God opposes the proud: James Cone,white theologians,and Proverbs 3:34

Why this article?

When asked to write this article, I immediately said yes. I have wanted to work through more thoroughly the relationship between the God who opposes the proud, liberation theology, and evangelical theology. More than a simple academic query, however, is behind the desire to write this article. I am a white evangelical who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama and now live in Memphis, Tennessee—yes, the Birmingham of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and the Memphis where King was assassinated. Between these two cities, my family and I have lived on the North Shore of Boston, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Princeton, New Jersey. Though the racial history of Birmingham and Memphis may be more recognizable because of our national history, the insidiousness of racism is no less present in the other places where I have lived. The narrative of racial injustice is a central unifying thread of these United States. Yet, racial injustice is also a powerful force tearing apart our country at its seams in our cities, churches, and families, as it has been for centuries now.

These experiences have shaped much of my ministry, especially over the past several years. I have been working to understand this narrative better and to minister in such a way that genuine healing can take place through the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ministry of the local church. Throughout this work I have consistently needed to confess and repent of my own sin in perpetuating racial injustice. These years have not been easy, but they have been necessary. They have been full of frustration and grief, but also of hope and joy. Such is the Christian life as we await the final declaration from the throne: “Behold I am making all things new” (Rev 21:5). ⁶ While we wait, there is work to be done. In part, this work includes reading, listening to, and engaging in dialogue with those with whom we may disagree on important issues but with whom we also share common concerns. Such work is necessary if we are to love mercy, do justice, and walk in humility together. Thus, over the years, James Cone has been an important conversation partner for me.

Reading Cone and the Bible with charity

When I say I am a white evangelical, I mean that I am white by virtue of the color of my skin and evangelical by virtue of my deeply held theological convictions. I doubt anyone would be surprised about my saying that Cone and I disagree on some rather significant theological matters. We also have shared convictions, however, that make meaningful dialogue and mutual learning possible. Cone believes that the Christian Scriptures and the cross of Christ are fundamental for doing Christian theology, as do I. ⁷ Cone also believes that any gospel that does not speak meaningfully against racial injustice is bankrupt, as do I. ⁸ Because we share important convictions and concerns, we have common ground and shared language from which we can argue differing viewpoints, learn from one another, and move the conversation forward. One could say that I am engaging Cone with Augustine’s key hermeneutical virtue: charity.

The matter of how one interprets a text is not a matter of moral or ethical neutrality. As Kevin Vanhoozer writes, “Life together is largely interpretation; good hermeneutics makes good neighbors. The Golden Rule, for hermeneutics and ethics alike, is to treat significant others—texts, persons, God—with love and respect.” ⁹ According to this hermeneutic, charity is the prime virtue for the reader. By “charity,” Vanhoozer means a posture of kindness, humility, and trust, or Christian love, rather than one of distrust and suspicion. He continues:

With regard to reading, it “is most honorable to believe that an author was a good [person], whose writings were intended to benefit the human race and posterity.” The first hermeneutical reflex, therefore, should be charity towards the author. If we come to a text believing that there is nothing in it, we are likely to go away as empty as we came. ¹⁰

To follow this hermeneutic would mean that when I read Cone, I believe him to be a good man who intends to write for the benefit of others, including myself; therefore, when I read him I anticipate that I will leave his texts better than when I came to them.

Reading in this way does not mean reading uncritically or agreeing with everything the author says. Rather, it simply means that the text is not mine to make of it what I will, but to first hear the author in good faith. In so doing, I not only honor the author as the author, but also benefit from the good of the written offering, fulfilling the hope of the author in his communicative act. Vanhoozer summarizes well: “There is something in the text that is not of the reader’s own making. The believing reader must not violate but venerate this ‘other.’ For readers come not only to knowledge but also to self-knowledge when they allow the text to have its say.” ¹¹ So, when I sit down to read Cone’s writings, I read them with this hermeneutic of charity or love.

