James 1:19–27

Original Meaning

Receive the Word in Humility, Speak Without Anger (1:19–21)

FROM THE WORD of God (1:18) James turns his attention to human words, and in so doing presages chapter 3, wherein he will argue that the gift of God’s wisdom influences how Christians speak. Believers should concentrate on listening with humility and meekness, rather than speaking in anger.

Immediately we are faced with something of a dilemma. The opening verb, “take note of this” (iste), can be either indicative or imperative. Martin2 takes it as an imperative and so holds that this phrase should go with verse 18, serving as a concluding exhortation to that passage. I am rather inclined to agree with other commentators3 who agree with Martin that the verb is in the imperative mood, but who see it introducing the thoughts to follow. These thoughts are expressed in terms of a proverb: “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”

The idea is nearly universal. Certainly the ancient Greeks knew of it. Dio Chrysostom said, “I for my part should prefer to praise you for being slow to speak, and even more that you are self-controlled enough to keep silent.”4 But the saying in James is of a Palestinian context, seeing that the Greek pas anthropos (“everyone”) is a Semitism, a rendering of Hebrew kol ‘adam. More typically Greek would use the simple pantes (“all”). We think also of Proverbs 29:20: “Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him.”5 James may also have in mind a saying of Jesus: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken” (Matt. 12:36). A rich parallel is found in Pirke Aboth 5:12:

There are four types of disciples: swift to hear and swift to lose—his gain is canceled by his loss; slow to hear and slow to lose—his loss is canceled by his gain; swift to hear and slow to lose—this is a happy lot; slow to hear and swift to lose—this is an evil lot.

Of course, to find parallels to the original meaning of a term is not necessarily to have discerned the meaning of a text. Some insist that James here is asking his audience to listen to their teachers.6 While this interpretation has an innate appeal to preachers and teachers, we can hardly be certain that a meaning this narrowly focused is true to the historical picture. What is certain is that the passage finds its home in the Jewish wisdom tradition, which placed a premium on measured speech and studious listening. Yet the powerful appeal to community unity in chapter 3 makes it possible that a part of the thought here is a plea to peaceful coexistence—being slow to say rash and angry words to others within the Christian community.

It is enormously helpful to know the problems confronting the readers of James. While many of the specifics are lost to us, in 2:1–13; 3:1–4:12 James makes clear a number of the significant ones. The church had become divided over many issues. Some sought to use the church as a means to display wealth and to exercise power. Others taught a doctrine of fellowship that denied the centrality of the command to love one’s neighbor. Still others had shown obvious favoritism to the wealthy. Beyond these, however, the text hardly requires extraordinary imaginative powers to envision concrete examples in contemporary church life.

James then turns his attention to two examples that illustrate his point: human anger and the righteous life that God desires. In verse 20 James seems to confirm our suspicion that in the background is to be found a concern with the character of Christian community, for he says that human anger does not produce the righteousness of God; therefore, we should be slow to anger.7 In choosing this rendering the NIV has, perhaps, placed too soft a garment on the phrase. James uses the word ergazetai, and so the phrase should be translated “for the practice of human anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.” James seems to have no particular type of anger in view, but puts before us the proposition that anger is deleterious to the righteousness God desires of us.

It is possible, however, that James is instructing us to be slow to assume the mantle of righteous indignation, because in so doing we implicitly claim to speak for God. Such anger certainly has a rightful place, but should only be summoned after careful and diligent exercise of prayer and thought. In either the general or specific case, James’s words concerning slowness to speak are well taken. Although the phrase “man’s anger” is generic, it is more likely that James also has in mind the specific anger of the individual that provides concrete form for the general assertion.

In claiming that anger is undesirable James again offers an observation with parallels in Hellenistic and Jewish literature.8 More to the point, a related teaching is found on the lips of Jesus, who saw other paths to righteousness: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled…. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:6, 10).9 Human anger, which is the product of a retarded willingness to listen, is at odds with God’s righteousness.

The chief question here concerns the meaning of dikaiosynen theou (lit., “the righteousness of God”). (1) It can refer to righteousness as an aspect of the character of God. Since God is righteous and he does not indulge in anger, neither should we. (2) It can mean “God’s righteous standard.” Because God expects us to be above anger, he demands this righteousness of us. (3) It can mean “the righteousness that God gives,” that he grants to us. We cannot practice intemperate anger and suppose that we will receive this righteousness, for such activity disqualifies us. (4) It can mean “eschatological righteousness,” that God is the one who will settle accounts.

This last option enjoys the benefit of a powerful advocate in 5:6–9, for we are told there not to grumble against each other, but instead to wait for the righteous judgment of God when the Lord comes.10 But the second option is an equally potent candidate, championed by 3:8–12, where Christians are warned against cursing their fellows believers. Both of these are probably in James’s mind, and in both cases the same may be said: Outbursts of anger do not produce the kind of righteous behavior God desires to see in our lives. Thus, we might better paraphrase the sentence, “Righteous action does not spring from anger.”

