Galatians Chapter 3

vs 21

The problem was not with the Law, nor was it with God. God says that we are to be holy because he is holy. So we say "What does holy mean?" and God responds with "Exodus 20:1-Deuteronomy". The problem is with the people trying to follow the Law. They aren't perfect, so they keep failing.

vs 22

The Scripture hasn't declared at all. The word is sugkleio, and it literally means "to shut up together, to enclose" like fish in a net. Kleio is the shut up bit, and sug is from sun meaning "with". So Scripture has shut us up under sin. That is a perfectly reasonable statement, and very Pauline - think of Romans - whereby the Law traps us because of our transgressions. But that doesn't matter, because God's plan for fulfilling the promises he made to Abraham weren't linked to the Law. They were linked to Jesus.

vs 23

A reiteration of what I just said. This verse in greek is nigh unintelligible. Props to translators.

vs 24

In charge is a bit of a strong word, but perfectly in keeping with the times. The word is literally paidagogos, which means tutor, but if you were a tutor of someone in those times, then you were basically in charge of them.

So the Law was designed to lead people to Christ, and in no uncertain terms either.

vs 25

But now that faith is with us, we have matured - we don't need a tutor to beat us into line anymore. Now that we have been led to where faith is, we're expected to be able to recognise it because of the Law, and react appropriately.

vs 26

Occasional letter, people. Remember that. Paul isn't making wide sweeping statements about all humanity. He's writing to a church.

vs 27

And the whole church is baptised. Baptism was hella-important back then, and we struggle to show people how important it is today, because we know the actual baptism isn't important. But the symbolism and the obedience are important. You could do it with sand, or in any way that's culturally appropriate and not anti-Christian.

vs 28

The whole church is one in Christ Jesus. Any lines that you might draw to delineate people in a church are false. But only for the purposes of faith and reception of the promise. That is Paul's argument here. He knows that people are different, and given different gifts, and have different needs. But when it comes to their position before God, all in church who are baptised (obedient and public) believers are saved.

vs 29

Paul summed it up better than I just did. Belonging to Christ is an equality.

Galatians Chapter 3

vs 11

Again a Romans OT quote. You can almost read this verse as a dichotomy, as if faith and law are opposites. And interestingly, righteousness and justification seem to be synonyms (and in Greek they share the same root; dikaios and dikaioo).

vs 12

This verse has completely stumped me. Is Paul saying that the Law does not come from faith, but the faithful man who lives by them will do them, so suggesting that it is faith which underpins people's following of the law? Does it mean that the law-doer will simply pass their life doing them? Or that they will not die because of them? Or that they will enjoy a truly blessed life? Zao can mean any of those things. And I can't work out the context for this one. Perhaps I need more sleep.

vs 13

I don't know what sort of logic this is, but it seems to say that if the law is a curse for us, then Christ has to suffer a curse to free us from it. Obviously the Law can't be the curse for Jesus, because he was perfect in following the Law - he fulfilled the Law. So instead, his death had to be cursed - as was a death by crucifixion because of Deuteronomy.

That's two unanswered questions in as many verses.

vs 14

The words "He redeemed us" are not in the greek - their addition may well rock your faith and completely change your theology somehow. If it does, I pity you.

The difference between the NIV and the NASB here is that the NIV blatantly adjusts the text so that the "in order that" refers back to the "Christ redeemed us" of the last verse. The punctuation of the NASB blatantly suggests that the "in order that" refers to the "become a curse for us".

Considering both were done (our redemption and Jesus becoming a curse, or cursed), the point of the verse is that God's actions were designed to bring Gentiles back to God , under the blessing promised to Abraham, so that everyone might be able to receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

vs 15

God's promise is like any covenant or contract that we might draw up. Once it's been ratified, you can't then go and change the conditions. That's a Darth-Vader type thing to do, and you will remember well that Lando was not cool with his deal "gettin' worse all the time".

vs 16

This is a real nit-picking of the Scripture here, and it's these sorts of verses that encourage people to nit-pick in a similar way when they are reading. My understanding is that Paul is using some sort of Rabinnical, possibly Pharisaical argument here, which did involve a bit of nit-picking. The idea being that God's promise to Abraham was not about his many kids, it was about his 1 kid - Christ Jesus.

vs 17

Paul wants to clear this up, and this time with an argument that holds a bit more water to our modern thinking. God has ratified an agreement with Abraham, and that agreement cannot be broken. So even if God starts a new covenant, the Law (brought in so many years later), that doesn't change the deal he had with Abraham.

vs 18

The inheritance (of the blessings of Abraham) were not given to the world in the shape of the Law (you can read about what the promises of the Law were in Exodus 19 if memory serves). The blessings of Abraham were promised in a promise. It is that promise to Abraham that we as non-Jews inherit, not the Law. Sure, we inherit the Law as a religious history, but it is not for us a covenant to get to God.

vs 19

Whenever the word "angels" comes into a theological statement, my brain just goes *beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...*. What we can get from this verse is that the Law was added to the whole situation because people were acting against God, until such time as Jesus had come. Apparently the law was put into effect bythrough angels, by a mediator. I guess this could be referring to angels handing the 10 commandment stones to Moses, the mediator? ?

?

vs 20

To show you how greatly confusing the greek is, and to let you know how much you owe scholars, the greek here literally says "Now the mediator of one is not, but God one is". Eis has the great definition of "1. one". I have a feeling that there's some sort of wordplay going on here, and I'm just not getting it today.

Well, I must say I'll be glad to see the back of this chapter. I can't wait to get a commentary for Galatians and sort this stuff out.

Galatians chapter 3

vs 1

Woah! Who else does Paul call foolish? The Galatians are getting schooled. Paul says that since Jesus was clearly portrayed to them as crucified, and just before he has said that if the law gave righteousness then Christ died for nothing, obviously Jesus died for a reason! So who has Bewitched (lit. baskaino, the only time it's used in the NT) them to make them forget this, or to make them such fools?

vs 2

So Paul calls on them - not to remember what they were taught, but to remember their experience. They have received the spirit - was it through observing Jewish law, or was it through hearing and believing the gospel?

vs3

Foolish again! Bam! They are going about it completely the wrong way. When you start with the free gift of salvation marked by the spirit, why would you then try to work your way to salvation?

vs 4

My Interlinear Bible has a typo here, and puts vs 4 only as far as "suffered for nothing". But anyway, the Galatians have obviously suffered for their faith. Even though the gospel is a free gift, they are still expected to suffer for it - not because that is God's demand as part of the cost, but because people will make you suffer for it because the world you live in is against God.

Had they then suffered for the wrong thing?

vs 5

Paul goes to experience again - this time adding miracles done in their midst.

There is an important theological question about these verses - is Paul saying once for all that no matter how weak or new in the faith, if you have believed then you will see miracles happen? If he is, then it would suggest that miracles occur because you have the base amount of faith required to allow miracles to occur. This means that the argument "Oh you weren't healed because you don't have enough faith" is bupkis unless they in fact have no faith. So if you say that to someone, you are then judging them as a non-Christian.

vs 6

This verse of the OT gets a lot of use doesn't it? Here in Galatians, also in Romans (Galatians is sometimes called a "mini-Romans") and then in James.

vs 7

Why does Paul start talking about being children of Abraham? Who cares about Abraham when you can be children of God? Should Paul be getting with the program here?

No, because the Jews care about Abraham, and the Judaisers are Jews (or Jewish Christians). So they turn up with their OTs and thump them saying "You must be circumcised to be a son of Abraham". Paul is saying "No, those who believe are children of Abraham fools!"

vs 8

And Paul then shows that the OT is as missional as the NT. The OT proves that God had a heart for the gentiles, and you can take it all the way back to the promises he made to Abraham. So when mission speakers are reading mission into Abraham, don't get all high and mighty and say "That's an eisegetical reading into the text", because it comes from Galatians 3.

vs 9

There's an interesting study you can do, going through the NT and looking at the different authors and how they each define the term "faith". The greek term Paul uses here is "pistis", and the NASB lexicon definition is "conviction of the truth of anything". That is the word used first to say "faith" in this verse. But the second time, Paul uses the term "pistos", which has a different connotation. It can mean "faithful", but also means (as in this context) "believing, trusting".

I don't want to draw too long a bow here, but the difference between them (as I see it) is that one denotes a belief of conviction - that is, to be assured of the truth of something. Interestingly, this is the one that one would generally use of someone who "has faith", in the terms of religious beliefs. The second one is belief of trust - which is more than just a conviction of something as being true, it is a belief that you can trust someone or something.

The reason I bring all this up is because the KJV calls Abraham "faithful", which might be a correct interpretation of the word, but I think it misses the context. The NASB uses "Abraham the believer", which again is correct for the word, but I think it is too vague. The NIV says Abraham is the "man of faith", and that is just as confusing. The problem is that if you put something like "Abraham, who trusted God" then people would jump down your throat because it doesn't say "God" in the greek, and "the man who trusted" sounds stupid.

vs 10

Well, Deuteronomy 27:26 smacks down anyone who thinks they should be trying to follow the law. Bad legalist, smack! The law is actually a curse - not because the law is bad, but because we suck so hard we can't follow it.

