By James M. Rochford

Download a FREE verse-by-verse teaching series on the letter of James!

The NT mentions James several times as being the (half) brother of Jesus (Mt. 13:55). Originally, he did not believe in Jesus (Jn. 7:5), and in fact, Mark tells us that he believed Jesus was insane (Mk. 3:21). However, after Jesus appeared to his brother in his resurrected state (1 Cor. 15:7), James became a radical follower of Christ. The book of James confronts pseudo-spirituality in religious circles, emphasizing the importance and value of love and good works. Toussaint states that the book of James is terribly difficult to teach—not so much because of the interpretive issues—but because it is so convicting!

Table of Contents

Authorship. 1

Who was James?. 3

Canonicity of James. 5

Date. 7

Audience. 8

Structure and Organization of James. 9

How to use this commentary well 9

Consulted Commentaries. 11

Commentary on James. 12

James 1 12

James 2. 25

James 3. 40

James 4. 50

James 5. 57

Authorship

The author doesn’t identify himself beyond the simple name “James” (Jas. 1:1, Iakōbos). But which James is this? Four options are possible:

• James the son of Zebedee? This man was one of the twelve disciples (Mk. 1:19; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35; 14:33), and he was also one of Jesus’ closest disciples, along with Peter and John of Zebedee (his brother). However, James of Zebedee was killed by Herod in AD 44 (Acts 12:1-2). This seems far too early for him to have written this letter (though see below under “Date”).
• James the son of Alphaeus? This man was also one of the twelve disciples (Mt. 10:3; Acts 1:13; Mt. 27:56? Mk. 15:40? Lk. 24:10?). However, he seems to be too obscure of a figure. Since the author simply identifies himself as James, we would expect this person to be a major leader in the early church—not a relatively unknown person like James the son of Alphaeus.
• James the father of Judas (not Iscariot)? Again, this man is an obscure believer in the early church (Lk. 6:16; Acts 1:13), and he doesn’t seem nearly influential enough to be a good candidate for the author of this letter.
• James the half-brother of Jesus. Jesus’ contemporaries asked, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Mt. 13:55) In our view, these two brothers—James and Judas—are the authors of the NT letters James and Jude.

The majority of commentators hold that James, the half-brother of Jesus, is the most likely candidate for being the author of this epistle. We hold this view for a few reasons:

First, the author needed to be a well-known leader in the early church. And indeed, James—the half-brother of Jesus—is mentioned more than any other James in the NT. Repeatedly, James stands out as a central leader in the early church (1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9; Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). This would explain why the author has no need to explain who he is. He simply writes “James,” knowing that his audience would’ve known him.^[1]

Second, James focused his ministry on the Jewish population in Jerusalem. This would make sense of the Jewish nature of this letter, and why he would have such authority in writing to Jewish believers in the diaspora (Jas. 1:1).

Third, the language of the letter has similarities with James’ speech in Acts 15.^[2] In both instances, James uses a similar “greeting” (chairein, Jas. 1:1; Acts 15:23) and the same term “visiting” (episkeptomai; Jas. 1:27; Acts 15:14).

Who was James?

James turned from a skeptic into a dedicated follower of Jesus. He serves as an example of a profoundly transformed life. Originally, James didn’t believe in Jesus (Jn. 7:5). In fact, he initially believed Jesus was insane (Mk. 3:21). However, after Jesus rose from the dead and “appeared to James” (1 Cor. 15:7), we find that James gave his life to follow Christ.

God quickly called James to be a central leader in the early Christian movement. Early on, James huddled with the other Christians in Jerusalem before the birth of the Church (Acts 1:14). Yet, within a few years, he became one of the “apostles” (Gal. 1:19) and “pillars” of the early church (Gal. 2:9). Peter—one of the other central leaders of the early church—shows a lot of deference and respect to James (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). This shows how respected of a leader James was in the early church.

How could James be Jesus’ half-brother if Mary was a virgin?

Some people are shocked at the idea that Jesus had half-brothers. However, according to Scripture, Mary continued to have children after Jesus was born. To be sure, Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to Jesus (Mt. 1:23), but she only remained “a virgin until she gave birth” (Mt. 1:25). The idea that Mary remained a virgin is a Roman Catholic doctrine called the “perpetual virginity of Mary,” which we reject (see our earlier article “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary”).

What does extra-biblical history tell us about James?

Early Christian sources imply that James was a very devout man. Hegesippus (2^nd century AD) wrote this regarding James:

He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.^[3]

Surely, this account is historically embellished,^[4] and this may even contain “legendary” material drawn from the Ebionites.^[5] The great church historian Philip Shaff states that this “is an overdrawn picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits which may have been derived from the Ascents of James, and other Apocryphal sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest and Nazarite saint.”^[6] At the same time, the historical core of this citation presumes that James was a dedicated leader for Jesus.

How was James martyred for his faith?

We hold to the martyrdom of James on solid historical grounds. Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100) was a Jewish Pharisee and military commander before he was captured by the Romans in AD 70. After being taken prisoner, Josephus began working as the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. Regarding James, Josephus writes,

[The high priest Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens… they disliked what was done… for that what he had already done was not to be justified.^[7]

Josephus confirms that James was the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19). And he tells us the fate of James: He died as a faithful follower of Jesus. Regarding this first passage, Van Voorst writes, “The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words ‘the brother of Jesus called Christ’ are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found.”^[8]

Later Christian authors state that the religious leaders “demanded of him a denial of the faith in Christ in the presence of all the people.” After James continued to confess Jesus as Lord, the religious leaders threw him from the pinnacle of the Temple, stoned him, and beat him to death with a club.[9]

Canonicity of James

Some theologians throughout history have questioned the canonicity of James. Martin Luther wrote that James “mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture” (Luther’s Works, 35:397). At one point, Luther even called James’ letter “an epistle of straw” (Luther’s Works, 35:362). At the same time, Moo qualifies Luther’s statements about the book of James:

While Luther obviously had difficulties with James and came close to giving the letter a secondary status, his criticism should not be overdrawn. He did not exclude James from the canon and, it has been estimated, cites over half the verses of James as authoritative in his writings.^[10]

In fact, Luther wrote, “I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him” (Luther’s Works, 35:397). Calvin did not agree with Luther’s criticism, fully accepting James’ letter.^[11] There are good reasons to accept the canonicity of James:

First, allusions and citations to the book may have occurred very early. Moo writes, “The Shepherd of Hermas (early or middle second century) has the greatest number of parallels to James. In the section of that book called the ‘Mandates’, several of James’ characteristic themes are found… It is also possible that 1 Clement (AD 95) and the Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between ad 70 and 132) show dependence on James, but this is not certain.”^[12]

Second, Clement of Alexandria (AD 215) apparently wrote a commentary on James, but it didn’t survive. Moo writes, “Clement, head of the important catechetical school in Alexandria, is said to have written a commentary on James, but no such commentary has ever been discovered, and Clement never shows dependence on James in his extant writings.”^[13]

Third, Origen identified the author as “James the apostle.” He was also the first to cite James as Scripture. Moo writes, “Clement’s successor in Alexandria, Origen, is the first to refer to the letter of James by name. He cites the letter as Scripture (Select. in Ps. 30:6) and attributes the letter to James, ‘the apostle’ (Commentary on John, frag. 126).”^[14]

Fourth, Eusebius (AD 339) believed the letter was written by James—Jesus’ half-brother—and cited the book as canonical. Moo writes, “Eusebius (d. ad 339) uses James frequently in his writings and apparently accords it canonical status. However, he also includes it among the ‘disputed books’ (antilegomena), signifying that he was aware of some Christians who questioned its scriptural authority (H.E. III. 25.3; II.23.25).”^[15]

Fifth, James might have been resisted by some Christians because of its Jewish content. The epistle of James is a resolutely Jewish book—even being addressed to the “twelve tribes” in the dispersion. Of course, the first-century apostolic church was honest about its tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It’s quite possible that these racial tensions spilled into the second and third century churches, where anti-Semitism was so common. Could this have led to some Gentile fellowships being overly skeptical of the letter? At the very least, this letter would’ve been unpalatable to later Gentile readers. Historian Gregg Allison writes, “Its Jewish-Christian address… and flavor rendered it less attractive to the largely Gentile churches.”[16]

Conclusion. Craig Blomberg writes, “Early church tradition (e.g., Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and the Council of Carthage) strongly supports the identification of the author of this book with James, the (half-) brother of Jesus.”^[17] Michael Kruger summarizes the evidence as follows:

[James] appears to have influenced a number of other early Christian writings, such as 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. In addition, James is cited by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary on it which is now lost, and it was recognized as canonical Scripture by Origen, who cites it frequently and refers to it as from ‘James, the brother of the Lord.’ Eusebius acknowledges that some had doubts about it, but counts it among the canonical books ‘known to most,’ and the letter is fully received by Jerome, Augustine, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Moreover… we possess several early manuscripts of James: P20, P23, P100 are all third century and suggest that the book was known and used by early Christians.^[18]

Moo concludes, “To be sure, James’ status was not immediately recognized. But it is important to stress that James was not rejected, but neglected.”^[19] He states that it might have been neglected for two reasons: (1) the apostolic origin of the letter, because James signs the letter as a “servant” rather than an “apostle,” and (2) the destination of the letter to the Jerusalem churches, which quickly disappeared after the Jewish War in AD 70. As a result, the letter might not have circulated as fast. Moo comments, “It may be significant in this regard that Origen makes reference to James only after coming into contact with the church in Palestine.”^[20]

Date

The letter must date before AD 62. This is because James died in AD 62. Josephus records that the Roman governor Albinus was reigning when James died.[21] Since Albinus only had a short reign between AD 61-62, we can date the death of James to this time. This means that the letter must’ve been written before this time.

The letter contains no controversy between Jewish and Gentile Christians. This is quite astounding when we know from Acts that this was a major problem in the early church. This could imply that the letter dates before the Jerusalem Council of AD 49 (cf. Acts 15:1),^[22] though this isn’t conclusive.

Critical scholars reject this argument because they hold that James was refuting Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone (compare Jas. 2:14-26; Gal. 3:5ff). Since Galatians dates to ~AD 48, this would mean that James must’ve wrote after this time. Yet, this skeptical argument is specious, and it denies the clear teaching of Scripture that James concurred with Paul’s gospel (Gal. 2:6-9). While James used the same expressions that Paul does to refer to “justification by faith,” he was most likely responding to a distorted version of Paul’s teaching—not to Paul himself. Indeed, Paul states that legalists twisted his teaching on grace (Rom. 3:8), and surely these legalists shared this distorted view with James (Gal. 2:9; Acts 15:24).

Zane Hodges dates the letter “as early as the middle or late 30s.”^[23] He does so for a number of reasons. First, James never mentions the Gentiles in his letter, which would point to a very early date. Citing J.A.T. Robinson’s work, Hodges argues that this could imply that there were only Jewish believers in Jesus during this time. Second, the “diaspora” of James 1:1 could refer to the scattering of believers after the persecution of the church in Acts 8, which dates only 1-3 years after the resurrection. Third, James’ statement “let not many of you become teachers” could fit with an early date, where the apostles were doing most of the teaching (Jas. 3:1).

Donald Burdick dates the letter sometime between AD 45 and 50.^[24] In addition to the arguments listed above, he notes that the letter mentions nothing about the Judaizers, and it refers to believers meeting in the “assembly” (synagōgē), which may imply an early Christian use of synagogues or at least a similarity in their practices.

Douglas Moo favors a date sometime between AD 45 and 48 for a few reasons.^[25] For one, James’ reference to justification by faith shows that he heard (second hand) the preaching of Paul. James does not contradict Paul, but he does contradict the way Paul’s teachings were twisted. When Paul and James met at the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49, this definitely would’ve reconciled this distortion. Moreover, a massive famine occurred in Judea around AD 46, this would confirm the main theme of the rich and the poor in James (Acts 11:28). This is somewhat speculative because the poor exist in every church. However, this generally confirms an early date.

Kurt Richardson dates the letter the latest: “perhaps sometime in the decade after AD 50.”^[26] He rejects the notion that James and Paul are at odds with one another, and he briefly lists several lines of evidence that place the letter early (e.g. similarity with the Sermon on the Mount, simple church structure, lack of church conflicts, etc.).

Conclusion. Many of these arguments are compelling to show an early date for the letter, but in our estimation, none give a decisive date. We should be content to say that the letter is very early, but exactly how early, we do not know.

Audience

James was primarily writing to Jewish believers in Jesus. For one, James addresses his letter “to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad” (Jas. 1:1). Paul uses the same expression (“twelve tribes”) to refer to Jewish believers (Acts 26:7; c.f. Mt. 19:28). Second, James mentions nothing about Jewish and Gentile tensions. This implies that these believers were most likely all Jewish. Third, James uses the term “assembly” (synagōgē) to describe the early Christian meetings (Jas. 2:2). This doesn’t require us to believe that James’ readers met in synagogues. Rather, it implies that their meetings were similar to Jewish gatherings in some respect. Fourth, while James only quotes the OT five times, he alludes to it throughout his letter (e.g. compare Jas. 2:19 with Deut. 6:4). This implies that his audience was well-versed in the OT. Since James primarily served the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9), it makes sense to read such a thoroughly Jewish letter here.

James’ audience must have been suffering persecution (Jas. 1:2-4, 12), primarily from the rich (Christians?) in Jerusalem. The rich were refusing to pay them fair wages (Jas. 5:4-6) and unfairly taking them to court (Jas. 2:6). James seems to be worried that this church would compromise with the temptation of wealth (Jas. 4:4), instead of being faithful to Christ. There was a real danger of having jealousy filling their hearts (Jas. 3:14), rather than being content with their relationship with Christ. This is surely why James tells his readers not to show deference to the rich because of their money (Jas. 2:1-4).

Structure and Organization of James

Luther wrote that James was “throwing things together… chaotically.”[27] Dibelius argued that the genre of James was that of paraenesis—a string of exhortations without any clear structure or contextual flow of thought.[28] Moo claims that “this viewpoint has been dominant in commentaries on James for decades.”^[29] While Moo disagrees with Dibelius, he holds that any clear outline to the letter is not possible to put into a “logically developed structure without imposing artificial and sometimes misleading headings on the material.”^[30]

On the other hand, others claim that there is thoughtful structure to this letter.^[31] As you read through James, try to piece together the thought process and how his concepts connect with one another as he develops his thoughts.

How to use this commentary well

For personal use. We wrote this material to build up people in their knowledge of the Bible. As the reader, we hope you enjoy reading through the commentary to grow in your interpretation of the text, understand the historical backdrop, gain insight into the original languages, and reflect on our comments to challenge your thinking. As a result, we hope this will give you a deeper love for the word of God.

Teaching preparation. We read through several commentaries in order to study this book, and condensed their scholarship into an easy-to-read format. We hope that this will help those giving public Bible teachings to have a deep grasp of the book as they prepare to teach. As one person has said, “All good public speaking is based on good private thinking.”^[32] We couldn’t agree more. Nothing can replace sound study before you get up to teach, and we hope this will help you in that goal. And before you complain about our work, don’t forget that the price is right: FREE!

Questions for Reflection. Each section or chapter is outfitted with numerous discussion questions or questions for reflection. We think these questions would work best in a small men’s or women’s groups—or for personal reading. In general, these questions are designed to prompt participants to explore the text or to stimulate application.

Discussing Bible difficulties. We highlight Bible difficulties with hyperlinks to articles on those subjects. All of these questions could make for dynamic discussion in a small group setting. As a Bible teacher, you could raise the difficulty, allow the small group to wrestle with it, and then give your own perspective.