But there is more to it. In verse 21 James speaks in more expansive terms of this life of righteousness. By opening with “therefore” (dio, which can also be rendered “according to this principle”) James makes it clear that he is concluding this line of thought. This conclusion opens with a brief catena of behaviors that should not characterize the life of a Christian. The first involves both restraint and renunciation: Christians should “get rid of” (NIV) or “strip off” certain behaviors. Originally this word was used of clothing, and the image of preparation for baptism springs to mind.11 Perhaps James wishes to remind us of the powerful passage in Zechariah 3, where Joshua the high priest, a symbol for God’s people, has his dirty robes removed and is given clean robes, a symbol of God’s forgiveness. The verb “get rid of” (apotithemi) introduces similar lists of vices in Ephesians 4:25 and 1 Peter 2:1. It can also be used of washing dirt from the body, as in 1 Peter 3:21. The word carries with it the idea of total conversion, a complete change of life pattern.

James instructs us to remove “moral filth” (rhyparia) and “evil” (kakia). Rhyparía means dirt, filth, greediness, and moral uncleanness; kakia, when linked with the word “prevalent” (perisseia), has the connotation of an abnormal growth of wickedness or even malice. Since this noun can also mean “excess” or “surplus,” some see James warning against only a superfluity of moral filth and evil (cf. NEB, “the malice that hurries to excess”). This is an odd rendering, for clearly James wants no vulgarity, moral filth, or evil to be present within the Christian community. These terms are among the strongest he has at his command and imply not only general moral evil, but also a premeditated evil intent. Laws ably and helpfully translates the phrase, “all vulgarity and the great mass of malice.”12 The meaning is clear: Christians must turn not only from anger, but from evil and malice, whether random or premeditated.

But turning from evil is not enough. James also places before us an alternative path: “Humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.” This attitude of humility characterizes the one who has “converted.” It is no longer a life of evil and wickedness, but one marked by calm and concern for others. Our attitude is to be one of humility, recognizing God’s wisdom relative to our own poor resources in this regard. The way to salvation is to be found in meek listening to God’s word. This posture is necessary if we are to “accept the word planted in” us. Humility is significant not only because the attitude is necessary in order to allow the word to flourish, but also because it is the essential attribute of the poor, those without resources who are dear to the heart of God.

What we are to receive or accept with humility is the word “planted in you.” This “word” must be equivalent to the “word of truth” of 1:18, although here it is the true word spoken or read, for 1:22 enjoins us to “listen to the word.” The term the NIV renders as “planted” can mean either something intrinsically possessed or something added. There has been no little debate concerning which is the best nuance. It is often pointed out that it is logically impossible to accept what one already has. But we should remember that James is concerned with the practical matters of moral teaching, not with intricacies of the logic of metaphysics. Most likely he intends both nuances. As members of the fallen human race we need to have this word of God planted in us and to nurture it so that its roots grow deep and strong. But as members of a race originally intended to be in close communion with God, this word has a rightful place within us. It is not an alien agent; rather, its implantation is like the rightful return of something needful but long lost. It is necessarily a constituent element of that “perfect humanity” of which James spoke in 1:4.

The NIV chooses to translate sosai tas psuchas hymon as “save you,” where the Greek reads (lit.) “save your souls.” “Soul” refers not to the Greek idea of the “higher” or more ethereal elements of the human person, but rather our whole beings. God’s word has the power to save us. We must remember that the New Testament presents a triple pattern of salvation: We have been saved through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:24–25); we are being saved (1 Cor. 1:18); and we will be saved (Rom. 8:21–23). This triple pattern helps us understand the shades of meaning that attend to “planted,” as it presents us with an image of growth and development. The word of truth has saved us. We are to nurture it, for it is a motive force in the process of saving us. The result of this process is that we will achieve ultimate salvation.

There is a significant parallel to these thoughts in 1 Peter 1:23–2:2. Both passages discuss birth by the word of God, call for a rejection of kakia, and include advice to receive and nurture the word. This nurturing, of course, implies behavior and therefore codes of conduct; in short, the law. James will argue that the word involves the law, but he here stresses that the law does not control the word, nor are they identical. While James is often castigated for concentrating on works, we should note how at this critical juncture he carefully highlights the saving power of God’s word, which when it grows strong within us creates Christian character that results in righteous action.

Bridging Contexts

WE MUST UNDERSTAND two key ideas in this passage if we intend safely to carry the message of James from the first century to our own. (1) The first concerns the question of law, and more specifically what James calls the “perfect law.” This also involves his notion of the word, and more broadly the supposed tension between Paul and James relative to the matter of faith and works. We soon will see that in spite of his reputation, James presents a compelling case for the primacy of faith. (2) The idea of the necessity of justice also calls for careful discussion. There are many within the contemporary church who are quick to assume the mantle of prophet and speak with righteous and even splenetic anger, yet James cautions us to avoid this behavior. How can we balance the thought of James with current conditions?

