Amos's River of Justice

Category: Christianity in the World

  • The Divinity of Jesus Christ

    Arianism is the issue that led to the Council of Nicaea. It is one example of a doctrine that questions the divinity of Jesus Christ.

    Arius (c. 250 – 336) believed that Jesus was just a man. His doctrine is now called Arianism. “Arianism affirmed a created, finite nature of Christ rather than equal divinity with God the Father.”

    Arius’s views were eventually denounced as heresy, but not before they divided the Church’s bishops. They caused so much turmoil in the early Church that the Emperor Constantine called a council to reconcile the factions. The final decision about this doctrine was composed at the council of Nicaea.

    I’m Against Re-litigating Arianism

    It is surprising to find that the divinity of Jesus is currently being litigated on YouTube as if the Council never happened. For reasons I will explain here, I am against re-litigating Arianism.

    But it is important to state at the beginning that this debate is connected to another important topic: the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In this article I will use Thomas Boslooper’s book, The Virgin Birth, to add the information that I wasn’t allowed to add on Wikipedia. Boslooper’s account indicates that Christian scholarship has a long history of skirting the topic of the virgin birth.

    There is Power in Christianity

    There is power in the Christian religion. Many people have testified of this. Based on my own experience, people of faith are not bothered by a critical approach to the virgin birth. However, a certain editor on Wikipedia was bothered so much that he became a thief. Then he bullied me and told lies about me for daring to write about it.

    Sincere objections can usually be overcome. However, on Wikipedia the insincere party has the ability to block anyone it disagrees with. This makes reconciliation, not to mention real understanding, impossible. I think it implies either a lack of faith or the desire for a public spectacle.

    Here on my own blog, I am at least able to write without interruption. The question remains as to whether anything I write will get through to anyone. And yet, I keep writing.

    My Cautious Approach to the Scholarship

    Before I begin, it is important to remember that the The Virgin Birth was published in 1962. Religious leaders have had more than thirty years to consider or make changes based on Boslooper’s arguments and criticisms. So, some of the criticisms may no longer be justified.

    I have noticed while studying James B. Adamson’s commentary on the Book of James that Christian theologians must be familiar with the findings of biblical scholars. Apparently, when they agree with those findings they are willing to make changes. What else can explain the omission of this phrase from the Lord’s Prayer, ‘And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil’?

    Boslooper Cites the Failure of Biblical Scholarship

    Boslooper was convinced that biblical scholarship had failed to present the kind of analysis of the story of Jesus’ birth that would serve as the basis of a satisfactory interpretation. He was mainly inspired by Oscar Cullmann’s1 disappointment when he could not find a single book on the virgin birth that presents a historical approach to the subject. The purpose of this book was to fill this need in biblical critical scholarship. The Virgin Birth is a history of interpretations of Jesus’ birth.

    Thomas Boslooper’s Introduction Summarized

    The subject of the virgin birth brings with it an entire history of interpretations. Christian communities have always taken different views on this part of Jesus’ story. There is also a history of responses from the non-Christian community.

    Beginning with Ignatius and continuing through Origen, the virgin birth was at the center of the Church’s controversy with the non-Christian world. The exact point of disagreement differed with every non-Christian community.

    The Debate With Jews and Gentiles

    With the Jews, Christians struggled to demonstrate the relationship of the virgin birth to the Old Testament. With the Gentiles, the discussion centered on the relationship of the virgin birth to other religious traditions.

    Meanwhile, within early Christianity itself the virgin birth had a positive effect over all with the development of Marian theology. A theology of Mary developed at the same time as a body of extra-canonical literature to support it.

    Protestant Christianity

    In Protestant Christianity, two main factions developed around the story of the virgin birth, supernaturalists versus naturalists. The supernaturalists considered the virgin birth historical. For them, it was an indispensable support to the whole structure of Christianity. The naturalists on the other hand, thought the virgin birth was unhistorical and therefore, unimportant.

    Examples of How Modern Historians Dealt With the Virgin Birth

    The story and doctrine of the virgin birth are treated as almost invisible by modern historians and contemporary theologians. They all tend to follow the naturalistic interpretation and attach it to a single historical or theological idea. Many of them treat the virgin birth in the narratives of Matthew, chs. 1 and 2 and Luke, chs. 1 and 2 as unrelated to the main story of Jesus. Boslooper gives several examples of historical treatments:

    • Harnack thought the virgin birth should be understood as the outgrowth of a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.
    • Lobstein proposed the view that the virgin birth is a myth created by popular devotion to explain the divine Sonship of Christ.
    • For Percy Gardner, the narratives of the virgin birth represent two separate attempts to give a date for the divine origin of Jesus.
    • Soltau saw the story of Jesus’ conception as an attempt at the end of the first century to reconcile the belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on the one hand, with the earlier tradition of his origin in Nazareth on the other.
    • Conybeare understood the virgin birth as a legend adopted by the Catholic Church to reconcile the Ebionite and Docetic parties.
    • Charles Guignebert argued that all the stories of the miraculous birth were a solution to a Christological problem that arose in the primitive community. This problem had to do with the conflict between the terms ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’.