Although I could read Cone this way, some may wonder whether I should read Cone this way. After all, Cone has extremely harsh words concerning whiteness and white theology. The hermeneutic of love could be strained by Cone’s concept of whiteness, yet this issue is precisely the point at which charity becomes the most beneficial. This hermeneutic does not allow me to assume that I understand what Cone means by whiteness, thereby coercing the text by reading my own definitions into it, and then dismiss what he writes on that basis. Rather, a hermeneutic of love calls me to respect the author’s intention in the text and let the text have its say by defining its own terms. If readers allow Cone to define his own terms regarding whiteness and white theology, they can hear Cone’s care for white people and his hatred for white supremacy.

Whiteness and white theology

To be sure, Cone uses strong rhetoric to speak against whiteness and for blackness. For example, he writes, “Christ dies not to ‘save’ [white Christians] but to destroy them so as to recreate them, to dissolve their whiteness in the fire of judgment, for it is only through the destruction of whiteness that the wholeness of humanity may be realized.” ¹² If I were to read Cone with skepticism and suspicion, I would find in this text every reason to dismiss Cone as one who certainly does not write for my benefit or the benefit of any other white person. Indeed, he seems to be writing to harm white people. Christ does not die to save white people, but to destroy them in the fire of judgment. And only through their destruction, Cone seems to say, can humanity truly flourish. Yet, if readers stop for even a moment, they realize this reading is highly improbable.

First, at the most basic level, this reading ignores the positive imagery in the text. Cone writes that Christ dies to recreate white people, a thoroughly biblical idea of new creation that runs throughout redemptive history. Second, this understanding of Cone reads the text apart from Cone’s larger work and thus mistakes whiteness for white people. Reading Cone charitably, then, requires that I not only see the hope implied in being recreated by Christ, but also relinquish the coercive power of the interpreter and let the text have its say in defining whiteness.

In several places in Cone’s writing, he makes clear that whiteness does not equal white people. For example, after writing that white people should become black and hate their whiteness, Cone writes:

It is to be expected that many white people will ask: “How can I, a white man, become black? My skin is white and there is nothing I can do.” Being black in America has very little to do with skin color. To be black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are. We all know that racist structures will reject and threaten a black man in white skin as quickly as a black man in black skin. It accepts and rewards whites in black skins nearly as well as whites in white skins. ¹³

Cone, then, does not define whiteness as people with white skin, but as those who practice white supremacy and racism. Whiteness and blackness is more about the nature of one’s heart as revealed by one’s actions than about the color of one’s skin.

Cone further clarifies how he thinks about the relationship between the color of one’s skin and the concept of sin. He writes:

There are black as well as white thieves, and the color of a person’s skin does not make wrong right. We are all—blacks and whites, men and women, young and old—sinners, and thus capable of exploiting the poor in order to promote our economic and political interests . . . We must not allow racial solidarity to distort the truth. Without class analysis, a global understanding of oppression will be distorted and its domestic manifestations seriously misrepresented. ¹⁴

Cone clearly articulates that the color of one’s skin does not determine right and wrong, righteousness and sin. Cone is interested in unveiling oppression and showing that, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, God opposes the oppressor and fights for the oppressed. Unpacking the symbol, in Cone’s theology God does not oppose people with white skin, but those who embrace white supremacy and racism.

Thus, when Cone opposes white theology, he opposes a theology he believes embraces white supremacy, not writings produced by people who have white skin color. In other words, Cone opposes the whiteness of white theologians. For Cone, a theology can embrace white supremacy in one of two ways. First, a theology can explicitly encourage white supremacy as God’s design for the world and seek actively to support and perpetuate it in society. ¹⁵ God clearly stands opposed to such theologies. Second, and more subtly, theology can simply be silent on the matter of white supremacy and racism. This second way of embracing white supremacy and racism is much more common and convicting. Cone asks a poignant question: “How can any theologian explain the meaning of Christian identity in America and fail to engage white supremacy, its primary negation?” ¹⁶ White theologians cannot simply let the question go unanswered. We must provide an account either by articulating why we do not address racial injustice when we write, teach, and preach, or we must end our silence and engage racism in our theology. I vote for the latter, and I believe that Prov 3:34 supports such a view.

