The Wrong Respnse to Trials according to James

           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.

Strong, James. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990

---

The good reason for Trials according to the Book of James

One of the blessings that I've enjoyed over my summer break is having the time to memorize Scripture. My wife and I have begun again to memorize the Book of James. I am happy to say that I can get pretty well to the end of chapter 2. I plan on writing on Scripture memorization later, but for now I wanted to share what I've learned from my study of this great book.(BTW the picture above is of the Judean Wilderness where Jesus was tempted).

Verses 1:12-18, examined in this blog post, deal with the nature of temptations as a sinful response to trials and the nature of what God truly grants to those who are His. By way of background information, the theme of trials begins in 1:2, where James is asking his audience to consider it pure joy whenever they “face various trials of many kinds,” (NIV). His reasoning lies in the fact that the purpose of these trials of faith is their spiritual perfection, as it will develop perseverance (cf. v. 3), then maturity, and so on to completion (cf. v. 4). Despite the unpleasantness of the trial, James is telling them that the trials that they face do have a divine purpose, and because of the possible positive outcome (which is contingent on their perseverance) they ought to see these trials as a joy. Trials, therefore, can be seen as coming from God for their welfare. James then goes on in verse 5 in the same vein to describe how God grants wisdom to those who ask. He focuses here on the kind and generous manner in which God gives this wisdom, without finding fault in the person asking. The only conditional requirement that James brings up here is the unwavering faith of the one who asks. In following James’ train of argument, if the believer responds with perseverance, along with divinely granted wisdom, he will be perfected. I think that Martin Dibelius is correct in stating that verses 9-11 are unrelated with what precedes. 9-11 discusses separately the spiritual state of the poor and the rich; however, James goes back to the theme of our response to trials in verse 12f then the theme nature of God’s gifts and giving from verse 5 to verses 16-18. Verses 9-11 are speaking to the spiritual aspects of poverty and wealth and not about trials per se.


The Right Response to Trials

Verse12 then begins with James giving more information on what the desirable repose to the trials of life ought to be. He again goes back to the theme of the perseverance that should mark our reactions to trials by writing that such a man is “blessed” (NIV). Kurt A. Richardson in his commentary notes that “blessed” (makarios) here in the Greek ought to be understood in light of Jesus’ Beatitudes on being “blessed” (cf. Matthew 5:3-11). An emotional happiness is not likely the direction that James is taking his audience as a motivation for persevering through trials, but rather, in light of verse 3, a motivation to prove one’s right standing in his faith in God. The blessedness is the knowledge that one has a true tested faith and thus a strong relationship with God, which has stood despite external pressures which would threaten one to doubt his faith. This point of view is strengthened further in light of Jesus’ Beatitudes, which no doubt James had in mind here. The Beatitudes enumerate the various trials that one faces who possesses a faith in God, and which will be tested by external hostility, be it for example mourning (Matt 5:4) or persecution (Matt 5:10). The “blessedness” James is writing about thus marks a person’s standing in the Kingdom of God, and thus a right standing with God as His subject.

The man who perseveres under trials will be blessed in an ultimate way by receiving the “crown of life.” The meaning of this term is a picture of the eternal life that God grants to the true believer. Evidence for this is where Jesus Christ uses it in His letter to the Church in Smyrna, in a very similar context, where He is exhorting the Church to persevere (Rev. 2:10). In that letter Christ is telling the Smyrnian Church to persevere to the point of death. This context renders the term “crown of life” as meaning life after death, not temporal life. Since James did not obtain this term from John, writing his letter several decades before John penned his letter from Christ’s dictation, it may have been a familiar word picture used in the early Church for the eternal life given to believers from God. In both usages, the believer is encouraged to persevere through trials to obtain the “crown of life.” This reward for perseverance is only for those who love God, and who have as a consequence been promised this crown.

In a simple reading, it is clear that the giving of the crown is contingent on the recipient both loving God and persevering under trials. A harmonization of these two contingencies is easily obtained by recognizing that the trial is for the purpose of proving their love for God. Where there is no perseverance there is no genuine love, thus rendering the promise of God non-binding.

A Review of William Paul Young’s “The Shack”

I spent some time this summer reading The Shack after it was brought up in a sermon at our church then by my mother in law who was encouraged to read it. Before this I had never heard of it. But apparently it has spread like a flame among Christians. At the time of my writing this review it holds a 4 star rating at Amazon.com and can boast over 4,300 reviews. It can also glory in endorsements form celebrities ranging from Christian musician Michael W. Smith to Wynonna Judd.

I wound up spending more time reading this book than I wanted to, so I hope that this review will save some folks from wasting time in reading it. From the outset I want to say that I understand where the author, William Paul Young is coming from. He grew up as a missionary kid, so he has some grounding in theology. The aim of his book is a two pronged exploration into a relationship with God. The first prong is a theodicy, or in other words an explanation of how evil can exist in God’s universe. The second prong is an attempt at explaining the relationship people can have with the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Young gives us a theodicy through the experiences of a fictional character named Mack, who was physically abused by his Christian father and whose daughter was killed by a serial murderer. Due to these events, Mack had grown distant from God holding, grudges against Him. One day Mack gets a letter from God asking him to meet in the shack where his daughter’s murder took place. There he meets God, who goes by “Papa” (a derivation of the Biblical Abba [Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6]) and who is seen in the form of an African American motherly woman. He also meets Jesus who is a Jewish carpenter in jeans, and the Holy Spirit, who appears as a young Asian woman named Sarayu (which is Sanskrit for “fast moving” or “air,” “wind”). The purpose of the author in representing the three persons of God with these characters is due in art to Mack’s skewed image of “father.” So instead of presenting the Father as a male, He (or she in this case) is presented as a motherly figure. “Papa” being represented as African seems to lie in the author’s deconstructionist agenda which is seen throughout. Mack had seminary training, and so he must go through a series of encounters with the Trinity to deconstruct then reconstruct his theology. As far as the Theodicy goes, Mack sees that God allows pain and suffering, and still holds a great love for His creatures. But the ultimate reason for Mack’s particular suffering is not given, because he would not understand (p. 224). Mack sees his daughter in heaven and his father too, both in bliss. Thus he is able to drop his grudge against God, and even ultimately against the murderer of his daughter following God’s example of forgiveness.

The second prong of The Shack is to make the Trinity ore accessible to the reader through Mack’s weekend with God. The glaring issue with Young’s personification device is that not only is the Father and Spirit female, but that they are personified as humans at all. To do so with the Son is in keeping with Biblical truth, that He became truly man and remained truly and fully God. Mark Dever actually gives a good critique on this point, that Young is presenting goddess worship where God clearly throughout all of Scripture desires to be seen as male (occasionally as neuter in the case of the Holy Spirit).  I was very uncomfortable getting close to this character that was supposed to be the eternal Father, being called here “Papa” and referred to a “she.” All of the good feminine instincts that Women have are a refection of God's nature as equally as a man's. Even Jesus said that he desired to gather Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. Nevertheless, when God wants to be called a "he" we ought to submit to Him and do so. Another big problem I had with this personification device is that it falls so far short of the actual Trinity, in that it reads as tritheism (or having three gods). This is in fact closer to the Islamic charge of having three gods that they hold against Christians. God is represented in Scripture as being spirit, not material (John 4:24). He is also said to not be a man (Numbers 23:19). God is not any race of humanity, nor does He prefer, for their is neither Jew nor Greek, but we are all equal in Christ. 

What the book is conspicuously missing is the means by which we are restored to a relationship with God. The book indicates that all of the characters are already believers, and thus only need to be realigned to God. Salvation thorough faith alone in Christ alone is not mentioned. An unbeliever coming to this book would walk away with warm feelings for God at best.

In the end, I did not understand the Trinity better, but instead I had to wade through a lot of glib and emotional theology which felt more than anything based on the subjective position of the author. I know that he was attempting to do us a service in bringing us closer to God, but what wound up happening was he gave us a strange surreal fantasy that at best echoed Biblical theology sometimes. C. S. Lewis in his Narnia series does a much better job at this. But even he fails and lacks the real beauty and truth presented in God’s Living Word. Go there for your understanding about God, not to this broken cistern.

-MKB

The Holy Spirit in Society

Just as man can see the hand of God in the creation, so too is He involved in society. This area is trickier, since all that man lays his hands to is marred by sin from his very nature (cf. Romans 3:9f). Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit does not only work amongst men within the Church, on the other hand not every spirit working in the world among men is the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 6:12).[1]  The conclusion as to where the Holy Spirit has been operating amongst men can be tested be the resulting fruits (Gal 5:22), by which believers can also test the spirits (1 Jn 4:1).[2]

To what degree is the Holy Spirit graciously operating amongst the society and governments of the world is the next question. Karl Barth refused to relate God and man too intimately since he thought that doing so would mean that the power of God’s sovereign acts of grace would be nullified.[3] Contrary to the kind of intimate presence of God that Bath feared with sinners, there has been a trend to think that the Holy Spirit (being omnipresent and the influence of men wherever there is good and positive forces at work within them) can be known by them.[4] One sticky outcome of this view is to see the Holy Spirit at work in the positive aspects of other religions.[5] These views seem to place the center of God’s operations in the world in the realm of liberating men from oppressive systems of society for the betterment of mankind. To those who hold this view the Holy Spirit in its operations through men is to have a fullness of life.[6] The work of the Holy Spirit is seen where there is a struggle for justice, fullness of life, and the building of a loving community.[7] This kind of thinking aims the work of the Spirit at men and stops there. Rather, His goal is to testify to the Son for the spiritual redemption of men.

This begs the question whether the Holy Spirit can be recognized by unbelievers in the world by His works. Paul, in addressing the Areopagus in Acts 17, quotes some of the pagan Greek poets as being in alliance with the truth in God’s providence for mankind.[8] So there seems to be a glimmer of recognition from the natural man of God’s providence in the world apart from special revelation from Him. Those within the Church certainly can, in every Christ centered action in the world, as the Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ (Jn 15:26), but this is not true of those who are of the world. Jesus says about them, “The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” (Jn 14:16b-17a).[9] Despite any just cause that man may engage in or joy he might experience, the full presence of the Spirit or His purpose cannot be apprehended by them.

Conclusion

In closing, the grace of God is not without a limit to those who are wicked, which is the closing statement of Psalm 145, “The Lord keeps all who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy.” (v 20). The Spirit is abounding in grace to all of His creation. All of the fruits that mankind enjoys, from his very existence to whatever order and harmony can be experienced in human institutions are all from Him. It is clear from the joys in life that God does have a concern for creation and even for unredeemed man, but it is not an all encompassing love enjoyed by believers, nor will it be enjoyed by unbelievers in the world to come. Even though all of God’s creatures participate in God through the Spirit by virtue of the fact that they are alive at all,[10] it is not the kind of participation that is in the slightest bit redemptive, unless He should choose to grant to them His special providence in salvation.

Posted by: MkB

---

[1] Michael J. Oleksa. “The Holy Spirit’s action in Human Society: an Orthodox Perspective,” International Review of Mission 79 (Jl 1990): 332.

[2] Ibid, 332. Of course John here is referring to the content of the Gospel message delivered by all ministers.

[3] This is only possible if you see God as imminent with sinful man. Jerome L. Ficek. “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Contemporary Thought,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 3.3 (Summer 1960): 70.

[4] Ibid, Ficke do a good job of tracing this trend throughout his article.

[5] Ibid, 72. Ficke recognizes in Van Dusen’s theology that the Holy Spirit can be a bond between “every living religion.” coming from the simplistic understanding that God has revealed Himself at all times to all peoples.

[6] See John P Brown. “The Holy Spirit in the Struggles of People for liberation and Fullness of Life,” International Review of Mission 79. (1 990): 273. He places the identification with the Spirit filled Servant in the struggle for liberation as the working of the same Spirit in people,

[7] ibid, 274. This line of thinking leads easily into Liberation Theology, where the purpose of God is political justice, not in the saving of souls to His own glory. To the contrary, very human institution that governs men is established by God, and bears of power for His purposes (cf. 1 Pet 2:13-14). Jesus did not start a politically revolutionary movement.

[8] Acts 17:28  'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' From this verse John Calvin recognized the Holy Spirit as maintaining life and continuing the administration of creation. But this is coming from a Christian standpoint.  Jane Dempsey Douglas, “The Lively Work of the Spirit in the Reformation,” 130.

[9] Ibid, 335-336. Oleksa, coming from an Orthodox background, believes for this reason the Church is to be over the World either approving or disapproving its developments in society, but not to allow the world to subject the Church to it’s progressive standards.

[10] Veli-Marti Karkkainen, “The Working of the Holy Spirit in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” Pneuma 26/1 (Sp 2004): 25.

The Holy Spirit’s Grace to all Mankind

Amongst the gracious acts that the Holy Spirit manifests on earth is the giving of life to them. An early reference of this action is seen where God breathed His Spirit into Adam to bring him to life (Gen 2:7). Later in Genesis 6:3 He was grieved that He had made man at a time when man’s sin was multiplying upon the earth (Genesis 6:5-6). In that context, the Spirit of God is that aspect of His presence that bestows life, since He councils with Himself to reduce man’s years from the multiple centuries that he had hitherto enjoyed. So in this verse it is evident that the Holy Spirit gives life to every man; not just Adam. But what is also evident is that it is the Spirit who keeps people alive after they are born. This is evident where He says that He will no longer contend with sinful men and their lives are shortened by the removal of His Spirit. Thus, the very fact that men are living despite their wickedness is evidence of the grace of God to them.

The Holy Spirit’s grace towards all mankind can be encapsulated in the words of Jesus where He says, “…for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Mat 5:45). This sort of grace, which is given to everyone, goes by the term “general providence.” It is called “general” in that it is distinct from “special providence” which is reserved for believers and entails salvation, sanctification, and security.This is due to their drawing together towards a final culmination of the temporal world and all things are mediated from God through Christ (cf. Jn 17:2; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3). Dr Robert L. Reymond goes so far as to say that the reason that common grace exists is as a platform upon which special grace is built with Romans 8:28 in view, where all things work together (i.e. common grace) for those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose (i.e. His special providence). A state of common grace is from whence every believer has sprung, and gone into a state of special, and saving grace.

One other way in which the Spirit blesses mankind is in the skills which men possess. It is not in vain that we speak of talented people as being “gifted.” Clement of Alexandria in reflecting upon Exodus 31:2-5 saw the connection between artistic talent and the Holy Spirit. Clement claimed that artistic talent and invention was from God, but he did not go so far as to say that men have the diving prerogative of creation. He believed that the best kind of beauty was spiritual beauty as brought about by the Holy Spirit as compared to transitory temporal beauty.

Jonathan Edwards went further in seeing the beauty of the Holy Spirit in the world wherever there is order and harmony. Edwards was operating within the 18th century concept of harmony and order as an expression of beauty. The love that God has for His creation and for His creatures is the bond of the Holy Spirit for Edwards. Building from St. Augustan’s bond of love concept of the Holy Spirit between the Father and the Son, Edwards saw that same bond of love God has for His creatures being the Spirit also. For Edwards, wherever God sets His affection on believers, there too is the Holy Spirit as their connection with Him. The Holy Spirit touches men so as to “quicken, enliven, and to beautify things.” Edwards saw the ultimate expression of the Spirit’s beautification in the sanctification of men, and our greatest apprehension of that beauty in our participation in holiness. Thus it may follow that wherever man sees beauty and order the hand of the Holy Spirit can be contemplated as having wrought it.