Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: What is the correct translation and meaning of James 4:5?

Reply: Albert Barnes is correct when he says: “Few passages of the New Testament have given expositors more perplexity than this. ” The King James rendering of the verse is: “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?” The American Standard Version translation is: “Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying?”

The context of James 4:5 is seen in verse 4, “Ye adulteresses, know ye not that friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God.” The word 49vain” in the Greek is kenos and it means “in an empty manner, idly, in vain, to no purpose” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 429). So, James is simply asking his readers in verse 5, “Are you to suppose that what the scripture says about friendship with the world being enmity with God is of no value, that it is empty and serves no purpose?”

The real difficulty lies in the next part of the passage. “Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long (lust, KJV) unto envying?” The question asked is rhetorical for emphasis. There is much controversy as to what the “spirit” is in this verse. Is it the Holy Spirit, or the human spirit? The word “spirit,” translated from the Greek pneuma is not capitalized in the text, but since there was no capitalization in the Greek, no help is offered from this aspect. While the American Standard translators used the lower case “s” in the text, they have capitalized it in the marginal readings of the verse. The translators are divided upon this point, but two of the most significant translations (the KJV and ASV) have not capitalized it in the text; thus, this represents 148 of the world’s best scholars. But regardless of what the manuscript reading should be, there is a spirit which dwells within us.

It seems to be more harmonious with the teaching of the first few verses of chapter 4 in James, to conclude that the spirit in verse 5 is the human spirit. The wars and fightings among them alluded to in verse I came as a result of their lust and covetousness. They had broken their marriage vow to God (see marginal reading of “adulteresses” in ASV). Their friendship of the world is enmity with God. The question asked by James in verse 5 seems to be declarative, rather than interrogative. If this be the case, it would not be proper that the Holy Spirit would yearn or lust unto envying, the very thing He condemned in men. The hearts of those to whom James wrote were filled with envy, jealousy and covetousness. The teaching of Scripture spoke against these things, but the spirit which was in them was longing or lusting unto envying. The word translated “lust” here (KJV) is from the greek epipotheo “to lust,” and Thayer inserts in brackets “i.e. harbor forbidden desire” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 241). This was the spirit that was dwelling in those addressed by James in these verses.

James 4:5 is admittedly a difficult passage but hopefully these comments have been helpful in our study.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, pp. 451-452
August 6, 1987

By Anthony Wayne Goforth

About 9:00 A.M. on a Friday morning, the Romans raised three crosses outside the walls of Jerusalem. It has well been said that the cross of redemption was placed between the cross of repentance and the cross of rebellion as seen in the characters that hung upon them.

During the six hours that our Lord spent on the cross, we have recorded seven of the most amazing comments ever made by a dying man. When we consider how difficult it was to utter even one word from a cross, we see that these seven sayings must be quite significant. The first three sayings were spoken in the early morning light, while the last four were spoken in the mysterious darkness that shrouded the earth in his death. Here are the final words of our Lord:

1. One for forgiveness (Lk. 23:34). It was a word spoken in excuse of them that sinned ignorantly, in unbelief. Jesus seems to be saying, “They see only a malefactor, open their eyes that they may see and know.” How striking is this passage! As they place the nails in him, he seems to feel the injury they did to their own souls.

This is so much like the prayer offered by Stephen in Acts 7:60. We need this forgiving spirit of Christ, for forgiveness is all important. First, our forgiveness is based upon our forgiveness of others. General Oglethorp once said to Charles Wesley, “I never forgive, and I never forget.” To which Wesley replied, “Then sir, I hope you never sin” (Mk. 11:25-26). Second, our worship is based upon it (Matt. 5:23).

2. One for the faithful (Lk. 23:43). The thief asked for mercy, and got more than he bargained for. In his own suffering, Jesus took time to comfort others. Let us refuse to be so busy or so full of self-pity, that we forget others around us may be suffering also.

Paradise! What a picture this must have brought to mind for the penitent thief. These words which passed from the sacred lips unmoistened with stupefying wine, contain healing and promise to many.

3. One for family love (Jn. 19:25-27). The blood-shot, half-closed eyes of Jesus turned and “saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved. ” The fount of love was not stayed, the holy heart was well nigh breaking, yet it still beat with family affection. Her heart was pierced by the sword of sorrow as predicted by the elderly Simeon (Lk. 2:35).

