Wisdom for Life’s Tests
1:1 The letter from James opens with a simple and direct greeting. The writer identifies himself simply as James, a servant of God. There was only one James so well known in the early church that he would need no other form of identification, and that was James the Just, brother of Jesus, leader of the church in Jerusalem. The readers are expected to recognize the name.
Yet for all his prominence and important position in the church (so important that the letter from Jude begins, “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James”), the title used is very modest. He is simply a servant. It is possible that he is thinking of himself as someone like Moses, chosen of God and taken into his service (Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:2, Num. 12:7), but more likely it simply reflects the humility of the author. The most exalted statement he can make about himself is not his leadership of the church or his relationship to Jesus, but the fact that he, like every other Christian, is a slave of God and of Jesus. He calls Jesus The Lord Jesus Christ, for he is thinking of him as his heavenly, exalted Lord, who is about to return in glory to set things right in the world. It is this picture of Jesus that dominates the letter throughout.
James sends his greetings to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. On the one hand, he sees the church as a united body or a distinct nation in the world. Believers are God’s people as the Romans are Caesar’s people and Egyptians are Pharaoh’s. They are his chosen ones here on earth. Yet they are not a powerful group, for they are scattered. They are not a physically united group; they do not have a land they may call their own. Instead they are spread throughout the nations, belonging, yet never being one of the people among whom they live, living out their lives as foreigners in the land in which they were born. Their dignity is not in strength or numbers but in the fact that they belong to God.
James begins the letter itself by introducing his three main topics—trials, wisdom, and wealth: (1) A proper perspective gives one joy despite a difficult situation, although in order to stand in such a situation one will need divine wisdom. (2) The person who prays for this wisdom needs to pray from a committed position. Without commitment one will receive nothing. (3) One of the chief trials of life and tests of commitment is wealth and how one uses it. There is no need to fear the rich—their end is at hand.
1:2 James addresses his readers as brothers, which means that he considers them members of the church in good standing. There is a warmth in his address that continues throughout the letter despite his criticism of them. He is one with his readers and shares their weaknesses, as he will show more graphically in 3:1–2.
The readers are to consider it pure joy when they suffer trials of many kinds. The trials to which James refers are the testing and refining situations in life, hard situations in which faith is sorely tried, such as persecution, a difficult moral choice, or a tragic experience. James does not gloss over the reality of the suffering involved—the tears, the pain, the sweat. Instead he points to a transformed perspective of those trials. If one looks at the difficult situation not merely from the perspective of the immediate problem but also from the perspective of the end result God is producing, one can have a deep joy. This is not a surface happiness, but an anticipation of future reward in the end-times (eschatological joy). It is not only possible, but necessary (thus James commands it), for without it one may become so bogged down in present problems as to abandon the faith and give up the struggle altogether. Only with God’s perspective, thus considering oneself already fortunate in anticipation of God’s future reward, can the faith be maintained against the pressures of life.
1:3 One reason it is possible to believe oneself to be fortunate in adversity is that the suffering produces a good result even now. With Joseph one might say, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). The process of testing faith is like the tempering of steel: the heat, rather than destroying the steel, makes it stronger. The apocryphal book Sirach (2:5) uses another image: “For gold is proved in the fire, and men acceptable to God in the furnace of affliction.” The process is difficult, but the result is good.
James assumes the good result when he writes, the testing of your faith develops perseverance. The test has to do with the fact that they have faith, that there is “pure gold” in them. They should not look fearfully at testing, but look through it, for the result will be perseverance. This ability is hardly a virtue to be winked at. First, it is a virtue that only suffering and trials will produce. Second, it yields to a stable character, a firm, settled disposition of faith: It is a heroic virtue. A person possessing such a virtue could be trusted to hold out, whatever the circumstances. Such people were surely in demand as leaders in the church. Third, it relates the believer to other believers who were noted in Jewish tradition for this virtue: Abraham, who was put through the fire ten times (Jubilees 17:18; 19:8), Joseph, who went from trial to trial before becoming ruler over Egypt (Testament of Joseph 2:7; 10:1), or Job, who endured patiently a series of almost unbelievable sufferings, only to be rewarded in the end (James 5:11; Testament of Job).
There is no question that this virtue is important, just as there is no question that the means of getting it are unpopular. But the Christian is called to face into the fact: However difficult and unpleasant the test may seem, God is perfecting the Christian’s character through it.
1:4 Perseverance, however, is not a passive, teeth-gritting virtue, but a development in which the character is firmed up and shaped around the central commitment to Christ. It does not happen overnight, for it is a process. The process needs to finish its work, or “have its complete effect,” for it is the shaping of the whole person that is at issue. One must be careful not to short-circuit it: to pull the metal out of the fire too soon, to abort the developing child, to resist the schooling—to use three metaphors often used to describe the process. James does not see a single end to the process, such as the development of love as a super-virtue (Rom. 13:8; 2 Pet. 1:6) or the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:6; Rom. 6:22)—although he would have certainly approved of such—for the goal is far more global. The person is formed, not just partly or simply morally, but totally, as a whole being, and is thus to be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
In speaking of the person as perfect James is not thinking of sinless perfection but is probably referring to a concept like that found in Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The concept is that of a commitment to the command of God in all its depth and radicality, a commitment that calls anything less than total obedience sin and repents and seeks forgiveness, a commitment that, rather than reducing the word to the cultural “pagan” standard of the world, seeks to be shaped and formed by it. In other words, James is referring to mature Christian character: It is mature in that it is well developed; it is complete in that every virtue and insight is in place; it is not lacking anything, but mirrors Christ. This is what adversity should produce in the Christian if he or she will allow it. But it is not a passive process; the believer has to permit this to happen. There is an imperative involved (a better translation might be “allow perseverance to finish its work”). It is possible to short-circuit the process and thus not to develop properly and to live through the suffering in vain.
1:5 James now turns to his second theme and what appears to be a totally new topic, that of wisdom and prayer. It is indeed a major theme of the letter, but it is not unrelated to what goes before. If person hears a call to be perfect, he or she would certainly cry, “Help! Who can do it?” (like Paul’s “Who is sufficient for these things?” 2 Cor. 2:16; 3:5–6). Divine help is necessary, and divine help in James comes in the form of wisdom (cf. 3:13 ff.). Christians should indeed lack nothing, but in order to do this they need divine wisdom.
James shares this recognition. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God. He can do this with full confidence that God gives generously to all. Here James draws on the Jesus tradition (the yet unwritten sayings of Jesus that later formed the Gospels), for Jesus promised God would give his children what they ask (Matt. 7:7–11; Mark 11:24; Luke 11:9–13; John 15:7). What better gift could they request than the wisdom needed to withstand the trials they face. God gives it, for God is a good giver; God gives generously, which means that he gives without mental reservations, that he gives simply, with a single heart. He is not looking for some hidden return from believers; he does not have mixed motives or grudging feelings. In fact, he gives not just generously but without finding fault. That is, he does not complain about the gift or its cost. He is not a “fool,” who “has many eyes instead of one. He gives little and upbraids much, he opens his mouth like a herald; today he lends and tomorrow he asks back” (Sirach 20:14–15). No, God gives true gifts: no complaining, no criticizing (What? You need help again?), no mixed motives, no reluctance. Free, generous, even spendthrift giving characterizes the Christian’s God.
And what a gift he gives! He gives wisdom, which in this letter is the equivalent of the Holy Spirit, a gift that James’ readers, as former Jews, would recognize (as the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls did) as one of the gifts of the age to come. Wisdom comes to the Christian through Christ (1 Cor. 1:24; 2:4–6). This surely is what is needed to withstand trials and come to perfection.
1:6 Not everyone, however, receives that wisdom requested. “Where is that spiritual power?” one might ask. “If God is so generous, where is the wisdom I need to discern the situation, to withstand the test, and to come to perfection?” Such questions were certainly asked, for James provides an answer: But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt.