As a teacher, you might give some key cross references, insights from the Greek, or other relevant tools to help aid the study. This gives students the tools that they need to answer the difficulty. Then, you could ask, “How do these points help answer the difficulty?”

Reading Bible difficulties. Some Bible difficulties are highly complex. For the sake of time, it might simply be better to read the article and ask, “What do you think of this explanation? What are the most persuasive points? Do you have a better explanation than the one being offered?”

Think critically. We would encourage Bible teachers to not allow people to simply read this commentary without exercising discernment and testing the commentary with sound hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation). God gave the church “teachers… to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). We would do well to learn from them. Yet, we also need to read their books with critical thinking, and judge what we’re reading (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). This, of course, applies to our written commentary as well as any others!

In my small men’s Bible study, I am frequently challenged, corrected, and sharpened in my ability to interpret the word of God. I frequently benefit from even the youngest Christians in the room. I write this with complete honesty—not pseudo-humility. We all have a role in challenging each other as we learn God’s word together. We would do well to learn from Bible teachers, and Bible teachers would do well to learn from their students!

At the same time, we shouldn’t disagree simply for the sake of being disagreeable. This leads to rabbit trails that can actually frustrate discussion. For this reason, we should follow the motto, “The best idea wins.” If people come to different conclusions on unimportant issues, it’s often best to simply acknowledge each other’s different perspectives and simply move on.

Consulted Commentaries

Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

This short commentary was quite good for its length! It was short and to the point.

Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985).

Moo’s later commentary out of the Pillar NT Commentary (PNTC) series in 2000 is considered one of the best commentaries on James. The Tyndale Commentary is an earlier and shorter version of that longer commentary (TNTC).

Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997).

Richardson contains some good interaction describing the situation between James and Paul, and he was an overall orthodox commentator. However, this was far too long of a commentary to have so little substance and insight (~250 pages). It contained lots of repetition, and the author jumped to other portions of Scripture rather than staying in the text. Often, the cross-references simply made the identical point of the passage in James.

James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976).

Adamson’s commentary was a good example of a technical commentary. It contained deep analysis of the text.

Zane C. Hodges, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994).

Hodges’ views on James are somewhat controversial because of his Free Grace theology. In particular, he holds that James 2 refers to salvation from physical death—not spiritual salvation. That being said, Hodges writes with excellent pastoral insight, and we took more from his commentary on James than any other.

Stanley Toussaint, James (online class from Dallas Theological Seminary) 2005.

The late Stanley Toussaint is an excellent teacher and scholar. This course was a good overview of the book of James.

Commentary on James

Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

James 1

James must be addressing a church going through substantial suffering, and this is why he opens his letter addressing external trials (1:1-12) and later internal temptations (1:12-27). James gives several insights into how to suffer well.

Before you read this chapter, ask yourself, “What type of suffering do I fear the most? How would I respond if this ‘worst-case-scenario’ actually happened?” Then, compare your thoughts with God’s words below.

James 1:1-12 (External trials: suffering)

(1:1) “James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.”

“The twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad.” This is the first of many references to James’ Jewish audience. The term “dispersed” (diaspora) is where we get the term that refers to the “diaspora of the Jews.” Though, James specifies that these are specifically Jews who are “believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas. 2:1 NIV). Moo writes, “Taken from the Greek verb that means ‘to scatter’ or ‘disperse’, the word was used to describe Jews who were living outside of Palestine among Gentiles (Ps. 147:2; Isa. 49:6; 2 Macc. 1:27; John 7:35) and, by extension, the place where those who had been dispersed lived.”^[33]

Peter uses this same term in the opening of his letter—though it is translated as being “scattered throughout” (1 Pet. 1:1). Since the early Jewish Christians were scattered because of persecution in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1ff; 11:19), James likely wrote to these believers who fled outside of Palestine.^[34]

“Greetings” (chairein) also appears on James’ pen in Acts 15:23 (see Authorship above).

Consider

(1:2) “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials.”

“Consider it all joy.” James doesn’t state that we should feel joy during suffering. Instead, he tells us to consider it as an opportunity for joy. We consider our trials as an opportunity for joy by viewing our “hard times with the eye of faith.”^[35] That is, we trust God’s promises more than the way we feel about our present circumstances. This battle begins in the head, and eventually invades the heart. This is true one way or the other. If we choose to rejoice in the head, we will experience joy in the heart. But if we ruminate on our worries, this will fill our hearts with anxiety as well.

Much of our suffering is wrapped up in the worry beforehand. But after the fact, we discover that our experience wasn’t as bad as reality. After waiting on God, we see that he came through powerfully. When we go through our worst nightmare and come out on the other side, we can become more courageous than before.

“When you encounter various trials.” James also doesn’t say if you encounter trials, but when you encounter various trials. Suffering is a reality of life. Suffering is in your future—whether it’s a funeral, a divorce, a medical test, a trip to the hospital: Suffering is coming for you. What are you going to do to face it? Thank God that he speaks to the core of the human condition so clearly!

Know

(1:3) “Knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.”

Most often, we cannot see the eternal reasons for our suffering (Deut. 29:29; 1 Cor. 13:12). We’re simply too finite and limited to know how our suffering will impact eternity. However, we do know that God promises to use it for good—even if we cannot see it (Rom. 8:28). Put simply, even though we don’t know what God is doing through our suffering, we know that he is using it for a morally justifiable reason.

There is another thing that we can also know God is using our suffering for: “endurance.” When we’re suffering, we can also know (for sure) that God is going to use this trial or tragedy to grow us. This is why Paul can write, “We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. ⁴ And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation. ⁵ And this hope will not lead to disappointment” (Rom. 5:3-5 NLT).

“Testing” (dokimion) comes from a root word that means “to seem” or “to appear” (dokeō). In the Septuagint, the term was used for identifying true from fake currency.^[36] Paul uses the term frequently of believers who have been found to be trustworthy or “approved” (Rom. 14:18; 16:10; 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Cor. 10:18). We cannot always tell the difference between a dedicated follower of Christ, and someone who is just following Christ for sociological reasons. But once suffering enters the picture, it becomes quite clear who is who! Suffering not only forms our character (as we saw above), but it also reveals our character within.

God will later reward us based on how we passed these tests of faith. Peter writes, “In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, ⁷ so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:6-7). Did you catch that? God himself will eventually heap “praise, glory, and honor” on us for our faith!

“Endurance” (hupomonē) comes from the root words “under” (hupo) and “remain” (menō). In modern vernacular, we might translate this as “stay put” or “stand your ground.” It means “to hold out or bear up in the face of difficulty” (BDAG, p.1039). As we pass these tests of faith, it builds spiritual stamina within us. Jesus said that those with “endurance” (hupomonē) are the “seed that fell upon the good soil” (Lk. 8:15).

(1:4) “And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

“Perfect” (teleioi) clearly doesn’t refer to moral perfection. Later James writes, “We all stumble in many ways” (Jas. 3:2). Rather, this refers to “maturity.” (see “Can Christians gain sinless perfection?”)

“Complete” (holoklēroi). Paul uses the same language to refer to God growing our character. He writes, “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely (holoklēroi)” (1 Thess. 5:23).

“Lacking in nothing.” When we go through the horror and agony of suffering and see God’s provision and care, we realize that we truly need “nothing” besides God’s provision (cf. Ps. 131:2).

(1:5) “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

We learn the most about ourselves, about others, and about God during times of suffering. We learn more about God from trips to the hospital than from trips to Hawaii.

At the same time, our circumstances alone are insufficient to bring about “wisdom.” God doesn’t automatically impart “wisdom” during suffering; we need to “ask” for it. This implies that we are praying during times of suffering; otherwise, we will miss what God is trying to teach us and how God is trying to use us. How can we say that we passed the test of suffering if we haven’t rejoiced (v.2) and met with God in prayer (v.5) during these times?

“Without reproach” means that God will not accuse us or “find fault” simply for asking. Even though we are so ignorant and weak, God “does not scold his children for asking nor berate them for their deficiency.”^[37] Hodges writes, “How easily He might chide us for our ignorance and stupidity—as also for how little we have learned in so long a time! But when we ask in faith, He does not reproach us for what we do not know.”^[38]

(1:5) Does this verse support the Mormon “burning in the bosom” used to confirm the Book of Mormon?

(1:6-8) “But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. ⁷ For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord. ⁸ Being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

James stated that God will give wisdom to “any” who ask for it. The only requirement is “faith” (v.6).

(1:6-8) Is it a sin to doubt? This passage has been misunderstood as referring to doubt, when really it should be categorized as unbelief. James calls this person “double-minded” (dipsychos). This comes from the root words “twice” or “doubly” (dis) and “soul” or “mind” (psuchē). Thus, this can be rendered as “double-minded” (NASB, ESV, NIV). But what does it mean to be “double-minded” in this context? We would argue that this refers to a person’s conflicting commitments—not intellectual doubts.

First, James uses the term “double-minded” (dipsychos) later in the letter (Jas. 4:8), where it refers to those engrossed in materialism and the world-system. This isn’t an intellectual dilemma, but a moral and spiritual one. The NLT captures James 1:8 well: “Their loyalty is divided between God and the world.” The NET note states, “A double-minded man is one whose devotion to God is less than total. His attention is divided between God and other things, and as a consequence he is unstable and therefore unable to receive from God.” Therefore, the description is not that of a person choosing between two philosophical propositions, but more like that of a man choosing between his wife and his mistress!

Second, the reference to “doubt” (diakrino) also implies choosing between living for Christ or the world-system. “Doubt” (diakrino) comes from the root words “through” (dia) and “to judge” (krino). It means “to differentiate by separating, separate, arrange” or “to conclude that there is a difference, make a distinction, differentiate” (BDAG). This person needs to choose between Christ and the world-system.

Third, by contrast, God is “generous” (haplōs) or “single-minded” toward us. The term “generous” (haplōs) means “straightforward, simply, above board, sincerely, openly” (BDAG) or “single, simple.”^[39] In other words, God is single-minded about giving us wisdom, but if we are double-minded, then we should expect to hear nothing from him. The person in love with the world-system should not expect to receive more wisdom, because God has already revealed enough already for them to decide. Moreover, flirting with the world-system leads to instability.

Why does James shift to speaking about the rich and the poor?

During times of trials and suffering (vv.2-4), we need to ask God for wisdom (v.5) and grow our faith (vv.6-8). The rich, however, often turn to their money for security. Solomon writes, “The rich think of their wealth as a strong defense; they imagine it to be a high wall of safety” (Prov. 18:11 NLT). Yet, he adds, “Haughtiness goes before destruction” (Prov. 18:12 NLT). This is why the rich should humble themselves before God (vv.10-11; Jas. 4:10).

(1:9) “But the brother of humble circumstances is to glory in his high position.”

In context, the “humble circumstances” refer to the trials of suffering. This believer has access to “glory” during these times because he can bank on God bringing about character change (vv.3-4) and added wisdom (v.5). Instead of thinking of solving our suffering with the comforts of the world-system, James reminds us that temporary relief pales in comparison with God’s provisions.

(1:10) “And the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away.”

There is dispute over whether the “rich man” is a believer. For one, he is not called a brother, but a “rich man.” Second, he is said to “pass away.” This doesn’t seem consistent with a believer, either. Indeed, the text doesn’t say that his reward will pass away, but that he himself will pass away.

However, we agree with Hodges^[40] and Burdick^[41] that this refers to a true believer. When worldly Christians encounter suffering, they should glory in their “humiliation” (i.e. allow God to humble them). Moreover, when the text says that “he will pass away,” it isn’t referring to eternal damnation, but simply the inevitability of his death. After all, at death, his riches will do him no good. Hodges writes, “Trials, however, can be used by God to remind the rich Christian of the transience of his own earthly life and of how quickly all his material belongings can be lost (cf. Luke 12:16-21). He should rejoice in his sufferings because they humble him and because, after all, he is a mere human being whose life is a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away (Jas 4:14).”^[42]

(1:11) “For the sun rises with a scorching wind and withers the grass; and its flower falls off and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed; so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away.”

All of the “pursuits” of the rich man will end in nothing. God can use suffering in the life of a wealthy believer to wake him up to true wisdom (v.5).

(1:12) “Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”

“Blessed” (makarios) means “happy” or “fulfilled” or “fortunate” (BDAG, p.610; cf. Acts 26:2; Rom. 14:22; 1 Cor. 7:40). We are “blessed” for serving others (Jn. 13:17; cf. Acts 20:35), and we are “blessed” (i.e. happy, fulfilled, fortunate) when we make it through trials. We often think that we’d be happier to avoid the trials of life—not persevere through them. But when we persevere through suffering, we gain a deep happiness that we couldn’t have understood beforehand. God blesses our lives in ways that we couldn’t have foreseen—with endurance (v.3), maturity (v.4), and wisdom (v.5).

More than this, we can also look forward to a great reward in the future. The “crown of life” (stephanos) doesn’t refer to salvation, but to reward (cf. Rev. 2:10). Moo writes, “The word crown (stephanos) sometimes refers to a royal crown, but is more frequently used of the laurel wreath given to the victorious athlete (see 1 Cor. 9:25) and, figuratively, symbolizes glory and honour.”^[43] This is in contrast to the “death” that sin produces (v.15).

“To those who love him.” This is a key attitude during suffering (cf. Rom. 8:28). When we go through suffering, we sometimes blame God. In reality, we are cutting ourselves off from the only hope that we have during suffering. During these times, we need to cling in love to God even deeper than before.

James 1:13-18 (Internal trials: temptation)

During suffering, temptation becomes more alluring as ever. We self-medicate ourselves through various means, and this places us in a position of vulnerability to falling into sin. It’s no wonder that James turns to this subject next.

(1:13) “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.”

We are being tested (v.3), but not tempted by him (v.13). Of course, the same Greek term “tempt” (peirazō) can either refer to being “put to the test” or to being “tempted” (BDAG, p.792). Indeed, a related term (peirasmos) appears earlier to refer to our various “trials” (Jas. 1:2). While the semantic range can include both meanings, the usage and context requires the latter meaning of “tempted.” Consider several reasons:

For one, contextually, James uses a different term from verse 3 (dokimion), which implies a change in concept. As for the similarity with verse 2, Richardson’s words capture the flow of thought: “The faith of the doubter in the face of trial is viewed here. This person’s incomprehension of the wisdom of God leads him to view trials as a provocation to sin; therefore he sees trials as evil.”^[44]

Second, biblically, God repeatedly “tests” the faith of people (Gen. 22:1; Ex. 15:25; 16:4, etc.). Therefore, if James is teaching that God never “tests” our faith, then this is patently false.

Third, philosophically, we face very serious problems with the notion that God tries to get us to sin. Indeed, this is the work of Satan—not God! This is notable because James has a very high view of God’s will and sovereignty, but he refuses to claim that God is the author of evil.

Fourth, semantically, the use of a word determines its meaning. For example, this might be similar to saying, “Our boss is running this company poorly, and he better keep running to catch up with our competitors.” Even in the same sentence, a term can require a different meaning.

Why does James bring up God not tempting believers at this point? When we go through trials and temptation, we are quite often drawn to deal with the pain by falling into sin as an anesthetic (e.g. drugs, drunkenness, porno, overeating, IT overuse, comfort-seeking, anger outbursts, etc.). When we have a fall, it’s easy to point the finger and say, “I wouldn’t have fallen into sin if I wasn’t dealing with all of these problems in my life! And who brought these problems into my life? God! All of this is God’s fault—not mine!” Yet nothing could be further from the truth! God doesn’t inflict suffering or temptation. Instead, he carries us through the suffering. In fact, anything good in our lives comes from him (Jas. 1:17).