Notably, Cone is not calling white theologians away from their strong grounding in the western theological tradition. On the contrary, Cone seeks to honor that tradition by contextualizing it in light of the American narrative. Indeed, he provides helpful examples of how one might apply the western theological tradition to racial injustice. Speaking of Athanasius, he writes:

To be sure Athanasius’ assertion about the status of the logos in the Godhead is important for the church’s continued Christological investigations. But we must not forget that Athanasius’ question about the Son’s status in relation to the Father did not arise in the historical context of the slave codes and slave drivers. And if he had been a black slave in America, I am sure he would have asked a different set of questions. He might have asked about the status of the Son in relation to slaveholders. ¹⁷

Cone is not denying Athanasius’ Christology but is seeking to contextualize that Christology to his own experience in the United States. This is the work of theologians.

Cone continues this line of reasoning by considering the Reformer Martin Luther. He writes:

Perhaps the same is true of Martin Luther and his concern about the ubiquitous presence of Jesus Christ at the Lord’s Table. While not diminishing the importance of Luther’s theological concern, I am sure that if he had been born a black slave his first question would not have been whether Jesus was at the Lord’s Table but whether he was really present at the slave’s cabin, whether slaves could expect Jesus to be with them as they tried to survive the cotton field, the whip, and the pistol. ¹⁸

Again, Cone does not deny that the discussion of the Lord’s presence at the Lord’s Table is important, but asserts that we can ask more questions about the Lord’s presence for our particular contexts, including questions of how Jesus is present in the midst of racial injustice. Cone’s main point in this imaginative exercise with Athanasius and Luther is that context often determines our most important theological questions. He writes, “My point is that one’s social and historical context decides not only the questions we address to God but also the mode or form of the answer given to the questions.” ¹⁹ Thus, given Cone’s context, whiteness becomes a symbol of oppression and blackness a symbol for the oppressed.

He uses whiteness as the symbol of oppression for a reason: the history of racism in the United States, in which those with white skin have been elevated to higher status and have used that status to oppress those with black skin. Slavery, reconstruction, the era of lynching, and the Jim Crow era were all based on white supremacy in which black people were systematically and systemically oppressed because of the color of their skin. White skin, therefore, has been a symbol of oppression and terror for the black community for centuries. If we hear “whiteness” with the edge and the care that Cone intends, then we can indeed seek to root out any racism that we might find in ourselves through careful reflection, confession and repentance of sin, and God’s cleansing us from sin. In this way, we can seek to embody a different narrative such that the time does finally arrive in which the black community in the United States no longer sees the usefulness of “whiteness” as a symbol of oppression. One aspect of achieving this goal is in our writing, preaching, and teaching—a topic to which this article now turns.

The God who opposes the proud

In Prov 3:34, “[Yahweh] mocks the mockers and gives grace to the humble.” Although this sentiment seems to align with liberation theology’s belief in God’s preference for the poor, Cone does not use this text to support any of his arguments. At first, this omission perplexed me as Cone could have easily used this text to buttress a basic tenant of his theology; however, Cone’s omitting this text is likely a strategic move. The exodus narrative and Isa 61:1–2/Luke 4:16–17 portray that in the gospel itself God is actively involved to liberate the oppressed and calls others to join him. One could use Prov 3:34 to argue that God’s response is more passive, calling the oppressed simply to endure their suffering, because God’s grace is with them in their humility, and he is fighting for them; however, to argue that God is passive in Prov 3:34 would be to miss the character of God revealed in the text. God actively opposes the mockers. This aspect of the character of God calls the proud mockers to humble themselves. The apostles James and Peter confirm this reading of Proverbs 3 as they both cite verse 34 and follow it up with the same command: humble yourselves (Jas 4:10; 1 Pet 5:10). Hence, the call to action is focused mainly on the proud mockers. The God who opposes the proud calls the proud to humble themselves.

