15
2/09/10

CONTINUE:
v “the test of righteous works”
vv 2: 25-26

Both Abraham and Rahab are put forth as paragons of living faith, revered by Jews and Christians alike. We took a look at Abraham last week: now let’s get a little better acquainted with Rahab:
Rahab the harlot is the same as Abraham - but a little different.
This story brings up some “hard sayings”, however, if we “diligently seek”, the Bible provides the answers. Let’s look at a couple of more scripture that will give us some understanding: Deuteronomy 20: 16:.(It’s the 5th book in from the front of your Bible: the last book of the Torah… or Pentateuch. :
The Holy Bible, King James Version
Deut. 20:16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee
for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17But thou shalt
utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and
the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations,
which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your
God.

Here again we see God’s judgment on people who have turned so far away from Him that they will not…because they would not… repent.
So, how does this apply to Rahab the harlot?

Joshua 2

1And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly,
saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot’s
house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

2And it was told the king of Jericho,
saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to
search out the country. 3And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring
forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they
be come to search out all the country. 4And the woman took the two men, and hid
them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:

5And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that
the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for
ye shall overtake them. 6But she had brought them up to the roof of the house,
and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

7And the men pursued after them the way to Jordan unto the fords: and as soon as
they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate.

8And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof; 9And
she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that
your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because
of you. 10For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for
you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the
Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly
destroyed. 11And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt,
neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the
LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. 12Now
therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have showed you
kindness, that ye will also show kindness unto my father’s house, and give me a
true token: 13And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my
brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.
14And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business.
And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly
and truly with thee. 15Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for
her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall. 16And she said
unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you; and hide
yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned: and afterward may ye
go your way. 17And the men said unto her, We will be blameless of this thine
oath which thou hast made us swear. 18Behold, when we come into the land, thou
shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down
by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy
father’s household, home unto thee. 19And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out
of the doors of thy house into the street, his blood shall be upon his head, and we
will be guiltless: and whosoever shall be with thee in the house, his blood shall
be on our head, if any hand be upon him. 20And if thou utter this our business,
then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear. 21And she
said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they
departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window.
22And they went, and came unto the mountain, and abode there three days,
until the pursuers were returned: and the pursuers sought them throughout all the
way, but found them not. 23So the two men returned, and descended from the
mountain, and passed over, and came to Joshua the son of Nun, and told him all
things that befell them: 24And they said unto Joshua, Truly the LORD hath
delivered into our hands all the land; for even all the inhabitants of the country do
faint because of us.

…. if they would have repented would God have forgiven them? (The folks living in Jericho?,) as we see in Joshua 6: 21-25, Rahab is “saved”: With that in mind, how do we reconcile God approving, and or forgiving, activities that we first think of as “evil”? For instance: (again from Hard sayings of the Bible; it’s an excellent book for shedding a bit of light on some of these sort of things! If you don’t have a copy, I recommend you get one, it’s a pretty good reference.)
Title: Hard Sayings of the Bible
Author: Brauch, Manfred T., Bruce, F.F., Davids, Peter H., and Kaiser, Peter
H. Jr.

