
(84) That being which is the most beautiful, and
the most beneficial to human life, and suitable to rational nature, swears not
itself, because truth on every point is so innate within him that his bare word
is accounted an oath. Next to not
swearing at all, the second best thing is to keep one's oath; for by the mere
fact of swearing at all, the swearer shows that there is some suspicion of his
not being trustworthy.
(85) Let a man, therefore, be dilatory, and slow if
there is any chance that by delay he may be able to avoid the necessity of
taking an oath at all; but if necessity compels him to swear, then he must
consider with no superficial attention, every one of the subjects, or parts of
the subject, before him; for it is not a matter of slight importance, though
from its frequency it is not regarded as it ought to be. . . .
(92) But there are also some people who, without
any idea of acquiring gain, do from a bad habit incessantly and
inconsiderately swear upon every occasion, even when there is nothing at
all about which any doubt is raised, as if they were desirous to fill up the
deficiency of their argument with oaths, as if it would not be better to cut
their conversation short, or I might rather say to utter nothing at all, but to
preserve entire silence, for from a frequency of oaths arises a habit of
perjury and impiety.
[Page 404] (93) On which account the man who is going to take
an oath ought to investigate everything with care and exceeding accuracy,
considering whether the subject is of serious importance, and whether it has
really taken place, and whether, if it has, he has comprehended it properly;
and considering himself, also, whether he is pure in soul, and body, and
tongue, having the first free from all violation of the law, the second from
all defilement, and the last from all blasphemy. For it is an impiety for any disgraceful words
to be uttered by that mouth by which the most sacred name is also mentioned.
(94) Let him also consider whether the place and
the time are suitable; for before now I have known some persons, in profane and
impure places (in which it is not fitting that mention should be made of either
their father or their mother, or of even any old man among their kindred who
may have lived a virtuous life), swearing, and stringing together whole
sentences full of oaths, using the name of God with all the variety of titles
which belong to him, when they should not, out of sheer impiety.
(95) And let him who pays but little heed to what
has been said here know, in the first place, that he is impure and defiled;
and, in the second place, that the most terrible punishments are constantly
lying in wait for him; that justice who keeps her eye upon all human affairs,
being implacable and inflexible towards all enormities of such a character;
and, when she does not think fit to inflict her punishments at once, still
exacting satisfaction with abundant usury whenever the opportunity seems to
offer in combination with the general advantage.
[Page 405] Note how the indictment of profligate
use of oaths seems to edge into something very close to our modern idea of
“swearing” and “vulgarity.” Even if we
are guilty of “back reading” into the ancient text a bit more than we should,
the fact remains that Philo is an eloquent testimony against the widespread and
needless use of oaths in everyday life.
He regarded it as inherently corrupting
At least some Greeks had
become skittish as well. Diogenes
Laertius described Pythagoras’ attitude as being “not to call the gods to
witness, man’s duty being rather to strive to make his own word carry
conviction.”[13] Epictetus’ teaching was, “Refuse, if you can,
to take an oath at all, but if that is impossible, refuse as far as
circumstances allow.”[14]
The Psalmist quotes God as saying, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble (“day
of distress,” ISV); I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me” (50:15). Those who refused to live a life of moral
restraint are bluntly excluded from those for whom it would do any good; to
those the admonition is one of moral reformation (verses 16-23).
In Psalms 91, the pledge is similar,
“He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I
will deliver him and honor him” (verse 15).
This, however, is restricted to
those who “love” God (verse 14). Not
“love” in empty words, but as demonstrated by actual behavior. Words are cheap. Anyone can utter them. Only you and I can do the actual obeying.
[Page 406] King Manasseh is cited as an
individual who “in affliction” implored God and his hope-prayer was granted (2
Chronicles 33:12-13). Likewise Jonah’s
prayer inside the sea beast is described as “cr(ying) out to the Lord because
of my affliction” and, again, the desired result was obtained (Jonah 2:2).
Some times one is not suffering in
the usual external sense of the term.
Fortunately, the Divine healing power concerns not only the outwardly
tangible but the inwardly broken heart and spirit, gutted by the turmoils and
tribulations of life. Psalms 147:3
presents the concept this way, “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their
wounds.”
