James 5

J.W. Roberts Commentary On James 5 THE SIN OF WEALTH James 5:1-6 James continues his apostrophe, or direct address, of those not Christians and not his immediate readers, with the “come now” as in the section in which the address began (James 4:13). But he shifts the subject from the arrogant and boastful living of life without God, in the pursuit of wealth, to the unjust and shameful oppression of workers. James foretells the fearful punishment of God for such sin. The use of wealth that is condemned here is not wealth as such. James does not oppose rich men indiscriminately. Those who have understood Christianity as being anti-wealth and anti-prop­erty have misunderstood it.

It is the wrong use of wealth and the acquisition of wealth in the wrong manner which are condemned, along with the envy and desire for wealth as an end. In this chap­ter, especially, James is speaking of wealth acquired by robbing laborers of their just wages. One of the sins which Paul listed as barring one from being an elder is that of being “greedy of base gain” (Titus 1:7). The term means obtaining money by an unlaw­ful occupation or getting it in a wrong manner.

As pointed out above, the rich directly in mind are not Chris­tians. They are such as the rich men who were visiting the congre­gation (2:2) and who dragged them before judges and blasphemed the name called upon them (James 2:6). They are not the humble rich of Jas 1:10. The section is a warning to any guilty Jew who might chance to read it. Perhaps James thinks that poor Christians might use it as an appeal for justice to their employers. It certainly would be a warning to any Christian who might be tempted to act in the wrong way (just as the preceding admonition in James 4:13-17 is).

But the probable purpose which James had in mind was to put such unjust people in the proper perspective before the church. Those who suffer as Christians from the hands of such people are not to envy the rich. They are to commit themselves to God as the avenger of His people (Cf. Romans 12:14-21). They are to see these sinful people for what they are in God’ s sight: wretched people fattening themselves for a day of slaughter. The Old Testament had many similar passages comforting the poor in their oppression (like Psalms 73) as well as such apostrophes in which condemnation is addressed directly to heathen countries and peoples (like Edom, Assyria, or Tyre).

It is quite possible that James, with his reputa­tion for righteousness among the unbelieving Jews (attested by Josephus), may have hoped to appeal to this audience as potential secondary readers.

James 5:1 —Come now, ye rich,—Compare Isaiah 14:31 and Isaiah 13:6 for Old Testament examples of this type of condemnation addressed as an aside to an audience not di­rectly contemplated in the address. James in the manner of an Old Testament prophet feels the injustice of the situation and cries out against the wrong. The section is thus not primarily for the people addressed, but for the effect on his readers. On the use of “come ye,” see on James 4:13. The Greek has “the rich” with the article used in a vocative similar to our nominative of ad­dress, a not uncommon idiom in Greek. The designation is of a class of people. James is not thinking of every rich man, but of a class in their over-all characteristics. Not all rich people committed sins attributed to the class here. But the characteristics of the group as a whole lead Bible writers at times almost to class the rich with the evil and the poor with the good. Most of the mem­bers were among the poor; most of Christianity’ s enemies were from the well-to-do. There was no large middle class as today in our society.

James 5:1 —weep and howl—James uses the same word for “weep” as in James 4:9, but the meaning is different here. There it was a weeping of repentance and sorrow for sin (addressed to backsliding Chris­tians); here it is bitter denunciation and prediction of the future wrath of God (cf. Revelation 6:16 Revelation 18:15). The word “howl” is a touch of vividness; it is a word which reproduces its meaning by its sound (onomatopoeia). It means to “shriek” and is frequently used in the LXX (especially in Isaiah) of the howls of those con­demned by God (Isaiah 16:7 Isaiah 65:14; Amos 8:3). James means that, if the rich understood their coming fate, they would literally shriek over the prospect.

Compare Acts 24:25 where the meaning of “ter­rified,” the word used to describe the feelings of Felix when he heard Paul preach to him of his fate, originally meant for the hair to stand on end. The language used in the New Testament to de­scribe the punishment to the wicked is awful to contemplate.

James 5:1 —-for your miseries that are coming upon you.—The word “mis­eries” is the word in Romans 3:16 in a quotation describing the wicked: “destruction and misery are in their ways.” The adjective is used to describe the mental distress of the unjustified man in Romans 7:24. The participle used as an adjective, “coming upon you,” is always used in the literature of the Bible and early Christians (when referring to what the fu­ture holds) of what is distressing or unpleasant (Luke 21:26 and cf. Proverbs 3:25; Job 2:11). Here the trouble which James sees as coming upon the rich is either their final condemnation at the judgment (cf. verse 7) or, as others think, the awful punishment and suffering brought upon the nation of the Jews at the destruc­tion of Jerusalem. Perhaps one ought not to omit the thought also that the rich may bring suffering upon themselves in this life by their sins.

Verses 2-3 contain the charge that the riches of the wealthy are corrupted and ruined by non-use. “Your wealth” (as though not everybody’ s is in the same condition) probably shows that James recognizes that a proper use of wealth could be made (as in I Tim­othy 6:17ff). But the wealth of these people, being tied up in gar­ments, property, and metal coins, is deteriorating from disuse and testifies against its owners. The stewardship of possessions is a clear-cut teaching of the whole Bible. Luke l6:lff teaches that our wealth belongs to “another” (that is, to God, cf. verse 12). We are accountable for its use. The rich man (Luke l6:19ff) lost his soul because of disuse of money when an opportunity was laid daily at his door. The rich fool of Luk 12:13 ff was a fool for not using what his grounds brought forth other than for feeding his own “soul.” Thus one of the sins of these rich is shown by the corrup­tion of their wealth.

James 5:2 —Your riches are corrupted,—“Riches” is the Greek word for money, but it also has a general sense of wealth of any kind. “Cor­rupted” means “rotten” or “decayed.” Since other words for money are mentioned later, this word may refer to wealth which could rot or decay, such as fruits, oils, trees, or vines. Like the rich fool, these treasured up the produce of their lands, but the fruit had not lasted. That it had not been preserved was the fault of the owner in not using it. James 5:2 —your garments—In eastern countries, and even among the Ro­mans, acquiring expensive cloth was a common means of holding wealth (Cf. Genesis 45:22; Joshua 7:21; Judges 14:12; 2 Kings 5:5 2 Kings 5:22; Acts 20:33; Matthew 7:19; 1Ma 11:24). James had described the rich man entering the assembly as dressed in a fine way (2:2). For the word “moth-eaten,” compare Job 13:28, where Job described his wretched condition . In both verbs James uses a perfect tense to indicate that these conditions were not new ones. The deterioration had been going on and was still going on.

James 5:3 —Your gold and your silver are rusted;—Another means of ac­cumulating wealth was metal coins which were in use from early antiquity. These they had kept until they became rusted (again the perfect tense is used). The verb may mean “tarnished” or “cor­roded.” The Epistle of Jeremy (a Jewish document) uses this word to describe the rotting of the purple cloth with which the idols were clothed (“And ye shall know them to be no gods by the bright purple that rotteth upon them,” verse 72). Silver and gold do not rust, but they may corrode.

James 5:3 —and their rust shall be for a testimony against you,—Greek (fol­lowing the LXX and the Hebrew) often uses the preposition eis after the verb “to be” to express the predicate nominative. But the “to be for something” here is different. Here it means “to be inclined toward some end” or “to be useful” or to “serve for some purpose.” There is a difference of opinion as to how to translate the “against you” or “unto you” (margin). Some would under­stand the meaning “it testifies to you,” as if the rich should them­selves learn their error from the condition of their possessions. It is better to take it as a dative of disadvantage as in Matthew 23:31 (Cf. Goodspeed’ s translation) and translate “against.” The wit­ness is about the non-use of the materials; the rust becomes the proof of their sin.

James 5:3 —and shall eat your flesh as fire.—The “rust” is the subject. It will eat the flesh of the rich. The influence of the rust is trans­ferred by a figure to the rust itself. It will cause the well-fed bodies of the rich to be destroyed like fire devours. Old Testament pas­sages emphasizing God’ s judgments often liken them to fire: Psalms 21:10; Isaiah 10:16; 30:27; Ezekiel 15:7; Amos 5:6. Solomon says, “A worthless man deviseth mischief; and in his lips there is as a scorching fire” (Proverbs 16:27). The LXX reads here, “he treas­ures up fire on his own lips.” This probably means that such a man destroys himself by his folly (as well, perhaps, as others around him).

There is another arrangement possible for the words of this and the following sentence, though the sense is not materially different. It is possible in Greek that James meant his words to be read (with Ropes, Schonfield, etc.) “Their rust . . . will eat your flesh because you have treasured up fire which shall be in the last days.” This has the advantage of defining the fire which is meant as the fire of Gehenna. This makes the Greek of this passage agree with the passage in Proverbs 16:27 quoted above. It also makes the verb “treasure up” more understandable; otherwise it has no object. It is not usually used as ah intransitive verb. This commends itself to this writer.

If the translation stands as in the ASV, the destruction may re­fer to either the death of the rich Jews in the Roman wars (de­struction of Jerusalem and other towns, A.D. 70, Josephus, Wars 5:10, as in the Abingdon Commentary’) or in the future Gehenna of fire (Matthew 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; James 3:6). In either case it is a striking way to put it. The rust of unused wealth testifying against them will bring the rich to destruction. Verse 1 has already indi­cated that the miseries are coming upon them. N. B.: There is an awful warning in this to the church today. So many in the churches in our day have been blessed with much of this world’ s goods. What is being done with it? We cannot give a token to the Lord (even a liberal share) and feel that the rest is ours to live upon in luxury and ease. We must give account to God for all of it (Luke 16:9-12): There are many things that a Christian may use his money for: for his family (I Timothy 5:4), for his own needs and helping others (Ephesians 4:28), for payment of taxes and good deeds (Romans T3:Iff; Titus 3:1,14).

One need not give all he has to the Lord. But this should not lead us to think that we are not responsible for it all. “If we have not been faithful in that which is another’ s, who will give us our own riches” (Luke 16:12). We are stewards of it all. Will the rust of our unused blessings eat our flesh as fire in that day, too? This is a serious question for members of prosperous churches.

James 5:3 —Ye have laid up your treasure—This translation of the ASV translates one word “ye treasured” ) in the original. Jesus used a cognate object after the same verb: “Do not treasure up for your­selves treasures” (Matthew 6:19). Even if “fire” is to be taken as the object of this verb (see comment on previous phrase), the con­text shows that the rich were heaping up wealth which was to testify against, them. It is not necessarily wrong to possess and ac­cumulate wealth (i.e., to build an estate). But God’ s word certain­ly teaches that it imposes heavy responsibilities and dangers upon those who do. To amass wealth through covetousness or greed is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).

Godliness with contentment is great gain (I Timothy 6:6). With the proper exercise of stewardship money can be used to further the kingdom of God. Many Chris­tians with means do this. Yet many die and leave their estates un­used and let them go to the state in taxes or to relatives who are not Christians or are not faithful and who will not use them to God’ s glory. Many desiring fortunes “have pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (I Timothy 6:9). James 5:3 —in the last days.—If the text of the ASV be followed, then James says that the rich have treasured up treasure in the last days. This might be the last days of the Jewish dispensation (Abingdon, Johnson). Or it may be eschatological and signify that James thinks of the coming end of the world possibly as soon. It may refer, as elsewhere (Hebrews 1:1), to the Christian dispensation as the last division of time. On the second of these, see comment at the beginning of verses 7-9. James may have identified the consum­mation of the age with the predicted destruction of Jerusalem and wondered if he was not living near the end of time. This is what Jesus’ own disciples did (Matthew 24:3).

If one takes the translation of Ropes (mentioned above), then it is plain that James means the judgment of fire.

James 5:4 —Behold,—(Cf. James 5:9 James 5:11 and James 3:4-5) This is a Hebraistic type of graphic earnestness. James is intense in his earnestness. James 5:4 —the hire of the laborers who mowed your fields,—The word for “laborers” is that used especially of agricultural workers (Arndt and Gingrich). Palestine was rather unique in that fields were cultivated by hired labor. In most countries the work was done by slaves. James is thinking of the wheat and barley harvests where the grain was cut and shocked by hand. The Gospel references mention wages paid to laborers in fields and vineyards (Matthew 20:1 ff). The Old Testament contained special safeguards against withholding wages: “The wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning” (Leviticus 19:13).

See also Deuteronomy 24:14. For passages on violation, see Malachi 3:5; Jeremiah 22:13; Job 24:10. Lenski points out that the scene here is set in harvest time when the rich would be more affluent and when oppression of the poor would be even less excusable.

James 5:4 —which is of you kept back by fraud,—This is the text adopted by ASV. The other possible reading is simply “which is held out by you.” One verb means “to rob” ; the other “to hold back.” In ei­ther case James infers that the wages owed the laborers were not paid and that this contributed to the ill-gotten gain of the rich Jews.

James 5:4 —crieth out—a figurative use of the demand that injustice be avenged. Quite often this expression occurs in the Old Testament where it has almost a poetic touch: the blood of Abel cries out (Genesis 4:10; Hebrews 12:24) or the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20). Compare Job 31:38 ff; Revelation 6:10; and Psalms 34:17. Jesus used the figure when he said that if no other testified to Him “even the stones would cry out” (Luke 19:40).

James 5:4 —the cries . . . have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.—This is from Isaiah 5:9. As already seen, the idea of men’s cry for justice entering into God’ s ears is frequent. See further in Psalms 18:6 Psalms 34:15. “Sabaoth” (not Sabbath) is the transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning “hosts” or “armies.” Though it occurs on­ly here in the New Testament (besides the quotation in Romans 9:24), the word occurs some 282 times in the Old Testament (Knowling), being at times translated in the LXX by the term “Lord-almighty.” Compare 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:17. The original idea was that of God fighting on the side of Israel to vindicate their cause and give them victory in battle (1 Samuel 15:2; Isaiah 2:12; 2 Samuel 5:10; Psalms 59:5). But the idea was ex­tended to include the hosts of angels which God might send forth to carry out His will (Joshua 5:14; 2 Kings 6 :l4ff). The word thus became one of the highest titles for the power and majesty of God (Isaiah 1:6 Isaiah 6:3). Prayers for help were often expressed to God under this title (1 Samuel 1:11).

The reference here then means that the same omnipotent God who fought with Israel and whose word even the hosts of angels carried out in heaven has listened and heard the cries of injustice from the robbed laborers. “Vengeance belongs to me, I will repay saith the Lord.” All who are tempted to cheat a fellowman should remember.

James 5:5 —Ye have lived delicately on the earth,—The wages fraudulent­ly kept back were used to live luxurious and self-indulgent lives, thus adding to the flagrance of their crime. One is reminded of the rich fool’ s “Soul, thou hast much goods . . . take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry.” The verb here means “to live a life of ease, to “revel” or “carouse” and carries with it generally a bad sense even in the Classics. It is connected with the word which means “effeminacy.” At other times ft has merely the sense of “well-fed,” “contented.” Hermas (Sim. 6: Iff) uses it of sheep, figuratively representing luxury-loving men.

The expression “on the earth” is possibly James’ way of indicating that this condition is temporary. Only on earth (and not for long here) will this indulgent use of ill-gotten gain last. We are re­minded of Abraham’ s answer to the rich man, “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things.” We will take with us neither our money (1 Timothy 6:7) nor the pleasures it buys. James 5:5 —taken your pleasure;— Again the verb has a bad history. It gen­erally signifies a voluptuous and excessively indulgent life. In the LXX it occurs of Sodom, “prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters” (Ezekiel 16:49). A compound verb is used in the well- known passage in Amos 6:4. In the New Testament it is used else­where only in 1 Timothy 5:6, of the widow who lives in pleasure and thus “is dead while she liveth.” The whole picture of the rich here is one of wasteful, self-indulgent, luxurious living with a hint of lasciviousness and this off money retained by fraud. Their end is now to be told. James 5:5 —nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter.—The thought is not unlike Jeremiah 12:3, where the wicked are said to have been pulled out like sheep for slaying and prepared for slaughter by the Lord (Cf. Jeremiah 25:34; Isaiah 34:2, 61; Ezekiel 21:15). The difference here is that the rich have fattened themselves up for the fatal day. This is as though animals supplied their own food which eventually prepared them for the slaughter. This fattening contin­ued right down to the day of slaughter. This certainly would fit the description of Josephus (Wars 5, 10, 2; 13, 4.