    Contemporary Theologians

    According to Boslooper, Emil Brunner, Nels Ferré, and Paul Tillich oversimplify the problem of interpretation. They underestimate the significance of the virgin birth by linking it to the early Christian doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus. This association was not a positive development in their opinion. They thought it stood in the way of a true understanding of the incarnation.

    For Brunner and Ferré, the virgin birth obscures and obstructs the fact of Jesus’ true humanity.2 For Tillich, it represents one of the New Testament’s rationalizations. He thought it changed a positive religious concept into a negative form.3

    Positive and Negative Aspects in the Interpretation of the Virgin Birth

    On the negative side, the history of interpretation has been a history of error. The Old Roman Catholic Church maligned the Biblical narratives by transferring the chief emphasis from Jesus to Mary and from marriage to virginity. Following the Protestant Reformation, the rationalistic naturalists underestimated the importance of the narrative through their a priori judgments against miracle, and the theological supernaturalists by attaching the virgin birth to the deity of Christ and by insisting on the ‘literal historicity’ of the story removed Jesus’ origin from the context of history. Historical critics, by being obsessed with the compulsion to demonstrate what was the source from which the Biblical narrative was ‘derived,’ tended to deprive the church of the significance of the content of the story of Jesus’ virgin birth. (Boslooper pp. 20-21)

    But the history of interpretation has also had positive effects. Boslooper argues that it has provided insight and contributed to our understanding of the Biblical narratives.

    The Roman Catholic Church preserved the relevance of the virgin birth to personal morality. The naturalists have helped the church recognize the true moral character of the narratives and helped curb the abuses that appeared through apocryphal tradition. The supernaturalists have insisted on the importance of the story of Jesus’ origin and demanded that the church take the doctrine seriously. Historical criticism gave a proper literary classification to the virgin birth. It eventually recognized its true role in the world and provided the basis for understanding the content of its message. (Boslooper p. 21)

    The Crux of the Problem (In Boslooper’s View)

    Boslooper argued that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions took the virgin birth in the gospels as literal history. In this way they weakened the thrust of its morally redemptive message.

    The Catholics produced a Docetic theology of Mary, questioned the sanctity of sex, and idealized virginity. The Protestants used the virgin birth to prove the deity of Christ and to set forth a moral idealism attached solely to the person of Jesus. In these approaches the original message was lost. The original message was that moral order is to be established within the marriage bond.

    Boslooper’s Objection to the Literal Historical View

    Boslooper argued that ‘The virgin birth is ‘myth, in the highest and best sense of the word’. He thought both Roman Catholics and Protestants were wrong to insist on the ‘literal historicity of the narratives’. For him, the universal message of Jesus’ origin is the important thing. The ‘truth’ in Boslooper’s opinion, is found somewhere between the Roman Catholic tradition and the Protestant tradition.

    My Conclusion

    I will point out that Boslooper goes beyond presenting a history of interpretations of the virgin birth when he tries to explain the purpose of the story. It seems to me he exceeded his stated purpose with mere speculation.

    Why do I say this? The statement that the virgin birth is myth ‘in the highest and best sense of the word’ is one thing. Defining its purpose and limiting its influence to the attestation of the humanity of Jesus and the sanctity of sex and marriage is a bit high-handed. For one thing, even assuming it is myth, the inspirations or motivations behind the story can’t be known.

    However, the main problem might be that the question of Jesus’ divinity has been forgotten entirely. In what way is he divine? How might this divinity be possible for a human born to a woman?

    The Perspective of Faith

    The faithful who experience his divinity probably don’t need an explanation for it. Maybe that’s why so many scholars have treated it as unimportant or detachable from the rest of the story. The most I can do at this point is acknowledge that the virgin birth really is a difficult subject. One might argue whether it is a myth in the best sense of the word, but the virgin birth is definitely a mystery in the best sense of the word.

    1. Nels F. S. Ferré, The Sun and the Umbrella (1953), pp. 28-29. ↩︎
    2. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2 (1957), pp. 126-127, 149. ↩︎

  • Isaiah 43:19

    Isaiah 43:19: Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it?