Psalms 107 utilizes an example that fits both physical and emotional
havoc--of the seaman who faces waves that seem to carry him into the heights of
the sky and then plunge him downward as if the next stop is the bottom of the
sea (verses 23-27). Yet their prayers
for deliverance are answered (verses 28-30).
This illustration is used to argue that all mankind should share
such gratitude at surviving their own time of potential danger and disaster,
“Oh, that men would give thanks to the Lord for His goodness, and for His
wonderful works to the children of men!
Let them exalt Him also in the assembly of the people, and praise Him in
the company of the elders” (verses 31-32).
Sometimes the emotional injury
is not from a dramatic crisis such as is depicted in Psalms 107 but from the
suffering imposed by the steady pressure of one set back after another. Hence we hear folk speak of being so overwhelmed
by life that it is “killing them,” that they are “dying” a little bit each
day.
[Page 407] Psalms 30 sounds as if that
is, at least partially, the situation in mind.
God is pictured as rescuing from such mental/emotional distress along
with the physical conditions that cause it, “O Lord my God, I cried out to You,
and You healed me. O Lord, You brought
my soul up from the grave; You have kept me alive, that I should not go down to
the pit” (Psalms 30:2-3).
The greatest extreme, of course, is when we are hit by both physical
disease and mental distress, knowing full well that there are people who
literally do “wish us dead.”
Psalms 41 discusses exactly that scenario and the Psalmist’s prayer to
escape their ill wishes. Our triumph
over death in such a case proves what?
The Psalmist provides the answer:
“By this I know that You are well pleased with me, because my
enemy does not triumph over me” (verse 11).
Yet we do not have to rely alone upon
this broad fact for precedent. Specific
texts either make or edge up to the explicit affirmation of their intent
to be used to express such joy, happiness, and celebration in song. Either in relation to the Psalms themselves
or of the broad principle of singing joyfully.
[Page 408] Psalms 27:6 seems to parallel
“sacrifices of joy” and “sing[ing] praises to the Lord,” as if they are
identical or, at a minimum, that both are motivated by joy. The connection between joy and singing also
seems to be the idea in Psalms 65:13.
The idea is explicit in Psalms 67:4, “Oh, let the nations be glad and
sing for joy!”
We might, possibly, even anticipate
the linkage in the “discouraging” poetry of the Psalms because songs--by their
very nature--often have an upbeat, hopeful element in them even when the
explicit theme is a discouraging one. It
is almost as if by venting, one’s deepest frustrations one is simultaneously
expressing the hope and determination to see better days.
Be that as it may, other Old
Testament books also allude to the singing/joy tie-in. In Job 30:9, “The blessing of a perishing man
came upon me, and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.” In other words, even when facing hardships (the
“widow’s heart”) there will still be justification to look at the joyous
aspects of life that continue to happen.
Not that one pretends the negative factors cease to exist, but that one
never neglects the other half of life either.
In Isaiah 65:14 Yahweh is quoted as proclaiming, “Behold, My servants
shall sing for joy of heart.” In Isaiah
42:10-12 the idea is developed at greater length,
10 Sing to the Lord a new song, and
His praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that
is in it, you coastlands and you inhabitants of them! 11 Let the wilderness and its cities
lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar inhabits. Let the inhabitants of Sela sing, let them
shout from the top of the mountains. 12 Let them give glory to the
Lord, and declare His praise in the coastlands.
[Page 409]
It is extremely hard to conceptually separate singing “praise” (42:10)
and “lift[ing] up their voice” (42:11) and “shout[ing] from the top of the
mountains” (42:11)—not to mention “give glory” and “declare His praise” (
Hence the words carry the “freight” of joyous singing and a few
translations make verse 11’s admonition “let them shout from the top of the
mountains” do so explicitly. “Let them
shout for joy from the tops of the mountains” (NASB). “Shout for joy from the tops of the
mountains!” (TEV). “From the top of the
mountains let them make a sound of joy” (BBE).
Although the term joy is not utilized, when Jeremiah 31:7 refers to
“sing[ing] with gladness for Jacob” the idea seems essentially the
same. In Zephaniah 3:14 the concept of
singing is again linked with being “glad” and “rejoic[ing] with all your
heart,” as is the case in Zechariah 2:10:
“ ‘Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion!
For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,’ says the
Lord.”