The law. One of the most intriguing issues in New Testament theology is the relationship between the grace of God and the demands of the law. The two are often seen as opposites, whether the dynamic is expressed in terms of “faith versus works” or “word versus law.” In speaking of “the implanted word” and “the perfect law,” James places us squarely in the middle of this issue. Our attention will focus on the law in order to demonstrate that James defines “law” and “word” so that the two are not in opposition, but rather are complementary.

It can hardly be doubted that the contemporary Protestant tradition is colored by a healthy skepticism of “law.” We are taught that the Jews of the first century kept the law in order to earn the favor of God, and that with the death and resurrection of Jesus we are free from the law. While it no longer seems likely that this picture of first-century Judaism is accurate,19 there is some scriptural support for a negative view of “the law.” After all, Paul claims that Jesus Christ set him free from the “law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2), and John claims that “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

But the picture often drawn of grace versus the law is a too facile reading of Scripture. Paul says many good things about the law, as even a cursory reading of Romans 2–10 demonstrates. Nor is Jesus free of controversy in this matter. In Matthew 5:18–19, for example, Jesus speaks as a legalist, claiming that not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, not the least of the commandments will pass away. Yet this complex of statements is in stark variance with his activity throughout the rest of the Gospel. Similarly in Luke, we encounter a rapid series of teachings about the law. In Luke 16:16 we learn that the law has passed away; in verse 17 we learn that the law can never pass away; and verse 18 enjoins us to an obedience of the law that goes beyond that of the Pharisees. In order to understand what James means by “the perfect law,” we must penetrate the understanding of Jesus on the law.

In Jesus’ teaching on the law two items are firmly lodged: (1) The cardinal principles or intentions of the law take precedence over literalistic and niggling adherence to the law; and (2) while concentration on outward acts is not wrong, to concentrate on actions alone opens us to the danger of mistaking the good for the best. For this reason Jesus emphasizes the matter of the heart and of human character. All of this is enshrined by James in his heavy emphasis on “the word” in this passage. The word within us is living, growing, vital, and flexible. It has the power to woo us into compliance with God’s will, which is the purpose of the law.

This, in fact, is the cornerstone of the teaching of Jesus on the law. The law is a guide, not an impediment. The law is good in that it is a channel that directs us to living out the intention of God. It is a means, not the purpose. On its own it has little if any power to change hearts. For Jesus strict observance to the letter of the law is not radical obedience. Jesus taught a higher standard of ethical obedience than can be enforced by any law. He taught an ethic that flows from hearts in tune with God’s heart. James points to the same idea with his phrase “the perfect law that gives freedom.” We might almost call this a “law of the heart,” a growing and innate sense of God’s purpose and pleasure in a given situation.

The Pharisees attacked Jesus for fraternizing with the common “polluted” people. In response Jesus told the crowds to beware the leaven of the Pharisees (Mark 11:15), for they were concerned with outward pollution but ignored its source, the heart out of step with God’s heart. The activity of Jesus caused the Pharisees and others to regard him as a figure guilty of creating scandal. He purposely broke the Sabbath (2:23–3:6); he claimed the right to forgive sins (2:1–12); he willingly and even gleefully associated with unsavory company (2:13–17). In so doing he expressed his right to pass judgment on not only the Pharisaic law, but on Judaism itself.

These differences stem from divergent conceptions of God and of his holiness. For the Pharisees holiness was fragile, easily polluted, and in need of protection. In the main20 their view of God was of a legislator whose laws required scrupulous observance in order to protect this holiness. For Jesus the holiness of God was essentially his compassion and his mercy. This robust compassion had the power to render clean the unclean, as the encounter of Jesus with the hemorrhaging woman demonstrates (Luke 8:40–56). His picture of God was of a loving Father whose earnest wish was to welcome his rebellious children home. In fairness to the contemporaries of Jesus we must note a saying attributed to Simeon the Just, a high priest who lived approximately 200 B.C.: “By three things is the world sustained: by the Law, by the [Temple–] service, and by deeds of loving kindness.”21 The Judaism in which Jesus was raised understood the need for hearts to be remade, as opposed to slavish adherence to the form of the law.22

Jesus’ dispute, then, was not so much with the law as such, but with what he considered a skewed understanding of the law, a tendency to view the law as an end and not the means for some greater good. Only in this way can we understand Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” For Jesus, then, “the law” was not what his contemporaries meant, but was a more accurate representation of God’s character in the concrete and was therefore a joy, not a burden. James agrees. By emphasizing the implantation of the word prior to his discussion of behavior, he (like Jesus) presents this “perfect law” or “law of the heart” in descriptive terms. This is a picture of life in the kingdom of God.

