James Lesson 17

18
3/09/10


3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts


viii “the test of worldly indulgence”(part one vv4:1-4)

James 4: 1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. 3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. 4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. 5Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? 6But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. 7Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. 9Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. 10Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? 13Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. 15For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. 16But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. 17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

James is pretty rough on us with this chapter! Or, as one of my grampas used to say “He’s getting right down to where the rubber meets the road…”

In the first part of this letter, James encourages and tells his readers to aspire to perfection (maturity); to gain wisdom by asking for it; to not waver or be double minded and then demonstrating it all by faith that “works”. In the second section he demonstrates his point by showing his readers “works” that are “dead”: shallowness of belief, partiality, lack of compassion, etc. Now, in the third section he points out all they are failing to do and some of the consequences.

It’s interesting how often certain things happen that fit what’s going on in ones life so closely! My utmost for his highest, for the day I was finishing this, was one of those odd little coincidences for me, though quoting from Acts, it illustrates James point for me - very personally - and on the day I am writing this!

March 4
Is This True of Me?
“None of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself …” (Acts 20:24).
It is easier to serve or work for God without a vision and without a call, because then you are not bothered by what He requires. Common sense, covered with a layer of Christian emotion, becomes your guide. You may be more prosperous and successful from the world’s perspective, and will have more leisure time, if you never acknowledge the call of God. But once you receive a commission from Jesus Christ, the memory of what God asks of you will always be there to prod you on to do His will. You will no longer be able to work for Him on the basis of common sense.
What do I count in my life as “dear to myself”? If I have not been seized by Jesus Christ and have not surrendered myself to Him, I will consider the time I decide to give God and my own ideas of service as dear. I will also consider my own life as “dear to myself.” But Paul said he considered his life dear so that he might fulfill the ministry he had received, and he refused to use his energy on anything else. This verse shows an almost noble annoyance by Paul at being asked to consider himself. He was absolutely indifferent to any consideration other than that of fulfilling the ministry he had received. Our ordinary and reasonable service to God may actually compete against our total surrender to Him. Our reasonable work is based on the following argument which we say to ourselves, “Remember how useful you are here, and think how much value you would be in that particular type of work.” That attitude chooses our own judgment, instead of Jesus Christ, to be our guide as to where we should go and where we could be used the most. Never consider whether or not you are of use—but always consider that “you are not your own” (1 Corinthians 6:19). You are His. (Oswald)

1 …know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God

The chapter break isn’t quite right: 3: 13 began a new thought which continues in chapter 4, ending with 4: 10. This section brings out and illustrates the two different kinds of wisdom and their “fruits”: wisdom from above (from God) or wisdom from below (Satan and/or the world).
In4:1 he resumes the questioning of his readers that he began in 3: 13, focusing in on the bickering, disputes, and arguing going on among them. From the very beginning there was considerable disagreement and misunderstanding of the “gospel”, as Apostle Paul says in Galatians (written about the same time) Gal. 1:“9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed”. As we discussed last lesson, some of this “false doctrine” was a result of ignorance, however, along with believers, there have always been unbelieving members of the congregation: Mat. 13: 26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

James is now addressing the “works” of the even more malevolent activities driven by the “sin nature” of unbelieving mankind, continuing addressing “my brethren” from chapter three - church members. (Romans 3:10- etc) He asks the question (4: 1); where do fights and wars among you come from… he then answers it himself: from within yourselves! This is an illustration of the failure of “dead” faith; If their faith was “alive” the lusts (“hedonistic”) tendencies wouldn’t control us and this bitterness would be impossible!

Lusts:
G2237
½äïíÞ

From QíäÜíù (to please); sensual delight; by implication
desire:—lust, pleasure.

