James chapter 5 part 1

After reading chapter 5:

*Verses 1-6 are a warning to the rich. They will be sorry. Horrible things have happened to their wealth and possessions. The destruction  will be a testimony against them, because they oppressed the poor and didn't pay the wages of those they hired. They lived in luxury and self indulgence. They condemned innocent people who were not opposing them.  Sounds like Donald Trump. This passage says the cries of the oppressed have reached the ears of the lord. I'm guessing rich oppressors don't actually believe that or they wouldn't do what they do. Very rarely do they have to pay for the full extent of their crimes in this life, and never afterward. Job recognized that. Threats of eternal destruction slip off them like water off a duck's back. I'm not saying every rich person is an oppressor, but when the shoe fits...

*After the rant of the last few verses, James changes his tone. In fact, reading back over the text, the apocalyptic style rant seems out of place, and the continuity of the text would not be broken if it was removed. It would actually make more sense. Now James tells his fellow Jews to be patient until the lord's coming. Christians believe he is talking about the return of Jesus, but he very well could be talking about the Jewish expectation of the appearance of a messiah. James tells them to wait without grumbling against each other or judging each other. They are to take the example of the prophets' patience and Job's perserverence. Look what Job got after he persevered, everything that he had lost and more. That would certainly speak to displaced Jews.

*Verse 12 is another piece that feels out of place in the text. It is about taking oaths, swearing  by heaven, earth, or anything else. They will be condemned if they do. This is one passage that gets ignored by many christians. Some, like the Quakers,  have made a point of  following it. One thing that makes this passage strange is that there was plenty of swearing in the Old Testament that was not condemned. Another thing is the phrase "above all." Surely James did not think this was the most important thing in his letter!"

James 4 part 2

*From verses 13 on, James addresses boasting about the future. He says that saying you are going to do certain things in the future without the caveat "if it is the lord's will" is boasting or bragging.  On the surface it may sound kind of silly to have to repeat that phrase every single time you mention something you plan to do on a day that is not today. "Tomorrow we will do the laundry, if it is the lord's will." "Tomorrow I will clean toilets, if it is the lord's will." However, if James is addressing a known problem with this letter, I don't think it is everyday plans he is concerned about.

*In verse 13 he mentions people saying "we will go to this city or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." This is the kind of talk James finds offensive. Why? Because this is something a talented or well educated and wealthy, or a person who wants to be wealthy, might say. James has already told us the poor are special because of their richness of faith and the well off need to humbly recognize that. Openly speaking of personal plans to do things a poor person may never hope to do is boasting and bragging, which James thinks is evil. It certainly isn't considerate.  Saying "if we live and it is the lord's will" softens the blow to the poor persons psyche. Of course, everything is god's will to the true believer, even the states of poverty and wealth. The richness of the poor person's faith may exceed that of the wealthy, but James thinks  everyone needs to be reminded of god's will.

*The last verse says "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." This one passage has given centuries of christians reason to be afraid. There are millions of good things that could be done every day, but most people pick and choose. It is impossible to do all the good things that ought to be done. People have personal priorities and they know it. The conclusion: sins of omission are inescapable. So, christianity came up with the idea to pray for forgiveness for their sins of omission, then they are covered. Except some of them still feel guilty and torture themselves over it. But was James  actually talking bout every single good thing that hasn't been done? Or was he talking about the preceding topic of saying "if it is the lord's will?" He also could be referring to what  follows in chapter five, which addresses the way the rich treat the poor. There were no chapter and verse breaks in the manuscripts from which we get the book of James. Those are a much later addition.

*Just to be clear, for an atheist, there is no "will" that is deciding  the life paths of individuals. People make decisions based on the cards life has dealt them. Sometimes life gives you a bad hand. Some people are much luckier than others. Poverty is not a virtue, neither is wealth. Different from a card game, the winner is not the one who had the best hand at the end of the game. That only passes his cards on to his heirs.  The  end of the game is the same for everyone, death.  The wealthy have a human obligation to consider how to help those who have not been as lucky they have. It is right because it is a good thing to  relieve human suffering, not because a god or the bible says so.

James chapter 4 Part 1

After reading chapter 4:

*There must have been fights and quarrels happening among the Jews in the diaspora, because James feels the need to address them. He says they happen when people don't get what they want.but that is their own fault, says James. First, they didn't ask God. Second, if they did ask god, it was with the wrong motive-- personal pleasure. Isn't most of what we want for our personal pleasure? Maybe that's why the number of unanswered prayers far outnumbers the answered ones? Surely it can't mean there is no actual God who is listening with invisible and immaterial ears?

*Next James rebukes the readers for trying to be friends of the world (adulterous people, a term used for those unfaithful to the religion, adulteresses in the literal greek translation) which would make them an enemy of God. This echoes the sentiment in James 1:27 that they need to keep themselves from being polluted by the world.