JUDGES
A MURDERER PRAISED?
(JUDGES 5:24-27)
Why is Jael praised for murdering Sisera, the commander of the army of
Jabin, king of Canaan, especially when it was a gross violation of Middle Eastern
customs of protecting one’s guest? Was she not being deceptive in the way she at
first extended lavish hospitality and then tricked him into sleeping while she
carried out her gruesome murder? And how, then, can she be praised and
eulogized as being the “most blessed of women”?
Once again Israel had been sold into the hands of an oppressor—this time it
was Jabin, the king of Canaan, who ruled from the city of Hazor (Judg 4:2).
Deborah, the prophetess and judge that God had raised up at that time to deliver
Israel, summoned Barak to rid the country of this new oppressor, but Barak
insisted that he would go into battle only if Deborah went with him. Deborah’s
prophecy was that God would therefore hand Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s
army, over into the hands of a woman (Judg 4:9). Here may be one of the most
important hints that the forthcoming action of Jael was divinely initiated.
In the meantime a Kenite (related to Moses through his wife Zipporah)
named Heber had taken up residence among the people of Israel, apparently
signaling something important about what his beliefs were, for residence in that
day had more attached to it than mere location. After the battle on Mount Tabor
in which Sisera and his troops were routed, Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled
on foot, while Barak finished off the entire chariot division of Sisera. Because
Jabin and the clan of Heber had a history of friendly relations, Sisera entered the
tent of Heber’s wife, Jael (Judg 4:17-18), a most unusual act in itself, for no one
went into a woman’s quarters when her husband was not around. After she had
refreshed him with a skin of milk and was instructed to stand watch while he
slept, she took a tent peg and hammer and drove the peg through his temple while
he slept.
Jael is usually charged with six faults: (1) disobedience to her husband, who
had friendly relations with Jabin; (2) breaking a treaty (Judg 4:17); (3) deception
in entertaining Sisera, giving no hint of her hostile intentions as she assuaged his
thirst by giving him a kind of buttermilk or yogurt when all he asked for was
water; (4) lying, saying, “Fear not,” when Sisera had much to fear; (5) violating
the conventions of hospitality by murdering one that she had agreed to accept as
a guest; (6) murder (Judg 4:21).
How many of these charges are true? Jael should not have lied, no matter
how grave her circumstances. But, as for the other charges, remember that this
was a time of war. Some had already shirked their potential for assisting Israel
during a desperate time of need, namely the city of Meroz (Judg 5:23). But here
was Jael, related only through marriage to Moses and Israel, who had chosen to
dwell in the midst of the people of God. When involuntarily thrust into the
vicinity of the war by virtue of the location of her tent, she did not hesitate to act
by killing the man who stood against the people of God with whom she had come
to identify herself. It is for this that she is so lavishly praised.
Some have argued that Sisera’s entering Jael’s tent also had sexual overtones.
The first phrase in Judges 5:27 may be a graphic description of a rape: “At her
feet he sank, he fell; there he lay.” Not only may the word “feet” be a euphemism
for one’s sexual parts, as it is in other parts of Scripture at times, but especially
significant are the verbs “lay” (Hebrew ), meaning “to sleep” or “to have
sexual intercourse” (for example, Gen 19:32; Deut 22:23, 25, 28; 2 Sam 13:14),
and “to bow” (Hebrew ), meaning “to bend the knee,” “kneel,” or in Job
31:10 to “crouch” over a woman. If this understanding of the delicately put
poetry is correct, then Jael is more than justified in her actions of self-defense of
her person as well. For years Canaanite men had been raping Hebrew women in
just this fashion.
There is no clear evidence that Jael disobeyed her husband. Nor is there clear
evidence that there actually was a treaty in force. But even if there were, it is
doubtful that it could be legitimately enforced during wartime, which very act
was a violation of the peace, since Heber had the same relations with Israel and
Jabin.
Jael did violate the conventions of hospitality, but this is at the level of
custom and social mores and not at the \Level of ethics. After all, this was a war
zone, and a war was going on.
What is clear is that Jael lied to Sisera and she killed him. Is her lying
justifiable? No! To say, as one commentator did, that “deception and lying are
authorized in Scripture any time God’s kingdom is under attack” is unsupported
by the Bible. This same writer went on to affirm that “since Satan made his initial
assault on the woman by means of a lie (Gen 3:1-5), it is fitting that the woman
defeat him by means of a lie,... lie for lie.” 7-1
I would agree with the conclusions reached over a century ago by Edward L.
Curtis:
But from a moral standpoint,... at first glance it appears like
the condemnation of a base assassination, especially when one
reads Judges 4:18-21. [Shall we suppose] that in good faith she
received Sisera and pledged him protection, but afterwards, while
she saw him sleeping, God moved her to break her word and slay
him?... The numerous manifestations of God, his frequent
communications at that time to his agents, might suggest that Jael
received [just such] a divine communication, but to consider her
act otherwise morally wrong and to use this as a ground for its
justification, is impossible. Right and wrong are as fixed and
eternal as God, for they are of God, and for him to make moral
wrong right is to deny himself. 7-2
Jael’s loyalty to Yahweh and his people is her justification. It was part of the
old command to exterminate the Canaanite (Deut 20:16). Jael came to the
assistance of the people of God, and for this she is declared blessed.
See also comment on Numbers 25:7-13; comments on Joshua 2:4-6.