Cf. Plummer in loco and Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity, pp. 344f) for the way the rich were killed, often by torture, at the destruction of Jerusalem. More than likely, however, in view of the over-all context, James means the fatal destruction at the final judgment, with the idea of “slaughter” occurring because of the figure of animals used. So James means that they are fattening themselves right down to their death or to the coming of the Lord. Lenski’ s statement that the preposition en does not mean “on the day” is erroneous. The prep­osition is used regularly with the locative to express “time at which.” James 5:6 —Ye have condemned, ye have killed the righteous one;—This is the climax of their sins. The key to the interpretation is the mean­ing of the term “righteous one.” If this (as in Acts 3:14 Acts 7:12 Acts 22:14; 1 John 2:1) means the Lord Jesus Christ, the picture is that of the rich Jews (Sadducees), who were in charge of the Sanhedrin which put Jesus to death lest the Romans take the control of the temple and its rich revenue from them (see John 11:48). In this case James sees the same greed and covetousness being extended in the rob­bery of the poor laborer’ s wages. If, on the other hand, the expres­sion is used generically (“the unrighteous,” as in 1 Peter 3:18), then the picture is that of the poor Jew, wronged by his evil, wealthy neighbor and condemned for this small bit of means. “The right­eous one” then would mean just any good man who was treated in this way and who did not resist. Here one thinks of Ahab and Jezebel and Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21). The rich in 2:6 were said to drag Christians before judges.

On the expression, see Amos 2:6 ff. The solution is not easy. Blass-Debrunner (Funk) consider the term to mean here an individual example. The aorists point to a single example (though it could be a timeless use of the tense); yet “he doth not resist you” (present) sees the reaction as still going on. This writer would lean toward the idea that James is thinking of the righteous man in general and not Jesus, though he could have had Jesus in mind as one of the examples. The righteous do not resist.

Christians have learned to bear condemnation and death with resignation.

NOTE ON THE BIBLE AND SOCIAL JUSTICEThere is no book which champions the cause of the unfortunate more than the Bible. The laws of Israel demand a fair deal for the laboring and poor classes; indeed this is true almost to the point of seeming unfairness to the wealthy (Money must be lent with­out interest, etc.). The rich are warned against the accumulation of wealth “adding house to house and field to field” (Isaiah 5:8; Amos 3:10; 11:28). Amos cried out with a passion against the in­justices toward the poor (Amos 5:11 Amos 8:4-7). It is strange (as Barclay ob­serves) that the Marxists would consider the Bible or the religion based upon it the opiate of the masses, calling upon them to ac­quiesce in an unjust social structure. It is true that the poor are not encouraged to revolution, but the wrath of God is turned in warning against those who exploit the worker and disregard the rights and needs of the suffering.

Too often, professing Christians have not heeded the cry for social justice and helping the needs of the unfortunate. But still most of the gains of the workers and most of the hospitals, homes fpr unfortunates, etc., have been founded under the impulse of people who called themselves Christians. Schools and hospitals and en­lightenment have gone with the missionary. The Social Gospel of the early part of this century was a curious example of the un­easy conscience of Christianity. It was based upon the false evolu­tionary optimism that had lost real faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the saving gospel of the Lord. It wanted to see the def­inition of the Kingdom of God limited to doing good to one’ s neighbor.

It thought the other parts were only the Jewish clothes that the teaching of Jesus wore. Thus it viewed the lack of prog­ress in social benefits in horror and set to work to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. It called on the church to turn from the proclaiming of the gospel of the New Heaven to seeking Heaven on earth. It saw the church’ s ministry as lying in hospitals, social work, corrective social legislation, and general improvement through the handout. This movement did not bring about its mil­lennium. Its optimism died in the throes of the two world wars.

One does not have to reject the theology of the Bible to accept its ethics and responsibilities. But one thing the movement did was to make the churches conscious of neglect of duty.

It is unfortunate that some see any expression of concern for so­cial justice and help for the unfortunate as a revival of the Social Gospel. The church does have its mission, and every congregation must decide where its opportunity to serve lies. One may view with rejoicing the development of institutional care for orphans and old folk. The opportunities for practicing pure and undefiled religion should be multiplied. The works in existence should be supported. A church may think that the more direct spread of the gospel in mission work is more the mission of the church. But they go hand in hand without competition.

The gospel carries its message home to the hearts of the hearers as the preachers sound the words of Christ: “Inasmuch as you did it unto others, ye did it unto me.” To teach the wealthy that his unused wealth is a sin and will be a testimony against him and that he ought to “weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon him” is to awaken him to his duty and responsibility. To teach Christians that to visit the widows and orphans in their afflictions is to practice pure and undefiled religion is to help accomplish God’ s will in God’ s way. The gospel is social in its demands, and we do not need the Social Gospel to remind us of this fact. Nor can we avoid our duty because we reject the Social Gospel.SECTION EIGHT TOWARD Hebrews 5:7-12 TO Hebrews 5:7-11 This section stresses that Christians (in spite of the wrong suf­fered at the hands of the rich) are to bear their injustices patiently until the Lord comes, just as the farmer plants his seed and waits for the harvest. It also touches on the question of the expectancy of the Second Coming of Jesus in the First Century.

James 5:7 —Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. —Brethren are addressed directly because the previous section had had non-Christians mainly in view. Now the Christians are confronted with their own duty to develop the proper attitude to­ward their persecutors.

This is not the ordinary word translated “ be patient.” The verb here means to be “long-tempered” . The meaning is to hold the mind in check rather than give way to wrath or wavering (as in verse 12). God is described as longsuffering (same word) in 2 Peter 3:9; our sins do not pro­voke Him to destroy us. The command is in the aorist (constative) emphasizing the command categorically until the event referred to, without reference to the interval.

James 5:7 —until the coming of the Lord.—The word for “coming” used here is parousia, which is literally the “presence” of Christ. The word, which has become an English word (Parousia), in secular Greek referred to the presence or arrival of a person, especially of a visit of an important person. Jesus promised when he went away he would be present with His disciples always unto the end of the world (Matthew 28:19 f). But the Holy Spirit is the agent of ful­fillment of that promise. Christ is in and with us through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:21). The presence of Christ will become manifest when he comes visibly at the end. Then every eye will see him (Rev­elation 1:7). This is the appearance or manifestation which is called the Parousia of Christ.

The coming is called his Second Coming (Hebrews 9:28) by contrast with the First Advent. The parousia is a frequent New Testament term for the Lord’ s coming: Matthew 24:3 Matthew 24:27 Matthew 24:37 Matthew 24:39; 1 Thessalonians 2:19 1 Thessalonians 3:13 1 Thessalonians 4:15 1 Thessalonians 5:23; II Thes- salonians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 John 2:28; 2 Peter 1:16 2 Peter 3:4. Another New Testament expression for the coming is the Epiphany . This is important, for it bears on whether James is prohibiting oaths absolutely. James uses the term “any other oath” to shorten his quotation of Jesus, and he means “not by another oath like these.” Now Jesus’ words, rightly understood, do not forbid oaths absolutely either. He says, “Swear not at all, neither by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or your head.” “Not at all” is not absolute in meaning, but modifies the things distributed in the prohibitions and is equivalent in our language to saying, “Don’ t swear by these things at all.” But this does not prohibit oaths taken in God’ s name.

Neither Jesus nor James thus prohibits solemn religious or civil oaths taken in God’ s name. This is proved by the fact that Jesus Himself took oaths (Matthew 26:63 f; Mark 8:12 in the Greek where the same type of construction is found as in the oath in Hebrews 6:13-14).

Paul did likewise (1 Thessalonians 5:27, where Paul has the word for “swear” and the accusative of oaths). On this see the note following this section.

James 5:12 —But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay:—This also repeats the words of Jesus. He said, “Let your speech (or conversation) be . . .” This is to be taken in context. The Jews took the lesser oaths and claimed that they were not binding. Jesus called this hypocrisy (Matthew 24 :l6ff). This made oaths which were bind­ing under the Law mere profanity. Hence Jesus means that in ordinary speech one should avoid oaths which do not have God’ s name (whether they are binding or not) and simply give his word, “yes” and “no.” This leaves us (as it did Paul and others) free to use oaths in God’ s name when they are demanded or called for.

James 5:12 —that ye fall not into judgment.—To say more than “yes” and “no” by the use of lesser oaths when they are not considered oaths at all is to bring the user into the act of profanity and thus to bring him into judgment or condemnation. Jesus had said, “More than this is of the evil one.” One will be condemned or justified by his words (Matthew 12:36-37). NOTE ON The whole range of Biblical teaching on oaths is instructive. Moses prescribed that oaths should be by God’ s name (Deuteron­omy 6:13; 10:20). The third commandment did not prohibit oaths; it made sure that they were taken seriously with intention to keep them rather than that God’ s name be taken lightly. An oath must be kept: “Ye shall not swear falsely by my name” (Leviticus 19:12). “Whatsoever man shall vow a vow to the Lord, or swear an oath, or bind himself with an obligation upon his soul, he shall not break his word: all that shall come out of his mouth he shall do” (Numbers 30:2).

The Old Testament used a variety of constructions to express oaths. Some of these bear directly on the New Testament teaching. The most common word for “swear” in Hebrew is saba’ . It is usu­ally followed by the preposition be, “by” (of that by which one swears) and le, “to” (to express the person to whom the oath is made). The LXX translates usually with omnum’t (173 times in the LXX). Several different constructions follow it to express that by which one swears.

The most important is the accusative of oaths (Genesis 21:23, “swear by God, ton theon). Compare the following variations: “by my right hand” (Deuteronomy 32:40); “by the Lord God” (Joshua 9:18 f); “by thy name” (Proverbs 24:32); “by the living God” (Hosea 4:15); “by the true God” (Isaiah 65:16). This is the standard way in Greek from earliest times tO/express an oath.

But the verb “swear” does not itself have to be expressed. Fre­quently asseverative particles such as ma, men, or na accompany the oath, and the negative particle ou and the affirmative nai are quite typical. Cf. Homer’ s Iliad, 1, 86, “For no one by Apollo (ou ma gar Apollona) shall lay hands on you.” Moses swore by saying, “I witness by heaven and earth” (Deuteronomy 4:26). Again the preposition kata with the genitive is frequent: “I swore by myself (kata kemautou’)” (Genesis 22:16). See “by the fear of his father” (Genesis 31:53); “by thyself” (Exodus 32:23); “by thy throne” (Judges 1:12); and compare Amos 4:2; Isaiah 62:8; Jeremiah 28:51.

The other typical construction is to follow the verb with the sim­ple dative (“by my name,” Deuteronomy 6:13 in some MSS.); 1 Kings 1:17. In some cases the preposition en or epi, “by” or “upon,” may appear.

The other LXX verb is horkizo, a causative which means “I make someone swear,” or “I adjure someone.” It may be followed by en (Nehemiah 13:25) or by kata (“I adjured him by God,” II Chron­icles 36:13). Once the expression “before the Lord” (enantion) oc­curs, Joshua 6:26. Oaths made simply “before God” or “in the sight of God” are common as are those made by the use of “as Je­hovah liveth” (1 Samuel 28:10).

The Oath with the Emphatic Future Negative: The most distinc­tive form of oath in Hebrew uses the particle em and the emphatic future negative. It is used either with the verb “swear” or by some form, of the asseverative particles, to indicate the oath form. The full condition appears in Psalms 7:4, “If I have requited evil, may I perish” (optative of wish). Without the conclusion (but with it understood) this construction was regularly used as an oath: “by myself I swear (if) righteousness shall (not) proceed out of my mouth (Isaiah 45:23). As illustrations of this frequent oath formula see 1 Samuel 28:10 1 Samuel 19:6 1 Samuel 14:11; 2 Samuel 19:7; Psalms 88:5 Psalms 94:11 Psalms 131(2):2; Ezekiel 4:14 Ezekiel 14:16 Ezekiel 20:3 Ezekiel 20:31 Ezekiel 33:27. It is this type of oath which is quoted in Hebrews 6:14 (quoted from Genesis 22 :l6f from the Hebrew, not the LXX) when the writer said that God swore by Himself saying, “Surely blessing I will bless thee.” The Greek (et men eulogon eulogeso’) is identi­cal with the O.T. passage in this construction. This is the oath form which is on the lips of Jesus in Mark 8:12, etc.

New Testament Oaths: The N.T. employs much the s£?ne con­structions. Omnumi (“I swear,” 26 times in the N.T.) is followed by the preposition (Revelation 10:5 f; cf. Matthew 5:34 f Matthew 23:20 ff), by the prep, kata (Hebrews 6:13 Hebrews 6:16). Horkizo and also a compound enorkizo occur as in the O.T. The usual con­struction, as in ordinary Greek and the O.T., is to follow the verb by the accusative of oaths, as “I adjure thee b^ God” (Mark 5:7); “by Jesus whom Paul preaches” (Acts 19:13). Paul is definitely using an oath then when he says, “I adjure thee by the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

This is quite in custom with Paul, who is frequent with strong asseverations in the name of God (II Corin­thians 1:23; Romans 1:9; Philippians 1 :S; 2 Timothy 4:1 ff). In 1 Corinthians 15:31 Paul uses one of the particles of oath (ne) with the accusative of oaths with the verb omntimx in ellipsis: (I swear) “by our glorying.” Compare also Acts 18:18 for Paul’ s taking a vow, and see Numbers 6:1-21 for its significance.

Jesus answered in the affirmative when he was ad­jured by the High Priest “by the living God” to tell whether he is the Christ (Mark 14:62). But just as significant is Jesus’ typical use of the ei with the future emphatic negative (as described above from the Old Testament and Hebrews 6:13 Hebrews 6:16) when he swore that no sign would be given (Mark 8:12). It is impossible to ab­solve Jesus and Paul from the use of oaths.

In the light of this, Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:34 and James’ repetition of it in James 5:12 need to be better understood. When Jesus said, “Swear not at all, neither by . . .” He should not be understood as forbidding oaths absolutely. It should be noted that “swear not at all” is not followed by a period, but by a series of negatives introduced by the particle mete . This particle “divides the negative item into its component parts” (Arndt and Gingrich). That is, as Professor T. W.

McGarvey pointed out in his New Testament Commentary on Matthew and Mark (com­ment on Matthew 5:34 f), “the universal prohibition … is dis­tributed by the specification of these four forms of oaths, and is therefore most strictly interpreted as including only such oaths.” Thus the actual words of Jesus forbid only oaths taken “by heaven,” “by earth,” “by Jerusalem,” or “by the head.” To take a parallel example, when Jesus said to the apostles, “take nothing with you,” he did not give the command absolutely. He followed it as in Mat­thew 5:34 with a list of specifics all introduced by the same parti­cle mete: “Take nothing with you, neither staves (nor script, nor staff), nor bread, nor money, nor two coats.” Nothing is prohib­ited except the specifics included in the prohibitions. It is quite obvious even that one coat is authorized. In Matthew 5:34 it is quite significant that oaths bearing God’ s name are not included in the distributed specifications given. Hence, oaths of this type are not to be thought as prohibited.

What Jesus is condemning in Matthew 23:16 is the type used by the Pharisees when they avoided the name of God and used the lesser oaths so that they would not be bound to keep their oaths. This made these oaths mere profanity.

One might ask, “If Jesus is then reaffirming the O.T. principles that all oaths must be kept strictly, what is the difference in the teaching of Jesus and that of ‘olden times’ which he was contrast­ing?” The difference is that under the terms of the Law an oath “by heaven,” etc., (as Moses used in Deuteronomy 4:31) or any other oath not using God’ s name, would have to be kept or else the swearer brought under charge of profanity or of forswearing himself. But since these oaths lent themselves to profanity in the way they were used in ordinary conversation, Jesus advised against any use of this type of oath. This is equivalent to teaching that all oaths should be avoided except those in solemn vows and in civil and religious situations and that these should be taken in the name of God and not in a lesser name.SECTION NINE THE IN ILLNESS AND SINJas_5:13-20PRAYER AND SINGINGJas_5:13 Most commentators see the final section of the epistle as a series of admonitions without much, if any, connection or general theme. Most see no connection with this section and the previous one. It seems to this writer that a close study shows that the theme of ill­ness and the issues growing out of it serve as a central idea in the whole section. James begins in James 5:13 with the question about suffering. The cheerfulness and singing of praise are simply in con­trast to show that one should do naturally what his circumstances lead him to do. From this he turns to a specific kind of suffering — illness— and instructs the ill to call for the elders and let them pray for the sick (James 5:14).

In connection with this he mentions the possibility that the sick may be a sinner or backslider and promises forgiveness upon confession of sins, with the bodily heal­ing following (James 5:15-16). Then there is the section promising that prayer has power, illustrated by the example of Elijah (James 5:16-18). The last section seems to pick up the thread of the sinner in the previous verses and to encourage the faithful to seek the restitution of the erring one (James 5:19-20). The whole section is a fitting climax to the previous section on the Christian’ s attitude in the wrongs he suffers.