Proverbs 3:34: God mocks the mockers

Any interpretation of Prov 3:34 turns on the identity of the mockers and the humble. One approach is to decide their identity simply based on lexicography. This approach often divorces Prov 3:34 from its context, looking elsewhere for a more robust meaning of the words involved. ²⁰ Though lexicography can be helpful, the meaning of individual words apart from context can only take the interpreter so far. Lexicography can supply a range of possible meanings, but the more precise identity of the mockers and the humble in Prov 3:34 requires reading this verse within the large context of the whole of Proverbs 3. This chapter within Proverbs focuses on a message to the wealthy. The overall thrust of the message is for those who have wealth to trust and fear Yahweh such that they honor Yahweh with their wealth. If they do so, then the riches inherent in wisdom will be theirs, even if they give up their material wealth for the sake of those in need. When one interprets Prov 3:34 in light of this immediate context, the reader can more specifically identify the mockers as the wealthy who refuse to love their neighbor in order to keep their riches, and the humble as the wealthy who love their neighbor with their riches. God’s opposition to the mockers and his giving grace to the humble, therefore, is a call to the mockers to humble themselves so they might receive grace.

The structure of Proverbs 3

One can break down the structure of Proverbs 3 in multiple helpful ways; ²¹ noting the larger structure of the chapter, however, might be the most beneficial for noting the overarching purpose for the chapter in its received form. The chapter consists of three larger sections addressed to “my son” (בְּנִי‎) in Prov 3:1, 11, and 21. ²² The first section of the chapter (vv 1–10) begins with general instruction to follow the ways of wisdom, encouraging the reader with the benefits of following wisdom. If the addressee will not forget wisdom’s teaching and will keep the commandments, then a long and healthy life awaits, as well as favor from God and fellow humans (vv 1–4). The child then receives instruction in terms of contrasts between Yahweh’s desire and the child’s own. Proverbs 3:5 encourages trust in Yahweh and not leaning on one’s own understanding, and Prov 3:7 instructs fear of Yahweh and not to be wise in one’s own eyes. ²³ .

The first section then closes with a final positive command, “Honor Yahweh with your wealth” (v 9), and a statement of the blessing that results from following the commands to trust, fear, and honor Yahweh. Although the first section of Proverbs 3 begins with general admonitions toward wisdom, the focus turns specifically to wealth in Prov 3:9. The implied parental instructor commands the child to honor Yahweh with your wealth. The one being addressed, then, possesses the wealth and is to honor Yahweh with it. The remaining sections continue to address “my son,” implying that the message of Proverbs 3 is for the one who has attained this wealth. One can either trust and fear Yahweh and learn to honor Yahweh with one’s wealth, or one can follow one’s own way. The remainder of the chapter functions to encourage the child to follow the way of Yahweh, beginning with an extravagant picture of the riches found in wisdom.

The second section (vv 11–20) begins with instruction not to reject Yahweh’s discipline or rebuke, because Yahweh does these in love as a father does for his son (vv 11–12). The remainder of this section (vv 13–20) then turns to an elaborate description of the riches inherent in wisdom. The overall picture the text paints is one of riches that cannot be attained from mere human effort or shrewd business dealings. Hence, wisdom’s value is better than silver and greater than gold (v 14), and more precious than jewels (v 15). Wisdom provides length of days and honor (v 16). She is a tree of life (v 18). ²⁴ This description of the riches that surpass anything attained by human effort might explain why creation imagery appears in verse 13 and again in verses 18–20. The wisdom of Yahweh the creator is the only source of such wealth. Hence, the unifying theme between 3:1–10 and 3:11–20 is wealth. The first section commands trust and fear in Yahweh so that one may honor Yahweh with one’s wealth. This second section provides motivation as to why one ought to follow the instruction from the first section. The riches to be gained in following wisdom are far greater than the riches to be gained by hoarding wealth. ²⁵

