James 5

CHAPTER V

The Impending Judgment of the Ungodly Rich, v. 1–6

James 5:1

1 The ungodly rich are here apostrophized as was done by the Old Testament prophets when they denounced foreign nations such as Babylon (Isa. 13:6), Moab (Isa. 15:3), and others. These “rich” are not Christians. James does not call them to repentance and amendment; judgment alone awaits them. In marked contrast to this terrible section is the next which is again addressed to the “brethren.” In 2:2, etc., one of these haughty rich Jews deigns to visit the Christian congregation; in 2:6 James reminds the Christians of what such rich Jews make them suffer. James now predicts their judgment. If it be asked whether this denunciation applies to Christians, the answer is that it does if they are in this ungodly class, merely bearing the Christian name does not exempt them.

In 1:10, etc., James speaks of the rich Christian and states that he is to remain humble. James evidently makes a difference between rich men and by no means denounces all rich men indiscriminately. He follows the example of Jesus that is recorded in Luke 6:24–26 where woe is pronounced upon the rich in the same way. In this denunciation James is not concerned with the rich Jews who may never hear what he writes about them; his object is to warn the Christians lest they envy such rich Jews. Verse 4 recalls 2:6; some of the Christians work for such ungodly rich Jews, are oppressed and cheated by them, suffer even worse things at their hands while their oppressors live delicately. The humble, suffering Christians must see these ungodly rich in the true light. Read Ps. 73, which is an Old Testament parallel, which likewise comforts the poor child of God and keeps him from envying the ungodly rich.

This section very appropriately follows the preceding one which speaks of doing business and getting gain and planning it all without God. In fact, the whole of chapter 4, v. 1–10 regarding “pleasures” and “friendship for the world,” v. 11, 12 regarding acting superior to law, v. 13–17 regarding forgetting God when making money, leads directly to this excoriation of the rich. Yet James is charged with patching heterogeneous pieces together. He found this paragraph somewhere and inserted it here; a “redactor” is also mentioned. Instead of recognizing that James follows the Old Testament and the preaching of Jesus, Jewish apocalyptic literature is cited in order to shed light on this paragraph and the next because the Parousia of the Lord and the last judgment are mentioned in them.

Come now, you rich, sob while howling in your wretched conditions that are coming! “Come now” is used as it was in 4:13, but, as is the case in the classics, it has an imperative here. Οἱπλούσιοι is the vocative with the article and denotes a class. In 4:9 the sobbing is to be the evidence of repentance, it is here that of despair. The onomatopoetic ὀλολύζοντες recalls Isa. 13:6; 15:3; Philistia in 14:31; Moab in 16:7; Tyre and the ships of Tarshish (23:1, 14), to mention only the howling of these Old Testament nations when judgment descends upon them. This word came to be used only with reference to utter woe and no longer with reference to jubilation. Audible sobbing is to be pierced with agonized wailing.

Ἐπί is “over” and is best rendered into English by “in.” “Wretchedness” is the noun that corresponds to the verb that is used in 4:9, but this wretchedness is now not the feeling of repentance but the effect of fatal judgment. The present participle “those coming” is a prospective present (R. 1116); James sees the wretchednesses “coming” and thus bids these ungodly rich to howl in advance of their coming.

James 5:2

2 Your wealth has rotted, and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver has rusted; and their rust shall be for testimony to you and shall eat your flesh as fire. You laid up treasure in the Last Days!

This is their treasure and their wealth; it is full of destruction for itself and for those who have given their hearts to it. The allusion to Matt. 6:20, 21 is plain; but James has pondered on this word of Jesus’ and carries it much farther as his subject demands, namely the judgment on the ungodly rich.

“Your wealth” is a comprehensive designation for all the earthly riches on which these men have set their hearts, their very name οἱπλούσιοι is derived from ὁπλοῦτος; “your garments,” “your gold and silver” are concrete specifications which let the readers dwell on separate items of wealth. This is the only wealth that these men have; they are not rich in God as James wants his brethren to be: “rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (2:5); they are not “rich toward God” (Luke 12:21). We recall Jesus’ word about “the deceitfulness of riches” (Matt. 13:22); the rich young ruler who would not tear his heart from his riches, Luke 18:23; Matt. 19:23; Rev. 2:9, and other passages.

“Has rotted” is likewise comprehensive and is thus followed by “have become moth-eaten,” “has rusted,” in the specifications. These perfects (the first and second perfect) need not be called proleptic, prophetico-perfects that are equal to future perfects (R. 898), for these riches have always been rotting, turning moth-eaten, rusting, they were never in any other condition. They appeared fine and grand but were the opposite for those who put their heart’s desire on them. “Your wealth,” “your garments,” “your gold and silver” do not include all wealth, etc. Paul tells the godly rich how to treat and how to use their riches (1 Tim. 6:17–19), they are to employ them for good works. Such wealth does not rot.

James 5:3

3 We need not make excuses for James when he speaks of gold and silver having rusted. These two metals never rust. The verbs James uses are figurative. Wealth does not rot; nor do fine garments actually become moth-eaten, rich people take good care of them. Besides, many of their garments are made of silk. As far as these rich are concerned, as far as these things are supposed to make them rich, these things are like a lot of rotten, moth-eaten, rusted stuff that deserves to be thrown out.

People who have nothing better are the most wretched beggars. Their gold and their silver are like iron that is rusted through and through or rusted clean away (κατά in the verb). The whole passage is exalted and is worded in Hebraic parallelism. When James says that gold and silver rust he becomes purposely paradoxical when his words are understood literally; hence the real meaning of the metaphor strikes the mind forcibly.

