BIG IDEA:
PRACTICAL EVIDENCES OF OBEDIENCE
- NEGATIVE: CONTROLLING OUR TONGUE
- POSITIVE: SOCIAL CONCERN AND MORAL PURITY
INTRODUCTION:
Alec Motyer: The three Christian characteristics of verses 26–27 are thus not an arbitrary choice. They say to us “Like Father, like child”. It is right that the life which he has given to us should bear the same fruits in us as in him. James is so convinced of this that it is to these three topics he devotes the whole central substance of his letter (2:1 – 5:6). We can set it out as a diagram:
This overview makes it clear that James’ teaching about how we should live rests on what he discerns to be true about our Father.
Dale Allison: 1:26-27 is a succinct, threefold characterization of authentic religion. Such religion involves measured speech, requires social action, and entails separation from “the world”. It is the antithesis of a sham religion that fails to control the tongue, shuns unfortunates, and assimilates itself to “the world”.
R. Kent Hughes: James has powerfully driven home the point that if we are merely hearers of the Word, we have deluded ourselves, for we must also be doers of the Word. Now he issues a further warning against the danger of deceiving ourselves with false religious doings. The doings are not bad in themselves, but the practice of them can delude believers with a deceptively comfortable sense of religiosity.
David Platt: In this section of James [1:26 – 2:13], we are going to see a New Testament explanation of faith and religion—the kind of religion that honors and is acceptable to God—and we are going to be faced with a choice. Are we going to define religion on our terms and settle for a Christianity that appeals to our lifestyles? Or are we going to submit to God’s terms for what faith, religion, and Christianity look like in our lives, in our families, and in our churches? Be careful how you answer. Martin Luther said, “A religion that gives nothing, costs nothing, and suffers nothing, is worth nothing.” James 1–2 may turn your idea of Christianity upside down.
I. (:26) CONTROLLING OUR TONGUE —
NEGATIVE EXAMPLE — WORTHLESS RELIGION
A. Inflated Opinion of Self
“If anyone thinks himself to be religious“
John Piper: “Religious” Means “Faith in Jesus” —
The reason I think he means “faith in Jesus” when he uses the word “religious” (in verse 26), or talks about “pure and undefiled religion” (in verse 27), is that this is what he continues with in the next verse (2:1): “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.” There is no break in the flow between 1:27 and 2:1; so there is good reason to think that “pure religion” is “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is James’ religion.
Spiros Zodhiates: James does not speak here of the estimate others have about us, but of the subjective estimate which we form of ourselves. It is not what we appear to be to others, but what we think we are. Our mental estimate of our own spiritual condition is extremely important. After all, we are affected more by what we think of ourselves than by what others think of us.
George Guthrie: In line with the previous passage, true religion does not participate simply in forms of worship (i.e., hearing the word spoken or read) but must extend to a transformation of life that has implications for how one interacts in community.
B. Unbridled Control of Speech
“yet does not bridle his tongue“
This failure is visible to all; no mystery here.
Not what we do on Sunday, but what we do on Monday to Saturday shows the reality of our religion.
Curtis Vaughan: James was thinking of the man who may be punctilious in religious activity but careless about everyday speech. All of his religious activity is vain if he does not bridle his tongue… To bridle the tongue is to discipline it, restrain it, curb it, keep it under control. The imagery suggests that the tongue is like an unruly horse that needs bit and bridle to check its wild tendencies.
Dale Allison: What restraining the tongue means, beyond not saying everything that enters one’s head (cf. 1:19), is not indicated. This explains the variety of suggestions in the history of interpretation. We might think of 1:13: one should hold the tongue when inclined to attribute temptation to God. More plausible and closer to hand is a connection with 1:19-21: one should be slow to speak, above all when one is angry. The imperative, however, remains vague at this point. Is this because its content will be unfolded in 3:1-12, which implores one to beware of teaching, to avoid boasting, and to refrain from cursing others? Whatever the answer, the envisaged offense involves a disjunction—conscious or not—between outward appearance and inward reality, and James would surely have agreed with m. ’Abot 1.17: those who multiply words occasion sin. Many commentators cite for comparison Mt 12.32-37.
Craig Blomberg: James begins his characterization of the tongue as a separate entity that can and will destroy a person if it is not restrained and controlled. “The ancient world agreed that the wise person was also taciturn. Silence was generally better, and always safer, than speech” (cf. esp. Pr 10:19 or 29:20).
Wrongful speech can come in the form of angry words or maligning another’s character, something sadly prevalent in church life in every era. Gossip, for example, does not merely annoy those who are maligned; it threatens the gossiper’s spiritual health.