So, we are in some pretty deep water here! Jael wasn’t even a Jew, only married to an in-law of Moses In-laws, possibly a Kenite, yet after all this, she is declared in Jud. 5 to be: 24Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent! Because she was faithful to God.

The Jews gave the story of Rahab a lot of attention; she is discussed extensively in several of the non-canonical books. As discussed here in “the Epistle of James” copied from the Libronix Library:
. (25) The author moves quickly on to a further example of how faith had to be put into action to earn the approbation of God and his salvation; the ὁμοίως δὲ καί serves to show that this is a second example with the same meaning as the first (not just a similar sense; Radermacher, 290).
Rahab was a person who fascinated the Jews (cf. Str-B I, 22–23; b. Meg. 14b–15a; b. Taan. 56; Ex. Rab. 27:4; Sipre Dt. 22(69b); Jos. Ant. 5:5–30). James says little about her, but much of what he does not say is assumed. For example, James does not mention her faith directly (cf. comment on 2:26), but not only does one have her speech in Jos. 2:9, 10 combined with the evidence of Heb. 11:31 and 1 Clem. 12:1, 8 to show that Christian tradition valued her as an example of faith, but also one finds in Jewish tradition that she was lauded as the archetypical proselyte, one “brought near” (Nu. Rab. Bemidbar 3:2; Midr. Ru. 2[126a]). Yet James naturally chooses to dwell on her deed, using the rhetorical question οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη to elicit the positive response from the reader. All her intellectual conversion would not have saved her life had she not protected the spies and followed their directions. Her actions are those of receiving hospitably (ὑποδεξαμένη in its classical sense) the spies (ἀγγέλους, normally used of heavenly messengers in the NT; the LXX follows the MT, using νεανίσκοι or ἄνδρες, while Hebrews and 1 Clement use the clearer κατάσκοποι) and then saving their lives (ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ ἐκβαλοῦσα, which contains the complex idea of her refusal to betray them to the king, her sending them out of the city through her window — thus the appropriateness of ἐκβάλλω — and her directing them to avoid the pursuit). This was seen in later Jewish literature as part of Israel’s treasury of merit (Marmorstein, Doctrine , 86).
Obviously James has an excellent example in Rahab, but his mentioning her right after Abraham may not be accidental. In 1 Clem. 10–12 both are cited as examples saved διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν. Note that (1) the two works are probably not dependent upon one another, (2) the same deeds of both characters are recalled in 1 Clement as in James, and (3) faith and hospitality (a form of charity for which Clement is arguing) are stressed in Clement and are necessary for James’s argument. Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.
*
2. JAMES CLOSING ARGUMENT

(26) At this point James turns to sum up his argument, using a final comparison (ὥσπερ … οὕτως καί) which includes in its final clause a phrase which forms an inclusio with 2:17, neatly tying his midrashic exegesis together as a support for the main argument of 2:14–17. While the comparison may seem unnecessary at this point, a form of rhetorical overkill, it does bring the issue to a head.
Two points stand out in this verse (the final clause, ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν is dealt with in 2:17). First, the γάρ indicates that the author does view his point as flowing out of the Rahab example. Thus he is clearly thinking of Rahab’s faith as well as her works. This clue fills in the assumed background of 2:25. Second, the σῶμα-πνεύματος example assumes a typical Jewish Christian anthropology. The author likely refers to the concept rooted in the creation narrative of Gn. 2:7—the person is composed of body and breath (which could equally well be termed soul or spirit). The separation of the two produces not the longed for release of the immortal soul from the prison of the body, but the simple consequence of death (Jn. 19:30; Lk. 23:46; Ec. 3:21; 8:8; 9:5; cf. 2 Cor. 5:1–10, where Paul longs for resurrection rather than a disembodied state). Neither soul nor body is desirable alone; a body without its life-force is simply a rotting corpse. Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).* (libronix)