In 3:8 ἰός (Latin virus) = poison; we here have its primary meaning “rust” (Liddell and Scott): “their rust shall be for testimony to you.” This latter phrase is often used by Jesus, compare Matt. 8:4; 10:18; 25:14, etc. This rust shall eventually speak most mightily as a witness whose testimony cannot be contradicted. The very presence of rust is a testimony. There is no need to say what the testimony declares.

This rust, James adds, “shall eat your flesh parts like fire.” This is even more striking than saying that gold and silver rust. The future tense places us at the time of the judgment. Rust eats iron slowly, fire eats fiercely. This rust affects not only the gold and silver but, when it appears “for testimony” in the judgment, shall act suddenly “as fire.” The point of contact in “rust” and “fire” is the eating or destroying power; this reaches its full fierceness in fire, and therefore fire is the very word that is so constantly used with reference to judgment.

James does not say merely “shall eat you” but “your fleshes” (a plural we do not use). Some think of the well-fattened bodies of the rich although many a rich miser is thin. Some think of the burning of offal and refuse in the vale of Hinnom (Gehenna, 3:6). “Your fleshes” is not used as the opposite of “your bones” nor in contrast with “your souls.” Riches furnish pleasure and pride for the flesh, for the bodily life while it lasts; this shall turn to fire in the judgment. James believes in the resurrection of the bodies of the damned (Dan. 12:2). “Your fleshes” = animated bodies. At one time these ungodly rich let their bodies revel in wealth while they were bedecked with fine garments and ornamented with gold, etc.; those bodies will suffer the pangs of hell-fire. Regarding these bodies James echoes statements made by Jesus: “the whole body cast into hell” (Matt. 5:29, 30), “the fire of the Gehenna” (Matt. 5:22); God “is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matt. 10:28).

“You laid up treasure in the Last Days,” you certainly did! The “Last Days” (no article is needed) are the days of the Messiah, those that have passed since his first coming and that precede his second coming. How many such days there would be James did not know, nor does anyone else know. We have the advantage of knowing that they already run into centuries; but they may end tomorrow. We should not say that “the last days are the days of judgment, when punishment will be awarded”; judgment does not come in “days” but “in the last day.” The “Last Days” are rich days of grace, the time to lay up “treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt” (Matt. 6:20), so that “thou shalt have treasure in heaven” (Matt. 19:21, spoken to a rich man). But look at the treasuring that these rich have done!

They are like him who laid up treasure in Luke 12:21. The word is very ironical. “For the last days” (A. V.) is incorrect.

James 5:4

4 Lo, the wages of the laborers that mowed your field, having been kept back by fraud by you, cry out; and the shouts of them that reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth!

Like a flash James reveals by a concrete example how the rich, whom he apostrophizes, obtained so much of their riches. The example is not cited from their business dealings with other rich men, from their investments, from their buying and their selling, where they overreach, cheat, and trick, but from their dealing with poor laboring men. James flashes on the screen a scene such as is presented in Matt. 20:8 where the laborers are paid off after they have done their work. They have mowed the fields, they have done the reaping. These rich men own lands and employ many hands. This scene is purposely placed in the harvest season when their wealth is greatly increased by the new crop and not in the sowing season when the crop is as yet a matter of the future.

Although so much is acquired by them through the abounding goodness of God, these rich men rob their helpless laborers who are poor and must hire themselves out to work in the harvest fields. The reading varies between ἀπεστερημένος, “having been robbed by you” (ἀπό to indicate the agents in the passive), and ἀφυστερημένος, “having been held out by you.” Instead of paying the full amount to the laborers on some fraudulent pretext or other a part of the amount is held back, and the laborers are thus robbed. James uses Hebraic parallelism in the double statement, which thus sounds like the voice of the old Hebrew prophets.

The wage held out “cries” or “yells” to God for justice and vengeance, it is a himmelschreiende Suende. This thought is taken from the Old Testament: Abel’s blood cries to God; the sin of Sodom (Gen. 18:20; 19:13) cries for punishment. Deut. 24:15 demands that the hire of the laborer be given him before the sun goes down, for he is poor and sets his heart on it, “lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it be a sin unto thee.” These rich men do not only delay payment but trick the laborers out of a good part of it. James says first that “the wages fraudulently kept back yell” as if the wages that are thus retained had a loud voice. He then repeats by adding “the shouts of them that reaped,” the loud complaints of the reapers when the shortened pay was handed to them. In Matt. 20:8, etc., the owner orders his manager to overpay most of the laborers; the order given here is to underpay them. But the thought advances: these shouts “have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth” who will, indeed, take vengeance.

The tenses are worth noting: two aorist participles indicate the completed mowing and reaping; a perfect participle the fact that the wages are held back permanently; a present tense to indicate the continuous crying of the wages held out; a perfect tense to express the shouts that “have entered” the Lord’s ears to remain there until he responds to them. James calls God ΚύριοςΣαβαώθ, “Lord of hosts.” In the New Testament this expression occurs again only in Rom. 9:29, and there only in a quotation; yet it is found frequently in the Old Testament although in the LXX it is not always rendered by the transliteration “Sabaoth.” The term describes God according to his omnipotence and his majesty; his hosts are the stars of heaven and the angel armies. As Yahweh of hosts he leads the armies of Israel to wreak vengeance on their enemies. These pitiful cries of the helpless laborers have entered the ears of this almighty Lord, and what that implies need not be stated.

James 5:5

5 You lived in high style on the earth and luxuriated: you fattened your hearts in connection with a day of slaughter.

This is what these rich did with their ill-gotten gains; in this way they spent the money of which they robbed poor laborers. Τρυφᾶν = to live luxuriously or in high style; σπαταλᾶν, schwelgen, ueppig leben = to live in the same way but with the idea of wastefulness (1 Tim. 5:6). In Luke 16:19 the heartless rich man was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. This tribe has never died out.

