Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

sentially asking not to be personally trusted, only for the oath to be trusted as
a guarantor ... Remove the assumption of trust and you shake the foundation
of the primary relationships around which one constructs one’s life.” Especially
in a society without “written contracts,” and “no accessibility to the legal
system ... ‘my word is (should be) my bond’ ... and the trustworthiness of
speech is (should be) a cornerstone of community.” Furthermore, in oath
taking or oath giving the instrument that was designed to undergird and
authenticate the veracity of the spoken word is turned into its opposite and
ends up bankrupting it. One can no longer count on one’s “yes” to be “yes,”
and one’s “no,” “no.” Jesus insists that in the traffic of words of his day this,
once again, becomes the norm, which would remove the need for any and all
oaths from ordinary communication. This implies that also in our world of
contract law and hi-tech communication as well as subtle manipulation and
sophisticated deceit the Church would do well to battle “alienation and distrust”
by embracing both Christ’s and James’ call for “simplicity and truthfulness,”
as embodied in their injunction, “Let your ‘yes’ be yes, and your
‘no’ be no” (Mt. 5:37; Jam. 5:12) (See for all this, Brosend, 157-158, 162)!
In sum, in everyday circumstances, one’s word should be sufficient.
“Yes” ought to mean “yes”, and “no” ought to mean “no” (Mt. 5:37). “Our
mere word should be as utterly trustworthy as a signed document, legally correct
and complete” (Mitton, 193). It should have the force of an oath (Manton,
438). Divine judgment will be the lot of those who unilaterally go back
on their promises. This seems a rather potent “medicine” to issue such
“threat.” But it is fully in line with the prospect of “judgment” that is awaiting
both the “filthy” rich in James 5:1ff and the “grudging poor” in James 5:9.
Why? This question is answered below, after the full import of the opening
phrase, “above all,” is discussed. Suffice it to recognize for now that it is not
only James who emphasizes the seriousness of the situation (Ex. 20:7; Zech.
5:4; Mal. 3:5). Paul touches upon the same subject in 2 Corinthians 1:17-20.
In his terminology, the “yes” of one’s promise ought to correspond with
the “yes” of one’s performance. This is the way it is with God. The “yes” of
his promises correspond with the “yes” of their fulfillment in Christ. Therefore
this is the way it is with Paul as well. He indignantly rejects the accusation
of fickleness on his part as a result of a change in plans. Such accusation
stings him deeply. For him his Christianity is at stake. He is anointed by the
Father, established in Christ and sealed with the Spirit. That makes the veracity,
trustworthiness, and dependability of God’s promises as demonstrated in
Christ, by definition the very foundation and model for Paul’s own faithfulness.
To attack this faithfulness might as well be an attack upon his integrity
as a Christian. Broken promises clearly deserve more than a shrug of the
799