James 5:13 —Is any among you suffering?—The verb here is somewhat more general than disease and illness. In its use elsewhere it may refer to suffering hardship, e. g., “unto bonds” (2 Timothy 2:9) and the hardships of evangelistic life (2 Timothy 2:3 2 Timothy 4:5). James is repeating the same word used in James 5:10 when he mentioned the “suffering and patience of the prophets.” This verse, then, is a bridge between the difficulties mentioned before (in which the readers are admonished to patience and to forbearing of murmur­ing and swearing) and the more specific mention of illness, which is the subject beginning with James 5:14. let him pray.— In trouble prayer is the correct answer or solu­tion to the problem. James is not thinking of prayers for vengeance. In James 1:2 the reader is admonished to treat trials as joy because they work patience. Wisdom in such trials is to be sought (James 1:5) by prayer.

In James 5:7 they are to be borne with patience. The idea of prayer runs throughout the section (James 5:13-20). Prayer is the outpour­ing of the righteous heart to the father whom it trusts. “God is our refuge, a very present help in trouble” (Psalms 46:1). The faith­ful are assured that the ears of God are attuned to their requests (1 Peter 3:12). “Trust in him at all times, ye people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us” (Psalms 62:8). Jesus taught that God hears our prayers as a loving father who will give his son what is good for him (Matthew 7:9-11). Praying in faith and in resignation that God’ s will be done will enable us to overcome and stand up under all difficulty and be better in the end for the trouble (Hebrews 12:12-13).

It will also secure for us God’ s help in trouble; God answers prayer (James 5:16).

James seems to be speaking of general situations, and it is likely that he is speaking particularly of private prayers rather than public ones. He is talking of the Christian’s response to his dif­ficulties. The same is true of the following injunction to - sing praise. In neither case is he thinking of corporate or congregational singing or praying. Of course, when trouble falls upon a group or one member of a group, it is quite in order to call for prayer by the church (Acts 12:12). But James is thinking of what one does when in trouble or conversely when he is happy. In the following verses illness leads to prayer at least semipublic when the elders are called to pray for the sick.

James 5:13 —Is any cheerful?—“Cheerful” is better than the King James “merry,” which is more the outward show than the inward cheer and joy. The verb occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only of Paul’ s ef­forts to cheer up his companions in the storm on the voyage to Rome (Acts 27:22 Acts 27:25). The adjective occurs similarly in Acts 27:36. This sentence seems to be put here in contrast to the gener­al subject. It is just as we would say, “Pray when you are in trouble; sing when you are happy.” Both are natural attitudes for different circumstances of life. Together they are logical and proper re­sponses to changing moods and circumstances.

James 5:13 —let him sing praise.—A Christian can sing even in the midst of adversities (Acts 16:25). But this is because he receives trials with joy knowing that they work stedfastness (l:2ff). This is not the ordinary response to trouble. Rather, James thinks that under ordinary conditions singing is the natural expression of cheerful­ness.

The Greek word (psalleto) is a present imperative (“be sing­ing”) of the verb psallo. Though James is not thinking primarily of church or congregational singing here, the meaning of the verb is important, since it is the same verb used by Paul in injunctions regarding congregational singing (1 Corinthians 14:15 and prob­ably Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16).

All uses of psallo in the New Testament are absolute uses (intran­sitive verbs without an object expressed); nothing in the context indicates a meaning other than that of vocal music. A number of considerations have led practically all commentators, lexicogra­phers, and translators to say that in the New Testament the word simply means to “sing praise”: (1) The fact that there was a grow­ing tendency in secular Greek to use the verb in an intransitive sense with its figurative and metaphorical meaning of “singing” (derived probably from the figurative idea of striking the vocal cords or the “strings” of the heart); (2) the Septuagint usage where the predominant use was of the verb in the absolute to mean “sing,” often occurring with words meaning “to sing” in the He­brew parallel; (3) the strong opposition in the early church (even in the stage where it was still largely a Greek-speaking church) to the use of instrumental or mechanical music. This took such a violent form that it led the Greek commentators to allegorize even the significance of the references to instrumental music in the Old Testament. (This is most fully documented in Johannes Quasten’ s book, Musik und Gesang in den Kulten der hetdnischen Antike und christlichen Fruehzeit, Munster, 1930.)

It is in order here to quote some of the opinions of the leading commentators with reference (not to the Classical, etc.) to the meaning of the New Testament usage: Ropes, “The word does not necessarily imply the use of an instrument.” Knowling, “In the N.T. the same verb is used of singing hymns, of celebrating the praise of God, Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19 (cf. Judges 5:3).” Mayor, “We find it also used of singing with the voice and with the heart, Ephesians 5:19; 1 Corinthians 14:15.” Ross, “The verb used here . . . means, first, to twang the strings of a harp or some other musical instrument, then, to sing to the accompaniment of the harp, and, then, simply to sing the praises of God in song.” (All these in comment on James 5:13)

Of the lexicons, Thayer is typical: “ In the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song, Jas. v. 13 (R. V. sing praise)” ; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, “properly =’ play on a harp,’ but in the N.T., as in James 5:13, = ’ sing a hymn.’ ”

These are typical of many judgments of the world’ s best scholars showing that, whatever the word may have meant at other times, in such passages as these in the New Testament the word simply means “to sing.”

These are important facts. There is practically unanimous judg­ment that the primitive church did not use mechanical instruments in its worship. There is no authority for its use in the worship of God under the Christian dispensation. The restored church, a church that claims apostolic sanction for its worship, cannot use such instruments. ILLNESS AND THE OF PRAYERJas_5:14-18 In this section James deals specifically with the condition of illness. The general admonition to seek help by prayer in time of trouble is made more specific in instructions regarding illness or disease. A specific kind of prayer, in a particular circumstance, is ordered for those in sickness. It is worthy of note at the outset that the commentators are sharply divided over whether the anoint­ing, prayer, and healing are (1) the use of ordinary medicinal means with the imploring of divine aid through the leaders of the church as righteous men or (2) the use of the miraculous gift of healing. It is the conclusion of this commentator (though he leans to the second view) that at this stage it is not possible to know def­initely which of these positions is correct, since the language and historical circumstances will fit both interpretations. In the com­ment each position will be examined and its implication for the church today will be touched on. The use of the passage both in modern divine healing cults and also in the Roman Catholic prac­tice of Extreme Unction will be touched on.

James 5:14 —Is any among you sick?—The general terms for “suffering” or “trouble” in James 5:10 and James 5:13 lead naturally to the more specific words for suffering bodily ailments. The verb here means to “be without strength” and is used of weakness of various kinds. But the most common meaning is that of illness. The participle used as a substantive is one of the principal words for “the sick person” . The context makes clear that this is the specific meaning of the word here. Compare the comment on verse 15 and note the added complications of the sick man’ s sins. If the sickness were merely spiritual, as some claim, that element would not need to be mentioned.

James 5:14 —let him call for the elders of the church;—The “church” here seems to be the local church or congregation.1 In James 2:2 the writer had used the Jewish term “synagogue” to designate the meeting of the congregation. The church was thought of from the universal point of view as an organism, made up of its many parts, and under this figure it was called “the church” (ekklesia, Ephe­sians 1:23; Colossians 1:18; Matthew 16:18). But the more com­mon use, and the one more closely related to the history of the word (cf. Acts 19:39), was to designate the local worshipping congregation or community. Thus the local groups of disciples were gathered into autonomous groups, just as the Jews had been in synagogues before them. There is no use of the word for church in the N.T. comparable to the modern denominational use of the term.

All Christians were members of the body of Christ, having been baptized into it (1 Corinthians 10:13). They had obeyed the gospel and had been added together in that body or the church (Acts 2:47, RV). All who belonged thus to the body of Christ belonged by virtue of that fact to the church universal and also to local churches wherever they were. There were no differing denominations or parties. Indeed, the N.T. emphasizes the unity of the body in a way to indicate that such would be a sin (Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Galatians 5:19-20). These local churches had their rulers or managers.

Thus we read of the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17 Acts 20:28), of the bishops at Philippi (Philippians 1:1), of “elders in every church’’ (Acts 14:23), and “elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). It is generally conceded from the interchanging of the terms involved in passages like Titus l:5ff; Acts 20:17 Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5 :iff that the words “elder,” “bishop (over­seer),” and “pastor” were not different, but were interchangeable designations. It was the elders of these churches that James says should be called for in the case of sickness. 1As opposed to K. L. Schmidt, The Church (Bible Key Words) (London: Black, 1950), p. 23, who thinks James means elders of the Christian community as a whole, “to which the Epistle is addressed.” But the N.T. knows nothing of the office of an elder over the community as a whole. As in the synagogues, elders were officers in local churches (Acts 14:23). Besides, the church as a whole existed in local communities or assemblies.NOTE ON THE ELDERSIn the modern confusion of church government it is useful to inquire further about these elders and who they were. The term “elder” was obviously taken over from the Jewish synagogues, where the elder was a local member of the community.

He was not a Rabbi or a member of any professional group. Nor are elders of churches in the N.T. ever conceived of as ministers or preachers. They were “pastors” because they cared for the flock, but they did not serve at all in the sense of a local evangelist or preacher. They were chosen from the congregation for their high moral reputa­tion, their leadership, and their loyalty to the teaching of Christ. See I Timothy 3:iff and Titus l:6ff, where their qualifications are listed.

That the term “elder” is interchangeable with “bishop” or “overseer” (from episkopos , a superintendent or overseer), and “pastor” or “shepherd” is shown by the following: In Acts 20:17 Paul is said to have called for the “elders” from Ephesus; he tells these same men that they are made “overseers” of the church and are to “shep­herd” the flock (verse 28, see NEB). In I Peter 5:1 the elders are exhorted; they are told to “exercise the oversight” (Codex A, the Common Text, Latin and Syriac) and to “shepherd the flock” (verse 2). In Titus 1:5 and 7 “elders” and “bishops” are used in­terchangeably.

Despite the brilliant effort of the great Anglican scholar J. B. Lightfoot in his excursus on the Ministry in his commentary on Philippians (later published separately with additions) and those who have followed in his thinking, the monarchal bishopric, which developed in the early centuries of the church (where elder and bishop were distinguished and where there was only one bishop to a church or to a number of churches) cannot be regarded as a scriptural form of church government. It developed too late and arose out of the desire to build up a governing body for the church to counteract the threat of Gnosticism. Lightfoot saw the germ for it in the figure of James in the Jerusalem church and in the evan­gelistic helpers of the Apostle Paul such as Timothy and Titus. But though these may have served as the analogy for the develop­ment of the reigning bishop, there was no scriptural sanction for their doing so.

Furthermore, though Lightfoot contends that the system developed in areas of residence of the last Apostles of Christ to die, there is no proof that they gave their sanction to the system. How early the system actually gained a foothold is tied up in the difficult question of whether the Ignatian epistles present an already settled state of bishop rule or whether Ignatius was merely trying to foster such upon the churches. Lightfoot concedes that, if his argument is sound, there is no escape from the position that history sanctions the logical development of the system into the Pope. His only counter to this is that the Pope should not be a bad Pope! We reject the contention that there is authoritative sanction in the history of the church. In this way every innovation which has crept into the church can gain sanction.

Not the historic episcopacy, but a presbytery, is the form of government grounded upon the New Testament. Yet this pres­bytery is not that of an eldership over a whole city or region of congregations, but a board of elders ruling each local church. This is the only conclusion which will fit all the data given in the New Testament (e. g., Acts 14:23). What is seen is that a group of men from among the congregation itself was chosen and appointed to lead and oversee the work of the church and to watch in behalf of the souls of the saints (Hebrews 11:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; and compare 1 Timothy 3:5 1 Timothy 5:17; Acts 11:30 Acts 15:2).

It is thus the conclusion of this writer that the elders of the New Testament congregations were what in modern religious language would be called “lay members.” This means that they would be usually distinguished from the preaching or evangelistic ministry (though at times they might function also in that capacity, I Tim­othy 5:17). The qualifications laid down for them in Titus l:5ff and 1 Timothy 3 :lff are not therefore the qualifications for minis­terial candidates as they are usually treated in the* commentaries. No mention is ever made of “preaching” or “evangelism” in the qualifications and work of these elders. The churches of Christ around the world today are organized after the New Testament pattern. An eldership is selected from among the members of the congregation in light of the instructions laid down by the New Testament. An evangelist may labor with a congregation ruled over by such bishops, but he is not a part of the eldership unless so chosen to that office also. (For this the work of Timothy at Eph­esus is the main example.) The eldership of each local church, working with the appointment and consent of the local church, has the determining voice and responsibility for the community of God’ s people.

There is no ecclesiasticism or denominational oversight or authority. Each group is autonomous. At the same time, there is developed a strong sense of “brotherhood” and co­operation as in the early church.

With this understanding of the “elders” in the New Testament it can be seen that those called to pray for the sick were not what today would be called the preachers or ministers of the word of God.

James 5:14 —and let them pray over him,—Let the elders pray over him. Is this an example of ordinary prayer for recovery through natural means as David prayed for the recovery of his baby (2 Samuel 12), a prayer in which Christians prayed for something to happen in the providence of God (such as the prayer for Peter’ s deliverance from prison, Acts 12:12), or is this prayer in connection with miraculous healing (such as Jesus prayed before the raising of Lazarus, John 11:41, or as Peter prayed at Dorcas’ bed, Acts 9:40)? This depends upon a number of other factors in the inter­pretation of the passage before us. Certainty about the answer is probably not possible now.

Whether it is the concern of this passage or not, prayers for natural recovery in God’ s providence or for help and aid in other ways are scriptural. Paul prayed for recovery from his affliction (2 Corinthians 12 :iff); and, though he did not receive the answer in his way, he was strengthened to bear his trouble. The church made prayer for Peter (Acts 12:12). Hezekiah prayed to recover and God heard his prayer (2 Kings 20). Paul implies that he had prayed for Epaphroditus in his illness and that God had had mercy on both Paul and him so that he recovered (Philippians 2:25-27). Such prayers ought to be prayed with the attitude of “ God’ s will be done.’’ It goes without saying that such prayers ought to be accompanied with all the help of medical remedy.

James 5:14 —anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:— There were two common uses of anointing with oil. One was medicinal. The bodies of the sick were rubbed with olive oil (sometimes with that mixed with other ingredients). Instances of this are to be seen in the Good Samaritan’ s action (Luke 10:34) and Isaiah 1:6 and Jeremiah 8:22; 46:11.1 Thus whatever is the decision about the kind of healing involved here, the use of medicine in healing is ap­proved in the Bible (again in spite of the modern divine healing groups and the so-called Christian Scientists). Paul approved a medicinal use of a type of wine for Timothy’ s stomach and his frequent infirmities (1 Timothy 5:23).

The other use of oil in anointing was ceremonial. It was often used in the ritual of appointment (1 Samuel 16:13) and seemingly in cases of miraculous healing. When Jesus sent the disciples out to heal by His authority, oil was to be used: “And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (Mark 6:13). This was similar to the laying on of hands in cases of healing (Mark 1:41) or to the covering of the eyes of the man born blind with clay (John 9:6). All these were evidently symbolic, calling attention to the miracle and to the one doing it. Some of them were approved as having effect in healing (e. g., the covering with clay).

But as ordinary means of healing such things were not able to account for the results which were produced by the miracle which accompanied their use. Thus the ac­tivity called attention to the power of the miracle and of the one healing.

As in the case of the prayer mentioned above, it is impossible to say with certainty which of the uses of anointing James had in mind. Certainly in the context of their own activity at the time, the first readers of James knew which he meant. But that context is not known to us today. We can only say which is more probable and what the application for us would be in either case.

It seems to this writer that the healing was miraculous. We know that spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12 :iff, esp. verse 9) were bestowed upon the early church as a means of confirming the gospel in the infant state of the church (Mark 16:20; Acts 8:7 Acts 8:13). This was somewhat equal to the power of Jesus manifested to heal while on earth (John 14:12), which became one of the signs that He was sent from the Father, and yet which was often used in compassion upon the afflicted.

If the healing which James has in mind is miraculous, the oil was ceremonial; prayer was a part of the preparation both of the miracle worker and the onlookers (Matthew 17:21; John ll:4lf). The reason for the elders’ being called is not so apparent. But it is probably because (since the gifts were distributed by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, Acts 8:17 f Acts 19:6) when these gifts were im­parted, the elders would be the most likely to be selected to receive them. If this is the correct interpretation of the instruction of James, then the passage has no direct bearing on the practice of the church today. It is obvious both from practice and from the teaching of the scripture that such miraculous gifts did not outlast the apos­tolic age of the church. Notice the following (1) The reason for the gifts, the confirmation of the word (Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4; Acts 14:3), no longer obtains, since the word is fully given and confirmed. (2) The scriptures themselves teach that the gifts were to cease (1 Corinthians 13:8). (3) The means of the gifts being conferred argues for their discontinuance: consider the following quotation from Smith’ s Bible Dictionary : The miracles of the New Testament (setting aside those wrought by Christ Himself) appear tQ have been worked by a power conferred upon particular persons according to a regular law, in virtue of which that power was ordinarily transmitted from one person to another, and the only persons privileged thus to trans­mit that power were the Apostles. The only exceptions to this rule were (1.) the Apostles themselves, and (2.) the family of Cornelius, who were the first-fruits of the Gentiles. In all other cases, miraculous gifts were con­ferred only by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. By this arrangement, it is evident that a provision was made for the total ceasing of that miraculous dispensation within a limited period: because, on the death of the last of the Apostles, the ordinary channels would be all stopped through which such gifts were transmitted in the church.