Neither Jesus nor James are chary, however, of pointing out that the commands of God must be followed. These commands are, in the main, components of the foundation and principles of God’s revelation: love for the neighbor, forgiveness, the preservation of life, and abstinence from idolatry and from sexual immorality. These are so closely illustrative of God’s character that there appears to be no room for flexibility. Paul, for instance, can countenance differing opinions on the resurrection (1 Cor. 15), yet deals summarily with pagan practice (10:14–22) and with sexual immorality (5:1–5).

Like James we should understand Jesus’ teaching on the law as directed toward the intention of the law. The word planted within our hearts allows us to live toward the goal of the law. This implies the next complex of issues to be discussed, the care given to widows and orphans.

Widows and orphans; compassion and justice. James is bold enough to claim that the definition of pure religion is, in part, “to look after orphans and widows.” The intensity of the Hebrew idea is foreign to us and needs to be given voice if we are properly to understand James. In ancient Israel the cult involved sacrifices as a means of honoring God. Yet the prophets offered attacks, at times savage and violent, against sacrifices, for they proved unable to shape character. Even Samuel once said, “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than to sacrifice …” (1 Sam. 15:22). Later prophets, such as Amos and Jeremiah, went even further, arguing that the actual worth of worship was contingent upon moral behavior. To live a life of injustice, one bereft of compassion, was to make worship worthless.

The pervasive nature of this idea is lodged even in Proverbs: “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God” (Prov. 14:31). Tied to this idea are two Hebrew terms that do not easily translate into English. The first is mišpat,23 the root of which, špt, has a range of meanings, including “rule, judge, warn, deliver, vindicate.” Mišpat is most often used to refer to the restoration of a condition of harmony, wholeness, and equity, a condition otherwise referred to by the Hebrew word šalom. It is normally reserved for the description of a mode of action. The second word is ṣedaqah,24 which conveys the notions of right order in general, of right order before God, and of justice. ṣedaqah tends to emphasize the quality or character of a person that results in righteous acts. But the two are inextricably related. Thus Amos 5:24 declares, “Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream,” implying that mišpat and ṣedaqah are virtual synonyms.

We have already seen that the Psalms form a vital and vibrant portion of the background to James, and they are of significance here as well. They posit the view that God has established and is the guardian of justice. Psalm 97:2 reads, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” Psalm 99:4 claims that God “loves justice” and has “established equity.” God is the one who guarantees and administers justice as a feature of his holiness. As judge, God is called upon to redress wrongs, as in the Jephthah story (Judg. 11:27).

God also expects human beings to be involved in the maintenance of justice, and for this reason he requires more than piety; he requires a heart and actions of justice and righteousness.25 In Jeremiah 9:23–24 we read:

Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom

or the strong man boast of his strength

or the rich man boast of his riches,

but let him who boasts boast about this:

that he understands and knows me,

that I am the LORD, who exercised kindness,

justice and righteousness on earth,

for in these I delight.26

We would be remiss if we failed to note the quality of relationship conveyed in the verbs “understand” and “know.” This is no mere affectation or the aping of behavior. This reflects action that springs from the core of one’s being. So the judges in ancient Israel were to mirror the holiness of God in their actions (Ex. 18:21). The central thrust of the justice of God is to create an egalitarian society in regard to basic human rights (Ps. 113:7–9).

Since human society tends to withdraw from such a community vision, both God and his appointed judges were to have a special concern for the poor and oppressed, here spoken of by the emblematic phrase “orphans and widows.” We can therefore see several themes within James converging. Like the judges of old, Christians are to mirror God’s character, as James says when he calls us to perfect humanity. We are also to observe more than outward piety. Finally, we are to protect and care for the poor and oppressed. This last constitutes a challenge that Christians in developed countries will dismiss only at their peril.

Contemporary Significance

JAMES HAS INTRODUCED a wide variety of issues here, but four form an umbrella broad enough to cover all. (1) We are often guilty of intemperate speech, whether it is an outburst of anger or premeditated gossip. (2) More and more, it seems, we are sure that we have been wronged and assume the posture of righteous anger, confident that God is on our side. (3) Certainly contemporary culture exposes us to moral filth, a situation that requires careful introspection. (4) We desperately need to remember the image we see when we peer into the mirror of God’s Word.

Intemperate speech. When James says that we should be slow to speak, he has placed his finger on a problem that can have devastating effects. Just as he argues that we should protect the dignity of the poor through material generosity, he also insists that we need to protect the dignity of others in the realms of public and private discourse. The idea here includes impassioned spontaneous speech as well as calculated intemperate speech, such as gossip. While as children we may have chanted “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” the ditty is actually an exercise in whistling in the dark. Words have great power to both wound and heal.

Recently a student sought me out in my office. Over the course of a hour she cried tears of intense pain as she related to me a story. Along with her mother she had visited her aunt, who spoke of her own daughter in glowing terms. She wished, the aunt said, that she could have another daughter just like the first. But the mother of the student in my office responded in a way that devastated her daughter. “I wish,” she said, “that my daughter had never been born.” Such speech is destructive of not only the target, but eventually also of the speaker. Our speech has the power to encourage and nourish life, or to snuff it out. Which shall we choose?