Galatians Chapter 2

Finally, no outage!

vs 11

We are continuing in history. It seems that Paul, the least of the Apostles, got into the face (lit. against the face) of Peter, the redeemed apostle. So now Paul is telling the Apostles how to act! "Clearly in the wrong" is literally "he was having been condemned" if you're interested.

vs 12

Paul got all in his face because he's a hypocrite! Peter, the first Apostle to see a convert from outside Judaism and Samaria, the one to whom God particularly showed a vision breaking this stupid attitude, was afraid of the circumcision group! (I called them Judaisers, same people.)

You will note with interest that it was some people who came from James who caused Peter to go against what he'd been doing in Antioch with Paul - socialising and eating with the non-Jews. James was the big kahuna in Jerusalem, and so Peter might have been afraid of what was going to be said back in Jerusalem. Interestingly though, it is James in Acts 15 who ends up agreeing to allow gentiles to be Christian and yet act as gentiles. Historically speaking, it's hard to know if this was written before or after the Acts 15 proclamation. But most conservative Evangelical scholars would accept a date before the council, because otherwise Paul would have mentioned it in his letter and argument, and it's hard to imagine Peter vacillating between two positions after he had been involved in a proclamation of the church over the situation.

vs 13

You can imagine how devastating this thing Peter did was to Paul's ministry. A person who is on equal rank with him in church matters (probably a little higher) is contradicting the words of Paul by his own actions. No wonder there needed to be an Acts 15 type decision! This was such a contentious issue: Peter's wrong actions show many of the Jews were just too uncomfortable to hang out with gentiles, and even Barnabas went onto Peter's side against Paul! Of course, Barnabas isn't Paul's slave or anything - they were equals in the ministry - but it shows just how hard Paul had it, when everyone was against him.

vs 14

So Paul let him have it! The NIV and NASB show quote marks till the end of the chapter, but of course there are none in the original greek, so we just assume that that's where they go to. They certainly can't go further than that (Paul wouldn't say to Peter "You foolish Galatians!").

Now just exactly what Paul is referring to here is difficult to say. He could be referring to Peter's recent actions of eating with gentiles (which everyone would have known about). Or he could be referring to the fact that Christians, even Jewish Christians, were not living as Jews back then. Regardless, Peter knew what Paul meant - a Jew living as a gentile can't tell gentiles to live as Jews.

vs 15-16

VITMOAI man strikes again!

Of course, not all Jews knew that Christ was the way. But obviously those who were from the Jerusalem church, and Peter and Paul and Barnabas, would all know. Forcing people to follow these rules was not going to help them become Christians, it wasn't going to make them in better standing before God, and it wasn't going to attract them either. I mean, come on, if someone came to you and said "You're not worshipping God hard enough - but we'll remove a piece of your genitalia, that will help" you'd say "WTF?!"

vs 17

Just because through Christ we have our sin revealed to us (just like in the law) does that make Christ a servant of sin? Of course not. That's like saying a mirror makes you ugly because it shows you what you look like.

vs 18

Of course, you have to be the one who destroyed it for this to work. I'm not 100% sure whether Paul is referring this comment to the one before (so if Jesus was rebuilding the relationship between men and God because God broke it, then it would show that it was God's fault). But he might also be referring to his comments to come (so that if you break the law, and then upon breaking it try to rebuild it, you are only proving that you are sinful - it's not going to help save you).

vs 19

The law does not provide salvation, only death. So the law kills you, or condemns you, and God saves you through Christ, so that you might live.

vs 20

The life we now live is not our own life, which was marred and marked and condemned by the law. It is Christ's life, which is perfect and righteous before the law. It is not a life of active pursuance of the law - it is a life of faith in the work of Christ because of his love for us.

vs 21

Continuing to follow the law isn't the issue here. It is insisting that the law is required that is the problem. It's value is at an end because it has been fulfilled through Christ! We can look at it and see just how unrighteous we are, but in following it nothing is gained. If something could be gained by following it, if you could be righteous for following the law, then why did Christ die?

Galatians chapter 2

vs 1

This sort of stuff really helps to date the book, but there are still problems. It also shows us just how long the gaps are between people doing things. In the NASB, the non-inspired title says "Council of Jerusalem" but that isn't necessarily correct, as it's not made clear in the letter. The letter could have been sent with another letter from the council, but it's unclear.
vs 2

Long verse. So Paul went to Jerusalem to meet the supposed leaders of Christianity and ask them if he could preach to the Gentiles. This is an interesting twist on what he has been saying - remember that Paul is defending the fact that the gospel he has came by revelation and not by man. He talks again about the revelation here, but then shows that he sought clarification from the church leaders.

vs 3

Their response was not a Jewish one - Titus got to keep his foreskin. This is the first open window we get into the problems that were happening in Galatia.

vs 4

False Christians actually insinuating themselves into the church. Now some people are going to read this and cry "The New Age is coming to get us! Quick, blood test all the Christians!" (how do blood tests prove you're not of the New Age? These people are stupid, that's how). But the NT always makes out that there are at least two kinds of false teachers. The ones from without (and that is always, always, ALWAYS the Judaisers - the guys who want your happy-hat) and those from within (the heretics, who come up with stupid ideas from within the church).

Don't get me wrong - I do think that there may be non-Christian groups which are trying to infiltrate the church (although it seems excessively "conspiracy theory"ist, but I can think of one real life example - communist or Islamic spies in their own countries). But this verse isn't talking about them. This is an occasional letter, and is speaking to a specific time. That also doesn't mean we can't usefully use the principles that are being espoused here - I'm just saying that it's not some sort of end-time prophecy.

So why are they infiltrating? Because they want to turn the freedom of Christ into a slavery (of works). Sounds like Judaisers to me.

vs 5

If they had given into the demands of this group, the gospel would have fled from the gentile areas of the world, like Galatia. This is a vital part of history. Christianity had to choose to be either a Jewish sect, or a worldwide force. It chose the second one, because that is God's will.

vs 6

These people who puffed themselves up with self importance (perhaps Rabbis, Scribes, or some other sort of Jewish lawmaker/teacher) were of absolutely no use to Paul. So these people who internally were going to be judged by God and found wanting as far as Paul is concerned, had nothing worth adding to Paul's message. They wanted to add a heap - lots of Jewish baggage to make the gentiles deal with and basically make them Jewish.

When I first read this verse, I thought it was making the point that Paul had no use for these people at all for any reason because they did not agree with his theology. But I actually think that he is being more specific than that. They do not agree with his theology regarding gentiles in the church, and in that instance he has not accepted their teaching. Considering Paul uses rabbinical arguments regularly in his writings, it would be unfair to say that Paul discounts everything that non-Christians say. The Jewish teachers still had positive insights into the nature of God, and so Paul uses them. But they did not have a Christian attitude towards gentiles in the church, so he did not use that particular attitude.

vs 7

So rather than Paul learning something about preaching the message from the Judaisers, they learned that he was preaching the message to the gentiles freely.

vs 8

Not just that Paul was doing the work, but they also saw that God was at work. This is a hard thing to dismiss. Remember Peter's shock when the household of Cornelius received the spirit - it had not before come on gentiles (Samaritans, yes, but that's a different kettle of fish).

vs 9

So if the pillars of the faith accepted Paul and his ministry, then who are we to argue? Who is anyone to argue?

vs 10

Finally, they just gave him some advice - to look after the poor, which they were doing in Jerusalem (and little did they know, they were going to become poor themselves) and Paul was already eager to do that (and later on, would look after the Jerusalem church by getting the gentile churches to donate money).

These verses have been a mostly history lesson - not much theology. Fast and easy to get through though.

Galatians Chapter 1

vs 13

Not something Paul is proud of, but it would still be well known, and it is an important part of the work Christ has done in his life. It makes the transformation all the more complete.

vs 14

Paul was a hardcore Jew. He becomes a hardcore Christian. Perhaps the reason so many Australian Christians are softcore is that because their beliefs were so watery and meaningless to them before they became Christian, they stay that way afterwards...

vs 15

Leave it alone, VITMOAI guy! He goes to town here. Paul in this section is bringing attention to God's predestining him from his birth (or womb, it doesn't matter). It may in fact be an idiom for his Jewishness - he was set apart by birth as a Jew.

vs 16

After Paul received the call of Christ to go to the Gentiles, he went. And who wouldn't? But his point is that it was clear what he had to do. He didn't need to talk to anyone about it. More literal translations put "Immediately" in this verse, and by the breakup of words into verses they are right that it goes here. But if you translate it too literally (like the KJV) it becomes confusing. I don't necessarily think that means you can move it like they did in the NIV, but there might be something to do with its tense or something that allows it to refer to going in the next verse, rather than not immediately consulting. In the end, what does it matter? They mean the same thing (except the KJV, which sounds like he suddenly didn't consult with people).

vs 17

Paul was on his way to Damascus. So he went there (blind, if you recall) before going out to Arabia. Why he went to Arabia is questionable - perhaps he had a house there, perhaps he wanted some time to think. Anyway, eventually he returned to Damascus. He conspicuously didn't go to Jerusalem and talk to the Apostles there. Why does this strengthen Paul's argument that his revelation was from Christ and not from man?

vs 18-19

It took Paul three years to get himself to the Apostles and talk with them. And then he only spoke with Peter, James brother of Jesus, and Barnabas (who isn't mentioned here, but is in Acts). Now it could be that Paul is saying he was out reaching the Gentiles in Arabia and Damascus before he spoke to the Apostles, and so that shows that his revelation came from God. But if you know Paul, you know that he went to the synagogues first, and it took a fair bit of frustration for him to shake his sandals at the Jews. So what he's probably saying is that it took him three years to come to terms with the call God had given him through Jesus Christ, and that shows how real it was. He didn't just have an epiphany, and then go to the Apostles to get it authorised. He had the real deal revelation, and it took three years to deal with it before he could bring himself to go to the Apostles.

vs 20-21

Whether the "no lie" refers to what he just said or what he's about to say, doesn't matter. Really, it refers to the whole story I think. It's actually a bit of a superfluous verse for us today, because most of us are going to take Paul at his word anyway. What it does show is that there may have been some doubt of his story in Galatia.

vs 22

He didn't spend time in the churches in Jerusalem. As he said, he was only there 15 days (which seems a long time to us, but remember how long it took to walk to Jerusalem from Damascus - 15 days is probably the minimum amount you'd want to stay there for).

vs 23

The churches there only heard the news. At least if they heard it, they probably heard it from an Apostle and not some rumourmonger.

vs 24

And their response was one of praise to God. If we saw some mighty person, be it rich man, world leader or nasty athiest come to Christ, would we praise God? I mean, we probably praise God for anyone who comes to Christ, but when he has one of these big victories, are we praising God in the churches for it? Do we even know when it's happening?