    I think of this verse whenever I hear someone say that Jesus was at work in the world before the Christian era. If he was always here, how can he be a new thing? This is important because of the promises Jesus has given Christians. It is also important because there is another entity who has been here at least since the world was created: the prince of this world.

    In this article I will expand on Isaiah’s revelation of ‘the new thing’.

    The following is the entire passage from Isaiah 43:16-22.

    16 Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters; 
    17 Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow. 
    18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old. 
    19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. 
    20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen. 
    21 This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise. 
    22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. 
    (Isaiah 43:16-22  KJV)

    Political Theology

    When I wrote Justice of the Rupture, I was inspired by an article on the Political Theology Website. The article seemed to agree with my understanding that the birth of Jesus was a new thing in this world.

    Was Jesus a New Thing or Has He Always Existed?

    As I understand it, the claim that the Christ has always existed has two distinct sources. It can refer to a teaching of Hermeticism or to the decision of the First Council of Nicaea.

    The following is the decision of the First council of Nicaea:

    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion [τρεπτὸν in Greek; convertibilem in Latin] — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

    First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)

    My Paraphrase of the Decision and a Request for Correction if Necessary

    I understand this decision to say that Jesus was begotten of the substance of the Father. He has always existed, just as the Father has always existed. Therefore, it is not correct to say there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he did not exist. Or that he is made of a different substance or essence from the Father.

    I’m not a theologian and normally I would not attempt to analyze theology. However, an understanding of the Council’s decision has bearing on who and how we worship. I could be wrong, but the decision doesn’t seem to be explicit about Jesus’s pre-Christian working in the world, independent from the person of the Father.

    The Christ of Hermeticism

    One problem I see with Hermeticism’s claim that ‘the Christ’ operated in the world from the beginning, is the effect it has on our view of pre-Christian religions. If the Christ has always existed and he has taken part in the world from its creation, pre-Christian believers in those religions were wrong or evil. On the other hand, if Jesus was truly a new thing the ancient people were not at fault. They couldn’t be expected to conform to our understanding of the Christian religion. It is likely they were pressured to conform to the demands of another deity.

    Ancient Egyptians Were Compelled to Obey Their Gods

    The burial practices of ancient Egypt suggest that the Egyptians did not love their god or gods the way we love Jesus. Their deities compelled them to perform certain rituals in order to gain eternal life. And they found ways of hedging their bets.

    For example, it is interesting that the ancient Egyptians disguised the gender of women in their burial ceremonies. It was apparently the only way women could attain eternal life. If those deities had their way, women would not have been allowed in at all.

    In the ancient Egyptian mindset, only male divine beings such as Atum, Osiris, or Re had access to the powers of creation or resurrection (Bryan 1996; Roth 2000). Goddesses were believed to be protective vessels.1

    The Egyptians clearly knew what their deities demanded and yet they defied them in behalf of their women. I propose that those deities represented the prince of this world. If I’m correct about this identification, the prince of this world does not like women.

    I would argue that the Egyptian deities represent a hostile and indifferent cosmos; the same cosmos that was hostile to Jesus.

    The Baptism of Jesus

    According to the first chapter of Mark, something remarkable happened at the baptism of Jesus.

    In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.  And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)

    In the Political Theology article cited above, J. Leavitt Pearl argued that when the heavens were torn open it was an apocalypse. The voice from heaven had to burst through the cosmic order for the Spirit to descend on Jesus like a dove.

    Wikipedia’s Struggle Over the Virgin Birth Article

    When I wrote about my work on Wikipedia’s Miraculous Births article I concluded that Wikipedia’s editors must have an unspoken agreement that the Virgin Birth article should remain empty of content. Maybe they think such an article would be offensive to believers. (Wikipedia now has a separate article entitled Virgin Birth of Jesus. But the article, Virgin Birth, is still empty.)

    In my opinion, it is not necessary for Christians to deny virgin birth stories from other cultures. Those stories might resemble the pattern of the Christian story but their heroes are not comparable to Jesus. They belong to the ideology of earthly empires and have a different character. More importantly, they are not opposed to the prince of this world.

    The West’s Dalliance With Empire

    In this light, it is ironic that the West is currently being presented with the bellowing of empire-minded officials. It is especially revealing that their ideology comes complete with the denigration of women. Fortunately, their error has been carefully defined by scholars such as Robert Eisler.

    It seems our current ideologues have mixed up the metaphors not to mention the religions involved. They apparently don’t have the empathy shown by the ancient Egyptians. They have taken the side of the prince of this world.