(4) Church History confirms this conclusion, for efforts to revive such gifts in the post-apostolic church (e. g. ,the Montanists) were considered heresies. (5) Modern practice confirms it, because the “healings” performed in the cult services today are never the kind that remoye doubt, such as lost limbs, sight recovered of those born blind, or the raising of the dead.

However, if the healing was medicinal and providential, then the anointing served to carry out the healing, prayer was a plea for God’ s providential help, and the reason for calling for the elders was that such men were leaders and men of holy reputation (1 Timothy 3:7) and their prayers would be valuable as righteous men (verse 16).

Lenski makes a strong argument for the view that the healing was natural since the phrase “anoint with oil” in Greek is the verb and the cognate (aleipho), rather than the verb ordinarily rendered “anoint” (chio). He contends that ritualistic or “sacred” anointings with oil would always use the other verb. But in Mark 6:13, which is certainly miraculous healing, the text has aleipho. Lampe’ s Patristic Greek Lexicon shows that the verb aleipho is used rather interchangeably with the other verb in the early church. So no such clear distinction as this can be made in the verbs.

Since it is clearly demonstrated from the New Testament that such miraculous aid existed in the church of that age and since this healing would be more certain to offer aid to the sick, it would seem that it might be expected that the instruction of James con­cerns the miraculous healings. It is the “prayer of faith” (not the anointing) in verse 15 which promises the healing. The expression “in the name of the Lord” would seem to be more understandable by this interpretation. As Professor J. W. McGarvey once remarked:. . . every reader of the New Testament should know that this (James 5:13) was written when many elders of churches possessed the miraculous power of heal­ing, which was imparted to them by the imposition of the hands of an apostle. To argue from this that elders of the church, or anybody else, can do the same thing in the present day, is to leave out of view the one thing that enabled them to do it then; that is, the imposition of apostolic hands with prayer for this gift. (The Christian Standard, Oct. 8, 1898, quoted in Biblical Criticism, pp. 349f.)This passage cannot be appealed to, at any rate, by the sects which teach modern divine healing, unless they can prove that these mi­raculous gifts were to continue beyond the apostolic age. This is positively denied. On the whole question of modern divine healing see the follow­ing bibliography:

Waymon D. Miller, Modern Divine Healing, Rosemead, Calif., Old Paths Book Club, 1956. Nichols-Weaver Debate, Nashville, Tennessee, Gospel Advo­cate Co., 1944. G. K. Wallace, “What is Wrong with Modern Divine Healing?” in What is Wrong?, Fort Worth, Campbell-Caskey Pub. Co., 1950, pp. 38-68. NOTE ON EXTREME UNCTIONThe Roman Catholic Church appeals to James 5:14 to support the doctrine of Extreme Unction (See James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, p. 384). In this doctrine the anointing is considered a sacrament conveying spiritual grace (assuring pardon of unforgiven sins) to the sick in danger of death. The holy oil is applied by a priest to the organs of sense and accompanied by a recital of prayers.

The doctrine grew out of the attempt to retain in the church what had been a miraculous power (1 Corinthians 12:8-9 1 Corinthians 12:28) after the meaning of that power as a confirmation of the early preach­ing had been lost. (This is paralleled by attempts such as that of modern “holiness” groups to revive the speaking with tongues, a “sign to unbelievers” in the New Testament, as in 1 Corinthians 14:22, when they have lost sight of its purpose.) See Irenaeus, v. 6; Tertullian, de Baptism, c. 10; Eusebius, E. H., 5:7; Origen, Homil. ii on Leviticus; Chrysostom, Book iii, de Sacred. Through the years the practice of anointing with a view to recovery of the sick (as it continued in the Eastern Church, See Knowling’ s note) was lost as the anointing began to be associated with the giving of the Viat­icum, the sacrament providing for the final journey to the soul. In the Council of Florence (1438 A.D.) and then in the Council of Trent (1551 A.D.) it was directed that the anointing should take place only where recovery is not to be looked for (“qui tarn peri- culose decumbunt ut in exitu vitae constituti videantur.” Session 14). From this the anointing is called “Extreme Unction,” and it is regarded as a sacrament conveying grace and forgiveness of sins to the departing soul.

The Council of Trent declared that such a doctrine was “im­plied by Mark, and commended and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.” But many Roman Catholic com­mentators themselves have said that James 5:14 does not refer to such a practice. Cardinal Cajetanus (Luther’ s opponent) is quoted (Wordsworth), “These words are not spoken of the sacramental anointing of Extreme Unction,” See Beyschlag ad loc (revision of Huther in Meyer’s, 1897) and the useful note in Mayor. F. W. Farrar’ s words are quite true: “Neither for extreme unction, nor for sacramental confession, nor for sacerdotal absolution, nor for fanatical extravagance, does this passage afford the slightest sanc­tion.” (The Early Days of Christianity, p. 348).

The Roman Catholic position is thus seen to be in error in two specific points. First, the identification of the “elders” with the Catholic priests is erroneous. Second, the changed purpose shows how completely lacking are James’ words from supporting the practice. James’ anointing envisioned and promised recovery from bodily ailments as its purpose, while the substitute is used only when death is seen as sure and for the sole purpose of giving spir­itual grace.

James 5:14 —in the name of the Lord:— The anointing is to be done in His name. This means that at the time of the anointing the name of Jesus is to be pronounced, asserting that the anointing is done in that name. Thus Peter said to the lame man (Acts 3:6), “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” This is certainly the meaning if the anointing is miraculous. If otherwise, the use of medicine in Jesus’ name would probably signify that it is to be used with a prayer in the name of Jesus that it might be effective. The phrase is much more understandable here in the light of miracu­lous healing.

James 5:15 —and the prayer of faith—The faith is probably that of both the one calling for the elders and those praying, but especially of the elders, as they are the ones doing the praying. James has taught that when we pray we must believe that our prayer will be an­swered (1:6). Jesus told the disciples that they failed to heal be­cause of a lack of faith (Matthew 17:20). Whatever prayer is prayed, it must be with trust that God can and will, in accordance with His will and our good, give us what we ask for. The qualifi­cation of faith on the part of the one being healed does not mean that a miracle could not be performed if the one being healed had no faith. This excuse is often seized upon by the modern faith healer to excuse his failure.

Jesus would not cast pearls before swine, and he often would do no mighty work in a region of unbe­lief. But then again both Jesus and the disciples often worked miracles where no faith was involved, such as Peter’ s healing the lame man (Acts 3). That man was ignorant of what was about to take place; he looked expecting to receive an alms. The man born blind did not even know who Jesus was “that he might believe’’ (John 9:36). Jesus raised the dead, as did Peter (Acts 9:36ff).

James 5:15 —shall save him that is sick,—“Save” here means “heal” and ought to be so translated. Forgiveness of sins is mentioned later. This is a frequent meaning of the verb (Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48; Acts 14:9). James promises that prayer will cause the sick one who has been anointed to be healed. The word for “sick” here means “wasted away, or ill” ; it is from an earlier usage that signified “fatigued.” The word here argues strongly that this is physical or bodily sickness which James has in mind and not spiritual illness as some claim.

Is the promise of healing invariable? God’ s promises are always conditional. Even in the age of miracles many in the church were not healed. Paul was not (II Corinthians 12:7), nor was Trophi­mus (II Timothy 4:20); Timothy, Paul’ s helper, was to take medicine for his bodily ailment. Those who claim that the gift of heal­ing is an integral part of the atonement of Christ and a part of the gospel to be preached to all must overlook such passages, as well as the fact that the original purpose of such miracles was as a ’’ sign for unbelievers.” One condition is mentioned in the next verse— the removal of sin.

James 5:15 —and the Lord shall raise him up;—’’ Lord” refers to Jesus Christ, the one in whose name the anointing is done. The raising is from the sick bed, the effect of the cure just mentioned. Spiritual heal­ing or forgiveness is introduced in the next clause and is condi­tional. Hence it is wrong to think of the “raising” here as the res­urrection.

James 5:15 —and if he have committed sins,—The condition is one of possi­bility or probability . This construction is often used in expressing conditions which may not be known to be true or false, but which are known to be pos­sible.1 The perfect tense is used for the present state which is the result of past action; hence, here it is implied that the ill member may also be a backslider or one who has sins which he has not cor­rected. James is not taking the stance of the many Jews who taught that all sickness is caused by sin. Jesus had refuted this contention that calamity is the penalty for sin (Luke 13 :lff; John 9:1-3). It is doubtless true that this belief colored Jewish think­ing, and it is recognized even in our modern society that some dis­ease is the result of sinful living, either directly or indirectly. But even this need not be what James had in mind.

Sickness will often make men who are sinful more conscious of their spiritual condi­tion. Illness has been the turning point of many lives. Thus if the one calling for the elders turns out to be a sinner, he should be helped to realize that to confess his sins and remove them is a con­dition of his being healed. Knowling is right in saying that it is a quite natural thing in almost all prayers for bodily strength to consider the mental and spiritual condition of the patient and to ask forgiveness and spiritual strengthening at the same time.

James 5:15 —it shall be forgiven him.—The verb is impersonal: “It shall be remitted for him.” The same sort of impersonal construction oc­curs in Matthew 12:32 of the forgiveness of the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This forgiveness is conditional as always. The condition is the subject of the next clause— confession.

James 5:16 —Confess therefore your sins one to another,—The “therefore” does not occur in all MSS., but it is adopted by Westcott-Hort and Nestle. It is almost certainly genuine. This is important, as it serves to connect the thought. The sense is: “For this reason confess your sins.” If the sick man is a sinner, he may be forgiven; and to make this a realization the condition of forgiveness, which is confession (and which presumes repentance), is admonished. The principle of mutual confession of sins is wider than the pri­mary context of this passage (I John l:7f); nevertheless this is the specific application of the reference. The verse is connected with the forgiveness of the sick, with whom the whole section is con­cerned.

The word “confess” refers to an open admission of a fact — here a wrongdoing. John the Baptist “confessed and did not deny” (John 1:20). James uses a present imperative of continuous action: “Be in the practice of confessing your sins to one another.” We are not to wait until we are ill to do so. As Huther says, “From the special order James infers a general injunction, in which the intervening thought is to be conceived that the sick man confessed his sins to the presbyters for the purpose of their intercession; Christians generally are to practice the same duty of confession toward each other.” Not merely “faults” (as in the King James) but “sins” are to be confessed. The reading “fault” is a late inferior reading adopted in the King James. James repeats the same word of the previous verse, “if he have committed sins.”

“One to another” does not refer to confession to a person of sins committed against him; though, if one is guilty of such, they ought to be confessed and made right. But James is thinking of unburdening our lives to each other (and here to the elders in particular) at such times as this, in order that we may intercede for one another. This ought to be a general practice. In view of the general nature of the rule as stated, it should be emphasized that the verse does not limit the confession to the eld­ers. Any brother may be of help to another in bearing the burden of his trespass (Galatians 6:1). This may, as is often done, be be­fore the whole church.

In fact, if the sin is of such a nature that the whole church is affected, the confession should be before the congregation. But the principle is much more general than this.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Auricular Confession has no support from this passage. In the first place, “elders” here does not refer to a priestly set of workers.1 Elders here are not given power to absolve a sinner or to set conditions on which he may be forgiven. The only conditions of forgiveness are those laid down in the gospel of confession and repentance (which implies resti­tution), Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:7-9. The confession is for intercession and then for healing and is not for absolvement. Finally, “to one another” means that any brother chosen may rightly hear the con­fession and make intercession. “Ye who are spiritual, restore such a one” (Galatians 6 :lff).

Though the English word “priest” is derived etymologically from the Greek presbyteros “elder” ), the specific meaning to which this term answers is not presbyteros, but hiereus (as in Acts 4:1). Presbyteros means “an older man” and this is not the meaning of the English term “priest.” In the N. T. there is a universal priesthood of all believers. All Christians making up the temple of God are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6 Revelation 5:10). The concept of a clerical priesthood separated from the common members of God’ s people for the administering of ordinance and the preaching of the Word is not found in the N. T.James 5:16 —and pray one for another,—Pray “in behalf of one another” as well as “confess to one another.” Simon asked Peter to pray for him that he not perish with his money (Acts 8:24).

James 5:16 —that ye may be healed.—This returns to the main subject of bodily healing. For the one who is ill and also in sin, the sin stands between him and being healed. If he is willing to confess his sin and seek forgiveness, the elders may pray for him as they were called to do. The anointing and praying would then be in order. Verse 15 promised that the prayer would be effective.

James 5:16 —The supplication of a righteous man—The noun “supplication” means “entreaty.” It is petition, the begging or imploring of God for what one desires. It is generally used of prayer, but of a par­ticular kind of prayer— an earnest entreaty for something for which one longs. It is not necessarily selfish to let God know our wants so long as we are sincere and our desires are not evil (James 4:3). Here James is encouraging prayer for recovery from sickness and for another’ s sins. Christians may pray for many things. What is generally worth a Christian’ s time and efforts surely is worth his prayers.

“The righteous man’’ in this passage and possibly in verse 6 is the godly or upright man, the one endeavoring to please God in life, though suffering persecution. The word is a virtual synonym of “a Christian” as opposed to those that are evil and disobedient (Matthew 13:43 Matthew 13:49; see Matthew 25:37 Matthew 25:46). The two groups are often contrasted in the epistles: 1 Peter 3:12 1 Peter 4:15; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 22:11. In 1 Timothy 2:8 the men who can lift up holy hands are to pray. Lenski attempts to attribute the special use of “one to whom righteousness is imputed by the blood of Christ” in the particular Pauline sense. But it is not necessary to find this meaning in every occurrence of the word in the New Testament.

Jesus often used the word in its traditional sense. So did even Paul himself: Romans 9:30; Ephesians 6:14; Philippians 1:11; II Corin­thians 11:15; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:22. This also seems to be the meaning in the other passages where James used it (1:20; 3:18). Many passages in both Old and New Testaments express the idea that God listens to the man who walks in His ways: Psalms 34:12 ff (quoted in 1 Peter 3:10 ff); Genesis 18:23-32; John 9:31; Proverbs 15:29 Proverbs 28:9; Psalms 66:18.

James 5:16 —availeth much—This is a very strong expression. The verb means to “have strength,” to “be powerful or mighty,” and then to “prevail, to win out” . Here the meaning is something like “is able to do much” (Arndt and Gingrich). For an illustration James tells what Elijah’ s prayer did. Compare Romans 3:2, “Profit much in every way.”

James 5:16 —in its working.—The verb energeo as an intransitive verb (as in this passage) means to “work, be at work, operate, be effective” (Arndt and Gingrich). Because the word has caused no little dif­ficulty, it is well to study the other uses of it. In Philippians 2:13 it is used as an infinitive like a noun: “It is God who worketh in you both to will and to work.” Here the infinitives mean “willingness” and “action.” It is used as a finite verb: Matthew 14:2 = Mark 6:14, “(John’ s) powers are working in him (Christ)” ; Romans 7:5, “Passions were working in our members to produce the fruit death” ; 2 Corinthians 4:12, “Death is working in us” ; I Thessalo- nians 2:13, “(the word) which also works in you who believe” ; 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.” It also is used as a substantive (participle) with the arti­cle, “The one working in both Peter and me” (Paul).

But more in point are the other passages where it is used as a participle with an adjectival or modifying force: Ephesians 2:2, “the ruler of the powers of the air, the spirit working in the sons of disobedience” ; 2 Corinthians 1:6, “Your comfort working in the patience of the same sufferings which we suffer” ; Ephesians 3:20, “according to the power working (operative, effective) in us” ; Colossians 1:29, “(the perfect man in Christ) toward which I also labor, striving according to his working (energeian, a noun) working (the participial adjective) mightily in me” ; and Galatians 5:6, “faith working through love.”

In the light of these parallels James means that a prayer which is “working, operative, or doing” is the prayer which is very strong or prevailing with God. Lenski’ s translation is “A right­eous one’ s petition avails a great deal when putting forth its energy.” “Effectual” is thus a proper translation as it keeps the ad­jectival force; “in its working,” however, does not do this. The petition of a righteous man avails when it is doing its work, which is petitioning, pleading, begging. The action of prayer must be earnestly and persistently engaged in. God does not want to inter­pret our own desires and thoughts; he wants us to express them. Prayer is often an unused asset.