During times of suffering, we often seek to meet our own pain in illegitimate ways. However, Wiersbe writes, “It is better to be hungry in the will of God than full outside the will of God… God’s gifts are always better than Satan’s bargains. Satan never gives any gifts, because you end up paying for them dearly.”^[45]

(1:14) “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.”

We are the ones who are tempted—not God (“God cannot be tempted by evil”). Rather than blame-shifting during times of trial, we need to take responsibility for our sin. We need to agree with Scripture and say, “I was enticed by my own lust.”

“Enticed” (deleazōmenos) means “to arouse someone’s interest in something by adroit measures, lure, entice… A fishing metaphor is probable” (BDAG, p.217). The term is used for being “deluded” by a “trick” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews 5.120), and Scripture uses the term to refer to false teachers “enticing” people away from the truth (2 Pet. 2:14, 18).

“Lust” (epithumia) comes from the roots “over” (epi) and “desire” (thumos). It refers to an “over desire” or “a great desire for something, desire, longing, craving” (BDAG, p.372). This is when we take a good desire (e.g. food, drink, sex, money, etc.), and we become “over desirous” of it.

Interestingly, Satan—the great tempter—is not mentioned. Why not? The sinner could move his excuse from God to Satan. Hence, he would “only [be] substituting one excuse for another.”^[46] James wants us to own our sin—not excuse it.

(1:15) “Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.”

“Temptation… lust… sin… death.” Our sin problem is not external, but internal. When we are tempted, we decide to lust, which brings forth sin, which in turn brings about death. Since the problem begins in the heart, it can only be fixed in the heart. Incidentally, since “temptation” and “lust” occur before the birth of sin, this strongly implies that “temptation” and “lust” (epithumia) are not sins in themselves. These strong desires become sinful when they give birth to words, deeds, and thoughts. But the temptation and desires themselves aren’t sinful. (To be clear, we are interpreting “lust” as an over-desire (epithumia), not sinfully lusting in a sexual way.)

Hodges^[47] holds that the “death” here refers to physical death (Prov. 10:27; 11:19, 12:28; 13:14; 19:16). More likely, it refers to spiritual death in our condition—not in our unchanging and immutable position in Christ (Rom. 7:9-11; 8:13). This could also refer to the death of our rewards—in contrast to the “crown of life” (v.12).

(1:16) “Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.”

In what way are we being “deceived”? This probably refers to the noetic effects of sin in general, rather than some sort of specific deception. When we are stuck in sin, we blame-shift so badly that we can even blame God himself (v.13), and this shows that we are deeply deceived. Indeed, for each temptation, there’s a lie behind it. When we get at the root lie, the sin isn’t as exciting.

(1:17) “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”

“Every perfect gift is from above.” Sin and temptation don’t originate in God. Instead, blessings come from God (Jas. 1:17). These early Christians thought that God was tempting them. In reality, every good thing in their life came from God. It wasn’t that God was holding back on blessing them, but that they didn’t recognize and receive it.

“Father of lights.” Richardson^[48] holds that this probably refers to God’s “good” creation of Genesis 1. There and elsewhere, the “lights” refer to God’s creation of the universe (Job 38:4-15, 19-21, 31-33; Ps. 136:4-9; Isa. 40:22, 26).[49] Adamson holds that this refers to God’s love being “like a light which cannot be extinguished, eclipsed, or ‘shadowed out’ in any way at all.”^[50]

“Shifting shadow.” This refers to the changing of creation from morning, noon, to night. In other words, our world is constantly in flux and changing every day and every hour. However, God’s character has no “shifting shadow” or change. All of this means that God’s love, character, and promises are constant and consistent in and through suffering.^[51]

(1:18) “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.”

“Brought us forth” (apokyō) is the same word used in verse 15 (“sin… brings forth death”). With this wordplay, James is saying that sin brings death, but God brings life. Or as Hodges writes, “Sin… ‘gives birth’ to death, but God ‘gives birth’ to us!”^[52] This is demonstrable proof of God being a good giver (v.17). As Paul writes, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32).

“Word of truth.” This is “virtually synonymous with the gospel.”^[53]

James 1:19-27 (Practical steps during times of suffering or temptation)

Most commentators see James’ letter as being a “string of pearls,” not containing a clear flow of thought from one subject to the next. In the subsequent section, they consider this to be an entirely new idea—not contextually connected with what he has written so far. However, in our estimation, this section (vv.19-27) gives practical steps to take during times of temptation, trial, and stressful circumstances.^[54]

(1:19-20) “This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; ²⁰ for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.”

“Quick to hear.” Why is it so important during times of stress and suffering? As James already noted, we need to seek God’s “wisdom” during these times (v.5). Part of this refers to seeking God in prayer (cf. Jas. 4:2), but part refers to waiting to hear from God. That is, we need to ask, and then we need to listen. Perhaps God will speak to us through fellow believers or maybe through his word (v.21). We’re not sure. But this could be because God is trying to give us “wisdom” through prayer (v.5; Col. 1:9), through fellow believers (1 Cor. 12:8; Col. 1:28; 3:16), or through his word (Jas. 1:21). Indeed, Adamson^[55] thinks that the primary application of “hearing” refers to the word in verse 18. Regardless, Hodges writes, “One cannot learn anything while talking!”^[56]

“Anger” is an emotion that fills our hearts during suffering. Instead of being worked up in anger or bitterness during suffering, we need to learn from God through the word. This sort of anger is antithetical to the “wisdom” (v.5) that God has for us (Jas. 3:17-18).

(1:21) “Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.”

A crucial component to reading the word includes humility—being able to set aside our own wisdom (v.5) and hear from God (cf. 1 Pet. 2:1-2).

“Receive the word implanted.” This looks back to the fact that God “has brought us forth” through his word (v.18). The imagery here is that a seed was planted in us at conversion, and we need to nurture it to see it grow.^[57]

“Able” (dynamai) carries the idea of powerful as well.

“Which is able to save your soul.” Adamson^[58] understands this to refer to eternal salvation. However, Hodges contends that this refers to physical life. He writes, “The Greek phrase found here (sōsai tas psychas hymōn) was in common use in the sense of ‘to save the life.’ It is used in both the Greek OT as well as in the NT in exactly that sense (see Gen 19:17; 32:30; 1 Sam 19:11; Jer 48:6; Mark 3:4//Luke 6:9).”^[59] Hodges goes so far as to say that this phrase never is used of salvation from hell in the entire NT or the Septuagint. This would be a similar usage in James 5:20 (“He who turns a sinner from the error of his ways will save his soul [physical life] from death”). This interpretation fits with the wisdom literature of the Proverbs, and especially the fact that James is teaching the “wisdom” of God (v.5).

(Prov. 10:27) The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked will be shortened.

(Prov. 11:19) He who is steadfast in righteousness will attain to life, and he who pursues evil will bring about his own death.

(Prov. 13:14) The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life, to turn aside from the snares of death.

(Prov. 19:16) He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, but he who is careless of conduct will die.

This interpretation has some merits. However, why can’t James be referring to both physical healing (Jas. 5:14-20) as well as spiritual sanctification? Sin has both physical and spiritual consequences in the life of the Christian. Indeed, the term “save” can refer to sanctification (see comments on James 2:14-26).

(1:22) “But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.”

It isn’t enough to be “quick to hear” God’s word (v.19) or the “receive” it (v.21). A crucial component to reading the word involves acting on what we learn (cf. Rom. 2:13; Lk. 11:28). Isn’t it interesting that we feel closest to God when we put his word into practice, but experience the worst doubts when we are passive and disengaged in our faith? James is right: When we refuse to put God’s truth into practice, we become “delusional” to the reality of God and his work in our lives. James already warned against being “deceived” (v.16), and now he brings this up again (“delude themselves”).

(1:23-24) “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; ²⁴ for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.”

The illustration of looking into the mirror reminds us of the need to reflect on our identity in Christ (“what kind of person he was”). It’s as we reflect and trust in the love of God and our position in Christ that we are able to carry out and “do” the word. Condition and position work both ways: When we reflect on our position, this affects our condition. Then, when we act in faith based on these positional truths, our condition makes the reality of our positional all the more vibrant.

Hodges^[60] understands the concept of the “mirror” to be understood as “moral instruction.” This fits with the flow of thought that refers to the “law of liberty” (v.25). Like a scale reveals our need to lose weight, the mirror reveals what God wants to change in our lives to bring about spiritual growth. If we do not act on what we learn, then we quickly forget the revelation God gave to us. Hodges writes, “To be a mere hearer of God’s truth is to forget our true identity as born-again and justified children of God, and to behave as though we were not.”^[61]

“Doer of the word.” This imperative might be the central thesis of James’ letter. One Bible teacher asks the question, “What is the most important part of a good Bible study? It’s when you close your Bibles. Then it’s time to put into practice what you learned!” There is no use getting endless education when we refuse to act on application. From time to time, we should ask ourselves: “What truths do I already know that I’m not putting into practice?”

(1:25) “But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.”

(1:25) Are Christians under law or not (c.f. 2:8, 12)? If you notice, in this passage James doesn’t say “the law.” He repeatedly adds other modifiers such as “the perfect law” (1:25), “the royal law” (2:8), or “the law of liberty” (2:12). When James refers to the “perfect” law (teleos), this can literally refer to the “fulfilled” law. After all, Jesus fulfilled the Law for us on the Cross (Jn. 19:30; Rom. 10:4; Mt. 5:17-18). Thus, if James has the moral law in mind, then he is affirming that it is fulfilled in Christ. Moreover, in James 2:8, the expression “the royal law” can also be translated as “the law of our King” (see NASB footnote). This would refer to Jesus’ law of love (Mt. 22:37; Jn. 15:13), rather than the moral law of the OT. If James had the moral law in mind, he would have quoted specifically from the Ten Commandments—not the injunction of “love” in the Levitical law (Lev. 19:18).

Others like Richardson^[62] and Adamson^[63] understand the term “law” to refer to God’s “word” in context.

Doers in our words

(1:26) “If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.”

We need to be “effectual doers” in our words, as well as in our works. James will return to this subject of “taming the tongue” in chapter 3.

Doers in our works

(1:27) “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

We need to be “effectual doers” in our works, not just our words. These churches were ravaged by extreme poverty—possibly due to the great Judean famine of Acts 11:28 (AD 46). In this context, the best way to be a doer of the word was to get out and serve the poor and destitute.

In the Greek, the “and” is not there (“to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world”). If we remove this word, this implies that a way to keep ourselves from the love of the world is to charitably care for the poor with our time and money. Indeed, experience also confirms that one of the best cures for materialism is to become a generous giver.^[64]

Helping the poor is not the only way to serve God. Adamson writes, “Verse 27 is not, and is not intended to be, a comprehensive definition of Christianity: it is an assertion of one element positively but not exclusively indispensable in that religion.”^[65]

Questions for Reflection

Read verse 4. How does victorious suffering lead to having a sense of peace and feeling like our needs are met by God?

Read verse 8. James states that the person who has split-commitments to Christ and the world-system is “unstable in all his ways” (v.8). How does have a divided commitment lead to instability in all of life?

Compare and contrast the faithful believer (vv.2-6) with the unfaithful believer (vv.6-8).

Read verse 12. What would it look like to suffer without the eternal perspective?

Read verse 19. What is the relationship between being a good listener and getting our anger under control? Why does James sandwich these together?

What are some keys to becoming a better listener?

Read verse 22-24. What are some signs that we’re learning the word, but not putting it into practice? What are symptoms of this disease?

James 2

James concluded the previous chapter by stating that “pure and undefiled religion” is to serve the poor. It’s no wonder that he opens this chapter by writing about not showing partiality to the rich.

James 2:1-13 (No more partiality to the rich)

(2:1) “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.”

These believers did have faith (“your faith in… Christ”). However, they weren’t being consistent with their faith. How so? They were showing partiality to the rich. “How,” asks James, “can you glorify the rich, when you also have faith in the glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” The “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” isn’t impressed with wealthy people. Indeed, how could he be? We must look ridiculous in all of our materialistic pride, prestige, and power compared to his overwhelming glory. Moreover, James states that God is favorable to the poor—not the rich (Jas. 2:5).

Imagine if you were sitting between Bill Gates and Lebron James at a Bible study. Surely, it would be hard to pay attention to the teacher! But why? It must be that we hold an inordinate focus on people, rather than God. After all, if the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (v.1) showed up at the teaching, we wouldn’t have the mental or emotional energy to think about who was sitting next to us. James challenges their worship of men by getting their focus back onto Christ.

(2:2) “For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes.”

“Assembly” (synagōgē). This shows that a Jewish setting is surely in view. This doesn’t mean that these believers met in Jewish synagogues necessarily, but simply that their assembly was similar to this model: “Even after leaving the synagogue, Jewish Christians no doubt continued to refer to their church meeting as a synagōgē.”^[66]

The distinction between the two men is that one is well dressed (“gold ring… fine clothes”), while the other is not (“dirty clothes”). This isn’t racism, but classism.

(2:3) “And you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool.’”

This is Pharisaic religion. The Pharisees enjoyed sitting in “the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues” (Mt. 23:6). Here, the believers were giving the same treatment to the rich.

In the second and third century, the term “footstool” (hypopodion) meant “a stone bench running along the walls, with a lower tier for the feet of those sitting on the bench.”^[67] Thus, the rich would get the good seat at the table, while the poor would sit where people put their feet. Consider how humiliating this would be for a middle-class or poor person?

(2:4) “Have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?”

“Distinctions” (diakrino) means “facing both ways.”^[68] Burdick comments, “Here the play on words in the Greek is not apparent in the English translation. The word translated “discriminated” (diekrithēte) is built on the same root as the word for “judges” (kritai). In so judging between men, the readers had become unjust judges.”^[69]

In other words, this is an unjust judgment—much like the wicked judges mentioned later. These believers were paying lip service to Christian humility, but they were actually honoring the ways of the world (Jas. 4). In the OT, the people were not supposed to show favoritism to the rich or the poor: “You shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly” (Lev. 19:15).

“Evil motives.” James doesn’t judge their motives by seeing into their hearts. Our motives will not be revealed until Jesus returns (1 Cor. 4:5). Instead, James judges their motives (1) by pointing to their actions and (2) by asking a question, rather than making a declaration. Likewise, we shouldn’t judge motives, but pointing out sinful actions and asking questions is an appropriate way to reveal sinful motives.

The church is the one place where the marginalized are supposed to receive love. What does it communicate about God when we treat them as the world does—as pests rather than as people?

(2:5) “Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?”

The term “poor” (ptōchos) is an onomatopoeia that means to spit (on?). While the believers were “spitting” on the poor, James counters their classism by appealing to God’s perspective. This passage doesn’t teach that all poor people “are rich in faith.” James is simply stating that the poor as a whole have an advantage over the rich—namely, they have more of an opportunity to trust God. Yet, the poor are still required to be “rich in faith” and “love Him.”

When the poor recognize their physical needs, this can easily transfer to spiritual humility (cf. Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20). Adamson comments, “The poor, in general, are much more likely and eager to believe in a celestial heaven to come.”^[70] Hodges writes, “Ironically, a rich Christian may have less opportunity to trust God for his needs than a poor man who must trust Him day by day, and sometimes meal by meal. Thus, by the providential arrangement of God, a poor Christian may become very rich in the area of personal faith in God, while the rich Christian may be poverty-stricken in this aspect of spiritual experience. James’s readers needed to remember this whenever a scruffy, poor brother came to their assembly. Despite outward appearances, he might be a spiritual millionaire!”^[71]

In other words, all things being equal, it’s more likely to be physically poor and spiritually rich. After all, Jesus said to the church of Smyrna: “I know your tribulation and your poverty but you are rich” (Rev. 2:9). But later, to the church of Laodicea, he said, “You say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17). Likewise, the rich young ruler found it incredibly difficult to come to faith because of all of his wealth (Mk. 10:17-27), but the poor realize their need and this leads to a lack of boasting (1 Cor. 1:29).

