In verse 13 James next moves on to examine the source of temptations as a wrong response to trials. The terms used for “trial” (v 12) and “temptation” (v. 13) are very similar in the Greek and are best differentiated by the context. Dibelius sees verse 13as distinct from verse 12 in context and in content, holding that the connection of the catchword, “is tempted” (peirazesthai) and “trial” (peirasmous), as merely external. Richard Backham sees how aphorisms and sayings are linked together as varied, along with catchwords, which may merely create a verbal connection or conceptually link similar aphorisms. The context is different in verse 12, where he is dealing with “trials” and persevering through them. In verses 13-15 he is clearly writing about “temptation” in the context of its resulting sin. In both of theses contexts, however, James is aiming at the reader’s reaction to what he sees as coming from God; he wants the reader to know for certain on the one hand that “trials” do come from God (cf. v 12) and on the other that “temptations” are not from God (cf. v 13a). Backham does think that link-words can connect conceptually similar sections which are not adjacent. Further support for the connection between verses 12 and 13 is in the translation of the two usages of the related terms in verse 13. Whereas the common translation is, “When tempted no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’”(NIV) translates both occurrences of this term as “tempt,” there are exceptions that capture the finer nuances of this term. An example can be found in the NJB, which translates this verse as, “Never, when you are being put to the test say, ‘God is tempting me,’” and in the TEV, “If we are tempted by such trials, we must not say, ‘this temptation comes from God.’ (emphasis mine) ” In these last two translations there is a flow of thought going from the subject of “trials” into the subject of “temptation” within verse13, which is perfectly valid within this context. Translated in this way, the argument that James is making, as stated in the introduction, revolves around our responses to trials. Peter H. Davids writes, “The claim that the test comes from God is not at heart a theological analysis but a placement of blame for failure, it is an accusation.” MacArthur, although he sees verse 13 dealing exclusively with temptations, makes the distinction of the usages of peirasmos as meaning “testing” if the person perseveres, and as meaning “tempting” if the person is lead to doubt or disobedience. James thus goes from exhorting us to persevere through trials in verse 12 to admonishing us to recognize the source of temptations that arise in periods of trials in verse 13.
James then forbids us to say that the resulting temptation is coming from God. In examining the cultural context, Dibelius notes that it was important for the Jews to protect God from being the source of the kind of evil that was found in the Hellenistic doctrine of fate. This view was adopted into Wisdom literature, where God is not the author of temptation or evil, but rather, Satan and Man. God was, therefore, the One who was unable to be tempted, and so tempted no one. Within this historical context, verse 13b and with the passive verb “tempted,” God is also, with James, the One who is unable to be tempted. Since God is unable to be tempted Himself, there is no reason, in James’ argument, no reason to think that He is the source of our temptation to “sin.” Although He may have a divine purpose for our going through trials, which ought to lead to our perfection, there are no grounds to claim that that same trial was meant to lead us into temptation. God would have no reason to do so.
Verse 14 proves that the source of our temptation is not God, and so James then moves forward to inform us of where they really do come from. He points to the evil desires within a man as that which “drags away” and “entices” him. “Each one” shows the universality of this mode of temptation faced by every human.The first term “dragged away” (exelko) and “enticed” (deleazo) are both hunting and fishing terms used for luring an animal into a trap or enticing a fish onto a fishing hook.James is saying that we have no power over our evil desires, but that they can have power over us. The “desire” (epithumia) that James points to, as that which lures us to evil, ought to be read in the context as simply a human desire as opposed to something God is luring a man to do. The NRSV closely captures the structure in the Greek, “One is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it.” It is simply a human proclivity to be enticed by one’s own desire. It seems like the terms are being used in a passive sense, as an animal is enticed or lured to its capture by its instinct for food, so too is a man enticed by his intrinsic sin nature. In going with the thesis of this paper that James is writing on our response to trials, Kurt A. Richardson writes, “This person [James’ audience] fails to understand the truth about himself and in incomprehension of the wisdom of God leads him to view his trial as a provocation to sin; therefore he sees trials as evil.” This ignorance, regarding of the source of temptations is a throwback to James’ exhortation for the audience to ask God for wisdom in verse 5, in order to avoid being “dragged away” or “enticed”.
