Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

person singular or plural supposedly jeopardizes the authority of the preacher
as an ambassador. 277 There is, indeed, ample evidence of the use of the second
person in Scripture (Acts 2:22-23, 36, 38-40). But to make this a universal
requirement is unacceptable. There is nothing wrong for a spokesman of
God to admit his “humanity” and to give evidence that he is not beyond targeting
himself. It can only enhance his preaching, if it is done properly, such
as in the footsteps of James. His humility in the use of the first person plural
is quite conducive to get the message across that for all practical purposes
“every human sin is mediated, even facilitated, by speech of one sort or another.
It may be anger or seduction, sarcasm or flattery, criticism or dissembling
-- the tongue is the wind that whips the embers into a consuming blaze”
(Keddie, 122). The groundwork for this thesis was already laid by James in
an earlier context (Jam. 1:26). Eventually James’ admission of his “humanity”
must be equally conducive in helping to get the medicine go down, the
medicine of “sola gratia!”
James does not merely display irony when he infers that the ability to
keep the tongue from sinning is tantamount to perfection by exercising total
and unfailing control of the body. This may seem to be ironical since admittedly
no one is perfect, and no one exercises the kind of control that is required
for perfection. Still, to be satisfied with the diagnosis of irony would
be to overlook or miss the central, if not major, ever-recurring, theme of
James. God desires, insists on, and aims at perfection with all the trials of life,
all the wisdom of the Word, all the commandments of the Law in sum as well
as substance, and last but not least with the tongue. However, the tongue is
like a bird of prey. Therefore, to solve the problem of the tongue, because of
its pivotal function, is basically to solve everything (Zodhiates, II, 85, 87, 90).
In view of the reality of much stumbling, to keep the tongue in check so that
it is never at fault is surely to keep the whole body in perfect check. James
argues from the greater to the lesser (Burdick, 187). Anyone who has succeeded
in bridling the tongue, which brings both the stained human heart and
its equally stained internal functions of mind, will and emotions to verbal expression
must be perfect (See also Ps. 39:1)! 278 In the words of one commentator,
“If any man avoid the evils of the tongue, I will make bold to call him a
perfect man, such another as is not found among mortals” (Manton, 277). In
277 J. Adams, Preaching with Purpose (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986).
278 Also in this Nystrom, 173, suggests that the Greek term for “perfect” should be translated
as “complete and mature,” since there is no such thing as “perfect sinlessness,” with reference
to James 1:4. But, as I have argued at length in the context of James 1:4, to shy away from the
translation “perfect,” whether here or in other contexts, previous or later, is to dull the cutting
edge of James’ teaching.
589