(2:6-7) “But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? ⁷ Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?”

What was the nature of these courts? It’s possible that these were debtors courts, or perhaps, religious courts are in view. Adamson writes, “These ‘courts’ were probably the local Jewish sanhedrin (Exod. 21:6; Judg. 5:10; Susanna 49) in every village, with a High Court in Jerusalem (Matt. 10:17; Acts 4:1; 13:50), to whom, within limits, Rome gave jurisdiction over Jewish cases.”^[72]

The rich were dragging the poor into (debtors?) court outside of fellowship, and then they were taking their seats inside of fellowship. Later in the letter, James specifies that these rich people were condemning and killing believers: “You have condemned and put to death the righteous man” (Jas. 5:6).

“Blaspheme” refers to the “sin of attempting to bring [God] into dishonor by such speech.”^[73] The believers in the church must have thought that flattery would result in placating the rich persecutors, but this did nothing of the sort.

(2:8-9) “If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. ⁹ But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”

(2:8) Are Christians under law or not (c.f. 2:12)? The expression “royal law” (nomos basilikos) refers to the law of the sovereign King (cf. Jn. 15:12). If we are royal “heirs” of the kingdom (v.5), then we should follow the “royal law” of the King. James seems to appeal to the Law—not as a means of spiritual growth—but as a means of judging right from wrong (“you are doing well” v.8 versus “you are committing sin” v.9).

James quotes Leviticus 19:18. In that passage, we discover that verse 10 is about loving those in need and loving the stranger (cf. Lev. 19:33-34). If believers were supposed to love the needy and the stranger in the old covenant, how much more should we not show partiality in the new covenant?

(2:10) “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”

James isn’t expecting Christians to be perfect. Later, he uses the term “stumble” to describe the ordinary Christian life: “We all stumble in many ways” (Jas. 3:2). James is thinking of breaking the Law in relationship to justification here. Paul gives a similar line of argument in his letter to the Galatians: “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5:3).

This passage does not teach that “all sins are the same to God,” as is often touted. Far from it! All sins are equally sins, but not all sins are equally sinful. In this passage, James is not teaching ethical priority. Rather, he is simply saying that any sin will cause us to fall short of God’s standard for justification (cf. Rom. 3:23). James’ point is that we dare not say that “sin is not sin” or “lawbreaking is not serious.” In reality, all sin is treated incommensurably serious to God, and our only option is to fall totally on the grace of God.

Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Hillel taught that wearing phylacteries was enough to follow the whole law (Aboth 3.19.). However, stricter rabbis held a similar view to James: “If a man perform all the commandments, save one, he is guilty of all and each; to break one precept is to defy God who commanded the whole” (b. Shab. 70.2).^[74]

(2:11) “For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not commit murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.”

James makes a comparison with standard moral imperatives from the Ten Commandments. He is showing the inconsistency of keeping one major law, while neglecting another. What use is it to say that you have never committed adultery if you’re a murderer? Jewish Christians would agree that both murder and adultery are serious moral imperatives. But then, what about love—the ultimate commandment? What use is it to say that you keep the Law, if you don’t love your neighbor and honor the poor? Your obedience in one area does not justify negligence in another. Hodges writes, “We are supposed to believe (according to some) that we can keep God’s law well enough to essentially validate our own conversion and so be regarded as Christian people. But such a view is Pharisaism revisited. It is not NT doctrine at all.”^[75] This concept of our radical need for total and complete forgiveness apart from works will become very important in our interpretation of James 2:14-26.

To truly be “doers of the word” (1:22), we need to do more than just avoid heinous moral sins like adultery and murder. We need to practice love. Again, James is not using the Law to motivate spiritual growth (i.e. the “third use of the Law”). He is using the Law to reveal right from wrong.

(2:12-13) “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. ¹³ For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”

This refers to the bema seat^[76] of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:10). The “merciless” nature of the judgment does not negate grace (cf. Mt. 5:7; Lk. 6:36); instead, it affirms it. If we were truly under Law, then no one would make it to heaven (vv.10-11). When we stand under the bema seat judgment, Jesus will judge our works and “motives” (v.4; 1 Cor. 4:3-5). If we weren’t under grace, no one would be able to stand on that day. Thus, Adamson understands “judgment” to refer to “legalistic judgment.”^[77] The point is that we shouldn’t dispense legalistic judgment to others and expect gracious judgment at the bema seat.

Application

The main point is to not show “favoritism” (v.1) or discrimination of any kind. While the immediate application is classism, this could apply to other forms of discrimination (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism, etc.). Humans are experts at creating ways to discriminate, but this is not God’s way.

Is it always wrong to discriminate? No. The term “discriminate” comes from Latin (discriminat), which means to “distinguish between.” Under this simple definition, discrimination is good thing when it comes to rightly identifying evils like racism, sexism, and classism. That is, we should discriminate against such things, calling them immoral or false, rather than good and true. In general, humanity has this all wrong: we divide on superficial differences like skin color, age, and sex; however, we embrace on serious differences like truth, morality, and worldview. In other words, we divide where we should embrace, and embrace where we should divide!

In general, we should be tough on ideas, but gentle with people. Our culture has this backwards: We are harsh toward people and accepting of damaging ideas. Yet, James tells us to love others, not just tolerate them (v.8), a far higher standard.

Why shouldn’t we discriminate? In our culture, we are shamed if we discriminate (usually on Twitter!). But why shouldn’t we discriminate? Are there any good reasons for why we shouldn’t discriminate?

• Jesus has every right to discriminate, but he doesn’t. Even Jesus’ enemies said, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any” (Mt. 22:16). He spent time with “tax collectors and sinners” (Mt. 9:11; cf. Mt. 21:30-31).
• How can we discriminate against the poor when Jesus himself was poor? Jesus “became poor” for us (2 Cor. 8:9), taking the “humble position of a slave” (Phil. 2:7 NLT). He was born in a manger (Lk. 2:7). His parents were so poor that they couldn’t afford a lamb to sacrifice, so they made the sacrifice of the poor instead—only, two pigeons (Lk. 2:24; Lev. 12:8). Before he started vocational ministry, Jesus was a working-class carpenter (Mk. 6:3). After he started vocational ministry, Jesus had nowhere to sleep on a regular basis (Mt. 8:20). Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a borrowed donkey (Mt. 21:3-5), had his last meal in a borrowed room (Mt. 26:20ff), and he was buried in a borrowed grave (Mk. 15:43-46). If Jesus walked into one of these churches in the Diaspora, he would’ve been sitting on the floor! (Jas. 2:3) All of this shows that God himself identifies with those at the bottom (Prov. 14:31; 19:17; Mt. 25:31-46; 1 Cor. 1:26-29).
• Jesus brought about a cultural upheaval regarding discrimination. In the ancient world, there was no problem with the rich getting better seats in a religious service—any more than the rich getting floor tickets to an NBA game today. However, Christianity revolutionized the moral norms of the first century (see “Moral Norms in the Ancient World”). With this in mind, Paul eliminated racism, classism, and sexism: “There is neither Jew nor Greek [racism], there is neither slave nor free man [classism], there is neither male nor female [sexism]; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).
• We have no grounds for discriminating against one another. After all, humans are all equal in being (1) image-bearers, (2) desperate sinners, and (3) in need of salvation. Just ask yourself, “How would I look apart from Jesus Christ? How would I look if __________ never happened in my life?” We say, “I had some luck and help, but basically I earned it.” God says, “You made some good choices, but basically I gave it to you!”[78]
• Discrimination often clouds our discernment. Humans judge based on the most superficial aspects of someone’s life (e.g. clothes, speech, etc.) in order to judge the most serious qualities of who they are (e.g. love for God and others, character, etc.). Instead, we should always ask, “What is his story? What were they like as a little kid? What advantages did I have that they missed out on?”

Can we be “partial” or show “favoritism” towards friends? Yes and no. Jesus chose the 70, the twelve, and the inner three—thereby excluding everyone else. However, Jesus chose his disciples to love many other people (Jn. 15:16). Similarly, Israel was called to bless the nations—not to suppress the nations (Gen. 12:1-3). So, if our friendship groups only exist for themselves, then we should ask ourselves if we are guilty of only “loving those who love us” (Mt. 5:46). This is what Becky Pippert humorously referred to as a “holy huddle.”

How can we avoid discrimination in Christian community? In our view, rather than giving labels, it’s better to focus on actions. Hardly anyone would self-identify as a racist, classicist, or sexist. In fact, naming them would only be the beginning of the process of change. Instead, we should focus on whether or not our words or actions have hurt others. If this has happened, the solution is not bitterness, resentment, and revenge. Rather the solution is confrontation, forgiveness, and repentance. Even in our modern world we see examples of “blood feuds” where people keep retaliating interminably.[79] We might look at this as barbaric, but we kill others every day in our hearts (Mt. 5:21-22). Confrontation and forgiveness are the keys to growth as a community.

James 2:14-26 (Faith and works)

(2:14-26) Is salvation by faith or works? The focus of James 2 is the licentious believer who refuses to love others in practical or “useful” ways. Indeed, this is what we’ve seen so far in the letter. This is why James focuses on (1) the “uselessness” of their faith for others and (2) the “death” that this will cause.

(2:14) “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?”

This can be translated: “If someone keeps on saying he has faith but he keeps on not having works.”^[80] This is the problem with religion: People talk a lot but don’t do anything.

“Can that faith save him?” The Greek interrogative followed with the negation (mē) demands that the answer to this question is, “No.”^[81]

Is James referring to a certain kind of faith? Some interpreters argue that James has a certain type of faith in mind (“Can that faith save him?”). However, the Greek text doesn’t make this distinction. While James uses the article before faith, he also uses the article consistently throughout the whole passage (2:17, 18, 20, 22, 26). In fact, James uses the same construction to refer to Abraham’s saving faith (v.22). At the same time, the context of “faith” in verse 14 refers to the nearest antecedent (“faith but he has no works”). So, a certain type of faith is likely in view in this context.

(2:15-16) “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?”

“Without clothing” (gymnoi) is literally “naked,” but this is “probably to be understood as hyperbole.”^[82] Yet, it shows that this believer is desperate. The poor were being neglected in this church based on their rich or poor clothing (Jas. 2:2-3), and so, this hypothetical example may not be far from the mark.

“Go in peace” (hypagete en eirēnē) was “a standard Hebrew farewell.”^[83] It might be similar to our English expression, “Take care of yourself.”

“One of you says to them.” This person gives the person many words, but not works. This is a sign of a person without true faith: They talk a lot, but they do not act on their convictions.

(2:17) “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.”

Why does James use the term “dead” to describe faith? And what sort of “death” does he have in mind? The term “dead” does not modify the believer, but rather his faith. In our estimation, James is urging his readers to bolster their faith—not questioning whether they are true believers.

We would argue that James is showing that their faith is “dead” in the sense that it doesn’t have a life-giving effect on the believer or anyone else. The key to James’ argument is to see him as admonishing the believers toward good works, rather than threatening their salvation. According to James, a faith without action will lead to a dead faith. This is similar to the argument he already made in James 1:22-25. Our faith will not be bolstered if we don’t put it into practice.

The objector (vv.18-19)

NT authors sometimes introduce an objector or “literary foil” to explain their views. Paul, for example, does this frequently throughout the book of Romans. Hodges writes, “Such alleged objectors were a common stock-in-trade for writers on morals in James’s day.”^[84] The difficulty is understanding when the objector is speaking, and when James is speaking.

(2:18) “But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’”

The NASB attributes this entire verse to the objector. However, we would follow the punctuation of Burdick, ^[85] as well as most English translation such as the ESV, NIV, NLT, NET, and NKJV: “‘You have faith and I have works.’ [Then James replies,] ‘Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’”

“Show me” (deiknumi) means “to exhibit something that can be apprehended by one or more of the senses, point out, show, make known” (BDAG, p.214).

(Jas. 2:19) “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”

“You believe that God is one.” Jewish tradition held that the way a person said the Shema (Deut. 6:4) would affect the effectiveness of their prayer. The Babylonian Talmud states, “Whosoever prolongs the utterance of the word One shall have his days and years prolonged unto him” (b. Berakhot 13b.).^[86] Yet, faith is not a “mere assent to the truth of God’s existence.”^[87]

“You do well.” It isn’t that affirming propositional truths about God is wrong. James agrees with the Shema. The problem is that a faith like this is insufficient.

“The demons also believe, and shudder.” Demons do “shudder” in terror at Jesus (Mk. 1:23-24; 5:7). Demons have information, but not transformation.

(2:20) “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?”

James calls the objector “foolish” (kenōs) or “empty.” He argues that we can see someone’s faith through their works, and he opens by asking if the objector is willing to recognize that a faith without works is “useless” (argos). This Greek term relates to “power.” It means “unemployed, idle” or “unwilling to work” or “unproductive, useless, worthless” (BDAG, p.128).

What has been the focus of James’ discourse? The entire context refers to fellow humans identifying whether or not a person is justified—not whether God justifies them. Indeed, God is conspicuously absent from this entire section. To put this another way, the subject of this discussion is not God’s justification of humans, but our ability to see if people are justified. How does James demonstrate how we can see if people are justified from a human perspective?

Example #1: Abraham

(2:21) “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?”

“Justified by works.” If we take a plain sense reading of this passage, then James is stating that we are justified by works—not faith. No Christian denomination holds this view (e.g. Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc.). What is James referring to then?

James is arguing that we can show our faith to other humans through our works. It is in this sociological sense that we are “justified by works.” In verse 22, he says, “You see that faith was working.” This explicitly states that our humans can see our faith through our works. To repeat, James has justification before humans in view—not justification before God. Jesus referred to those who “justify themselves in the sight of men.” Yet, he said, “God knows your hearts” (Lk. 16:15). Elsewhere, Jesus used the term “justified” (dikaioō) in the sense of being justified before people: “Yet wisdom is vindicated [dikaioō] by all her children” (Lk. 7:35).^[88]

Likewise, Paul refers to being justified before humans—even citing the example of Abraham. He writes, “If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God” (Rom. 4:2). According to Paul, Abraham could be justified before humans, but he denied that Abraham could be justified before God. In fact, Paul uses the first-class conditional clause to assume the first premise in his argument.[89]

Abraham’s “trial” or “testing” by God justified him to humans. Similarly, the message of James is that believers are also under a “trial” or “testing” by God (Jas. 1:2-3). God already knows what is in our heart, so the trial isn’t for him, but for us or others.

(2:22) “You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.”

“You see.” The justification of Abraham is from our perspective—not God’s perspective.

“Perfected” (eteleiōthē) is the same root word used earlier to refer to a believer who passed a trial: “perfect and complete” (Jas. 1:4; teleios). It can also be rendered “mature, full-grown, adult” (BDAG). Abraham’s faith matured through his trial—just as James promised his readers (cf. Rom. 4:19-21; Heb. 11:17-19). Thus, faith and works complement one another. Our works (i.e. being a “doer of the word,” Jas. 1:22) leads to a “perfected” faith.

(2:23-24) “And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

The term “fulfilled” (eplērōthē) carries the meaning of being “filled full.” Abraham’s original justification of Genesis 15:6 was later “filled full” at this confirming event with Isaac. That is, Abraham’s success at this trial shows us that his initial faith was real.

This differs from extrabiblical Jewish teaching which taught that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was seen as a work—not an act of faith. Jubilees states, “Abraham was perfect in all his dealings with the Lord and gained favor by his righteousness throughout his life” (Jubilees 23:10). Likewise, Maccabees states, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was credited to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc. 2:52) By contrast, the justification James has in mind does not refer to being justified before God, but before men (“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”).