The third section (vv 21–35) begins in much the same way as the first two, setting out with a command not to lose sight of wisdom and recounting the blessing that comes from wisdom (vv 21–26). Proverbs 3:27–31 moves the text from general instruction about wisdom, her counterparts, and her blessings to specific commands for loving one’s neighbor. The text states each command in negative form. Do not withhold good from your neighbor who is in need when you have the ability to help (vv 27–28). Do not plan harm against your neighbor (v 29). Do not quarrel with your neighbor without cause (v 30). Do not envy the ways of a violent person (v 31). The chapter ends by returning to more general wisdom statements that include not only the positive blessings of wisdom, but also the negative consequences that come for the fool (vv 32–35). This third section finally presents the specific verse in question: “[Yahweh] mocks the mockers, but gives grace to the humble.” The larger structure noted above invites the reader to interpret the mockers and the humble with the rest of Proverbs 3 in mind. In so doing, one finds a call to the mockers to humble themselves in light of Yahweh’s opposition to them.

The call to humility

The larger structure of Proverbs 3 reveals an orderly arrangement to the chapter, but the chapter could comprise three separate sections that do not necessarily relate to each other or prove beneficial for mutually interpreting one another. A closer look, however, at the commands and rewards throughout the chapter reveals a unity that invites the reader to interpret the three sections together. As noted above, the first section contains three positive commands: trust (בְּטַח‎), fear (יְרׇא‎), and honor (כַּבֵּד‎). These three roots are repeated in terms of the reward of wisdom later in the chapter. Thus, the one who follows the command to trust (בְּטַח‎) Yahweh (v 5) will walk safely (לָבֶטַח‎) along his way (v 23). The one who heeds the command to fear (יְרׇא‎) Yahweh (v 7) will not fear (אַלתַּיְרׇא‎) the destruction that is coming for the wicked (v 25). The one who obeys the command to honor (כַּבֵּד‎) Yahweh (v 9) will receive honor (כָבוֹד‎) as a reward (vv 16, 35). Furthermore, grace (חֵן‎) is a reward for following wisdom (vv 4, 22, 34). Thus, not only does the text suggest a unified flow of thought throughout the chapter, but the recipient of the instruction and the reward for following wisdom remain consistent throughout.

The thrust of the chapter describes the reward for those who trust and fear Yahweh in such a way that they are willing to honor Yahweh with their wealth. Trusting, fearing, and honoring Yahweh come to concrete expression in loving one’s neighbor with whatever wealth one obtains (vv 27–32). In return, wisdom rewards with far greater riches than the wealthy had before (vv 13–20). If the one who is wealthy follows wisdom, then that one is counted with the upright, righteous, humble, and wise. If the wealth is not used wisely, especially in serving one’s neighbor, then one is counted with the devious, unrighteous, mocker, and fool. They stand under Yahweh’s curse, awaiting dishonor. The identity, then, of the humble in 3:34 is the wealthy one who has trusted, feared, and honored Yahweh with his wealth by loving his neighbor. Thus, the implied command to the wealthy “son” of Proverbs 3 is to humble oneself in order to receive grace from Yahweh, rather than being mocked by Yahweh as one has mocked others. In other words, if the wealthy “son” humbles himself, then he will join the ranks of the humble (עֲנִָיים‎). ²⁶ In the language of James Cone, this process could be a biblical example of whiteness being recreated into blackness through humility.

Heeding the call to humility

Proverbs 3 reveals what loving God and neighbor looks like in time and space. The structure seems to say that right relationship with God moves one to right dealings with one’s neighbors. ²⁷ Indeed, the specific commands concerning what one should not do reads as though the author of Proverbs was summarizing the history of white supremacy in the United States. Segregation withheld goods that black Americans were due—goods that white Americans had the power to give. In the era of lynching, white Americans consistently, wrongfully accused black Americans of crimes they had not committed, leading to their harm. White slaveholders did not pay the workers their due and practiced envy and violence. All of these injustices were based on the elevation of a group of people because of the color of their skin.

Although taking on different and more subtle forms, racism continues in the United States. In his commentary, Paul Koptak applies Proverbs 3 directly to this racial injustice. He writes, “Perhaps there is no greater opportunity for the practice of šalom in the American church than the work of racial reconciliation, since it is here that the church is given the chance to heal and restore what has been held back for so long.” ²⁸ Koptak draws upon Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, but reminds his readers that King began with a different metaphor—a monetary one reminiscent of the language found in Proverbs 3. King proclaimed in his inimitable style:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we’ve come to cash this check—a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. ²⁹

As Koptak points out, one can hear the echoes of Proverbs 3 in the words of King. Do not withhold good from your neighbor. Do not hold until tomorrow what you could give now.