Sometimes we fail to show concern for family and loved ones, which Paul strictly condemned (1 Tim. 5:8). It has been said, that at the scene of the crucifixion, Rome was represented by its executioners, Judaism in its formalities in the rulers and people whom they swayed, and Christianity with its tender fidelity in the woman who with John stood by.

4. One for feeling forsaken (Matt. 27:46). This fourth word came from the very abyss of suffering. Perhaps from a greater depth than any word arose from the lips of man. Darkness was now over the land, and darkness was over the pure sufferer’s soul.

These words present the deepest of mysteries. Was it a combination of mental anguish and physial pain? Or, was he in a real sense separated from the Father? The bitterness of the cup of suffering is known only to the one who drank of it.

Do not we all feel forsaken from time-to-time? These feelings are caused by the fear of what is ahead, the fear of not being loved, and the fear of being left out. To the Christian, the cross is the answer to all of these fears. In that verse of superlatives, John 3:16, we find that we can know what is ahead, that we -are loved, and that we are included in God’s plan. In him is the answer.

Jesus understands these feelings. At first, crowds surrounded him, soon there were only a few, eventually it seemed as though even God had abandoned him. Here our Lord drinks down the last dregs of the bottom of the cup he began in Gethsemane.

5. One from the fevered frame (Jn. 19:28). As the former cry ascended to heaven, so this one sinks upon the earth. We see in this cry for physical needs the fact that Jesus was indeed human. In his birth we see purity, in his life we see charity, and in his death we can see His humanity.

As Jesus thirsted on the cross, he thirsted through his earthly life for the will of God. He desires that we too thirst for the righteousness of God (Matt. 5:6; Rev. 22:17). Just as only physical water can satisfy the physical man, so there is a part of man that can only be satisfied in the obedience to the Father, for man is a dual-natured being. Both parts must be fed, nourished, and allowed to grow. Some try to satisfy this thirst by substituting civic work, charitable deeds and the like. These are good, but will never satiate the thirst of man, nor quench the need of the soul.

A moistened sponge on a hyssop rod brought him temporary relief and strength to utter two last sayings.

6. One for fulfillment (Jn. 19:30). When Jesus triumphantly cried out, “It is finished,” he marked a completion in the chain of events which was neither accidental nor incidental, but according to God’s determining council (Acts 2:23). This was the “fulness of time” spoken of by the apostle Paul in Galatians 4:4. This was the moment God had spent 4,000 years preparing the world for. He began His ministry with “time is fulfilled” (Mark. 1:15) and ends with “it is finished.” The great work of salvation complete, the ancient covenant made forever obsolete and a new inaugurated. The ones who crucified Him unconsciously wrought out the divine plan. . . It is finished!

7. A last word of finality (Luke 23:46). In a seventh word, with one supreme effort to the Father from whom he seemed momentarily separated, he yields up himself. When all was accomplished, when the work of atonement was perfected, when the foundations of the kingdom of evil had been overthrown, then he yielded up the spirit. The writer seems to be pointing out that Jesus was not killed, but that he gave up his spirit, thus fulfilling John 10:18.

Are we resigned to doing God’s eternal will? Is our life wrapped up in service to the Lord? Can we say “Father, into your hands I give my life, talents, wealth and soul?” Jesus gave all He had for us and asks us to give our lives in return – we can do no less.

The first word was for the intercession of others, the last was the submission of self. His love stooped to the most wretched, even to His murderers. His life was tranquil because it was in his father’s hands. We know little of our state after death, but what Jesus said while dying is enough for us.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, pp. 449, 470
August 6, 1987

By Frank Jamerson

Introduction:

A. The series of parables (Luke 15) was given to answer the criticism of Jesus for eating with sinners (vv. 1,2).

B. The prodigal (wasteful) son is better known, but the elder son represented the cold-hearted self-righteousness

of the scribes and Pharisees.

Discussion:

A. His departure from home (vv. 11-13).

1. He could not wait until his father died; he must have his part now!

2. Though the father was not obligated to do so, he gave him what he wanted.

3. There must have been a long period of conflict at home. It reached the point that the boy wanted to get away, and the father allowed it.