Example #2: Rahab

(2:25) “In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”

“Justified by works.” James makes no mention of faith. Again, if we take this passage to refer to justification before God, then this would exclude faith altogether! To repeat, no orthodox Christian of any stripe would affirm this.

Furthermore, Rahab was a “harlot” or prostitute. Being a “famous sinner,”^[90] she is hardly a good example of a woman with good works! Why was she justified then? We can know that she was justified because her faith resulted in good works.

What did Rahab do to be justified before people? She saved the lives of the spies. This is the very issue James is addressing throughout the letter (Jas. 1:21; 2:14; 5:19-20). Moreover, Rahab’s physical life was saved because of this act of faith (Heb. 11:31). By choosing Rahab immediately after Abraham, James was showing “universal application” for both “patriarch and prostitute.”^[91]

Conclusion

(2:26) “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

James returns to his opening statement: “Faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (Jas. 2:17). If we don’t have works, our faith will atrophy and become “useless” (Jas. 2:20). This fits with the overall theme of James that we should be “doers of the word” (Jas. 1:22) in order to build and mature our faith (Jas. 1:4).

Do you have genuine faith?

Do you have freedom from fear or judgment? (Jas. 2:19)

Has your faith changed your desires and lifestyle?

What scary steps of faith have you taken recently? (Jas. 2:22)

When we show our faith in our actions, we communicate the truth of Christ to the world. Yet when we live double lives, we drag Jesus’ name through the mud. It seems that some of the best evidence for God is Christians (Jn. 13:34-35; 17:21-23), but some of the best evidence against God is also Christians!

Questions for Reflection

Read verses 2-4. Because of their great influence in the world, many churches favor rich church members… What might happen if we allowed rich members to control the direction and leadership of the church?

Many people care about solving (or at least helping) poverty in our day. Yet many strategies for solving poverty only perpetuate it. What are some key principles for helping the poor? In what ways can we make a strategic difference in this area?

Read verse 5. What advantages do the poor have to make them “rich in faith”?

Read verse 10. Some people say, “Every law is equally serious to God.” They use this passage to support this Christian trope. Do you agree with this statement?

Read verses 14-26. Before we interpret this difficult passage, what is at stake when it comes to our interpretation of this passage? Is it really that important of a discussion? Why or why not?

How does this passage fit into the overall context of James so far? What was happening in these churches that led James to write this passage?

When James refers to “works,” what do you think he has in mind? Is he referring to things like fleeing from sexual immorality, drunkenness, or stealing? (HINT: Take your definition of works from the book of James itself.)

Why does James cite Abraham alongside of Rahab? Why a patriarch alongside a prostitute? Doesn’t this seem like an odd couple of people to pick to demonstrate his point?

Excursus: Zane Hodges’ View of James 2

Zane Hodges argues that James is referring to having our physical lives being cut short—not our salvation. In this excursus, we will evaluate his interpretation.

Hodges notes that the term “save” (sōzō) has a broad semantic range. He’s right. This list is not exhaustive, but it shows the different ways the term “save” (sōzō) is used in the NT:

• “Saved” from spiritual death (Mt. 1:21; 19:25; Lk. 8:12; 13:23; 19:10; Jn. 3:17; Acts 2:21, 2:47; Acts 4:12; Acts 16:30-31; Rom. 5:9; 10:9; Eph. 2:8).
• “Saved” from physical death (Mt. 8:25; 14:30; 24:22; 27:40; Mk. 3:4; Lk. 6:9; Acts 27:20, 31; Jude 5).
• “Saved” from illness (Mt. 9:21; Mk. 5:23; 6:56; 10:52; Lk. 7:50; Acts 4:9; Jas. 5:15).
• “Saved” from demon possession (Lk. 8:36).
• “Saved” through the work of evangelism (1 Cor. 7:16; 9:22).
• “Saved” referring to sanctification (1 Tim. 4:16).

Interpreters cannot merely assume that James has salvation from hell in mind in this passage. Rather, they need to make their case as to why they hold this view. James uses the term “save” (sōzō) five times in his letter:

(Jas. 1:21) Putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.

(Jas. 2:14) What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

(Jas. 4:12) There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

(Jas. 5:15) The prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

(Jas. 5:20) Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

It’s possible that James is referring to being saved from physical death. The first use of “save” (sōzō) may refer to physical death (Jas. 1:21). Hodges writes, “The Greek phrase found here (sōsai tas psychas hymōn) was in common use in the sense of ‘to save the life.’ It is used in both the Greek OT as well as in the NT in exactly that sense (see Gen 19:17; 32:30; 1 Sam 19:11; Jer 48:6; Mark 3:4//Luke 6:9).”^[92] Hodges goes so far as to say that this phrase is never used of salvation from hell in the entire NT or the Septuagint. Of course, the context of James 1 is the “wisdom” of God (1:5). This concept fits with the wisdom literature of the Proverbs:

(Prov. 10:27) The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked will be shortened.

(Prov. 11:19) He who is steadfast in righteousness will attain to life, and he who pursues evil will bring about his own death.

(Prov. 13:14) The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life, to turn aside from the snares of death.

(Prov. 19:16) He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, but he who is careless of conduct will die.

The last two usages of “save” (sōzō) seem to refer to physical death. God is able to shorten a person’s life due to sin like hypocrisy (Acts 5:5, 10), pride (Acts 12:22-23), or overall licentious living (1 Cor. 12:30).

James is referring to sanctification. Hodges contends that James is addressing the subject of being saved from the physical consequences of sin (i.e. a shortened life). However, we think this is simply too restrictive. We think that sanctification is in view in this passage. The licentious believer’s faith has no “use” for himself or others (v.14), and his faith will eventually become “dead” if it isn’t already (v.17).

(2:15-16) “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?”

Physical death? James makes a comparison between the believer’s “useless” faith for his own life (“What use is it?” v.14), and the believer’s “useless” faith for someone else’s life (“What use is that?” v.16). If verse 14 refers to eternal life, then why does James appeal to an example that deals with physical life in verse 16?

(2:17) “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.”

Physical death? Hodges argues that James is referring to physical death.^[93] If James is thinking purely in terms of wisdom literature (like the Proverbs), then this may very well be true.

(2:18) “But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’”

Hodges^[94] takes verses 18-19 as entirely the words of James’ objector. He offers several reasons why:

• The punctuation marks of our English translations are not in the original Greek, but are the inferences of translators. So, these don’t serve as evidence one way or another.
• Different translations end the quotations marks at different places. The NASB contains all of verse 18 as the quote of the objector, while most other translations (e.g. ESV, NIV, NRSV, NLT, NKJV, NET) only take the first sentence to be the quote of the objector. This shows that this is an open discussion.
• There is a unity of thought in verses 18-19 that is best explained by a single voice from the objector.
• James’ interjection in verse 20 seems to be the most natural ending to the objector, because he is directly replying to him (“But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow?”). We see a similar use of this diatribe format in Romans 9:19-20, 1 Cor. 15:35-36, and the non-biblical book of 4 Maccabees 2:24-3:1.

If this entire section is from the perspective of an objector, then what is the objection? If all of verses 18-19 are from the objector, then this person is arguing that it is impossible to demonstrate one’s faith to another person—even through works.^[95] To argue his point, the objector points to the examples of demons. They believe that there is one God (as do believers), but the result of good works does not follow from this. The objector is arguing that we cannot view works as a way to demonstrate our faith. This is really the tack that many licentious Christians take when being challenged to love others sacrificially. They frequently say, “I do have a strong faith! How can you see my heart? Who are you to judge me?”

An Evaluation of Zane Hodges’ View

We reject this view for several reasons.

First, we need to adopt the Textus Receptus for Hodges’ argument to work (see “The King James Version Only?”). Instead of the word “without” (chōris) in verse 18, Hodges appeals to the Majority Text which uses the word “by” or “from” (ek). Thus, Hodges translates this verse in this way: “You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith from [ek] your works, and I will show you, from [ek] my works, my faith.”^[96] And yet, our more reliable manuscripts do not read this way. Proponents of the Majority Text would bristle at this statement. (But the truth hurts!)

Second, James’ statement “you do well” was earlier used in James 2:8, which supports that this is James speaking—not the interlocutor or opponent.^[97]

Third, Hodges’ arguments in favor of his suggested quotations are not strong. Everyone would agree with his first two arguments. However, his third argument (i.e. the unity of thought in verses 18-19) doesn’t seem obvious at all. Moreover, his fourth argument (i.e. James’ interjection in verse 20) could just as easily be understood to be a verbal rebuke (“But… you foolish fellow”) that builds on verse 18b or verse 19, rather than verses 18-19 as a whole. In fact, the rebuke of verse 20 would fit quite well with James’ sarcastic affirmation of this hypothetical objector’s faith that was just as good as demons!

James 3

Earlier, James wrote, “If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless” (Jas. 1:26). Then he wrote, “Speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty” (Jas. 2:12). In James 2:14-26, James addressed works (“act”), and here in James 3:1-12, he addresses our words (“speak”). Aren’t works more important than words? This is a false dilemma—like asking which wing of the plane is more important. In the Christian life, much of what we do is speak, and we need to learn how to do this well.

James 3:1-12 (Taming the tongue)

(3:1) “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.”

How does this passage fit with the concept of “every member ministry”? James might be thinking of “teachers” in a restricted sense. Indeed, Paul refers to “teachers” in a restricted sense, when he writes, “All are not teachers, are they?” (1 Cor. 12:29) In Paul’s context, he is referring to having the spiritual gift of teaching. Elsewhere Paul writes, “[God] gave some as… pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). Likewise, Luke refers to a restricted group of “prophets and teachers” (Acts 13:1). Not everyone will carry the title of being a teacher, but each of us are told to “let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom” (Col. 3:16 NIV). Likewise, the author of Hebrews states, “By this time you ought to be teachers” (Heb. 5:12). Every member can teach on some level, but this doesn’t mean that any member can teach in any setting.

“Knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” Jesus said that whoever “keeps and teaches” God’s word will be considered “great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19). Paul warns us, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Therefore, this could refer to the bema seat judgment, or it could also refer to being judged by our fellow believers (1 Cor. 14:29).

Why does James open this section by discussing the office of teaching? He later writes about controlling our tongue. If we cannot get a hold of our tongue on a small level, then we shouldn’t teach on a big one. The stricter judgment comes from the fact that “the teacher’s essential instrument—the tongue which is so easily misused, has great influence.”^[98]

(3:2) “For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.”

“We all stumble in many ways.” The term “stumble” (ptaiō) refers to sin (Jas. 2:10). This verse “balances the warning of the previous verse.”^[99] Even though we will face a “stricter judgment” at the bema seat for our failure, James is quick to state that we all sin and stumble.

Commentators of various theological stripes seem to agree that the key to our inner heart issues is predicated on our ability to control our tongue:

Alec Motyer: “Control of the tongue leads to a master-control of ourselves and our lives… The control of the tongue is more than an evidence of spiritual maturity; it is the means to it.”^[100]

Zane Hodges: “To a large extent our actions are determined by the things we say.”^[101]

Kurt Richardson: “In this portion of James the tongue is presented as the key to self-control for a virtuous life of faith. Bring the tongue under control and the whole self can be guided into well-doing.”^[102]

Yet, this understanding puts the cart before the horse. James isn’t saying that we need to fix our speech in order to renovate our hearts; rather, our speech reveals what was already in our hearts. As Jesus taught, “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart” (Lk. 6:45). He also said, “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart” (Mt. 12:34). Likewise, Solomon writes, “A wise man’s heart guides his mouth, and his lips promote instruction” (Prov. 16:23). James later writes that “no one can tame the tongue” (v.8).

Therefore, our method of operations is not to focus on cleaning up our speech, but rather, focus on cleaning up our hearts. If someone had perfect control of their speech, this would indicate a flawless character. Yet the key to a flawless character is not to try to control our speech. We shouldn’t confuse the fruit with the root (see comments on verses 11-12).

Does the context support this view? Advocates of the earlier claim that James uses three illustrations of something small (e.g. bit, rudder, small fire) that control something that is big. Hence, the tongue controls the person as well. Not true. James’ point is that small things can have an effect on big things. Similarly, our small words can have a corrupting influence on our lives and others’ lives. The key and unstated question is why the tongue is evil in the first place, and how to control the tongue. We would argue that this is because of the corruption of the heart—not vice versa. The final illustration of a “small fire” shows that this leads the forest fire to be out of control—not under control. And James writes, “The tongue is a fire” (v.6). No simile is used—though it is implied. Thus, the final illustration shows that the tongue is uncontrollable and destructive—not the means to controlling a person’s character.

James lists three small things that have a big influence

(3:3-5) “Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well. ⁴ Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. ⁵ So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire!”

In each of these illustrations, James shows how small things like a bit, rudder, and a flame can have a large impact on large things like a horse, ship, and forest. He writes that “the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things” (v.5). Similarly, the tongue can have a powerful effect for good or for evil.

Later, James uses very strong language to describe the tongue (“the very world of iniquity… set on fire by hell… restless evil… full of deadly poison”). These sound like descriptions of a villain in a horror movie—not descriptions of our speech! Yet, this is the great and terrible impact that our speech can have on others. Many of our greatest regrets in life come from what we said, and how it impacted others. As Solomon writes, “The tongue has the power of life and death” (Prov. 18:21).

Self-corrupting

(3:6) “And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.”

Like a small flame that starts a forest fire, our speech can corrupt our lives and the lives of others. When we choose to speak negatively toward others, ourselves, and God, this has a corrupting effect on the heart.[103]

Untamable

(3:7-8) “For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. ⁸ But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.”

It’s interesting that we can tame all sorts of animals—great or small—to accomplish various tasks. We’ve seen videos of elephants who were taught to paint,[104] lions that jump through hoops, and killer whales that swim in various patterns and ways. Yet, we cannot tame our tiny tongues!

(3:9-10) “With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; ¹⁰ from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.”

When you tame a powerful animal, this is not only impressive, but it can be a cause for great good. The same is true of the tongue. We can use it for great good or for great evil.

“From the same mouth come both blessing and cursing.” Pay attention to what you talk about. It’s interesting to hear how people will speak glowingly about God in one breath, and in the next breath they will grumble about their brother or sister in Christ.

(3:11-12) “Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? ¹² Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.”

In order to change our speech, we need to fill our heart with the truth and love of God. Otherwise, we are merely “cleaning the outside of the cup,” rather than fixing the heart. Again, we need to fix the root (i.e. our hearts) in order to change the fruit (i.e. our speech).

Application: How do we grow in this area?

Develop a healthy fear of our words. We have a healthy fear that fires could burn down our houses, and install fire detectors, buy fire extinguishers, etc. But do we have a similar healthy fear of what we say? How many times have I wanted to hit rewind and take back what I’ve said? Solomon writes, “Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Prov. 12:18).

Minimize destructive speech. Consider the wise words of Solomon. He writes:

(Prov. 11:13) A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret.

(Prov. 13:3) He who guards his lips guards his life, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin.

(Prov. 16:28) A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends.

Realize that people hold onto words—even years later. Many of the things we say (for good or for bad) won’t be remembered by us. But others will remember. One woman told the story of getting her menstrual cycle for the first time. At the dinner table, her father said something to the effect of needing to “keep the boys away from her.” The woman shared this in tears, and she was 80 years old! Realize that our words have a powerful and lasting effect—for good or for ill.

Close your mouth and open your ears. James tells us to be “slow to speak” and “quick to listen” (Jas. 1:19). Again, we can learn from the wise and inspired words of Solomon.

(Prov. 10:19) He who holds his tongue is wise.