This is importunity. Consider the cases of the persistent friend (Luke 11:5-8), the importunate wid­ow (Luke 18:1-8), and the imploring Syro-Canaanitish mother (Matthew 15:21-28). They would not take “no” for an answer. God is touched when the petitions of a righteous man are going on persistently, when they are doing their work. (Clark is not success­ful [Journal of Biblical Literature, 1935, Vol. 54, pp. 93ff] in mak­ing the meaning of the verb passive.)

The subject of the efficacy of prayer in raising the sick leads to an illustration of the power of prayer, that of Elijah’ s prayer that began and ended the great drought in Israel in Ahab’ s time (1 Kings 17). It is supposed by Mayor that James may have turned to Elijah’ s example by the natural connection between praying for the recovery of the sick and the prophet who raised the son of the widow of Zarephath by prayer (1 Kings 17:17). Even if this is true, he still takes another and perhaps more dramatic illustration of this prophet’ s prayer life. Elijah’ s example was well impressed upon the Jewish mind. Jesus mentioned his miracle on the son of the widow and spoke of the same amount of time lapsed in the drought (Luke 4:25).

James 5:17 —a man of like passions with us,—The word means of similar feelings or sensations. Cf. Acts 14:15, where Paul asserts to the people of Lystra that he and Barnabas were men of like passions with them— not gods. Elijah had the same kind of feelings, cir­cumstances, and experiences as we. The idea is that basically he was no different from us. If God answered his prayer, why not ours?

But why this statement? Because the Jews of the intertestamental period developed an exaggerated opinion of Elijah, making him a mysterious heavenly figure, as they did Enoch and Melchizedek. Peter had to correct Cornelius by telling him that he was also a man (Acts 10:26). Hebrews in much the same way insists that Jesus was “made like unto his brethren” (2:17). If it is thought that Elijah was some sort of extraordinary figure, then his prayer might be different from ours. The same power of prayer is within the reach of the church, since we are the same kind of creatures that Elijah was.

James 5:17 —and he prayed fervently—Literally, “he prayed with prayer.” This is a Hebraism. The construction is emphatic, suggesting in­tensity or earnestness. There are many examples of the effect of this mode of thinking and speaking on the writers of the N.T. Compare ’’ desired with desire” (Luke 22:15) and ’’ charge with charging ’ (Acts 5:28). The ASV has therefore correctly caught the thought in its “fervently.” The reluctance of some writers (e.g., Lenski) to admit of Hebraisms in the N.T. is a result of the con­troversy over Deissmann’ s contention that the N.T. is to be under­stood primarily from the point of view of secular Greek of the first century. But Deissmann went too far.

It is quite natural that the Greek learned by people through their reading the Greek Bible (the Septuagint) should be reflected in their speech or be imitated. It would have been strange if this were not true. James 5:17 —that it might not rain;—Since there is no mention of this prayer in the Old Testament, many have charged that James made it up. Elijah only declared that there would be no dew or rain in Israel except by his word (I Kings 17:11), according to our records. But Jesus implied the same fact about him (Luke 4:25). If it was not to rain except by his word, then he must have consulted God about the fact and have known that his prayer would be answered. If James, then, knew the length of the drought, it would be a simple deduction that Elijah had continued his prayer over this time until God was ready once more to send him to Ahab with the promise that rain would come. James was an inspired man, and revelation is through inspiration. We do not have to know the source of James’ information to believe that he knew what he said.

James 5:17 —and it rained not on earth for three years and six months.—Again it is charged that the O.T. does not say this. So it does not. But that proves nothing. There is nothing in the O.T. to contra­dict it. I Kings 18:1 says that in the third year Elijah was told to go show himself to Ahab. But this is the third year from what? The Bible does not say that it was only in the third year of the drought. Nor does Kings say how long it was from then until the drought was broken. So the O.T. does not prove James wrong.

James 5:18 —And he prayed again;—The story of this prayer and its re­sults is told in detail in the story of the contest on Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:20-45). After Elijah began praying, he prayed seven times before the servant reported a small cloud coming up over the sea. After this “the heavens grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain” (I Kings 18:45).

Did Elijah’s prayers which were answered in the withholding and sending of rain result in miracles, and may we expect the same? Is this what James is saying in stressing that Elijah was like us? In a sense, the result was unnatural and miraculous. But it may be noted that, when the rain came, it came in the natural way — through clouds, which had hitherto not arisen. Strictly speak­ing, the answer was providential (if we are to make a strict dis­tinction). All answer to prayers need not be thought of as miracle.

In Bible times God answered some prayers for healing with a miracle— the gift of healing. But the prayer of faith in connection with the physician may help to heal; the modern physicians say so themselves. The prayer of forgiveness in the same context did not require miraculous manifestation. The point of compari­son is that, whether prayer is answered in the same way as Elijah’ s was answered or not, since we are the same kind of creatures, God can and will hear and answer our prayers. ERRING Jas_5:19-20 In this final section James is still thinking of praying for the erring brother. In verse 15 he has mentioned the forgiveness of sins which the sick brother may have in his life.

The brother’ s healing will depend upon his confession. But the touching of such a brother and turning him from his way may be a difficult task. James teaches the spiritual what a favor one does another when he is the instru­ment of leading that brother to be rid of his sins. With so many err­ing and backsliding brethren in the churches, this is a lesson for all to ponder.

James 5:19 —My brethren,—Five times in the admonitions of this chapter James addresses his readers affectionately as “brethren.” He is in deep earnest, as we ought to be, over the lost.

James is thinking of the sinning Christian, as in James 5:15-16. There he used the perfect tense of people who were in a state of sin as a result of past actions. He is thinking of a backslider or of one who may be still attending services, but who is known to be in a dan­gerous state of fault. Many brethren have quit the church after hav­ing been overtaken in a trespass (Galatians 6 :iff). Serious illness and the admonition and pleading of brethren have often rescued such. To err from the truth is to be deceived and thus led away from the truth, the truth being the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is possible for one to deceive himself or be deceived by others. Those not Christians are often deceived about the truth. But those James is concerned about are deceived and led away from the truth after having received it, i. e., backsliders or apostates. Those com­mentators who think of the Jewish readers who have been tempted to go back to Judaism may be correct. See Hebrews 2 :lff; 6:4-8; 10:25ff. But moral as well as doctrinal sins are possible.

James’ conditional sentences are of real possibilities (compare on verse 15). There are those who think that one cannot so sin as to be in danger of death if he is once saved. But this is Calvinism and not the teaching of the gospel. One could not err from the truth unless he had been in it; the death from which he would be saved, if one convert him, must certainly be eternal death. An old debater once said that James 5:19*20 was the strongest passage in the New Tes­tament on the possibility of apostasy.

James 5:19 —and one convert him;—The word means to “turn someone back” in a religious or moral sense. John the Baptist was to turn many to God (Luke 1:16). The conversion is “from the error of his way” (next verse). One does this by bringing the sinner to his senses through the word of God by teaching, warning, pleading, admonishing, and showing an interest in him. Though the Scrip­tures teach that some put themselves beyond repentance (He­brews 6:4ff) and sin in a mortal way, there are many who fall away who could be won back to Christ. James may be thinking of the many Jews who, now that the Judaism of their fathers had begun to harden against Christianity, were finding the way difficult. He may remember that he himself had once not believed in the claims of his brother Jesus.

James 5:20 —let him know,—This is the reading of the best MSS., though the Vatican (B) has the second plural form which may be either an indicative or an imperative: “know ye” or “ye know.” At any rate, James is anxious to point to the knowledge of the favor that one does in helping the erring. It is difficult for us to realize the value of a soul. If someone tried to get us to realize the value of a billion dollars, we could not. This is beyond our understanding. The best way to realize the value of a soul is to remember what it cost to redeem one— the blood of Jesus.

James 5:20 —shall save a soul from death,—eternal death, the second death of the Bible. Repentance will not save a man’ s soul from dying any other death. To die and be lost is a horrible thing to contemplate. To realize that to rescue a brother is to save a soul is indeed a realization. We are our brother’ s keeper. James 5:20 —and shall cover a multitude of sins.—This is repetition of a kind. To “cover sins’’ in the Old Testament sense is to have them forgiven. The passage (like 1 Peter 4:8) is based on Proverbs 10:12, “Hatred stirreth up strife; but love covereth all transgres­sion.’’ Notice the parallelism in Psalms 85:2 (LXX), “Thou hast forgiven thy people their lawless deeds; thou hast covered all their sins.” Nehemiah’ s prayer for his enemies was “cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out from before thee” (Nehemiah 4:5). There has been some question as to whose sins James is saying will be covered by converting the sinner. Oesterley argues that James is stating the doctrine of the Jews of the merit of balancing an evil deed with a good one and refers it to the one converting the erring. The passage could refer to the one converting the sinner without having this meaning. Jesus said that, if we forgive others, we will be forgiven. This is not as a matter of merit, but is creat­ing or showing the right attitude on our part, which in turn dis­poses God to be merciful to us. So James taught that God will be merciful to the merciful (2:13).

But on the whole, it is better to take James as thinking of the multitude of sins (v. 15) of the sin­ner. To convert him is to have these sins removed and to save him from death. This is indeed a labor worthy of a Christian.

James breaks off the letter without any farewell. He had signed the letter at the start as was typical of epistles in those days. He was not writing a personal letter to acquaintances or to a partic­ular church known to him. This fact, together with his style of moving from one subject to another somewhat rapidly, left him with no particular need to end with a salutation. The first epistle of John likewise has no formal closing. A few cursive MSS. of James and one Syrian source add “Amen,” but it is not genuine.The Sources for the Later Life and Death of JamesThe stories of the later life and death of James are given mainly in the accounts of Josephus and of Eusebius the historian, espe­cially the latter’ s quotation of Hegesippus. These accounts are here quoted in full for the purpose of reference. Josephus relates that this deed displeased many of the most equitable of the citizens, who protested to the new governor. He, in turn, deposed Ananus after an administration of only three months. Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, II, 20, 1): But this younger Ananus, who took the high-priest­hood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees; who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews: as we have already observed. When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had a proper opportunity to exercise his authority. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but on the road. So he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had laid an accusation against them as break­ers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. Eusebius, a church historian, published in 311 A. D. the first edition of his history of the church from which the following ref­erences are taken: Eusebius ( Ecclesiastical History, Book II. 1. 2-5) At the same time also James, called the brother of the Lord because indeed the latter too was called the child of Joseph, and Joseph the father of Christ, to whom the virgin was betrothed. Before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit, just as the Sacred Scripture (The Gospels) teaches. Now this same James, whom the men of olden times used to call by the surname of “the Just” because of his excellence of virtue, is said to have been first ap­pointed to the throne of the oversight of the church in Jerusalem. Clement in the sixth book of the Hypoty- poses presents the following, “For Peter,” he says, “and James and John after the ascension of the Savior, as though they had been given the honor before by the Savior, did not contend for glory, but selected James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” This same writer adds in the seventh book of the same work these things about him, “After the resurrection the Lord gave to James the Just, and to John, and to Peter knowledge; these gave it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy of whom one was Barnabas. There were then two Jameses, one “the Just”— the one thrown down from the turret of the temple and beaten to death with fuller’ s club, the other the one being beheaded.” Paul also mentions the same James the Just when he writes, “And I saw none other of the apostles save James the brother of the Lord.” Book II. 23. 1T8.

After Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to the City of Rome by Festus, the Jews, dis­appointed in the hope with which they had plotted against him, turned against James the brother of the Lord to whom the throne of the oversight in Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. They dared such things as the following. Bringing him into the midst, they demanded a denial of the faith in Christ in front of all the people. But he, contrary to what all expected, with a loud voice to the entire multitude confessed that our Savior and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. They could no longer bear the testimony of the man who was believed by all them to be the most just person by vir­tue of his measure of attainment in the life of philos­ophy and piety, and so they killed him, taking anarchy as an opportunity to take over power because Festus had just died in Judea, leaving the country without rulership or guardianship. The words of Clement which have been quoted have already indicated the manner of James’ death, indicating that he was thrown from the turret of the temple and beaten to death with a club.

But Hegesippus, who lived in the first genera­tion after the apostles, has given the most accurate ac­count of the things about him in his fifth book as fol­lows, James the brother of the Lord along with the apostles succeeded to the (leadership of) the church. James was called “the Just” by all men from the time of Lord on down to us, inasmuch as there are many who are called “James.” But he was holy from his mother’ s womb.

He did not drink wine or strong drink; he did not eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; and he did not use the baths. It was permitted to him alone to enter the Holy Place, for he did not wear wool clothing, but linen. He used to enter alone into the temple, and he used to be found upon his knees asking forgiveness for the people. Hence his knees had become hardened like a camel’ s because he was always kneeling worshipping God and asking for forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceed­ing righteousness he was called the “Just” and the “Oblias” (which is in Greek the “bulwark” of the people) and “righteousness,” as the proph­ets make plain about him.

Therefore certain of the seven sects among the people (mentioned already by me in the Memoirs) inquired of him as to what was the “gate of Jesus,” and he was repeating that it is the Savior. From this some of their number believed that Jesus was the Christ. Now the sects which have been mentioned did not believe in a resurrection or in one coming to render to everyone according to his deeds, but some believed on account of James. Since many of the rulers believed there was a tumult of the Jews, and the Scribes, and the Phar­isees, who were saying that all the people were in danger of looking for Jesus the Christ. So as­sembling together they said to James, “We en­treat you to hold the people back because they are going astray after Jesus as though he were the Messiah. We beseech you to persuade all who come for the day of the Passover concerning Jesus, for everybody obeys you.

For we testify and the whole people testify to you that you are just and do not show partiality. Do you therefore persuade the crowd not to err concerning Jesus, tor all the people and we all obey you. Now stand on the turret of the temple in order that you may be visible from above and in order that your words may be heard by all the people, for because of the passover all the tribes have come together along with the Gentiles.”

Thus the Scribes and Pharisees already mentioned had James to stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and they cried out to him and said, “O Just One, whom we all ought to obey, since the people are going astray after the Jesus who was crucified, tell us who is the door of Jesus?” And he an­swered with a loud voice, “Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man? He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and he will come upon the clouds of heaven.” And when many were convinced and glorified the wit­ness of James saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” then the same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, “We were wrong to allow Jesus such testimony, but let us go up and cast him down that they may become afraid and not believe in him.” And they cried out saying, “Oh, oh, even the Just One erred.” And they ful­filled the scripture written in the book of Isaiah, “Let us take the just one for he is unprofitable to us. Nevertheless they shall eat the fruit of their works.” And so they mounted and threw down the Just. And they were saying to one another, “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him, inasmuch as he had fallen and had not died. But he turned and kneeling said, “I beg you, O Lord, God, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, of those whom Jeremiah the prophet had borne witness to, cried out saying, “Stop, what are you doing? The Just is praying for you.” And a certain one of them, one of the laundrymen, took a club which which he beats out the clothes and hit the Just on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the place by the sanctuary and his gravestone yet remains by the sanctuary.

This one became a true witness both to the Jews and the Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian began to besiege them.

This account Hegesippus gives in length and agrees with Clement. Thus James was a marvelous man and indeed famous among all for righteousness, so that the wise men among the Jews confessed that this was the reason for the siege of Jerusalem immediately after his martyrdom and that it happened for no other reason than the crime which they had dared against him. James Chapter FiveVerse 1 This chapter has a dramatic denunciation of the wealthy class who had murdered the Messiah, that is, the rich Sadducean aristocracy in Jerusalem who had slain “the Just One” (James 5:6), and whose approaching doom was prophetically announced in this denunciation. This paragraph (James 5:1-6) is parallel to those passages in the gospels which Jesus Christ pronounced against Jerusalem, and the similar pronouncement of the apostle Paul in Acts 28:25-28. Calvin was probably correct in failing to find here any call to repentance.[1] It was past time for that. The hour was approaching when the wrath of God would be poured out upon Israel for their final rejection of Christ; and James adopted the stern language of the Old Testament prophets for pronouncing their doom. As Gibson said, “This paragraph might almost be a leaf torn out of the Old Testament."[2] Despite the original application of these verses, however, there remains an eloquent warning for all men who may be tempted to amass their wealth through selfishness and exploitation. If Christians are in this ungodly class, the warning is for them also.