Galatians chapter 1

I started these studies by picking the books I'd done the least amount of study on. I almost picked Hebrews, but it's 13 chapters long, and I really think I've heard more on Hebrews than on Galatians. Weird. If I were to be honest, I'd probably have to say I've heard less on all the gospels as individual gospels, but I might to one of those next. We'll see.

I also want to note that I recently read "The King James Version Debate: a plea for realism" recently, and it has opened my eyes far more to the science of textual criticism, shown me how little I know, and I would strongly recommend it to anyone even if you're not dealing with KVJ-ites. Whether it means I should go through and re-do my studies, who knows. I'll probably just keep plugging away. Most of the answers and comments I have come up, when checked with a commentary at a later time, have been reasonable.

vs 1

Straight away I am hit by the fact that the word "sent" is not in the greek. And so nor does it appear in the KJV. However, the term used here may be idiomatic, and hence there's nothing wrong with the other translations.

So the idea is that Paul wants to strongly show that his apostleship comes from Christ. It might have been questioned by people in Galatia.

vs 2

He also adds to the letter all the Christian people with him, which gives the letter a different edge. One, he doesn't name them, which is odd considering how often Timothy, Silas, and others get a mention. It almost puts me in mind of a "2-3 witnesses" situation - Paul is saying that this letter, which at times is quite critical, is witnessed by a number of other Christians, so take note of it.

We're also told here it is to multiple churches in the region of Galatia.

vs 3

Typical Pauline greeting. Haven't seen it for a while.

vs 4

It's interesting what Paul is emphasising here - the rescuing sacrifice of Christ, what it rescues us from (the present evil age, a term loaded with meaning), and why (because it was God's will). Present evil age - this is as opposed to the "age to come", which will be fulfilled in "the day of the Lord".

vs 5

This is a pretty typical mini-doxology of praise to God. Amen.

vs 6

Verse-in-the-middle-of-sentence-and-idea man (Vitmosai Man?) strikes again! Paul dispenses with the usual "I thank God in my prayers for some good thing you do" and goes straight to "I can't believe you're so slack". I think that gives a nice tone to the letter. The Galatians (remember, this is a whole series of churches in a region - there's no country or state called Galatia) have obviously done something to tick Paul off, and it would seem that it involves not following the gospel. Instead, someone else has brought them a different gospel, and they're turning to that.

vs 7

Problem is, it's not really good news at all (greek is literally "which not is another only")! It's the result of people 'troubling' the minds of the Galatians (lit. tarasso, which means to cause commotion and to agitate, either literally (like shaking someone) or figuratively in the mind).

These troublemakers are also charged with wanting to pervert the gospel, and that purposefully. That's a bold claim.

vs 8

Paul is saying "Let it be the gospel you first heard, and no other, no matter who brings it to you!" Which suggests, doesn't it, that part of the force of this "new gospel" which they are infected with was the people who brought it to them. But even if an angel, even if Paul himself, should bring a different gospel, you don't accept it because of them who brought it. The gospel commends itself by its message.

vs 9

Paul is forceful in this point - if anyone is preaching another gospel, they are eternally condemned. Ouch.

vs 10

This seems a little thrown in here. It's almost like Paul is reacting to a comment made to him. "Am I trying to please men now? Huh? HUH?!" It is possible that someone from the churches of Galatia made this accusation, and his comments regarding the gospel should clear him of the accusation. He retorts that were he serving men (he says still serving, probably referring to his old life), then the gospel would be anathema to him - he'd be better off following his own Pharisaical teaching.

vs 11

How much does the modern world need to hear this message! The gospel is not something man made up! Though it might come from the lips of men, doesn't mean that it was created by them.

vs 12

Ok, so not everyone can say this the way Paul says it. And I'm not sure how far we can take this either. I mean, I could just as easily say that I received a revelation from Jesus, but of course it came through the Bible. Other people could say they received a revelation from Jesus, but that it came through fellow Christians. Paul of course had his Damascus road experience, and that didn't really involve people.

But I don't know if I can say "Just as Paul says here, neither did I receive the gospel from men". I was both taught it and received it from people. Either way it doesn't really matter - because I am prepared to trust Paul who says that he received it straight from Christ. Easier for me to do, actually, because I have the gospels to corroborate what he says - the Galatian churches would probably not have had them.

James Chapter 5

vs 11

When Kyle's parents told him the story of Job in South Park, it highlighted the fact that in our modern world, people just cannot accept that there can exist both an all powerful, all loving God, and suffering. This dilemma is one of the single most troublesome issues for Christian apologetics, and books like Job, if not explained properly, often bite us in the ass, especially at the grassroots level (people who know enough to argue at more informed levels about such things usually have different, equally difficult problems).

All James tells us here is that we consider those who have persevered as being blessed. Then he says that we know the endgame story of Job, and how it shows how compassionate and merciful God is. If I were trying to prove God's compassion and mercy to unbelievers, I wouldn't use Job. But James isn't writing to non-Christians.

vs 12

Christians shouldn't really need to take oaths. Everything we say should be the equivalent of an oath. We should do everything we say. If we say yes, then it should be something we're going to do. If we say no, then we should stick to that too. If we vascillate, then people will think we're confused about what we think is important - and that's probably true.

Don't think that this entraps you into sticking with a bad decision just because you said yes. If you realise that you should have said no, then say no! James would thoroughly agree with me here, because this book is a practical book.

vs 13

Is any of you in any given situation? Be involved in some sort of prayer accordingly. Basically, if you're alive, pray. Hard to do, much harder for us than for our predecessors. And I have no idea why. Perhaps because we have lost our structured prayer times socially. Perhaps we undervalue any prayer that isn't straight from the heart and made up on the spot (which means we undervalue the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, and any other prayer that was done formally).

vs 14

This verse is one of the verses which led to the sacrament of extreme unction. Protestants don't follow it anymore, certainly not as a sacrament. But I've never seen anyone anointed with oil either. Oil was a useful thing back in a time where you didn't have plumbing into your house unless you were hella rich. You used oil to bathe - put the oil on, scrape it off with a scraper. You used it as a perfume (because you didn't bathe all that much) and because it feels good to have on you in a middle eastern climate. But an anointing with oil could mean a couple of things. You will remember that Israelite kings were anointed with oil. But also, anyone who was a guest in your house got anointed with oil. So it had a lot of different meanings. What does it mean here?

vs 15

It really doesn't matter, because James makes the point in the very next verse that the prayers are the things that will make sick people well, not the oil. There is also a link between sickness and sin here, but it is not a causal link! If the person sinned, he will be forgiven. But if he's just sick, then he'll be made well.

vs 16

James obviously takes this sin forgiving seriously, because he refers to it again with confession, and also weaves in healing again. And we have that great verse about prayer, which of course is limited a little because of its context, but is still a great verse.

vs 17-18

This is not prescriptive - just because we are men like Elijah, doesn't mean that if we pray it will stop raining for a few years. Perhaps someone prayed already here in Australia? The point being that Elijah, while a normal man, was a national figure, and so when God used him, everyone could trace it to him and hence get the message that was from God. This is just an illustration about the power of prayer, and why we can trust in it - because it's God powered.

vs 19-20

You read verse 19, and you think "Oooh, is there a big shiny prize for doing this stuff?" The answer is no. We seem to think in that method of do something, get reward/payment/something. But James already broke that a couple of chapters ago. No, if you turn a sinner away from sin, then you save them from death. Now of course it's God who really saved them, I mean he did the dying on the cross through Christ. But we can take ownership in that part we played. Of course, this doesn't bring out the Woohoo!s if we don't value the lives of other people. But if we are plugged in to the attitudes of God instead of the attitudes of our society, then we would value that. And we'd be like "WOW! Are you saying that if I can help someone who's straying from Christianity, then I have played a little part in them having their sins covered and being saved from death? That's awesome!"

And that's the end of the story. No greetings, no "bring my cloaks", just that last verse.