(Prov. 12:23) A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.

(Prov. 17:28) Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

(Prov. 21:23) He who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps himself from calamity.

(Eccl. 10:14) The fool multiplies words.

Plan ahead with words of encouragement and exhortation. The author of Hebrews writes, “Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, ²⁵ not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Heb. 10:24-25). Again, Solomon writes,

(Prov. 12:25) An anxious heart weighs a man down, but a kind word cheers him up.

(Prov. 16:24) Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.

(Prov. 25:11) A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.

(Prov. 15:4) The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.

Meditate on God’s words to change our words. Paul writes, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷ so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Likewise, Peter writes, “Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God” (1 Pet. 4:11; cf. Mt. 10:20).

Learn to turn conversations around. Paul writes, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (Eph. 4:29). Instead of falling into carnal speech, pray and ask God to use you to interrupt these trends into something more uplifting.

Work on timing and tone. Solomon writes, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1), and he writes, “A man finds joy in giving an apt reply—and how good is a timely word!” (Prov. 15:23)

Engage in correction and counsel. Solomon writes, “Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold is a wise man’s rebuke to a listening ear” (Prov. 25:12). Elsewhere he writes, “The lips of the righteous nourish many, but fools die for lack of judgment” (Prov. 10:21).

Speak up, rather than clam up! How do you justify not speaking up for weeks or months?

James 3:13-18 (Wisdom)

(3:13) “Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.”

Building on his thesis in 2:14-26, James returns to the importance of good deeds. If we really have a spiritual mindset (“wise and understanding”), it will naturally flow into our actions. Hodges writes, “Instead of boldly (and arrogantly!) verbalizing the wisdom they thought they possessed, James’s readers are challenged to demonstrate it by their lifestyle in that gentle spirit (praütēs: meekness) which was always a mark of true wisdom.”^[105] The word “gentleness” (prautēs) was “used to describe a horse that had been broken and trained to submit to the bridle.”^[106]

What wisdom is NOT

Wisdom is more than mere INFORMATION. In our culture, we have facts and figures at our fingertips. In fact, trivia contests for radio stations have become somewhat of a joke with the advent of smart phones. Yet, while we are gorged with knowledge, we are starving for wisdom! Wisdom is not less than information, but it is certainly more. It is the ability to know how to use the knowledge that we possess. Wisdom is the big picture, rather than just endless details.

Wisdom is distinct from INTELLIGENCE. In his book Outliers (2008), Malcolm Gladwell interviews Christopher Langan—a man acclaimed to be the smartest person in America, and perhaps the world. His IQ is somewhere between 195 and 210. He earned a perfect score on the SAT—even though he took a nap during the test.

Yet Langan dropped out of college after his first year because of financial problems. He felt that he had more to teach his professors, than learn from them. When Gladwell published his book, Langan worked at a bar as a bouncer.

People are obsessed with intelligence and being gifted, but not with being wise. We often hear college students say, “I got C’s in high school, but I didn’t try.” Why would we consider this to be a positive quality? Would you rather be an average person who works hard, or a gifted person who is lazy? OSU football coach Woody Hayes used to say, “Men, you don’t have the most gifted coach, or the smartest coach, but you definitely have the hardest working coach.”

Wisdom is different than INTEGRITY. Wisdom isn’t a moral law, but more like a “law of gravity.” You don’t break it, but it will break you! For instance, consider helping a friend who has fallen on hard times financially. The moral thing to do is help them, but how? This takes wisdom to know what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. But make no mistake: You can either help them or create further dependence through your actions. We need wisdom to move forward..

What is wisdom?

In the OT, the word “wisdom” (hokmah) derives from a word meaning “skillful” (Ex. 31:1-3). It refers to being skilled at weaving, woodworking, and metalworking (Ex. 28:3 “skilled” “wisdom”). It can carry this meaning in regards to sailing (Ps. 107:27) or leadership (Isa. 11:2-4). Likewise, in the book of Proverbs, this refers to being skilled at living life. Maybe you’ve been around people like this. They seem to have a supernatural ability to know the right move to make—when to speak and when to be silent—when to move and when to wait. Warren Wiersbe writes, “[Wisdom] tells you, not how to make a living, but how to be skillful in the lost art of making a life.”^[107]

(3:14) “But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.”

Instead of trying to bolster our “public image” or “climb the ladder” in the Christian community, we should take the lower seat of humbly loving others and sharing wisdom with them (v.13). “Bitter jealousy” and “selfish ambition” are contrasted with “gentleness” (v.13).

“Selfish ambition” (eritheia) was used by Aristotle for “a self-seeking pursuit of political office by unfair means” (BDAG, p.392; Aristotle, Politics, 5, 3). This reminds us of the apostles who constantly argued over who was the “greatest” (Mk. 9:34; Lk. 9:46; 22:24). It’s possible to have the veneer of spirituality, all the while having jealousy and bitterness underneath it all. This is really to “lie against the truth.”

These attitudes exist primarily in the “heart,” yet they are still considered lying. Why is this considered “lying against the truth?” It must be because we know that we’re weak, but we’re putting on a show. Deep down, we know that we’re not what we’re claiming to be. In its purest form, it is the lie that I can be like God.

It’s not that bad, is it? We often think, “God can use a little jealousy and ambition to help me stay motivated.” Or perhaps we say, “Some daydreaming about being praised and admired isn’t that bad. It could be worse.” But what does James say about all of this? It’s demonic! Richardson writes, “Preaching of this kind would not be warmly received in the modern church. But this harshness is precisely the point. For everyone who thinks the church and the Christian faith are to be exploited for their own personal interests, James’s words cut to the quick.”^[108]

(3:15) “This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.”

This selfish perspective doesn’t come from God; it comes from Satan. Satan was the original being to violate God’s moral nature and reject his leadership, placing himself at the center of the universe. All selfish ambition, jealousy, and bitterness comes from this demonic viewpoint: It places us at the center of the universe. This doesn’t come from above, but from below. Hardly anyone who is falling into this mindset thinks that they are acting like Satan. They usually convince themselves that they are trying to be good spiritual leaders. But James warns us that this selfish ambition is “demonic,” and no doubt deceiving as well. So, to return to the question above, “Yes! This attitude really is that bad! When we fall into “jealousy” and “selfish ambition,” we are imitating Satan himself.

“Earthly.” People with worldly wisdom only possess a horizontal, sociological perspective. These people have “their minds on earthly things” (Phil. 3:19). This type of wisdom “stands for philosophical or other kinds of rational approach to values that does not truly take the revealed will of God into account.”^[109]

(3:16) “For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.”

James returns to the subject of “bitter jealousy” and “selfish ambition.” Such inner attitudes can rip the church apart—thus fulfilling Satan’s strategy. Hodges writes, “How often this inspired statement has proved true in churches where individuals seek prominence out of a spirit of jealousy or proud ambition! Characteristically the local church where this occurs is thrown into turmoil, and factionalism and evil things are said and done which have no place in the Christian fellowship. Thus the work of Satan becomes unmistakable.”^[110]

“Disorder” (akatastasia) refers to “anarchy and political turmoil [or] political uprisings (Lk. 21:9).”^[111] This sort of anarchy can occur in the church.

What would a Christian fellowship look like if everyone adopted a jealous and ambitious attitude?

• Cutting people down with sarcasm, rather than giving them encourage to move forward.
• Disappointment in ourselves when others succeed, rather than being happy for the other person.
• Secret envy and criticism of others that builds long critiques of others.
• Secretly glad to see others fail, rather than heartbroken and looking to help.

(3:17) “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.”

James opened his letter referring to “wisdom” (Jas. 1:5), and he wrote, “Every good and perfect gift is from above” (Jas. 1:17). But what is Christian wisdom like? James explains in further detail:

“Pure” (hagne) was used before the first-century to refer to Temple worship (BDAG, p.13). It can mean “pure” (1 Jn. 3:3; 2 Cor. 11:2; Phil. 4:8), “free” (1 Tim. 5:22), or “innocent” (2 Cor. 7:11). Later James writes, “Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify (hagne) your hearts, you double-minded” (Jas. 4:8).

“Peace” (eirēnē) refers to a “state of concord, peace, harmony” (BDAG, p.288). In the OT, the Septuagint used this word to translate the famous Hebrew term shalom.^[112] This could refer to the inner peace given to us by Christ (Rom. 15:13; Phil. 4:6-7; Jn. 14:27; 16:33) or to peace between believers (Rom. 14:19; Eph. 4:3; 1 Pet. 3:11; Mt. 5:9).

“Gentle” (epiekes) literally means “not insisting on every right of letter of law or custom” (BDAG).

“Reasonable” (eupeithes) is from the root word peitho which means “persuade.” BDAG defines it as “obedient” or “complaint” (p.371). We might refer to “reasonable” as being “persuadable” or “open to persuasion.” Wiersbe states that this person is able to “disagree without being disagreeable.”^[113]

“Mercy” (eleous) means “kindness or concern expressed for someone in need, mercy, compassion, pity, clemency” (BDAG, p.316). Jesus told us, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Lk. 6:36). Instead of giving people what they deserve, we should do what pastor Chuck Smith called “surprising people with grace.” When a person expects serious discipline, mercy gives grace instead.

“Unwavering” (adiakritos) means “to not [be] judgmental or divisive, nonjudgmental, not divisive, impartial” or “to not [be] unwavering or uncertain” (BDAG, p.19). It speaks of a confident faith in God (cf. Jas. 1:6).

“Without hypocrisy” (anypokritos) means “without pretense, genuine, sincere, literally ‘without play-acting’” (BDAG, p.91).

(3:18) “And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”

James compares Christian character to farming. This is a long-term project. Spiritual shortcuts and quick fixes will not produce character of this kind. But the fruit is well worth it! As David writes, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1)

Questions for Reflection

How would you counsel a person who simply talks too much, or lacks a “filter” in their speech?

When should we treat foul language as a big issue? When is it not a major issue? When does it become an issue worth addressing? See comments on 1 Corinthians 4:13 “Did Paul Swear?” and “Prioritized Ethics.”

What are some ways to turn around a group that is critical and sarcastic in their speech?

How is encouragement different from flattery or manipulation?

What is a helpful way to respond when someone admonishes us, but some of the things they said were off the mark?

James 4

James moves from the wisdom of the world to the world-system itself. That is, the mindset that governs a person’s mind (Jas. 3:13-18) leads to a destruction of a person’s life (Jas. 4:1-12).

James 4:1-12 (Battling the world-system)

(4:1) “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?”

In a church with all of this “bitter jealousy” and “selfish ambition” (3:14, 16), it shouldn’t surprise us to discover “quarrels and conflicts.” It shouldn’t surprise us to see Christians in conflict. The Bible teaches that unrighteous conflict was in the early church just as much as in our modern churches (1 Cor. 6:1-8; Gal. 5:15; Eph. 4:1-16; Phil. 4:1-3).

The source of our conflicts is what Paul calls the “flesh” or the “sinful nature” (Rom. 7:23). Similarly, James refers to it as the “pleasures” (hēdonē), which is the root word for our modern term “hedonism.” James calls this an inner “war” (strateuō) inside of the believer. Paul agrees, when he writes, “The flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please” (Gal. 5:17).

Selfish desires spring from an ungrateful attitude—asking for more before being thankful for what we already have. This leads to envy and jealousy that breaks down relationships. All of the sudden, we discover that we’re angry with people, and really, angry with God himself.

(4:2) “You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask.”

“Lust” (epithumia) comes from the roots “over” (epi) and “desire” (thymos). It refers to an “over desire” or “a great desire for something, desire, longing, craving” (BDAG, p.371; see comments on James 1:14). Indeed, it leads to “murder”!

Was “murder” really happening in this church? Richardson^[114] thinks that the other mentions of murder (Jas. 2:11; 5:6) and the ongoing legal battles imply that James is referring to literal murder. Moreover, it’s quite likely that “the suffering caused to the poor by unjustly withholding wages has caused many of their deaths.”^[115] We hold to this view because it fits with the greater context of the book so well—especially the oppression of the rich against the poor.

Others argue that the use of the term “murder” is “hyperbole for hatred.”^[116] This occurs when we hate our brothers in our hearts (cf. Mt. 5:21-22; 1 Jn. 3:15). Later, in this same context, James uses the term “adulteresses” in a non-literal way as well (v.4). Hodges writes, “In their jealous hostility toward some Christian brother or sister, James’s readers were doubtless guilty of ‘wishing him away’ (‘I wish he was dead’) and then of coveting what they hoped they might obtain if he actually were dead.”^[117]

“You do not have because you do not ask.” Toussaint wisely observes that, “Preoccupation with arguments lead to prayerlessness.” The root of their problem was that they weren’t turning to God for their needs. Again, they were wrapped up in “bitter jealousy” and “selfish ambition” (3:14, 16), and this outwardly expressed itself in “quarrels and conflicts” (v.1). James was urging them to turn to God in prayer to solve their inner spiritual brokenness.

(4:3) “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.”

God doesn’t answer prayers that are in line with our selfish purposes. He only answers prayers that line up with his will (1 Jn. 5:14-15). God can only give good gifts—not bad ones (Jas. 1:16-17).

“Spend” (dapanaō) can be rendered as “spend freely” (BDAG, p.212). This is the same verb used of the Prodigal Son wasting his father’s money on wild living (Lk. 15:14).

(4:4) “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

Our selfish ambition and desires lead to a love for the “world” (kosmos, see “The World-System”). James already warned his readers to be “unpolluted by the world” (Jas. 1:27). He develops this theme further.

Why does James compare our love for the world-system with an adulterous sex affair?

First, adultery is an either/or proposition. If your spouse asked, “Are you having an affair?” you could say “Yes” or “No,” but you could not say, “Sort of…” We can carry on with one or the other, but we cannot carry on with both. Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” (Mt. 6:24).

Second, adultery takes place over time. No one wakes up one morning and says, “I think I’ll cheat on my wife today.” Adultery begins with fantasy and flirting, and it goes on for months and sometimes years before a person finally decides to cheat. Similarly, no one decides to reject God one day and fall for the world-system. Instead, this is a slow and seductive process. We “long” for materialism (1 Tim. 6:10), and this ruins our spiritual life over time. Finally, one day, we wake up and realize how little we care for the cause of Christ, and we can’t seem to figure out why.

Third, adultery is breaking an intimate promise and pledge. God compares our relationship to him like a husband to a wife (Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17; Isa. 61:10; Eph. 5:25; 5:32; 2 Cor. 11:2). God has placed his Holy Spirit inside of us (Jas. 4:5), and it grieves him to see us waste our lives (Eph. 4:30).

Fourth, adultery takes our affections and love away from our spouse. Similarly, our zeal and love for God are zapped when we fall in love with the world-system. Jesus said, “Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be” (Mt. 6:21). Even when we are in fellowship with other believers, we can find our minds drifting into daydreams about our pursuits in the world-system. This is quite similar to a husband fantasizing about a mistress while on a date with his wife!

Fifth, adultery is a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding the state of our marriage. A husband might start to think that his wife is restricting or boring, so he begins to look for a mistress on the side. Of course, this only makes his marriage worse, thus fulfilling his original assumption. Spouses on the brink of divorce often have a completely skewed memory of their entire relationship—not knowing why they fell in love in the first place. In the same way, when we take more steps toward the world-system, this only affirms that following Jesus was never what we thought it was. Worldly Christians start to think that they were just “going through a phase” or “having a religious experience.” In reality, they are forgetting all that God has done for them through Jesus.

Sixth, adultery is short lived. The thrill of an adulterous relationship is doomed to failure. How can a married person not see where their unfaithfulness is headed? Similarly, the world-system is “passing away” (1 Jn. 2:17).

(4:5) “Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: ‘He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us’?”