First, he must believe, that is, one must ask in the context of faith. Faith here is not simply intellectual knowledge (as it will be in 2:19). James has no thought that one simply has to give intellectual assent to a doctrine to receive the blessing (e.g., God will give what Christians ask; therefore he will give them wisdom if they ask for it). James does not appear to be calling for research into the truth of a matter (e.g., that the promise really is one given by Jesus or that out of a hundred people who prayed all received their request, while only fifty of a similar group who did not pray had a satisfactory outcome), but for commitment. Therefore he is also not speaking of faith as an emotional feeling (i.e., if only people could keep feeling that God is really giving wisdom to them will they receive it). Certainly, this is how James has been interpreted by later commentators both in modern popular religion and in ancient times. But James is not trying to encourage believers to stuff their doubts deep within and to drum up an emotional feeling of certainty, but to commit themselves. Faith for James is a single-minded commitment to God that trusts in God because God is God. Thus faith remains resting in God despite doubt and holds on through testing. Faith is the “but if not” of Daniel’s friends (Dan. 3:18); the “though he slay me yet will I trust him” of Job (Job 13:15). It is a confident trust in God or a resting in God despite the outward circumstances.
Because of this fact, the opposite of faith (not doubt) is doubt. The person who doubts is not doubting that God will do something specific, but is doubting in general. “Does God really act today?” or more deeply expressed, “Can I trust God to do the best for me or must I look out for myself?” Here James may be applying a tradition from Jesus like that in Matthew 21:21: “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, … you can do what was done to this fig tree.”
The doubter is like a wave of the sea. The picture is graphic. The doubter is “one who lives in inner conflict between trust and distrust of God.” (F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief [Freiburg: Herder, 1967], p. 70.) In a service of worship this person is caught up in the music, the words of praise, or the exhortation of the sermon and trusts God completely. Outside, the same person faces the winds of adversity and, instead of trusting despite feelings, gives in and believes that only his or her own resources and cleverness can help. Like wind-tossed water, an unstable Christian sways back and forth.
1:7–8 That man, says James (to clearly distinguish this individual from other people with a stable faith), should not think he will receive anything from the Lord. Obviously James cannot be sure that such a person, or even a wicked blasphemer, for that matter, will receive nothing from God. God is gracious and kind, often giving more than he has promised and always giving far more than people deserve. Sun and rain come to the good and the evil alike. But such a person wavering between God and the world ought not to expect to receive something from God. Such a person has no right to expect anything, much less wisdom, for he or she is not following the proper principles. The promises of the gospel all assume a commitment of the individual to, and trust in, God (e.g., the “in my name” formula, John 14:14). Without this trust there is a more basic issue to be settled than that of the item asked for: The more basic issue is that of trust. Until one has dealt with this issue, one is in no position to begin praying.
This person, claims James, is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. The pre-Christian Jew Sirach had already said, “My son, disobey not the fear of the Lord, and approach it not with a double heart” (1:28), and, “Woe unto the fearful hearts and faint hands, and unto the sinner that goes two ways … woe unto you who have lost your endurance” (2:12–14). James has the same concern for this person of a double mind. If a person’s mind is split and he or she really does not know whom to trust, one can hardly have confidence in such a person. Such a one is not just undecided but, in fact, unstable. Now, indeed, he or she may “trust” in God and be part of the church, but with a heart filled with doubt, this person is emotionally keeping options open and other lines of support clear. There is a basic instability within that will eventually become evident in behavior. You cannot trust such a person, for he or she is like Aesop’s crow, trying to walk down two paths at once. The implied call is for commitment. “Put all your eggs in one basket,” and make that basket God. Without commitment, prayer is in vain. James 4:1–10 will make this crystal clear.
1:9 One sign of trust in God is the ability to see beyond present circumstances. Here James returns to a theme of verse 2 and makes it more concrete when he says, The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride.… The person must be the brother, for only the Christian has the resources to see beyond the present circumstances. The believer is a member of the community that belongs to the coming age but also a member of a community of the poor in the present age. The term humble circumstances indicates not just someone who lacks material goods and thus leads a hand-to-mouth existence struggling to get the bare necessities of life (and perhaps at times not succeeding), but also someone socially despised. This believer is a person whose lot in life has humbled him or her.
This believer is to take pride in his high position. The call is for Christians to exult or take pride in their state. What a contrast to their perceived social standing! What could such people possibly take pride in? The answer is “in their exalted position.” It is not that God will lift Christians up in the future but that God has already lifted them up. Here you have the poor Christian, who knows he or she is an heir to the universe (Matt. 5:3, 5; James 2:5). This is the rejoicing of Mary, who saw God filling the hungry and exalting the poor in her own person (Luke 1:52–53). This person realizes that the outward, depressed circumstances are not the essence of the situation. Such a Christian is not merely a rich person, not simply one of the powerful of Palestine, but a child of God destined as heir to a worldwide kingdom. He or she does have plenty in which to take pride, but it is only apparent to those with faith and trust.
1:10 The rich, however, are hardly in such a position. They surely seem in a position in which to take pride. After all they suffer no lack of material goods, famine does not haunt them, their children are well fed and healthy, they are powerful in the city, and they receive respect from all around them (cf. Ps. 73). Should they not rejoice in their prosperity as a gift from God? Not so, writes James, they should instead take pride in their low position.
Two comments may clarify this reasoning. First, the one who is rich may mislead the reader into supplying “Christian,” which does not appear in the Greek text. “Rich” in James always indicates one outside the community, a nonbelieving person. The rich, in fact, are the oppressors of the community (2:6; 5:1–6)
Second, the call to take pride is ironic in two senses. On the one hand, when the rich are converted they share their goods with and identify with the poor “scum” they formerly despised and persecuted. They become one of the group that calls itself the poor and that is exalted by God and despised by society. This is something, indeed, to take pride in, but it is precisely in losing their status as rich and being “brought down” to the humble level of the church that the rich have anything in which to take pride. On the other hand, since James expects most of the rich not to repent but to fall under God’s judgment, there is irony in calling them to take pride, because what they are at present proud about is indeed their humiliation. It is, as 5:1–6 will make clear, the very evidence that will condemn them, that will, as it were, eat their flesh in the Day of Judgment. They are children rejoicing in their mischief, but a parent is about to turn the corner, and the very object of their joy, the evidence of their disobedience, will humiliate them within seconds. They are rich—rich fools (Luke 12:13–21).
The fact is the rich will pass away like a wild flower. Wealth is very impressive, and the rich seem very important now, but if one looks at them from God’s perspective, one sees that the impressiveness is that of a soap bubble. Death is coming and the wealth will disappear and the rich will descend stripped naked to the depths of Hades (as shown by Job 15:30 and Prov. 2:8, in the Old Testament; in the Apocrypha, Sirach 14:11–19; 2 Baruch 82:3–9; or in the New Testament, Matt. 6:19–21). Again the proper perspective is critical. Only with God’s perspective, the perspective of the coming age, can one recognize this truth and the bitter irony it contains.
1:11 The picture James uses to impress this idea on his readers is a phenomenon most dramatically observed in Palestine. The anemones and cyclamen bloom beautifully in the morning, but as the sun rises and the day becomes hotter they droop, wither, and die. By evening the once impressive blooms are gone, never to be again. The picture is drawn, perhaps, from Isaiah 40:6–8 (also used in 1 Pet. 1:24), but the meaning is uniquely James’. The wealthy person is the flower that looks so impressive. But from the perspective of heaven this person’s situation is precarious indeed. Soon some trouble or disease will come, and where will that rich person be then? In the face of death wealth is absolutely meaningless (cf. Job 15:30; Prov. 2:8; Ps. 73; Matt. 6:19–21). The wealthy will fade away as they go about [their] business. Theirs will not be an eternal remembrance with glory as they hoped, but they will go down to the dust like any mortal, and slowly their monuments and very memory will crumble and disappear into oblivion. And that was all the rich had, for unlike the poor, who were “lifted up” and thus had an eternal place with God, the rich had all their lot here on earth and thus descend forever into darkness and oblivion from the very midst of their business.
