James

5:1-6

8. Instructions on worldliness and wealth, 4:13-5:6

ii] The danger of wealth

"James returns to a pet theme of his: the danger of riches. On two occasions already, he has spoken in a condemnatory way of the rich and of riches, at 1:10-12 and 2:2-20 (especially v6, 7). But his words in this new section are absolutely devastating", Hamann.

One wonders whether the criticisms leveled in this passage are directed at believers or unbelievers. It is possible he is directing his words toward either his fellow Jewish believers, or to Jews in general. It could be a poke at the wealthy Jews of Jerusalem. Even though James is a member of the Jewish sect of the "Way" (Christianity), he is none the less a Jew and as a members of God's historic people he has every right to speak to his fellow Jews. In a sense, his words would then take on the nature of prophecy. The rich and powerful in Jerusalem, those who persecute the church and exploit the poor, have little time left. The hand of judgment hangs over them and soon their wealth will be as dust. Yet, it does seem more likely that his words are directed to the wealthy members of the Christian fellowship. This would be the more natural reading.

Instruction #1, v1-6. The arrogant self-indulgent rich stand condemned because they put their "trust in things that are doomed to decay and destruction" and because of their "unconcern for the needs and rights of others poorer than themselves", Mitton. This independent saying stands in parallel with the saying in 4:13-16, separated by the short independent saying in v17, such that both are tied together by the common theme, "the accusation of the rich", Dibelius. James first declares "woe" on the unrighteous rich, v1: i] their wealth is transitory and is already fretting before their eyes, v2-3a, ii] they face the horror of judgment, v3b. James then illustrates the ground of their judgment, namely, injustice - the oppression of the poor, v4-6.

age nun "now listen" - come now. This exclamation, "see here!", Ropes, sets up a "proclamation", Dibelius - the rich face disaster. "You who are rich must stop and think", Barclay.

oiJ plousioi adj. "you rich people" - the rich. The adjective here functions as a substantive. Is wealth itself being criticized, or is it just "the arrogance and selfishness of the rich, the transitoriness of their prosperity and their treatment of the righteous"? Ropes. It is more than likely that "the rich" are synonymous with "the unrighteous", as opposed to the "poor", "righteous / pious". "The rich" are the "wealthy, powerful officeholders and landholders" who "oppress the poor", Moo.

klausate (klaiw) aor. imp. "weep" - cry. "Lament", Ropes, a proper "response to the disasters visited on the people by Yahweh for their apostasy", Johnson.

ololuzonteV (ololuzw) pres. part. "and wail" - wailing, moaning, howling. Attendant circumstance participle, expressing action accompanying the main verb "weep", therefore imperatival.

epi + dat. "because of" - at, over, on, upon. "Weep and shriek over your impending miseries", Moffatt, referencing the occasion, ie. "your impending miseries". Possibly causal, as NIV, since this preposition, when following a verb of feeling, can be translated "because".

taiV talaipwriaiV (a) "the misery" - the misery. "The sufferings of the damned", cf. Rev.18:7. Ropes.

taiV epercomenaiV (ercomai) pres. part. "that is coming upon" - coming upon. The participle is adjectival, "which is coming upon you". Why a present tense? Is the misery progressively coming upon the rich? James certainly likes to emphasize the uncertainty of riches. "Weep and wail over the miserable fate overtaking you", REB.

seshpen (shpw) perf. "has rotted" - has rotted, decayed. In v2-3a James uses three perfect tenses to describe "the misery that is coming upon" the rich, v1. How should we understand the action implied by the perfect tense here, particularly noting the use of the future tense in v3b, "their corrosion will testify against you"? Commentators divide between either i] an aoristic perfect where the idea of result is not present, best translated as a present tense, eg. Ropes, "a picturesque, figurative statement of the real worthlessness of this wealth to the view of one who knows how to estimate permanent, eternal values", a "historical record" as it were, Tasker; "your wealth is rotting", NJB, or ii] a prophetic perfect where a future anticipation is expressed as a present reality, eg. Mayor, Adamson, "your treasures have already rotted", CEV. Option [i] seems best; "your wealth is spoiling".

gegona (ginomai) perf. "have [eaten]" - [the cloths of you] have become [moth eaten]. "Your designer gowns are getting chewed up by moths."

oJ crusoV uJmwn kai oJ arguroV "your gold and silver" - Again, impermanence is in mind. The image is problematic since gold and silver doesn't really rust, although silver does tarnish. See below.

katiwtai (katiow) perf. pas. "has rotted" - has been rusted, corroded, tarnished. The word is often used in the LXX to mean "transitory", eg. Ezk.17:9, and that is surely the sense here - wealth is transitory, it passes through our finger at the blink of an eye. "And your money is frittering away." None-the-less, the literal sense is to the fore - "moth and rust doth corrupt".

oJ ioV (oV) "corrosion" - the poison, rust [of them]. "Poison" is a common sense, cf. Rom.3:13, but with a leaning toward an acidic reaction, so "rust", Mayor, NIV "corrosion". The reference is to all three perfect verbs in v2-3a describing "dissipation" and thus the transitory nature of mammon. "A pile of dust proves the real value of this worlds things."

estai (eimi) fut. "will" - will be. Verb to-be. Note the change in tense. "Your luxuries will eat into your gut like a cancer", cf. Peterson.