B. The pleasure in sin.

1. When he gets away from home, he can do as he pleases without being corrected. (He could “enjoy” himself, Heb. 11:24,25.)

2. He wanted to be his own master – independent of restraints of “Where have you been? With whom? What did you do?”

3. That is what sin is! It is rejection of God’s restraints and self-deification (Gen. 3).

4. He was a son in name, but not in heart. The atmosphere had become disagreeable to him, and the further he could get away – the better! (v. 13)

5. Many young people have the same desires today but go where they may, they will never find another mother and father! (The prodigal did not.)

6. The pathos of the story is “a certain man had two sons” – not a king had two servants, Or a master had two slaves. (Sin is not simply disobedience to a master, or treason to a king, but ingratitude toward a Father [cf. 2 Sam. 15:6; 18:29-33; Isa. 1:2].)

C. The Ruin of Sin (vv. 13-17).

1. The waste of sin (v. 13).

a. Waste means “to scatter abroad, is used metaphorically of squandering property, Luke 15:13; 16:1” (W.E. Vine).

b. Think of the waste in drugs, alcohol, illicit sex, stealing, etc. Men of great ability have squandered their opportunities because of sin.

2. The cost of sin (v. 14).

a. It cost him everything he had! There is always a price to be paid (cf. Gal. 6:7; Isa. 59:1-2; Jas. 4:4).

b. Sin begins as a pleasant companion, but ends a terrible task-master.

3. The cruelty of sin (vv. 14b-16).

a. He “began to be in want.” He had never been in that situation.

b. He “joined himself” – indicates he “glued himself” to a citizen of the country who did not want him. The ungodly will help you sin, but they are not interested in sharing your troubles.

c. Prov. 13:15.

4. The insanity of sin (v. 17).

a. He “came to himself” – indicates he was not himself.

b. Rebellion is madness.

D. The Return Home:

1. He resolved (v. 18).

a. As he sat and thought about home, he kept thinking “I can see the end of the tunnel,” or “something will turn up,” but it didn’t. He had the choice between “mother’s cooking” and “hogs’ feed.”

b. His resolution was not: “I’ll wait until I am a little more respectable,” or “I’ll see how my family feels about me.” He went as he was!

2. He returned (v. 20).

a. He made an unreserved confession – not “I’ve been a little wild, but every one sins,” “I just got in the wrong crowd for a while,” but “I have sinned. “

b. His sin was “against heaven” (v. 18), as well as against his family (cf. Psa. 51).

3. He was received (vv. 22-24).

a. As he draws near home, we can better imagine his thoughts than describe them! The place had not changed much, but what a difference in him!

b. Father was not sitting on the front porch of a fenced house with gate locked – waiting to be begged to receive his son. He was looking for him!

c. The feast indicates the joy of a forgiving God over a forgiven man, and the joy of a forgiven man in a forgiving God.

d. The attire was not that of a slave, but a freeman. (The slavish attitude melted in the arms of a loving father.)

Conclusion:

A. The father did not throw his arms around him while he was in the pig pen, nor while he was in the arms of a harlot.

B. The elder brother’s attitude in v. 30 (“you are eating with this sinner”) is nearly the words of verse 2! (He had not learned how to relate to family; yet his father still loved him.)

C. Any life not used in serving God is wasted.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 14, p. 435
July 16, 1987

By Denver Niemeier

I have learned that God so loved man that he gave his Son and his Son gave his life so that man could be saved from his sins and live eternally with his Master (John 3:16).

I have learned that those who are saved are added to the church that the Son built (Acts 2:47; Matt. 16:18), and that in the church God is glorified (Eph. 3:21).

I have learned that God has provided for man every instruction needed to inform man how to conduct himself as a child of God and a member of the church (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). From the divine point of view, the church is perfect, nothing is missing, everything is just as it should be. But, I have learned there are problems among those who are members of the church. These are caused by many things: differences of opinion, lack of understanding, ignorance, bad attitudes, meanness, anger, and lack of consideration, just to name a few. Until these are removed on the part of the humans in the church, the problems won’t cease.