(4:5) Is this in the OT or not, and why is God jealous? James was referring to the general message of Scripture, rather than a specific portion of it. That is, he isn’t directly quoting the OT, but he is merely summarizing it. Throughout his letter, James has written about how humans are divided in their dedication to God (Jas. 1:8, 14; 4:4). God desires our spirit to be dedicated to him—not idols or the world-system. This would explain why James appeals to the OT: He is referring to God desiring the “human spirit”^[118] within us (Gen. 2:7). Throughout the OT, we see God pleading with his people to be dedicated to him, and he is a “jealous” God—not tolerating our affections being divided with idols. Perhaps this is what James has in mind. James is “giving the gist”^[119] of passages like Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:14.

(4:6) “But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, ‘God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’”

To support his point, James cites either Proverbs 3:34 or Psalm 138:6. The world-system produces pride in our hearts, and it makes us feel like we have no need for the security, provision, and the identity that God offers. In order to come out of this perspective, it takes a humbling of the heart.

This passage gives a stern warning to the prideful believer: You could find yourself being resisted by God himself! James doesn’t write this to scare his readers, but rather, to reveal God’s “greater grace.” If we respond in humility, God promises to give us grace. God wants to give us an opportunity to surrender before our time is up.

(4:7) “Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.”

“Submit therefore to God.” James’ readers were wrapped up in “fights and quarrels.” They believed that their problems were horizontal (i.e. between them and others). But James urges them to view their problem as vertical (i.e. between them and God). All true repentance starts when we get our eyes back onto God.

“Submit” (hypotassō) is a compound word. It comes from the words “under” (hypo) and “to appoint” (tassō). It was even used as a military term in the sense of directing soldiers for battle (TDNT, 8:27; Plato, Apologia, 28e). In this sense, it means to “get into line” or “get into your proper rank.”^[120] Even if a military sense is not in view, James is telling us to get beneath God’s will and submit to him, rather than our own egotistical agenda.

“Resist the devil.” Since Satan controls the world-system, it makes sense that James would include him in this verse. Resisting the world-system is similar to resisting Satan himself. If we resist Satan in faith, he must flee. This fits with James’ earlier comments about selfish ambition being “demonic” in nature (Jas. 3:15).

“Resist” (anthistēmi) comes from the words “stand” (histēmi or —sta) and “against” (anti). This is where we get the term “antihistamine.” Of course, antihistamines don’t cure the cold, but they do resist it. This is similar to our battle with Satan. There is no “spiritual vaccine” that can keep Satan away once and for all. He will continue to attack us over and over, so we need to be ready to “resist” him (Eph. 6:13; 1 Pet. 5:8-9).

(4:8) “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”

“Draw near to God.” In order to find transformation, we don’t need to exert willpower or self-effort. Instead, the solution is to draw near to God in prayer and authentic repentance. This is a deeply inward concept. Wiersbe comments, “It is possible to submit outwardly and yet not be humbled inwardly.”^[121]

“You double-minded” (dipsuchos) appeared at the beginning of the letter to describe a person who is choosing in two opposite directions. It “describes the attempt of the readers to love God and the pleasures of the world at the same time.”^[122]

If you are enmeshed in the world-system, are you willing to draw close to God and have words with him about this? Are you willing to turn to him for your significance and dependence? Again, this is what James was referring to about being “double-minded” (cf. Jas. 1:8).

(4:9) “Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom.”

The “laughter” should turn to “mourning” because “what had caused them to laugh should actually have caused them to cry.”^[123] This is a major reversal, and one that was taught by Jesus himself (Lk. 6:21, 25).

When we have a change of heart like this, the tears often follow. Many have thrown their family, their friends, and their spiritual lives under the bus for a long time. It can hurt to admit this. It’s important to push through these feelings of guilt until we can experience the repentance that leads to “no regret” (2 Cor. 7:9-10).

(4:10) “Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.”

Instead of wallowing in guilt, we should seek humility and grace (2 Cor. 7:9-11). This is why James could write earlier, “The rich man is to glory in his humiliation” (Jas. 1:10). When we are humbled, it leads to glory (1 Pet. 5:6).

(4:11) “Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.”

This likely returns to the thought on which James started—namely, the “taming of the tongue” (Jas. 3:1-13) and the “quarrels and conflict” (Jas. 4:1) mentioned above. This doesn’t refer to speaking into the life of a fellow believer with a redemptive goal. Rather, this refers to people were using their words to tear down or “speak against” their brothers. This isn’t a pressing of “moral judgment” but “final judgment” as verse 12 makes clear.^[124] At the very least, it refers to the “sin of slander.”^[125] It refers to unrighteous, bitter, and envious judgment.

“Doer of the law.” James returns again to the concept of being a “doer” of the word—not merely a hearer (cf. Jas. 1:22). We cannot just listen to God’s words about our “bitter jealousy and selfish ambition” (Jas. 3:15) or our “pleasures” (Jas. 4:1) that are leading to conflict. We need to act on them.

(4:12) “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?”

Hodges takes the expression “save” to refer to physical life, because the terms “save” (sōzō) and “destroy” (apollumi) are most commonly used that way in secular Greek.^[126] Such a reading is possible. Yet it’s more likely that James is merely referring to God as the ultimate authority in all things—especially judgment. In context, the believers were assuming the authority of a judge (v.11), while God reserves this role for himself. In the present, James’ focus is “to root out the harsh, unkind, critical spirit that continually finds fault with others.”^[127]

James 4:13-17 (Trusting God with big decisions)

This section gives a practical example of the “wisdom that characterizes the world.”^[128] When actual opportunities arise, how do we factor God into the decision-making process? Does he lead our lives? Or do we merely allow him to join along for the ride?

(4:13) “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.’”

“Come now” is emphatic.^[129] Indeed, James introduces his indictment on the rich with the same words (Jas. 5:1). This is meant to arrest the attention of the reader.

The decisions these (hypothetical) people were making were significant: moving to an entirely new city and spending a year there. Why were they willing to pick up and move their lives? James tells us the motivation: “business” and “profit.” It shouldn’t surprise us to see him mentioning this on the heels of his discussion about the world-system (Jas. 4:4).

In ancient Palestine, commerce drove many men out to sea. Moo comments, “The picture James paints here would be familiar to his readers. The first century was a period of great commercial activity, and especially the Hellenistic cities of Palestine (the Decapolis, for instance) were heavily involved in commerce of various kinds. Many Jews were active in these business comings-and-goings; large numbers had settled in cities throughout the Mediterranean world for commercial reasons.”^[130] Priscilla and Aquila are examples of this (Acts 18:2, 18; Rom. 16:3), though they were forced to move because of Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25:4).

We can recognize this attitude in our modern age as well. People travel all over the world in order to make a profit—yet they view reality only through a naturalistic lens. There is one thing missing from all of this: “God has no place in the plans.”^[131] By contrast, Paul would include God in his plans—often explicitly (Acts 18:21; 1 Cor. 4:19).

(4:14) “Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.”

James begins by addressing the flaws in their thinking:

(1) Our limited ability to foresee the future (“you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow”). When we make plans without seeking out God’s will, we ignore the fact that our finite minds really can’t know the countless problems that could confront us. It’s similar to a little child trying to pick their profession at age 6 (“When I grow up, I want to be a veterinarian!”). They know so little about this field of study that it’s hard to take them seriously. Of course, their desire may work out, but we are often shocked when it does—given the fact that the child knows so little about the future. God might feel this way toward us—only we are infinitely more ignorant of the future than he is.

(2) The pursuit of money is transitory and temporal (“You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away”). You might make plans for advancing your education, career, or stock portfolio. Yet all of this fades into smoke exactly one second after you die. Even if we succeed in the world of materialism, the money will quickly melts through our fingers (see “Does Money make us Happy?” and “The Eternal Perspective”).

(4:15) “Instead, you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.’”

“If the Lord wills.” Here is the correct perspective: seeking God’s will for big decisions. We want to trust the complexities of our lives to him, rather than autonomous human pride (see “Trusting God with Big Decisions”).

“We will live.” We don’t even know if we will live for another year. The continuation of our entire lives depend upon the mercy of God.

(4:16) “But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.”

We might not think that making big decisions is important. Not true. James considers this attitude to be very serious. He calls it “arrogance” and “evil” and “sin.” John likewise uses the term “arrogance” (alazoneia) in his infamous passage on the world-system: “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world” (1 Jn. 2:16).

(4:17) “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.”

Apparently, God expects us to discern his will when it comes to big decisions. We shouldn’t be paralyzed in fear that we will make the wrong decision. Instead, we should make sure that our conscience is clear when thinking of God’s will, asking ourselves if we are willing to do whatever God wants (Rom. 12:2).

Questions for Reflection

Read verses 1-2. How might this passage help us as we mediate conflict? What does it tell us about the core of our conflicts?

Read verses 6-7. What does it practically look like to “submit to God”?

Read verses 13-17. How would you respond to this claim: “Scripture never tells us what to do in many of these areas of decision-making. Therefore, we shouldn’t consider big decisions as being a big deal to God.”

What are some keys to discerning God’s will when we’re making a big decision? What are methods that we wouldn’t advise?

What are some ways that we can prepare ourselves now for difficult decisions later in life?

James 5

Earlier, we read how rich members had been persecuting the poor (Jas. 2:1-6). Then, he addressed the world-system (Jas. 4:1-12) and living for money (Jas. 4:13-17). In this chapter, James takes the approach of an OT prophet, calling out this faction of the church. He gives a blunt and blood-chilling rebuke to those who oppress the poor.

James 5:1-6 (Rebuking the Rich)

(5:1) “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you.”

Hodges holds that this section (5:1-6) is linked to the previous section (4:13-17).^[132] After all, both sections open with the words “Come now…” and both deal with materialism.

“Weep” was the same language used earlier to refer to repentance (Jas. 4:9). Yet, the usage here seems like an expectation of judgment—not a call to repentance.

“Howl” (ololuzō) is onomatopoeic—a word that sounds like its meaning (e.g. “bam,” “plop,” etc.).^[133] The term (ololyzō) sounds like someone howling in misery.

Is James referring to believers or non-believers? It is honestly difficult to tell. Richardson states that “the declaration of judgment is real.” But “real believers do not act in the ways listed below.”^[134] Burdick^[135] thinks these are simply non-Christians being described as well. For one, these people are called “you rich,” rather than “brethren.” Second, James ends the section contrasting the “rich” with the “righteous man” (i.e. believers). Third, the rich are never told to repent, but only to “weep and howl” for their future judgment. Fourth, the judgment occurs in “the last days” (v.3).

Even Hodges, who holds that the entire letter is written to Christians, has doubts about this section being written exclusively to believers. He writes, “His pronouncements are obviously no longer addressed to the Christian community alone, even though the epistle was intended to be read by that community. Yet his words are designed to awaken his readers by means of a crisp announcement about the eschatological doom of all human wealth.”^[136] This view is probably right.

(5:2-3) “Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ³ Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!”

Where does all of our wealth go in the end? It becomes rotten and rusted (cf. Mt. 6:20; Lk. 12:21). The mention of “garments” might harken back to the earlier indictment of the rich who wear “fine clothes” (Jas. 2:2). Of course, gold and silver cannot “rust” (katioō), but Moo notes, “The word rust (ios) was already being applied to gold and silver (Epistle of Jeremiah 10) and the image seems to have become a traditional way of designating the temporality of even the most precious metals (cf. also Ecclus. 29:10).”^[137]

James writes about these events as though they have already occurred, using the perfect tense. Moo writes, “Many commentators take these perfect tense verbs as ‘prophetic’ or ‘proleptic’ perfects: the destruction of these goods in the ‘miseries’ of the judgment is so certain that it can be described as already present… The riches provide no spiritual benefit in the present nor do they give grounds for hope at the judgment.”^[138]

“Their rust… will consume your flesh like fire.” While Hodges holds this to be literal fire,^[139] we take this as metaphorical. After all, James uses the language of simile (“consume your flesh like fire”). Furthermore, gold and silver do not “rust.” This is metaphorical language for their riches becoming useless. In an act of irony, these people justified their hoarding of wealth to give them security, but instead, it will only bring judgment.

(5:4) “Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”

The inequality of land distribution was awful in first-century Israel. The landowners had all of the rights, and could use servants as relative slaves. Moo writes, “First-century Palestine, before AD 70, witnessed an increasing concentration of land in the hands of a small group of very wealthy landowners. As a result, the smallholdings of many farmers were assimilated into these large estates, and these farmers were forced to earn their living by hiring themselves out to their rich landlords.”^[140] Moo cites Jesus’ parable of the landowner as an example of this (Mt. 20:1ff).

James personifies the “pay” or the “wages” (ESV) as crying out for justice. This is similar to the way that Abel’s “blood” cried out to God (Gen. 4:10). Richardson writes, “Perhaps the wealthy had not heard these cries, but the Lord had heard them. Or perhaps the rich had discounted their workers’ cries, but to the Lord those cries touched his heart and moved him to action.”^[141]

Of course, the OT law didn’t condone this (Deut. 24:14-15; Lev. 19:13), but landowners exploited their position anyhow. In this culture, people lived “paycheck to paycheck” so to speak. Thus, it would’ve been wicked to withhold their pay.

The “Lord of hosts (Sabaoth)” refers to God as a commander of a great army, coming to judge and set the world right.

(5:5) “You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.”

“Wanton pleasure” (spatalaō) occurs in Ezekiel to refer to the opulence of the people of Sodom (Ex. 16:49 LXX).

(5:6) “You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.”

Some take this to refer to the rich killing Jesus (i.e. “the Righteous Man”). This doesn’t fit with the context whatsoever.

In our view, this is referring to taking the life of a righteous man in a broader, generic sense. After all, the rich were using their authority to drag poor people into (debtors?) court to “condemn” them (cf. Jas. 2:6-7). The term “condemn” (katadikazō) was a “judicial term, and suggests rather that the rich are using, and perhaps perverting, the legal processes available to them to accumulate property and to gain wealth.”^[142] Moreover, it’s quite likely that “the suffering caused to the poor by unjustly withholding wages has caused many of their deaths.”^[143] This would fit with James’ earlier reference to murder (Jas. 4:2).

Why does James include this section in his letter? He seems to be reminding the believers what the ultimate fate of the “rich” will be. With this in mind, it makes James’ earlier comments about showing preferential treatment to the rich much more forceful (Jas. 1:9-11; 2:1-7). Since this ultimate fate is “near” (Jas. 5:8), believers should wake up from their infatuation with pleasing and showing preference to the rich (Jas. 2:1-10).

James 5:7 (Waiting on the Lord)

(5:7) “Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.”

Where does the hope of the believer rest? In the courts? In selfish ambition? In fighting to kill their oppressors? Not at all! It rests in “the coming of the Lord.” Like God, we should “be patient” in the sense that we should endure “human evil for a season.”^[144]

“The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it.” The farmer knows that the soil will bring fruit, but he needs to be patient regarding this future reality. Likewise, we know Jesus is going to return. We need to be willing to suffer, knowing that it is changing us in the process (Jas. 1:2-4) and knowing that all evil will be rectified in the future (“the coming of the Lord”). We need to realize that “the Judge is standing right at the door” (v.9).

(5:8) “You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.”

Have you ever watched grass grow? If you watch it for an hour or two, you might be convinced that it doesn’t really grow at all. But after a week, you see it grow considerably. Similarly, we need to be patient in waiting for the return of Christ. The signs of Jesus’ return have taken a long time to materialize, but they are coming to fruition.

“The coming of the Lord is near.” James believed in the imminent return of Christ. He is standing “right at the door” (v.9).

(5:9) “Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.”