    Orpheus the Fisher

    In his book, Orpheus the Fisher2, Robert Eisler had this to say about the development of Christianity:

    …I have certainly been deceived in my expectations of discovering early extensive and important Pagan influences on the initial formation of Christian ritual and cult symbolism. In 1908 I was still under the illusion–which I am afraid is even today cherished by many students of comparative religion–that primitive Christianity was, to a great extent, a syncretistic religion. In particular I had been strongly impressed by the statement of Eichhorn and other scholars, that we must look out for a pagan or, more exactly, an Oriental prototype for the Eucharist, since a sacramental, not to speak of a theophagic rite is unknown to the Jewish cult-system.(Eisler, Preface p. v)

    Here Eisler is telling us that due to the scholarly influence of his time he mistakenly connected the sacramental eating of fish and bread by Jesus’s disciples, with a hypothetical ritual of bread and fish-eating in pre-historic Canaan. But when he gave a lecture on this hypothesis he was criticized by a scholar named von Dobschutz-Strassburg. After further study, he came to the conclusion that the criticism was correct.

    By the time Orpheus the Fisher was published Eisler no longer believed in a connection between the Canaanite ritual and Christianity. He admits that there were later developments into a mystic theophagy and these had Pagan parallels, but pagan influences were not at work in the initial stage of Christian origin. Instead, the source of the Eucharistic rite is a purely Jewish ritual.

    Eisler went on to modify his views on similar problems. For example, he explains that although the deities of the mysteries seem to be similar to the Christian fisherman, those deities are cruel and unforgiving. Therefore, they do not resemble the character of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

    Jesus was not cruel. He was Isaiah’s ‘new thing’.

    1. Kathlyn (Kara) Cooney, Gender Transformation in Death: A Case Study of Coffins from Ramesside Period Egypt ↩︎

  • James 1: 16-17

    This entry is part 11 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James
    16. Make no mistake, my beloved brothers (I'm not arguing. I'm telling you):
17. Every good gift, yes, every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights of heaven, whose nature (unlike those lights) suffers neither the variation of orbit nor any shadow. 

James phrased this truth in a high-toned way. This tone has raised doubts and disputes among commentators. James B. Adamson restates James's meaning like this:

    All human good comes from the perfect Father of the universe.

    Three Ways of Interpreting Verse 17

    In discussing James 1: 16-17, there are three ‘notable’ ways of taking the opening words of verse 17. Adamson prefers that of KJV (King James Version) and RV (Revised Version). In addition, he cites Ropes.

    Ropes translation: Every good gift…is from above, coming down: i.e. taking from above as the predicate, with coming down as an explanatory expansion. 1

    Adamson follows this by comparing the alternative translations to the versions he favors. He argues that if we couple the word ‘is‘ with ‘coming down‘ it would express ‘comes down’ (Syriac version). This translation is less likely in style for this context. The same is true of T. Erskine’s “Every giving is good and every gift is perfect from above” or “from its first source” (see Hort). 2

    Concerning Erskin’s translation, Adamson argues it would be giving ‘from above’ a meaning it ‘cannot bear in this case. Also it would state that all God’s gifts are good, not that all good gifts come from God. A specific sense of meaning is required in both the verse and the context of this discussion. This is: ‘all good gifts come from God‘.

    It seems that James had in mind here some older Greek verses, which Adamson lists in note #106 on page 74. In his opinion, James was as willing as Paul (Acts 17:28) to use a ‘pagan hexameter‘ from an ‘extant hexameter’.

    The Focus in Verse 17 is on the Textual Problems

    Adamson thinks the meaning of the rest of verse 17 is clear enough. However, the words variation and shadow present some difficulties.

    Variation

    The word for variation is used only here in the New Testament. It is also used once or twice in the LXX (Septuagint). In Greek it expresses the setting of the teeth in a saw or stones set alternately. It could also be used for a sequence of beacons or seasons. Adamson prefers variation in the RV to variableness in the KJV for denoting some regularity or system in change.

    It is not necessary to interpret the word in a technical sense. It alludes to the light of the sun and its change from hour to hour and from day to night. Adamson considers this proper to the Greek of the Epistle of James in its reference to the variation of an object in constant orbit. It’s a question of whether the words are in grammatical agreement. He provides the Greek words in the notes.

    The genitive is a genitive of definition, ‘a variation consisting in turning,’ like ‘the city of Athens’ or ‘the gift of sleep. (Adamson p. 75)

    Shadow

    The word shadow is found only here in the New Testament. It is not found in LXX or Philo. There are three possible meanings.