At this point James begins the second half of his opening statement. Although he discusses the same topics, he does not repeat himself, for each topic is advanced. The inward causes of defection in the test are discussed rather than the benefits of trials in general. God’s good gift in relationship to the problem of speech, rather than in relationship to prayer and wisdom, is discussed. Putting faith into practice (which means sharing generously) is his focus now, rather than a discussion of the true standing of rich and poor. All of these topics will eventually coalesce in his major discussions and in his conclusion.
1:12 James begins with a beatitude: Blessed is the man. Like Jesus in Matthew 5:3–12, he pronounces a surprising group blessed, those who persevere under trial. It is not just the person who is tested who is considered happy or blessed but the person who endures or remains faithful. In 1:2–4 James has said that testing produces endurance; now he states that enduring creates true blessedness. Yet James is neither a masochist nor a stoic, neither claims that trials are fun nor that one should enjoy pain. Rather, he points out that the trials serve a purpose, the experiential proof of the reality of faith, and that that should give one the perspective for deep joy. From reactions to testing one knows one is truly committed and that when [one] has stood the test a reward will come. A person passing a test is like silver being assayed and receiving the hallmark of purity: God marks the person “approved”; his or her faith is sound.
Such a person will receive a reward, that is (in the Greek idiom), “a crown of life.” This pictures the last judgment as if it were a judges’ stand at the end of a race (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8). The victorious runner approaches and a laurel wreath is set on his or her head. But this wreath is life itself (cf. Rev. 2:10), and not just one winner but all who finish the race (endure) receive the reward, for God has promised it to all those who love him. Salvation has only one price, an enduring love of God. With this prospect in mind, Christians can consider themselves truly blessed or fortunate despite outward circumstances, for they already taste the reward.
1:13 There is, however, another possible response to a test: one can collapse and fail. Naturally someone about to “give in” does not want to take responsibility for the failure, for that would be totally inconsistent with a self-image of being a “good Christian,” so he or she rationalizes: “The test was too hard; God is at fault for sending it.”
James warns against such a reaction: When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” Such a conclusion would readily suggest itself to James’ monotheistic audience. Is God not sovereign? James refuses to answer this question, for such a discussion would obscure the real point. This person does not want deeper understanding, but an excuse. The claim that the test comes from God is not at heart a theological analysis but a placement of blame for the failure; it is an accusation.
James rejects this accusation for two reasons. First, “evil people should not put God to the test” (the phrase God cannot be tempted by evil is a misunderstanding of the Greek). Israel had done this many times (at least ten times: Num. 14:22); every time they faced suffering, they blamed God, doubting his will and ability to help them. But the Old Testament responded, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test as you tested him at Massah” (Deut. 6:16). These Christians must not make the same mistakes Israel did, testing God.
Second, he does not tempt anyone. God does not wish evil on others; he does not cause evil; he does not test in the sense that he tries to trip someone up. James does not continue this explanation and clear up the issue of theodicy, for he has said enough for his purposes: God can be trusted. The cause of one’s failure does not lie in God.
1:14 One would expect James to continue by blaming the devil, but he does nothing of the kind, although he does believe that the devil plays a role (see James 4:7). Instead he writes, Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. The real essence of temptation is not external, that is, “the devil made me do it,” but internal. “I have sinned … by my fault, my very own fault,” is the only “excuse.” Whatever evil forces may set up the external circumstances, it is the internal response that turns them into a test.
James clearly agrees with Paul. Using pictures from trapping and fishing (enticed and dragged away) to show the alluring nature of the “bait,” its apparent harmlessness, and its disastrous results, he reveals the enticer within, evil desire. Paul’s term for this entity is “sin,” or “flesh,” that is, fallen human nature: “I am a mortal man, sold as a slave to sin.” “By myself I can serve God’s law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin” (Rom. 7:14, 25). The desires of people are good by creation, for they lead them to enjoy creation, to eat, to procreate, and so on, but they have been corrupted so that they also lead them to lust, to steal, and to fornicate. The external situation could not affect people at all unless the internal voice of their own nature was saying, “Go ahead; you deserve it; it feels good.”
1:15 The desire of the person who gives in to the enticement is here pictured as a prostitute or adulteress rather than a trap or hook. She has successfully used her wiles, been fertilized, and now carries within her a conceptus. Yet, “No one need know,” she whispers to her illegitimate lover. The inner defection from the life of faith and trust need never be seen by others. But the womb of the heart cannot hold the illegitimate thing forever; desire’s child comes to birth, and its name is sin. James has seen a truth that Jesus proclaimed in Mark 7:20–23, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, … envy, slander, arrogance and folly.”
The test-desire-sin chain does not end there; it continues one more link to death. Paul knew this truth (Rom. 6:23) as did John (1 John 2:16–17; 3:14), but James puts it more graphically. The child sin does not go away; instead this bastard offspring grows to full maturity and then she too produces an offspring, a monstrous, pathogenic, unwanted offspring—death. Here is the result of failing the test. The person is on the way from desire to sin, to maturity in sin, to death. Paul’s chain in Romans 7:7–12 is reproduced here. James allows no inner deception. It must end in death. There is only one escape, and that he gives in a contrasting chain in the following verses (1:16–18).
1:16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Deceived about what? Does this verse end the previous paragraph and refer to a belief that one could blame God or harbor desire or sin without any consequences? Or does it refer to a deception about where testing comes from (1:13)? Or does it head the following paragraph and refer to a failure to realize that God gives good and brings salvation? Structurally, the third option is preferred, for the address my dear brothers normally introduces a new paragraph. But this functions as a hinge verse: To be deceived about one of these items is to be deceived about them all, for the following paragraph is simply the negation of the previous one. If one blames God for a test, one is already edging toward sin and denying God’s goodness. James believes his readers are true Christians (brothers) but he fears they might wander from faith, which is the implication of don’t be deceived; he fears they might fall into the error of doubting God’s goodness, which would be fatal to faith.
1:17 In contrast to a view of God as sending a test stands the view that God gives good things: Every good and perfect gift is from above. The phrase itself is poetic and may be a quotation from some well-known proverb altered by James to stress from above. To say God gives such good things, of course, is to deny that he gives evil things, for the two are incompatible.
Yet James may intend a deeper truth than “God is good.” He has already stated that God is a gracious giver with respect to all who ask (1:5). The chief good being asked in that context is wisdom, which in 3:15 will again be referred to, this time using the same term that occurs here (from above). Thus the best gift of all, referred to repeatedly in James, is wisdom, which helps one in the test. Therefore the deeper message is: God does not send the test; he gives the good gift of wisdom that enables us to stand in the test. He gives the antidote, not the poison.
Furthermore, the character of God is not subject to change. He is the Father of the heavenly lights. The reference is to creation, and it (and the one to the new creation in the next verse) indicates the extent of God’s goodness. The lights of Genesis 1:18, that is, the sun and moon, were placed there for humanity’s good. But this fact in turn suggests a contrast. The sun and moon were notorious for change like shifting shadows (not the best translation, for while James’ language it obscure it is an astronomical phrase referring to the lack of constancy in the heavenly “lights”), but God, by way of contrast, has no eclipse, no rising and setting, no phases, no obscurity due to clouds. His character is absolutely constant, trustworthy, and dependable.
1:18 As proof of God’s goodwill—as if creation itself were not sufficient—James asserts, He chose to give us birth through the word of truth. First, what God did, he did by choice. His action was not an accident or a response to necessity. He chose, and therefore the action shows the essence of his character.
Second, he gave us birth. On the one hand, this action is creation. The Father of Lights is also the Father of Humanity and has willed all human life. On the other hand, not only did God produce creation, but he also produced new creation: He has produced the new birth or redemption in all believers (John 3:3–8; Rom. 12:2; Eph. 1:5; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23; 1 John 3:9). This statement produces a startling contrast: Desire brings to birth, but it bears sin and death; God brings to birth redemption and life.
Third, God does this new act of creation through the word of truth. This expression might at first glance be thought a reference to the creative word of God (Gen. 1) or to the veracity of all he says (e.g., Ps. 119:43), but surely in this passage something more is meant. What word in the New Testament era was more “the word of truth” than the gospel? The phrase is a semitechnical one designating the proclamation of God’s action in Christ (2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:18; Col. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 1:25). God purposely sets his second creation, his re-creation, into motion by sending out the word of the gospel.