The second member of the parallelism states what these rich really did. In this connection τρέφω means maesten, to fatten as one fattens animals for butchering. James goes far beyond feeding and fattening the bodies; he says “you fattened your hearts,” i. e., your hearts desired nothing but luxury on earth, and you fed them on this. Only a few interpreters seem to know what to do with ἐν. The A. V. follows the inferior reading “as in a day of slaughter,” but the addition of “as” is out of place. Ἐν is not εἰς, “for a day,” etc.

To think of Luke 17:26–30 and to say that the high living continued even on the day of slaughter, is not satisfactory, for the preposition does not state the date of this fattening. Ἐν is used in its original meaning “in connection with a day of slaughter,” and the context conveys what connection is meant. These rich did not know it, but it is, nevertheless, the fact that their high living was connected with a day of judgment which would arrive in due time.

Jeremiah 12:3 has “day of slaughter,” and in 7:32 and 19:6 “Tophet” and “valley of the son of Hinnom” (Gehenna) are changed into “valley of slaughter”; judgment is often conceived as a slaughter. It is not necessary to apply what James says of a slaughter of the rich who fatten their hearts to the rich Jews who were actually slaughtered during the siege of Jerusalem (Josephus, Wars, 5, 10, 2; also 5, 13, 4). We may translate “the day of slaughter,” the genitive making “day” definite; yet we need not think only of the last day of judgment.

James 5:6

6 A third sin is added: You condemned, you murdered the righteous one; he does not withstand you.

Some have thought that this refers specifically to the murder of Christ because in Acts 3:14, 15 Peter calls him “the Holy and Righteous One,” and in Acts 7:52 Stephen calls him “the Righteous One”; cf., 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18. But the last statement and its present tense show that James refers “the righteous one” to any person whom the rich want condemned or even killed. Recall 2:6. Riches lend power. However innocent a man might be, these rich fellows found ways and means to condemn him when they so pleased, be it in their own Jewish courts or before pagan tribunals. This condemnation sometimes resulted in the execution of the innocent.

To this limit these unscrupulous rich went. James no doubt writes as he does because he had Jesus in mind, whom the rich Sadducean members of the Sanhedrin killed.

When James now uses the present tense “he does not withstand you” he makes this scene as graphic as if it were transpiring before our very eyes. This shows us how the preceding aorists are to be understood. These are not merely historical with reference to the past but present an action irrespective of the time in which it may have occurred. Westcott and Hort regard this sentence as a question: “Does he not withstand you?” i. e., is this not enough to justify you? One may recall John the Baptist who had nothing but righteousness with which to withstand the adultery of a Herod. James may intend this as an ironical question.

To change οὐκ into Κύριος is unwarranted: “The Lord does not withstand you,” does not stop you. The verb is a middle and not an impersonal passive. We should not translate “resist you,” for a righteous man is bound to resist. As we did in 4:7, we translate “withstand”; this the righteous man is unable to do, he must suffer what the unscrupulous inflict on him.

Patience until the Lord’s Parousia, v. 7–11

James 5:7

7 Be patient then, brethren, until the Parousia of the Lord! Although unscrupulous men inflict all manner of wrongs on you (2:6; 5:4, 6) and prosper despite this their wickedness (Ps. 73:3, etc.), “be patient” under it all. The aorist imperative is strong and decisive. Mayor compares γλυκύθυμος, “sweet-tempered,” ὀξύθυμος, “quick-tempered,” and μακρόθυμος, “long-tempered,” the opposite of “short-tempered.” Trench has “longanimity,” the long holding out of the mind before giving way to passion or action; it is ascribed to both God and men because the word refers to the wrongs that men do him and us while ὑπομονή refers to adverse things and thus cannot be used with reference to God. James means: “With steady, unwavering patience endure all the wrongs that men may inflict upon you.” We remember that James suffered martyrdom with such patience. As one brother urges on another, so James urges on his “brethren.”

“Until the Parousia of the Lord” = until the glorious second coming of Christ for the final deliverance of the believers and the final judgment on all the wicked. It is true that the Christians of apostolic times lived in constant expectation of the Parousia as we all ought still to live. It should not be said that they were certain that they would live to see the Parousia; they were no more certain of it than we are today. The trouble with us is that almost 2, 000 years have passed, and we have come to think that the Parousia is still far off. The Old Testament does not use Παρουσία. with reference to the coming and the presence of Christ; but it is so used already in the question which the disciples ask Jesus in Matt. 24:3: “thine own Parousia and the complete finish of the eon” (it occurs three more times in v. 27, 37, 39). Deissmann’s idea that the word is of strictly pagan origin is contradicted by this early purely Jewish use in which the pagan conception of an emperor’s visit does not appear. Ἕως is a preposition that governs the genitive.

Lo, the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient for its sake until it receive early and late rain. Do also you be patient and make firm your hearts because the Parousia of the Lord has come near!

The illustration is to be credited to James although the comparison of the end of the world with the time of harvest is used by Jesus in Matt. 13:30; in Matt. 24:32 Jesus uses the illustration of spring which shows the nearness of summer. The farmer has to wait for the precious grain, and he does so, “being patient for its sake (ἐπί, wegen, um … willen, B.-P. 446) until it receive the early and the late rain.” The grain is planted in late fall and gets the early rain at that time and the last rain in early spring. During this entire time the farmer waits in patience. Whether the word “rain” is included in the text or not, this and not “fruit” is referred to; nor does the farmer receive the rain (R. V. margin and A. V.) but the fruit. The tertium comparationis is only this patient waiting for the sake of the fruit; we should not allegorize the early and the late rain.