In his wonderful and spare novel All the Pretty Horses, Cormac McCarthy tells the story of John Grady Cole. As a young man he travels to Mexico with two friends, each of them hoping to escape a childhood in Texas marked by largely unknown disappointments. While there, John Grady Cole gains employment on a cattle ranch and earns the respect and trust of the owner, Don Héctor Rocha y Villareal. He also falls in love with Alejandra, the daughter of Don Héctor. Doña Alfonsa, the grandaunt of Alejandra, becomes worried about this relationship and invites John Grady Cole into conversation. At one point she speaks to the question of reputation and gossip:

You see that I cannot help but be sympathetic to Alejandra. Even at her worst. But I wont [sic] have her unhappy. I wont [sic] have her spoken ill of. Or gossiped about. I know what that is. She thinks that she can toss her head and dismiss everything. In an ideal world the gossip of the idle would be of no consequence. But I have seen the consequences in the real world and they can be very grave indeed.27

Gossip can have real and tragic consequences. We all know the sting of being made the subject of gossip, and we all have participated in the spread of gossip. The saying is that familiarity breeds contempt, but we ought to say that familiarity often causes us to ignore the obvious. Perhaps this problem and its solution can be thrown into sharper relief by looking at a form of gossip that is not so obvious. The last few decades have been tumultuous for local congregations. Among the many issues that make it clear that our culture is becoming increasingly unstable is the startling rise in the frequency of clergy misconduct.

There are few issues that can so powerfully and quickly devastate a church. I know of a church that recently weathered two very different storms of this type over a short span of time. First the senior pastor resigned while admitting to moral failing. The suddenness of his announcement left the church reeling. He is a tremendously gifted preacher, well loved by many in the congregation. But many felt betrayed by him, and still others directed their anger to the denomination that ordained him. Shortly thereafter the associate pastor was ordered to observe a six-month hiatus from ministry, at the conclusion of which came a resignation. The close proximity of these two shattering events caused many in the church to question the action of the board in the latter situation. Speculation ran fast and free among the congregation as people tried to make sense of these events. In the wake of unsubstantiated rumor, many in the congregation demanded that the board reveal the rationale for the decision to ask the associate pastor to resign.

I wonder if these people had thought through their request. Did they really wish to force the board to defend such a severe action? What if the reason had to do with moral failure on the part of the associate pastor? Would this revelation be in the best interest of their “friend,” the pastor in question? I doubt it. We sometimes excuse our gossip by claiming that we have a right to know some bit of information about someone else or by claiming that details have to be known in order to make wise decisions. Frequently this is a subterfuge. A simple but effective set of rules is this: Could the sharing of this information have the effect of harming someone? Is there any possibility that my motivation for sharing this information is less than pure? If the answer to either is yes, then perhaps the matter should not be pursued.

When is righteous anger justified? James also counsels against the presumption of righteous anger. This is particularly appropriate teaching and perhaps among the most difficult to imagine as applicable to oneself. Our world is awash in injustice. There is no denying it. Many in North America have suffered beyond what one might reasonably expect. Women and minorities have been and continue to be oppressed and discriminated against in our society and in our churches. Other groups have faced similar disenfranchisement. Many who consider themselves on the margins of the broader American culture or the specifically Christian culture wish to voice their right to have justice done. In recent years this has been true of homosexuals, pro-life groups, pro-choice groups, AIDS patients, marijuana smokers, the gun control lobby, smoker’s rights groups, women, minorities, and even white males. Each of these at times consider themselves to be worthy of a display of righteous indignation. Yet James cautions a slow and deliberate approach. When is righteous anger justified?

Perhaps the best answer is to investigate biblical patterns, especially that of the prophets. The prophets certainly expressed righteous anger. Amos could hardly be considered a promising candidate for the “James” award for temperate speech.

Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,

you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy

and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”

The Sovereign LORD has sworn by his holiness:

“The time will surely come

when you will be taken away with hooks,

the last of you with fishhooks.

You will each go straight out

through breaks in the wall…. (Amos 4:1–3)

Amos in his righteous anger proclaims God’s judgment waiting to fall on the unfeeling rich, who have turned their backs on the poor and who by inaction have crushed the needy. How can we reconcile this prophetic tirade with the call in James to avoid the presumption of righteous anger?

The first factor to notice is that the prophets were called. Almost invariably they, like Moses, initially resisted the call of God. Jeremiah, for instance, wanted nothing more than to be excused from his duties.28 In contrast, James is speaking to our desire to vent, our predilection to glory in self-righteous anger. We observe this on a daily basis. Children protest their right for exclusive use of a toy. Motorists angrily gesture at each other as they dispute the right-of-way. Politicians defend their case while besmirching their fellows. Nor is the church immune. Perhaps one of the most important and problematic examples concerns the role of women in the church. While many denominations ordain women, there is no doubt that the stories of women clergy are generally less than ideal. Many have experienced skepticism and even hostility from their brothers and sisters, whether in the pew or in denominational headquarters. Here is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Yet James advocates slowness of speech. This, it seems to me, is wise advice. A constant complaint does little to assuage the situation, and in most cases it actually has the effect of hardening the positions held by those in the opposition. Walter Brueggemann, in his splendid and challenging book The Prophetic Imagination, says that a prophet must do more than criticize. A prophet must also “energize” by offering an alternative vision that is marked by biblical hope.29 James, I think, would counsel us to curb our desire to vent, to proclaim ourselves right. He would ask us to wait, to spend some time in prayer and thought, before arrogating to ourselves the role of God’s messenger. This is not to say that righteous anger is not justified. It is to counsel a wise response that is the fruit of careful thought. An angry response nullifies the benefits of a position of moral authority.

A second factor is that the prophets reserved their harshest and most strident tones for times of imminent danger. It was the great danger to Jerusalem that made Jeremiah hold a pot over his head and declare that God will “smash this nation and this city just as this potter’s jar is smashed” (Jer. 19:11). It was the imminent destruction of the northern kingdom that made Amos utter such brutal words to the women of wealth in Samaria. But even in the midst of such danger, there was held out to them, like to those drowning, a lifeline: “Seek good, not evil, that you may live…. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph” (Amos 5:14–15).

A third factor is that the righteous anger of the prophets was directed at injustices that others were experiencing, not at injustice that they personally experienced. Note the prophet Jeremiah, for example. He complained bitterly to the Lord about the abusive situation he experienced at the hands of his enemies, but he never “damned” the false prophets or the nation of Judah for the way they were treating him, only for their sins and their disobedience to God’s law. Note too the example of Jesus, who preached against those who mistreated the poor and the oppressed; but when he himself was treated with gross injustice, “no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22; cf. Isa. 53:9). Moreover, when injustice comes our way, the apostle Paul instructs us to be willing to be wronged rather than to lash out in tirades of anger and perhaps even to launch lawsuits against others (1 Cor. 6:7–8).

Self-myopia manifests itself in our lives, especially in regard to our susceptibility to the “lure of the world.” We generally view this phrase in terms of obvious temptations, but it is more often the subtle and unnoticed error that is most dangerous. Human beings have a tremendous capacity to be silent as they observe the pain of others. When the news footage of the modern-day concentration camps and ethnic cleansing of Bosnia first graced our television screens, Americans were outraged. A year later the latest editions of those images held little power over us as we switched the channel to the sports report. How can we be so callous?30 As unsavory as it is to realize, we quickly become jaded to even the most outrageous evil.31

Brueggemann points out that this tendency to numbness is in the interests of authorities and institutions, particularly governments.32 The 1996 United States presidential race saw serious allegations leveled against Bill Clinton, the incumbent. On election night it was reported by CBS News that over 60 percent of Americans felt that President Clinton had lied about the scandal known as Whitewater. Yet an equally high percentage claimed that character issues were unimportant in their choice.33 The American public has become numb to the fact that character in large part determines policy and the integrity of that policy. We have become numb to the fact that actions spring from character: “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit” (Luke 6:43). This numbness allows the political order to behave as it will, with diminishing concern for integrity.

Most of us were filled with admiration for the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and the image of a brave solitary man blocking a line of tanks is fixed in our minds. Yet the decision of the United States government to continue to extend to China “most favored nation” trading status stands as mute witness to the interests of institutions to encourage numbness in the population. We easily become numb to injustice. Oppression of the powerless needs to be pointed out, and in whatever terms necessary. But not every situation is such a crisis. James would have us choose words that are in fact appropriate to the issue.

Unpolluted and free of moral filth. There is no shortage of candidates for a list of American vices that qualify as “moral filth.” Alcohol, drugs, laziness, pornography, abuse, hedonism, premarital sex, adultery, lying, and cheating are but a tithe of the candidates. In response, many Americans and American politicians have championed “family values.” Apart from being a vague slogan, there are several problems with this position. Not the least of these is that the Bible is concerned with both personal and corporate morality. In fact, our tendency to see personal morality and corporate morality as wholly separate subsets of morality is itself a problem. These two are mutually interpenetrating on a number of levels.

In his marvelous book Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin, Cornelius Plantinga devotes his attention to the distinctions between crime, sin, and evil. His hypothetical example involves Jim Bob, a white man in the American South in the late nineteenth century. While clearly evil, Plantinga points out that some might not believe that Jim Bob’s racist views can be called “sinful,” because Jim Bob (presumably) had no choice but to adopt the values of his family and his local culture. But the crucial point comes later. In Plantinga’s words:

What Jim Bob’s racism shows us is that moral evil is social and structural as well as personal: it comprises a vast historical and cultural matrix that includes traditions, old patterns of relationship and behavior, atmospheres of expectation, social habits.34

This point is especially telling because we often see structural evil as outside of ourselves, as something in which we are not involved, as something perpetrated upon our world by institutions, corporations, or governments. Plantinga demonstrates that structural evil is this and more. It includes assumed attitudes and patterns that allow institutions, corporations, and governments to act as if certain evil actions are not evil, or that doing evil is worth the risk, because whatever punishment might be in store is far less severe than the gain to be had. When corporations are fined only $100,000 for excessive pollution of the environment, our values are revealed. How effective a deterrent is a $1,000 fine imposed on a professional basketball player who earns in excess of $5,000,000 a year?35 When Roberto Alomar of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team can spit in the face of an umpire at the close of the season and still be allowed to play in the playoffs, something deeper and sick is revealed about the values of our society.36

James implores us to hold up to the mirror of God’s Word not only our personal lives, but also the attitudes, tendencies, and assumptions of our culture as well. Failure to do so, or to do so only halfheartedly, places us at great risk. Slavery in the American South was defended on biblical grounds, but not legitimately. Is it not reasonable to assume that there are parallel features in contemporary American life?

Thus, personal evil is linked to structural evil. It is easy to proclaim that abortion is a sin, but until we as Christians understand our responsibility to the unmarried mother living in poverty, we cannot claim the righteousness of God. While many Christians claim that the poor alone are responsible for their condition, we must face the fact that this is a decidedly American opinion, based on a decidedly American value; it does not reflect the values of the Bible. Here is a case in which the lure of the world is at work. James plainly teaches that we are to care for the poor. Some might claim that he intended such generosity only for others within the Christian community, but the teaching of the Old Testament concerning care for the alien and of Jesus concerning the neighbor weighs heavily to the other side.

Julian the Apostate, emperor of Rome from A.D. 361–363, was the nephew of Constantine the Great. His immediate family was murdered in dynastic struggles, and his uncle forced the young Julian to learn Christian doctrine as a child. This left him with a lifelong hatred of Christianity. In spite of this, he conceded that the Christians (he always referred to them as “Galileans,” in order to point out the obscure origin of the faith) were marked by great generosity. “It is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well, everyone can see that our own people do not receive aid from us.”37 There is no doubt that James would have us avoid moral filth that is personal. But he leaves precious little room for us to claim that corporate responsibility is not included.

But there is another reason James counsels the avoidance of moral filth. In 1:15 he exposed us to the idea that sin can grow and flourish as the corrosive mirror image of spiritual growth. Indeed, one of the curious paradoxical truths about sin is that while it pollutes and destroys, it also propagates itself. One lie often leads to another; children of abusive alcoholics often marry people who become abusive alcoholics; persons with AIDS at times knowingly spread the disease. A former student of mine is the child of divorced parents, and he found himself trapped because his feuding parents manipulated him so that no matter what he did, he could please only one of them at a time. While he found the behavior of his parents distressing, it also produced in him the same tendency to manipulation. Sin gives rise to sin. To treat it as trivial is wholly to misunderstand the teaching of James.

Look into the mirror of God’s Word. James provides for us the picture of the mirror of the Word; he instructs us to gaze at this mirror and then to remember the image. But we are quite adept at forgetting that image. We commonly deceive ourselves in a variety of ways. The great psychologist Carl Rogers believed that most people “despise themselves, regard themselves as worthless and unlovable.”38 While it is certainly true that many people suffer the crippling effects of an unrealistically low self-esteem, research seems to support the conclusion opposite to that offered by Rogers: Most people view themselves far more positively than reason would allow.

Often this takes the form of a fairly benign and healthy optimism. Neil Weinstein, a researcher at Rutgers University, has discovered that college students rate themselves far more likely than their peers to get a good job, own a house, and make a good living, and far less likely than their peers to get cancer, get divorces, or be fired.39 In survey after survey at least 90 percent of business managers and college professors rate their performance as superior to that of their peers. In Australia 86 percent of people rate their job performance as above average, while only 1 percent rate theirs as below average.40

At times, however, our ability to lie to ourselves becomes corrosive of others. Some years ago a friend of mine revealed that he felt persecuted at work. Apart from the disease I feel with his appropriation of the term “persecuted” to refer to an employment situation (we live in a world rife with human rights abuses, after all), I cannot help but think he deluded himself. His superiors at work decided to convene a committee to determine strategies that might strengthen this office. This investigation he viewed as proof of “persecution.” Yet at the initial meeting my friend was made secretary of this committee, and his supporter and supervisor was named chairperson. When I pointed out to him that this hardly seemed evidence of a secret strategy bent on persecuting him, my friend laughed and replied, “Now that I think about it, you are right. I guess I was not seeing things clearly.” His inability to see the situation with clarity placed him in danger of unfairly maligning others.

Of course such myopia is endemic to the human situation. We find ourselves tainted by original sin; we possess a bent and tendency to evil. Saint Augustine said that until we are redeemed in Christ, we are not free to do right.41 This has been described by the memorable phrase non posse non peccare, “not able not to sin.” Even the best of us carry good and evil as partners within. Thomas Jefferson, whose elegiac words “all men are created equal” stand as among the finest ever penned on human dignity, was a slave owner. Martin Luther, the great exponent of the grace of God, was an anti-Semite. The list of respected pastors who break their marriage vows and in so doing break trust with their families and congregations grows longer every day. We are myopic.

James pleads with us to spend time in introspection, in a careful and accurate gaze in the mirror of the Word, before we sally forth into the world to offer our ill-considered opinions in the name of Christ. Failure to do so can, at times, result in behavior that is unchristian and has the potential to harm others.

Original Meaning

Hearing Without Doing Is Worthless (1:22–25)

“DO WHAT [THE law] says” is a Semitism, as the Jews often spoke of doing the law in these terms—most often as “to practice Torah” (cf. Deut. 28:58). In Exodus 24:3 we read, “When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, ‘Everything the LORD has said we will do.’ ” Jesus himself contributed to this tradition: “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt. 7:24). While both Judaism and Jesus understood holiness to be tied to this “doing the word,” their radically different definitions of “holiness” led them in divergent directions. For Jesus, the center of God’s character is his compassion and mercy, as expressed in the twin dictum, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (Luke 10:27). For his contemporaries “holiness” had to do with purity and therefore with separation from “the world.”

Both views of holiness require a life of action. James makes this point with the present imperative “do” (ginesthe), which has the force of “continue to do.” We must continue to grow in carrying out the commands laid on us by our hearing of God’s word. This hearing is most naturally the public reading of the Scriptures in the context of worship.13 But hearing alone is insufficient. To hear and not to take action is to lie to oneself. Having introduced the idea of eschatological judgment, James’s warning here takes on grave consequences.

In verses 23–24 James turns his attention to a negative example in the form of a proverb: The person who hears without acting is like a man who looks in a mirror and then forgets what he looks like. James’s point is that the image in the mirror, whether the product of a furtive glance or an adoring gaze, quickly dissipates; whatever impression forms in the mind and heart while looking in a mirror is temporary. James may be thinking of an accurate self-appraisal, one that shows us areas that need attention. But he may also have in mind the image of true humanity (cf. 1:4), humanity as God intended, which in our mind’s eye we glimpse when the Word is read, but a vision that soon evaporates and is replaced by more base desires that the world is intent on displaying before us.

Verse 25 offers a positive example, but this verse is perhaps the thorniest theological problem in the entire book. The person who looks into “the perfect law that gives freedom” and then does not forget but acts upon this vision is blessed. The phrase “perfect law that gives freedom” has precedents in the Old Testament. The psalmist declared, for example, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul” (Ps. 19:7). For James “perfect law” and “word” are related, for each describes a pattern of life conduct. So “the word planted in you” (1:21) and “perfect law” are found in such close association that one implies the other.

This law is the law of freedom. In Paul freedom is most often from the Jewish law, but not always. Paul can say that “through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). It is therefore dangerous to assume that “law” in Paul is always used to imply the negative. In a similar manner, James defines law in such a way that it grants freedom from self-interest and immorality, allowing the Christian to grow into what God intends. It is not unlikely that James is here reflecting the words of Jesus relative to the law. Jesus did not overturn the law of Moses; rather, he pierced to the heart of its intention, and in so doing elevated the law.14

Like Jesus, James does not have in mind a new law, but rather the fuller expression or more perfect distillation of the Jewish law. For the Christian this law is still the will of God, but a more refined apprehension of that will. This is a law for which a purer cannot be imagined. The perfect law, the word implanted and allowed to take root, is, then, the very teaching of Jesus.15 Stephen Carter says that law has only two functions: It makes you do what you do not want to do, and it prevents you from doing what you want to do.16 This is essentially the problem with Mosaic Law in the eyes of Jesus, James, and Paul. It is rigid, somewhat inflexible, and most significantly, external. It has little or no power to animate the heart.

In piercing to the heart of the law Jesus touched on the intentions and attitudes that undergird the law. Rules, such as law codes, are based on principles, and principles arise from some foundational beliefs. For Jesus the foundation is the creative act of God. Implicit in this act are principles concerning life that directed Jesus to adopt a more severe stance than the Mosaic Law concerning divorce (learn to love and forgive one another; see Matt. 5:27–32), as well as a more permissive stance than the Sabbath law (see Luke 6:1–11; John 5:1–30).

Furthermore, there is also the person who forgets what he has heard and in so doing misses the blessing. This blessing may be a promise for the future, as James has already presented the idea of reward, or it may be a natural part of obedience to the law. James could easily have had both definitions in mind.