• Now in v2 James restates a theme he introduced earlier (vv1: 15), the deadly effects of evil desires which permeate a life of sin (our normal condition!). he defines these “lusts” as the source of fighting, even murder. Jesus parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18: 21- 35) gives an example of how this selfishness could lead to someone’s death – though indirect, murder, in this case! Finally he shows how hopelessly mired in lust some are, they won’t even ask God, they are so stiff-necked they are unwilling to be submissive even to receive blessings from God.
This verse is considered by scholars to be one of the most difficult to translate in the entire letter; the following is copied from the translator’s handbook, it analyzes the potential interpretations:
James 4.2: What James goes on to say is not exactly clear. There are two main problems, one is the structure of the sentence, and the other the meaning of the verb kill. On the sentence structure there are two possibilities. One is that reflected in the punctuation adopted in the UBS Greek text, which is followed by modern translations like NIV and NAB, and given as an alternative rendering by RSV. Following the alternative RSV rendering, the part in question consists of three propositions:
(1) “You desire and do not have.”
(2) “You kill and you covet and cannot obtain.”
(3) “You fight and wage war.”
This rendering takes the sequence of positive and negative verbs as the basis of the sentence structure.
However, an alternative rendering wins wider support and is the one adopted by both RSV and TEV (so REB, NRSV, CEV, and others). This rendering has two propositions:
(1) “You desire and do not have; so you kill.”
(2) “And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war.”
This interpretation is based on a cause and effect structure—a frustrated desire leading to a hostile and violent action.
While the first possibility with three propositions is more balanced linguistically, the second possibility with two propositions is more balanced in the movement of thought. The main problem with the first possibility is that in the second proposition “covet” follows “kill”; but this is something of an anticlimax. The more natural order that we would expect is “you covet and kill.” Since the second possibility seems to be the better choice, it will be used as the base for comments.
You desire and do not have: the verb desire is suggested by the word “passions” in verse 1 and expresses more or less the same idea. “Desire” and “desire for pleasure” are naturally related. To desire is to long for something or to want something. This something may be material or sexual. KJV renders the verb as “lust,” and Phps as “crave for something,” but in this context something more general may be more appropriate; for example, “You want things” (TEV), or “you want something” (NRSV). Do not have means “do not possess” (NAB) or “do not get the thing you want.” The whole saying may be rendered simply as “You want something but don’t get it” (NIV). In some languages it is natural to use a verb like “desire” without any object of the desire, but in others it is more natural to have an object; thus “you desire something” or “you want to get something.” In certain languages this will be expressed idiomatically; for example, “You want this thing and you want that thing, but....”
The clause so you kill presents another difficult problem. The verb kill is a strong word, meaning to put someone to violent death, namely “to commit murder” (similarly Gspd, NRSV). The problem is this: Can a frustrated desire lead to murder? And can this be committed by a Christian? There are three basic lines of solution to this problem. The first one is to take the meaning of “to kill” literally. The second approach is to interpret the verb metaphorically. The third, closely related to the second, is to lessen the force of the verb.
(1) The literal interpretation. There are two positions among scholars who insist that the verb kill must be taken literally. The first is to apply it to a general situation. It is argued that a person can want something so badly that when the desire is thwarted the frustration can lead to murder. This is the sort of situation reflected in Jesus’ teaching when he said “For from the inside, from your heart, come the evil ideas which lead you to do immoral things, to rob, kill . . .” (Mark 7.21, TEV). In fact there are other passages in the New Testament where murder may seem to have been contemplated in the Christian community (see, for example, 1 Pet 4.15). This is also the sort of thing that actually happened in the Old Testament; for example, in Cain killing Abel out of jealousy (Gen 4.1-16), in David sending Uriah to death out of his lust for Uriah’s wife (2 Sam 11), and so on.
The second position is to apply “killing” to a particular situation. Some scholars claim that James’ letter was written at a time when murder was considered an acceptable way to solve disagreement in matters of faith (compare Acts 9.1; John 16.2). There has also been a suggestion that James had in fact thrown his support behind the Zealot movement against the Roman authorities. In this connection some scholars even propose that the word covet (in Greek related to the word “zealot”) should be rendered as “to become fanatics” or “to become assassins.” It is alleged that some of the Jewish Christian converts were members or former members of this movement, who had plotted to assassinate prominent Romans, and it was to this group of people that James was saying that this sort of practice was against the teaching of their newfound faith.
(2) The metaphorical interpretation. Some scholars feel that James was making a connection to Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, that continuing resentment against a brother could be considered murder (Matt 5.21-24). John also has a similar teaching, that the person who hates his or her brother is a murderer (1 John 3.15). Obviously James had the Christian community in mind, as is evident from the phrase “among you” in verse 1. However, it would be inconceivable that murdering people was something happening within the community. And so here the word kill is best understood as “to get angry at” or “to hate.”
(3) The toned-down interpretation. Three different “toned-down” interpretations may be mentioned. The first is to propose a variation in the Greek text. Some scholars claim that the verb kill is a copyist’s error; that is, they say that originally the word intended was “to envy,” which is similar in the Greek (only two letters are different). They have been able to illustrate confusion between these two words resulting in variants in the text of Gal 5.21 (see RSV footnote) and 1 Peter 2.1. This is the approach adopted by Moffatt when he renders the clause in question as “you envy and covet.” The problem with this suggestion is that it does not have any manuscript support.
The second proposal is to take “you kill and you covet” as a hendiadys, that is, two coordinate verbs expressing one action. The resultant rendering would be “you murderously covet,” making “to kill” descriptive of the extent of “covet.” This interpretation is possible only if we adopt the first suggestion regarding the structure of the sentence, that with three propositions (see above). This proposal is adopted by Phps when he translates the saying as “you are murderously jealous of....”
The third proposal is to render the statement in such a way as to express a person’s readiness or tendency “to kill.” This interpretation is reflected in some translations; for example, “so you are ready to kill” (TEV), “you are ready to commit murder” (Brc), “and so you are bent on murder” (NEB).
This is a case where no one can be certain as to which interpretation is the most suitable in the context. In such circumstances it is probably best to make a relatively literal translation and let the readers and preachers explain for themselves what seems to be the intended meaning in the context.
Possible alternative translation models for the first part of this verse are:
You want something very much, but you do not get it. So you kill.
You want things that you don’t have, and you will do anything to get them. You will even kill someone.
And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war: this statement repeats more or less the same thought expressed in the previous sentence, and therefore the two can be taken as having essentially the same meaning. The verb covet can mean “strive” or “desire” something, “be deeply concerned about someone,” “have a zeal” for something, or “be filled with jealousy.” In this context it is obvious that the bad sense is intended. This is reflected in rendering the verb as “envy” (NAB) or “are envious” (REB). For scholars who choose to take this verb together with kill, it is possible to interpret the verb also in this sense, but as filling out the sense of “to kill”; thus “You kill out of jealousy” (R. P. Martin). However, in this context a more general sense of “to have a burning desire to posses something” may be more appropriate; for example, “strongly desire things” (TEV), “passionately desire something” (Brc), or even “are determined to get something” (TNT). Cannot obtain means “cannot acquire” (Mft), or with an object “unable to get it” (Brc), and if the object is in the plural, “cannot get them” (TEV).
So you fight and wage war: frustrated desires result in violence. The conjunction so is not in the Greek but is supplied to provide better balance and connection. The words fight and wage war, although they are verbs here, are repeated from verse 1 but in reverse order. Depending on the translation in verse 1, it is best to keep the same words (though here in verbal form) in order to maintain the stylistic effect; for example, wars... fightings ... fight ... wage war, or “fights”...“quarrels”...“quarrel”...“fight” (TEV).
You do not have, because you do not ask: James goes on to explain that the failure to attain what is desired lies in the neglect of prayer. You do not have means “You do not have what you want” (TEV). To ask here is “to pray,” and it is understood that the one prayed to is God. It is desirable to make this clear in the translation; for example, “you do not ask God for it” (TEV). The purpose of the sentence is to explain the reason for a person not attaining his or her desire to possess things, and so it may be desirable to make this clear to the readers right away by restructuring the sentence as “The reason why you do not have what you want is that you do not ask God for it” (Brc)