James 5:8

8 James himself states the point when he once again calls for patience and for making our hearts firm while we wait because the Parousia of the Lord has come near, i. e., is near. Christians may expect it at any time.

James 5:9

9 Be patient, says James, and that means: Do not keep groaning, brethren, against each other in order that you may not be judged. Lo, the Judge is standing before the door!

The verb does not mean “to murmur” but “to groan” (Rom. 8:23); it is here used with κατά: to groan against each other as though one can blame his distress on another. When one is full of complaint he is ready to grumble against even his best friends in an unreasonable way. To give way to such feelings invites judgment from the Lord. And the readers must know that the Judge is already standing before the door. He has risen and has come near. What if he opens the door and steps in as suddenly and unexpectedly as he has said he will and finds us impatient, groaning at each other in dissatisfaction instead of being patient and firm?

James 5:10

10 As an example of the suffering of what is bad and of this patience take, brethren, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

Examples always encourage. James has in mind Jesus’ word that was spoken in Matt. 5:12, perhaps also in 23:34 (cf., Acts 7:52); that is why he says, “we call blessed,” we, like Jesus, pronounce a beatitude on the prophets who were such patient men. There is only one way in which we can join the glorious company of the prophets, and that is to bear with patience the sufferings that come upon us. Κακοπαθεία does not mean “hardships”; it means what the elements of the compound word signify: “suffering what is base, bad, mean.” James says: Take “the prophets” as such an example; he implies that others who were not prophets might serve in like manner, in fact, he later mentions Job. The articles: “the suffering, etc., the patience” = the one we are discussing.

“Who spoke in the name of the Lord” = and yet had to suffer so much and be so patient. Although the Lord honored them by making them his mouth-pieces, they were not spared. Note that James uses λαλεῖν and not λέγειν; they merely made utterance, the Lord used them. James indicates divine inspiration.

Some misunderstand the phrase “in the name of the Lord” because they misunderstand the force of ὄνομα. This phrase does not mean “as the Lord’s representatives,” “in the Lord’s authority,” or anything similar; but “in connection with the revelation of the Lord.” Follow the phrase through the New Testament and note that we are baptized “in connection with the name,” etc., believe in the name, etc. By his name the Lord reveals himself; by his name we apprehend what he reveals of himself. So we constantly hear of his ὄνομα, his name. The connection which ἐν implies is always shown in the context; it is here the connection of the prophets with the name, they were the recipients and the transmitters of the revelations.

James 5:11

11 James has thus far spoken of μακροθυμία to which he now adds ὑπομονή. The former is patience when persons abuse us, the latter is brave perseverance under things that distress us (Trench, also C.-K.). Job is mentioned as an example of the latter although he had to bear a good deal also from persons, from his wife and from his three sorry comforters. Lo, we call blessed those who have bravely persevered! who did remain under the things that were afflicting them without quailing, groaning, blaming, etc. We admire this brave perseverance in others; let us count ourselves among them when we are likewise distressed. You heard about the brave perseverance of Job, and you know the goal of the Lord, how that the Lord is very pitiful and compassionate.

The readers have heard about Job; James wants them to recall Job’s ὑπομονή and to remember how he held out under the severest afflictions. That is one thing; the other is τὸτέλοςΚυρίου, “the end, conclusion, or goal of the Lord,” genitive of the author or a subjective genitive: the outcome to which Yahweh brought persevering Job when he cleared up the whole problem of the suffering of the righteous and gave Job double the amount he had before his affliction. James says: “You know his end” and what it means, namely “that (epexegetical ὅτι) the Lord is very pitiful and compassionate.” These are two choice adjectives; the former is found only here, the latter is poetical.

James admonishes to patience and brave perseverance and does not fail to add the strongest comfort. He does not stop to make the application to his suffering readers and to tell them that the Lord has a goal set also for them, that his great pity and compassion are extended also to them, and that he will at last bring them out of all their suffering and to the blessed goal.

The Last Admonitions, v. 12–20

Regarding Swearing, v. 12

Now before all (else), my brethren, stop swearing, neither by the heaven nor by the earth or any other oath!

Δέ is only transitional. Πρὸπάντων is temporal: before the readers do anything else they must cease using oaths and thereby taking God’s name in vain. James aims to say that this is the first thing the readers must stop. The phrase does not denote superiority (R.. 622) as our versions translate it: “above all,” nor does it contain a comparison with the “stop groaning” used in v. 9, to stop swearing being even more necessary. The matter is simple: people who are given to the vice of swearing must stop that first of all, before they proceed to anything else.

A wrong turn is given to this injunction when swearing and cursing are combined, or when swearing is connected with the sufferings that are mentioned in the preceding section. This view confuses swearing and cursing. A man who is in distress utters no more oaths than one who is not in distress.

When James specifies: “neither by the heaven nor by the earth or any other oath,” he simply restates what Jesus says in Matt. 5:34, 35. He is not quoting Jesus but is repeating the directions of Jesus more briefly. James does this also elsewhere. The supposition that Matt. 5:34, 35 was current in another form, and that James is writing this form, is gratuitous. The Jews avoided using God’s name when they swore; the readers were guilty of the vice of swearing, which James tells them they must stop before all else. Jesus adds Jerusalem and one’s own head to heaven and earth and states why reference to these objects in oaths is the same as swearing by God himself.

James is content with two samples of this kind and adds no explanation. Yet he says “any other oath.” The three accusatives are not accusatives of the same kind. The first two mean “by the heaven, by the earth,” the third is not “by another oath,” but is a cognate accusative: “stop swearing any other oath” (R. 471 and 484).

