Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

tory statement and litmus test, to prospective teachers only, even if they are
the primary focus. 295 The way James expresses himself, and the terminology
he employs are so general in nature that his message applies to all of his readers,
leadership and membership alike! In a nutshell, all professing members
of the covenant community better pay close, and self-examining, attention to
James 3:14-18 in which “two kinds of wisdom are contrasted in terms of their
respective origins, manifested characteristics and results or outcomes”
(Cheung, 140).
b. Profile of Defeat (3:14-16)
(14) But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your
hearts, do not boast about it and lie against the truth. (15) This
is not the wisdom that comes down from above but is earthly,
unspiritual, devilish. (16) For where there is envy and selfish
ambition, there is disorder and every evil practice.
(1) Root of Defeat (3:14)
James states that the root of spiritual defeat is the evil in man’s heart. The
human heart is “the seat of affections and intentions in the biblical tradition”
(Johnson, 271; Henry, III, 1296), “of man’s collective energies, the focus of
personal life, the seat of the rational as well as the emotional and volitional
elements in human life” (Abbott-Smith in Mitton, 137). It is a well-known
biblical truth that the unbeliever’s heart is the source of all unrighteousness
(Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Mk. 7:20-23). But since James speaks about “(y)our
hearts,” they must be hearts in a regenerate state in the present context. This
calls for an urgently necessary qualification, if not explanation. It appears
295 Repeatedly Nystrom, 204, 207, 214, 216, insists that James’ primary focus is “false teachers,”
“the virulent work of the yeser ha-ra in human hearts” that they encourage, the “extreme
danger” that they pose and the “devastating effect” that they leave in their wake. In this section,
then, he resorts to a “rapier-thrust definition of wisdom ... to devastate the position of the
opponents” of biblical orthodoxy. Truthfully, this virtually destroys the cutting edge of James’
message. It takes all respectable members, prospective teachers as well as teachers in good
standing off the hook. This is precisely not James’ intention. He faces all of them squarely,
and makes himself crystal clear. No “teacher,” or “speaker” for that matter, is going to make it
on his or her own, or by her or himself, whether “good, bad or indifferent,” and for good
measure, “neither the good, nor the bad, nor the ugly.” The pipelines to hell in all of us will
make short shrift of all our self-effort. It takes pure and undiluted grace for everyone to make
it, not only in the areas of regeneration and justification, but also in the area of sanctification.
In short, James’ aim is not to delineate the difference between orthodox and heterodox teachers,
but to distinguish between teaching that comes from below and teaching that comes from
above. Due to the hellish pipeline that exits in their tongue believers in general, church members
who have been gifted in the teaching area, but especially pastors-teachers who abound in
the use of the tongue, are just as vulnerable in their teaching activity as anyone else.
619