James 4

[darinhouston]

Our lesson today was on James 4 -- I was shocked to hear the teacher tell us that this was addressed to unbelievers. I've never been more convinced about any particular scripture than to see this as a continuation of James' theme to the believer -- has anyone heard this before? Our teacher is a follower of Macarthur, and I googled and found a sermon from him that seemed to suggest he believes the same thing and that it culminates in a call to salvation to the unbeliever. I can't think of any reasonable exegesis that would support this, and am particularly troubled since I have found such conviction in these passages at various times in my walk.

I'm curious if it's one of those Macarthur blindspots or whether this is a prevailing view I've never heard before. Certainly, none of my commentaries go that direction with it.

[Homer]

Darin,

I just take it as a fiery sermon using hyperbole - if the shoe fits, wear it. Sometimes folks go to great lengths to fit scripture into their paradigm. James repeatedly addresses "my brethren", perhaps he intended the strongly worded parts to be excerpted and given to unbelievers.

[darinhouston]

Here's my exchange with the teacher (a good enough friend to have this sort of dialog)...

On Aug 23, 2009, at 8:55 PM, teacherdude wrote:
I am using MacArthur to prepare my lessons for James along with Calvin's and from today's lesson you see who I concur with.

Like I said at the beginning of the lesson, I believe both positions get you to the same place in the end and that is the distinction believers are to have from the world. (ie be holy) You will probably disagree with this, but this is where I fall at the end of the day on this. I don't see how the direction to holiness is discounted with taking the "unbeliever" stance. For my own experience, reading verses 1-6 from the "unbeliever" stance convicts/reminds me how different I need to be from the world because I have been called out of that.

Like MacArthur mentions, making this passage about believers discounts one of the greatest calls to salvation in Scripture (7-10). I would hate to miss that boat.

As far as support for this position, I showed all my cards in the lesson.

To recap :

1. The use of brothers is delayed until verse 11. James does the same in Chapter 5 and doesn't mention it until verse 7. Chapters 1 thru 3 all start with this. Why would these last two be different? I believe the language used in the first part of Chapter 4 and 5 is too severe to be describing believers.

2. James is describing what authentic faith is. If there weren't unbelievers claiming to be believers, why would his whole letter be about distinguishing real and fake faith? It shows what real faith looks like and shows what unbelief/fake faith looks like to show the contrast of the two.

3. I don't believe a believer would be called an enemy of God.

Yep, I do in fact respectfully but do also VIGOROUSLY disagree, and I do think it makes a difference. I think Mac's WAY off base here, and I disagree that James 4 contains one of the "greatest calls to salvation" -- I see it as a call to repentance for a carnal believer just as God called Israel to repent and return to Him and I think it's VERY important that the church today understands and appreciates the need to be careful of falling away and becoming carnal -- it's tortuous to read James as a whole as saying anything to the contrary, particularly as he closes his letter with:

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


Folks can argue all day long that he's not talking about believers here, but it's so clearly consistent with the whole clarion call of James "to the brethren" in every respect and clearly references those sinners who are "among" the brethren.

James does seem to be very concerned that those in the Way understand the Way and not fall away, and this is one of his most impassioned passages of warning -- if this is "all Mac's got" in the way of exegesis, I note particularly that the chapter breaks are artificial, and 4:1ff flow pretty naturally from 3. Also, the language itself is also not severe at all if you believe that believers are, in fact, capable of falling away (James undeniably does believe this even if Mac does not). Also, he continues as in Chapter 3 to talk about "you" and "your," and not "theirs" or "those." This simply does not bear any of the marks of a parenthesis or a shift in audience or subject.

I do agree that there's some truth to the notion that James is comparing real vs. fake faith, but more than that, I think he's talking about a saving faith that endures to the end vs. a professed faith that will fail to endure, and further a call to help one ensure that one's faith is authentic and properly directed (not just to determine whether it is so), hence the concluding encouragement to turn a "brother" back. Besides, even if it is in some respects simply about real vs. fake faith, I think he's talking to folks who "think" they have a real faith who may not have it -- to suggest that it is written to unbelievers would make those folks think it's not to them and they might miss it. I just think it's a dangerous approach.

It's also a very key passage to teach against the prosperity doctrine and the right attitude for our prayers -- I find it odd to see that directed to unbelievers.

I believe the term "enemy of God" is hyperbolic just as "adulterer" is. It makes the point just how wrong and dangerous it is to follow the world and to show that if you aren't fully with Him, it's as if you are (and you may as well be) against Him. (also, in the context of the rest of the letter it suggests that the "end" of that sort of attitude unchecked will in fact be apostasy and become a true "enemy of God.") He also does not actually call them "enemy of God," but states the 1Jn2 truth that whoever "decides" to do so (not just those who fall into it) are such and can be seen as a warning that they should not make such a "decision." This is exactly the sort of thing Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel were warning "God's people" about -- "spiritual adultery" (all sort of covetousness is idolatry -- once we have it pointed out to us as James is here, "we" should heed James' warning and repent and humble ourselves before God). Don't you know Christians who have an authentic faith in Christ who think they can dabble in following the world's ways and even think it's ok as long as they "have Jesus in their heart"? Are the churches not FULL of them? I have been there, myself -- and I relate very much to the warning for "laughter to turn to mourning" as I have repented and come to realize the need to be sold out to God. For people in this situation, isn't this exactly what you would expect James to say to them? To see this as a parenthesis of sorts without any real signals in that regard (beyond artificial chapter breaks or hyperbolic language) is just plain risky at best, and I think Mac's just too afraid to let James speak here.

[steve]

I have wondered for a long time about certain parts of James, which appear to be addressed to unbelievers. I think I agree with Darin that chapter 4:7-10 can apply to believers, but there are some portions that seem as though they cannot. I am thinking primarily of 5:1-6, which speaks of the readers condemning and killing the righteous, and then is followed by an encouragement to the brethren to be patient under such treatment.

James is a strange book. Sometimes he seems to presuppose that his readers are Christians (e.g., 2:1, 7). But, as I said, in some passages he seems to be speaking over the shoulder of his Christian audience to address any of their enemies who may be listening in.

Or maybe not even listening in. James is a little like the Old Testament prophets, who primarily addressed Israel and Judah, but who included some oracles addressed to Moab, Edom, Babylon, Tyre, etc. I have my doubts, frankly, that these pagan nations were listening in, or reading these Jewish prophets. Yet the prophets sound as if they are speaking directly to the kings of Babylon or of Tyre—men who probably never had opportunity to hear these oracles (although it is, of course, possible that the relevant prophecies were actually sent to these kings).

I have wondered if this feature of the prophets was a literary device. That is, God was telling his actual readers (Israel and Judah) what was going to happen to these pagan enemies of theirs, but using the device of speaking as if it was an actual confrontation with the bad guys. The whole device may have been for effect. I am not sure. In any case, I have had to wonder whether James sometimes is using the same literary device. That is, he is writing to a Christian audience, but had segments that apply to non-Christians and are written as if confronting those non-Christians directly? It seems possible.

[darinhouston]

Maybe someone with more literary background than I have can help here -- is it true that the (greek?) "diatribe" literary form is characterized in part by the sort of oblique way it addresses a subject? I have read somewhere that when the diatribe form is used, there is a coupling of both hyperbole and obliqueness so that as the "heat" of the passage is raised, the subject of the passage is not addressed as directly as it otherwise would be?

Steve, I understand the "strangeness" you reference seems to be part of what drove Luther to consider the book non-apostolic (in addition to its focus on works and the lack of direct teachings about Christ). What do you think about his assertion that it's sort of a hodge podge of spiritual truths gathered from other places and put in a teaching bundle by a non-apostolic writer...

Darin

[steve]

I think James is a bit like the book of Proverbs, with emphasis on many of the same topics—e.g., wisdom, wealth, use of the tongue, common sense and practical righteousness. It also seems to me to be something of a reiteration of the Sermon on the Mount (I have found at least 20 quotes or allusions to that Sermon in this short epistle). Luther did not like talk about works, but I see him as overreacting because of the controversy with Rome in which he was embroiled.

[darinhouston]

I've had a few more emails with my teacher (and co-teacher, both close friends). I thought this was an interesting exchange with the co-teacher.

Co-teacher said,

Darin's point: “If one truly loves Christ, it will be characterized in a certain way’ I think this is much of what James is saying.

I tried to sum it up by saying: “If you are, then you will be and if your not then you ought to be”. Not sure it came through.

Darin responded:
I obviously agree with your summation -- I do think your point did come through, but I'm compelled to quote (reluctantly) Pelagius in supplementing your quip...

"If I ought, I can." Pelagius

Of course, the "I can" comes only by the power of the Spirit (Pelagius might not agree with me there), but the non-Reformed perspective I hold is that it's a universal "ought" and a universal "can." The just and merciful God I read of in Scripture would provide no other system. There are "you could have" situations turned by God to "you no longer can" realities but I see no evidence of "you never could."

[Sean]

Isn't the book of James like the book of Hebrews in that they both are warning the Jewish Christians not to fall away, whether it be fall away from God by drifting away or falling back into Judaism. In other words, aren't there strong warning given to "brothers" in Hebrews as well? Passages that that Calvinist take to mysteriously refer the unsaved. As if they would need warnings to keep them from falling away. It's the same method of interpretation used in Hebrews being transported into James.

Personally, it seems a bit emotionally based. Why is it impossible for those whom James wrote to to have done these things? Paul writes many scathing things to the Corinthians and Galatians. Were there sins "better" than murder? I'm not saying all sin is equal. I'm saying all sin is sin and can be forgiven. What if James is addressing men who have really fallen hard. What if these are Jewish men (like those Paul mentions who were from "James" Gal 2:12) who have gone so far in intimidating Gentiles (Gal 5:12) so as to not be persecuted by other Jews themselves (Gal 6:12) that they have actually begun killing Gentile Christians! James 5:6 You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.

We know the Jews persecuted the Church. Maybe James is addressing some of those who are Christians but have began following in the footsteps of their fellow unsaved countrymen.

Just some thoughts.

I listened to MacArthur for years and found that will does come up with novel interpretations of passages that are difficult. Rather than just admitting they are difficult.