As Lenski said, “Merely bearing the Christian name does not exempt them."[3] James, more than any other New Testament writer, identified the true reason why “the righteous one” was slain. It resulted directly from the selfish hatred of the Jewish religious hierarchy in Jerusalem, a hatred which was inspired by Jesus’ twice cleansing the temple and challenging their godless robbing of the people. It was their conduct in the temple that figured prominently in the teachings of Jesus; but in this inspired paragraph, James gives a little more extensive view of their “operations,” in the wicked defrauding of farm laborers, and their selfish lives of luxury. The next paragraph (James 5:7-12) has an admonition directed to the brethren with a plea for them to be patient and wait until the Lord himself would avenge their wrongs and execute judgment upon their oppressors. There is more here than merely a social injustice. “The rich” in focus here were also the persecutors of Christians (James 2:6-7). [1] Calvin as quoted by E. G. Punchard, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 375. [2] E. C. S. Gibson, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 21, James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 67. [3] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1938), p. 644. Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. (James 5:1) Ye rich … “Neither here nor elsewhere in the New Testament are the rich denounced simply because they are rich."[4] Many God-fearing souls have been wealthy, from the days of Job and Abraham until the present day; and the frequent New Testament warnings relative to riches must always be understood as reference to wealth held without regard for the kingdom of God. Yet, there is an inherent dishonesty in riches themselves, meaning not that such wealth was dishonorably procured, or even that its possessor is unmindful of God, but that wealth inherently, within itself, has an evil influence. For discussion of this, see in my Commentary on Luke, pp. 349,350. Weep and howl for your miseries … “The verb [@ololuzein] (used here) means more than to wail; it means to shriek … it depicts the frantic terror of those upon whom the judgment of God has come."[5] This supports the interpretation that what we are dealing with here is a judgment of God upon a self-hardened and rebellious people. Which are coming upon you … The tense of the verbs in this paragraph is the present perfect, the traditional prophetic tense of the Old Testament, in which God’s judgments are announced in the present tense, indicating that such prophesies are as certain to be fulfilled as if fulfillment had already come to pass. Gibson said that “The perfects are probably to be explained as prophetic in accordance with a common Hebrew idiom."[6][4] A. F. Harper, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1967), p. 238. [5] William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), p. 115. [6] E. C. S. Gibson, op. cit., p. 67. Verse 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten.All the fabulous wealth of the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem would prove utterly worthless to prevent the “miseries” coming upon them. Their great stores of oil and wheat would be turned into famine by the siege against the city. Their fine garments would prove as worthless as a moth-eaten rag. And did such miseries indeed come upon them? Alas, they did. As Gibson observed, “The Jewish historian (Josephus) was the unconscious witness of the fulfillment of the prophecies of our Lord and his apostles against Jerusalem."[7]The best commentary upon what befell Jerusalem is found in the works of Josephus, who related in detail the unspeakable horror, disaster, slaughter, famine and total ruin, not merely of the city alone, but even of the temple and everything else.

All the major kinds of wealth were enumerated here by James. The riches that would be “corrupted” were supplies like those of corn and oil; fine clothing was also a standard treasure of the rich. Gold and silver would be mentioned next. ENDNOTE: [7] Ibid. Verse 3 Your gold and your silver are rusted; and their rust shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. Ye have laid up your treasures in the last days.Gold … silver … rusted … The precious metals themselves did not rust, of course, and James certainly knew that; but the base alloys evil men had mixed with them did rust. The gold and silver of the Sadducean enemies were in no sense “pure,” but they had been mixed with fraud, deceit, oppression, falsehood and murder; and the metaphor of rusted gold and silver is eloquent. Even the most precious assets would be of no avail when the judgment fell. A testimony against you … As the blood of righteous Abel cried unto God, just so the Sadducean wealth of Jerusalem would cry to heaven for vengeance. Long centuries of God’s forbearance and patient love, still spurned, still contemptuously rejected, would at last reap their inevitable harvest. And shall eat your flesh as fire … This is a metaphor. The woes coming upon them were, in fact, caused by their inordinate love of that very wealth so avidly and fraudulently acquired; thus it was appropriate to say that the wicked riches unjustly extorted and wickedly abused would indeed eat their flesh as fire. Punchard declared that “The wages of the traitor, the spoil of the thief, and the wealth of the oppressor burn the hands that clasp them. Memories of the wrongs shiver through each guilty soul like fire."[8]Dummelow referred this to “the siege of Jerusalem."[9] Likewise, Carson: The last days were already upon them. The Christian is always in the last days (Acts 2:17; 1 John 2:18). The reference is to the last days before the Second Advent, of which the destruction of Jerusalem was a type.[10]In the destruction of Jerusalem, the wealthy Sadduceans lost all of their wealth, and more than a million were ruthlessly murdered, fulfilling perfectly the promise of Jesus that “The king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city” (Matthew 22:7). This was “the last days” of the Jewish commonwealth. Despite the Old Testament overtones of this passage, the spirit and teaching of the New Testament also permeate it, as indicated by this reference to “the last days,” and the laying up of treasures where moth and rust doth consume (James 5:2), a plain reference to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 6:20 f. [8] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 375. [9] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 1037. [10] T. Carson, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 580. Verse 4 Behold the hire of the laborers who mowed your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth out: and the cries of them that reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.It was not merely the rejection of Christ that provoked the judgment of God upon the Jewish state, although that was sufficient; but it was their gross rebellion against the very law they pretended so much to adore.Leviticus 13:13, and Deuteronomy 24:15, and countless other passages forbade the withholding of the laborers’ pay even for the space of a single day, but the evil men James denounced had withheld it altogether, defrauding them of it. The hire of the laborers … This is an eloquent statement. It identifies the place of the offense cited as Jerusalem of Judea, the rest of the civilized world of that period having all of the farm work done by slaves. “Only in Palestine would field laborers have been hired help; elsewhere in the Roman Empire the fields were worked by slaves."[11] It also means that this epistle was surely written before the destruction of Jerusalem, because after that event the slave system prevailed in Judea also. Lord of Sabaoth … Some writers seize upon this as proof of their allegation that here we have a Jewish writing; but their error is due to a failure to discern James’ reason for this usage. The judgment about to fall upon Israel was due to their having rejected the teachings of the Lord of Sabaoth, as inculcated in the Law of Moses; and it was most fitting that this lapse on their part should have been mentioned in connection with this prophetic announcement of their destruction. The expression means “The Lord of Hosts,” “The God of the heavenly armies,” “God of the heavenly hosts (such as the sun, moon and stars),” “God of all the armies of angels arranged in an orderly host,” etc., etc. It speaks of the omnipotence, glory and eternity of Almighty God. Tasker called this “One of the most majestic of all the titles of God in the Old Testament."[12] The only other New Testament usage of this title is in Romans 9:29, where Paul quoted it from Isaiah in exactly the same context as that in which James used it here, namely, that of discussing the apostasy of Israel. How strange it is that some fail to see the same connection here. [11] A. F. Harper, op. cit., p. 238. [12] R. V. G. Tasker, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), p. 113. Verse 5 Ye have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure; ye have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter.Nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter … This is a reference (a) to their delicate living and their pleasures, called here “nourishing their hearts” and (b) to the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem, called here “a day of slaughter,” the Old Testament expression meaning “the day of God’s judgment” (Isaiah 34:6;Ezekiel 21:15); and let it be noted that the day had already arrived. Their sins continued in a day of slaughter, that is, up until the very moment of the impending judgment. As Carson put it, “They were like animals gorging themselves on the very day of their destruction."[13] As Adam Clarke said, concerning “the last days” of James 5:3, and the “day of slaughter” here, “This is not to be understood as the judgment day, but as the last days of the Jewish commonwealth."[14] Carson also said that the best exposition of this verse is “Josephus’ account of the destruction of Jerusalem."[15][13] T. Carson, op. cit., p. 580. [14] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. VI (London: Carlton and Porter, 1829), p. 824. [15] T. Carson, op. cit., p. 580. Verse 6 Ye have condemned, ye have killed the righteous one; he doth not resist you.The righteous one … is an expression used of Christ in a number of New Testament references (Acts 3:14 Acts 7:52 Acts 22:14), and this is clearly the meaning of it here. That James did not specify Christ by name is no problem, because New Testament writers generally were most reluctant to mention by name their own family; and James adhered to this rule, making only enough exceptions to identify Jesus as the Christ and Saviour. Dummelow, and many others, concede that “this may refer to the Lord,"[16] and in the total absence of any reason why it should not be referred to him, this is the way we shall construe it. Ward likewise allowed that “James seems to see the condemnation of the Messiah repeated in the experience of his righteous subjects."[17] Tasker and Gibson also apply this to righteous men generally; but, while it is clear enough that it is true of righteous men generally the specific reference here must be to Christ. Our interpretation of this whole paragraph will hardly allow any other meaning. The great sin of the heartless rich being thus condemned and judged was that of murdering the Messiah. “Ye have condemned …” indicates formal trial and passing sentence, details that were often absent from their unjust dealings with the poor. “Ye have killed …” This, they did not generally do to the poor; but they effectively wrought the crucifixion of Christ.