The result of this act is also beneficent, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. “We,” says James, “are like a harvest. We are the first ripe fruit of God’s new creation, promising the full harvest to come.” Like Paul, James believes God will redeem all of creation, not just humanity (Rom. 8:18–25). The present rebirth of believers promises more to come. But the first are the best, the specially holy portion. Thus James underlines God’s good gift and intention in the lives of the Christians.
1:19 Deliberately paralleling the style of 1:16, James warns, My dear brothers, take note of this. James 1:16–18 discussed wisdom as a gift of life descending from God (cf. 1:5–8); now comes the related topic—the wise person controls his or her speech (cf. 3:1–18), for speech-ethics were a very important topic in both Jewish literature and the world in which James lived. James continues with a proverb: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. As shocking as this saying is to this modern age of express-your-feelings, it was accepted wisdom in the biblical period: “He who guards his lips guards his life, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin” (Prov. 13:3). “Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Prov. 29:20). “Do not get upset quickly, for anger resides in the lap of fools” (Eccles. 7:9). The truly wise and godly person in scripture is not the one who always has something to say but the person who listens to others, prayerfully considers, and only then speaks in measured tones.
James thinks of this proverb not just as a personal truth for each Christian but also as part of his concern for communal harmony. In 3:1 he points to conflicts among teachers that in 3:13–18 can lead to party spirit and jealousy. These were well known in the early church, encouraged by those drunk with the heady wine of the newly outpoured Spirit and preoccupied with their gift or ministry rather than the good of the church. James counsels caution and listening rather than quick speech and sharp denunciation.
1:20 But what of righteous indignation? Man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. James never states his reason for this statement, but several appear in the New Testament. First, once the angry feeling begins to be expressed, it is by nature immoderate and uncontrollable, which made even Hellenistic pagan writers condemn anger. Second, anger is incompatible with the teaching of Jesus, particularly his command to love one’s enemy (Matt. 5:38–48) and his direct condemnation of hating one’s brother (Matt. 5:21–26). Third, human anger usurps the role of God as the only judge and vindicator. In 5:7–9 James will indicate that the Christian is to wait for God’s vindication, not vindicate himself. A similar note is sounded in Hebrews 10:30–39, Romans 12:19, and repeatedly in 1 Peter. The proper response to suffering is meekness and endurance, for God is the only true judge. Thus human anger cannot bring about the righteous life that God desires, either in the sense of bringing about the righteousness God will establish in the final day (which may be in mind here; cf. 5:7–11) or in the sense of meeting God’s present standard of righteousness. One need only to reflect on Moses’ impulsive murder of the Egyptian taskmaster (Exod. 2:11–16) to discover a fine illustration of this principle.
1:21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent. This clause is negative; the stress of the verse is clearly on the positive (accept the word), but the negative is the necessary prelude. Unless one recognizes sin for what it is, ceases justifying it, and decisively rejects it, further progress is unlikely. Thus in get rid James uses a term for conversion, picturing it like the removal of a soiled garment. The moral filth may be any moral evil, especially greediness. But he focuses on anger, or evil in speech, in the evil that is so prevalent (better translated “every trace of malice” or “the malice which is so abundant”). Not just outward anger, but also all malice, is to be ruthlessly chased from the heart.
With malice out, they can accept the word that he plants in your hearts. These people have received the “word” of the gospel, for they are members of the Christian community. But the word already planted in their hearts must be acted upon or accepted if it is to save them. It is not enough to be convinced about Jesus; one must commit oneself to Jesus and his teaching, and such a commitment is the changed lifestyle James is seeking.
In making this commitment they humbly submit to God. James wrote in Greek “in meekness,” indicating a submission to God as opposed to the self-aggrandizement that quick speech and anger demonstrate. Meekness is itself a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23; James 3:13) and a mark of those who will receive the Kingdom (Matt. 5:5). In this context it is a call to humble oneself before God and accept God’s way of leaving vengeance to him, to not reject the gospel teaching and take vengeance into one’s own hands. This humble acceptance of the teaching of Jesus has a saving effect.
1:22 The topic of accepting or obeying the word shifts James from the idea of speech to that of charitable action. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves refers to the person who is self-congratulatory about knowledge of scripture or mastery of the apostolic traditions about Jesus. It is not that such persons failed to learn the word of the apostolic teaching. They may be learned in scripture and accurate “scribes” of the teaching of Jesus. But they are merely listening. No matter how extensive one’s scriptural knowledge, how amazing one’s memory, it is self-deception if that is all there is.
Do what it says is the critical point. It is not what one knows, but what one does that counts. True knowledge is the prelude to action, and it is the obedience to the word that counts in the end.
1:23–24 Having stated his thesis in the previous verse, James illustrates the merely listening position with a metaphor from daily life. It is like someone who carefully examines his or her face in a mirror in the morning. The beard is trimmed, the hair carefully combed into place, or the make-up applied. For the moment looking at his or her human face is an absorbing occupation. But once the morning ablutions are complete, no more thought is given to the matter; the person immediately forgets what he looks like, often operating during the day on the basis of a self-image at odds with his or her physical reality. If that is where it ends with scripture, all one’s learning about the Bible or theology has exactly as much value for one’s life as that morning facial examination.
1:25 But the [person] who looks intently … and continues to do this … will be blessed in what he does. James makes the contrast two ways. First, the blessed person acts on what he or she knows rather than being one to forget what he has heard, the forgetting being not a loss from memory but a failure to live the teaching in the practical situation. James repeats the point, saying the person puts it into practice and that he or she is blessed in what he does. Action receives the accent. Second, the blessed person continues to do this. The theme of continuing, enduring, or remaining also occurs in James 1:2–4; 1:12; and 5:7–11. It is not the person who momentarily notices and obeys a command of Christ who will be blessed, but the person who is characterized by obedience to Christ’s commands—for whom they are a chosen lifestyle. Such a person will indeed be blessed in what he does.
This “doer” studies the perfect law that gives freedom. By this James means not the Stoic rule of reason or the Jewish law, but the Jewish scriptures as interpreted and completed by the teaching of Jesus. In other words, the perfect law is the teaching of traditions from Jesus such as those embodied in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:17). Paul and James both agree that the teaching of Jesus is binding on the Christian and that no other way marks out the path of blessing and salvation. Freedom is not license but the ability to live and to fulfill “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2; cf. Gal. 5:13; 1 Cor. 9:21; 1 Cor. 7:10, 25—in the latter two verses a teaching of Christ ends discussion for Paul). This law is freeing, in that by submitting to Christ one is freed from bondage to sin and death, including all legalism (in the sense of meriting one’s salvation). Thus James is saying that it is the person who lives this freedom who will be blessed by God, not the person who only learns about it.
1:26 James has completed his opening statement. All that remains is to sum up in such a way that a transition is made to the next section. Verses 26–27 are that summary and transition.
If anyone considers himself religious … That is, does a person believe him- or herself to be a good, pious Christian? The focus is on religious performance, probably including such acts as worship, prayer and fasting, and systematic giving. James does not condemn the activities, but adds, and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. In other words, religious practices are fine, but if they are not coupled to an ethical lifestyle they are worse than useless, for they become self-deceptions. James’ specific concern is the control of the tongue, by which he means angry outbursts, criticism, and complaining (cf. 1:19; 3:1, 13; 4:11–12; and 5:9). Criticism, judging, and gossiping reveal hearts not yet submitted to the rule of Christ. These are people whose overt religious practices, however Christian, are no more salvific than idolatry, also called worthless in scripture (Acts 14:15; 1 Cor. 3:20; 1 Pet. 1:18). James, like Jesus (Mark 12:28–34; John 13:34) and the prophets (Hos. 6:6; Isa. 1:1–10; Jer. 7:21–28), ruthlessly unmasks such self-deception so that his readers can recognize their true condition before it is too late.
1:27 In contrast to the pious person with the sharp tongue, the religion that God our Father considers pure and faultless is not primarily ritual and pious practices but looking after orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself from being polluted by the world. The first characteristic, that of active charity and concern for the helpless and weak, is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (Deut. 14:29; 24:17–22) as well as the New (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Tim. 5:3–16). The orphan and widow, along with the foreigner and Levite, formed the traditional poor of early Israel. True piety, then, will help the weak, the poor, for God is the helper of the helpless (Deut. 10:16–17).
The second characteristic focuses on the world, a designation common in Paul and John for human culture, mores, and institutions (1 Cor. 1–3; 5:19; Eph. 2:2; John 12:31; 15:18–17:16; 1 John 2:15–17). True piety is not conformity to human culture but transformation into Christ’s image (Rom. 12:1–2). For James this means specifically rejecting the motives of competition, personal ambition, and accumulation that lie at the root of a lack of charity and an abundance of community conflict (e.g., 4:1–4). In declaring this alone to be true religion in God’s eyes, James declares that conversion is meaningless unless it leads to a changed life.
Additional Notes
1:1 The twelve tribes of Israel were God’s chosen people in the Old Testament. James looks on the church as the continuation of that people of God. The church includes the remnant of the old Israel and takes into itself the converts from the Gentiles. It is therefore “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), the people of God in the new age of the Spirit (cf. Rom 4:13–25; Gal. 5:21–31).
Scattered among the nations is a technical term for the dispersion or Diaspora. After the exile of Jews from Palestine in 586 B.C., most did not return. Instead they spread out through the cities of Asia and Europe, westward to Rome and Spain, south to Egypt, and east to Babylon and Persia. To the Jews living in Palestine, these people were Diaspora, scattered people, exiles from the land to which they belonged. James uses this term for Christians, for they are also “exiles” in the land in which they live. In much the same way, Peter refers to Christians as sojourners or pilgrims (1 Pet. 1:1, 17; 2:11).
1:2 The phrase consider it pure joy has as its central word the Greek word “joy,” charan, which forms a wordplay with the chairein, “greetings” of v. 1. James uses such wordplay links to tie his letter together despite his tendency to juxtapose topics.
The structure of vv. 2–4 is that of a chain saying, which is also found in Rom. 5:3–5 and 1 Pet. 1:6–7. In 1 Peter, in particular, some identical phrases are used. The saying appears to have been widely and loosely used within the early church, which means that each author felt free to adapt it to make his own point. The basis of the structure is probably some statement of Jesus similar to that in Matt. 5:11–12, “Happy are you when men insult you. Rejoice and be glad, because a great reward is kept for you in heaven.” For further reading see D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 113, 117–19.
The idea of trials is not a new idea to the readers of this letter, for it is deeply rooted in Judaism. The earliest reference is in Gen. 22:1, an incident referred to in James 2:21, where God tests Abraham. God is also said to test the Israelites in the wilderness, but unlike Abraham they fail the test (Num. 14:20–24). As one moves into the intertestamental period, one finds the famous reference in Sirach 2:1–6:
My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation. Set thy heart aright and endure firmly, and be not fearful in time of calamity.… Accept whatsoever is brought upon thee, and be patient in disease and poverty. For gold is proved in the fire, and men acceptable to God in the furnace of affliction.
(Cf. Jubilees 8:25, or the Dead Sea Scrolls 1 QS 10, 17, 1 QH 5:15–17; 1 QM 16:15–17:3.) Thus the early church had a long tradition upon which to draw that expected faith to be tested. See H. Seesemann “Peira,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 23–26, for further data.
1:3 The phrase the testing of your faith is a single word in Greek, dokimion. It properly refers to the means of testing in this passage, although in 1 Pet. 1:7 it refers to the result of the test, i.e., genuineness. The means, however unpleasant they may be, produce a good result. They are not simply negative, destroying ungenuine faith, but positive, if viewed in the right light.
The term perseverance, Greek hypomonē, is virtually a technical term in the New Testament. Paul uses the term sixteen times (2 Cor. 6:4; 12:12; 1 Thess. 1:3), and Revelation finds it most important (1:9; 2:2; 13:10; 14:12). It is obvious, from this fact and the fact that its use for Abraham, Job, etc., is found in intertestamental works, that the virtue is important in a community suffering persecution. The Jews after the exile, and particularly after the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) were concerned about holding fast to the faith despite opposition, disadvantage, or even persecution. They looked to the Old Testament to supply examples, which they exegeted accordingly. Likewise the church found itself vulnerable as a despised and persecuted minority within Judaism and, later, the Roman Empire. Fly-by-night or flash-in-the-pan Christianity would not do. It is not those who apostasize and fall away but “he who endures to the end” who will be saved (Mark 13:13; Matt. 10:22; 24:13). Thus endurance is one of the cardinal virtues of the Christian life, not a side issue. To endure means to copy Christ in his endurance and to assure oneself of future blessedness.
1:4 The term must finish its work is literally “have its perfect [or complete] work.” It is this phraseology that suggested to many commentators that a specific virtue is in mind. Instead of a single virtue, however, “You are that perfect work” (M. Dibelius, James, p. 74).
The idea of perfection is not original in James. Noah is the archetypal perfect person: “Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generation” (Gen. 6:9). He kept God’s law, or he was “of stable integrity, not contaminated by divergent motives or conflicts between thoughts and deeds” (P. J. DuPlessis, Telios: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament, pp. 94–99). Thus the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls could both think of themselves as perfect because of their inward and outward dedication to God (1 QS 2:1–2; 14:7; 1 QH 1:36) and still long for a higher perfection (1 QS 4:20–22). For Paul, Christians are also already the perfect or mature (1 Cor. 2:6), but becoming perfect or mature people is still a process going on with its goal in the future (Eph. 4:13; cf. Col. 4:12; Phil. 3:15). For Matthew, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, perfection consists in copying God (imitatio dei, Matt. 5:48), but in both Matthew and Paul this was re-interpreted in terms of a more available example, God-in-Flesh, Jesus. Thus it becomes copying Christ (imitatio Christi, Matt. 19:21; cf. Phil. 2:5ff.). Perfection, then, is a tension. It is both possible and impossible, both present and future. See further, W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, pp. 212–13; and R. Schippers, “Goal,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 59–66. The important fact to consider is the eschatological nature of perfection, its “now” and “not yet” tension, as well as the fact that in its realizable form it is focused on copying God and Christ and thus needs divine revelation and human obedience.
1:5 The English wordplay lacking (v. 4)—lacks (v. 5) is also present in Greek. This catchword linking of ideas is a favorite method by which James joins them into a unity.
The idea of wisdom in James is not simply insight or God’s law (as in Sirach 4:17; Wisdom 7:15; 8:21) but a gift of the coming new age that can now be found in those who belong to that age (as in 2 Baruch 44:14; 2 Esdras 8:52; 1 Enoch 5:8; 98:1–9; 100:6). As these Jewish parallels (and others in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 1 QS 11; CD 2; 6:3; 11 QPsa 154) show, Jewish readers would recognize a tension. Wisdom will only be fully possessed in the coming age, but the righteous remnant (“the wise” of Dan. 11–12) already have a foretaste of it in this age. It is this that leads people to perfection, a relationship between wisdom and perfection that Paul also recognized (1 Cor. 2:4–6). See J. A. Kirk, “The Meaning of Wisdom in James.”
God is a good giver (Prov. 3:23; cf. Didache 4:7; Hermas Mandate 9), but he is also a generous giver (Hermas Mandate 2). The term for generosity, haplos, appears in the New Testament only here. It is related to the term haplotēs, which means sincerity. Epictetus shows the meaning of haplos when he writes, “Stop letting yourself be drawn this way and that … but be either this or that simply and with all your mind” (Discourses II, 2, 13). The same sense of simplicity and sincerity is to be in human giving according to Jesus, for in a context on giving he says, “If your eyes are clear [haplotēs], your whole body will be full of light” (Matt. 6:22), which is an idiom for sincere giving, as bad eyes were for stinginess. On this term see further B. Gärtner, “Simplicity,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 571–72.