So, we come to the end of Chapter two, the test of perserverance; next week we will begin chapter three and the “test of the tongue” vv 3: 1-12.
DISCUSSION
• Who was rahab?
• What did she do?
• Why was she considered righteous, even though she did some questionable things?
• how does James summarize his admonishing that Faith without works is dead
• how does chapter two illustrate the “test of righteous works”?













(


OUTLINE OF JAMES
As john MacArthur points out in his bible commentary, the complexity of James causes it to be difficult to outline with several potential methods possible; the one he provides orders the book around a series of test’s by which the genuineness of a person’s faith may be measured:
Introduction (1.1)
I. The Test of Perseverance
II. The Test of Suffering (1:2 – 12)
II. The Test of Blame in Temptation (1:13-18)
III. The Test of Response to the Word (1:19-27)
IV. The Test of Impartial Love (2:1-13)
V. The Test of Righteous Works (2:14-26)
VI. The Test of the Tongue
VII. The Test of Humble Wisdom (3:13-18)
VIII. The Test of Worldly Indulgence (4:1-12)
IX. The Test of Dependence (4:13-17)
X. The Test of Patient Endurance (5:1-11)
XI. The Test of Truthfulness (5:12)
XII. The Test of Prayerfulness (5:13-18)
XIII. The Test of True Faith (5:19, 20) (MacArthur)


5]
Hard Sayings of The Bible. 1997. James .
The Word in Translation. Libronix, n.d.
New American Commentary vol. 36 James. Nashville Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers, Libronix, 1997. 5.
bank, world. Data & Statistics: poverty data: A supplement to World Development Indicators 2008. 2008. 22 Dec 2009 .
Barnes. "Barnes Notes on the New Testament, James." Hug. section 5 . electronic edition: Parsons Technology (quick Verse), 1999. section 5 James.
Begg, Alistair. Faith That Works, volume 1, When Tempted. October 2009 .
Eusebius. "The History of The Church." Eusebius, Translated by Williamson,G. A., Revised and Andrew by Louth. The History of The Church. Penguin Books, 1965, revised, 1989. 88 - 89.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology, an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan, 1994. 731.
Gutierrez O. P, Fr.Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation. 1972.
"The King James Study Bible." James. James. Thomas Nelson, n.d. 1938.
JinLoh, I and Howard A. Hatton. James a Translators Handbook on the Letter From James. New York: UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES, 1997. 20.
KJV. Quickverse, n.d.
Liberation Theology Wikipedia. 23 September 2009 .
libronix. "Libronix Library." Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids, MI : William B. EErdmans Publishing Company, 1982.
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. 1880.
McGrath, Alister E. The Christian Thelolgy Reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, Reprint 1999. 219.
Moo, Carson &. An Introduction to The New Testament. Zondervan, 1992. 631.
Moynahan, Brian. The Faith, A History of Christianity. Image Books, Doubleday, 2002. 51.
Packer, J. I. 18 words. Ross-Shire Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, ltd, 1981. 141 - 142.
—. Knowing God. Downers Grove Ill.: IVP Books, 1973 revised 1993.
Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language 2nd Edition. Nelson, 1982, 1985. 16, 17.
Sider, Ronald J. Rich christians in an age of Hunger. thomas Nelson, 2005.
Strong, James. Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. Parson's Technology STEP Files, 1998. G1290.
Strong, John. Dictionary, Strong's Hebrew and Greek. n.d.
unknown. foxnews.com. 22 Dec 2009. 22 Dec 2009 .
Wallace, Paul. Jesus Concealed in the Old Testament. Sedona AZ: Paul Wallace, 2005. 4.
Walvoord, John f. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton IL: Victor Books, 1983 -c1985.

14
2/02/10

CONTINUE:
v “the test of righteous works”
vv 2: 20-26

2: 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Continuing, the diatribe, James now calls his dialogue partner “vain“, “empty”, and, in many versions, “foolish”, with this leading question setting the stage to introduce two positive examples of “live” faith proven by the works performed.
G2756
êåíüò


Apparently a primary word; empty (literally or figuratively):—empty, (in)
vain
With his claim the person shows himself to be “foolish”; his claim of faith is empty, “dead” without works.
1.Abraham
How does Abraham fit in? why is we used as a model of “faith”? How much can you “be off” and still be a “friend of God”?
We don’t want to wander too far away from James here, but, some background has to be reviewed to gain a little understanding of how and why Abraham and Rahab are (Hebrews 11: 6-31, etc) used, as here in James, to exemplify “true”, “live” faith.

So, a little review:
The Protestant Bible is not just “a book” but is in fact sixty individual books: 39 in the “old Testament” and 27 in the “New Testament” (the Catholic bible has about seven more books some in the old and some in the New). These books were written by about 40 men and women over a couple of thousand year period; people from all stations in life: kings; farm laborers; herdsmen, highly educated men and nearly illiterate men, yet, from this widely diverse group of writers , written over such a long period of time, and yet the message is completely congruous!
The first five books were written by Moses during the time they were wandering in the wilderness; these books are known as the “Torah” (the teachings or the law) by the Jews and the “Pentateuch (5) by the Greek speaking people. These are followed in the protestant Bibles by historical writings; hymns/poetry/wisdom writings and then; the writings of the prophets, for a total of thirty nine books. The order in which we have them is different than the original Hebraic writings. The Hebrew writings were translated into Greek several hundred years before Christ. There is some difference of opinion how and why this translation was done: some take the position that it was done by the Jews because they were losing fluency in the Hebrew language; others believe it was ordered by a conqueror. In either case, it is known as the “Septuagint” everybody pretty much agrees this is because seventy Scholars joined together and prepared it (actually probably seventy two: six from each of the twelve tribes)
Between four and five hundred years went by after Malachi, the last of the “Old Testament” books and James, the first of the new Testament books, was written; the “silent period”. There were some books written during that period and some of them are included in the Catholic Bible but are not recognized as canonical by the Jews nor Protestant Christians
The Protestant New Testament is made up of twenty seven books: the first three are the “synoptic” gospels. Synoptic means they are to be read together as they compliment and in many places match one another; the remaining gospel was written by the Apostle John several years after the Synoptic gospels and is more “spiritual” in content. The next part of the New Testament is the “Epistles” letters the majority written by the Apostle Paul. The last book is the Apocalypse or revelation from its first word “apokalypsis”, written by the Apostle john
Starting in Genesis, in the Garden of Eden, mankind rebelled against God; consequently we humans were put out into the fallen world we now occupy (it also “fell” as a result of man’s rebellion). Early on, the Bible records frequent interaction between God and man, then after the “fall”, for a relatively long time we were left to our own devices; during which time, mankind spirals ever farther down, finally reaching such a depraved condition that (The Holy Bible, King James Version):
Genesis 6: 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved
him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the
fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
H5162



A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to
be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or
(unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):—comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -
ing, self).
As a consequence of this depravity that mankind had descended into, beyond redemption, God “sorrowfully” then killed all mankind, with the exception of Noah and his immediate family.
This and similar passages require some deeper study in order to not be mistaken in our knowledge of God. To catch a glimpse of God and his nature we must always keep in mind God is so much “more” than we are, as high above us as the heavens are above the earth,(Job 11: 8, etc) that we can now only barely see “through a glass darkly” , can only catch a glimpse as He reveals Himself to us. Some of the enlightenment scholars kind of went off into the ditch here, summarizing that God is so far above us that He is “unknowable”. This is a dangerous line of thought, in that it could lead you astray, winding up with an implacable, aloof, remote , uncaring God, much like the Allah of the Muslims; completely losing sight of the God Who Loves us so much, that he gave his only begotten Son… to save us!
Even so, God is the “same, yesterday, today and tomorrow”, unchanging; He is the same God right now as he was when He brought the flood; the same as when He parted the Red Sea; the same as when He gave His only begotten Son; He does not change, He is immutable, yet He is a “person” and does have emotions.