Daniel Doriani: True religion bridles the tongue. Angry talk, gossip, and deception are leading failures of speech, but James develops quite a litany of verbal sins. His concern for the proper and improper uses of the tongue pervades his letter.
- He warns against self-justifying speech. When tempted, no one should blame God, saying, “God is tempting me” (1:13–14).
- He criticizes those who flatter the rich and humiliate the poor (2:3–4).
- He condemns the careless speech that wishes well, but never lifts a hand (2:16).
- He questions the superficial claim “I have faith” if no deeds confirm it (2:18).
- He deplores tongues that praise God one moment and curse people the next (3:9).
- He chides those who slander and judge their brothers (4:11).
- He condemns boastful plans, as if one can do whatever he decrees (4:13).
The tongue, James says, boasts and curses and sparks conflicts that prove that it is set on fire by hell itself. Yet heirs of true religion will rein in these sins.
C. Ignorant Persistence in Self-Deception
“but deceives his own heart“
He still does not get it!
John MacArthur: Such things as attending church services and activities, doing volunteer work, following various rituals and ceremonies, saying prayers, and even having right theology have no spiritual value in themselves apart from true saving faith and honorable motives to glorify the Lord. The person who trusts in those outward things sooner or later will expose his faithlessness with his mouth, because he does not have the inner power to bridle his tongue. Trusting in those things to please God and receive His blessing are deceptive and worthless. Even if a ritual or liturgy is biblical in its wording, it is as futile as pagan idolatry unless the heart is right with the Lord. A corrupt and unholy heart eventually will be exposed by corrupt and unholy speech.
David Platt: Oh, Christian brother or sister, be warned here! Don’t deceive yourself: when you speak, you tell the truth about your heart. The way men speak to and about their wives tells the truth about their hearts. Likewise, the way women speak to and about their husbands tells the truth about their hearts. The way you speak to your friends, the way you speak to your family, the way you speak about others—all of these things are indicators of whether or not your faith is real. If you are engaging in gossip, if your words are biting, if they are cursing, if they are angry, even if they are just plain inundated with trivialities, then be careful; you are showing that your religion is worthless. . .
I believe there is a word of application here for us. In a day of text-messaging, e-mail, cell phones, Twitter, blogs, Facebook, etc., we need to be careful. We’ve created an entire culture that says if you have a thought, then you should immediately share it with the rest of the world. But follower of Christ, don’t buy that line of thinking. Keep a tight rein on your tongue, and speak in a way that shows your faith is real and the core of your heart belongs to God.
D. Ultimate Futility of Hypocrisy
“this man’s religion is worthless“
What’s the point of fooling yourself and trying to fool others?
Peter Davids: This person’s religious practice is empty (μάταιος, Je. 2:5; 8:9; 10:3; Acts 14:15; 1 Cor. 3:20; 1 Pet. 1:18; most of these examples refer to idolatry). Religion which does not have ethical results, particularly in this case control of the tongue, is totally useless before God: such faith is dead, not salvific, as James will say later (2:20, 26). Here is a critique of religion similar to that of the prophets (Ho. 6:6; Is. 1:10–17; Je. 7:21–28) and of Jesus (cf. his sabbath controversies or the command of love [Mk. 12:28–34; Jn. 13:34], which James will take up in 2:8).
Robert Gundry: an unbridled tongue dirties and defiles its owner’s religion
II. (:27) SOCIAL CONCERN AND MORAL PURITY —
POSITIVE EXAMPLE — WORTHWHILE RELIGION
Thomas Lea: The emphasis here is that for God to accept our worship it must be accompanied by loving ministry and a holy life.
A. (:27a) Social Concern
- Essence of Worthwhile Religion
a. “pure and“
b. “undefiled religion“
- Evaluator of Worthwhile Religion — only God’s opinion really matters
“in the sight of our God and Father is this“
- Example of Worthwhile Religion
“to visit orphans and widows in their distress“
Thorold Marsaw: And what about the orphans? The dictionary tells us that an orphan is one bereaved of his or her parents. Doesn’t this definition apply to a child who comes from a broken home?! I certainly think so. I would go so far as to argue that a child whose parent has died is likely to be emotionally better-off than the one who has been abandoned. In the latter situation, the child experiences rejection and often is overcome with feelings of guilt . In many instances, these poor kids believe that they are responsible for the whole mess while those orphaned through the death of a parent view the loss as being a tragic yet unwillful act. Had the parent not died, he or she would still be by the child’s side.