James chapter 5

vs 1

This hearkens all the way back to chapter 1, with James reminding us that God exalts the humble and poor, and the rich and boastful get what they deserve.

vs 2

This is sounding like what Jesus said would happen to earthly riches, right? The word wealth isn't mammon here - it's ploutos, but it means basically the same thing. Ploutos is from the root that means "to be filled". Mammon is Aramaic in origin anyway.

vs 3

The word corroded literally means "rusted", but interestingly the word "corrosion" in the NIV doesn't necessarily mean "rust" (not naturally, anyway). Ios refers more naturally to "poison". Having said that, the word is only used in the NT 3 times, and the word for corroded is katioo, which derives partly from ios.

The point being that not only is your money corroded away, but the fact that you had all this stuff sitting around in the first place is a testimony against you. So it wasn't only useless (because it's only temporary and rots away), but it was also damning (because it shows that you were hoarding earthly wealth instead of heavenly wealth)!

But we are going to see that simple wealth is not what James is crying out against here. I think there's a hint of it even in this verse. If all you did with your money was let it sit around and get rusty, then you weren't using it for God! If God gives you many millions of dollars, there's no curse about it, provided you make sure it keeps moving. As soon as you let it stagnate into riches, then you're toast.

vs 4

See, it is not the having of wealth, but the unrighteous use of it that cries out against you. The hoarder of wealth is marked as one that is not living a godly life. And rightly so. So what's the difference between hoarding money and saving money? Well, saving is for a purpose - you are being diligent in the use of your funds to make them go further. But hoarding is just pulling together as much money as you can because it is money, and there is absolutely no value in that. As soon as you've got more money than you know what to do with, be very very careful.

Some people will say that they have some stored money as a security blanket. But let me tell you that God is a bigger security blanket. You either trust one to look after you, or the other. Now you might think that you don't have anyone working on your behalf - or that you pay your guy to mow your lawn or clean your house, so you're fine. Well, let me tell you that there are so many, so so many missionaries out there who are doing your job out on the mission field. Are you paying them? I hope you are, because if you're not, then their voices are crying out to you. There are Christians who are really being persecuted and suffering for you. Are you sharing with them? Thankfully, God hears them, which is good for them - not so good for us though.

vs 5

We just save ourselves up for it. I hate to think where Kerry Packer is now. But according to his own words about there being no God, and according to the fatness of his riches before the slaughter, I've got to assume he's got an apple in his mouth and a date up his date and he's part of the main course of satan's banquet.

Now I know a lot of people point at the Packers or the Gates or the Sultan of Bruneis or Richard Bransons of this world and say how much they give to charity. And in real, raw terms, they give a crapload of money. More than we could ever hope to get, let alone give. But are they giving it because they want to please God? Because they don't trust in riches? I think the only one who probably does is the Sultan of Brunei, and he's a Muslim.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to be rich and Christian, or that if you are rich you have to give your money away to be Christian. William Wilberforce was rich, and he didn't give it away and become poor. He did live simply, and I'm sure he gave a buttload away, but even in his simple living he was living better than the poor and the slaves. But he used his wealth and the position it gave him in parliament to fight for the emancipation of slaves, and that for Christ. That's the difference. He may not have spent his wealth, but he spent himself.

vs 6

I think the condemnation is as much a passive thing as an active thing. This letter is to a Christan group, remember! I don't think these rich early Christians were putting out contracts to have people killed. But their lack of action was condemning people to death, probably by starvation and deprivation. That's a hell of a lot worse than crucifixion or beheading in my book, especially when you're doing it to whole families. And these are not even opposing them! These are looking to them for your support, and they are handed a snake or a scorpion.

vs 7

Farmers are patient. I read a study in America once about how scientists throughout the last 70 years or so have maintained within their field a pretty standard rate of Christian to non-Christian - about 10% (way lower than the national average). I wouldn't be surprised if farmers had a much higher than national average. Because they have to be patient, and they know that there's only so much they can do - can't make it rain, can't make seeds grow.

vs 8

We should be with our lives farming for God. I mean, there's nothing more pure or righteous about trusting in your crop or in the weather any more than trusting in riches. We need to trust in God. The crop we are watching should be God's crop. He, like a storm, is coming near. There are grumblings. You can feel it in the air. But if we haven't prepared a crop, then it doesn't matter how much it rains - it will be too late to harvest.

vs 9

James wants us to feel just how close Jesus is to coming back! It was a lot easier to feel that when he'd only just been here - the humidity from when he'd passed over was still in the air. But when he's close, we might not have any signs. We know when a storm's coming, sure. But last time Jesus came, who knew? A few stargazers from Iran. Some shepherds. But we'll know at the right time. Probably in some explody way.

vs 10

James is starting a new thing now, and from reading this verse we know it's going to be about the lives of the prophets. Which is pretty jewish. I mean, their lives aren't all that well documented in the Scripture - they are better known in extra-biblical material, which at the time was probably mostly oral. But it doesn't go on too long, and we'll get to it next week.

James Chapter 4

vs 10

Instead of boasting about all our sinful desires which separate us from God, we should realise our deficiency and be humble before God. There really is nobody who can be boastful and proud before God. We are to make ourselves low before God, and let him exalt us. Yes, we are children of God! Yes, we are worthy in his site to receive salvation! But everything that we are and have comes from God. And he will exalt us, he will boast about us, he will raise us up - so we don't have to.

vs 11

Speaking against someone doesn't just mean saying something bad about them. The word used is katalaleo, which means to incriminate or traduce. Katalalos means an evil or defaming speaker. So speaking against your fellow Christian isn't just calling them names - it is producing a very serious accusation against either their actions or their character. I am actually considering that these terms are of a legal bent, and that James is saying here that we shouldn't call each other before a court, much like Paul's attitude in I Corinthians. When we make judgements about a Christian's character or actions (assuming that they are living by the "faith visible through works" model that James has already supplied) then we are actually judging God's law which they are abiding by. What a terrible situation, to have Christians judging other Christians for abiding by the law of God? Because when you have a negative opinion of someone because they are following God's law, then you are not keeping God's law, but you are judging his law! You are saying "I don't agree with God's law at this point, and so therefore God must be wrong."

But if they aren't living by the law of God, then I don't think this applies. Not that I think you can go and slander them! But if a Christian really has been negligent in their character or actions, then we might have to report them to some sort of criminal investigation.

vs 12

Thank God that we don't have the power over heaven and hell, because if we did, then a lot of people who act Christian outwardly but are really empty inside would get to heaven, and a lot of people who love Christ but don't act the way we do would perhaps only just scrape in, and there'd be a bunch of people we didn't even know were Christians going to hell.

So we should not put ourselves in a place of judgement. We should fulfil our responsibilities as lawful citizens in reporting criminal activity.

vs 13

This is a fairly typical thing that we would say. I make plans about what I'm going to do all the time.

vs 14

But James says "How can you be sure of any of your plans? How can you be sure there will be a tomorrow, for you or for anyone?" And he's right, we can't be sure. We are like a mist - no one knows how long a mist is going to hang around for. Ok, meteorologists might have an idea, but they're still wrong sometimes. The point being that we're not just like a mist, but even if we survive till we're 102, we're still a bump on a grain of sand in the big egg timer of history.

vs 15

Now this verse created an entire movement for many hundreds of years who would constantly attach the term "DV" to anything and everything they said. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem, of course, is that no-one knows what DV means anymore! I mean I know, and anyone else who walks in Christian circles will probably know, and in reference to this passage you know now. But Do you know what it actually stands for? See if you know before you look it up. I had to look it up.

The point being that if we're going to walk around saying "DV" - some secret little code only understood by Christians - then we may as well not say it at all. And you'll find that when you preface or postface everything you say with it, it also gets meaningless and somewhat annoying too.

But what does the verse actually mean? In the context of verse 13 and of verse 16, I think you'll realise that this is talking about boasting about doing things and gaining things. So don't boast! "Oh, I'm going to go and sell a boat and make my next million dollars." Who cares? And it's not just about making money either. People do it with everything, including Christian mission! "Oh, I'm going to get 100 converts at my next evangelistic crusade." (You know, I can't help but waggle my head in derision even as I type these sentences). Now there is a difference between telling people what you've actually been able to accomplish for God, for the sake of prayer and the encouragement of your fellow Christians. But boasting about what is essentially God's doing is just stupid.

vs 16

Not just stupid, but evil. Certainly it shows a complete derision for the work of God.

vs 17

The NIV leaves out what I think is an important clause here. Now you can still get the gist of it from the NIV, and they probably took it out because it's repetitive. But I think it makes it clearer to leave it in. They left out that "to him it is sin". The idea being that if you know the right thing to do, and you don't do it, then it is sin for you not to have done it. That doesn't necessarily make it sin for other people not to have done it. You are culpable because of your knowledge. And having read this far in James, you're now pretty hella-cuplable.

James chapter 4

vs 1

Well, at least James answered his own question for us, so we don't have to puzzle over the answer. There is a battle going on inside us, which is being fought by our desires, and it comes out into the world and causes fights and wars.

vs 2

"God" isn't actually in the greek text, and so isn't in the NASB or the KJV. But I think it's implied. This idea is probably being drawn from Jesus' ask, seek, knock.