Verse 15 then gets into the results of the temptations which have come about from the evil desires, as seen in the use of the Greek particle “then.” The results of the initial temptation are then described using the process of childbirth as a model. Dibelius recognizes here in verse 15 a form of catena, or “chain” to warn against the first member by pointing to the last member. The actual point of “conception” may be in the “dragging away” or the “enticement” of verse 14. It seems as if the temptation to react wrongly to a trial is not the actual point of “sin,”but may be the point of conception which may birth that “sin” if it is not aborted. Nevertheless, James’ focus is on the “desire” stemming from temptation, which is to be fought, since it will eventually bring about “death,” and not so much the process of how “sin” comes about.
The giving “birth to sin” in verse 15b seems to be the actualization or performance of the initial temptation. It has at this point become a reality, and an offence to God as wrongdoing.
The next phrase, “when it is full grown,” could mean that the one “sin” has been fully carried out in reaction to the initial temptation. This is true as far as it goes, but the larger context indicates that there is more to this “sin.” The growth of that “sin” is its maturation, being “full grown” through habitual practice, which may or may not be a further reaction to temptations in the face of similar trials. MacArthur holds this view, in terms of hamartiology and in light of 1 Corinthians 11:30 and 1 John 5:16. Dibelius agrees also, in that the indubitable personification of “sin” prevents the interpretation as a simple “sin” just accomplished, and so agrees with Luther’s interpretation in reference to its effect on the whole man, “When it is complete.” This is the man being taken over by the sin, and thus leading to his “death.” Loh and Howard hold this same view, writing that, “the ‘sin’ in this context is the result of a person who willingly allows his will to be lead by evil desire in disobedience.”
Verse 16 shows James’ concern for the audience’s understanding about God in writing them to not be self deceived. For further clarification, he lets them know that anything that leads a person down the path to sin and death is not from God, but rather, everything that is “good” and “perfect.” Such a thing as temptation is not characteristic of what God gives, and James in writing to his “dear brothers,” who are clearly Christians, ought to know the kind of gifts that God does give to them.
Verse 17 then gives some details as to the nature of God’s gifts. Everything that is “good” and “perfect” qualifies the “gift” that He gives. This may be a reference to the wisdom freely given in verse 5, or the “crown of life” of verse 12. Davids sees a vague connection with the “wisdom” of verse 5, that God does not send the test but rather sends the wisdom to enable us to stand the test.Although there is no direct connection with the “gift” to either the “wisdom” or “crown of life” here, they are still in harmony with each other. The goodness and perfection of God’s gifts are of the same nature in both sections.
No significance ought to be placed in the difference between “good gift” and “perfect gift,” the focus in the context is on the nature of what God gives, which is singularly good according to His nature. To tie in the larger context of what reader sees as coming from God, MacArthur notes that here that He has no responsibility for sin, but He does have complete responsibility for every “good thing” and “perfect gift”.
Verse 17b describes God as the “Father of the heavenly lights” (NIV). James may be making a direct allusion to Hellenistic and Jewish wisdom literature of his day; there is only a very vague connection. It is at least a reference to God as the creator of the universe in Genesis. “Who does not change like shifting shadows,” (NIV) is a term which is difficult to pin down in the Greek, (due to the varied readings and in understanding its precise meaning) and beyond the scope of this paper. It should be noted, however, that James’ focus is on the singular unchangeableness of God as James is comparing the changeableness of the heavenly bodies with the unchangeable creator of those lights. The greater purpose in the earlier context (cf. vv 13-15) is to communicate to his audience that things which God gives are not sometimes good and sometimes bad, even in shades of grey. This theological concept given by James is aimed at his audience’s response to trials, in that through them the one in the trial ought not to think that God is capriciously leading him into a venue of sin. Rather, the audience is to keep in mind when going through a trial that God is not capricious either in His nature or in the things that He gives to them.
Verse 18 then gives an example of what God gives, being itself singularly good. This verse is an extension of the preceding verse, as the “He” of verse 18 does not stand alone, but rather is in apposition to the “Father of heavenly lights” (v. 17). The same one who made the heavenly lights, and is unchangeable, is the same one who “chose to give us birth through the word of truth” (NIV). “He chose” in the Greek reads literally, “Having made his decision,” can emphasize God’s free will of grace to act upon humanity.