My purpose is to point out some things from what I have learned and experienced in my years of preaching and from serving as an elder that might cause us to be more careful in our association with brethren in Christ.

Improper elders are the cause of many problems. There is a dire shortage of proper elders today. Churches with large numbers cannot (evidently) find men who are qualified to serve or else the men refuse to serve. It is a sad commentary when so few are qualified and willing to serve. Men, who profess to have heaven as their goal, are not willing to press forward and prepare to serve in what Paul said was a good work (1 Tim. 3:1). We have a problem and it certainly is not God’s fault. How can we expect to have that crown of life if we will not get involved as we should as Christians?

I have learned that there are those who do not know how elders get to be elders. Recently, I learned that some years ago there was an elder (?) who, when he became ill, appointed his wife to serve, during his sickness. He died from his illness and his wife carried on until she died. This happened at a church in southern Indiana, the other man who was an elder (?) at that time told me about it.

My first meeting was for a rural church in Barren county Kentucky. One of the men informed me that he was the “acting elders” having been appointed by the “real elder” to serve, while the real elder was away on vacation.

On another occasion as I pulled into the parking lot of a rural church in Pulaski county Kentucky, where I was conducting a weekly Thursday night Bible study, one of the men came over to my car and asked if I had heard the good news about him? My answer was, “No.” He then told me he had been made a “Junior Elder.” I asked what that was, and he replied, “A junior elder is one who is in training to be an elder.”

I have learned that there are those who pay no attention, or are unaware of what the Bible says about elders and their qualifications and work. Many seem to want to stress the physical qualifications and pay little attention to the spiritual.

I have learned that some elders do not want the members to know what is going on. In Acts 26:26, Paul told Agrippa, “For this thing was not done in a corner. ” However, some conduct their oversight as if the best way to do things is in a comer. Years ago a church in Kentucky had elders who reached the decision that it was in the best interest of the church to change preachers. They made this known to the church but, when they were asked their reasons for making that decision, they said they did not want to reveal them. The preacher, not wanting to move, found among the members those who resented the decision and silence of the elders and started working toward the end of his staying and getting rid of the elders. Needless to say, a lot of trouble was the result.

As preachers sometimes have the opinion that elders are “my elders,” some elders at times act as if they think the church is theirs. I have learned that some want to be “boss,” some love pre-eminence, some are poorly prepared and do not have the vision and foresight their responsibilities require.

Before I go on, let me say that there are good, honest, sincere, dedicated, conscientious, sacrificing, properly prepared men who are serving as elders; the same is true of many who are devoting their lives to preaching the gospel. I thank God for them; may their tribe increase. So when I mention these things concerning elders and preachers, I am not down on all.

I have learned that every member of the church does not always act like he should. I have also learned that some who preach along with some who serve as elders will take advantage of the brethren, just as there are brethren who will take advantage of preachers and elders.

I have learned that elders and preachers need to have a clear cut understanding on many things when they enter into a working arrangement together. The same is true when a preacher agrees to work with a church that is without elders. An invitation is issued to a preacher to move and work with a church, the preacher accepts, yet details that involve all of them are not-worked out before the move takes place. Such things as moving expenses, amount of support, vacation weeks, number of meetings the preacher is to be away each year, pay adjustments, etc., need to be discussed and agreed to by all concerned. Many problems occur as the result of misunderstanding on these things.

In my opinion the best way for this to be handled is for it to be put in writing. For example, time passes and the ones who discussed these things with the preacher may no longer be there. Sometimes people forget, but if it is in writing and all involved have a copy, it is very easy to check and see what was agreed to.

A preacher looking for a place to move, learned of a church that was looking for a preacher. He contacted some of the members, went to “try out” and afterward talked with one of the members and was told that they wanted him to move there. When he showed up thinking he was to be preaching there, he found out that the one man he had talked with did not have the approval of the church to ask him to come.

I made a similar mistake some years ago. I agreed to move and work with a new church some 300 miles away. Between the time I accepted the invitation to move and the time of the move, I talked several times with the man who had phoned me and told me the church wanted me to come. We discussed several different things concerning the move and the work to follow. However, when I arrived, ready to start the work, I found out that things I had been assured of over the phone had not been discussed with the rest of the men. I have learned to work these things out before the move takes place.