James says here that all our quarrels and fights, our murders and our wars and jealousy could all be solved if, instead of fighting each other for what we want, we asked God. Of course, those of us in the real world know that this just won't happen, right? Because God's not a cosmic candy-machine, yeah? Actually, what we probably really know is what James is about to say...

vs 3

The reason we fight, quarrel, murder, war, and envy is because of our desires. But it's not as easy as just "asking God instead" and watching all those things go away. We all know that most of the stuff we fight over, and quarrel over, and are envious of, is probably stuff that we're not meant to have. Why do we feel jealous of that new car? Is it because we think that the guy with the new car isn't going to be using it for God, and it's unjust that he should be using it instead of you? Or is it because it's got comfy new seats and looks cool to drive? You know what? Most people don't need new cars at all. Some do - I know some of our missionaries don't have a choice - it's a new Land Rover or it's nothing, simply because of the work they do and where they are. And guess what? God gives it to them. When we moved to Brisbane, we didn't need a new car, but we were going to need one with air-conditioning. And what happened? We got one.

But it's not just about cars. People get upset about where they are in queues, what position they hold in the church, what job they've got, all sorts of things. God is happy to supply us with stuff, and he does so all the time, far more often than we realise it. But we are sometimes so absorbed that we don't even realise that we don't need something, or that we are asking for wrong motives. And to James, those wrong motives are our own pleasures.

vs 4

Wow, these verses (among others) caused those psychotic Exclusive Brethren to basically shut themselves off from the world. They weren't the first of course - monks did it long before. But that sort of attitude to these verses just shows that you're making it say something you want it to say. See, world is the word kosmos, and we simply can't determine it's meaning by looking the word up in a lexicon, because it's used to mean so many things. It's like the word 'bank'. So we look at this word, and we need to say "what context is James using it in?" and then we have to apply one of the meanings this word has. And I can tell you that "technology" is not a definition. But there is a definition that fits in with James' argument from the last few verses. It is this: the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ. Now obviously you can't be a friend to a bunch of goods. So James isn't talking about a certain bunch of goods. He's not saying "You chose friendship with cars, which is hatred toward God". If you think it means specific stuff like that, you misread the definition. It means the concept of these things. And if you are chasing these things instead of chasing God, then you're wanting to be their friend instead of God's friend. How many times do I have to say that money and wealth are the gods of this age? People worship them in very similar ways to the way pagan gods were worshipped.

Now personally I think that shouldn't be translated "world", because it's so confusing. But that's the word James uses, so we just have to do exactly what the greeks did, and determine it's meaning by context.

vs 5

What scripture is that James? I don't know that there's a great deal of agreement, because the greek can be translated several different ways, and none of them exactly represent a quote from Scripture. But the idea is there - that God is jealous for us somehow. He wants to be the first thing in our lives. He wants to dominate our thinking and our actions. And really, when you compare God to all the riches "the world" has to offer, who's more deserving?

vs 6

The 'us' is superfluous, so don't bother trying to work out who 'us' is - it's not in the greek. The greek really just says "But he gives greater grace" (and that's the NASB too).

This verse is confusing to me, but here's my take on it. The idea between verses 5 and 6 is to compare God to us. We, as we learned earlier, are jealous and warlike. God is jealous too, but his jealousy is different to ours. He doesn't fly into a warlike tantrum (can you imagine that? Scary!). Instead, he gives grace. So even though God is jealous for us, he doesn't start fights and quarrels. He instead gives grace. But not universally. Instead, James quotes Proverbs here which tells us, again, about God's value for humility.

vs 7

James then uses the term 'therefore'. So God's grace to the humble, and his preparedness to give us what we ask for if we're asking for the right things should be enough to persuade us to submit, or subject ourselves to God. Our opposition should not be to God, but to Satan. And if we oppose him, he'll flee. So I guess Satan only likes easy pickings.

vs 8

I've been quoting this verse a fair bit lately, because I've noticed that, over the years, people have been making negative comments about people (usually young people) praying for things like the "closeness of God" or for God to "draw near to someone". Their argument has been "God is within you as the Holy Spirit, so you don't need to pray that prayer". Sounds logical right? But they are forgetting the fact that sometimes it can feel like God is far away. To use the old sunday school cliche, God never leaves us, it's us who leaves God. But regardless of who's at fault, we all know that if we can feel the presense of God more keenly, it's better and preferable. So hence people pray that prayer. The point is that there is nothing wrong with desiring a closeness with God.

But we can't just draw near to God. God is holy. We also need to wash out hands (remember what I said about hands? About cheir?) So we need to keep our actions clean. But we must also to purify our hearts. Because God doesn't care just about our actions - he wants our hearts to be purified too. That does not mean God wants you doing regular cardio exercise. He may or may not, but that's not the purpose of this verse. He wants a cleansing of our spiritual life (because the heart is the seat of life). Notice that it is sinners and the double-minded (literally "two-souled") that need to do these things. Now James isn't saying that we can wash away our sins or anything like that. He's just saying that we need to clean up our act and our motivation.

vs 9

These are things that people did when they thought the hand of the Lord was against them. The whole sackcloth and ashes. We just do not do this anymore! Now even though this stuff was mostly tradition and ritual, it still symbolised that we were greived that we had upset God. That's why they would make themselves out to be mourning as if someone had died - because that's how much they wanted to show that they were upset for upsetting God. See, James is telling us to confront our sinfulness and our impurity of motive, our two-mindedness. When we confront it, we should see just how off-the-tracks we are, and that should cause us to mourn and grieve.

We don't do nearly enough of this. Well, perhaps everyone else does and I don't, but you know what, I think we've inherited a Christian culture that is far too geared to God's forgiveness, and not nearly enough towards his purity. That's why we've got young Christians who can become Christians without cost, especially if they're from a Christian family. It's only when you realise the exacting standards that God expects that you realise just how much scum you are. This whole experience should really bring us humbly before God, put us in our place.

James Chapter 3

vs 10

Once again, it is hypocrisy as much as lack of love which makes this attitude and action so wrong. Although James is using the lack of love as the purpose of the statement, he uses the hypocritical nature of the situation to bring our sense of disgust to it.

vs 11-12

The answer is no. And don't give me some complicated science mumbo-jumbo, because James says the answer is no at the end of verse 12. If you're wheedling around trying to work out how to make this say yes, then I pity you, because it means you don't understand analogy and therefore you only have half a brain and are quite possibly some sort of poorly programmed robot.

vs 13

Once more, there is a need for something which is often invisible (wisdom and understanding) to be visible for our sakes. In this situation, James suggests that the most important action to come out of wisdom is humility. The greek literally says "a wise meekness". I am told this is using the genitive of quality. So good conduct and a wisely humble character will show your true wisdom and understanding.

vs 14

You shouldn't be proud of being bitterly jealous. I can't imagine someone boasting about that. But I can imagine someone denying the truth because of it. There are some people out there who will just go and do the opposite thing, or not do the good thing, simply because they've been told to do it, so it no longer seems like they chose to do it. James says no!

Then there are people who boast about their selfish ambition. This word in greek, eritheia, particularly denotes those who seek pursuit of political office by unfair means (it's used that way in Aristotle, and isn't really used apart from the NT). So I think selfish ambition is a good translation. It certainly helps me keep in focus that while ambition is good, if it is ambition for purely selfish reasons, then it's not good at all.

vs 15

I like James' picture of the wisdom coming down from on high, only for him to say that it doesn't really. Instead, it almost seeps out of the ground and wets your shoes with a sticky demonic goo. Bitter envy and selfish ambition are two building blocks that western society is absolutely built on. The envy is what makes you want to buy stuff - the old "keeping up with the Jones's" that advertising works so hard to make you think you need - and the selfish ambition is the "it's all about you" culture that tells you it's ok to want all the stuff those other people have.

Look, this isn't new, and I'm not harping on capitalism as if it's the devil. But it is - just no more than any other society. Since time immemorial, what social class has dictated how things get done? The rich? And through what means? Envy and selfish ambition. Why do we all spend so many tens of thousands of dollars on a wedding? Because it's what everyone else does! And do you know why they do it? Because during a time when there was a rich class and a poor class, the rich would have these outlandish weddings, and the poor would say "I wish I was rich (envy), so I want to have as big a wedding as I can so I can be more like them (selfish ambition)".

But James is saying here that these are not wisdom from God. They are of Satan. So we just cannot afford as churches or as individual Christians to get sucked into the capitalist culture.

vs 16

Is the message clear yet? These things, these building blocks of an anti-God society, they lead to disorder and evil. And we might think that western countries with their immense riches are well ordered, but that is an earthly, natural order, a "survival of the fittest" order. That is not God's way! So they are in disorder with respect to God. The word phaulos (translated 'evil') literally means ordinary or worthless, and from there has obviously come to mean ethically bad or wicked. So at the very best, these things lead to worthless practice and disorder amongst the way things are meant to be. And people wonder why they are so unhappy.

vs 17

Can you even imagine a society where these things were the building blocks of society? A society which first and foremost was based on purity? For one thing, that means sex would no longer sell. Peace-loving? It would mean that relationships would be more important that profits. Considerate? It would mean that people and how things affect them would actually be taken into account, and there would no longer be any such thing as "collateral damage". Submissive? It would mean people would be prepared to do the job they are doing at the present, and not backstab people or put them down in order to walk on their bodies to get to the top job. Full of mercy? It would mean that forgiveness and compassion would reign. Good fruit? I think that is the obvious result of such a society - but here we are talking about a building block - so what we mean is a society where the impact something is going to have on someone is measured by how much it will help them grow and how productive it will help them be, as well as how productive it will be, and ensuring that the outcomes will be positive. I prefer the NASB translation of "unwavering" for the next word (adiakritos is the negative form of 'unintelligible', and so the idea is that it is 'without uncertanity') - so it's a society where we make sure people understand and are sure of what they believe. Finally, it is sincere (NIV better than the NASB of 'without hypocrisy"). So it's a society where all this stuff isn't just a veneer covering the true state of horror and vileness (that is what our current society is, by the way), but a society where the power of your conviction is as important to that society as the job you do.