“To give us birth,” can have a few different meanings. One is could be the birth of the nation of Israel, which could work since James is writing to the dispersed tribes of Israel (cf. 1:1). A second meaning could be that this is a reference to the cosmological creation (of mankind), and a third is a soteriological rebirth.To clarify what James is talking about here, the qualifying statements about the giving birth is that it is done so by the “word of truth,” and for the purpose of being “a kind of firstfruits of all he created.” Dibelius writes that the cosmological view, if true, has a weak effect for James’ argument and would only be an allusion to something which is self evident. For clarification Moo points out that the “word of truth” is the most powerful indicator that James is referring to a soteriological truth, since this term in its other NT usages is of the Gospel. Moo sees the “word of truth,” according to the syntax, as the means of the birth leaving only the soteriological option as a valid choice. The Israel option could only be for those of them who had accepted the Gospel and likely James’ audience anyways (cf. 1:1).
The purpose of God’s “giving birth” is so that, James writes, “we would be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.” (NIV). The term “firstfruits” has connotations of the first fruits offered in the Mosaic sacrificial system, which was a representation of a whole harvest (cf. Lev. 23:10-11; cf. Ex 23:19; Deut. 18:4). Davids and MacArthur, in taking the soteriological view, see the “firstfruits” as a redeemed as a special holy portion of people, set aside as the best of creation, which will be redeemed in its entirety (cf. Rom 8:18-25).A direct parallel passage is Revelation 14:4, where the 144,000 are, “purchased among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb” (NIV). The weight of evidence is decidedly in favor of the soteriological view, in both the local and NT contexts.
The ultimate “good gift” then is the redemption of a set aside people. James’ usage of the first person plural in verse 18 both encourages and challenges the reader to persevere through trials, and to fight off temptations, to be sure that they are among these “firstfruits.”
Closing Remarks
The focus in this section of scripture is to exhort the reader to do the right thing when it is not easy to do so. James is intent on informing his readers on the spiritual reality of what is going on behind the scenes of these seemingly evil events that can take their faith to the breaking point. He wants them to understand why these things happen as to why God lets them happen, and what He wants their response to be. On the other hand, James wants them to be well informed as to why they are tempted to sin in these trials, leaving them with no excuse shift the blame onto God.
The significance for the Christian’s faith in these verses is great in that it clearly informs the believer as to why trials are for their spiritual good, rather than for their spiritual undoing. The scope of James’ addressees is universal to all believers, as every believer will encounter trials, so his impact with these verses is widespread. After studying this section, the reader ought to come away with a view that the trails that they face are of a tremendous benefit for their walk with God. This is due to the fact that their faith is tested and tried, and thus proven to be genuine. A false faith, one without a true love for God, would shake and crumble under stress, but the true faith will endure to the end, obtaining the “crown of life.” A better understanding of God’s nature, in His seeking the good of His children is clarified as well, bringing the reader to see that it is their good that these trials are allowed to come into their lives, so that they can say in the midst of them that they still love God truly.
The actions that I need to take after this study are to change my mindset about the trials of life. Instead of having anxiety about the future trials that I know will come into my life, I should rather look forward to them, in the sense that they will prove to be a great blessing in my perseverance. Not that I will enjoy the suffering, but I need to look forward to the greater good that God will cause to bring about in blessing me with the joy of assurance.
Bibliography of Works Consulted
Bauckham, Richard. James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage. NT ed. John Court. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Davids, Peter H. James. New International Commentary. ed. W. Ward Gasque. Peabody, MASS: Henkrickson Publishers, 1989.
Dibelius, Martin. James. Hermeneia. ed. Helmut Koester, trans. Michael A. Williams, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
Loh, I-Jin and Howard A. Hatton. The Letter of James. UBS Handbook Societies. New York: United Bible Societies, 1997.
MacArthur, John Jr. James. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1998.
Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eedermans, 2000.
Richardson, Kurt A. James. The New American Commentary. E. Ray Clendenen, David S. Dockery, eds. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment