Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

nally, from the full perspective of the regenerate heart and its alliance with
Christ and the Spirit the outbreak of sin is both “impossible” in principle and
conquered in reality. 293 Of course, it stands to reason that as long as this alliance
is only “purposeful” (on earth) the conquest will never be total. However,
once it is perfect (the new earth”), the conquest will be perfect as well
(2 Pet. 3:13). What an inducement to strive for perfection already here on
earth (2 Pet. 3:14)!
(3) Challenge to Compromise (3:13)
Many commentators are of the opinion that with this verse James starts a new
section (against the approach of this Commentary that the shift in his treatment
occurs in James 3:10) (Manton, 299; Grosheide, 1955, 389). This is why
at this juncture once again the issue of the coherence of James enters into the
discussion. Is the present section that allegedly runs through James 4:10 a
compilation of “loosely arranged independent units (Dibelius, 207)? This,
however, is increasingly rejected.
Most commentators now hold that (most likely) the focus upon the (aspiring)
teachers continues at this point (See Keddie, 117; Cheung, 157).
Given the problem of the tongue the question is whether their wisdom will
come from below or from above (Adamson, 149; Martin, 127). It is also
pointed out that in addition to the unmistakable “natural link” between the
teacher of James 3:1 and the wisdom of James 3:13, there is not only a
“word-linkage” between the term “bitter” in James 3:11 and in James 3:14,
between a form of akatastasia in James 3:8 and in James 3:16, between the
phrase “in your members” in James 3:6 and in James 4:1, but also a “natural
transition between the two sources of water and their fruits in 3:11-12 and the
two sources of wisdom and their fruits in 3:13-18.” “All of these natural ties
293 All this is totally different “take” than the one Brosend, 97-98, suggests. He simply cannot
solve the seeming tension in James 3:2-12 between the possibility of control (bit and rudder),
the impossibility of control (fire and poison), the possibility of non-control (praise and curse),
and the impossibility of non-control (fountain, fig tree, and vine). He advocates that the impossibility
of non-control (fountain, fig tree and vine) could be “an exaggeration for effect, a
hyperbolic impossibility meant to convince the reader of both the importance and difficulty of
the task.” Still he keeps one other option open. Based “on the logic of James’ argument” the
upshot, the bottom-line, of all this may well be that “silence” will prove to be “the safest
way,” and should become “one of the central disciplines of the Christian life.” While it is
quite clear that silentium coram Deo, “silence before God,” is a biblical datum (Hab. 2:20;
Zeph. 1:7), Brosend’s possible recommendation of silence in the present context flies in the
face of Scripture. Not only is it generally predicated of God’s people that they often spoke to
God (1 Thess. 5:17), with one another (Mal. 3:16), and with unbelievers (Mat. 28:19-20), but
James himself also and specifically mandates that believers must ever be in a recovery mode,
and be tireless in sharing and applying the Word (Jam. 5:19-20).
613