Lookahead: If we listen to what the apostles said in Acts 6, they envisioned the required task as “waiting on tables” where the widows sat. It almost sounds like it was a directive to be “servants of servants.” Also, widows and orphans represented the lowest social classes in ancient Israel. It is, therefore, my belief that the essence of James’ scripture was to submit yourself in a “servant of the lowest servants” role versus trying to be an apostle or leader. And that servitude counted as devotion to God–and not as a new religion.
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:26-27 (All subsequent underlines mine.)
Does that mean that we should re-arrange our ministry priorities to focus on widows and orphans? I would not only say no, but would add that I don’t think we should feel any guilt in the absence of God’s call to that ministry. A minister or biblical commentator who is guilting us because we’re not looking after orphans and widows might inadvertently get us to accept a burden that Jesus did not ask us to bear. He will let us know how He wants us to serve–by programming us, equipping us, and giving us the hunger. If He’s not in the loop, we risk getting burned out, failing epically and/or possibly dropping religion altogether.
And that brings me to the references about religion (and the inevitable drift toward legalism that always seems to happen).
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.
What would those terms have meant to James in the first century in his day-to-day experiences with a nascent church? Were people even using the “religion” and “religious” words back then in the lingua franca?
In a Bible Hub survey, the majority of the 47 translations did use religious/religion. However, the ones that didn’t translate it that way were the two Aramaic Translations!
James 1:26 – And if a man thinketh that he serveth [Or, ministereth unto Aloha.] Aloha, and holdeth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, of this man his service is vain. xlation?
James 1:26 – And if any one thinketh that he worshippeth God, and doth not restrain his tongue, but his heart deceiveth him; his worship is vain.
And ironically, the 16th Century “Reformation Bibles” used the words devout (deuout, deuoute, deoute) and devotion (deuotion, deuocion, devocion)!
Bishops’ Bible of 1568
If any man among you seeme to be deuout, and refrayneth not his tongue, but deceaueth his owne heart, this mans deuotion is vayne.
Yf eny man amonge you seme deuoute, & refrayne not his toge: but deceaue his awne herte, this mannes deuocion is in vayne.
Further, the word, “religion,” is only used five times in the entire New Testament–twice by James, once in Acts 26:5, and twice by Paul.
Paul actually referred to Judaism as “our religion” versus using the word to refer to Christianity: They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee.
Paul’s second usage was similar to James’ widows and orphans reference, but he included detailed requirements for treatment of widows, as well as widow behavior–even saying that widows had “their religion” too: Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives…1 Timothy 5:3-6
1 Timothy 5:9 indicates that there was an exclusive list of widows whom were supported by the community.
No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
However, I do find it interesting that both Paul and James associated being “religious” with taking care of husbandless wives, and fatherless children. So that we don’t embrace some contemporary Christian leader’s cavalier enjoinment to drop everything in favor of starting an orphanage, I think we may need to go back to the context within which the apostles gave these instructions. And Acts 6 may actually refer to the event which precipitated all this. In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them…Acts 6:1-3
Bible Hub’s Pulpit Commentary provides further insight–
Hebraic Jews: Palestinian and other Jews, who spoke Aramean (2 Corinthians 11:21; Philippians 3:5; Acts 21:40), as opposed to the Hellenists.
Their widows: We learn incidentally by this phrase that one of the earliest Christian institutions was an order of widows, who were maintained at the common cost. We find them in the Church of Joppa (Acts 9:41), and in the Church of Ephesus (1 Timothy 5:3, 9, 10, 11, 16). They gave themselves to prayer and to works of mercy.
If we listen to what the apostles said in Acts 6, they envisioned the required task as “waiting on tables” where the widows sat. It almost sounds like it was a directive to be “servants of servants.” Also, widows and orphans represented the lowest social classes in ancient Israel. It is, therefore, my belief that the essence of James’ scripture was to submit yourself in a “servant of the lowest servants” role versus trying to be an apostle or leader. And that servitude counted as devotion to God–and not as a new religion.
Bear in mind, I write this at the beginning of 2023 when church leaders everywhere are busily trying to (I’m assuming, for the best of reasons) get their projects added to people’s New Years Resolution lists. So they are pushing the aspect that being a servant is a necessary part of the Christian religion. I would maintain that Jesus isn’t interested in religion, especially if religion = legalism (legalistic observance of the rules and regs). He is interested in relationship.
So why this perpetual push toward legalism in the church? Here’s what I wrote in the Kingdom Series, Post #23: So why did people back off Acts (and continuously living in the miraculous)? I believe that well intentioned men thought they were supposed to try to enlarge the Kingdom themselves to make the King happy. I don’t believe that God was asking for huge cathedrals full of Christians—or religious empires dedicated to His Name. He was asking us to seek Him; Essentially…He wasn’t looking for religion—He was looking for relationship. And bottom line, if God’s not running things, the devil sleazes his way in. Then we get centuries of Christian corruption on a massive scale—and horrific abominations like inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, and the holocaust.
This week I was reading a book by Dr. Michael L. Brown, which I believe also addressed this tendency toward leglism. But he was questioning how we got from several thousand observant Jewish followers of a Jewish Messiah to the tragic condition where the above abominations were committed:
“What happened, then, was this. At first the Jesus movement was entirely Jewish, recognized as another Jewish sect (like the Pharisees or Sadducees or Essenes), but over a period of centuries, a period longer than America has existed as the United States, more and more Gentiles joined the movement, and the Jewish believers found themselves between a rock and a hard place. The Gentile church no longer understood them, having lost sight of their Jewish roots…and basically saying to them: ‘If you want to be part of us, you have to give up your Jewishness…’ 1
Why? Actually, the change…began when Gentile followers of Yeshua failed to heed Paul’s exortations. ‘Do not be arrogant, but be afraid,’ he wrote to the Romans (Rom 11:20), with specific reference to their attitude toward Israel. ‘I don’t want you to become conceited…’ He did not want these Gentile believers to forget that God had made room for them to share at the table with their older Jewish brothers and sisters (the Messiah’s own people!) … ‘Again I ask: Did they [meaning the people of Israel] stumble so as to fall beyond recover? Not at all!’ (v. 11). He was emphatic that God’s promises to his chosen nation would ultimately come to pass (vv. 11 – 16).” 2
I think we can condense this down and propose that the continual drive toward legalism may be caused by….pride–and trying to please God without bothering to find out what He really wants–because, heck, we know better than Him right? 😦
And in conclusion, I believe that James wasn’t advocating specific behavior. He was saying that man’s devotion to God would be demonstrated by submission (and I’ll add…first to God, and then to fellow people no matter how low they might be on the social scale).
++++++++++++
1Michael L. Brown PhD, The Real Kosher Jesus (Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine Charisma Media/Charisma House Book Group, 2012), pp 30 – 31.
2Ibid., p. 40.
Cross-Denominational Bible Study 