We find a parallel to this in the case of when the Shunammite woman’s
son died and she took the initiative to seek out Elisha to come and heal him (2
Kings 4:22-37). He did not know about
the death; she acted to assure he would.
And as a result the boy was healed.
[Page 410] Hence calling on the prayers
of others has Old Testament precedent.
In a context of physical disease rather than death, King Jeroboam
pleaded for a prophet’s prayer (1 Kings 13:6):
“Please entreat the favor of the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my
hand may be restored to me.” He needed
help and knew it and wasn’t too proud to ask for it—king or not.
Similarly when Miriam was punished by God with leprosy for stirring up
trouble against Moses, the Israelite leader intervened upon the urging of Aaron
(Numbers 12:12), though he might well have even without it: “So Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, ‘Please heal her, O God, I pray!’ ”
(Verse 13).
We can broaden this principle out to seeking the prayers of others for
our sin as well; cf. James 5:15: “And if
he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
Hence ill health can occur in connection with sin or completely on its
own (note the conditional “if” in James’ remark).
Intervening in cases of ill health or calamity caused by sin is also
firmly rooted in the Old Testament. For
example, when disaster was destroying the wilderness camp of the Israelites,
the people called on Moses to intervene with God (Numbers 11:2). Nearly all translations speak of how “the
people cried out to Moses” but the CEV is hardly likely to miss the subtext
that is present, “the people begged Moses to help.” If you prefer: “implored,” “urged,” “pleaded.” And when they had done this, he did
intervene and immediately the fire came to an end.
[Page 411] Likewise, when the people who
jubilantly rejoiced that Saul had been made their first king were forced to
realize their error, “And all the people said to Samuel, ‘Pray for your
servants to the Lord your God, that we may not
die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves’
” (1 Samuel 12:23). Samuel responded, “As
for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord
in ceasing to pray for you” (1 Samuel
Even so, he wasn’t about to whitewash their sin for he immediately
added, “but I will teach you the good and the right way” (verse 23) and that
included not adding additional sin to their evil of having a human
rather than Divine ruler.
Although Abimlech is not explicitly
recorded as seeking the prayers of Abraham for his sick servants, the King’s
generosity gave evidence that the offense He had given to Yahweh was purely
unintentional. As the result Abraham
prayed for them and the curse of sterility was removed (Genesis 20:9-18).
In a much later case, when faced with a withered hand, King Jeroboam
pleaded for a prophet’s intervention through prayer--and healing occurred as
well (1 Kings 13:6). In contrast King
Asa relied strictly on his doctors and “did not seek the Lord” in addition--and
as a consequence died (2 Chronicles
[Page 412] These are specific examples of
the broad Israelite faith that Yahweh was quite capable of intervening against
human disease and curing the afflicted.
In Psalms 103:2-4 the conviction is expressed in this manner, “Bless the
Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits. Who forgives all your iniquities, who heals
all your diseases. Who redeems your life
from destruction, who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies.”
In other words, God is concerned not only with our spiritual body but
also our physical one. He is there and
our prayer for help is an admission of our limitations and our dependence. It is the destruction of the delusion of
total human independence where we never have the need of anyone greater than
ourselves.
Yet even here, the healing imagery is not fully abandoned for he notes
that in the case of such prayers “you may be healed,” a term that one would
most naturally associate with physical problems of one kind or another but
which is here used metaphorically of sin.
Yet the describing of “iniquity” in terms of being “sick” is not without
Old Testament precedent (Isaiah 33:24).
[Page 413] Faced with the wrong type of
personalities such requests would be useless.
Job mourns that he wished that he had someone who “might plead for a man
with God, as a man pleads for his neighbor” (
We read of the people coming to the
prophet Samuel and begging him to “pray for your servants to the Lord your God,
that we may not die” because of their transgressions (1 Samuel
We also read of
[Page 414]
The linkage between spiritual
commitment and prayer is made with a different image in Proverbs 15:8, “The
prayer of the upright is His [God’s] delight.” In verse 29 of the same chapter the
expression is the same as in James, “The Lord is far from the wicked, but He
hears the prayer of the righteous.”
From the standpoint of the receptivity of Deity itself, Psalms 34:15
argues, “the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to
their cry.” This doesn’t mean that they
are perfect—none is; but that they are doing their best to do the right
thing. They aren’t giving God “token”
service and pretending it is more; they are trying to give Him all He is due.
If we flip the concept over, the
reverse of “righteousness” is doing wrong.
Hence the Old Testament also speaks in terms of the negative expression
of the same idea: by avoiding
evil, God will answer prayer (2 Chronicles 7:14) According to Proverbs, in reality there is
little choice if one intends to be successful in prayer. “One who turns his ear from hearing the law,
even his prayer is an abomination: (Proverbs 28:9).
The Psalmist hits on this in a
fascinatingly broader context in Psalms 66:
[Page 415]
13 I will go into Your house with
burnt offerings; I will pay You my vows,
14 Which my lips have uttered and my mouth has spoken when I was
in trouble. 15 I will offer You
burnt sacrifices of fat animals, with the sweet aroma of rams; I will offer
bulls with goats.
16 Come and hear, all you who fear
God, and I will declare what He has done for my soul. 17 I cried to Him with my mouth, and
He was extolled with my tongue. 18 If
I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear. 19 But certainly God has heard me; He
has attended to the voice of my prayer. 20
Blessed be God, who has not turned away my prayer, nor His mercy from me!
As required under the Old Testament, he had offered burnt offerings and
animal sacrifices including those he had made “vows” to perform (verses 13-15),
but this was not enough to have his prayers answered. He had recognized what God had done for him
(verse 16) and had praised (“extolled”) Him for it.
But even these were not what got his prayer answered. He tells us that it was that he had shunned
“iniquity in my heart” (verse 18), where it might well hide from others but not
from God. All the other manifestations
were fine and good and expected--but without moral integrity controlling his
heart, it would not have accomplished anything in having prayer answered.
To the moral character that this
inner purification implies, must be added prayer that aims to be “effective”
and which is “fervent” in content and intensity. We have the image presented of
fervency in the case of Elijah healing the dead son of the woman he was staying
with while in hiding (1 Kings
[Page 416] In other cases we have the rhetoric
of fervency even if the term itself is not utilized. For example the prayer of Asa before battle
in 2 Chronicles 14:11: “And Asa cried
out to the Lord his God, and said, ‘Lord, it is nothing for You to help,
whether with many or with those who have no power; help us, O Lord our God, for
we rest on You, and in Your name we go against this multitude. O Lord, You are our God; do not let man
prevail against You!’ ”
In yet other cases the situation
depicted would seemingly produce fervency.
The prayer for deliverance from oppression, would be a good example
(Psalms 107:6, 10-15, 26-30). Another
would be Moses forty days of fasting and prayer for
[Page 417] Sometimes the only way to
learn right is to first suffer the painful consequences of doing wrong, “Before
I was afflicted I went astray, but now [our emphasis] I keep Your word”
(Psalms 119:67). Today we call this the
“school of hard knocks.”
Quite a few translations find the same point in Jeremiah 31:18-19, “You
have disciplined me (31:18) . . . For after
I had turned away, I relented, and after I was instructed, I struck my
thigh; I was ashamed, and I was confounded, because I bore the disgrace of my
youth” (ESV). In other words, the
“turning away” was the turning into sin and away from God and God’s
chastisement stripped their delusions from their eyes. Other translations, however, make it the
turning in the other direction, “After I turned back [i.e., to
God], I repented” (NASB).
In the closing verse of Hosea 5, God
makes plain He is throwing His ungrateful people to the wolves because their
behavior has left no other option, “I will return again to My place till they
acknowledge their offense. Then they
will seek My face; in their affliction they will earnestly seek Me” (verse
15).
In the first verse of the next chapter is the plea that they do exactly
that, “Come, and let us return to the Lord; for He has torn, but He will heal
us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up” (6:1). They were on a course of
self-destruction (
One of the most stinging messages of
the Old Testament prophets is that one may be devout and enthusiastic in one’s
religious endeavor and yet be so morally and socially corrupt that it does no
good. In Isaiah 1 we read of individuals
who enthusiastically offered incense, animal sacrifices, and observed the
Sabbath and other holy days (verses 13-14).
[Page 418] Yet they are warned, “when you
spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many
prayers I will not hear. Your hands are
full of blood.” Yet he holds out a
message of hope to them as well: by
purifying themselves of their evils (verse 16) and learning to treat others
rightly (verse 17) they could be restored to acceptability.
