Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

It is interesting to note that the very idea of “vehemence,” emphasized
by the last-mentioned commentator, is either toned down or opposed by the
other commentators. However, while the insistence on vehemence strikes a
responsive cord, the rationale given for that vehemence, a false oath as a sin
directly against God, is not fully convincing. The parallel message in the
Sermon on the Mount does not display the same vehemence when it zeroes in
on this subject (Mt. 5:33-37). The question is therefore pertinent why James
differs from Jesus in this regard. Does he perchance aim at something that
goes beyond the Sermon on the Mount and could explain his “vehemence”
more fully?
At any rate, after this survey we should take a look at the context, and try
to find clues that may assist us in a more satisfactory explanation of “the
opening phrase” than the ones offered thus far.
It seems that many of the sins that James "paraded" in the course of his
letter are of a much more serious nature than the swearing of an oath, however
questionable that may be in its essence and however unpalatable in its
effects. To be stained by the world, to neglect widows, to display partiality, to
gush poison with the tongue, to display devilish wisdom, to commit murder,
etc., all seem such staggering sins in comparison. It hardly seems warranted
for false oaths to be placed on the top of the list, and to receive the prominent
place in this catalog! The commentators, apart from the odd one out, seem to
have a point. Somehow there must be a slip of the pen.
James apparently begs to differ. And, frankly, for a very good reason!
Especially a careful comparison of James 5:12 and 5:13 proves to be quite
enlightening. The focus of James 5:13 is a full-orbed biblical Godcenteredness.
All of life, from beginning to end made up of trials of poverty
and riches (See the Commentary on James 1:2ff), should consist of either
prayer or praise, 24/7! No time gaps and no surrogate alternatives. There will
be universal agreement that such life is truly God-centered. This, then, ex-
dise, never searching your wounds and sores. But our commission is ‘to cry aloud and spare
not,’ Is. 58:1.” This remarkable statement, of course, is the definitive reply to Luther whose
(type of) Christo-centricity made him virtually banish James. Manton is crystal clear. “Christ
crucified” was the prescribed medicine that fit the spiritual malady of the Corinthians. But it
is not necessarily “one size fits all.” The treatment depends upon the diagnosis. Different diagnosis,
different treatment! By implication Manton’s statement is also the answer to the proponents
of an ultimately bland Christo-centric preaching that focuses on Christ at the expense
of the text, or for that matter to anyone whose fascination with one aspect of Scripture is so
great that it tones down, undermines, dismisses, or combats other biblical truth(s). The latter
may well end up as “a pious fraud” that falls short of applying robust and pertinent Scriptural
content. This is especially dangerous in situations where there is a dire need for such content.
Of course, everyone be better on guard against any and all such reductionistic tendencies!
803