Barclay admitted that this verse “could be a reference to Jesus Christ,"[18] though he left the question open. That this is actually the meaning will appear in the further examination of the last clause. He doth not resist you … It is a well know fact that the Greek words here may be either affirmative or interrogative, the latter being in all probability correct. Hort suggested, and Ropes advocated that it be read as a question, “Doth he not resist you?"[19] Tasker explained that this would have a prophetic meaning, demanding an affirmative reply.[20] The true meaning of the clause then is, “You have killed the Christ, but will he not resist you? …. Do you really think you can escape judgment for such a crime as that?” Thus read, this verse is a powerful and dramatic conclusion of this terrible, yet magnificent, prophecy. The oppression of the poor, the persecution of the church, the cruel and heartless crucifixion of the Messiah inspired James in this sublime paragraph to announce the forthcoming judgment of God as about to fall upon the perpetrators of such wickedness. While construing this paragraph as primarily a prophecy against entrenched Judaism, it should also be observed that it is charged with social consequences of the most extensive dimensions. As Barclay said: One of the mysteries is how Christianity ever came to be regarded as the opium of the people. There is no book in any literature that speaks so explosively of social injustice as does the Bible. It does not condemn wealth as such, but there is no book which more strenuously insists on wealth’s responsibilities, and on the perils that surround the man of wealth.[21]This passage (James 5:1-6) deserves to rank alongside the greatest passages of the Bible for its tremendous social implications. Charles David Eldridge identified the Bible as the source of all social justice in these words: The Old Testament prophets and the New Testament writers denounce the exclusive privileges of the rich, and the usurpation of the rights of the poor, and strenuously enforce their demands for righteous dealings among men. The Bible, like an unfailing arsenal, has supplied the ammunition for the age-long struggle for liberty.[22]Such qualities shine with exceptional brilliance in James’ thundering denunciation in this passage. The connection with the foregoing in the following passage (James 5:7-12) is most intimate and instructive. With Lenski we deplore the blindness which has viewed these as isolated statements. “He is charged with patching heterogeneous pieces together. A redactor (!) is also mentioned."[23] It is simply incredible that men should not see how closely James followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, the writings of the New Testament authors, and the teachings of the Old Testament in this epistle. There is no need whatever to quote from apocalyptic literature, the book of Wisdom, Sirach and the inter-testamental writings in an effort to understand James. The Holy Bible illuminates every word that he wrote. The historical situation in which this epistle occurs is that of the expectancy permeating the whole church during those years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which was known and anticipated throughout the world of that period. Christ had categorically predicted it in a prophecy that so inspired the church that when the city was finally destroyed, not a Christian perished in the disaster. They, having been forewarned, fled to Pella. This universal expectancy which dominated Christian thought in this period is conspicuous in the writings of Paul, who noted with consternation a flowering of conceit and gloating expectancy among the Gentile segment of Christianity, and who at Once wrote the book of Romans, addressing it specifically to that conceit (see in my Commentary on Romans, pp. 412,413). In the same manner, James in this epistle addressed that air of expectancy (especially among the poor who had made up the vast majority of Jewish Christianity), which as the years passed and Jerusalem was still standing, had tended to be alloyed with impatience. The vital, intimate and urgent connection is simply this: (1) the first six verses are a prophecy of the certain and impending overthrow of the Sadducean overlords who were notorious oppressors of the poor and the terminal heirs of that generation which had murdered the Son of God; (2) the next six verses are concerned with the proper behavior and attitude of the Christians who were destined to witness the fulfillment of the prophecy. [16] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit, p. 1037. [17] Ronald A. Ward, New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1233. [18] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 120. [19] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 116. [20] Ibid. [21] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 117. [22] Source of this quotation unknown. [23] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 645. Verse 7 Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it, until it receive the early and latter rain.Until the coming of the Lord … In Jesus’ great prophetic utterances regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, as recorded in Matthew 24; Mark 13, and Luke 21, our Lord blended the prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem with those of the coming of the end of the world; and, in all probability, not even the apostles and other New Testament writers understood until long afterward that the two events would be separated by a vast distance in time. Only time would reveal that the destruction of Jerusalem, which was indeed the end of the Jewish dispensation, of the Jewish state, and of Judaistic persecution of Christianity, would be only a type of the destruction of the whole world at the Second Advent. They fully understood that Jerusalem was to be destroyed before that “generation” had passed (see in my Commentary on Mark for double meaning of “generation,” p. 292). “Coming of the Lord,” therefore, in this place has primary reference to the destruction of Jerusalem; but in its wider reference to the Second Advent, the admonition of “patience” applies to all generations of Christians. Be patient, therefore … “Patience,” as used here, does not mean merely patience with respect to persons, but as Gibson noted, “It includes endurance in respect of things (that is, of events)."[24] Harper paraphrased the meaning as “Patiently accept God’s delay in the timing of our Lord’s return."[25]The early and latter rain … “The husbandman” here is a farmer who, after planting his crops, does not expect the harvest at once, but patiently waits until the early and latter rains have sprouted and matured the grain. As Wessel explained: In Palestine, the early rain in October and November came after the crop was planted, and the latter rain in April and May when they were maturing. Both were crucial for the success of the crop.[26]Some have seen in this illustration an intimation that God in his harvest of the earth will also wait for the early rain (that prosperous era of Christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem), and the latter rain (the evangelization of the world prior to the final advent of Christ). Although interesting, it is precarious to make such an illustration the basis of any specific prophesy. However, as Carson noted, “The words naturally recall our Lord’s comparison of the consummation of the age to a harvest (Matthew 13:39)."[27] Joel also has some words in the same line of thought (Joe 2:23). [24] E. C. S. Gibson, op. cit., p. 68. [25] A. F. Harper, op. cit., p. 242. [26] Walter W. Wessel, Wycliffe New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 961. [27] T. Carson, op. cit., p. 580. Verse 8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand.It is difficult not to lose patience with those commentators who receive every such reference as this as an occasion for declaiming upon the “mistake” of all the New Testament writers in expecting the “coming of the Lord” (in his final advent, of course) as an event certain to occur in their lifetime. See extended discussion of “The Speedy Return” of Christ, under 1 Thessalonians 1:10, in CT. The particular “coming of the Lord” mentioned by James here was indeed “at hand.” As James would declare a little later, “The judge standeth before the doors” (James 5:9). Verse 9 Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the judge standeth before the doors.The judge standeth before the doors … It is agreed by all that “the judge” here is Christ, thus justifying the conclusion that “the judge” mentioned a moment earlier in James 4:12 is also Christ. As Roberts observed, “The clause reflects the very words of Jesus (Mark 13:29; Matthew 24:33). The judge is Christ."[28]Murmur not … This is “grudge not” in the KJV, another example of words changing their meaning. “Grudge has curiously changed its meaning from an outward murmur to an inward feeling."[29] The type of murmuring which was likely to have existed in the churches which originally received this letter was that of complaining because so many years had passed and yet the old Sadducean hypocrites were still totally in charge in Jerusalem. During the interval between the governorships of Festus and Albinus, the wicked high priest Ananus seized the opportunity to murder James the author of this epistle. He convened the judges and brought before them James a brother of Jesus who was called Christ …. He accused him of having transgressed the law and delivered him up to be stoned.[30]Unlike many early traditions, this one is generally received as being authentic.[31] Punchard has this additional reference to it: One of the mocking questions put to St. James by his enemies, as they hurried him to death, was “Which is the door of Jesus?” Failing to receive an answer, they said, “Let us stone this James the Just.” So, they threw him from the pinnacle of the temple, after which he was beaten to death with a fuller’s club.[32]Thus, it is particularly interesting that James’ words in this very verse were mentioned on the occasion of his martyrdom. Dummelow’s paraphrase seems to be an accurate reflection of James’ admonition in this verse: “Do not let your irritation and soreness at outside oppression vent itself in impatience and grumbling towards one another."[33][28] J. W. Roberts, The Letter of James (Austin, Texas: The Sweet Publishing Company, 1977), p. 154. [29] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 377. [30] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, 20:9. 1 (200). [31] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1971), p. 141. [32] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 377. [33] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1037. Verse 10 Take, brethren, for an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spake in the name of the Lord.The mention of “prophets” suggests that there were many of these whose lives were good examples of suffering and of patience; but, in the next verse, James would mention only the example of Job, perhaps singling out this one because of the significant time element involved in his example, exactly the crucial factor in the problem of the brethren addressed by James. Note the repeated use of “brethren” (James 5:7 James 5:10). Verse 11 Behold, we call them blessed that endured: ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful.We call them blessed that endured … The true meaning of “patience” in this section is inherent in this. In the sense of stoicism, Job would hardly classify as “patient”; however, he endured despite every temptation. The patience of Job … “Job is mentioned only here in the New Testament,"[34] however, the book of Job is quoted in 1 Corinthians 3:19, which refers to Job 5:13. The Lord is full of pity, and merciful … Punchard suggested that James here “in the fullness of his gratitude, coined a word for this single phrase. Great-hearted' would be close to its meaning,"[35]The particular purpose served by the introduction of Job as an example here was explained by James Moffatt thus: (The point of this is that) patient endurance can sustain itself on the conviction that hardships are not meaningless, but that God has some end or purpose in them which he will accomplish.[36]The marvelous endurance of Job's faith in God is inherently visible in his reaction to one disaster after another. When death overtook his family, he said, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord" (<a href="/bible/parallel/JOB/1/21" class="green-link">Job 1:21</a>). When even his wife suggested that he curse God and die, he said, "What, shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (<a href="/bible/parallel/JOB/2/10" class="green-link">Job 2:10</a>). When his philosophical friends accused him of sin, citing the calamities which had overwhelmed him as proof of it, he said, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him" (<a href="/bible/parallel/JOB/13/15" class="green-link">Job 13:15</a>). [34] Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 962. [35] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 378. [36] James Moffatt, The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, James (Garden City, N.Y.: 1928), p. 74. Verse 12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.Above all ... This should be understood merely in the sense of "especially." It was a common sin of that day to punctuate ordinary conversation with all kinds of imprecations and oaths used as a device for establishing credibility. Apparently, many to whom James wrote were guilty of this, hence the emphasis upon it. Dummelow's paraphrase is: "Avoid especially the use of an oath to strengthen your assertions in ordinary conversation."[37] The words "above all" have the additional utility of identifying the admonition here as having been given originally by the Lord Jesus Christ himself (<a href="/bible/parallel/MAT/5/34" class="green-link">Matthew 5:34</a> <a href="/bible/parallel/MAT/5/37" class="green-link">Matthew 5:37</a>). Agreement is felt with Roberts and many others who have insisted that "This passage has nothing to do with solemn and serious and religious oaths."[38] Christ himself permitted himself to be placed under oath for his Great Confession (<a href="/bible/parallel/MRK/14/61" class="green-link">Mark 14:61-62</a>). The inherent connection of this verse with the foregoing is plain in that it was dealing with the demeanor and attitude of those awaiting "the coming of the Lord" in judgment against Jerusalem. For fuller discussion of the question of oaths, see in my Commentary on Matthew, p. 67. [37] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1037. [38] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 155. Verse 13 Is any among you suffering? let him pray. Is any cheerful? let him sing praise.Here begins a series of separate admonitions making up the final section of the epistle. Any suffering? ... let him pray ... This was, and is, the general rule for suffering of all kinds; and it included even the special cases alluded to in <a href="/bible/parallel/JAS/5/14" class="green-link">James 5:14</a> a moment later. In a sense, all healing is divine. Over the main portal of the great Presbyterian Medical Center in Manhattan, N.Y., there are engraved the words: "All healing is of God; physicians only bind up the wounds." Any cheerful? ... let him sing praise ... Singing, from the earliest New Testament times, was used by the church for the purpose of sanctifying times of emotion, whether joyful or sorrowful. As Harper pointed out, "Christian singing is supposed to be the medium of the light and joyful as well as more serious sentiments."[39]It is regrettable that commentators, for example, Tasker, and others drag into the interpretation of this verse an attempted justification of instrumental music in Christian worship, thus: [@Psallo] originally meant to play by touching a stringed instrument ... it describes the stirring of the soul ... it refers to every sounding of God's praises, whether in the company of others or alone, whether vocally with or without musical accompaniment, or silently.[40]It is a fact eloquently stated by F. F. Bruce that (concerning the Greek words [@psallo] and [@psalmos] as used in this place) "Both are irrelevant to the question of instrumental accompaniment, one way or the other."[41] For those interested in pursuing the subject further, the scholarly work of J. W. Roberts settles the question completely. "Nothing in the context indicates a meaning other than that of vocal music."[42] No matter what the "original meaning" of [@psallo] might have been, the instrument to be "plucked" is given in the sacred text; and it is not a mechanical instrument, but the human voice. God's church is a singing church. As early as 111 A.D., when Pliny wrote the Emperor Trajan that the Christians assembled very "early on a fixed day and sang by turns a hymn to Christ as God,"[43] until the present day, the churches of Christ ring with the songs of praise and adoration. What a contrast this is with every other religion ever known! In the orthodox Jewish synagogue, since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, there has been no music, for, when they worship, they remember a tragedy; but, in the Christian church, from the beginning until now, there has been the music of praise.[44]The Moslem shouts from his minaret at morning, noon and night, "To prayer! To prayer!" The pagan temples for centuries resounded to the brassy cacophony of trumpets and horns. The primitives of the African interior beat their tom-toms. Only the Christian sings! [39] A. F. Harper, op. cit., p. 245. [40] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 128. [41] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 107. [42] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 163. [43] Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 6. [44] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 129. Verse 14 Is any among you sick? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.James in this remarkable paragraph plainly has under consideration the charismatic gift of healing, one of the special gifts that attended the early propagation of Christianity for the purpose of confirming the word of God. As Tasker succinctly put it: It is probable that the mention of oil in this passage is to be regarded as one of the accompaniments of that miraculous healing which was no infrequent occurrence in the apostolic age, and is regarded in the New Testament as a supernatural sign vindicating the truth of the Christian gospel in the early days of its proclamation.[45]Supporting this view is the fact of the apostles, upon the Lord's instructions, using such a method when they were first sent out by Jesus (<a href="/bible/parallel/MRK/6/13" class="green-link">Mark 6:13</a>). An objection to this view has been founded on the fact that the New Testament does not say that "the elders" were the ones who usually possessed such gifts; nevertheless, the passage here may be interpreted as implying that very thing, an implication that is certainly not contradicted by anything else in the New Testament. It is inherently reasonable that the very ones usually endowed by the Holy Spirit with those special gifts would have been, of course, the elders of the church. The miraculous gift of healing was the fourth in Paul's list of nine such gifts (<a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/12/9" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 12:9</a>). The understanding of this place is further illuminated by the words of Roberts: Since it is clearly demonstrated from the New Testament that such miraculous aid existed in the church of that age, and since this healing would be more certain to offer aid to the sick, it would seem that it might be expected that the instructions of James concern the miraculous healings.[46]Punchard's quotation from Bishop Browne follows this same line of interpretation, thus: The aim of the apostolic anointing was bodily recovery, and this exactly corresponds with the miraculous cures of early ages ... so long as such powers remained in the church, it was reasonable that the anointing of the sick should be retained.[47]Another objection to this view has been based upon the "absence from this passage of laying on of hands’ usually mentioned in connection with the miraculous gift”;[48] but since the anointing with oil would necessarily involve “laying on of hands,” the objection refutes itself. Carson recognized the interpretation adopted here in saying that “Some believe that we have here the exercise of the miraculous gift of healing."[49] From the citations here, it is clear enough that our interpretation does not lack scholarly support. EXTREME UNCTIONAny interpretation of this passage must take account of the Roman Catholic doctrine of extreme unction which is erroneously based upon it. The footnote in the Douay Bible has this: “St. James promulgated here the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Presbyters is certainly used here in the sense of priests."[50]James did not promulgate the doctrine mentioned. Indeed, it was never even heard of in the Catholic Church itself until centuries after the New Testament was written. In the twelfth century, Petrus Lombardus named this as the fifth of the Roman sacraments; and three centuries later the Council of Trent established the Catholic sacrament as we know it today.[51]Regarding the notion that “presbyters,” as James used the word here, actually means “priests,” this is a preposterous error. There is not a single instance of any such meaning pertaining to “presbyters” in the whole New Testament. Of the many contradictions in the Roman “sacrament” against the New Testament itself, the following may be noted: (1) The end in view in this passage is the recovery of the patient; in “extreme unction,” it is his death which is imminent. (2) In the New Testament, it is the elders of the church who were to be called; in “extreme unction,” it is a priest. (3) In the New Testament, it is the bodily recovery of the patient; in “extreme unction,” it is the alleged salvation of the soul that is accomplished. “Anointing in the name of the Lord” does not mean that a so-called “sacrament” is in view; because, as Lenski pointed out, “All that we do in word or in deed is done in the name of the Lord' (<a href="/bible/parallel/COL/3/17" class="green-link">Colossians 3:17</a>).[52]Before leaving these two verses, the sharp distinction between <a href="/bible/parallel/JAS/5/13" class="green-link">James 5:13</a> and <a href="/bible/parallel/JAS/5/14" class="green-link">James 5:14-15</a> should be marked. The rule for all ages includes prayer for the suffering (<a href="/bible/parallel/JAS/5/13" class="green-link">James 5:13</a>); the special rule for the miraculous healing still available when James wrote is given in the next two verses. For those who believe that miraculous cures are still being effected, the consideration should be pondered that such "cures" carry no universal conviction, being neither like the truly miraculous cures of the New Testament, nor in any manner serving to confirm the word of the Lord. Those "performing" the cures are also different. Instead of being humble servants of God who never took money for their miracles, the self-glorified "faith-healers" of today have made themselves fantastically rich; and far from being infallible, as were the apostles, in the performance of their wonders, the modern miracle workers fail more often than they succeed, and countless thousands have sought them in vain. Such considerations as these should give pause to any who might suppose that the power James mentioned in these verses is anywhere on earth available to men today. [45] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 130. [46] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 169. [47] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 380. [48] T. Carson, op. cit., p. 591. [49] Ibid. [50] The Douay Bible (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1949), in loco. [51] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 665. [52] Ibid., p. 663. Verse 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working.One to another ... Mutuality is certainly implied by this. There is no class of men set up in God's church to hear confessions. No so-called "priest" ever had the right to hear the confessions of the penitent, unless he himself, in turn, would likewise confess his own sins to the confessor. As Roberts aptly wrote: The Roman Catholic doctrine of auricular confession has no support from this passage. "Elders" does not refer to a priestly set of workers. And not even the elders ever had the power to absolve a sinner or set terms and conditions of his forgiveness.[53]The cathartic effect of confession, as mutually engaged among Christians, is helpful and beneficial, the purpose of such confessions being that of enlisting the mutual prayers of Christians for each other. There is not in view here any requirement for Christians to confess their sins "to the whole church," a practice which is not only not in view here, but which, under certain circumstances, can have a positively detrimental effect. The holy church itself is not a "priest" standing between the penitent Christian and his forgiveness. It is felt that the comment of Wessel on this verse is appropriate: This does not mean that Christians are to indulge in indiscriminate public, or even private confessions; and certainly the passage has nothing to do with confession to a priest.[54]The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working ...Again, as Wessel said, "There is no unanimity as to how to render this; but the meaning is clear: a good man has great power in prayer."[55] This is as good a place as any to stress the meaning apparent here. No matter what circumstance of suffering or illness may overtake the child of God, the avenue of prayer is open for his seeking relief from the Father himself through Christ. It has been the happy good fortune of this writer to behold many answers to prayers in conditions and circumstances approaching, but not reaching, the miraculous itself. God answers his children's prayers; and the power of those prayers is sealed by James' word in this place. Regarding the fad of some present-day religious groups unbosoming themselves completely to those initiated into the cult, "It is apt to have more harmful than beneficial results, giving an outlet for an unhealthy exhibitionism."[56]It is also wrong to take James' words here as laying down any additional condition of a Christian's forgiveness. The apostle Peter made repentance and prayer to be the sole conditions of a sinning, penitent Christian's forgiveness; and it is not true that James here laid down another condition. Helpful and beneficial as confession assuredly is in many circumstances, no new condition is in evidence. [53] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 173. [54] Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 962. [55] Ibid. [56] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 135. Verse 17 Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months.Elijah ... a man of like passions ... The argument is that Elijah, despite the fact of his being a noted prophet, was nevertheless a fallible and sinful man like the Christians of all generations; but that, in spite of his mortality, sin and imperfections, God mightily answers his prayers, and he will do the same for us. Three years and six months ... The event in view in these words is recorded in <a href="/bible/parallel/1KI/17/1" class="green-link">1 Kings 17:1-18</a> :lff, where the exact duration of the drought is nowhere mentioned. Despite this, the Old Testament expression "in the third year" in that passage is sometimes construed as a "contradiction" of the "three years and six months" of this passage and the one in <a href="/bible/parallel/LUK/4/25" class="green-link">Luke 4:25</a>. Of course, this is another well-known "pseudocon." As Haley said, "We may reckon the third year’ of the Old Testament, not as indicating the length of the drought, but a reference to the sojourn of Elijah with the widow of Zarephath."[57] In other words, the drought began six months before the famine did, the Old Testament “third year” having reference to the duration of the famine, and the New Testament “three years and six months” referring to the duration of the drought itself. Jesus himself endorsed this calculation (Luke 4:25). ENDNOTE: [57] John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 415. Verse 18 And he prayed again; and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.Significantly, the Old Testament does not specifically mention the prayer of Elijah as being the cause of the drought; but, in this particular, James illuminates the Old Testament. All miracles were wrought in answer to prayer, even those of Jesus, as indicated by John 9:31; John 11:41. See further comment on this in my Commentary on John, p. 284. Thus, if all the miracles of Jesus were wrought in answer to prayer, it would be very illogical to suppose that those wrought by Elijah were achieved in any manner differently. Verse 19 My brethren, if any among you err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.The great difficulty for some in these verses, as stated by Ward, is “in the thought of the doom of a Christian."[58] Of course, the source of the difficulty is not in what James said but in the Calvinistic doctrine which has no support in the New Testament, and which, in fact, is contradicted on almost every page of it, including this one. It is no denial of this that the word “convert” used here is the same one used by Peter after he denied the Lord (Luke 22:32). That usage merely confirms the thought that if Peter himself had not been converted even though he was a true believer, he still would have suffered eternal death. To avoid the thrust of this passage, some follow the course of Wessel in referring “death” here to “physical death."[59] This, however, is not indicated at all. As Roberts said, “Death here is eternal death, the second death of the Bible. Repentance will not save a soul from any other kind of death?[60]If any err from the truth … The implications of this are profound. That a Christian can err from the truth is not merely a possibility, but a frequent occurrence. Inherent in this is also a fact, as Barclay put it, that “Truth is something that must be done."[61] Failure to do it is a failure to win eternal life. Another question that surfaces in reference to these verses is the question of whether or not the covering of “a multitude of sins” applies to the sins of the converted, or to the sins of the one doing the converting. The primary meaning must certainly be the former; although, of course, there is a sense in which those who win souls may Scripturally be said to “save themselves.” Thus, Paul wrote Timothy, “In doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee” (1 Timothy 4:16). Barclay caught the spirit of these words, “To save another’s soul is the surest way to save one’s own soul."[62]Many have commented on James’ seemingly abrupt ending of the epistle; but this is altogether appropriate. He closed on the note of every Christian’s concern for the reclamation of the backslider, including also the larger sphere of winning the alien lost to Christ. As Tasker aptly phrased it: No duty laid upon Christians is more in keeping with the mind of their Lord, or more expressive of Christian love, than the duty of reclaiming the backslider.[63]Here there is no signature, no farewell greeting, no formal closure of any kind, just the bold imperious words of the inspired writer, standing starkly against the mists of fleeting centuries like a massive inscription chiseled into a granite mountain. No pseudonymous writer, no forger, no impostor of later times would have dared to conclude a letter like this. James carries its own inherent testimony of its truth and inspiration of God. [58] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 1235. [59] Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 963. [60] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 179. [61] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 133. [62] Ibid., p. 134. [63] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 142.

“THE EPISTLE OF JAMES”

Chapter Five IN THE CHAPTER

1. To appreciate the need for patience in times of oppression

2. To see the value of prayer and confessing sins in times of sickness

SUMMARY The final chapter opens with a strong condemnation toward the rich who were oppressing the poor while living in pleasure and luxury. Most likely these were rich unbelievers such as those mentioned earlier (cf. James 2:6-7). The Lord heard the cries of those defrauded, and judgment was to come upon the rich who had condemned and murdered the just. This passage may be an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem foretold by Jesus in Matthew 24 and fulfilled in A.D. 70. James counsels his brethren to patiently wait for the coming of the Lord, and to establish their hearts. Appealing to the farmer, the prophets, and to Job as examples of patience, he also warns against grumbling against one another and swearing rash oaths (James 5:1-12).

The last half of the chapter provides a call to prayer and praise. The suffering are to pray, the cheerful are to sing praises, and the sick are to call for the elders of the church. The elders were to pray over the sick and anoint with oil in the name of the Lord. What is uncertain is whether the anointing was sacramental or medicinal (I think the latter, see Review Questions below). In answer to the prayer of faith, the Lord will raise the sick and also forgive sins if they had been committed. In this context James encourages Christians to confess their sins to one another and pray for one another that they may be healed. He reminds them of the value of fervent prayer by the righteous, using Elijah as an example of how God answers prayer providentially. The epistle then closes with a reminder that turning a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins (James 5:13-20).