Here are some thoughts along these lines from some pretty good scholars:
Title: Hard Sayings of the Bible
Author: Brauch, Manfred T., Bruce, F.F., Davids, Peter H., and Kaiser, Peter
H. Jr.

DOES GOD CHANGE HIS MIND?
(GENESIS 6:6)
In Malachi 3:6 God affirms, “I the LORD do not change.” This is why
Christian doctrine teaches that God is immutable—that is, unchangeable. The
promise of this constancy and permanence in the nature and character of God has
been deeply reassuring to many believers down through the ages. When
everything else changes, we can remember the living God never fails or
vacillates from anything that he is or that he has promised.
For this reason many are legitimately startled when they read that the Lord
“was grieved” or “repented” that he had ever made man and woman upon the
earth (Gen 6:6). How can both the immutability and the changeableness of God
be taught in the same canon of Scripture?
Scriptures frequently use the phrase “God repented.” For example, Exodus
32:14 says, “Then [after Moses’ intercession for the Israelites] the LORD relented
and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” Or again in 1
Samuel 15:11, “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned
away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Again in Jeremiah 26:3,
“Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent
and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have
done.” (See also Jer 26:13, 19; Jon 3:10.)
The Hebrew root behind all the words variously translated as “relent,”
“repent,” “be sorry” and “grieve” is . In its origins the root may well have
reflected the idea of breathing or sighing deeply. It suggests a physical display of
one’s feelings—sorrow, compassion or comfort. The root is reflected in such
proper names as Nehemiah, Nahum and Menehem.
When God’s repentance is mentioned, the point is not that he has changed in
his character or in what he stands for. Instead, what we have is a human term
being used to refer—rather inadequately—to a perfectly good and necessary
divine action. Such a term is called an anthropomorphism.
When the Bible says that God repented, the idea is that his feelings toward
some person or group of persons changed in response to some change on the part
of the objects of his action or some mediator who intervened (often by God’s
own direction and plan). Often in the very same passages that announce God’s
repentance there is a firm denial of any alteration in God’s plan, purpose or
character. Thus 1 Samuel 15:29 reminds us that “he who is the Glory of Israel
does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his
mind.” Yet Samuel made that statement the day after the Lord told him that he
was grieved he had made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11).
From our human perspective, then, it appears that the use of this word
indicates that God changed his purpose. But the expression “to repent,” when
used of God, is anthropopathic (that is, a description of our Lord in terms of
human emotions and passions).
In Genesis 6:6 the repentance of God is his proper reaction to continued and
unrequited sin and evil in the world. The parallel clause says that sin filled his
heart with pain. This denotes no change in his purpose or character. It only
demonstrates that God has emotions and passions and that he can and does
respond to us for good or ill when we deserve it.
The point is that unchangeableness must not be thought of as if it were some
type of frozen immobility. God is not some impervious being who cannot
respond when circumstances or individuals change. Rather, he is a living person,
and as such he can and does change when the occasion demands it. He does not
change in his character, person or plan. But he can and does respond to our
changes.
See also comment on 1 Samuel 15:29; comment on Jonah 4:1-2. (Hard Sayings of The Bible)