1:6 “Faith” has far more than one meaning in James. Here and in 1:3, 2:5, and 5:15, it means commitment, trust; in 2:14–26 it means intellectual assent; and in 2:1 it means the body of truth about Jesus that is believed. This first use is most like Paul; the others differ from Paul’s. See O. Michel, “Faith,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 587–606.
To doubt shows that the person is unlike God. God gives sincerely, with an undivided mind. The doubter prays, but without an undivided mind. He is not at all certain God will answer. The figure of the swaying wave was popular in Jewish and Greek literature, e.g., Sirach 33:1–3:
No evil befalls the man who fears the Lord, but in trial he will deliver him again and again. A wise man will not hate the law, but he who is hypocritical about it is like a boat in a storm. A man of understanding will trust in the law.
1:7–8 The chief term in these verses is dipsychos, translated as double-minded. The term itself is found first in James and may have been coined by the author. The idea, however, has deep Jewish roots. A person is to seek God with his or her whole heart (Deut. 6:5; 18:3), and thus to doubt or have a double heart is in itself evil, a mark of hypocrisy (Ps. 12:1–2; 1 Chron. 12:33). Jewish tradition was constantly calling people to a clear choice: It cannot be God and Baal or God and Egypt; it must be either one or the other. The sharp contrast continues in Sirach (e.g., 33:7–15) and later literature. Testament of Levi 13:1 calls, “Fear the Lord your God with your whole heart, and walk in simplicity according to all his Law.” One notices how simplicity (haplotēs from James 1:5) is important. Testament of Benjamin 6:5 adds, “The good mind hath not two tongues, of blessing and of cursing … of hypocrisy and of truth …; but it hath one disposition, uncorrupt and pure, concerning all men.” The people at Qumran were likewise concerned lest someone who had outwardly (and perhaps meaning it at the time) pledged to follow the way of God would turn back and follow his or her evil nature to the detriment of the community:
No man shall walk in the stubbornness of his heart so that he strays after his heart and eyes and evil inclination, but he shall circumcise in the Community the foreskin of evil inclination and of stiffness of neck that they may lay a foundation of truth for Israel, for the community of the everlasting Council (1 QS 5:4–5).
People who did turn back were surely condemned:
As for them, they dissemble,
they plan devilish schemes.
They seek Thee with a double heart
and are not confirmed in Thy truth.
A root bearing poisoned and bitter fruit
is in their designs;
they walk in stubbornness of heart
and seek Thee among idols,
and they set before them
the stumbling-block of their sin.
(1 QH 4:13–14)
Paul has a similar concern, although expressed in less colorful language, in Romans 6–8. People might commit to Christ but then “walk after the flesh.” Paul reacts to the idea with horror. By no means should such instability be allowed. Single-hearted devotion to God is the order of the day.
James’ concern with a double heart and instability was later picked up by Hermas (Mandate 9 for dipsychos and Mandate 2.3 and 5.2.7 for instability, which Hermas considers demonic in origin). But the idea is weakened there. James uses it with the full force of tradition. Hermas has concern simply about effective prayer.
1:9 James does not use the usual term for poor, ptōchos, but tapeinos, which in other contexts means humble or socially low or unimportant (2 Cor. 7:6; 10:1). In this context it clearly means materially poor because of its contrast with rich. Tapeinos appears multiple times in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) for six different Hebrew terms meaning poor or oppressed. It is especially suitable, because of its dual connotation of humble and poor, to translate ‘ani, a frequent Hebrew term for the humble poor (perhaps behind Matt. 5:3 as well). It is also interesting that it appears in Prov. 3:34, since James will later quote this verse (4:6); it may already be on his mind. See also Judg. 6:15; Pss. 9:39; 33:18; Amos 8:6; Isa. 11:4, and W. Grundmann, “Tapeinos,” in TDNT, vol. 8, pp. 1–26.
The term ought to take pride is the Greek verb kauchaomai, which outside of its use here and in 4:16 is always used in the New Testament by Paul (thirty-five times). Normally this verb means pride or boasting in a negative sense and is thus hardly a command to the Christian (Gal. 6:13; Rom. 2:23; 1 Cor. 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:12; Eph. 2:9). In the Old Testament, however, one could boast in God (Pss. 32:11; 149:5). This positive sense is taken over by Paul when he speaks of boasting in God or in Christ (Rom. 5:11; 1 Cor. 1:31; Phil. 3:3). It is this positive sense that James intends, for to be glad or to boast in one’s exaltation is to boast, not about one’s own works, but about what God has done for one. Thus it is a form of boasting in God. It is therefore interesting that Paul uses this verb in Rom. 5:3; a passage parallel to James 1:2 and 1 Pet. 1:6. This shows that in Paul’s mind the positive sense of boasting is close to the eschatological joy expressed by James and Peter in their respective terms. The idea of such joy will appear three times in this one chapter in James (1:2; 1:9; 1:12).
1:10 James has two ways of handling rich persons. First, he refers to them using the term plousios. In these three instances they are unbelievers, opposers of the gospel (1:10; 2:6; 5:1ff.). Second, he refers to them using circumlocutions that describe them but never call them rich (2:2; 4:13). In these cases, the people are wealthier members of the Christian community. In contrast, the term “poor” (ptōchos) is at times in James a name for the community, following Jewish usage for the remnant of Israel (e.g., Psalms of Solomon).
The idea that the rich will be brought low and the poor exalted is a familiar reversal-of-fortunes theme. One encounters it in the Old Testament (1 Sam. 2:7) and frequently in the psalms (e.g., Pss. 37; 73) as well as in Luke’s Magnificat (Luke 1:53). A similar theme occurs in 1 Enoch. More importantly, the Lukan beatitudes express it clearly (Luke 6:20–26):
20 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.”
The wealthy have absolutely nothing to rejoice about. Like the rich man in the parable (Luke 16:19–31), they are on their way to hell. James is here applying this teaching and exhorting his congregation to act on it.
1:11 The picture is an image that is very widespread. One sees it in Testament of Job 33 and in Pliny, Natural History 21, 1. It occurs in Ps. 103:15–16, which, along with Isa. 40:6, might be in James’ mind, and in Matt. 6:30 and Luke 12:28 (although with a different application). Though it is especially suited to Palestine, other warm climates would also find the expression meaningful.
Some scholars have seen with scorching heat (kausoni) as indicating the sirocco, or hot desert wind, as in Job 27:21; Jer. 18:17; and Hos. 12:1. In fact, it may well be referred to in Ps. 103:16. But this is unlikely (although tempting, for the sirocco is distinctly Palestinian), for the sirocco has nothing to do with the sun rising. It blows constantly day and night for the whole period of its effect. Thus James’ description is best seen as a proverbial reference to the sun’s withering activity in warm, dry climates.
The rich person is destroyed. The verb maranthesetai literally means “to wither” and is applied to the withering of plants and, metaphorically, the death of persons. One might think, then, that this is simply a reference to the impermanence of the rich. They will die and all their deeds will crumble. But James is probably thinking on a deeper level, as Jesus does in Luke 12:16–21. The person not only faces the sun of life’s troubles but the scorching heat of God’s judgment (as 5:1–6 will show). The fading away is not simply a withering, but a destruction, an eternal fact that should strike terror in the hearts of all tempted to the same lifestyle.
1:12 The term blessed (makarios) is also used in the Beatitudes and Psalms (e.g., Ps. 1). Its opposite is “woe.”
The idea of persevering (hypomenō) is very important in the New Testament (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Rom. 12:12; 1 Cor. 13:7; 2 Tim. 2:12, etc., use the verb; Luke 21:19; Rom. 2:7; 8:25; 2 Cor. 6:4; 1 Thess. 1:3; Rev. 13:10, and twenty-six other passages use the noun, hypomonē). It was critical that Christians be taught to endure, or else the church would have vanished at the first approach of persecution. The virtue was also valued in some Jewish circles (e.g., Testament of Job and Testament of Joseph).
Paul uses the idea of standing the test five times (cf. also 2 Tim. 2:15). The adjective dokimos indicates human or divine approval and is what Paul hoped for himself at the last judgment. He, like James, never assumed this final approval until he arrived there (e.g., Phil. 3:12–16).
