NOTES for Jam 5:9-12

James values patient endurance highly. As an example to his contemporaries he sets both the ancient prophets and Job, the hero of the biblical book of the same name. Of course, Jesus Himself also warned His followers more than once about the inevitability of suffering. And if we take into account that the persecutions being discussed were understood more as the norm of Christian life than as isolated episodes, it becomes clear that one must prepare to endure, and to endure for a long time. But the matter still does not, apparently, come down only to the inevitability and practical necessity of patient endurance. In fact, on what does patient endurance depend at all? In principle, short-term suffering, even intense suffering, is often easier to bear than prolonged suffering, even when the prolonged suffering is not so intense. There is nothing surprising here: the resources of a healthy human organism are usually quite great, and with the proper motivation their short-term mobilization has the corresponding effect, sometimes allowing a person to endure even what had previously seemed unbearable. Of course, such motivation can be faithfulness to Christ, but not only that: emotional uplift, intellectual conviction, and religious exaltation are also possible. One cannot say that all this has nothing to do with spiritual life, for it presupposes a conscious choice and following a decision once made. But such spiritual life still does not go beyond the bounds of the world that has not yet been transformed. When, however, the matter concerns faithfulness to Christ and relationship with Him, one must speak directly of the life of the Kingdom, for relationship with Him is possible only in the Kingdom. And here we receive, in essence, an inexhaustible resource that allows us to endure difficulties and trials not merely for that short period during which human strength, not so very great after all, is exhausted, but for a long time, for which no human strength would suffice. That is why the apostle values precisely patient endurance during trials so highly: he bears witness to the quality of the spiritual life of the one who endures these trials. To a quality conditioned by the fact that his life, although it still takes place partly in our transforming but not yet fully transformed world, is nevertheless determined not by the laws of this world, but by the laws of the Kingdom.

What was an oath for a yahvist believer, and later for the Jew? It was certainly a kind of obligation, that man took on him. In such its quality, it distinguished itself in essence of nothing from these obligations, which we take on us today in the conclusion of any deal. In fact, upon the conclusion of any ordinary deal in antiquity, it was advisable for the Jews to swear in the presence of witnesses, after which the deal was considered as concluded. Then: is the apostle after Jesus prohibiting such practices? And thus encourage irresponsibility, because, it is about obligations, without which is impossible any relation between men? Probably, no. And we can think, the problem is not in the obligations themselves. The fact is that, concluding the most ordinary deals, people swore by the sacred name, God's name. And thus introduced Him into their deals, without even asking beforehand if He need them and if He wants to participate in these things.

So what: one should not ever swear by God's name? Even when it comes to matters not secular, that sometimes do not concern God, and to which at best He is indifferent, and also on religious works or even spiritual, where relying on His support is not only possible, but also very necessary, otherwise nothing will work out? Apparently, yes. Because the problem here consists not only of what we are really occupied. The problem is that, by swearing by God or the sacred name (and it is indeed the same thing), we interfere with God in our deeds, without asking for His opinion and for His agreement. We take such responsibility, that we are not able to bear. Indeed, since the oath in God's name asks for a strict fulfillment, otherwise, not fulfilling the promised, we make ourselves absolutely guilty not only before men, to whom we swore, but also before God, by Whose name we swore. Without any allowances on circumstances.

Of course, practically the Torah considers certain secondary circumstances that may, for example, disturb the fulfillment of the obligations on a concluded agreement. But in such a case, it is better to leave God aside, not involving Him in the deal and without taking what without Him we cannot obviously fulfill. So that our "yes" or “no” remains as unambiguous and rigorous, much as it is possible by the human efforts. And in our human efforts, God, if He will want to intervene, will add His own. He does not need our oaths for this.

What was an oath for a believing Yahwist, and later for a Jew? First of all, of course, it was a kind of obligation a person took upon himself. In this capacity it essentially did not differ from the obligations we take on today when concluding any agreement. In fact, when concluding an ordinary agreement in antiquity, Jews customarily swore an oath in the presence of witnesses, after which the agreement was considered concluded. So what then: does the apostle, following Jesus, forbid this kind of practice? And thereby encourage irresponsibility, since the issue is obligations without which no relations between people are possible? Surely not. And the matter here, one may think, is not the obligations themselves. The issue is that when concluding the most ordinary agreements, people swore by the sacred name, by the name of God. And thus they involved Him in their affairs without first asking whether He needed those affairs and whether He intended to take part in them. So then: may one never swear by God's name? Even when the issue is not secular matters, which often really do not concern God and to which He is at best indifferent, but religious or even spiritual matters, where one not only may count on His support but directly needs it, otherwise nothing will come of it? Apparently yes. For the issue is not only what exactly we are occupied with. The issue is that by swearing by God or by the sacred name, which in essence is the same thing, we involve God in our affairs without asking His opinion and consent. And we take upon ourselves a responsibility we are unable to bear. Indeed, an oath by God's name requires unfailing fulfillment; otherwise, if we fail to fulfill what was promised, we become unquestionably guilty not only before the people to whom we swore, but also before God, by whose name we swore. Without any allowance for circumstances. Of course, in practice the Torah also takes into account some attendant circumstances that can, for example, hinder fulfillment of obligations under a concluded contract. But in that case it makes sense to leave God aside, not involving Him in the deal and not taking upon ourselves what we obviously cannot fulfill without Him. Thus our "yes" or "no" should remain as unambiguous and binding as lies within human power. And to our human efforts God, if He wants to intervene, will add His own. He does not need our oaths for that.

Today the apostle James returns us to a time of waiting. Waiting in uncertainty - that is what the life of the prophets is. To live in a state where you know how things must be, to believe that this will certainly happen, and at the same time not to experience it yourself. Not to touch what you know about, and at the same time to awaken people who know as you do, but do not wait.

Our situation, compared with the life of the prophets, can be considered comfortable and well arranged. What they spoke about has been fulfilled. We can now join John the Baptist, about whom the Savior says: "blessed is the one who is not offended by Me." That is, knowing everything that will take place, knowing that He will be born, die, and rise, we can and must not be offended by Him. This is one of the beatitudes most accessible to us.

The apostle James uses the metaphor of rusted gold and silver to point not to the material side of life, but to the goals and meaning of every kind of accumulation. Accumulated experience, fame and recognition as a specialist, a great public figure, success in business, academic degrees - these are the very gold and silver that rust and will be a testimony against us. And the goals we set for ourselves are our treasure. They mean very little for the future. None of the successes of this world is required in order to love our neighbors, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. And for a believer, a churchgoing person who reads the Gospel, awareness of the smallness and inconspicuousness of our successes before the world and before God must become fundamental. When the Apostle says, "Lament and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into gloom," he calls us to pay attention to the fact that we strive for joy and merriment, that we drive difficult and heavy thoughts away from ourselves. But there is no joy in the world. We carry joy in our hearts. And this joy is from God. He alone can grant it to us. Yet we look in this world for a substitute for relationship with Him. And we understand that we must do good, we feel the need for it, but the mercy we have shown and the help we have given do not bring us joy if through them we do not glorify God and thank Him for the opportunity to help and to be near someone in need.