Sounds nice to me.

vs 18

This verse is why I love the NIV. The NASB reads "And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." Yeah, ok, that is probably closer to the order in which the greek words are (the greek reads literally "And [the] fruit of righteousness in peace is sown for the [ones] making peace" but should be read "is sown in peace"). But that is so much more difficult to read than the NIV. The NIV says the exact same thing, but says it in a much prettier way.

Anyway, what does it mean? It means that those people, the peacemakers, who are seeking to plant the seed of peace, will themselves be considered righteous. To break that right down, "pecemaking is the right thing to do". Or if you want to sound hella-spiritual, "peacemaking is the thing to do if you want God to think you're in the right".

James chapter 3

vs 1

Isn't it wonderful to know that those of us who are responsible for others' growth will be condemned all the more harshly if we do our job wrong. But really, the idea of people being judged based on their individual situation is very much a just thing to do, as well as merciful. See, our society constantly feeds us with the absolute baloney that "all people are created equal", that there's a "level playing field" and that we have "equal opportunity". I'm sorry, but that's garbage. Anyone who was born to a single parent, or who was born into an Aboriginal context, can tell you that it's not the same as being born into the family of successful millionares. Anyone who was born with a disability can tell you it's not a "level playing field" with someone who has full use of their body. Anyone who was born in Sierra Leone can tell you that it's not the same as being born in Australia. The world exists with a natural inequality. So God does the righteous, just and merciful thing of judging us individually dependant on our situations. For more in this, read CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" as he has an excellent chapter on this.

vs 2

Don't get tied up in this verse thinking that it is talking about sinless perfection. To use a modern idiom, James is saying that the tongue is a window to the soul. After all, he says at the beginning of this verse that we all stumble in many ways! So controlling one of them isn't going to make you sinlessly perfect. But what he's talking about here is an efficiency - barring other factors, if you can control your tongue, the rest of your body should follow suit.

Remember what he is saying here, because it becomes very important later on when comparing words and action.

vs 3-4

Two more good illustrations from James to make his point. This must make James really hard to preach from! He's already done all the work for you, which would make it repetitive and hard to put your own spin on things. But positively, it makes it easier to read personally, which suggests its "Christian handbook" type role.

vs 5

Small things can be powerful. Bullets have power way beyond their size, but of course James didn't have any. He did have fire though, which is another great example.

vs 6

Woah James! You make it sound like we should rip these things out and bury them or something! Gee, I wonder where the monks got their idea for vows of silence? But the point he is making is this - if your tongue does something wrong, that wrong thing affects your whole body. And that means that if your tongue is doing something which is worthy of hell, then that doesn't mean you just won't be whistling in heaven - it means that your whole body will be in hell, tongue first.

vs 7-8

So earlier, James says that if we could tame our tongues, we could be perfect. But now he says that's impossible. You might be able to tame an Orca or a parrot, but not a tongue. James really hates tongues (not glossolalia) it would seem, and he's certainly making good on his words earlier that teachers will be judged more harshly. It is full of a "poison of death-dealing", which sounds like some magical D&D poison. So, why is the tongue so evil?

vs 9

Because it is capable of doing the work of God and the work of the devil, and right next to each other! There's certainly nothing wrong with praising God, but there is something wrong with cursing (kataraomai which is like praying, but praying that people will be cursed) other humans! Methinks James might have been on the receiving end of a bit of a tongue-lashing, and he's taking some vengance here. Worse yet, perhaps he has heard that these people are praying to God for other people's destruction.

James Chapter 2

vs 18

This is a great one-sentence pharse which shows the fruitlessness of faith without good works. Interestingly, the NASB (and to a lesser extent the KJV, which doesn't use quote marks) give the sentence different emphasis by treating the whole thing as one sentence - that is, as if someone will say the whole thing, not just the first bit. Of course, ancient greek doesn't have punctuation like quote marks, so it's hard to tell where they end. John chapter 3 has the same problem. I think it makes easier sense if you read the whole thing as a saying. That means James is suggesting "All you have is faith (invisible), while I have faith and works (visible). So show me your faith (you can't, because you can't see faith), and I'll show you my works which point to my faith."

vs 19

James here is widening the depths of his definition of faith. Faith is not just "to believe". Belief in God was such a pitiful, childish first step back then. Everyone believed in God. It was alomst a fait accompli. Nowadays we have trouble even getting people to admit that God exists. But simple belief in the existance of God is not enough. Faith must do more than convince you - it must convict you. That is, it must do more than just give you an intellectual stimulus which convinces you of the truth of the argument. It must convict you that this truth requires action, and you must then go and take that action. You're not a rich man if you've got a map which shows an x marking the spot. You're only a rich man when you dig up the gold bullion.

vs 20

It would seem that someone needs yet more evidence, so James will continue to blast away.

vs 21

What an interesting argument. Paul uses the exact same person, Abraham, and the exact same situation, but this time to prove that we are justified by faith alone. Check out Romans 4 for more info.

So James' argument is that Abraham had faith, but he was considered righteous because that faith sprung into action.

vs 22

Faith is completed by action is James' argument. So note that James is not just saying that a complete faith becomes visible through action. There is more to it than that. James is actually stating here that faith is perfected (greek word teleioo) by the actions you take. When looking at that statement in terms of a "justification by faith" doctrine, we must ask, I guess, how much faith is required to be saved, and how much perfecting does a faith need for salvation? Justification comes later...

vs 23

So to complete his tale, James quotes the same pasasge as Paul, that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. This passage is a much stronger argument for Paul than it is for James, if the two were contradictory. After all, Paul's argument of "justification by faith" is proved far easier than James' "perfection of faith by works" because the verse they both quote comes before Abraham has done anything special - certainly before the sacrificing of Isaac!

But notice that James says that this scripture was fulfilled - so he sees it as a prophecy that was completed once Abraham's faith had been tested as genuine.

vs 24

And so James states finally that it is action as well as faith that justifies. Now we're struggling through contradictory territory. How do we reconcile this with Paul's theology? Before this verse, we could argue that James is talking about the progressive sanctification of the believer, and that this happens (at least partly) through our actions. But now, he has out and out said that justification, the one off work that sets us up as a non-guilty party, is accomplished by works as well as faith. What do we do?!?!?!

Sorry about all the punctuation - there's not many times for excitement and buildup in Bible study. This entire argument can be settled by looking again at that great verse, verse 18. This is the framing verse around which this whole argument takes place. So what does that mean? It means that when James is talking about the justification of faith, he is talking about it in regards to its justification by people around you, not in reference to God.

"But what about Abraham and the example James uses?!" I hear you cry. Interrobang. Well, if what you are saying is that God could not have credited Abraham with righteousness until he knew that Abraham's faith was genuine by taking action (in this case, preparing his son for sacrifice), then I want you to look at your argument, and look at the fundamental flaw in it.

Look hard. Is it obvious? Here it is - if you are saying what I just said above, then you are saying that GOD doesn't know if Abraham's faith is genuine unless Abraham proves it first. That is, GOD (we're talking abot that all powerful, all knowing being, that God) doesn't know what Abraham is going to do, and can't look into his heart and see if he's really faithful or not. Is it just me, or does that sound stupid?

Ok, you say, then why did Abraham have to "prove it" with his actions? Good question, why don't you think about it a bit. "I'm trying Ben, but you're just too smart for me. Please give me the answer!" Ok then, but I actually gave you the answer above. God forced Abraham to take action to justify his faith before men. Probably primarily before Abraham himself! Once he had been there, with the knife in his hand, he knew that he really was faithful to God. And when we read about that story, we have no doubts. If God had just said "I have read your heart, and I know you're faithful, so now I'll make you a huge nation" we'd really wonder, wouldn't we?

It's the same thing here. We are justified before God by our faith which only he can see. But us poor saps of humans can't see that faith. We can only see action. We can only see baptism, hear words of confession, see people's regular church attendance, see their help to the poor and needy. If we could see people's faith, say as a bright shining light eminating from them, then we'd probably be quite surprised - but think about it: you'd probably only notice the people who do all the action all the more, instead of noticing those who do nothing. That is what James is saying.

vs 25

So here we see James' argument. Rahab was considered righteous. By who? By God? No, God doesn't consider people righteous - he knows whether they are righteous or not. Now I will point out that there's no word in the greek that suggests "considered". But the question as it is posed I think still gives the same answer. She was justified by her works in protecting the spies. And the people of Israel accepted her into the Israeli nation! She had proven to them, not God, that she was faithful. You see, people of great faith wouldn't be very good role models to us if they didn't do anything. Faith inspires action and is perfected by action for our benefit! Not to try and keep us out of heaven, but to show us "Hey look! There's a person of such great faith that they did something! I wish I could be like them!".

vs 26

And indeed we do need to be like them. Because without the constant prompting of action to show our faith as genuine, even we ourselves would dry up and fade away from the Christian walk. Interesting thought, no?