Always keep in mind; God’s ways are not man’s ways.
After Noah men again drifted away from God! Even after all this we humans as a whole, (there have always been at least a “remnant” of believers, even in the darkest of times) still would not accept god’s sovereignty! Leading to God’s next “chastisement” of us: Nimrod and his peoples building the tower of Babel and his wife creating, what is considered as the underlying religion of worship of the female aspect of paganism expressed in such as the worship of Astarte, Virgo, Diana, etc.: God again stepped in and chastised we humans, “confusing” our languages and scattering us.
We humans then go our own way again for awhile, again drifting farther and farther away from God; God steps in again and sets a chain of events in motion that will ultimately provide us with the solution that we have proven we cannot/willnot find: how do we reconcile ourselves with our Creator? We have proven it is impossible for us to accomplish this seemingly simple task!
Now, at this point in time God steps in to history again and reveals himself to a moon worshiper and idol maker named Abram (Joshua 24: 2) living in the south central part of what is now Iraq, just a little south of the city of Babylon, and tells him he will “make a great nation” from him ((“God said” Gen. 12: 1), Gen. 12:1-2). There doesn’t appear to be anything special about Abram and the Bible does not tell us why He selected Abram, only that He did!
The New American commentary so excellently summarizes Abraham’s activities that I have copied a fairly lengthy section of their work:
James identifies Abraham as “our father”, does he mean only the genetic descendants of Abraham? In one of the most caustic passages of the New Testament (John 8:31–59), Jesus is recounted as teaching two groups of Jewish leaders, those who believed in him and those who did not. The former are said to believe in accordance with Abraham’s faith and are his true children; the latter are not. There ensues a dispute over patrimony that fluctuates among the names of Abraham, God, and the devil. The case that Jesus made requires acceptance of his testimony in order to maintain congruity with the true fatherhood of Abraham. The opportunity of an “adoption” into the family of Abraham by faith becomes a reality. Because of this Paul stated in Gal 3:7: “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.” This is not to say that the physical descendants of Abraham have been displaced by these Gentile “adoptees,” in spite of the early Christian polemics against Judaism. Exegesis of Romans 9–11 makes the case forcefully for the perpetual role of the Jews, “the natural branches” (Rom 11:24) of Abraham, in the redemptive plan of God.57 Paul was aware already of the potential for hostility toward the Jews within the church but would not allow for any mistake about the place of ethnic Israel in the divine economy:
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarch, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Rom 11:28–32
Abraham is then both exemplar and father to all believers whether of Jewish or Gentile background. Ethnic background is not at all the issue in James but rather the religious malady of useless faith.
God regarded Abraham as righteous58 for offering up his son Isaac (cf. Gen 22:1–18; although Abraham was counted as righteous first in Gen 15:6). Of course, although Abraham offered Isaac up as a sacrifice on an altar, the boy did not become a sacrifice. We might ask, then, in what sense this deed was “useful”? Abraham obeyed the command of God that tested him by an extraordinary trial. Nowhere does Scripture actually expound upon the nature of the divine request for the sacrifice of Isaac. One reason, perhaps, is that as a founding event in the life of Israel it is meant to explain many other events and principles in Scripture. It is a story about what God does not want as much as about what he wants. Unlike the other gods of the nations, the God of Abraham wants true faith, not the death of sons. James’s understanding has a close parallel in the epistle to the Hebrews (11:17–19):
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
Much in the passage accords with themes central to James’s message, such as enduring trials as God’s testing of faith (1:2–4), which is the way in which God induces deeds. These deeds of trusting and humble obedience demonstrate the evidence of genuine faith. Indeed, Heb 12:1–13 exhorts believers to accept this testing from God as evidence that they are true sons of God and—from James’s perspective—of Abraham as well. Abraham’s act was useful then to God by which Abraham became the first proven son of his mercy.