John Piper: So orphans are children whose parents have died and left them at the mercy of others to take care of, lest they die. How does abortion relate to that? Well, abortion puts the child in a worse situation. The parents are not dead, but they have turned on the child and choose to have the child dead. This is worse than being an orphan. To have Mommy and Daddy choose to have you dead is worse than Mommy and Daddy being dead.
So it seems to me that if God wants us to care about the orphan whose life is endangered because his parents are dead, he would want all the more that we care about the child whose life is endangered because his parents choose to make him dead.
Tony Miano: Sometimes it is difficult to do that. Sometimes we tend to shy away from the less fortunate as if their misfortune may rub off on us. Sometimes we distance ourselves from those in need because we don’t want to be forced to look at our own pressing needs, or we consider our own needs to important to put those less fortunate first. Regardless of whatever hang-ups we may have about serving those in need, if our hearts don’t break for them to the point that we extend to them more than just a smile and a kind word, we are just playing church.
George Guthrie: The admonition to care for widows and orphans expresses a widely held virtue of Jewish piety. God’s concern for the poor and distressed, his taking their cause of justice and basic sustenance as his own, must extend to the person who is God’s follower in the world. Widows and orphans especially had little means of provision for basic needs other than the care and generosity of their broader communities. Thus the person who claims to be religious in the best sense must seek to address the plight of the poor and most vulnerable (Isa 1:17).
David Platt: The second mark of true and acceptable religion is sacrificial care for those in need. We are to “look after” orphans and widows. That word literally means to “to seek out someone” or to “visit” them, and the implication is that you go to them in order to care for them. This is such a potent word in the New Testament. God uses it to describe how He visits His people to help them, to strengthen them, to encourage them (Luke 1:68,78; 7:16; Acts 15:14). When James wrote this letter, there was no life insurance a husband or father would leave to a widow or his children, nor were there government-run programs to provide for them. As the Old Testament story of Ruth shows us, widows and orphans were desolate and destitute. James tells us that true religion consists in looking after the neediest people in your community. He’s not just saying that if you are a Christian, this is one way you might help someone else. No, he’s saying that if you are a Christian, you are obligated to look after orphans and widows, and if you don’t, your religion is not acceptable before God.
We are to help orphans and widows because they are helpless. For the widow or the widower, the deceased spouse creates a void. God is the defender, sustainer, strength, and provider for such people, and His provision comes through the hearts and lives of His people.
A. (:27b) Moral Purity (or Avoiding Worldliness) –
Essential Prerequisite of Worthwhile Religion = Personal Purity / Separation from Worldliness
“and to keep oneself unstained by the world“
No amount of ministry to others can make up for a failure to guard your own purity or character.
Douglas Moo: Moral purity is another hallmark of pure religion. To keep oneself from being polluted by the world means to avoid thinking and acting in accordance with the value system of the society around us. This society reflects, by and large, beliefs and practices that are unchristian, if not actively anti-Christian. Believers who live “in the world” are in constant danger of having the taint of that system “rub off” on them. It is important and instructive that James includes this last area, for it penetrates beyond action to the attitudes and beliefs from which action springs. The “pure religion” of the “perfect Christian” (v. 4) combines purity of heart with purity of action.
Alexander Ross: There must be no selfish isolation of himself from all contact with the woes of humanity, but, at the same time, he must seek earnestly to maintain personal purity in all his intercourse with others.
Thomas Lea: (Not) polluted demands a freedom from contamination by the world. Peter used this word to refer to Christ as “without … defect” (1 Pet. 1:19). Christians are to model their purity after that of Jesus.
David Platt: James defines holiness as going against the grain of the world, not living according to the system of this world. James immediately applies this truth in 1:27 to the issue of favoritism in chapter 2.
C. Leslie Mitton: Re “world” — It means the world of men as it is in its alienation from God and rebellion against Him. It is almost synonymous with “evil”, because the ‘world’ is now in the power of evil. This ‘world’ is also the environment in which the Christian must live. Its customs and habits are tainted with evil. Therefore the pressures which come to the Christian from the social life about him are in the direction of evil. He has constantly to be on the alert against this pressure, sometimes direct and threatening, more often insidious and unnoticed.
Craig Blomberg: Here emerges a perfect example of being “in the world but not of it,” where we must function as salt and light to the needy, but not lose our ability to arrest corruption and illuminate the darkness in the midst of ministry.
The two tasks must be held in balance so that we do not lose social justice in our quest for personal piety or sacrifice moral purity in trying to reach the physically needy. James insists that the two go hand-in-hand; neither may supplant the other. And separation from sin includes the renunciation of social and structural as well as personal sin.