To use the rhetoric of James
James’ reference to the “cover[ing]”
of sin, however, may have more in mind and be intended to also include
the this-world impact. In other words, a
temporal impact, such as the adage of Proverbs
Note what comes first in that verse though, “Hatred stirs up strife,
but love covers all sins.” Hatred
results in this world actions, inflaming the situation. Since what is said next is intended to be a contrasting
idea, then the point is that “love works in the opposite direction,
to minimize, remove, avoid unjustified confrontations.” It makes this life better in addition
to removing God’s anger at our excess.
[Page 419] The principle in both Proverbs
and James also permits—virtually requires--the possibility of public
confrontation over the misconduct being removed from the table. Even though one may have been personally
affected by the hostile actions, the fact that forgiveness is known to have
been sought from God means that one does not have to make a public issue out of
it--either out of self-protection or to protect others from it. (Not to mention the possible negative
motivations of revenge, annoyance, and contempt.)
5:19-20: Intervening to encourage others to change
their course from indifference or outright rebellion to submission to God’s
will. We already discussed
the firm Old Testament basis of James’ concept that we can and should change
when we wander away from truth. Worthy
of separate discussion is his embracing the concept that others should also take
the initiative in encouraging such behavior: “let him known that” it both saves the person
“from death” as well as “cover(s) a multitude of sins” (
In Malachi the ideal priest is
pictured as Levi, who was quite capable of intervening just as James urged. In contrast, Malachi’s priestly
contemporaries were guilty of brazen and open evil doing themselves; changing
neither themselves nor others was on their agenda. They caused sin rather than causing
others to depart from it:
4 “Then you shall know
that I have sent this commandment to you, that My covenant with Levi may
continue,” says the Lord of hosts. 5 “My covenant was with him, one
of life and peace, and I gave them to him that he might fear Me; so he feared
Me and was reverent before My name.
6 The law of truth
was in his mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and equity, and
turned many away from iniquity [“turned many from sin,” Holman, ISV, NIV;
“turned many people away from sin,” GW, NET].
[Page 420] 7
For the
lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his
mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But you have departed from the way; you have caused many to
stumble at the law. You have
corrupted the covenant of Levi,” says the Lord of hosts (Malachi 2).
The prophetic message that Jeremiah
was to share with the people consisted, essentially, of two points: (1) you can return to God, i.e., it
isn’t too late and (2) He will accept you back.
“Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: Return, backsliding
A key failure in Jeremiah’s day was
that false prophets were not only blatantly wrong, but that they also refused
to make this kind of effort to get others to righten their relationship with
God. They added a second sin to their
root evil, “21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they
ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they
prophesied. 22 But if they had stood in My
counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned
them from their evil way and from the evil of
their doings” (Jeremiah 23). Doing that did not require being a prophet; it
only required being a faithful Israelite.
[Page 421] Daniel speaks of the luster
that will come to those who share this reformatory message, “2 And many of those who
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to
shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise shall shine
like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to
righteousness like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12).
Historical Allusions to
the Old Testament:
Old Testament “prophets” as “example[s] of
suffering and patience” (
When Stephen was killed by an angry
audience to his sermon, almost his closing accusation is, “Which of the
prophets did your fathers not persecute?” (Acts
[Page 422] In contrast, the somewhat
similar words of Jesus sound sad rather than rebuking, “It cannot be that a
prophet should perish outside of
Jesus embraced that same image of
consistent rejection to encourage His own disciples: they would be rejected “for so they
persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew
Indeed, a concise over-view of
prophetic mistreatment is found in the Old Testament itself in 2 Chronicles
36: “15 And the Lord God of their
fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending
them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. 16 But they mocked the messengers of
God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the
Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy.”
Jeremiah spoke of how, “Your sword has devoured your prophets like a
destroying lion” (Jeremiah
[Page 423] As to specific forms of abuse,
one might think of Jeremiah: He was put
in stocks (Jeremiah 20:2-3), imprisoned (Jeremiah 32:2), and even placed in a
muddy beneath ground dungeon (Jeremiah 38:6).