For white theologians, answering the call to humility should be teaching, preaching, and writing about the continuing racial injustices we see and applying our work to call out those injustices and help heal those harmed by injustice. If we never, or even rarely, address such issues, then we are withholding a good from one to whom it is owed. To do helpful theological work, many of us will need to start, not in the pulpit or at the computer, but in the library and the study. ³⁰ We will need to expand our reading to include authors like James Cone and others from whom we can learn new things, even as we acknowledge significant differences, engaging these authors with a hermeneutic of love. I hardly know where to turn, but I am thankful for colleagues that can point me in the right direction and are humble enough to do so.

We might also need to develop relationships with others who have had different experiences and learn the questions that they are asking, and even learn how they have begun answering them. Addressing the questions of the nation as a whole will seem overwhelming and hopeless. Few can engage at that level, and, for the majority of us who desire to do something, we must begin thinking and working locally—seeking to understand the history of one’s city, town, neighborhood, or even one’s neighbor. As I write these words, these actions seem like doing so little, but they also seem like a good start. The good news is that, if doing these small actions is participating in the call to humility from a text such as Proverbs 3, then we can expect the grace of God to go with us and the riches of wisdom to be waiting. Helpfully, the New Testament letters of James and 1 Peter support reading Prov 3:34 as a call to humility, elaborating on what it might mean to humble ourselves.

James: Humble yourselves before the Lord

Among the books of the New Testament, only James and 1 Peter quote Prov 3:34. Both texts read, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” As Luke Timothy Johnson argues, James does not quote Proverbs arbitrarily, but grounds his argument firmly in the larger context of Proverbs. ³¹ In part, Johnson argues the importance of Proverbs for James because “the context of Prov. 3:34 finds a number of intriguing echoes in James 3:13–4:10.” ³² In other words, James seems to be reading Prov 3:34 in light of the larger context of Proverbs 3 as we have done above. Although James only directly quotes verse 34, the surrounding context of James reveals multiple similarities to the context of the rest of Proverbs 3. See Table 1 for the list of Johnson’s echoes of Proverbs 3 in the book of James.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s Echoes of Proverbs 3 in James.

Proverbs 3	James
God’s wisdom as the basis of reality (v 19)	3:17
Following wisdom is the way to receive God’s favor (vv 22, 34)	4:6
This means walking in peace (v 23)	3:17–18
Not taking away from the needy or saying to them that they will be helped later (vv 27–28)	2:15–16
Not envying the ways of the wicked because their way is unclean (vv 31–32)	4:7
The curse of God is on the household of the impious, but the righteous will be blessed (v 33)	3:9
The wise will inherit glory but the impious will raise up shame (v 35)	1:12

These echoes are sufficient to argue that James had the larger context of Proverbs in mind, but Benjamin Lappenga notes that even more resonances are apparent. ³³ Table 2 shows these additional resonances as articulated by Lappenga.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Benjamin Lappenga’s resonances of Proverbs 3 in James. ^a

Proverbs 3	James
Fruit of righteousness (καρπῶν δικαιοσύνης, v 9)	3:18 (καρπος . . . δικαιοσύνης)
The wise will inherit glory, but the impious have exalted dishonor (ἀτιμίαν, v 35) b	Dishonoring the poor (ἀτιμάζω, Jas 2:6)
Language of exalting (ὑψόω, v 35)	4:10
Language of humbling (ταπεινός, v 34)	4:6, 10 (ταπεινóω)
Showing mercy (ἒλεος, v 16)	3:17
Doing good (καλός, εὖ, ἀγαθός vv 17, 27, 28)	3:13, 17
Quarreling (μάχη, μάχομαι) and enmity (ἒχθρα, φιλεχθρέω) as a cause of evil (v 30)	4:1, 2, 4
Warring cravings (v 22)	4:1 (ἡδονή)
Healing through peace (εἰρήνη, v 17, 23)	2:16; 3:17–18
Planning evil (κακός, v 29)	4:3, κακῶς
Planning evil against a neighbor/friend (vv 29–32)	Friendship with the world (φίλος εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου, Jas 4:4)
Zeal (ζηλόω, v 31)	Zealous (ζήλος, Jas 3:14, 16; 4:2)

a

This table adapts a paragraph in Lappenga, “James 3:13–4:10,” 997.