If you were one of these persecuted poor people, you’d be tempted to complain, grumble, and grow bitter. We might even turn against each other. Yet, we need to take our seat in the great truth of the Second Coming. Hold tight! This will all be over soon. When we grumble and complain about our circumstances, we are really denying the reality of the Second Coming, where Jesus will return to bring judgment and peace to the Earth. He will return to right every wrong.

James now turns to give us three examples of patience to emulate.

EXAMPLE #1. The OT prophets

(5:10) “As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.”

James points to the OT prophets as examples of godly patience. Quite often, they needed to wait upon God. For example, Jeremiah and Isaiah preached for decades without any positive response from the people. They suffered patiently under persecution and trials (Mt. 5:10-12).

EXAMPLE #2. Job

(5:11) “We count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.”

How can Job be considered “patient” when he complains for much of the book? Richardson explains, “It is because Job addressed his complaints properly to God and not against others.”^[145] So true! God seemed to have a high toleration of Job’s complaints because Job took them to God in prayer. This is far different from “complaining… against one another” (v.9) or grumbling about our life situation. If you are hurting, bring these complaints to God. In our experience, God is immensely patient with us, and he also corrects our false beliefs quite quickly when we are honest with him about what we’re actually thinking and feeling. In this way, we should keep a balance between honesty with God on the one hand, and fidelity toward God on the other.[146]

Job suffered immensely. Why? Because he was unrighteous? No. He suffered precisely because of the fact that he was righteous (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3). An entire cosmic battle surrounded Job, yet he never knew why he suffered. Yet, at the end of the book of Job, God gives him twice the blessings that he had at the beginning (Job 42:12). James encourages his readers to believe the same thing about their circumstances: Like Job, they were suffering and were being “tested” (Jas. 1:2-4), but God would bring about blessing in the end.

(5:12) “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.”

We shouldn’t read this text about oath-taking as a moral absolute. Paul made oaths (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:11; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10), and even Jesus took an oath in a court of law (Mt. 26:63). The point is that we should have integrity in all of our words, all of the time. If we feel the need to swear an oath, this implies that we aren’t always telling the truth. This fits with James’ theme of having words without works—something we’ve been seeing throughout the letter.

(Mt. 5:34) Are we allowed to make oaths? (cf. Jas. 5:12; Hos. 4:2)

James 5:13-20 (Prayer)

James mentions prayer in nearly every verse in this section (vv.13-18). The earlier section dealt with suffering from being sinned against (by the rich). Here, James teaches about suffering that could come from sinning against others.

(5:13) “Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises.”

“Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray.” One of the key remedies for suffering is prayer. We pray because God gives us wisdom (Jas. 1:5) and because God hears our prayers (Jas. 5:4).

“Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises.” According to this passage, singing is a way to express our joy—not a way to cause joy. The term “sing praises” (psallō) is the cognate of the English word “psalms.” This does not refer to a corporate worship service. Indeed, James uses the singular noun (“he”) to describe singing. So, this refers to an individual singing or praying respectively. These imperatives are in the present tense, which could be rendered “keep on praying” or “keep on singing” (see NLT).

(5:14) “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

The person who is sick was mortally ill. The elders need to come to the person, which implies that the sick person cannot travel. Moreover, the following verse states that the “Lord will raise him up,” which implies he was bedridden.

(5:14) Why did they anoint people with oil? Should we do this practice today? It’s possible that the elders used oil for medical purposes or perhaps hygienic reasons. We’re unsure. However, this shouldn’t be the focus of our interpretation of this verse. Prayer is mentioned in every verse in this section—not oil. So, any focus that deviates from prayer is surely misguided.

(5:15) “And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.”

“The prayer offered in faith.” This isn’t an absolute promise, but conditional on a prayer “offered in faith.” Authentic, biblical prayer involves praying in God’s will (cf. 1 Jn. 5:14-15; Jas. 4:15; Mt. 6:10). This is in contrast to asking out of “wrong motives” (Jas. 4:3).

“[This] will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” We don’t have power to cure sick people. Rather, “the Lord” raises people up from sickness.

“If he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.” This is a third-class condition, which is the condition of probability—not certainty. Thus, James isn’t claiming that all sickness is due to sin (cf. Lk. 13:1-5; Jn. 9:1-3), but he does view it as a possibility in this situation (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30).

(5:16) “Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.”

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed.” We should confess our sins to each other and pray for each other. This isn’t just the responsibility of Christian leaders. The term “healed” (iaomai) can refer to physical or spiritual healing, depending on its context. Blomberg^[147] favors spiritual healing because the focus is on confession and forgiveness. Adamson^[148] favors physical healing because the earlier context referred to physical sickness. In our view, both are likely in view.

Should we get into specifics when we confess our sins? Richardson says, No, when he writes, “The confession of sin entails humble honesty about the fact of having committed sin, not a public retelling of the details of the act.”^[149] This misses the interpretive and pastoral mark entirely. James refers to plural “sins,” while Richardson refers to sin in general. Pastorally, confessing to vague and abstract “sin” doesn’t bring healing, anymore than sharing abstract pain can help a doctor cure or heal your sickness. We don’t need to share the gory details of our sin, but we need to be honest enough to share the concrete struggles we’re going through. That being said, the confessing of sin is “public” only in so far as it relates to “one another.” This doesn’t imply confessing to everyone, but our close friends are likely in view. We agree with Richardson that “mutual confession” is also a good practice as well (Gal. 6:1-2). We’re all broken, and we can all share our own struggles when others confess theirs.

“The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.” The term “effective” (energeō) may refer to laboring or working in prayer (our role), knowing that God is bringing the actual power (God’s role).^[150]

(5:14-16) Does this passage support the Roman Catholic doctrine of the ministerial priesthood? No. When we look at the context, the focus is on every member confessing and praying for one another. The arguments used to limit this to the elders (or priests?) simply fail. This passage supports the so-called “priesthood of all believers” that was so integral to the Reformation (1 Pet. 2:4-5).

Should elders be the only ones to make hospital visits for sick people? Elders should make hospital visits as much as any other member in the church. We hold this view for a few reasons. For one, visiting the sick is not a biblical emphasis. In fact, this is the only place in the NT where we are told to pray over someone. It would be unwise to form a theological view on a singular passage.^[151] Second, the elders are called because the person could be sick due to sin (“If he has committed sins,” v.15). This implies a special circumstance—not just any sickness. Third, every member is told to “confess” and “pray” to every other member in the church (v.16). “A righteous man” (v.17) also implies anyone in the church—not just elders. Finally, this interpretation would place a low view on every member of the church—even those with gifts of healing and prayer. All believers should play this role.

(5:17) “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months.”

“Elijah was a man with a nature like ours.” We often read about the exceptional believers in the Bible and think that they were the exception—not the rule. They must be a “cut above the rest” for God to answer their prayers. Not true! James tells us that they possessed the same human nature that we do. We all “have this same ability to pray powerfully.”^[152]

“[Elijah] prayed earnestly” (proseuchēi prosēuxato) literally means that he “prayed with prayers.” Blomberg argues that this is a case of Hebrew intensification, which would imply praying “earnestly” (NASB, NIV, NLT, NET) or “fervently” (ESV, NRSV). If this is the case (which we do not affirm), we must remember that we are not praying to coerce God through our earnestness or fervency. Instead, we need to stay mentally focused—not being distracted by Satan, sin, or the world-system.

In contrast, we agree with Adamson who argues that this intensification is common in Hebrew, but not in Greek. He writes, “The point is not that Elijah put up a particularly fervent prayer but that praying was precisely what he did.”^[153] We do not need intense emotional pleading in order for God to hear our prayers. In fact, it was the prophets of Baal who prayed with fervency, while Elijah hardly prayed at all when he spoke to Ahab (1 Kin. 17:1). So, this OT citation would hardly support such an interpretation. Instead, James uses repetition to note the “emphasis and frequency” of prayer, rather than earnestness and fervency.^[154] This is exactly what we see in the life of Elijah—namely, emphasizing prayer and frequent prayer.

“That it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months.” The OT states that the drought lasted for three years (1 Kin. 18:1), but James and Luke 4:25 specify that it was three and a half years. It seems that 1 Kings gives us a round number, while James and Luke give us a more exact figure. Indeed, the text merely states that rain returned “after many days” and during “the third year” (1 Kin. 18:1).

Why did James pick this scene from the life of Elijah? Why didn’t he pick Elijah’s prayer that defeated the prophets of Baal (1 Kin. 18:16-40) or the resuscitation of the widow’s son? (1 Kin. 17:17-24) Wouldn’t these be far more remarkable examples? Perhaps. But Blomberg argues that James picked this historical reference because Elijah prayed in the context of the apostasy of Israel, which would fit the context of “healing” people who were in sin. He also speculates that James is noting that there could be a “lag time”^[155] between the prayer and the fulfillment. This implies that believers should be persevere and be patient in their prayers. This fits with our interpretation of “praying with prayer” above: The frequency is the most important aspect of Elijah’s prayer.

(5:18) Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.”

Elijah didn’t just have a one-time answer to prayer. God used him repeatedly. He prayed over time for the rain to return (1 Kin. 18:41-46).

(5:19-20) “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, ²⁰ let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

(5:19-20) Will we go to hell if we stray from the truth? This could refer to (1) saving from physical death, (2) saving from spiritual death in the sense of sanctification, or (3) saving from spiritual death in the sense of leading them to Christ.

Questions for Reflection

Read verses 1-6. Is James indicting all rich people? Specifically, what is he condemning in this passage?

Read verses 13-20. What do we learn about prayer from this short section?

What are helpful ways to build our prayer life with God?

^[1] Incidentally, if this letter was written by a pseudonymous author (as critical scholars claim), then why wouldn’t he give more details on who he was? Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 8.

[2] Carson and Moo write, “Corroborating this decision are the striking similarities between the Greek of the Epistle of James and that of the speech attributed to James in Acts 15:13-21.” D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 622.

^[3] Hegesippus’ writings have been lost, but Eusebius (4^th century AD) contains this portion. Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.5-6.

^[4] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 9.

^[5] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 21.

^[6] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890).

[7] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.200-201.

^[8] Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 83.

[9] Hegisippus and Clement are Eusebius’ sources. See Church History 2.23.

^[10] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 18.

^[11] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 19.

^[12] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 16.

^[13] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 16.

^[14] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 16.

^[15] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 17.

[16] Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 44.

[17] Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 387.

[18] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 269-270.

^[19] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 18.

^[20] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 18.

[21] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.197-203.

^[22] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 35.

^[23] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 10.

^[24] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 162.

^[25] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 35.

^[26] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 41.

[27] Luther, ‘Preface to the New Testament’ (1522), in Luther’s Works, 35, p. 397. Cited in Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985).

[28] Martin Dibelius, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, revised by H. Greeven (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Eng. trans. Fortress Press, 1976).

^[29] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 40.

^[30] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 40.

^[31] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 14.

[32] Scott Berkun, Confessions of a Public Speaker (Cambridge: O’Reilly Media, 2009), 57.

^[33] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 33-34.

^[34] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 167.

^[35] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 19.

^[36] W. Schneider and C. Brown, “Tempt, Test, Approve,” ed. Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 804.

^[37] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 169.

^[38] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 21.

^[39] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 65-66.

^[40] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 23.

^[41] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 170.

^[42] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 23.

^[43] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 73.

^[44] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 78.

^[45] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 343-344.

^[46] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 71.

^[47] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 29.

^[48] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 86.

[49] Some also see a connection to Genesis 3 in James 1:15. It might be that James has the Creation and Fall in mind in this section; in other words, the origin of suffering and pain.

^[50] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 75.

^[51] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 30.

^[52] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 31.

^[53] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 87.

^[54] We take our cues from Hodges in seeing a logical development of thought. He is one of the few commentators to posit this perspective. Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 34.

^[55] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 78.

^[56] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 35.

^[57] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 41.

^[58] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 82.

^[59] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 41.

^[60] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 43.

^[61] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 44.

^[62] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 97.

^[63] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 84.

^[64] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 47.

^[65] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 85.

^[66] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 178.

^[67] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 107.

^[68] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 108.

^[69] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 178.

^[70] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 109.

^[71] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 51.

^[72] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 111.

^[73] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 112.

^[74] Cited in James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 116.

^[75] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 55.

^[76] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 180.

^[77] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 118.

[78] I am indebted to pastor Timothy Keller for this insight.

[79] Andrew Hosken and Albana Kasapi, “The Children Trapped by Albania’s Blood Feuds.” BBC, November 12, 2017.

^[80] This is a third-class conditional sentence with a present subjunctive. Ralph P. Martin, James, vol. 48, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988), 80.

^[81] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 121-122.

^[82] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 182.

^[83] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 182.

^[84] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 64.

^[85] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 183.

^[86] Cited in James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 126.

^[87] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 134.

^[88] Ralph P. Martin, James, vol. 48, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988), 91.

[89] We recognize first-class conditional clauses by the helping word “if” (Greek ei) followed by a main verb in the indicative mood (in any tense).

^[90] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 142.

^[91] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 134.

^[92] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 41.

^[93] Hodges writes, “Just as the idle words of some ungenerous believer cannot save his brother from death in the absence of life’s necessities, no more can a non-working faith save our lives from the death-dealing consequences of sin.” Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 62.

^[94] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 64-65.

^[95] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 66.

^[96] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 65.

^[97] Ralph P. Martin, James, vol. 48, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988), 77.

^[98] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 186.

^[99] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 147.

^[100] J. A. Motyer, The Message of James: The Tests of Faith, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 120, 121.

^[101] Emphasis ours. Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 79.

^[102] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 145.

[103] See William Backus’ material on “self-talk” in his book Telling Yourself the Truth (2000). This is at the heart of all Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which dovetails quite well with biblical teaching.

[104] This is actually a very cruel practice, whereby the animal trainer tortures the elephant if it doesn’t perfectly mimic the steps outlined by the trainer. Elephants lack higher-order consciousness, so they always paints the same exact picture through a cruel form of behaviorism.

^[105] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 84-85.

^[106] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 190.

[107] Warren Wiersbe, Be Skillful, 1996.

^[108] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 164-165.

^[109] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 165.

^[110] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 86.

^[111] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 191.

[112] Brown writes, “In the LXX eirēnē is almost invariably used to translate the Hebrew šālômh.” The term is translated that way about 250x in the LXX. Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 777.

^[113] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 343-365.

^[114] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 175.

^[115] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 215.

^[116] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 193.

^[117] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 90.

^[118] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 180.

^[119] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 194.

^[120] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 369.

^[121] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 370.

^[122] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 195.

^[123] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 190.

^[124] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 197.

^[125] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 196.

^[126] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 99.

^[127] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 196.

^[128] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 197.

^[129] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 198.

^[130] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 159.

^[131] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 197.

^[132] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 102.

^[133] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 199.

^[134] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 204.

^[135] Donald W. Burdick, “James,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 199.

^[136] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 102.

^[137] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 166.

^[138] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 166.

^[139] Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and Robert N. Wilkin, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 103.

^[140] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 168.

^[141] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 211.

^[142] Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 171.

^[143] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 215.

^[144] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 218.

^[145] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 225.

[146] I am indebted to my friend Lee Campbell for this insight.

^[147] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, vol. 16, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 245.

^[148] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 198.

^[149] Kurt A. Richardson, James, vol. 36, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 236.

^[150] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, vol. 16, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 245.

^[151] Moo writes, “Only here in biblical Greek is proseuchomai (pray) followed by epi: it may simply indicate physical position, but could possibly imply that hands were also laid on the sick person (see Matt. 19:13).” Matthew records, “Some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray” (Mt. 19:13). Douglas J. Moo, James: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 182.

^[152] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, vol. 16, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 246.

^[153] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 201.

^[154] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 201.

^[155] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, vol. 16, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 246-247.