As we discussed earlier, Jesus parable of the two debtors illustrates how selfishness can lead to the “killing” of someone (Matt. 18: 21-35)
With v3 James makes a statement which is completely contrary to the “health and prosperity” teaching so prevalent today: Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
• In v4 he elaborates upon this theme by stating the fallacy of expecting God to fulfill selfish, lustful prayers, adding a most chilling statement: “whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”. Notice his depiction of these selfish people as “adulteresses” and “adulterers”, throughout the Old Testament the relationship between God and the Israelites is often portrayed as one of marriage and their often failings as adulterous, worshiping other gods, as spiritual adultery. Here in, v4: 4, James abruptly turns away from discussing problems in the church, and harshly denounces his listeners, no longer calling them brethren but adulteresses! The gender of the noun is feminine – in an effort to reconcile this some writers added the masculine “adulterer”; however the thought is accurately portrayed as feminine. It’s clear from the context that actual adultery was not what James had in mind, but the allegorical usage as used throughout the Old Testament, the idea being that the relationship between God and his people is like a marriage bond. The scriptures record numerous instances of the Israelites betraying this trust: Isa. 54: 4-8; Jer.3: 6-10; Hos. 1:3, 3: 1, etc and then later in the New Testament Mark 8: 38; Matt.12: 39 etc. the message here is that they are not to be trusted – for one thing you are worshiping the “God of Mammon” materialistic, religiosity; “prosperity preaching”? this makes it clear that they are worshiping the world and thus: friendship with the world is enmity with God….
Hard Sayings of The Bible brings out some interesting points:

FRIENDSHIP WITH THE WORLD IS HATRED TOWARD GOD?
(JAMES 4:4)
James seems to argue in James 4:4 that one cannot love God and at the same time, for example, have a career. Is this advocating some type of otherworldly Christianity? Does not the Scripture teach that God loves the world? Should not we also?
The language of this verse is very direct. James literally calls his readers “adulteresses” (a fact obscured by the NIV translation). This does not mean that he is addressing only women, but that he wants us to see that he is borrowing language from the Old Testament. The Old Testament pictures Israel as God’s bride, who at the same time wanted to enjoy other “lovers,” finding security in other gods and imperial powers (see Isa. 1:21; Jer 3; Hos 1–3). Given the New Testament bride-of-Christ language (2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-24; Rev 19; 21), borrowing this language for the New Testament is quite appropriate. The “other lover” in this case is “the world”; that is, the values and goals of their culture.