b

Proverbs 3 also contains language of honor (vv 9, 15).

In addition to this list of shared terms, Lappenga also notes that James uses terms similarly to the way that Proverbs 3 uses them:

Like the writer of Prov 3, James uses the language of ζήλος to caution against strife and murderous desire (Jas 3:14, 16; 4:2). Already it becomes clear that James’s usage mimics the way Prov 3:31 links ζήλος with the neglect of the needy (Jas 3:17; Prov 3:27), distorted friendship (Jas 4:4; Prov 3:29), and emulation of the ways of evil and violent people (Jas 4:2; Prov. 3:31). ³⁴

In other words, James not only uses the same words as the author of Proverbs 3, but also uses them in the same way and for the same purposes. The work of Johnson and Lappenga supports reading James’s citation of Prov 3:34 within the broader context of Proverbs 3 as a whole. Furthermore, on a broader thematic level, James’s letter shares with Proverbs 3 a strong concern for the relationship between rich and poor (Jas 2:1–13; 5:1–6). The influence of Proverbs 3 on James 4 is so strong that Richard Bauckham argues:

It becomes clear that Proverbs 3:34, read in relationship with 3:33, 35, is for James a hermeneutical key to the wisdom literature. It allows him to read the literature’s contrast between righteous and wicked, wise and foolish, as also related to low and high status, and to the theme of reversal of status, according to which God exalts the lowly and the poor and brings low the arrogant and the rich. ³⁵

Whereas the author of Proverbs 3 does not explicitly state a command that rises out of God’s opposition to the proud, James, after citing Prov 3:34 in Jas 4:6, rattles off a series of commands. He commands the recipients of the letter to submit themselves to God and resist the devil (v 7); to draw near to God, cleanse their hands, and purify their hearts (v 8); to mourn and weep (v 9); and finally to humble themselves before the Lord so he might exalt them (v 10). This series of commands flowing out of Prov 3:34 seems to culminate in the command “humble yourselves.” In other words, James seems to be reading the main point of Prov 3:34 as the call to humility. The author may even understand this command as primarily toward the wealthy and those giving preferential treatment to the wealthy, as argued for Prov 3:34 above. James 1:9–11 would support such an argument, as the lowly brother is called to boast in his exaltation and the rich one is called to boast in his humiliation.

For James, part of humbling oneself includes confession and repentance of sin. Simply moving forward and working toward justice without confessing and repenting of prior injustice does little to heal wounds and cultivate trust across racial and socioeconomic lines. White theologians should consider the possibility of repenting of our pervasive silence on these issues and seeking forgiveness for not engaging injustices more than we have. James’s words to his recipients are quite strong, commanding them to leave aside their joy and laughter and turn to mourning and weeping. As we honestly reflect on the world we have inherited and the ways in which we have actively and passively perpetuated the injustices of that world, we will need to discern the proper way to respond in confession and repentance. At times, I feel the strong temptation to say that this sort of response is unnecessary and that we have moved beyond the need for such responses; no harm exists, however, in seeking to discover sin in our lives. The gospel can cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If our initial impulse is to reject the need for confession and repentance of sin, then we might need to heed the call to resist the devil and draw near to God. Confessing sin will harm no one; unrepentant hearts will provide a foothold for the enemy.