*Verse 5 is strange. It says, "Or do you think scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?" (NIV) A foot note has two other possible wordings for that sentence. Plus, there doesn't appear to be an old or New Testament scripture that actually says that. In the different versions there doesn't appear to be a consensus as to who is doing the yearning, our spirit or God. If it is God, he is longing jealously for our spirit. If it is our spirit, it longs jealously but who knows for what.

*But it's all okay if the readers are humble and not proud. Then comes ten commands: 1. Submit to God. 2. Resist the devil. 4.Come near to God. 5. Wash your hands. 6. Purify your hearts 7. Grieve, mourn and wail. 8. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. (Cheerful lot, eh?)  9. Humble yourselves before the lord. 10. Do not slander a brother (fellow Jew).

*The last few verses expand the theme of slander and speak about those who would judge their brothers ( other jews). They are told only God has the right to be lawgiver and judge, so they need to back off. I'm guessing that was also a problem or James would not have mentioned it.

I am more than ever convinced that this book was written by a Pharisee. Read a Jewish description of Pharisees and their teachings. Jesus is only mentioned twice, and  is not even necessary, except to try to establish this letter as christian. The teachings of the first century Pharisees are fully compatible with the teachings of James.

James chapter 3

After reading chapter 3:

*The first section of this chapter is about the destructive power of the tongue. In other words, words can hurt ourselves and others. You don't have to be religious to recognize this is a universal truism. James advocates self control when speaking, to keep ourselves out of trouble, earthly and eternal. Earthly trouble can be quite enough.

*James says that no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (Like a serpent) That is just one of the many metaphors he uses to describe how destructive words can be. The three things he faults the tongue for are: teaching wrong things, great boasts, and cursing other people. James says this is wrong because people are made in the image of the same God whom they praise.

*Suppose we are not made in the image of a god. For what reasons would we wish to refrain from using our words unwisely or hurtfully? One reason is consequences. People don't like liars, braggarts, and insulting people.  They often retaliate in kind or terminate the relationship. If you truly value relationships, you refrain from using your words in this way. If you value your job or your place in society, you learn to curb your tongue to continue recieving  the benefits you derive from them. It is in your  self interest. Another reason might be because you are truly interested in the welfare of all humanity because you are a human too. You want to be the kind of person who is thoughtful and empathetic. You wish others to treat you as you treat them, so you treat them well. In spite of what James says, the tongue can  be tamed but it takes desire and conscious effort.

*The second section, starting in verse 13 compares and contrasts "earthly wisdom" with "heavenly wisdom." James says earthly wisdom is comprised of envy and selfish ambition. It is unspiritual, evil, from the devil, and brings about disorder. He says heavenly wisdom is comprised of the qualities of a peacemaker: pureness, consideration, submissiveness, mercy, and sincerity. What is James trying to say? Don't rock the boat? Sit down and shut up? It seems to me that these descriptions could be looked at from different perspectives. A jealous person could see someone  who is a go-getter and financially successful as fundamentally selfish, when it might not necessarily be so. Likewise, a person who appears considerate and submissive could be harboring the vilest thoughts. It's hard to see past a façade.

*James's descriptions of wisdom appear to be based on actions and visible qualities, which is not surprising. He is very focussed on deeds. Actions speak louder than words for him and he judges people by what they do and say. If what people do and say doesn't fit James's idea of what is right, then it must be wrong. He's also not too keen on people who have achieved financial prominence in society.

*We all know that the stereotype of the greedy rich person still persists today. How many people pay attention when a poor person is greedy and selfish? Likewise how many people celebrate the kindness and generosity of a rich person? I'm not saying stereotypes are never remotely true, but motives are very hard to accurately judge. "People are people wherever you go." Isn't it better to assume everyone has good intentions until proven otherwise? Wouldn't you want that done for you?

Remember, all generalizations are false.

James 2 part 2

Before we continue, we need to acknowledge that the first followers of Jesus were clearly Jews and probably did not intend to leave Judaism and create a distinct religion. Nowhere in the stories of Jesus's life does he seem to expect them to do that.  The teachings ascribed to Jesus were actually not that different from those that history outside the New Testament  ascribes to the pharisees, even though the gospel accounts and modern christianity would have you believe otherwise. The Pharisees were not literalists and believed in a liberal interpretation of scripture using oral tradition. They believed in resurrection and an afterlife. They were populists not elitists. This man James strikes me as possibly being a Pharisee who lived after the destruction of Jerusalem.

*Moving on. The next section, beginning in verse 14 contrasts faith and deeds. Again James addresses "my brothers, " fellow Jews. James asks,"what good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?" This is a question which has plagued christians since the reformation.  James says faith not accompanied by action is dead. How do you prove you have faith if you don't do anything to show it. Intellectual and verbal assent that there is one God means nothing, even the demons acknowledge that. The phrase "one God" (NIV) is a reference to the Shema, a Jewish mantra that says " the lord our God is one." In fact other english translations of verse James 2:19 say "God is one." This is problematic for trinitarians who say that God is three in one.