In 1956 I accepted my first work as a “full-time” preacher. I was with that church over three years and had a good work there. During that time they never mentioned any adjustment in my support, and neither did I. That would not happen again on my part. I have learned better. How many would stay with a secular job that long without a raise?

A young preacher was talking with me some time back about his work with a certain church. He said, “I have been here almost two years and nothing has been said about an adjustment in my support. I don’t know what to do. If I bring it up they just might tell me that if I want more money to go somewhere else.” Again to repeat, work these things out beforehand.

One night after services during a gospel meeting we invited several to our house including the visiting preacher. One of the guests mentioned that the preacher was a “Big Preacher.” I will never forget his reply when he said, “A big preacher is just a little preacher away from home.” How about that?

While on that thought, there is something else I have learned. A church will bring in a visiting preacher to hold a meeting, sometimes lasting a week, or in many cases today, even less than a week. The visiting preacher will be supported (paid) far and above the amount that same church will pay the local preacher for the same period of time. Surely the travel expenses of the visiting preacher need to be taken care of in addition to his support, but to pay one man such an excess is unfair to the local man?

I also have learned that some have the idea that a preacher going to preach in a meeting is going to get rich. This leads some to want to decrease or even stop his support at home during that time. Too many times what he gets for that meeting is not equal to the support loss at home.

I once drove 500 miles during a meeting and was given a sack of potatoes and $15.00. Even then the brother who gave me my “gas money” as he called it, acted as if he did not want any one to notice that he was doing so. I have learned that brethren are not thoughtful at times concerning preachers and support.

I have learned that preachers are expected to be ready to go whenever called upon. Day or night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year be ready. Have the car in shape to run, gas in the tank, money in the pocket or bank to take care of any expense that might be involved. Any preacher worth his salt will go when called if at all possible. However some of these occasions put him to extra travel and expense. Whenever this happens, those who have called for him need to give consideration to that added cost.

I think of an occasion when I was called to speak at the burial services of a member of the church who had died in a western state and was being returned home. I had never met the man or his family, the services were to be held at a meeting house some distance from where I lived and where he had worshipped in years past. After the services someone handed me some money and said that the family wanted me to have it. Shortly after that I returned to that area to preach one night. One of the men came to me and started reading me the riot act, about taking money from a poor widow and her children. When I was able to calm him down some, I found out he was talking about the money I was given at the funeral I just mentioned. Did I mention that some brethren will take advantage of preachers?

On three different occasions involving three different churches, three different preachers I know of, went to the brethren at the end of the year or when they were leaving that work and asked for their vacation pay stating that they had not taken the time off for vacation so therefore the church owed them so many weeks support even though they had been paid every week of the time they had been there. Did I mention that some preachers will take advantage of the brethren?

I have learned that some think the preacher and his family are their personal property and are at their beck and call. The first work that I moved to where the church furnished the house for the preacher to live in resulted in learning other things. We had been there less than a week, many things were yet to be unpacked, not all the furniture was in place, well, you know how it is. One member suggests we have a get acquainted pitch-in on that Sunday afternoon in the backyard and that all could use the facilities of the house in getting the food ready etc. No thought was given as to what might be convenient for us. We did not have a pitch-in at that time.

A young couple I know would drop in on the preacher and his family around supper time about once a week and would spend the whole evening without checking first to see if it was suitable with the preacher’s family or not. No consideration was given as to what plans might have been made by the preacher and his family for the evening. When this couple was asked about this they replied, “They live in the house that belongs to the church, and since we are a part of the church that makes the house ours and we can go into our house any time we want.” This reflects the attitude that some have: “We pay him, he and his belong to us. He had better jump whenever he is told.” Again I ask, did I mention that some brethren will take advantage of preachers?

God’s plan calls for elders to oversee – preachers to preach – members to live and work with all as his children. It takes all members, each doing his best for the body of Christ to be built up (Eph. 4:16).

Problems exist because the people in the church fail to be as God would have them to be one to the other. These problems would be done away with if we would all be as God would have us to be.

Now comes the question. Am I helping to do away with these problems or am I helping to create them? Let’s all learn to do better.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 14, pp. 432-434
July 16, 1987