There is a good deal of discussion as to whether absolutely all oaths are forbidden by James; the same discussion is carried on in regard to Matt. 5:33–37. On this latter passage see The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 233. God swore (Heb. 6:17), Jesus swore (Matt. 26:63, 64). Like Jesus, James forbids the taking of oaths in our ordinary conversation. But let your yea be yea and your nay be nay lest you fall under judgment.

James again repeats what Jesus said, but he does it in his own way. Jesus added “what is more than these is due to the wicked one”; James tells us what this means, namely falling under God’s judgment. Oaths that dot our conversation are not a mild and excusable habit even when they do not name God outright. Since we are honest and truthful people, our “yes” ought to be a “yes,” our “no” a “no.”

Regarding Prayer in Distress and in Sickness, v. 13–18

James 5:13

13 It should not be difficult to see that v. 12, which is to stop this habit of swearing, is closely associated with the right use of God’s name in prayer. How can a person who is constantly swearing meaningless oaths in his daily talk do any real praying or have the elders pray for him when he becomes ill? Does anyone among you suffer ill, i. e., something that is bad? Is he in any kind of distress or trouble? Let him pray! Let him cast his pain and his burden upon God. God is our refuge (Ps. 57:1). True prayer brings strength, comfort, help. We need not elaborate.

Is anyone in good spirits? Let him sing praise! This word is used with reference to playing a stringed instrument and then also with reference to singing with the voice and the heart, in the New Testament with reference to sacred music. (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15). As the sufferer turns to God, so does also the cheerful Christian who praises God for the happy days he enjoys.

James 5:14

14 Is anyone sick among you? Let him call to him the elders of the church, and let them pray over (B.-D. 449) him, oiling him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of the faith (i. e., of the faith thus evidenced) shall rescue the patient, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he has been committing sins, it shall be remitted for him.

James takes us into the sickroom. He wants “the elders of the church” called to the patient. We need to say little about these elders; James was one of them. From its earliest days each congregation had several “elders” to manage its affairs, to teach and to see to the teaching, etc. This arrangement was taken over from the synagogue. The elders functioned somewhat as our pastors do; they were usually older men who had sufficient experience for their tasks, and there was always more than one in each congregation.

James uses ἐκκλησία, “church,” in the sense of congregation. It is not necessary to assume that all the local elders came to every bedside or, that, if more than one came, all those present prayed in turn and all applied the oil. One or the other came and gave the necessary attention.

“Let them pray over him” is the main verb while “oiling him with oil” is a participle, which thus marks the minor and subsidiary act, a fact that should be noted. James uses ἀλείφωἐλαίῳ and not χρίω The difference is material; compare the use of the former in Luke 7:38, 46; John 11:2; 12:3; Mark 16:1; of the latter in Luke 4:8; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb. 1:9. The difference is lost when both verbs are translated “anoint”; only the second verb should be translated in this way, for it is used with reference to the sacred act while the first refers to the common use of oil. We do not “anoint” a piece of machinery, we “oil” it. This difference in Greek usage cannot be ignored, nor can χείειν be used with reference to the preparation of a dead body or with reference to the perfume that was used at feasts; the word for this would be ἀλείφειν; nor can one use the latter word with reference to the sending of the Spirit upon Jesus or the ceremony of inaugurating a king, etc. Χριστός = the Anointed One. “Christian” is derived from this word, and both terms are forms of χρίω. The church had no terms that were derived from the verb ἀλείφειν. We make this plain by our translation “oiling with oil”; “anointing” in our versions leaves the wrong impression.

If what the elders are to do is what the Catholic priest does: put a bit of oil on the eyelids, the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the hands, the kidneys, the feet, then James could not write ἀλείφω; for what the priest does is a sacred act. The participle which James uses means that the sick person’s body is to be rubbed with oil just as the nurse now rubs a patient’s body with alcohol. The ancients used olive oil in this way. There are plenty of illustrations that demonstrate this fact. Isa. 1:6 has the expression “mollified with oil”; the Good Samaritan applied oil and wine to wounds and bruises, wine to cleanse, oil to mollify them. A mixture of oil and wine was used in the case of the malady which attacked the army of Ælius Gallus, and it was applied both externally and internally (Dion Cassius 53, 39; Strabo 16).

Herod the Great was bathed in a vessel full of oil when he was thought to be at death’s door (Josephus, Ant. 17, 6, 5). Celsus recommends rubbing with oil in the case of fevers and other ailments. These are some examples; others have been collected.

This oiling with oil was to be done “in the name of the Lord,” see v. 10 on this phrase. Praying was the main act, using oil in the name of the Lord was a second and a minor act. Both the imperative and the participle are aorists; but that means simply that single acts are referred to. The relation of the aorist participle to this aorist imperative might be that of coincidence: prayer and application of oil occur at the same time; but it is here antecedence: first “having oiled with oil,” then let them pray. This order of the acts seems the proper one. After the body has been eased, the patient is able to attend to the prayer that is being offered for him.

The reason for summoning the elders of the church, one or more of whom answer the summons, is indicated in Matt. 18:19, more than one person is to pray. In Acts 12:5 the church prays for Peter. Paul asks for the intercessory prayers of his churches. As officers of the church the elders do not act merely on their own behalf but also on behalf of the church. Our pastors still attend the sick, read Scripture to them, offer prayer, cheer and strengthen them spiritually. The liturgies used in our German-speaking churches provide prayers that are to be offered up by the entire congregation for any member that is seriously ill. These special intercessions are incorporated into the general prayer. This is a practice that all our churches should follow.

It is said that this oiling with oil must be symbolical, sacramental in some way, ritual, at least an aid to the sick person’s faith, it would otherwise be medical and would make the church elders physicians. This is setting up alternatives, using the one to force acceptance of the other, a rather common type of argumentation. But the use of olive oil upon the body was not restricted to physicians; the Good Samaritan was not a physician, nor did he administer a sacrament. To rub the body with oil was a common practice. Paul was not a doctor when he urged Timothy to use wine for his stomach’s sake. Any member of the family could apply the oil and could do this as often as it seemed desirable.