    • The Shadow cast by an object, as in an eclipse (Plutarch ii. 891)
    • The Act of overshadowing
    • A reflected image
    James 1: 16-17

    None of these things can block God’s light. Nothing can interrupt the flow of his goodness, or put us ‘in shadow,’ so that we are out of the reach of his ‘radiance.’ Here Adamson quotes a hymn by Horatius Bonar:

    Light of the world! for ever, ever shining,
    There is no change in Thee;
    True Light of Life, all joy and health enshrining.
    Thou cans't not fade nor flee.
    1. J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James. ICC (1916). ↩︎
    2. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James. i. I-iv. 7 (1909). ↩︎
    3. ↩︎

  • James 1:15

    This entry is part 10 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James
    James 1:15

    Then his lust having conceived gives birth to sin: and when sin is full grown it brings forth death.

    James 1:15 reminds Adamson of Thomas à Kempis’s analysis of temptation (the phrase, à Kempis, indicates his home town of Kempen, Germany. His name is Thomas Hemerken ). Adamson believes James 1:15 and the other verses in this section inspired Hemerken’s analysis.

    At first it is a mere thought confronting the mind; then imagination paints it in stronger colours; only after that do we take pleasure in it, and the will makes a false move, and we give our assent..1 (Note 101a, p. 72)

    Adamson Demonstrates the Theology and Psychology of the Process

    • Stage One: I see something in a shop. I say to myself: “I should love to have that–but I can’t afford it.” That is the first stage. I am feeling the pull and lure of the bait, but I have suffered no more harm as yet.
    • Stage Two: “I know! I will steal it!” That is, lust, impregnated by the devil, “conceives” the notion and “gives birth’ to the act of theft. Adamson says we should not read too much into the twin image of conception and birth. The grammar behind “having conceived gives birth” is similar to the Hebrew construction rendered “she conceived and bore” (Genesis 4:1, etc.), the participle and finite verb in this instance bringing “thought and act together as a single stage between the temptations on the one hand and death on the other”(Hort)2. “Lust” produces “sin.” James expresses this single idea by the metaphorical parallel of motherhood, signified by the two chief steps–the first and the last–of that single process. “Conceives and bears” are not two separate points.
    • Stage 3: That sin , unless (however late, like the penitent thief) I properly repent before my physical death, will, “being fully grown,” cause my damnation and my spiritual “death” at the Day of Judgment. This agrees with Ropes and supplements him. The “consummation” and the death are in the “next world,” not in our earthly existence.

    The Analogy of a Human Infant Growing to Full Manhood

    James is picturing the growth of sin from birth onward in the analogy of a human infant growing to full manhood. In other words, in the context of a human conception, birth, and growth to maturity.

    “Sin, when full grown, when it becomes a fixed habit…brings forth death.”

    The immediate cause of death is sin, and sin, when full-grown, is in its very nature self-destructive, containing seeds of death in its womb and nurturing its unborn chid until the time of delivery. (Adamson,pp. 73-74)

    1. The Imitation of Christ, tr. Ronald A. Knox and Michael Oakley [1959], p. 32. ↩︎
    2. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James, i.1-iv.7 (1909). ↩︎

  • James 1:14

    This entry is part 9 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James
    James 1:14
    But each man is tried by assault of evil by his own lust, as he feels the pull of its distraction and the enticement of its bait.

    Possible Meanings of the Word ‘Desire‘ in the New Testament

    This section is basically a discussion of the meaning of the word desire in the New Testament. Desire is not necessarily evil. James B. Adamson illustrates this point by citing Luke 22:15. He explains that is why the adjective, evil, must be added in Colossians 3:5. He also quotes John Baillie:

    Animal desire is not in itself evil, it only becomes evil when, in man, it seeks the aid of spirituality–of freedom and reason and the judgment of value–in order to convert its relativity into an absolute and its finitude into infinity.1

    The fifteenth-century poem The Cuckoo and the Nightingale illustrates the neutral use of the English word lust:

    Worship, ease, and all hertes lust.2

    James’s Use of the Terms ‘desire‘ in 1:14 and “you desire‘ in 4:2

    However that is not the meaning James intends by ‘desire‘ or ‘you desire’. From the context he means sin. Adamson tells us that the themes of 1:9-21 are renewed in 4:1-12. The most important need here is to relate 4:5 (and 6) to 1:14.

    James 4:5  
    Or do you suppose it is an idle saying in the scriptures that the spirit that has taken its dwelling in us is prone to envious lust?

    James 1:14
      But each man is tried by assault of evil by his own lust, as he feels the pull of it detraction and the enticement of its bait.

