James 4:11–17

BROTHERS, DO NOT slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

13Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” 16As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. 17Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.

Original Meaning

Pure Speech Does Not Condemn (4:11–12)

IN VERSE 11, James uses the term “brothers,” binding himself to the church to which he writes. The verb the NIV renders as “slander” is katalaleo, which means “to speak ill of,” though it can also carry the more narrowly focused meaning of speaking falsely. Whether this speech is false or true, James has in mind harsh criticism and condemnation. Such verbal attacks were among the “quarrels and fights” referred to in 4:1–2.

There is no shortage of similar material in the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament parallels can be found in the Pentateuch,1 the Psalms,2 and the wisdom tradition.3 In the New Testament the term appears in several of the lists of vices (Rom. 1:30; 2 Cor. 12:20). But the clear foil is Leviticus 19:18, with its command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” This command is “the law” referred to in this passage. James points out that anyone who speaks disdainfully of a sister or brother is, in fact, breaking this “royal law” (cf. 2:8). Continuing in such behavior is no trifling matter. It does more than break the law, it treats the law as if it did not matter, as if it were not in force. In short, it judges the law and finds it not worthy of adherence.

What is so keenly disturbing for James is the central place this command occupied in the ethical teaching of Jesus.4 To ignore this command is, in effect, to repudiate Christ and to render the self-description “Christian” a falsehood.5 This “speaking ill” of sisters and brothers is closely allied to the ill treatment of them in 2:1–7, and the flagrant refusal to follow the royal law recalls James’s teaching in 2:8–13. The New Testament contains various injunctions against judging (Matt. 7:1–5; Rom. 2:1; 1 Cor. 4:5), but the reason given here, that judging breaks the law, pertains to James alone among the authors of the New Testament.

As in 2:10–11 James is not content to allow his case to rest on the meager foundation of the law itself. Rather, he discusses the law in terms of the personal authority of God, who stands behind the law (4:12). Here James is again in touch with a widely held tradition, that Christians should not judge others. Certainly this is a part of the Jesus tradition, for Jesus says in Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (cf. also Rom. 2:1; 1 Cor. 4:5). Only God has the right to judge, as he is the lawgiver. In the LXX Psalm 9:20 uses the term nomothetes (“lawgiver”) to refer to the action of God. God alone, as Davids points out,6 has authority over life and death (Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:39), and only he has the ultimate power to save or to destroy (1 Sam. 2:6; Matt. 10:28).

According to James, when we judge others, we not only arrogate to ourselves what belongs to God alone, we also invite and pronounce judgment on ourselves. This is not meant to exclude honest and healthy discussion among believers, but it is to make clear a strong warning that the line demarking proper from sinful discourse is easily and often unknowingly crossed. James also points out that none of us is without stain, and we are deserving of the same judgment we so righteously place at the feet of others. It is possible that a part of the sting here is to avoid giving the church an unsavory reputation within the community at large.

Bridging Contexts

THE TWO CHIEF issues in this passage are judging and boasting in wealth. Each requires clarification before application can begin.

Judging. In 4:11–12 are several variations of the idea of “judge,” all of them forms of the Greek verb krino (“judge”).17 In the LXX krino is used to render three different Hebrew words: šapat, dyn, and ryb. This conflation lent to krino a wide range of meanings. The first word, šapat, can mean both “to judge” and “to rule.” The second one, dyn, can mean “to judge,” “to punish,” and “to obtain justice for someone.” The third one, ryb, can mean “to quarrel” and “to carry out a lawsuit.”

In ancient Israel justice was about more than adherence to some abstract moral standard; it also included fidelity to a sense of peace and health within the community. Sometimes this meant that the wealthy were expected to sacrifice in the interests of the poor. Also in ancient Israel, all justice was attributed to God; he is the Lord and judge (see Deut. 1:17). God judges the nations, and on the “day of the LORD” he will destroy all ungodliness (see Isa. 2:12, 17–18).

In the New Testament krino and the idea of judging can mean “to approve,” “to distinguish,” and “to consider.” But the term can also possess a forensic meaning, such as “to judge,” “to condemn,” and “to punish.” The question of humans acting as judges is not without controversy in the New Testament. On the one hand, Paul says that the apostles and the church have a responsibility to judge. When confronted with serious sin within the congregation, he wrote: “What business is it of mine to judge outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you’ ” (1 Cor. 5:12–13). Elsewhere Christians are commanded to exercise judgment in spiritual matters: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

On the other hand, there are frequent commands to avoid judging others. Jesus said, for example, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:1–2). Paul likewise records this sentiment when in Romans 2:1 he writes: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

Clearly we are dealing with two different issues. There is an injunction to avoid judging, but there is also the command to display judgment within the church. In fact, even James’s warnings about judging are a form of the very judgment he seems to condemn. What is the path out of this problem?