The Christians whom James is addressing wanted to be successful and gain status in the world’s eyes, while at the same time they were followers of Jesus. This parallels what Israel did in trying to serve both Yahweh and Baal. Israel, and especially the kingdom of Judah, never planned to give up the worship of Yahweh. All of his feasts were duly celebrated, his sacrifices made. The priests were employed to ensure this. But at the same time the people served Baal (and other gods), even erecting their altars in the courts of Yahweh’s temple. Likewise these Christians were struggling for worldly status even within the church (Jas 4:1-2; compare Jas 2:2-4).

Jesus pictured a similar situation when he said, “No one can serve two masters. . . . You cannot serve both God and Money” (Mt 6:24). The issue is not how well one can serve this or that master, but that one cannot serve them both. It is impossible. It is impossible first of all because one has only so much emotional energy. If you are deeply invested in the values of your culture, you cannot have enough energy left over to have a similar investment in God and his values. If you are invested in God,59-5 you do not at the same time have the energy left to value what the surrounding culture values. We display what we value in our use of time, energy and money. All are in limited supply. All are placed at the disposal of what one is emotionally invested in. If these treasures go to one place, they cannot go to another.59-6

Second, it is impossible to serve two because both are jealous lovers. Throughout the Old Testament, God presents himself as the one who demands exclusive loyalty. He is a husband who will not share his wife with anyone else, even if the sharing only happens when he is off at work! Likewise Baal (or whatever other god) demands more and more. What begins as a both-and arrangement slowly erodes into a Baal-only arrangement as Baal takes so much energy that the worship of Yahweh begins to be neglected. In the New Testament Jesus points to God’s exclusive demand when he speaks about taking up one’s cross and following him (see Mt 10:38). The person going out to execution on the cross has invested all—wealth, reputation, even life itself—in the cause for which he is dying; there is no future separate from that cause. It is this same total commitment to which Jesus calls all of his followers. For this reason the New Testament does not talk about a tithe—God wants it all (see 2 Cor 8:2-5).

James is doing nothing more than calling his readers to a similar total commitment. In the preceding verses we discover that the readers have been using two means to get what they want. First, they struggle with each other, perhaps including vying for power within the Christian community. Second, they pray. But, adds James, they receive no answers to their prayers. This is because they are trying to use God to gain their own ends. God becomes the “sugar daddy” to fulfill their desires, but it is desire, not God, that they are really serving. Both strategies, that of struggle and that of manipulative prayer, show that they are invested in the world. The one is clearly a direct and open struggle, while the other sounds very pious; the underlying commitments and results are the same. When push comes to shove they are committed to their cultural values, not to God.

Our verse, then, is a warning. They have become God’s enemies by their commitment to the world. Is there any hope? The next verse tells us that God is indeed jealous, but then James goes on to point out that God gives grace to the humble. Yes, there is hope if they will humble themselves and repent. God is ready to give them grace.

Can one have a career and serve God? James’s answer is no. The career or vocation of every Christian is to serve God. One might serve God within a given career, but the career must not be where one’s heart is invested if the person is indeed serving God (and not God’s enemy). How can we tell the difference? Watch what happens when there is a conflict of values. (The conflict can come over issues of personal morality, but more often comes over issues of corporate morality and goals or over the issue of commitment to the job, such as whether one will agree to a transfer.) Does the person compromise and do what is expected by the corporate (or academic or professional) culture? Or does the person lose status on the job by refusing to compromise? This decision shows clearly whom they are really serving. Is this, then, an otherworldly lifestyle? James’s answer is yes. By this he would not mean that one does not have a very down-to-earth practical effect on this world (especially since caring for the poor is a very important part of his message), but that all of one’s life and lifestyle is determined by a commitment to Christ. The only reward that really counts is that which comes from Christ. The values that a person values are Christ’s values. For James this is not a special level of Christianity; it is Christianity pure and simple.

This saying in James is hard, but not because it is that difficult to understand. It means just what it says. The problem is that we with our divided hearts find what it means very uncomfortable. Here, however, James is just as uncompromising and just as realistic as his master, Jesus.
• See also comment on Matthew 6:24; comment on James 5:1; comment on 1 John 2:15.


DISCUSSION
• What are the “milestones” James has met up to here.
• Where does turmoil in church come from?
• How can you avoid being an enemy of God?
• Why might you not receive from God?
• What might the reason be for un-answered prayers?