The idea of receiving the crown of life at the last judgment is expressed in identical language in Rev. 2:10 and in similar language (“the crown of glory”) in 1 Pet. 5:4.
The promise to those who love him (cf. James 2:5) is nowhere explicitly stated in scripture, although its general sense is frequent enough (Exod. 20:5–6; 1 Cor. 2:9; Eph. 6:24). Some have argued that this verse cites an unrecorded saying of Jesus, which is possible, but not provable.
1:13 When James denies that God is tempting me and asserts that he does not tempt anyone, he is following Judaism. Although early parts of the Old Testament could state without a qualm “God tests” (e.g., Abraham in Gen. 22:1 and David in 2 Sam. 24:1), after the exile Judaism found these statements too facile. Thus in 2 Chron. 21:1 the devil, not God, tests David; in Job the test is initiated and carried out by Satan, although God gives permission; and in Jubilees 17–19 the devil (Mastema) initiates and carries out the testing of Abraham. For James, God is sovereign, but it is other forces that will and cause evil.
One reason for James’ dealing with the question may stem from the recitation of the Greek form of the Lord’s Prayer, “Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” In Greek it sounds as if God might be the agent of testing and as if one must beg for deliverance. Yet the Aramaic form of the prayer (and the applications in Luke 22:40) clearly shows the intention to be, “Cause that we not enter the test,” which fits with “and deliver us from the Evil One.” God is the one who prevents the devil from testing the Christian or sets limits on the extent of the test.
The retranslation God cannot be tempted by evil is a translation of “God is apeirastos.” The problem is that apeirastos is a rare word that occurs first in James and then almost nowhere else in Greek literature. The translation preferred in this commentary, “God ought not to be tested by evil men,” is based on the use of the word by the church fathers, the form of the word, and the Old Testament teaching that prohibits testing God. See further P. H. Davids, “The Meaning of Apeirastos,” NTS 24 (1978), pp. 386–91. On the testing tradition in general see B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son.
1:14 The citation of desire as the tempter draws upon a major Jewish tradition concerning the evil impulse in humanity (the evil yêṣer The yêṣer is simply undifferentiated desire, striving for whatever it sees. It is not the self or ego of the person (it fits more closely Freud’s id), but unless it is limited by the Law or Torah (in Judaism) or some other counterforce, it will control the ego. Thus Paul sees himself as controlled by sin, the flesh, or the law of sin, despite his recognition of its evil nature and his approval of the law—for Paul Torah was not enough, it simply let one know how enslaved one really was (Rom. 7). Paul’s answer is that the Spirit is the counterforce releasing one from desire/sin (Rom. 8). James will give a similar answer in his call for wisdom (1:17; 3:13–18, etc.). The important fact for him in this passage, as for the Jews, was that of personal responsibility. The person had to admit that he or she was to blame; sin rested in him or her, not in something external. Thus in the Christian tradition the Episcopal Church confessed, we are “miserable sinners … there is no health in us.” For further discussion of the yêṣer tradition, see F. C. Porter, “The Yeser Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin”; and G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1, pp. 479–93.
1:15 The picture of desire as an enticing woman may have been drawn from Proverbs. In Proverbs 1–9 wisdom appears as the good and holy woman who leads one to life and God. In chaps. 5 and 7 another woman appears, who entices and leads away those to whom wisdom is calling. She promises to fulfill their desires, but the end result is death. The use of the picture of the arrow and the snare in Prov. 7:22–23 is very appropriate in the context of James. Likewise the image of adultery is very appropriate, for the evil impulse is often connected to adultery in Jewish literature. Cf. S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 250.
Some authors see in this verse a reference to Jewish views of Satan’s attack upon Eve or the soul, particularly in the sexual language (for Satan’s seduction of Eve see 4 Macc. 18:7–8; Apocalypse of Moses 19:3; Testament of Reuben 2; and Testament of Benjamin 7). This reference is unlikely for the female (desire) is the aggressor here in the first case of birth, and in the second, no paternal figure is named. James, who wishes to stress personal responsibility, would hardly leave open the possibility of blaming both Satan and Eve for one’s sin.
On the relationship of sin to the heart see E. Arnold, Inner Land (Rifton, N.Y.: Plough Publishers, 1976), esp. chap. 3, “The Heart.”
The relationship of sin and death is abundantly clear in scripture: Gen. 2:17; Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 5:12 (also include Jesus’ references to Gehenna and outer darkness, Revelation’s to “the second death,” and 1 John 5:16–17). That James sees this as more than physical death (the consequence of sin in 1 Cor. 11:30; 5:5; and 1 Tim. 1:20), is clear in James 5:19–20.
1:16 The idea of deception (planaō) occurs frequently in scripture, not referring to a simple failure in judgment, but to serious deviation from the truth, which strikes at the heart of faith itself: Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 6:7; 1 John 1:8; 4:6; 2 Pet. 2:18; 3:17; and frequently in Revelation. Cf. H. Braun, “Planaō,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 242–51.
1:17 The original quotation from which every good and perfect gift is taken may have been, “Every Gift is good and every present is perfect,” which roughly translates “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” James’ change was simply to add from above or “from heaven,” which altered the whole sense. Now, not people but God is the source of all perfect gifts. What God gives is not stated, but if our analysis of form is correct (Introduction, “Form”), then this is parallel to 1:5–8 and thus concerns wisdom, the best gift of all (as Luke 11:13), which is needed to counter the evil impulse of 1:2–4 and 1:12–15. The phrase added is frequently used to indicate the divine origin of God’s Spirit or of faith (in contrast to demonic or earthly origin): John 3; Shepherd of Hermas Mandate 9.11; 11.5.
The phrase Father of the heavenly lights is literally “Father of lights.” On the one hand this is a circumlocution. James, like a good Jew, avoids using the name of God where he does not feel it is necessary (as the rabbinic “The Holy One, blessed be he” rather than “God”). On the other hand, though this reflects James’ belief that God created the stars (Gen. 1:14–18; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 4:23; 21:35), it may also reflect a belief that God is more personally related to them than that, that the stars and planets are, or are ruled by, animate beings or spirits (Job 38:7; 1 Enoch 18:12–16; 1 QS 3:20; etc.). The imagery is clearly that of Judaism and not of the Hellenistic world, which did not use “lights” to refer to heavenly bodies. See further G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1, p. 403; and H. Conzelmann, “Phōs” TDNT, vol. 9, pp. 319–27.
The difficulty with the final phrase does not change like shifting shadows is partially a textual problem. It is obvious from the state of the Greek text that early copyists had problems in understanding exactly which phenomenon James had in mind: changing constellations, an eclipse, or nightfall. It was well known that the heavenly bodies changed (Sirach 17:31; 27:11; Wisdom 7:29; 1 Enoch 41; 72) and that God did not (Job 25:5). In fact, it was so well known that it is probably an error to ask James for too much precision about which phenomena he has in mind. The heavens change and are changed (darkened by the movements of other bodies). That fact contrasts clearly with their creator.
1:18 This whole verse breathes creation language. For example, the participle (in Greek) he chose is in the emphatic position just as it is in Philo’s works when referring to the creative desires of God. This fact has led some writers to argue that only the original creation of humanity is in mind, but the following language rules this out. Creation it is, but new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17).
That God chose to give us birth has been problematic to some, for strictly speaking the verb applies only to the female act of giving birth. But two pieces of data resolve the problem: (1) Female imagery is sometimes applied to God in scripture (Num. 11:12; Deut. 32:8; Deut. 32:18a in the Septuagint; Pss. 7:14; 90:2; Isa. 66:13), and (2) James needed an action parallel to desire in 1:15.
Regeneration language (which is very close to the Johannine tradition, e.g., John 3–13, 1 John 3:9–10) and new creation language (which is closer to Paul, e.g., 2 Cor. 5:17, Rom. 8:18–25) come together in this passage. The imagery is very fluid.
In that we might be a kind of firstfruits, a new type of imagery, harvest imagery, appears. In the Old Testament the first fruits may designate either the temporal order of the event (Christ is the first raised, 1 Cor. 15:20; Stephanus the first saved, 1 Cor. 16:15; the Christians are the first redeemed, 2 Thess. 2:13) or the quality of the group (Rev. 14:4). Here the reference to creation emphasizes temporal priority: The rebirth of Christians begins the redemption of all creation. See further G. Delling, “Haparchē,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 484–86.