Why not? When James directs the elders to do it when they visit a patient, this means that the church, for which the elders act, is concerned about the body as well as about the soul. The fact that James writes ἀλείψαντεςἐλαίῳ is rather decisive. Acting as elders, they would use the oil “in the name of the Lord,” for all bodily help comes only from the Lord, a fact which an act of the elders would properly emphasize.

Nor should we overlook the fact that also women and children were patients, for James writes “anyone.” It is our opinion that when an elder or two came to a woman’s or a child’s bedside, some member of the family was asked to apply the oil before the prayers were offered. In this direction regarding the oil James seems to be following Mark 6:13. How the Twelve came to use oil when they were miraculously healing the sick, we are unable to say. In their case the act appears to have been symbolical. Jesus now and then used outward means in this way, note especially John 9:6. The word used in this passage is ἐπιχρίω, aufschmieren, beschmieren, C.-K. 1168, “to smear upon.” Regarding χρίω C.-K. 1132 says: “In the New Testament it is used only in the sense, following the Old Testament anointing, of consecration and equipping for holy service,” a sense that is never connected with ἀλείφω. The addition of “the name of the Lord” to the application of oil does not make this a sacrament or a ritual, for “we do in word or deed all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17), and whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we do it all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

James 5:15

15 James says that “the prayer of the faith shall rescue the patient” (τὸνκάμνοντα, “the ailing one”), σώσει, rescue him from his illness. James does not say the prayer and the oil; still less, the oil used in the name of the Lord (as if this were a sacrament). James has more to say on the efficacy of prayer (v. 16b–18). James writes as Jesus himself speaks when he simply adds his great promises to prayer (Matt. 7:7, 8; 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13; 15:7; 16:23). The fact that all true prayer for earthly blessings is based on the condition “if the Lord wills” (4:15) does not need to be set forth here. That every patient for whom the elders prayed would promptly recover, and that none would die, is certainly not the meaning of James.

To argue that prayer is therefore not effectual, is fallacious; for God does grant recovery in answer to prayer. Hezekiah may serve as an illustration, Isa. 38:1, etc. James says “the prayer of the faith,” meaning the faith evidenced by the patient when he sends for the elders and by the elders when they pray as they do.

The prayer of such a faith does not act as a charm to produce the recovery. Nor does it act by way of autosuggestion like mental healing. The elders are not prayer-healers such as we have today. Nor are they miracle-workers. James writes to many churches, and it is preposterous to think that the elders of all these churches were able to work miracles. The New Testament tells us very much about the elders of the apostolic churches, but nowhere does it ascribe miraculous powers to them.

The application of oil soothes the body to a certain degree; the prayer comforts and strengthens the mind and the soul by placing the patient into the Lord’s hand with faith and confidence in his gracious will. It is the Lord who raises up the patient to renewed health and strength. The prayer directed to him moves him even as he himself has promised. The elders do not bid the patients to rise up and walk. The Lord will raise them up in recovery. The fact that natural means are not to be discarded as some fanatics demand the mention of the oil sufficiently indicates, to say nothing about the further teaching of Scripture.

If the patient has been committing sins (periphrastic perfect), “it shall be remitted (impersonal verb) for him”; ἄφεσις, “remission,” sending away his sins from him, shall be his. The plural “sins” as well as the perfect tense refer to repeated and continued sinning in the past. The thought is that the Lord will not withhold his answer to the prayers that are made in true faith, will not withhold recovery because of such sinning in the past. He will forgive and graciously heal.

Until the sixteenth century the church followed the practice outlined by James. Pope Innocent I is the first authority who spiritualized the whole procedure. But centuries elapsed before the sacramental idea emerged. In the twelfth century Petrus Lombardus named this as the fifth of the seven Catholic sacraments; three centuries later the Council of Trent established the Catholic sacrament as we know it today. Mark 6:13 is thought to indicate the institution of this sacrament. This is based on the assumption that the Lord ordered the Twelve to use oil sacramentally; the actual promulgation of this sacrament is ascribed to James.

In this Catholic sacrament the oil is applied by a priest who touches eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, kidneys, and feet with consecrated olive oil. Yet “Extreme Unction” is restricted to patients who are on the verge of death; should any recover, it may be applied again. Also the Greek Catholic Church has this sacrament, but it is not administered only to the dying. These data should be generally known. More than a millennium was required to develop the Catholic sacrament of Extreme Unction. One should also know the Catholic theory involved, namely that the Scriptures furnish only germs for many doctrines which the church then develops; one of these doctrines is purgatory.

James 5:16

16 Confess, then, your sins one to another and pray one for another that you may be healed.

Οὖν is important since it connects what is now said with the preceding. The sins referred to in v. 15, 16 are conscious sins which distress the conscience, fall heavily upon it especially when sickness sets in. James is not speaking of our general sinfulness as he does in 3:2. Such known sins would interfere with the prayer of faith and with our calling for the elders to pray for us. They must be removed. Yet James does not say: “Confess them to the elders whom you have called.” He does not use the aorist imperative as he does in v. 14.

He uses two present imperatives: “Make a practice of confessing your sins one to another, and make a practice of praying one for another” (reciprocal pronouns). This means that we are not to wait until sickness strikes us before we confess. Of course, if we have not confessed before, it is surely time we did so then. Confess “one to another” should not be restricted to sins and wrongs that are committed against each other. To be sure, also such wrongs are to be confessed and righted, but James makes no restrictions as to the kind of sins that are to be confessed.