James Chapter 2

vs 10

This is the necessity of justice in law - that anyone who transgresses must be treated as a transgressor, no matter what their transgression was. This doesn't mean that people aren't punished differently (the OT law punishes everyone differently depending on their crime) but it means treating everyone who is a transgressor the same - as a criminal. Which means in the end, everybody dies.

vs 11

An illustration of the above.

vs 12-13

Even though these verses are a long way from home, they are still relating to the idea of not showing favourtism. There is a judgement that is coming to Christians. They will be judged, not by the law on sin and death which reigned throughout the Mosaic covenant, but by the law of freedom, which is the fulfilment of the old law in Christ. But it is still a law! You will still be either a lawkeeper or a lawbreaker. The difference is that does not determine how you are treated. What determines how you are treated is how you treated people. So if you are a lawbreaker, but you are merciful, then mercy will be shown to you. But whether you are a lawkeeper or a lawbreaker, if you are not merciful, then when judgement comes, it will come without mercy.

Mercy comes out of love, and this is why James brings up the commandment to "love your neighbour".

vs 14

What controversy these verses caused to Martin Luther! He hated them! It is these verses that caused him to call James "an epistle of straw". But I fear he was being a touch eisegetical, as if James were a Pope of the Roman Catholic church or something. But he wasn't. He was Jesus' brother, and as such his book was included in the canon, and as such we've got to respect it like all the other books, even Luther's beloved book of Romans.

The fact is that we are saved by faith alone. There's no contradiction between James and Romans. James is calling into question, as does John in his epistles, the worthiness of the faith of someone who proclaims they have faith, but it is not evidenced in their life. James knows, as do we in our cosmopolitan society, that there are many kinds of faiths - in his time, people had faith in statues, they had faith in the emperor, they even had faith that God would send his Messiah (even though he'd already come). But a misplaced faith is just as useless as a misplaced power cord - without a socket, it doesn't do anything.

To drag that analogy out a bit more, if you say you have faith (that you're "plugged in") but your lights aren't on and you don't go vroom vroom, then there's a pretty good chance that you're not actually plugged into the right thing.

But it's not just that you might be drawing power and not using it. To use a better analogy, say you see two guys on fire. One is running around screaming "Oh my God help me! I'm on fire! I'M ON FIRE DAMN IT, PUT ME OUT!". The other one is doing his shopping, picking what canned vegetables he wants, smelling some mushrooms, chatting to the girl at the deli. Now, both of them might say "Yes, I am on fire" (one will say "PUT ME OUT! DAMN YOU!"). They might even both look to the untrained eye like they're on fire. But there are certain reactions that are expected of someone who is on fire. Screaming and running around are two of them. Arguing over the price of salt-cured sundried tomatoes isn't. So then you ask yourself, "Well, is that guy really on fire?" It could be an illusion or hologram or whatever. I'll leave you to use your imagination.

vs 15-16

James likes his illustrations. I think they are great, too, because they help us to understand what he's saying. In this example, you say what the person needs, and you hope they get them. Well done! You did bugger all! All you accomplished was to point out what was blindingly obvious to the person in need. There are a lot of people in this day and age who think, I think moreso because of post-modernism, that them giving you their opinion is like them giving you a bar of gold. Let me tell you all something - your opinion is worth nothing without something more than some sort of experiential backing. Yes, I had a pain in my side once, and it really hurt, and I thought it was appendicitis. That doesn't mean I know what appendicitis feels like, or what to do if you're suffering from it (get your ass to a hospital). But people today seem to think that their, often blindingly obvious, observations are of such great value that they have helped the world by sharing them.

Helping a telemarketer who wants to survey you and find out that you actually do like orange-flavoured cola but the price is too high is not the same as giving someone food. Guess what? the whole world can keep spinning, and people will get on with their lives, if they never ever ever ever ever know what your opinion of orange cola is. But when people don't eat, they starve and die.

James chapter 2

vs 1

James is such a rich book, so full of meaning, and yet so rarely mentioning Christ. So when he is mentioned, like here, take special notice. This verse is specifically talking about favourtism with regards to meeting as Christians. So it doesn't mean you can't show favourtism when hiring people for positions of employment (and of course nepotism and systems of patronage were fairly common back then) or some other thing - just as long as you're not ranking one Christian above another.

You can't neglect the link between your faith and the not showing favourtism. It's strong in this sentence.

vs 2-4

James expands on his idea with an example. If we discriminate between ourselves according to our riches, then we have become "judges with evil thoughts", or evil-thinking judges. Now it is worth noting here that later on James is going to tell us that the poor are the ones who inherit God's kingdom, and the rich are exploitative. But he doesn't try and turn the tables on them and say "Give the poor man the good seat and treat the rich man like crap". Why? Because that wouldn't work. It's not our job to turn the world upside down - that's God's job. He will exalt the humble. So instead, we show no favourtism.

vs 5

When you read the whole paragraph, especially the line about rich people, you will see that James is not making a complex theological statement here. Yes, he very probably has the words of Jesus' sermon on the mount in his mind. But what he is actually doing is making an observation about reality around him. We could make the same observation today, with the majority of Christians living in the 2/3rds world. Those are the ones that God's spirit has worked in to bring them to love him! With our culture of individualism and freedom of choice, we tend to look at this statement of James and say "Well, it's because the poor need something to believe in because their lives are so crappy". That might be true. But then we completely ignore the theological fact that God chooses people in whom to work, and he elects people to draw to himself. So you could make a pretty good argument that God reaches out to the humble and poor, and blesses them ahead of those who are rich.

vs 6

And yet these Christians seem to be blind to the work of God, ignoring the poor (or even insulting them) and pandering to the rich, who are their landlords! Now it's obvious why you would want to befriend your landlord, but James points out that they don't generally care about befriending you - they are happy to exploit you and, if you can't pay, sue your ass.

vs 7

And yes, they are the ones who militate against Christ. Let me ask you this - is it the educated people (education makes you rich) you know who mock your beliefs, or is it poor people who haven't had a chance to get a leg up in the world? Academia is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. The private sector is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. Politics is overwhelmingly anti-Christian. Why is that?

vs 8

That would be the law as defined by Christ as "love everybody you know, those you don't, and those you don't even think about. In fact, love anybody who could ever be so much that even if they hate you, love them". I don't know how many people keep to that one easily.

vs 9

But James wants to make the point that this idea of favourtism is a big deal. You can't as a church ignore this one bit as if it doesn't matter. If you break the law, you are a lawbreaker.

James chapter 1

vs 19

"You have two ears and one mouth, and they should be used in that ratio" is a Biblical concept. We also need to be slow to anger. Anger is a really interesting concept in the Bible. It's never commanded against, but is always warned against. Lustful thoughts, greed and other feelings we probably can't control are commanded against, but anger is always different. Perhaps it's because it is one of those things that God does, and therefore you can't say God commands against it.

vs 20

James has more to say about anger though, and I think the NASB expresses this much better: "For the wrath of man does not achieve the righteousness of God". We might get angry at something, and the anger might start out being caused by some act of unrighteousness, but quickly our anger goes beyond that to other people, to hating stuff, to even hating God. We lose the moral high ground really quickly when we get angry.

vs 21

In the NIV, this is grouped with the last two verses, but it really belongs to the next paragraph in my opinion. Although it starts with therefore, I don't think it relates to the immediate verses before. I think this goes back to verse 13 and encompasses the whole thing up to this point. And the point of it has been that good things come from God, and bad things, anger and temptation, do not and do not contribute to your godliness.

So this verse has two steps. Step 1: get rid of moral filth and evil which is everywhere, and in big portions too. Step 2: humbly accept the saving word planted in you. Remember that very few times are actual Scriptures referred to, because most people didn't have them. Planted in you should be the hint that this is talking about the gospel. Most often when a NT writer talks about the word of God, he's either talking about Jesus or the gospel, not the written Bible.

He then goes on to focus on step 2 first, before coming back to step 1.

vs 22

We were talking about this idea (although not this verse) at the mission conference I was at yesterday. The preacher said that each of us lives a secret life within us that no-one can see. Only God can judge that secret life within. And he said that it is here where sins like hypocrisy and cynicism take their root. And the way to defeat these is to ask God to help you apply what you're reading, or hearing to your soul, and really make a difference in you and how you act. Far out, imagine if Christians actually went out and did what the Bible said! Scary.

Yes, I did say earlier that the Bible and the gospel aren't the same thing. But for us, the place we find the gospel is in the Bible, and the whole Bible contains the gospel, but the gospel is actually larger than the Bible, not the other way around.

vs 23-24

So James gives us an illustration of what he's talking about. Ignoring what God has said to you in his gospel as a Christian is incredibly hypocritical and contradictory. And there is no society that can smell hypocrisy and contradiction and hates it more than the current young generation.

vs 25

Although the word law here (nomos) can mean Mosaic law, you will notice that James calls it the "perfect law of freedom" which to me doesn't mean the Mosaic law at all. We can expect blessings in what we do, if what we are doing is what we are told to do by God in the gospel! Ha! The gospel doesn't tell us to be doctors or nurses. It doesn't tell us to be preachers or evangelists or artists or unemployed. It tells you that you've been given gifts, and to use them for the body. And it tells you that the body of Christ exists to reach the world. Yes, the gospel is pretty vague on what we should do, but when we do it then we'll be blessed.

vs 26

So now we look at moral filth, which James mentioned back at verse 21. But he focuses not on our actions, but our words. Our tongues are our main implement of filth. So first James tells us that if we can't keep a reign on the tongue, then our religion is worthless.

vs 27

Then he gives us a definition of what he means by religion - looking after those in distress (at the time orphans and widows were the big two), and keeping yourself from being polluted by the world. That should be a definition of what Christianity is. Helping the marginalised, and keeping ourselves pure. Far out, if that's what Christianity is, then we've got it sooooooo wrong. I think almost nothing of what we do at church on a Sunday morning keeps me pure - breaking bread is probably the only thing. Singing doesn't keep me pure. Most of the sermons don't either (some do). And I don't really see church on a Sunday helping people in distress. Most of the sermons aren't aimed at people in distress and most marginalised people don't even feel welcome in a church - certainly probably not our church. If we were more practically focused on inner purity (by inner I mean within the church) and outer visitation of the helpless. The NIV got "look after" from the greek word episkeptomai, but the root of the word, skopos, means to be a watchman. So what the word really means is to look over people (ie oversee) in order to help them. And if they're not in the church, then you might actually have to go out and look over them where they are so you can help them. No good being a watchmen when there's no enemy coming from the direction you're looking.