*Verses 20-24 give the example of Abraham as evidence that faith and deeds go together. Abraham showed true faith by offering his son Isaac on the altar (Genesis 15). That is what real faith does. It makes people willing to do crazy things that they otherwise would not have done. We see it happening in the world today. We also hear people say that they would kill their own children if God asked them to, as proof of the sincerity of their faith. A close relative of mine said this to me. True faith is scary stuff.

*James says this proves a person is justified by what he does, not by faith alone. Then he gives another example, Rahab the prostitute who helped the Hebrew spies in Jericho.(Joshua 2). She was considered righteous for what she did, in spite of her occupation. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." I'm guessing Rahab would have been dead if she hadn't helped the spies. Is an active faith the same thing as self preservation? What if I do all the deeds without faith, can I get by? Who will know? No one that's who. People think you are a wonderful christian if you do all the good stuff and keep your mouth shut about what you really believe. Ask me how I know.

James chapter 2 part 1

Afte reading chapter 2:

*Chapter 2 begins "my brothers" - remember the greeting in chapter 1.  James is writing an open letter to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations- Jews in the diaspora, if we take it literally. Next, set off by commas, is the phrase "as believers in our glorious lord Jesus Christ." Reading through the rest of the chapter, I'm personally leaning toward a conviction that the phrases mentioning Jesus may have been added to this letter after it was circulating, by Jews who became christians or possibly christians trying to influence Jews. This is my own idea, I have not read that anywhere else, though others may have considered it.

*Next, we have the theme of the first section, "Don't show favoritism, " specifically favoritism to the rich. So, favoritism must have been a problem. Where was this favoritism taking place? Well, if you are reading this passage in English, it will say "in your assembly" or "in your meeting." The literal translation from the greek is "in your synagogue." In fact this phrase is translated synagogue  in other books of the New Testament, but not in James. Very interesting.

*Getting back to favoritism, it seems the rich jews were being given special privileges and treated better than the poor. James says this is insulting to the poor. Why? Because they are human beings worthy of the respect that all humans should accord each other just by virtue of having humanity in common? Nope. Because God has "chosen" the poor to be "rich in faith." Why are they rich in faith? Probably because they've got nothing to lose. By exploiting the poor, the rich are slandering the noble name of him to whom the readers (Jews in the diaspora) belong. The noble name of whom? It is generally assumed to be christ, but it could just as well be Yahweh, the god of the Jews.

*James then says if they keep the royal law, "love your neighbor as yourself" (lev. 19:18), they are doing right. Favoritism is a sin, presumably because the poor Jews are their neighbors just as much as the rich. If they show favoritism among themselves, they are breaking the law. What law? The law of Moses, of course. James goes on to say that breaking the law in one area makes you a lawbreaker, even if you keep the rest of the law well. Their actions need to be governed by the "law that gives freedom." Again, there no reason to believe he is talking about anything other than the law of moses.
What freedom, you may ask. Well, many people find freedom in knowing exactly what they are supposed to do, without having to think about it. A clearly defined path can reduce stress, especially when the world around you is in turmoil.

*The last verse of this chapter is one of the many paradoxes found in the bible. The readers are told to speak and act as though they will be judged because "Judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who is not merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement." Huh? The only sense I can make of it is that people are required to be merciful but God is not. (?)

James 1 part 2

*Verse 19 gives us the theme for the rest of the chapter, be quick to listen and slow to speak and slow to be angry. Anger is addressed first. In place of anger, the readers are encouraged to accept the word planted in them, which can save them. I think we can assume that many Jews were angry and felt the need to be saved. James says don't be angry, instead listen to "the word" and do what it says.  What is the word? Well it is not the  New Testament. That didn't exist when James was writing this letter. It can't be the supposed words of Jesus, they were probably not written down yet, and Jews scattered among the nations might not be familiar with them. It is most likely what christians would call the Old Testament.

*James says, "Do not merely listen to the word...do what it says." Jews scattered around the world would have listened to the Torah being read in synagogues. They would not have had personal copies of the scriptures in their homes. He calls what they are listening to, "the perfect law that gives freedom." What else could this be to Jews but the law of Moses? If it wasn't, how would the general Jewish reader know without an explanation? If we take the simplest most obvious explanation, James is encouraging fellow Jews in the diaspora to continue to follow the law of Moses in order to be blessed.

*Lastly, James says a religious person exercises great verbal self control, otherwise his religion is worthless. Then he makes a statement that is very near and dear to more liberal christians,"Religion that is pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. " In the diaspora there would have been many Jewish widows and orphans who needed support and many Jews would have been tempted to leave their faith in order to fit into the societies in which they found themselves.

*So, as I read the first chapter, a man with the same name as the father of the tribe of Israel, Jacob (translated James), is telling Jews in the diaspora to learn to be joyful in their poverty and trials, don't doubt, don't look for ways to get rich,  don't blame God, don't get angry, follow the law of Moses, and take care of other Israelites who are unable to take care of themselves. If the phrase "and of the lord Jesus Christ" was not in the first verse, would we think of this as a christian document?