One cannot restrict this confessing and say that it is to be made to the elders only (priests, pastors, clergy). One brother may confess to another whatever burdens his soul. This includes the fact that one brother may absolve another in the name of the Lord. We need not state that the pastor will often be chosen as father-confessor; and when a brother is chosen he will be one whom we can trust with our confession, one who will truly deal with us as in the presence of God. The great point to be noted is the fact that James does not say merely that we are to confess our sins to God as all Christians know that they should. Confessing to a brother has two well-known additional benefits when one has committed sins that distress the conscience: 1) to unbosom to a brother is itself a relief, 2) to hear the absolution pronounced in God’s name affords additional peace. We are so constituted as to need both.

“In order that you may be healed,” means when you get sick. To think of soul-healing, or of this in addition to body-healing, implies to overlook the connection that is made by means of οὖν as well as what follows in regard to prayer. Confession is certainly good for the soul. Here, however, confession is mentioned in connection with a person that is sick and wants prayer to the Lord for his recovery. Sins that burden the conscience would interfere with such a prayer, would prevent trustful reliance on God’s gracious promises. Conscience would point accusingly to such sins as constituting a barrier between us and the grace of God. All that can be done to have such a barrier removed ought surely to be done.

Plummer furnishes a survey of the history of confession; see also Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon, the articles on “Beichte” and “Letzte Oelung.”

James returns to prayer. A righteous one’s petition avails a great deal when putting forth its energy. This is a fact. Even aside from sickness prayer is a strong power to move the Lord. James now uses the word δέησις, “petition,” “begging,” for he wants to bring this side of prayer to the fore; εὐχή includes all forms of prayer, praise, adoration, blessing as well as humble begging. Simple, straightforward begging avails a great deal, for it secures for us so much that we want and often brings us what is better than what we want, namely what we really need.

James says rightly “a righteous one’s begging” and not the begging of an unrighteous one. James has in mind one who has truly confessed his sins and has been acquitted in God’s judgment, one who is justified by God. We should not think of this δίκαίος as being one who has kept the commandments, who has the acquired righteousness. He may have this righteousness because he has lived in true Christian obedience and is rich in good works, but in God’s sight these are only an evidence of faith. All our works, which are still so imperfect, need the atoning merits of Christ to make them acceptable to God. The righteous one is what he is because of the imputed righteousness.

To him God’s heart and hands are open. Dan. 9:18: “We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness but for thy great mercies.”

The discussion regarding ἐνεργουμένη, as to whether it is passive: “when made energetic” by the Spirit or middle: the petitioning “becoming or making itself energetic,” is not clarified by Mayor’s quotations and remarks. C.-K. 441, sich kraeftig erweisen, sich mit kraeftiger Wirkung geltend machen; B.-P. 412, wirksam; A. V.: “effectual fervent,” are certainly right in regarding the form as a middle. Thayer’s “solemn and earnest” is an unsatisfactory explanation of the middle; so is also the R. V.’s “in its working.” The passive will not do because no agent is implied in the context. The participle is not = to the infinitive as a complement to ἰσχύει: “is able to work much.” The participle becomes emphatic by being placed last in the sentence.

A righteous man’s begging does avail much when it is putting forth its energy, namely in most earnest, continuous, persevering pleading, wenn es dem Herrn in den Ohren liegt. Examples: the Canaanitish woman; the importunate widow (Luke 18:1–8).

17, 18) James himself offers an example which does not so much prove the energy but the sure confidence of prayer and the great deal which it accomplishes. Elijah was a man of like sensations with us, and he prayed with a prayer that it rain not, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. And again he prayed, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth sprouted up its fruit.

It was necessary for James to say that Elijah was “a man of like sensations with us” (the same expression is found in Acts 14:15) because the Jews made so much of Elijah. The readers are not to attribute the great effect of Elijah’s prayers to any exceptional qualities that were inherent in the person of this prophet himself. He was an ἄνθρωπος, a human being, just as we are. This fact is intensified by ὁμοιοπαθὴςἡμῖν, which does not mean “of like passions or of like nature with us.” The gods were considered ἀπαθεῖς, unlike human beings. The verb πάσχω that is found in these adjectives refers to suffering and vicissitudes that are incident to human existence. Elijah had to endure vicissitudes of all kinds just as we do. Although he was a great prophet he was a plagued human being and felt pain just as much as we do.

The readers know that this man prayed with a prayer that it should not rain, and it did not rain for three and one-half years; and again he prayed, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its crop of grain. This is what one man’s prayer did; it was πολύ, “much” indeed. “Prayed with a prayer” is not a Hebraism, nor is it equal to “prayed earnestly” (intensification); it is an intensification of the idea of prayer itself by means of the dative; it is somewhat like a cognate object which is used for the same purpose. The infinitive with τοῦ states the object for which Elijah prayed (Moulton, Einleitung, 334); many regard it as an infinitive of purpose, which does not fit this case. The verb “to rain” is impersonal.

First Kings 17:1 does not say that Elijah prayed that it should not rain. Elijah only declared that there should not be dew or rain during these years except according to his word. So also 1 Kings 18:1, 41, etc., report no prayer on the part of Elijah although v. 42 shows him in the attitude of prayer. To make an issue of the absence of the word “prayer” or “to pray” in First Kings is an unfair proceeding “inasmuch as also the prophets received the power for their work only by faith and communion with God, and faith receives power to remove mountains,” Delitzsch. The very way in which Elijah swore that there should be no rain during these years except at his word indicates that he had communicated with God in prayer. As for prayer in bringing on the rain, 1 Kings 18:41, etc., leaves little to be desired save the actual word “he prayed.” Instead of raising doubt about the accuracy of James, or letting him repeat unreliable Jewish tradition, it would be well to study the record of Elijah’s action as this is recorded in First Kings more closely.