Other prophets did little or no better,[15]
Take Ezekiel who suffered greatly in the
course of ministry. What about Daniel
who was torn from his home as a young boy and served in Babylon faithfully to
the Lord but not without much adversity, even thrown into a den of lions at a
very old age for not compromising on his faith. Take Hosea whose marriage and
its hardship was an example itself and the Lord’s word to His people. Amos faced lies and continual scorn. Isaiah was sawed in two . . .
The
“suffering and patience [ATP: persistent
steadfastness]” of Job (
The entire book of Job is an effort to explain how such things can
happen to an honorable individual. Indeed,
it is quite possible that Job was not even a Jew since nothing of the Torah is
presented nor any of the religious-ritual details connected with that
system.
[Page 424] The issue of the book is the
“why” of the suffering of the principled and decent individual and the
ethnicity and even religious practices of such an honorable person does not
arise. The book closes with Job’s
regaining of health and wealth and successfully fathering a new large
family.
Whether the book “answers” the
question of why suffering occurs may be debatable (perhaps because we wish the
“answer” to questions in a short concise, easily understood sentence and not
everything can be condensed in such a manner), but Job is unquestionably an
example of an individual who endured horrendous hardship and
disappointment--and survived, returning to a level of outward well-being even
greater than where he had begun (Job 42:12).
As such he is an effective representative of the individual toward whom
“the Lord is [ultimately] very compassionate and merciful” (James
Job clung to the remnants of faith
at a time when outward pain gave every excuse to reject it all, until his
constructive “mule-headedness” in holding to God gained its just reward,[16]
We also know that Job cried out in misery
and confusion to God but he did not sin. (Job
[Page 425] Yes,
Job seemed to demand an explanation from God for his unjust suffering. He complained about God’s treatment of him, but
never abandoned his faith. In the midst of his incomprehension, he clung to
God and continued to hope in Him (Job
(For a further discussion of Job, see the material in the “Overview” and
“Problem Texts” chapters.)
The
drought under Elijah (
Although James introduces the
example in the context of vindicating the value of prayer, it is intriguing
that the Kings text nowhere explicitly states that Elijah prayed either
to request a drought nor that it be brought to an end. Since the drought threat was that it would
not rain “except at my word” (1 Kings 17:1), James clearly read this as a
reference to the words used in prayer rather than as to words publicly
spoken to miraculously stop or start the cessation of rain. Hence the drought was not a power delegated
to the prophet, but a Divine response to his heart-felt prayer.
[Page 426] After learning the rain was to
come to an end, Elijah seeks out an audience with Ahab (1 Kings 18). He conspicuously does not announce the
drought will soon cease. Instead he
challenges the prophets to a prayer contest as to whose god would answer their
plea and miraculously light an animal sacrifice--would Baal do it or Yahweh
(verse 24)? Then Elijah prays publicly
for the fire to be lit by God and it was (verses 36-38), convincing the
onlookers that they should follow his admonition to rid the land of the
prophets of Baal (verses 39-40).
Then and only then does he tell Ahab
that “there is the sound of abundance of rain” (verse 41). The prayer image again enters the
picture. “Elijah went up to the top of
He sends his servant to “look toward the sea” and on the seventh look,
he beholds a small cloud. Elijah
immediately responded, “Go up, say to Ahab, ‘Prepare your chariot, and go down
before the rain stops you.’ ”
It may well be that interpreters such as James read Elijah’s posture as
a further implied prayer for rain--and it certainly does not take a leap of the
imagination to regard it as such.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine in what other way it could ever have been
intended to be taken.
[Page 427]
Notes
[1] For a
discussion of the differences in emphasis in the treatment of the rich
individual in the two chapters see Laws, 195-196.
[2] Yoder,
1182.
[3] Connick,
359.
[4] Burdick,
199.
[5] John E.
Porter, Bugs of the Bible: The
Magnificence of God’s Creation as Seen through a Microscope (
[6] Burdick,
200.
[7] Davids, James: A Commentary, 179.
[8] Williams,
130.
[9] Hartin, James, 258.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ernest
L. Martin, “Biblical Vows and Their Present Significance.” (A 1980 exposition revised in 2002 by David
Sielaff.) At: http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d020801.htm. [June 2014.]
[12] Philo of
[15] Dan File, “Endurance of Those Who Have Gone on Before
Us! James 5:10-11.” Dated
02/james-5-10-11-endurance-of-those-who-have-gone-before-us. [June 2014.]