James Chapter 1

vs 11

Notice that wild flowers aren't destroyed because God hates them or because they've done something wrong. This is not a judgement based on a lack of righteousness. It's simply a fact that no matter how big a business you created, it won't stand the test of time. And even if it lasts for like 500 years, you won't be there to enjoy it. That's just how things work - even while you're still doing business, you'll disappear and someone else will take it over and you'll be like "Wha?".

vs 12

This verse seems to be wrapping up the idea that trials are good and people who can persevere are blessed. In that context, it would seem to be that the reason James brings up the businessman and the brother "of humble circumstances" is that this is one kind of trial people can go through. It's not only spiritual suffering that can cause you to doubt your faith - physical suffering, including poverty, can make you do the same thing.

vs 13

This makes God distinctly different from Allah, who does tempt people to sin. So here we see a classic example of something that God does not take responsibility for - and if it's not his responsibility, it's usually ours (or in a limited way Satan's).

vs 14

In this case it seems to be ours. His picture of being "dragged away and enticed" is a great one. Most people probably know what it's like to be threatened - I guess not everyone knows what it's like to be dragged somewhere to be enticed. But it has the same evil application. You are given things to satisfy your desires, and it's like a dual attempt to bribe and blackmail you. You sort of want the things that are being offered, and yet if you take them, they can then be used against you.

vs 15

What a great way of describing this evolution - the birth illustration gives us a clear idea of the progression of this concept. The word 'conceived' is actually a word play by James here, because it means both "to get pregnant" and "to take prisoner". Smart. He's almost painting a picture of a man who gets dragged away by some evil adultress and is enticed with an offer of sex. Once they do the nasty, though, the man is trapped, because she falls pregnant. They name their kid 'Sin' because that's what he was conceived in. Eventually, Sin grows up and beats the man to death.

vs 16

Taken out of context, this is a great little verse with very general application. But really I think it relates to the next couple of verses.

vs 17

So what we are not to be deceived about is that all the good stuff, well that comes from God. Don't mix it up with the enticing evil stuff that your desires will trap you in. God does not tempt us with his good stuff. They aren't all sweet and tasty one minute, and then the next like a shifting shadow you're a father and your son is giving you evil looks.

vs 18

Firstfruit in this context is being used to note the superiority of the object in question. So the reason we are reborn through his word of truth is that we might be shown superior to the humbler creation. Now while this might mean that James is trying to say that we're more important than sparrows or lillies, I think that misses the point. In the context of this passage, this statement must be to do with the nature of man who is beseiged with trials and temptations. Look just before - James had no problem saying that the humbly circumstanced man is better than the rich man. And now he is saying that the man (or woman) born of God through the truth (like being born again) is superior to the one who can't persevere in faith and who is trapped by his own desires. Christians are better. We can be humble about it, but we are better. If we aren't, then something is wrong. If everyone's "pretty good" by the world's standards, we should be awesome.

James chapter 1

vs 1

Just who is this James character? Jesus had a brother called James. But so did John. Is it either of them? He doesn't really give any hints in his letter. Most scholars (who aren't trying to deliberately make things difficult or "discover" something new) think this is Jesus' brother. Well, half brother. Roman Catholics will say it's Jesus' cousin because they want to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Anyway, he's fairly well known for being pretty jewish (look at other places he is mentioned, like Galatians). So we might not be surprised when he writes his letter to "the twelve tribes scattered across the nations". Now it might just be that James carpet-bombed the known world with this tract in the hope of hitting those people who long ago were Jews but had hundreds of years ago assimilated. More likely, though, this is a turn of phrase which means "the churches" or "you bunches of Christians everywhere".

vs 2

This is one of those books where the verse-numberer went nuts early on and numbered every12 words or so. But that aside, James skips the typical Pauline "been praying for you, how's your stuff" letter intro, and gets straight into it. When you are persecuted, you should be full of pure joy. Huzzah! Why?

vs 3

One thing I will say is that just because we should be purely joyful because such suffering produces a fruit of perseverance, I don't think that means we're not allowed to be bummed about the suffering. Some suffering is completely dehumanising. Some suffering is the consequence of living in a fallen world. But God can make good come out of all suffering, and we should be joyful that our God can do that.

However, we should also be aware at just how much value James is putting on perseverance here, and the fact that we can get our hands on it, even through suffering or tests to our faith, is to be praised.

vs 4

That's why we need perseverance. If we don't have it, something is lacking in our faith. This is a pretty simple lesson from the parable of the sower. But it's powerful to us - that if we can't persevere (and that comes through tests to our faith) then we are missing something from our faith, our faith isn't complete. We were challenged in church history recently to read a certain book because it would "challenge our faith". Bible college does a lot of faith challenging. And yes, I know some people can't cope with it. But everyone needs to be able to persevere. And yet time and again, as church history shows us, the majority of Christians rationalise away the need for perseverance. It doesn't make them not Christians - but it probably does separate the mature from the not-so-mature. Those guys that stood up to Hitler (it was a bunch of protestant pastors), they knew what it meant. But there were heaps of other Christian leaders (Catholic and Protestant) who just sat by and watched Hitler turn the churches into Reich churches preaching Hitler worship.

vs 5

God might simply give you a forehead slap and say "read Proverbs!", but in fact all the wisdom literature is priceless. I heard Don Carson (or David Cook, or some important Christian guy) once say that Ecclesiastes is the most important book of the Bible for the post-modern age. And in a lot of ways, I agree with him (whoever said it).

But wisdom isn't just the purview of the wisdom literature. And "God giving you wisdom" isn't some secret code for "he'll make you read the right bit of the Bible as if by magic". Sure, he might. But he can just unlock your brain too if need be.

Also remember the context this verse is in. It's not talking about "if you need wisdom choosing a new job, or deciding what flavour ice cream to choose". It's talking about perseverance and the strengthening of faith. God doesn't give everyone shrewd business sense because they ask for it. Wisdom is more (and sort of less) than that - it is the knowledge of God's will and how he unfolds it in this world. Sometimes that means making decisions completely contrary to good business sense. But it depends what you value more - and here, James is putting the high value on maturity in faith, and perseverance.

vs 6

Don't ask God for stuff if you don't really believe it's going to happen. If you're not really a Christian, then good luck squeezing anything out of God unless, like those people who came to Jesus, you're prepared to have some faith. Even a simple faith is enough. If you are a Christian and you don't think God's going to answer, then think seriously about what you're asking for - because if you don't think God's gonna do it, then does that mean you deep down know that you don't need it? Or that you've already got it?

Wisdom's a doosy. People read this verse and go "That's why I don't have enough wisdom, because I don't pray for it!" Bullcrap. If you can't find the answer to your question somewhere in the Bible, then it's most probably not because you haven't prayed for it, but because you haven't made good with God's time and become familiar enough with the Bible to know where the stuff you need is at! And I'm not going to lay down the "if I can do it (go to Bible college, read my Bible regularly with the purpose of actually understanding what it means etc), then anyone can do it" because that's illogical. An illiterate person can't do those things. But you can do as much as you can with what you've got. And one of the things you've got is other, more mature people who've been down this road already! So just pick their brains about it! That's probably one of the few reasons they're still here on earth, just for you to make use of them.

I would concentrate more on what James means with his wave metaphor here, but I think he explains it by verse 8.

vs 7

If you're the person I described above who has a Bible but isn't prepared to actually treat it as if it were words of God and therefore worth more than all the gold in wherever, then what I said above applies in this verse - you've probably already got it, so don't think you're going to get anything.

vs 8

This is what a man like a wave is like. Unstable and of two minds. Double-minded basically means uncertain, doubting. It literally means "double-souled", but I'm sure you get the idea. And they are unstable, unsettled. The word in greek is the negative of "to set something somewhere" - so it's like balancing a plate on a windowsill, but it being unstable and perhaps falling off. These people are like that in everything. They are probably the people who need to get wisdom the most, but also need to learn to persevere a bit too.

vs 9

James is sticking right down the line to Jesus' theology here - that the humble person is highly exalted. But this whole passage about humility reads funny, don't you think? It's almost like verse 10 is somewhat sarcastic.

vs 10

You could probably make a fairly sustainable argument here that while the humble guy boasts in his low position because it means he'll have a high eternal position (the correct way of thinking), the rich guy can boast all he wants about his current position, because it's not going to mean diddly-squat in the end. Probably the whole idea is that you don't see humble people boasting about their high position in heaven (when they could do that), but hey, everybody's heard a rich guy boasting about his wealth, and that's just going to disappear.