eiV "-" - to, into / for [a witness to you]. This preposition would literally mean "to/toward a testimony/witness to you", but the phrase eiV marturion uJmin (autoiV ....) is a fixed expression used in both the NT and LXX. So, "for a testimony against you".

uJmin dat. "against you" - to you. Not "on your behalf", but given the drift of the argument the sense is surely "against you", ie. a dative of disadvantage.

fagetai (esqiw) fut. "eat" - [and] will eat [the flesh of you].

wJV "like" - like, as [fire]. Ropes reads this particle as causal, serving to introduce the last clause of the sentence; "since you have stored up fire which shall be in the last days." As Adamson notes, it is more likely that the "hoarded wealth" is the avenger "in the last days".

eqhsaurisate (qhsaurizw) aor. "you have hoarded wealth" - you stored up treasure. A nice image; "You thought you were piling up wealth. What you've piled up is judgment", Peterson.

en escataiV hJmeraiV "in the last day" - Obviously referring to the great assize.

idou imp. "look" - behold. "Mark my words", Cassirer.

oJ apesterhmenoV (aposterew) perf. part. "[the wages you] failed to pay" - having defrauded [by you]. Variant afusterhmenoV, "holding back", a NT hapax legomenon. The participle is adjectival, limiting "wages", "wages which you defrauded / withheld / failed to pay". "The laborer deserves his pay" identifies a matter of justice, not grace.

twn amhsantwn (amaw) aor. part. "who mowed [your fields]" - having reaped, mowed, cut down. The participle is adjectival, limiting "the workman", as NIV. The aorist indicates that the harvest is complete and thus the laborer should be paid. Note the allusion to Lev.19:13, so Dibelius, Ropes, Mitton, Johnson, ....

krazei (krazw) pres. "are crying out against you" - cry. Of the crying out of Israel to the Lord, eg. Ex.5:8.

twn qerisantwn (qerizw) aor. part. "of the harvesters" - of the ones who reap. The participle functions as a substantive.

eiselhluqasin (eiVercomai) perf. "have reached" - have entered [into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, Hosts / Almighty]. The perfect tense expressing past action with ongoing consequences. So, the Lord has heard, and continues to hear.

etrufhsate (trufaw) aor. "you have lived [on the earth] in luxury" - you lived in luxury, delicately [upon the earth, land]. The aorist is probably constative where the action is viewed in its entirety. "Luxury" denotes soft living, "not necessarily wanton vice", Ropes. "You have lived here in indulgence", Davids.

espatalhsate (spatalaw) aor. "self-indulgence" - pleasure. "In dedication to wanton pleasure", Barclay.

efreyate (trefw) aor. "you have fattened [yourselves]" - you have fed [the heart of you]. Variant "flesh" for "heart", but not well attested. The image is of an animal being fattened for slaughter. The heart being the seat of a person's being, the rich have fed their heart in the sense of "indulging one's passions or inclinations", Davids.

en hJmera/ sfaghV "in the day of slaughter" - Another expression from the LXX, although not in this exact form, eg., the prepositions often vary: eiV, Jer12:3, apo, Enoch 15:1. Ropes argues that en, "in /on", takes the sense "for" here. "You have become ready for the day of judgment", Ropes. Martin notes that although there is little doubt that "the day of slaughter" refers to "the eschatological day of judgment" (as opposed to a more immediate circumstance, eg. "fattening themselves for plunder"), he takes the view that for James the day of judgment has already begun. So, "fattened in the day of slaughter" expresses James' intention, as NIV, although a future edge is more reader-friendly. "You have gorged yourselves full to your heart's content at the very time when the great slaughter is to come", Cassirer.

katedikasate (katadikazw) aor. "you have condemned" - you condemned. Probably referring to the propensity of the unrighteous rich to use the courts to oppress the poor; "you condemned the innocent man", Barclay.

efoneusate (foneuw) aor. "murdered [innocent men]" - you murdered [the righteous]. As Ropes notes, the "murder" is probably "every kind of cruel conduct leading to the death of the poor and righteous (righteous poor)."

ton dikaion adj. "innocent men" - the righteous man. Adjective as a substantive. Singular person is best read as a collective singular, representative. It has been argued that "the righteous man" is Christ, but this is unlikely. Rather, "a generic term describing the kind of person killed by the rich", Martin, so "innocent men", as NIV.

ouk antitassetai (antitassw) pres. mid. "who were not opposing [you]" - he does not resist [you]. The sense of this clause is unclear. i] Possibly treated as a question; "does not he (the innocent man) resist you?" Ropes. ie., "will he not bear witness against you (the unrighteous rich) at the day of judgment?" ii] As a statement with the subject "he" being "the righteous one / the innocent man". Note the variant kai, "and", placed before the clause producing "you have murdered the righteous one and he does not oppose you" (ie. "the poor do not resist because they cannot; they are helpless", Martin), cf. Martin, Laws, Adamson, Mayor, Dibelius, Reicke. Most translations follow this interpretation; "you have condemned and murdered innocent people, who couldn't even fight back", CEV. iii] Since the subject of this verb is unstated, Johnson and others suggest that the subject is not "the innocent man" but the implied subject oJ qeoV, "God"; "does [God] not oppose you?", ie. "does not God hold you to account for what you have done?"

James Introduction

lectionarystudies.com