First Kings does not report the number three and one-half years; in 18:1 we have “in the third year.” Thus another discrepancy is pointed out: First Kings says about two and one-half, and James says three and one-half years. Jesus, too, says three and one-half years in Luke 4:25, and old Jewish writers have the same number. The idea that three and one-half is symbolic because it is the half of seven, and that it came to be regarded as the length of time of the famine because it was such an ill-omened number, a number that indicated a long calamity, is not substantiated by a reference to Dan. 7:25 and 12:7. James and Jesus are not using symbolical numbers.

“In the third year” (1 Kings 18:1) has long been understood correctly. It does not indicate the entire time of the drought but marks the time after the events that are recorded in chapter 17. Elijah spent over two years in Zarephath, and thus “in the third year” he was sent to confront Ahab. That the drought lasted three and one-half years is a well-known fact of history, one that was certainly not forgotten by the Jews who knew that history far better than we know that of our own nation.

Prayer has done mighty things; it still does them and always will. But why should commentators refer to such fictions as the story of how Rabbi Chaninah, on being caught in a shower of rain, prayed: “Master of the Universe, the whole world is pleased while Chaninah alone is annoyed”—this stopping the rain? On getting home he prayed: “Master of the Universe, shall all the world be grieved while Chaninah enjoys his comfort?”—and the rain came down again. This makes a farce of prayer and of Elijah’s effectual prayer. But preachers still narrate rather astonishing stories about answers to prayers, and their hearers are left under the impression that they should duplicate such feats. Dangerous indeed—what if they should try?

James 5:19

19 The closing words of James are still connected with what he has just said, namely with confessing sins and praying for each other. My brethren, if anyone among you shall err from the truth, and anyone shall turn him back, let him realize that he who turns a sinner back from (the) error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall hide a multitude of sins.

A loving address prefaces this sweet gospel assurance with which James would stimulate every brother to restore every other brother who wanders from the saving truth into sin and spiritual death. The sentence is written in the spirit of Jesus, cf., Matt. 18:11–13; Luke 15:3–10. The construction is a perfectly regular condition of expectancy: ἐάν with subjunctives in the protasis, future indicatives in the apodosis. James is writing of cases which he expects to occur.

A brother of ours may not only sin and thus have sins to confess (v. 15, 16), he may even err or wander from the truth (1:18, “truth’s Word”). How some can state that James does not refer to doctrinal error, that his whole letter does not touch doctrine, and that, therefore, one should not try to change another person’s opinion or way of thinking, is difficult for us to understand. James touches doctrine at almost every turn; he is not a moralist but a true believer. To him “the truth” is the whole Word, the entire gospel and not an ethical abstract of it.

What was one of the great dangers that threatened his readers? Why, to revert to Judaism. To be sure, James also includes all mortal sins. But the most damnable and deadly sin is unbelief. Read what is written to other Jewish Christians who were thinking of going back to Judaism (Heb. 6:4–8; 10:25–31). Doctrine and faith are never mere “opinions” or just “ways of thinking.” Behind and beneath all wrong morals is wrong doctrine, more or less of unbelief. What erring from the truth means to James is all too apparent from what he says about turning such an erring one back to the truth; such erring means that a soul is in death and in a multitude of sins.

Both subjunctives are aorists of actuality; they designate an actual erring from the truth so that it and its saving power are lost and an actual turning such a lost one back to this saving truth. The first is passive in form but probably middle in meaning. When a Christian loses the truth, it is notoriously difficult to turn him back to it. It is not easy to revive a lost faith. As the passages in Hebrews state, faith may be so completely lost that rekindling it may even become impossible. The heart of James goes out to all his brethren in the Diaspora; he is much concerned that none may ever be lost.

He wants to make allies of all his readers so that they, too, will work to prevent such a calamity. They must keep on confessing to each other, praying for each other, and come to each other’s rescue in the hour of mortal danger.

James 5:20

20 To be successful in such a rescue is, indeed, a glorious thing. The imperative is strong: “let him realize that he who turns a sinner back from (the) error of his way shall save (or rescue) a soul from death,” etc. What a great thing it is to rescue a person from physical death! This is a greater thing, for spiritual death is far worse than physical death. James states this in the third person: “he that turns back.” He thereby makes the statement objective and general for every case of this kind. How this turning back is accomplished is indicated by the means: the sinner is turned back to the truth by the truth.

There is only one objective means to save such a sinner, namely the truth; and only one subjective means, repentance (contrition for sin, faith in the Savior). We translate “shall turn back” and “he that turns back.” Some translate this Greek word “convert,” but the former seems more correct. Γινωσκέτω = let him realize, which is more than “let him know.”

James doubles the statement. Death is produced by sins so that to save from death is to rid the sinner of his sins: “and shall hide (or cover) a multitude of sins.” The expression “to hide” sins is taken from the Old Testament: Ps. 32:1; 85:2; cf., also 1 Pet. 4:8. “To hide sins” does not mean to keep them secret; the word is used in the intensified sense, to hide them from God, from whom nothing can be kept secret (Matt. 6:4, 6). There is only one way in which this hiding or covering can be done—under the blood of Christ. If sins are hidden, God will not see them, for they have actually disappeared. Blessed the man who can aid another in this way! The idea that by rescuing another the rescuer hides his own sins is contrary to Scripture, it should not be attributed to James as a piece of old Jewish teaching to which he still clung.

James closes with this statement about saving the sinner’s soul and freeing him from his sins. It is a fitting close. We expect no greetings in this encyclical. He might have added a closing wish as Paul usually does, or as Peter does in his first epistle. James concludes as John does in his first epistle. His last “my brethren” is enough.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.