2:22 As if drawing close to his conversation partner, James’s address in the second person called him to “see” (cf. v. 20 with “you know”) the truth about Abraham’s deed: his faith was made complete by his actions, or literally, “his faith works.”59 James wanted it known that without action, faith cannot be complete. Without action there will be no perseverance (cf. 1:3), and without sustained perseverance faith will not become complete.60 There is an important connection between deeds that complete faith and perseverance itself. Abraham’s actions were his perseverance in faith. Perseverance completes faith by demonstrating the genuineness of faith (cf. 4:10–11). Thus, although usefulness is a standard by which faith is measured, so is perseverance through testing. Perseverance, of course, is connected to the former standard because it is “useful” to God and the believer in that it demonstrates true relationship.
2:23 Unique in James, we have in this verse a reference to the fulfillment61 of Scripture. This connection arises from the relation between the statement from Gen 15:6 that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as his righteousness by God and the actual birth of his son Isaac twenty-five years later. This is part of a shorthand review of Abraham’s faith in God: a glancing back to the beginning of Abraham’s walk of faith with God and God’s acceptance of him, the waiting for the promised child, the evidence of his friendship with God and—from the previous verse—the completion of his faith in offering up Isaac. The fulfillment text is quoted by Paul as well in Rom 4:3, which frames an entire context in order to convey much more teaching on the significance of Abraham. It includes the statement, “Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations” (Rom 4:18).
Of course the difference of perspective between Paul and James rests in this: James looked to the Abraham story to show how genuine faith operates; Paul looked to the Abraham story to show how God is predisposed to forgive sinners. At the heart of the difference between the “works” James was advocating and those that Paul was combatting by relativizing the act of circumcision (Rom 4:10–12) were the conditions under which righteousness was “credited” to Abraham. Abraham was justified by trusting the promise of God, not his act of circumcision. The lack of any reference to circumcision in James is highly significant. Circumcision signified for Paul the kind of relation to activities whereby his fellow countrymen justified themselves, indeed, found resources for religious boasting (4:2). Paul was vehement in his rejection of this kind of observance of the law (4:13), which damaged the divine/human relation in faith. Abraham was God’s example of how boasting in the command of God and act of man had missed what was intended for faith, that “the promise comes by faith” (4:16). Thus close inspection of the ways in which Abraham’s story illustrates the messages of James and Paul differently helps us allow their distinctive messages to be heard.
James summed up what he had to say about the example of Abraham by citing a choice title for him within the Old Testament: “God’s friend” (cf. 2 Chr 20:7; Isa 41:8). Abraham had been drawn into God’s deliberations about how he would judge the sinful cities of the plain. Abraham had asked his divine Visitor about punishing the righteous along with the unrighteous: “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25). In the covenant conversation between Abraham and the Lord, the Lord included him in every way. Abraham could not have been but amazed and wholly satisfied that God had heard his plea and engaged his questions. God had made Abraham his friend. Abraham as friend of God became the true exemplar of faith, for to be a believer one must commune with God in friendship. As James later argued, believers must renounce the pride that typifies “friendship with the world” (4:4–5) and humbly accept the will of God in order to enjoy friendship with God. (New American Commentary vol. 36 James)


Abram was obedient; he was a wealthy person in a stable society, probably a respected member of the community, yet, when God instructed him to pack up and leave, he did; he was obedient. Abram wavered a number of times, he lied to a king about Sarah’s relationship, he gave up on God’s promise of a son from Sarah and impregnated the slave girl; resulting in the birth of, Ishmael, whom is claimed by the Muslims as their ancestor and by virtue of him being the eldest, as their right to God’s promise! But, in every instance of Abraham’s wavering he faced his failure, restored his faith, and returned to obedience to God, never completely failing to trust God; proving, as James shows us, his acceptance, willingness, and proceeding forward with, the sacrifice of Isaac, and with this “works” proving his faith in that, when the chips were down, he trusted God would be faithful and would fulfill His promises even if he (Abraham) didn’t understand all the details. Without this outward demonstration of willingness in the preparation (work) of sacrificing Isaac, Abraham’s trusting God, faith, would have been proven useless, dead.

DISCUSSION
• How many books in the protestant Bible?
• How many in the Catholic?
• How is the Bible split up?
• Where did Abraham come from?
• What is so special about him?

h'mmm.....how does this thing work?