    The words ‘his own‘ (lust) in 1:14 have the opposite meaning of ‘the spirit which God implanted in man’ in 4:5. His own lust implies his own desire, not God’s instigation. A man’s own desire often substitutes some private and individual end for the will of God.’3

    On the other hand, it would be extreme to think that desire for a good dinner must be evil. And although ‘desire’ is personified in James 1:15, Adamson says that is only literary.

    The Influence Toward Evil

    When evil does come, it comes from the appetite of man’s body. It’s part of ‘the world of iniquity’ mentioned in James 3:6. Since the Fall, some evil is inherent.

    There is No Reference to Satan as the Tempter

    There is no reference to Satan as the Tempter in James 1:14. Adamson contrasts 1 Enoch 49:4.; The Clementine Homilies 3:55. For James to refer to Satan would have been substituting one excuse for another.

    James Uses A Fishing Metaphor

    James’s metaphors of the ‘pull of its distraction and the enticement of its bait’ are probably based on his fishing experience in Galilee…but he was assuredly not the first to use a fishing metaphor. The rabbis wrote: ‘As man throws out a net whereby he catches the fish of the sea, so the sins of man become the means of entangling and catching the sinner.’

    The word ‘hooked‘ is also a description of a drug addict. “Each man experiences assault of evil by his own lust, as he feels himself being pulled astray by it and enticed by it as by a bait.” (Adamson p. 71)

    The next paragraph, pages 71-72, analyzes the choice of participles in the translation from the Greek words. It’s quite detailed, and will not be helpful to most readers, so I haven’t included it. However, the last paragraph deals with the theological implications of James 1:14.

    The Theological Implications

    Adamson argues that there is enough of a basis for the theological implications of James 1:14 in the Old Testament and in Judaism that it is not necessary to ‘resort to Qumran’.

    We think James’s view of the flesh as inherently but not entirely evil agrees with that of Paul: “it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Corinthians 7:9); “tempts” here introduces a sentence about lust which the mind in the case to be contemplated happens to have a duty to disobey..

    If I’m not mistaken, Adamson’s closing remark refers only to this last paragraph of the commentary. He says, “Only the apparent attempts by some theologians to dissociate lust and the body from Satan made some of our remarks necessary.”

    1. Invitation to Pilgrimage (1944), p. 56. Cf. Menninger, op. cit., pp. 138ff (as cited by Adamson). ↩︎
    2. Similarly in the papyri; see MM. p. 239 (I think he’s referring to the previous note 86, the Greek word for lust). ↩︎
    3. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James, i. 1-iv. 7 (1909) p. 24. ↩︎

  • James 1:13

    This entry is part 8 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James
    Let no one under trying assault of evil say, "My trial by assault of evil comes from God." For God is invincible to assault of evils, and himself subjects no one to assault of evil. (James 1:13)

    This article will cover Adamson’s short summary of this section, verses 13-21, but the commentary itself will be limited to verse 13. He obviously considers this verse particularly important and not in a good way. He seems to regret the very idea it represents. The fact that he took such care with this verse is instructive in itself.

    First, A Brief Word on Verse 13

    The question of the source of assault by evil was important to James. Adamson understood this, and his anxiety is evident. I attribute any difficulties in the organization of this section to his dismay at what this verse implies. I have tried to simplify it by presenting it somewhat out of order compared to his text.

    James Contends Against an Amoral Philosophy

    The clear implication of this verse is that the Christians who James addressed had the idea that ‘assaults of evil’ may come from God. In Adamson’s opinion, this is theological duplicity based on an amoral philosophy.

    …for, if God is not constantly good, there is no such thing as “good.”(p. 68-69)

    Possible Sources of Confusion

    But of course, this is not an unfamiliar idea. It is found not only in historical accounts but in the Bible itself. (Or it was at one time). Adamson’s approach might be surprising for anyone who has become too complacent about this concept. Adamson is not complacent. He is either attacking the verse or offering apologies for early Christians.

    The Lord’s Prayer?

    Adamson begins by listing possible sources of confusion. First he says the early Christians may have misunderstood a clause in the Lord’s Prayer.

    (He does not provide the verse in question. Interestingly, the offending clause, “Lead us not into temptation”, is not in my Bible. In the Catholic Bible NABRE, Matthew 6:13 says, “and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.” Luke 11:4 has similar wording. However the offensive version is familiar to some of us today, and it was obviously familiar to Adamson. Commentaries like this may have been instrumental in changing the Bible’s wording.)

    Human Nature?

    Another possibility for the confusion of James’s congregation is the human tendency to attribute evil to outside causes. Adamson gives the example of Homer.

    Our nature in itself doth abhor the deformity of sin, and for that cause [men] study by all means how to find the first original of it elsewhere.1

    Correcting a Jewish Doctrine? Nascent Gnosticism?