In both Testaments all judgment is assigned to God. Judgment on the part of human beings, therefore, is lodged within the wider context of God’s judgment. God assigns to Jesus the task of judging. Jesus is God’s representative, though the authority to judge rests with God.18 When Jesus says, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” he is reflecting the awesome and fearful nature of the task. To the church God has delegated the task of judging in matters that affect its members. For this reason James and Paul can and do judge. However, they remind us that in judging we are acting in God’s stead, and therefore exceptional care and restraint must be observed. God does not take it lightly when his name and honor are invoked inappropriately. To render judgment in the flippant, arrogant, and harsh fashion that some in his church have been doing, James finds reprehensible and foolhardy. God will defend the cause of those maligned.

In summary, three points are prominent. (1) God alone has the right to judge. He is the lawgiver, the author of justice and righteousness. (2) God at times delegates that responsibility. He delegated it to Jesus, and in certain functions he delegates it to us. When exercising this role, however, we serve not as our own agents, but as the representatives of God. In some areas we are commanded to judge, such as in the case of spiritual discernment. But in all such areas we are to judge not in accordance to our own foibles and proclivities, or even according to personal convictions, but only in concert with the standards of God. This is the only true template. (3) We often judge inappropriately. When we use slander, misinform for ulterior motive, or seek what appears to our eyes to be “the good,” we are doing more than sinning against our neighbor. We are breaking trust with God; and in so doing, we are, in fact, judging ourselves. We demonstrate our lack of understanding of God our Father, and we place ourselves in jeopardy.

Merchants and traders. An unfortunate reality of the study of ancient Mediterranean history is that so little can be known about traders (negotiatores). What little we do know comes from disparate sources, principally occasional references in literature and citations in tax codes. The various codes all leave this group ill-defined, but generally they include all who made their living buying and selling, such as merchants, shopkeepers, moneylenders, and prostitutes.19

For many years a tax existed on traders, the collatio lustralis. Both pagan and Christian sources speak of it as a terrible burden.20 When outlawed, its place was taken by rents on imperial estates. We can only deduce that the imperial coloni21 far outnumbered the traders. We do know that the demand for most goods was low. After all, the vast bulk of the population often had trouble securing sufficient food. Most of the goods needed were manufactured locally, with the peasant population making virtually everything that was needed in their own homes. There were exceptions, such as the fabric industry, for which, as one might expect, the production facilities were located near the wool and cotton growing lands. Most local elites had their need for cloaks, shoes, and other items filled by traveling salespersons. Such traders rarely became rich, except by the standards of the poor. A trader in the Spanish market, for example, left an inheritance to his family of seventy pounds of gold.22 This was a great sum by local standards. But a senator of even modest means might expect income of one thousand to fifteen hundred pounds of gold annually.

Such traders were not trusted and were commonly considered to be inveterate liars. Proverbs 20:23 says, “The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him.” Micah says, “Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales, with a bag of false weights?” (Mic. 6:11). For these reasons traders were usually barred from the decurionate (the local city government). Callistratus tells us that it would be disgraceful for traders to be elected to the decurionate because it is likely that they will be flogged.23 In summary, there were few traders, but they did exist, often traveling for long periods. The wealth they could amass was little compared to the decurions. But in the eyes of the poor they were both rich and august.

The Roman economy was essentially agricultural, with trade comprising a fraction of the total gross production. The fact that the tax on traders could be replaced by rents on the imperial estates demonstrates not only the limited number of traders, but the relative unimportance of trade in the Roman economy. In this world traders held a position of low status, except in relation to the poor. It is possible, therefore, that some of these traders may have joined the Christian movement in part because it afforded the opportunity for status and display of wealth denied them in Roman culture at large. Certainly the complaint of James indicates that the interest of these traders was self-directed instead of directed toward the church.

Our world is quite different. In Chicago, where I live, thousands make their livings trading products that do not even exist yet. At the Chicago Board of Trade millions of dollars are made and lost speculating on the future price of orange juice or pork bellies. To trade in the price of imagined products would have been inconceivable to James. In spite of this difference, however, there are similarities. Like those early traders, we can and do boast in and rely on our standing in terms of public opinion, our reputation, our wealth, the security of our jobs, and countless other false foundations.

Contemporary Significance

THE CHURCH TO which James wrote had adopted as their own a philosophy that was errant and misguided. In this passage James points out two manifestations of this aberrant philosophy: Christians were given to judging one another without considering that God delegated that authority to them, and they boasted in their own strength and resources.

Impious judging. Five days after I graduated from college, I joined the staff of a large church on the San Francisco Peninsula, just north of the Silicon Valley. Friends, relatives, and even strangers, when they learned of my place of employ, offered some variation of, “It must be great to work at a place where everybody gets along, where everybody trusts each other, where there is no political maneuvering.” It took little time for that fantasy to evaporate in the hard light of experience. It is unfortunate, but true, that the contemporary church is no less immune to the virus of slander, ill-talk, and harsh criticism than the church to which James wrote so long ago. We find ourselves, as Luther said, simil iustus et peccator, “at once justified and sinful.”24

During the next fifteen years as I served in local churches, I witnessed astounding acts of Christian devotion and selfless service done with integrity and sacrifice. But I also witnessed evidence of another kind. Early on I watched as a plot hatched by some volunteers was set in motion. Their plan included ill-talk, half-truths, and misinformation concerning a pastor, which eventuated in his removal. They executed their strategy with precision and granted to it a veneer of spirituality, claiming to be acting “for the good of the church.” These volunteers were privy to various planning meetings and virtually all the decisions made by the pastor in question, never disagreeing with him openly. But as soon as the meetings were over, they spread their vitriol to others. Questions were raised in secret about the wisdom of the decisions made, and subtle hints were left concerning the misuse of funds. These “charges” were without foundation, but the effect was the same.

There are even more egregious examples. I know of a case in my own denomination in which men and women in local church leadership falsified official minutes of the church and lied to the annual meeting of the congregation about others in the church. Their rationale? That although the church had voted for a certain position, the decision was a poor one, and this, they felt, justified their arrogating to themselves the right to work against the position taken by the church. To do so they were compelled to act in ways that maligned others. When finally confronted, they protested pure motives, if not righteous actions. No one wants to believe that this can happen in the church, but it does.

Such deviousness is not limited to the local church. My own denomination is a case in point. The Evangelical Covenant Church in America was founded by Swedish pietist immigrants. To this country they brought a robust belief in the authority of Scripture and a commitment to the essential nature of the experience of new life in Christ. But in the early 1900s growing tensions within the denomination became clear. Over the years harsh, unkind, and untrue words were spoken and written. Each side was certain that it stood with the angels, and each was certain that the very soul of the denomination was at stake. Feelings were hurt, careers damaged, and untold misery experienced by family and friends. One of the principal players in the controversy wrote that at the time the convictions and actions of both sides seemed noble and pure, but in retrospect “some of us … displayed a regrettable party spirit. I confess that I carry my full share of guilt for the unwarranted apotheosis of something which, in the words of Nietzsche, was ‘human, all too human.’ ”25 We have the capacity to speak ill-considered and even slanderous words about each other within the church, even though we know that James says such behavior only brings condemnation on our own heads.

There are, I think, several steps we can take to avoid this pitfall. (1) We must remember that the end does not necessarily justify the means. Near the end of his life Cicero witnessed the destruction of what he considered the best of Roman civilization, and he bitterly said, “When you are no longer what you were, then there is no reason left for living.”26 It is possible “to win,” as had Cicero’s enemies, but at the terrible price of character and integrity. There are times when our desire to see a goal come to fruition so overwhelms us that the process of its achievement nullifies its effect.

Few questions are as important to the church of Jesus Christ as that of leadership. One of the truly discouraging features of my coming to maturity was the realization that in church politics the end often seems to justify the means. Mike was a young intern serving as a youth director at a church. He was recently married and set to attend seminary in the fall. He planned on resigning in May so that he and his new wife could move across the state and spend the summer settling into marriage and familiarizing themselves with the town that would be their home for the next three years. Mike’s supervisor knew of his plans, but did not want to interrupt his own vacation schedule in order to conduct a search for a replacement. So he convinced Mike to stay until a week before classes began. His motive was selfish, although he told Mike it would be “better for the kids.” His lie was convenient for him, but not for Mike. He abused his position, and although the stakes were not high, this abuse revealed something of a double-minded heart.

Recently a good friend of mine, a regional official for his denomination, told me a sad story concerning the administrator to whom he once reported. This administrator is gifted in many ways, and my friend has tremendous respect for her. But she had made some enemies among those who viewed her as an interloper. From my friend’s perspective this woman had done a great job, but the reaction against her had taken the form of a well-organized cabal. Several prominent persons within the district had decided to have her removed from office. They made charges that they believed were true, but many of which were without foundation. They misled some of her support staff and misused the information gained thereby. In their eyes it was essential for “the good of the district” that she lose her position. But the process they chose, one of duplicity, subterfuge, and misrepresentation, was not worthy of the cause of Christ. The goal before their eyes must have seemed to them so pure and rarefied, but the path they chose to reach it sullied and polluted not only the goal, but themselves.

(2) Stretch for biblical open-mindedness. Hindsight, the saying goes, is always 20/20. James has implored his readers to repent. To him the need for repentance was obvious. To his readers it was not so. There is something about faith that tends toward certainty. But certainty can be dangerous when it makes us blind. Jesus, like James, tried strenuously to open the eyes of his contemporaries to see their need for repentance. He implored them, “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment” (John 7:24). In no uncertain terms he warned them, “Woe to you, blind guides!” (Matt. 23:16). In frustration he said to them, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains” (John 9:41).

History teaches that we are foolish if we imagine we are immune from the same tendency. What ensures the honesty and integrity of our faith and practice is, in part, a healthy biblical self-critique. Paul says that, in a flash, he came to realize that his trust in the law was actually a form of idolatry that had prevented him from seeing the light (Rom. 10:1–4; 2 Cor. 3:7–4:6). Peter persisted to maintain a practice of separation from Gentiles until the vision recorded in Acts 10. Both were open to self-critique against the standards of Scripture and the Spirit. Such critique involves the courage and integrity to attempt to discern the wisdom of other positions. Above all, it means to test our own convictions, as well as those of others, on the anvil of the biblical witness.

Several years ago a good friend of mine, who as a young man became a millionaire in the clothing business, reported to his friends that his life had been transformed by reading John F. Alexander’s Your Money or Your Life.27 It convicted him concerning his use of money and God’s call on his life. God sometimes speaks to us, as he did to Paul, through the careful consideration of a position we do not hold. We must remain open to his leading. We owe it to ourselves to read and to study positions taken by other Christians, remembering to evaluate them on the basis of the biblical record and in light of the Spirit.

(3) Commit to personal integrity and biblical fidelity. Debates concerning women in ministry, the ordination of practicing homosexuals, leadership styles, and the merits of leaders are often politically charged and highly emotional. Frequently there is little reason attendant to the debates and often a lack of civility. James begs us to commit to personal integrity and biblical fidelity.

Let us not “win” at the sacrifice of our principles. Integrity means that we are willing to say in public what we say in private. “I am going to tell you something that he said, only I need you to keep it confidential” is a seedbed for Satan to do his work. Remember, when we judge, we do so as God’s designated agents. God will not brook falsehood, misleading, or duplicity. We may “win,” and in so doing wreck carnage on our victim, and yet be certain that the cause is just. But such a victory is pyrrhic and tainted, and it will be the cause of our own condemnation.

The idiocy of boasting in the uncertain. When James counsels us that tomorrow is never certain, he is right. The ancients knew this and spoke of capricious fortune that governed the lives of women and men. Perhaps the most ready examples of the unpredictable winds of life are those involving finance. Americans are fascinated with money, and particularly with financial abundance. There is something more than a desire for financial security at work here. We are intent on affluence. Our culture is captivated with wealth, with its acquisition and display. In this regard we are not too far removed from the traders whom James knew.

Infomercials crowd the television channels on the weekends, featuring testimonials from former wage earners who, after a short correspondence course, became millionaires buying real estate with no money down and working only ten hours a week. The complimentary airline magazines are replete with video courses offered by financial and success “gurus” who promise easy money. Millions flock to Atlantic City and Las Vegas every year, hoping for a big score. The advertising industry fuels this malady, as everything from luxury cars to recreation and vacation options, clothing, homes, cigarettes, kitchen cabinets, and top-of-the-line toilet tissue is hawked, with the emphasis on wealth and luxury. In case some little-used corner of our conscience is disturbed by this self-interest, the advertisers assure us that we deserve and need such opulence.

This is a twisting of the American dream. In the movie The Jerk we are exposed to a comedic dark vision of the American dream. Steve Martin plays a penniless simpleton who travels to the city, accidentally invents a hot-selling product, and thereby becomes a millionaire. But the product proves to have adverse physical effects, and soon the character played by Martin loses everything. This rags to riches to rags story parodies the American dream that any of us can become rich. But it also points out the transitory nature of financial wealth.

In the first place wealth is not easy to acquire. It is true that the American social and cultural landscape is studded with success stories that like of the billionaire H. Ross Perot. It may even be possible to become a millionaire buying real estate with no money down, but as James reminds us, this is not the point. Financial affluence is like the mist; it can disappear even as we grasp it. The wise person does not make his or her finances the bedrock of personal security. Only God deserves that status. But this requires honest evaluation of our own lives and priorities. God does not desire to be a mere ornament clinging desperately to the surface of our lives.

Of course, for most Americans financial affluence is beyond the realm of possibility. During 1996 pay and benefits for US workers rose by an average of only 2.9 percent, according to the Labor Department. The AFL-CIO notes that in 1965 the average CEO made forty-four times the average salary package of the average worker. In 1996 the difference was two hundred times.28

Not only is wealth difficult to accumulate, but it is equally difficult to maintain. I once knew a real estate mogul. He was a Christian and served on the deaconate of his church. When video tape technology was set to become widely available to the American public, he made two crucial decisions that together were the equivalent of risking his financial health. Both turned out to be mistakes. The first was to risk a good portion of his wealth buying stock in a “sure thing” electronics firm, which turned out to be the opposite. The second involved a major deal to develop a large tract of land. Everyone said his plan was brilliant. The land in question was ideally located, and the timing seemed perfect. A year after he purchased the land, the value had doubled. But soon a horrific series of events began to transpire. Legal problems concerning title arose, serious environmental questions were posed, and several of his partners backed out. The deal collapsed around him. In both he suffered huge losses. The enhanced financial security for which he hoped, which everyone said was a foregone conclusion, easily within his grasp, dissipated like the morning mist, disturbed by even the lightest of breezes.

Investors in foreign markets take no fewer chances. In his review of the book Kremlin Capitalism,29 Robert Cottrell points out that years of communist rule have left managers and workers woefully unprepared for the essential savvy needed in a market economy. Instead of selling the majority of shares in an industrial enterprise to an “investor who would bring the entire amount of capital necessary to modernize and restructure the firm” in order to make it healthy, most Russian managers and workers prefer to maintain ownership of an increasingly outdated plant. Such behavior the authors label as “suicidal.”30 There are other dangers to investing in Russia. “In 1995 alone the Russian Business Roundtable, an organization of leading executives, lost nine of its top thirty officials to assassins.”31

Sadly, many in Christian ministry betray the same smug certainty in wealth and position. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and their PTL (Praise the Lord) ministry are a case study in the virulent spread of the desire for and false assurance in financial security. Most of the Bakker’s close associates were caught in a web of expanding lies, all set in the context of a ministry that once was viable. The desire for money perverted Bakker and his closest associates in a fashion that was not only thorough, but also subtle enough that they did not recognize their own infection until it was too late and thousands of innocent, trusting people had suffered, as had the reputation of the church of Jesus Christ. Neither Bakker nor his associates ever dreamed that their world of affluence could dissipate so quickly and completely.

In his surprisingly sympathetic review of the newest books by Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner,32 Martin Gardner catalogues the sad story of a Christian minister seduced by the limelight and money, and the rapid spread of this infection. Richard Dortch, Bakker’s co-pastor, who paid Jessica Hahn $363,700 in hush money, was sentenced to eight years in prison and fined $200,000. Another of Bakker’s top assistants, David Taggart, and his brother James, PTL’s interior decorator, were convicted in 1989 of tax evasion to the tune of $500,000. Each was sentenced to seventeen years in prison. Jim Toms, Bakker’s friend and attorney, pled guilty to embezzling $1.4 million from his clients. Roe Messner, Bakker’s friend, contractor for the defunct Heritage USA Christian theme park, and current husband of Bakker’s ex-wife, was indicted by a Wichita, Kansas court for hiding $400,000 from the government when he declared bankruptcy in the aftermath of the PTL scandal. The desire for wealth cloaked itself in the guise of authentic ministry and proved a deadly foe.

Gardner writes that while Jim Bakker was in prison, he came to understand that his “health and wealth” gospel was wrong. Gardner quotes Bakker as saying, “To my surprise, after months of studying Jesus, I concluded that He did not have one good thing to say about money…. I had to face the awful truth that I had been preaching false doctrine for years and hadn’t even known it!”33 Gardner continues that Bakker no longer believes the frequent justification Tammy offered for their material luxury: “We were worth it.”

Of course, the other factor is what people everywhere think wealth will get them: happiness. A recent survey asking this question of Americans, “What will make you happier,” yielded 32 percent who answered, “If I were smarter,” and 48 percent who said, “If I were rich.” This is one of the great false beliefs of our time. University of Illinois psychologist Ed Diener and his colleagues surveyed forty-nine of the wealthiest Americans (according to the listing in Forbes magazine). They reported only slightly higher levels of happiness than is the average among all Americans. Of these forty-nine Americans, each with a net worth over $100 million, 80 percent agreed with the statement that “money can increase or decrease happiness, depending on how it is used.” Many of those surveyed said that they were basically unhappy, and one of these enormously wealthy persons reported that he could never remember being happy.

In 1957 the per capita income in the US, expressed in 1990 dollars, was $7,500; in 1990 it had doubled to $15,000. Yet in both 1957 and 1990 only 33 percent of those surveyed by the University of Chicago National Opinion Center said that they were “very happy.” We are twice as wealthy, but no happier. In fact, between 1956 and 1988 the percentage of Americans who reported that they were “pretty well satisfied” with their financial situation actually dropped from 42 percent to 30 percent. Wealth does not bring happiness.

Erno Rubik, the inventor of the Rubik’s cube, was transformed by the success of his product from a $150-a-month professor to the richest person in Hungary. Yet when he was showing an interviewer through his new mansion, replete with pool, three-car garage, and a sauna, the interviewer noticed that there was no dining room. “Do you plan to have many people over for dinner?” Rubik was asked. “I hope not,” was his reply.34

The unexpected can bring sudden wealth, as it did for Erno Rubik. But more often, it seems, the unexpected brings not good news, but bad. During the early stages of the Peloponnesian War, when the Athenians had suffered an unforeseen blow, Pericles spoke to them, saying, “When the unexpected happens, suddenly and against all calculations and well laid plans, it takes the heart out of you….”35 When the unexpected happens, we too are shaken. We rely on wealth, yet the stock market crash of 1987 wiped out a man I knew who was only six months from retirement. We rely on the security of our jobs, yet the “peace dividend” occasioned by the collapse of the Soviet Union led to Lockheed laying off more than 20,000 of its 30,000 plus employees at its Sunnyvale, California plant. We rely on a myriad of resources that are, in the words of the Bible, only mist. Life is unpredictable, James says, and we are foolish if we rely on anything other than God.

For Christians to rely on anything other than God is to lack integrity; it is to be double-minded. Integrity is what James is aiming at. Our world seems bereft of integrity. Tobacco companies maintained for decades that they had no knowledge that nicotine was addictive, but in March of 1997 one company admitted what the rest of us suspected for years: The companies knew the addictive properties of nicotine and lied to the rest of us. The pursuit of wealth, apparently, was more highly valued than truth.

Countries fare no better. While claiming to stand for human rights and publicly declaring abhorrence at the massacre in Tiananmen Square, the government of the United States continues to extend Most Favored Nation Trading Status to the People’s Republic of China.36 But this gulf is really an extension of the gulf within the human soul. We are torn, one way by the yeṣer ha-ra, another by the yeṣer ha-tov. And yet James implores us to be integrated people, consistent, marked by integrity, and mature. How is this accomplished?

In his slender volume Shaping Character,37 Arthur F. Holmes outlines a course of action with the intended result of creating ordered minds and hearts within us, alert to the leading of the Spirit and to the teaching of Scripture. Holmes points out that ethics has been marginalized in our culture, and that most Americans display a functionally relativistic attitude: “It is right for me, but it may not be right for you.”38 In response Holmes outlines eleven steps in the development of this integrated Christian moral identity.

• Consciousness raising: becoming aware of the wider world outside ourselves, the pain and suffering of others, the systemic abuses that are the manifestations of Satan’s continued perverse influence over our world.

• Consciousness sensitizing: feeling compassion for those caught in the web of this evil.

• Values analysis: understanding the values that nations, companies, and other people have and which in practice shape their behaviors.

• Values clarification: becoming aware of the values that we as individuals and organizations functionally embrace.

• Values criticism: asking ourselves hard questions concerning these values: Are they the ones that ought to be operative in our individual and corporate lives?

• Moral imagination: thinking in universal terms in order to construct a moral framework based on biblical principles.

• Ethical analysis: exploring the elements of morally complex situations. For example, the Bible is against lying, but was it right to lie to the Gestapo in order to preserve the lives of Jews hiding within the home?

• Moral decision-making: having the courage to act on the results of the analytical task just completed.

• Acting as responsible agents: making such moral decisions on a consistent basis; the practice of moral action helps to seal such principles in our hearts.

• Virtue development: developing godly character, not simply right behaviors. For this reason spiritual development and moral development walk with joined hands. As Jesus said, a good tree bears good fruit.

• Moral identity: becoming a unified person, what James 1:4 calls mature and complete.

Holmes argues that life affords us with myriad ethical decisions, and we often base these decisions on a set of rules that we find near at hand. These rules are based, in turn, on principles, which ultimately have some foundational base. Jesus operated in this fashion. When confronted with the problem of divorce, he went behind the Mosaic Law to the foundational basis of Judaism, the doctrine of creation, and derived from this a principle that men and women are to learn to love and forgive one another. Wolfhart Pannenberg has recently argued in precisely this fashion relative to contemporary ethical problems facing the church.39 Such a process points us to dependence on God instead of on our possessions or ourselves.

Jesus made decisions on the basis of principles rooted in Scripture and a sensitivity to the will of God. James would have us lead lives of similar fidelity—lives that integrate actions, mind, and heart. This is the life of Christian character. Otherwise, we too easily know the good but fail to do it. Now that you know not to judge, and now that you know to trust only in God—do it!

Original Meaning

Do Not Boast, For Tomorrow Is Uncertain (4:13–17)

IN VERSE 13 we have an example of the educated Greek style of James, as it begins with the construction age nun, translated by the NIV as “now listen.” The construction is rare in the New Testament (found only here and in 5:1). It is common, however, in the world of Hellenistic literature.7 The term is meant to convey tones of insistent and even brusque address.8 While there is some debate as to the identity of the group intended by the phrase “you who say,” there is no reason to suppose that James does not have in mind members of the Christian community.

Many argue that the absence of the term “brothers” indicates that James is now referring to some outside the church, but this is not as strong a position as is often supposed, for several reasons. (1) It makes little sense to argue that any outside the church would be interested in what James has to say on these matters. (2) James has already referred to members of the church in harsh terms without the designation “brothers.” In 4:1–10 Christians were referred to by a variety of terms that are less than favorable (“adulterous people” in 4:4; in need of washing and purifying because they are “sinners” in 4:8). (3) James 4:15 contains the phrase “if it is the Lord’s will,” which is surely a marker that Christians are in view. In any event, we have here a group of merchants with some close tie to the church.

Verse 13 also contains a quotation; presumably James has heard that such statements have been on the lips of the merchants in the city. There is a potent Old Testament tradition of distrust of merchants and traders (Prov. 20:23; Mic. 6:11), but this does not seem to be the appropriate background here. Rather, the idea seems to be that the desire to make a profit has become such a towering priority that it has overshadowed everything else. This amounts to a smug certainty with no room for God. If this is correct, it recalls the merchants who, in the words of Amos, trample the needy as they anxiously await the end of the Sabbath so they can make more money (Amos 8:4–5). The parable of the rich fool, who relies on his stored wealth, also comes to mind (Luke 12:16–21).

James is not arguing against the making of money, or even against the desire to make money; rather, he is against the attitude of self-contained certainty, the same smug attitude that marked the teaching of the false teachers. Such certainty is revelatory of an attitude that does not take God seriously enough, a mind-set for which the making of money outstrips devotion to God in importance. The desire betrays friendship with the world and is, therefore, enmity with God. Beyond this, of course, is another sin, for many in the church have not seen the poor as their sisters and brothers. They have not shared with them, but have showed favoritism.9 There is no discernible difference in their lives for having come to know Jesus.

At this point it is proper to ask about these traders and merchants. Davids10 seems to think that they were in business at the local marketplace and had not yet become wealthy.11 Rather, their plans were to build a fortune. But Laws12 insightfully argues that these must be traders on an international scale, as the verb used by James (emporeuomai) indicates a distinction between the wholesale traveling traders (emporoi) and the local merchants (kapeloi). More significant is the allusion to traveling to other cities. As Gerd Theissen has pointed out,13 travel was expensive, one of the markers of wealth of such magnitude as to warrant the attention of government officials.14 Yet we know of several New Testament Christians with that kind of wealth. Chloe, for example, a female leader in the church in Corinth, had enough money to send some of her “people” with a message to Paul (1 Cor. 1:11). So the reference to travel and the considerable resources that such travel indicates do not necessarily preclude these traders from membership in the church.

Verse 14 begins with hoitines, which means “you who are those who,” and refers to the “you who say” of verse 13. In spite of all their careful planning (all the verbs in the quotation in v. 13 are in the future tense: “will go,” “[will] spend a year there,” “[will] carry on business,” “[will] make money”), the future is uncertain. There is a clear connection to the rich in 1:10–11, who, in spite of their feelings of security, will be brought low. There James said that the rich and their riches will fade like a flower. Here the life of human beings can be compared to a mist that vanishes even as it is apprehended, with an ease and swiftness that takes the breath away.

The idea of the uncertainty of riches is universal, but Old Testament parallels are instructive. Proverbs 27:1 says, “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth.” Hosea 13:3, in speaking of the people who have turned from God, says, “Therefore they will be like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears, like chaff swirling from a threshing floor, like smoke escaping through a window.” These are the same images as in James: Making plans without considering God is evidence of idiocy, because life is transitory. The parable of Jesus concerning the house built on sand comes quickly to mind (see Matt. 7:24–27; cf. Luke 12:16–21; also Job 7:7, 9; Ps. 39:5).

For James the real question is how to approach life when the outcome is uncertain. His answer is to trust in God’s graciousness, not in human plans. This is, in fact, one of the central messages of the Old Testament prophets. To trust in one’s own devices is foolish in light of the fact that one can trust in God.

It is a great oddity that there is no clear biblical referent for the formula James records in 4:15, although the idea of the Lord’s will pervades Scripture (e.g., Prov. 19:21). While the many close parallels in Greek and Latin literature15 may betray a reference to the multiracial church, this is only supposition. This verse makes it clear that James is not against planning. Rather, James wants such planning to be given its proper priority, and none higher. God must be in control of such planning.

In verse 16, James sets limits on speech. He has already mentioned boasting: The poor may boast (1:9), and mercy boasts in the face of judgment (2:13), but the tongue should not boast (3:5). The merchants are not excoriated for the wealth they possess, or even for the pursuit of more. Rather, the rub is that they do so without reference to God, and they boast about it. As Laws observes,16 the issue here is spiritual, not material or even (primarily) social. Boasting in our own accomplishments and/or in our own plans, on our own terms, is the issue. As long as God is not in control of such endeavors, boasting is evil.

Two points need to be made here. (1) The saying of Jesus regarding almsgiving (“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full,” Matt. 6:2) illuminates this passage. The attitude God desires is one that seeks his favor, not the praise of the world. (2) “Evil” is a strong word. Other less harsh words were at the command of James, yet he chose this one. Boasting is not for James a trivial matter.

This boasting is the sin mentioned in 4:13: The merchants plan and carry on as if God were unimportant or did not even exist. Instead, they should have made their plans in prayer and in the anticipation that God may in fact change these plans. They ought to be alert to the “new thing” that God may do. The merchants may be superficially pious in church, but their attitude if not their actions are boastful of their independence from God.

In verse 17, James shifts to the third person singular from the second person plural, indicating that he is quoting a proverb (as in 2:13; 3:18). Laws wonders how this verse connects with the others in this passage, but then she believes that the merchants are not members of the church. If, however, the merchants are members of the church, the connection is obvious, and James is saying, “Now that you know what is right, do it!”

James is possibly commenting here on Proverbs 3:27–28:

Do not withhold good from those who deserve it,

when it is in your power to act.

Do not say to your neighbor,

“Come back later; I’ll give it tomorrow”—

when you now have it with you.

However, there are similar sayings in a variety of sources from the ancient world. Ultimately, the precise identification of the source is not important. James here argues that sins of both commission and omission are grievous, especially when done knowingly. The making of plans as though the future is certain is itself a sin, because functionally it is a denial of God, either his importance or even his very existence. Then to boast about it is a further sin. James may perhaps be building on the saying of Jesus in Luke 12:47: “That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.” Knowledge of right places us under a moral obligation to do right.