1:19 The proverb comes from a Jewish context, as its language indicates (everyone is pas anthrōpos, a Semitism), but its wisdom is not only found widely in Jewish sources (Prov. 15:1; Sirach 1:22; 4:29; 6:33; Psalms of Solomon 16:10; m. Aboth 2:10) but also in pagan sources (Dio Chrysostom 32 [“Don’t be quick to anger but slow”]; Diogenes Laertius 8.23; Seneca Ira). In fact, so prevalent is the concern for controlled speech, including the control of anger, that W. R. Baker wrote a whole doctoral dissertation on this and other themes of speech-ethics as they relate to James (Personal Speech-Ethics: a Study of the Epistle of James against its Background [University of Aberdeen, 1986]). The one major difference between James (and other New Testament writers) and Jewish (including the Old Testament) and pagan writers on the topic is that James and the New Testament do not recommend silence, perhaps due to the urgency of spreading the gospel.
For anger, noise, and party strife in the New Testament, 1 Cor. 14; 1 Thess. 5:19–22; and 1 Tim. 1:3ff. are examples. See also the parties of 1 Cor. 1–3. It is not necessary to posit political agitation or Zealotism, as Bo Reicke does (James, p. 21), to find a setting for this proverb’s use in James’ community.
1:20 Anger, usually meaning the expression of hostility, was rejected by the Greeks, as H. Kleinknecht shows (“Orgē,” TDNT, vol. 5, p. 384). Later Jewish writers rejected it as incompatible with wisdom (Sirach 27:30; Wisdom 10:3; cf. Job 36:13; 18; Prov. 12:16; 27:3; 4; 29:8; 30:33). In Christian literature not only does the Sermon on the Mount reject anger using the same term as James does (Matt. 5:22), but anger is frequently included in lists of vices (Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8). Prayer is incompatible with anger (1 Tim. 2:8). Ephesians 4:26 (quoting Ps. 4:4) indicates that Paul did not want one to repress anger but to admit the emotion and sublimate it (e.g., through confrontation and reconciliation, forgiveness, or prayer) “before the sun sets.” Repressing it only makes an explosion more likely. See further H. C. Hahn, “Anger,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 105–13.
1:21 Get rid is a participle in Greek, clearly subordinate to the main verb, accept, although it precedes it in time. The word is frequently used in Christian literature for a change of lifestyle, e.g., Eph. 4:22; 1 Pet. 2:1; 1 Clement 13:1.
The word moral filth is used more outside the New Testament than within (e.g., in Epictetus or Philo). See further J. I. Packer, “Dirt, Filth, Refuse,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, p. 479.
The phrase the evil that is so prevalent may mean “a large amount of wickedness,” “a large amount of malice,” or very possibly “every trace or remainder of malice.” The key to this latter translation is that the perisseu stem is often used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew ytr root, which means either abundance or remainder.
God has implanted the word. Some have argued that this means “innate” or “inborn,” as it often does in Hellenistic literature. However, not only early Christian teaching (Barnabas 1:2; 9:9) but also the biblical tradition thinks of God’s word, or the gospel, as implanted by God in one’s heart at conversion (Deut. 30:1; Matt. 13:4–15, 18–23; 1 Cor. 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13). It is this sense that fits best here. As in the parable of the sower, the word may be planted, but unless obeyed it is soon choked, with fatal results.
The phrase in you (cf. GNB, “in your hearts”) is a correct interpretation of the normal biblical location of such implantation, but in some translations the following phrase is “save your soul.” The salvation James refers to is a deliverance from the apocalyptic judgment of God in the last day. “Souls” is correctly interpreted in the NIV as simply you, for psychē means the whole person or self (cf. Deut. 6:5; Job 33:28; Mark 8:35; John 10:11; Acts 2:41).
For the virtue of meekness, see further F. Hauck and S. Schulz, “Praus,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 645–51.
1:22 The background of this verse is the Old Testament idea of doing the law (Deut. 28:53; 29:28; cf. 1 Macc. 2:16; Sirach 19:20). The teaching of Jesus was the new law for the Christian community (Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). The saying itself can be duplicated in Jewish sources: “Not the expounding of the law is the chief thing but the doing of it” (m. Aboth 1:17) or “You ought not only to read the laws of Moses, but rather to practice what they command you” (Josephus, Antiquities 20.44). Jesus has a similar saying in Matt. 7:21–27 (Luke 6:46–49), leading Origen (Homily on Gen. 2:16) to believe this verse to be an otherwise unrecorded saying of Jesus.
The term for to deceive yourselves occurs in Col. 2:4 and other parallels where it means to lead one from the faith. Thus the hearers only deceive themselves about their salvation.
The term listener in listen to the word does not refer to a casual listener but is the regular classical Greek term for a serious auditor or pupil (e.g., Plato, Republic 536c; Aristotle, Politics 1274).
1:23–24 The mirror metaphor is used elsewhere in scripture and intertestamental literature (1 Cor. 13:12; Sirach 12:11; Wisdom 7:26), as well as other Greek literature, but these uses have no relationship to James. Copper or bronze mirrors were too common household items not to have been frequently chosen as illustrations.
Some commentators argue the terms looks … in a mirror and looking at himself mean to “glance at” as opposed to a more careful look at the law in v. 25 (e.g., J. Adamson, James, p. 82). But not only does this not fit James’ point, it also makes a false assertion about the Greek term (cf. Matt. 7:23; Luke 12:27; Luke 20:3). See further S. S. Laws, James, p. 86; and J. Goetzmann, “Reason,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, p. 126.
1:25 The term blessed (makarios) turns attention to the previous use of the word in 1:12. As in Matt. 5:3–9 (and with a background in Ps. 1:1; Isa. 56:2, etc.) the blessing is not temporal prosperity but future approval, or joy when the kingdom of God is fully established (cf. 5:7–11).
The perfect law that gives freedom has been frequently discussed. The Stoic use of the term (e.g., Epictetus 4.1.158) is discussed by J. Blunk, “Freedom,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 715–16, and H. Schlier, “Eleutheros,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 493–96. Philo attempted to apply this idea to the Mosaic Law as being true reason (e.g., Vita Moesis 2.48). On the other hand, there is no evidence of the Stoic idea in James other than this verbal similarity, and there is abundant evidence that the Jews of all types saw their law as perfect and freeing (Pss. 119; 19:7–11; 40:6–8; Rom. 7:12; m. Aboth 3:5; 6:2). W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, has shown that the Jews expected Messiah to reinterpret the law. This Jewish expectation is precisely what early Christians saw Jesus fulfilling, giving the new and perfect law for the new age (cf. Barnabas 2:6 and Hermas Vision 1.3).
1:26 Religion or religious is not commonly used in scripture, the adjective occurring in the Greek Bible only here and the noun only in v. 27; Acts 26:5; and Col. 2:18 in the New Testament. The terms refer to the religious performance either positively or negatively.
The idea of worthlessness occurs again in 2:14–26, where faith that does not produce action is declared unable to save.
1:27 The terms pure and faultless or “pure and unblemished” are also found in Didache 1:5 and Hermas Mandate 2.7; Similitude 5.7.1. They are probably an idiom for absolute purity.
The reference to God as Father is not unusual for James (1:17; 3:9), but here it may stress God as the universal Father who is the father to orphans and husband to the widow. This allusion would make the demand for charity flow out of God’s nature.
The world is referred to here in a distinctly Christian sense, as H. Sasse, “Kosmos,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 889–95, points out. The only Jewish passages that reject human culture in this same way are suspected of Christian influence (e.g., 1 Enoch 48:7; 108:8). For Christians, the world could pollute, or spot, them. Thus it was imperative to remain unspotted, which was originally a cultic term for purity and acceptability for cultic service (i.e., temple worship; cf. 1 Pet. 1:19) but now has taken on a moral tone (as in 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Pet. 3:14).