    Others have argued that 1:13 is a polemic against a Jewish doctrine of two natures in man. Alternatively, James may have been aware of some kind of ‘nascent Gnosticism that casts doubt on divine integrity’. (p. 69)

    The Power of the Planets

    People might also blame the stars as the source of evil assaults. Of course, this would not bring the same level of scorn from Adamson, as it doesn’t blame God for assaults of evil. It is more in the category of humans’ tendency to excuse their own part in these assaults. However, Adamson cites Moffatt2 (p. 19) who spoke of using the stars as a source of evil assaults.

    Moffatt suggested that the phrase “the Father of the heavenly lights,” 1:17, is an implicit denial of the stars’ power over human destinies according to astrology.

    Adamson also cites a play by Shakespeare in which Julius Caesar denies the power of the stars. (I.ii.134, as cited by Adamson)

    The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars 
    But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

    The Epistle of James 1:13
    Julius Caesar

    Summarizing the Logic in James 1: 13

    Adamson begins his summary by saying that “James…is in the midstream of apostolic doctrine...The Christian is God’s man, not the world’s; and so, as his loyal child, he is bound by God’s law”

    The Problem of Evil

    He mentions the philosophical problem of evil. (Philosophy deals with the question of why evil exists in a world created by a God who is all-good and all-powerful.) But James does not approach the problem from that angle. His approach is uniquely Christian. Adamson quotes John Coutts on this:

    James has no philosophical answer to the problem of evil…He cannot explain why people are pushed almost beyond endurance–but he offers a practical answer: faith in a God of pure goodness.3

    The Christian Answer to the Problem of Evil

    The assaults of evil are the result of lust, and lust is alien to God. (What James means by ‘evil’ is explained below.)There is a reward for the faithful who resist these assaults. Endurance in the face of assaults comes from sincerity of faith.

    He has given us Christians the “word of truth” with a view to our becoming a sort of “firstfruits.” Therefore, in accordance with that gift and purpose, we must live as in v. 19 (say, in a word, “peaceably”); for as Christian children of God we must by our conduct manifest God’s implanted gift (of “truth,” involving “righteousness,” v. 21), and that is not achieved by “wrath” (and its concomitants, as in 4:1-4).(p. 69)

    The Opposite of Amoral Philosophy

    It was stated above that Adamson thought James was contending with an amoral philosophy in verse 13. The opposite implications are clear in 1:19-21. “God’s attribute is unmixed good.”

    Terms: The Use of the Word “Tempt”

    Adamson says the use of the word “tempt” may perplex some readers, for example when the Israelites tempt God in the desert, or when God tempts Abraham.4 But God’s tempting is different from the devil’s, (or man’s). God does not desire the candidate to fail, but to succeed.

    Nevertheless, Adamson doesn’t think this innocent interpretation is the true meaning of “temptation” by God in the Lord’s Prayer. Furthermore, James uses it in its most sinister sense. He says it never comes from God, and yet believers should rejoice in it.5

    The following quote is from footnote 80 on page 69:

    Probably the best paraphrase, if not direct translation, of the petition in the Lord’s prayer is “Grant that we may not fail in the test” (cf. C. C. Torrey, The Four Gospels [1933], p. 292), with which may be compared our Lord’s admonition to the disciples in Gethsemane: “Keep awake, and pray not to fail in the test” (Mark 14:38a). The Jewish service for morning prayer contains the similar petition: “Do not bring us into the power of temptation; let not the evil inclination (yetser) have sway over us,” See C. F. D. Moule, “An Unsolved Problem in the Temptation-Clause in the Lord’s Prayer,” Reformed Theological Review 33(1974), pp, 65-75.

    What Does James Mean By “Evil?”

    James is not referring to God’s sorrow at men’s sin, God’s sorrow at His Son’s crucifixion, natural disasters, or disease. James is clearly referring to moral evil or sin.

    As for the construction of the phrase “invincible to assault of evils, “grammatici certaint on the classification of this genitive case: adjectives formed like this regularly negative the idea of the cognate verb.” Adamson provides the Greek phrase in the notes on page 70.

    The sentence in question in the above paragraph is “For God is invincible to assault of evils, and himself subjects no one to assault of evil.” The second half of the sentence denies that God ever instigates a man to sin, but both halves represent a single truth.

    If God were not invincible to evil he could not escape becoming at least sometimes the ally of sin; as it is, the invincible good is ipso facto incapable either of leading others or itself being led into sin (see Jas. 1:17; 3:10-12, on the argument from natural consistency).