OUTLINE I. TRUE UNDER (James 5:1-12) A. GOD’S ANGER AT RICH (James 5:1-6)1. The rich are called to weep and howl for the miseries to come upon them a. Their riches are corrupted b. Their garments are moth-eaten c. Their gold and silver are corroded

1. Which will be a witness against them
2. Which will eat their flesh like fire d. They have heaped up treasure in the last days

2. The reasons for God’s anger against the rich a. They have defrauded the laborers who mowed their fields

1. Keeping back wages owed them
2. The cries of the reapers have been heard by the Lord of Sabaoth (Hosts) b. They have lived in pleasure and luxury, fattening their hearts in a day of slaughter c. They have condemned and murdered the just who does not resist them

B. A CALL FOR UNDER (James 5:7-12)1. Be patient until the coming of the Lord a. Consider the patience of the farmer b. Establish your hears, for the coming of the Lord is at hand 2. Do not grumble against one another a. Lest you be condemned b. The Judge is standing at the door 3. Remember the examples of suffering and patience a. Such as the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord and are blessed for their endurance b. Such as the perseverance of Job, to whom the Lord proved very compassionate and merciful at the end 4. Above all, do not swear (make rash oaths) a. Either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath b. Let your “Yes” mean “Yes,” and your “No” mean “No” c. Lest you fall into judgment

II. TRUE BLESSED THROUGH PRAYER, SINGING, AND CONCERN FOR (James 5:13-20) A. THE OF PRAYER AND SONG (James 5:13-18)1. If anyone is suffering, let him pray 2. If anyone is cheerful, let him sing Psalms 3. If anyone is sick, let him call for the elders of the church a. Let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord b. The prayer of faith will save (heal) the sick, and the Lord will raise him up c. If he has committed sins, he will be forgiven d. Confess your trespasses to one another and pray for one another

1. That you may be healed
2. For the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much a) The example of Elijah, a man with a nature like ours b) He prayed that it would not rain, and no rain fell for three years c) He prayed again, the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit

B. THE OF LOVE FOR ERRING (James 5:19-20)1. He who turns back one who wanders from the truth will save a soul from death 2. He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will cover a multitude of sins

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- True religion displays patience under oppression (1-12)

• True religion blessed through prayer, singing, and concern for the erring (13-20)

2. Who is being condemned in verses 1-6 of this chapter? (James 5:1)- Those who are rich (probably unbelievers who had been oppressing Christians, cf. James 2:6-7)

3. What sort of miseries were to come upon them? (James 5:1-3)- Their riches are to be corrupted, their garments moth-eaten

• Their gold and silver will be corroded, and serve as a witness against them
• Such corrosion will eat their flesh like fire

4. Why is God so angry at these rich? (James 5:3-6)- They have heaped up treasure in the last days

• They have defrauded their workers by keeping back what is owed them
• They have lived in pleasure and luxury, fattening their hearts
• They have condemned and murdered the just, who does not resist them

5. What are the Christians to do in response to such oppression? (James 5:7-12)- Be patient until the coming of the Lord

• Establish their hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand
• Don’t grumble against one another, for the Judge is standing at the door
• Do not swear (make rash oaths), but let their “yes” be “yes” and their “no” mean “no”

6. What three examples does James provide to encourage patience? (James 5:7-11)- The farmer who waits patiently for the precious fruit of the earth

• The prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord
• The perseverance of Job

7. What does James encourage one to do when suffering? When cheerful? (James 5:13)- To pray when suffering

• To sing praises when cheerful

8. What is one who is sick to do? (James 5:14)- Call for the elders of the church

9. What are they to do? (James 5:14)- Pray over the sick, anointing with oil in the name of the Lord

10. Is “anointing with oil” sacramental or medicinal?- “Some commentators consider this anointing with oil to be a sacramental anointing, but others consider it a medicinal anointing. In defense of the medicinal anointing, Burdick wrote the following: `There are a number of reasons for understanding this application of oil as medicinal rather than sacramental. The word aleipsantes (“anoint”) is not the usual word for sacramental or ritualistic anointing. James could have used the verb chrio if that had been what he had in mind. The distinction is still observed in modern Greek, with aleipho meaning “to daub,” “to smear,” and chrio meaning “to anoint.” Furthermore, it is a well-documented fact that oil was one of the most common medicines of biblical times. See Isaiah 1:6 and Luke 10:34. Josephus (Antiquities, 17, 172 [vi. 5]) reports that during his last illness Herod the Greek was given a bath in oil in hopes of effecting a cure. The papyri, Philo, Pliny, and the physician Galen all refer to the medicinal use of oil. Galen described it as “the best of all remedies for paralysis” (Deut Simplicium Medicamentorum Temperamentis, 2.10ff.). It is evident, then, that James is prescribing prayer and medicine.’” (New Commentary, James, Fausset, and Brown)

11. What will save (or heal) the sick? Who will raise him up? (James 5:15)- The prayer of faith

• The Lord

12. What if the one who is sick has committed sins? (James 5:15)- He will be forgiven

13. What are Christians to do? Why? (James 5:16)- Confess sins one to another and pray for one another

• That they may be healed

14. What avails much? Who is a good illustration of this? (James 5:16-18)- The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man

• Elijah

15. What happens when one turns a sinner from the error of his way? (James 5:19-20)- A soul is saved from death

• A multitude of sins is covered

Questions by E.M. Zerr On James 51. Against what men does James now write? 2. How does this differ from second chapter? 3. For what are these men told to weep? 4. What are against them? 5. In what condition had their riches become? 6. Are garments moth-eaten that are in use? 7. What would the condition here indicate? 8. State what is indicated by rusting of metal. 9. What constitutes the witness here? 10. In what sense will it eat their flesh? 11. For what days is their treasure waiting? 12. How had these rich men become so? 13. Is it wrong to hire reapers? 14. What sound reaches the divine ears? 15. Explain the word “sabaoth” in 4th verse. 16. How had these men lived? 17. What fact made their pleasure a sin? 18. Explain the figure in last of verse five. 19. At whose expense had they lived thus? 20. How had they dealt with the just? 21. Who is “he” in verse six? 22. Find these persons in verse seven. 23. State the conditions calling for patience. 24. At what event may they expect justice? 25. What occupation is used as illustration? 26. Explain “early and latter rain.” 27. What will patience do for our hearls? 28. How does close of verse 8 agree with our date? 29. Why not grudge against each other? 30. Who stands at the door? 31. To what men does James then refer? 32. How had they been able to speak? 33. State what example they set. 34. Which ones were counted happy? 35. Of what special case does he speak? 36. Does he refer to him as a real person? 37. Explain expression “end of the Lord.” 38. On what subject does James write above all? 39. Who else has given teaching on this subject? 40. What words show the restriction to be total? 41. Instead of swearing what must we say? 42. Lest we fall into what? 43. By whom would we be condemned? 44. Those pressed with hardships should do what? 45. What may the merry appropriately do? 46. Were these the days of miracles? 47. Did Elders possess miraculous gifts? 48. Was oil ever used in miraculous cases? Mark 6: 13. 49. Would use of oil preclude miracle act? 50. What does he say prayer of faith will do? 51. What is promised in addition to healing? 52. Would sins constitute spiritual sickness? 53. Does this not come after the other healing? 54 Would this not show the other not to be spiritual? 65. Must we confess our faults to a priest? 56. Would this make verse 16 mean spiritual healing? 57. Does this come after healing of 14th verse? 58. Why could Elias accomplish the miracle? 59. When does a brother need converting? 60. What is accomplished by the reformer?

James 5:1

James 5:1. Go to is the same phrase as that in chapter 4:13. There it is a rebuke for those who are boastful of their expected gain, here it is against those who have obtained it by wrongful means which will be considered at verse 4. The miseries will come upon them at the day of judgment.

James 5:2

James 5:2. Wealth that is not needed and especially that has been accumulated in an evil manner, will deteriorate by the simple fact of hoarding.

James 5:3

James 5:3. Witness against you means that the fact of their cankering and rusting will prove they did not need them and that they had been hoarded. For the last days denotes that these treasures will be against them at the last great day of judgment.

James 5:4

James 5:4. The mere possession of wealth does not condemn one as may be seen from Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50-51; Mark 10:24; 1 Timothy 6:17-19. The question is as to how a man obtains his wealth and the use he makes of it. In the present verse the men became rich by withholding the wages of their employees. This does not have any bearing on disputes about what should be the wages, but is considering only what was kept back by fraud. Sabaoth means “hosts” or armies, and the thought is that He who is able to command the armies of Heaven will be able to deal with all unjust men.

James 5:5

James 5:5. Day of slaughter signifies a day of great preparation for gratification of self at the expense of others. Been wanton means they had lived in luxury upon the things they had fraudulently taken from the poor.

James 5:6

James 5:6. This verse might seem to be a break into the line of thought but it is not. The poor people who had been imposed upon were not receiving their just dues, and they would naturally feel disturbed over the seeming neglect of the Lord. James mentions the fact of the condemnation and slaying of the Just One, meaning Christ, that even He did not resist. (See Isaiah 53:7 and Acts 8:32.)

James 5:7

James 5:7. James now addresses the poor brethren who had been unjustly treated, and on the basis of facts and truths just revealed, exhorts them to be patient unto the coming of the Lord when all wrongs will be adjusted. As an example of patience he refers to the husbandman or farmer as he proceeds in his business. Early and latter rain actually means the fall and spring rains. I shall quote from Smith’s Bible Dictionary as follows: “In the Bible ’early rain’ signifies the rain of the autumn, and ’latter rain’ the rain of spring. For six months in the year, from May to October, no rain falls, the whole land becomes dry, parched and brown. The autumnal rains are eagerly looked for, to prepare the earth for the reception of the seed.”

James 5:8

James 5:8. Also patient has reference to the patience of the husbandman commented upon in the preceding verse. Christians can well afford to be patient for their interests are far more valuable than those of a farmer. Draweth nigh. Whether James has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which was then only a few years away, at which time the persecutions of the disciples were to be somewhat eased, or to the personal appearance on earth of Jesus for the judgment, the time would be comparatively short when the endless duration after the judgment is considered.

James 5:9

James 5:9. To grudge means to murmur against another because of oppression. Christians not only were told to be patient under the persecutions from enemies in the world, but to exhibit the same patience toward their brethren who are so unthoughtful as to mistreat them. Lest ye be condemned when Jesus comes to summon all before the judgment, at which time he will condemn all who did not maintain patience under difficulties as well as those who caused the difficulties. Judge standeth at the door is explained by the comments on the preceding verse.

James 5:10

James 5:10. A few verses above James refers to the farmer who sets an example of patience under times of anxiety. He now makes reference to the teaching prophets of old time for the same purpose of a lesson in patience.

James 5:11

James 5:11. Those who endure afflictions are to be counted happy because of what it indicates for them. (See chapter 1:2, 3.) Just after using the word endure James makes mention of the patience of Job which verfles the definition often given of the word patience, namely, that it means en durance. End of the Lord means the outcome of the case under the blessing of the Lord. It shows that He is merciful even though he suffers a righteous man to be afflicted for a good purpose (Job 42:12-17).

James 5:12

James 5:12. Swear not. Jesus taught that his disciples should not make oaths in Matthew 5:34-35, and the reader should see the comments at that place. Sometimes an attempt is made to justify making oaths by saying Jesus was only condemning false oaths. But James spoils that theory by his words neither by any other oath, which rules out every shade and grade of swearing. Besides, there is nothing that should urge the Christain to make oaths, for this is a case where he can obey the command of the Lord and satisfy the laws of the land also.

Instead of making an oath the Christian can notify the officer saying “I will affirm,” and his word will be taken for the same value as an oath. That is what the scripture here and at Matthew 5:37 means by directing that your yea be yea and your nay be nay. The fundamental difference between an oath and an affirmation is that the latter does not use the name of God; also that one says “I affirm” instead of “I swear.” Lest ye fall into condemnation is another way of saying that if a disciple makes an oath he will be condemned, because both Jesus and James have forbidden it.

James 5:13

James 5:13. Afflicted is from KAKO-PATHEO, and Thayer defines it, “To suffer evils; hardship, troubles.” It does not refer to physical diseases which will come in the next verse. When a disciple is beset with these trials he should be in the frame of mind that would lead him to go to God in prayer for strength and encouragement. Merry does not mean to be gay or frivolous, for the original is defined to denote “Be of good cheer.” The phrase let him sing psalms is from the noted Greek word PSALLO, and Thayer defines it as follows: “In the New Testament to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song.” There are times when a person is not in the “mood” for singing and James recognizes that truth in this verse. David also recognizes it in Psalms 137:2-4. Solomon likewise had the thought in mind when he spoke of the inappropriateness of the man “that singeth songs to an heavy heart” (Proverbs 25:20).

James 5:14

James 5:14. The word sick is from AS-THENEO, which Thayer defines at this place, “To be feeble, sick.” Robinson defines it, “A sick person, the sick.” It is the word that is used in the Greek text at Luke 7:10; John 4:46 John 11:3; Acts 9:37 and other similar passages. From the above information we are sure the word in our passage has the regular sense of bodily disease, and not a figurative or spiritual condition as some teach. This verse should be regarded in the same light as Mark 16:17-18 :1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13, 14; Ephesians 4:8-13; Hebrews 2:3-4 and all other passages dealing with the subject of spiritual gifts. In the early years of the church the Lord granted miraculous demonstrations to confirm the truth that had been preached while the New Testament was being completed. Among those miracles was that of healing the sick and since elders (or pastors, Ephesians 4:11) were among those receiving such gifts, it is reasonable that they should be called in such a case.

The use of oil does not signify anything contrary to these remarks, for Jesus sometimes used material articles in connection with His miraculous healing, such as clay in the case of the blind man in John 9:6-7. Just why such things were done in connection with the miracles we are not told and we need not speculate as to why.

James 5:15

James 5:15. Prayer of faith means miraculous faith which was one of the spiritual gifts discussed in the preceding paragraph (1 Corinthians 12:9). The forgiveness of sins is mentioned in addition to the healing of sickness. This shows that sickness is not spiritual for that would be the same as guilt of sins. It would be meaningless to speak of healing spiritual sickness or a condition of sin and then add that the man’s sins also would be forgiven. That would be equivalent to saying the Lord would heal a man of his sins (would forgive him) and would also forgive his sins. It would not alter the discussion to say that the sins were what caused the man to be sick, for that would still leave the truth that it refers to sickness of the body.

James 5:16

James 5:16. Confess your faults does not mean merely to confess that we have faults, but the faults themselves are to be acknowledged. One to another denotes that we are to confess the faults that we have committed against another; we are to confess such faults to him. Sins which are known to God only need only be con fessed to Him. That ye may be healed. This is said in direct connection with the mention of faults, hence we know the last word is used figuratively or concerning a spiritua) cure.

No man can do another man’s praying for him, but both can pray together for the forgiveness of the one at fault. Effectual means active or practical, and it is used to indicate a man who not only prays to God but who also makes it his business to serve Him. The prayers of such a man will be regarded by the Lord.

James 5:17-18

James 5:17-18. The account of this event with Elias (Elijah in the Old Testament) is in 1 Kings 17:1-7 1 Kings 18:41-46. The prophet did not perform the feat merely to demonstrate his miraculous power, for such kinds of evidence were not necessary at that time. The connection shows that Ahab was a wicked king of Israel, and the Lord saw fit to punish him with a dearth by withholding the rain. The prayer of Elijah is not recorded, but he was a righteous man and realized that the wicked king would not be brought to repentance but by some severe judgment. Accordingly, when he prayed to the Lord on the subject his prayer was accepted as just and the chastisement was sent on the king and his country.

It was therefore a miracle granted because of the righteousness of the request. Yet even at such a time, had he not been a righteous man his prayer would not have availed any, to say nothing about its availing much. Subject to like passions means he was only a human being, yet because of his good life his prayer was heard, since that was yet in the days of special providence.

James 5:19

James 5:19. To err from the truth means to wander to one side according to the comments at chapter 1:16. To convert such a person means to induce him to turn and reenter the pathway of truth, since the word convert literally means to reverse a direction.

James 5:20

James 5:20. A sinner is any person who is doing wrong, whether he be a man of the world or an erring disciple. No man can repent for another but he may be able to persuade the guilty one to repent. If he succeeds he will save a soul from death because the one in error was going the way that leads to spiritual death. Hide is from KALUPTO. and both Thayer and Robinson explain it to mean that by reason of the repentance of the erring one, the Lord will overlook and not punish the one who had gone astray. This act of the Lord’s mercy would be equivalent to hiding the sins because they would not be brought up to judgment afterward.