First Peter: Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God

First Peter’s use of Prov 3:34 continues the call to humility by taking aim most clearly at church leadership. First Peter 5:5 cites Prov 3:34 but is not as concerned with the broader context of Proverbs 3 as James is. Though this may be true, 1 Peter and James contain a significant amount of shared concerns and ways of arguing. Table 3 briefly outlines these similarities.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Richard Bauckham’s parallels between 1 Peter and James. ^a

Similarity	1 Peter	James
Various trials	1:6–7	1:2–4
Being born again	1:23	1:18
Citation of Isa 40:6–8	1:24–25	1:10–11
Covering a multitude of sins	4:8	5:20b
Call to humility	5:5a	4:8, 10
Citation of Prov 3:34	5:5b	4:6
Call to humility	5:6	4:10

a

This table is an adaptation from Bauckham, James, 155. I have added a column explicitly stating the similarity between the texts in James and 1 Peter.

Notably, the concentration of similarities cluster around the citation of Prov 3:34, including the call to humility on either side of the citation in 1 Pet 5:5. One more similarity could be added to Bauckham’s list—the call to resist the devil (Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:9). Despite the lack of 1 Peter’s resonance with Proverbs 3, 1 Peter still follows the citation of Proverbs 3 with the call to humility (1 Pet 5:6). The author of 1 Peter, however, calls both the leaders and those under the leaders to humility. Whereas James seems to be confronting sin in the recipients, Peter seems to be comforting its recipients in the midst of persecution from those outside the church. Thus, Peter’s call is a call not to imitate the ways of the world, but to serve one another in light of the trials from the outside.

Even though the emphasis of the command in 1 Peter regards mutual submission and could be paradigmatic for hierarchical social relationships in the book, ³⁶ 1 Peter does still use Prov 3:34 as a call to those in a position of power to humble themselves. In the verse immediately preceding the citation, Peter refers to elders in the church who are to shepherd the flock of God as God would have them (1 Pet 5:2). This sort of shepherding takes place under the watchful eye and coming judgment of the chief shepherd, God (1 Pet 4). Thus, in light of the God revealed in Prov 3:34, the God who opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble, these elders ought to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God so that they might be exalted in due time (1 Pet 5:6). Peter here reminds church leaders that God is coming in judgment. The question we must answer is how we have led the flock. With respect to racial injustice, have white theologians set an example of humility that if followed would lead to God’s favor or God’s opposition?

Conclusion

So what does all this have to do with the white theologian? J. Daniel Hays, author of From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, closes his book with sobering words:

Most of us know the theological truth of racial equality, yet we waver and remain tentative. We know the theological truth about race, but we still have strong ties to the old ways of our culture . . . Ultimately, of course, the Kingdom of Christ marches onward, with or without us. The White Church in the West does not define Christianity; indeed, the center of Christianity is rapidly shifting away from the Western world. ³⁷

Hays notes that Christ’s kingdom will move forward without us. Perhaps here the call to humility finds its chilling reality. If we know the truth of racial equality and refuse to humble ourselves, then the kingdom will move on without us. God’s opposition might be the cause of it, owing to our unwillingness to walk in humility and submit to the plan that God has to unite all nations as one people under one king, Jesus.

In order to humble ourselves, we must seek confession and repentance, study and converse more broadly, and write more meaningful works that seek to cultivate racial justice where we are. Perhaps we must begin with who God is: God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. If we begin there, we might be strengthened to take our next step in humility. If we find the courage to humble ourselves, then perhaps we can resist the devil and draw near to God such that God draws near to us. If God is willing, then the untold riches of his wisdom and grace await us. These riches will look much more like the new creation than the current one, which would mean a far more colorful church experience. These riches surpass that which we can earn by simply pursuing safety in our careers and status in the guild.

James Cone should have the final word. He writes humbly:

Blacks and whites are bound together in Christ by their brutal and beautiful encounter in this land . . . Whites may be bad brothers and sisters, murderers of their own black kin, but they are still our sisters and brothers . . . We were made brothers and sisters by the blood of the lynching tree, the blood of sexual union, and the blood of the cross of Jesus . . . If America has the courage to confront the great sin and ongoing legacy of white supremacy with repentance and reparation there is hope “beyond tragedy.” ³⁸