    Conclusion: The Goodness of God

    This section ends with assurances about God’s goodness. The first quote is from Marcus Aurelius:

    The Reason (Logos) which rules the universe has no cause in itself for doing wrong. (Moffatt, p. 18)

    This second quote is from Mayor’s commentary on James6. (p.50)

    God is incapable of tempting others to evil, because He is Himself absolutely insusceptible to evil.”

    1. R. Hooker, There is no citation. ↩︎
    2. J. Moffatt, The General Epistles. Moffatt New Testament Commentary (1945). ↩︎
    3. John Coutts, The Soldier’s Armoury (Jan.-June 1976), p. 108) ↩︎
    4. R. A. Knox, A NT Commentary, 3 volumes (1995) ↩︎
    5. Cf. 1 Corinthians. 10:13, where indeed Paul may be deliberately supplying an interpretation of the clause “Lead us not into temptation.” ↩︎
    6. J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (1913). ↩︎

  • James 1:12

    This entry is part 7 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James

    Site Icon

    The last section of Adamson’s commentary on James Chapter 1 covers James 1:12 to James 1:27. However, he takes a break after James 1:12. He labels the next section 13-27 and briefly discusses verse 13 in particular. Due to this organization, I decided to limit this article to James 1:12. Adamson’s translation is as follows:

    Happy is the man who with constancy endures trying assaults of evil; for when (upon trial) he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

    Endurance

    This section begins by saying that the idea of endurance is familiar in Judaism. Adamson cites two of the sources from the select bibliography (p. 40) who find tribal references to Jacob and Issachar (A. Meyer1, pp. 270ff. and B. S. Easton2, p. 26). But the idea of endurance is also typical of James.

    Happy is the man who here and now, from day to day, withstands peirasmos: he is progressing toward salvation (as in 1:3), and if (as 1:4 requires) he endures to the end, then at last, winning final approval, he will receive the final reward, the crown of life. (Adamson p. 67)

    (Adamson prefers the word happy (beatus) in this context to blessed (benedictus).

    Peirasmos

    Regarding the meaning or sense of the word peirasmos, Adamson agrees with Ropes3 (p. 150) who says the phrase ‘has been approved” is another way of saying endures, and not a further condition of receiving the crown. The word contains the notion of a trial, but also trial and approval (1Corinthians 10:18; 13:7; 2 Timothy 2:15).

    The Crown of Life

    The next paragraph discusses ‘the crown of life’. Adamson tells us that the victor’s prize in the Greek games (the crown, head-wreath, chaplet, or circlet) was worn in religious and secular feasts. It was given and received as a public sign of honor. But in the Bible there is a difference. Paul makes a distinction between this crown and the crown the Christian is hoping to win.

    The Greek Games Compared to Christianity

    In Corintians 9:24, 25, he reminds us that in the races only one competitor received the prize. In Christianity, however, the Christian is not competing against his fellow athletes. Adamson compares it to a scholastic examination. In other words, there is no reason why all candidates should not pass the test.

    But still, this image was relevant. The clue is in Hebrews 12:1, which describes the crowd of spectator-witnesses, the past heroes of the faith, and the stripping off of encumbrances, like clothing (see James 1:21).

    …it is the race of endurance; and the model of endurance, and the founder and perfecter of the faith which by endurance we must maintain, is Jesus. Whereas the athletes have human competitors, the Christian’s adversaries are the powers of darkness, trying to drive him out of the course and prevent his ever finishing it. (Adamson, p. 68)

    But perhaps the metaphor of the fight would have been a closer parallel to the biblical contest. Here, Adamson quotes R. Simeon b. Lakish4:

    It can be compared to two prize-fighters, one of whom was stronger than the other. The stronger prevailed over the weaker and then placed a garland over his own head.

    James Differs from Paul in this Regard

    But James is not like Paul in this regard. He does not pursue the metaphor of athletic competitions. The crown is the reward of the Christian’s effort but this effort is a struggle against evil rather than fellow competitors. And eternal life is the crown.

    Conclusion

    Some later manuscripts specifically mention ‘the Lord’ or ‘God’ as giver of this promise to those who love him. However, the promise does not appear in so many words in the Old Testament. Adamson concludes this section by listing related New Testament verses which he thinks provide evidence of an otherwise unrecorded saying of Jesus.5 These are 1 Corinthians 9:25; 1 Peter 5:4; 2 Timothy 4:8, and especially Revelations 2:10.

    Finally, he argues that the ‘strong liturgical flavor’ of James 1:12 is another confirmation.

    Dibelius Shows (p. 87) that the words ‘those who love him’, common enough in the LXX and later Jewish and Christian tradition, are traced back by the Rabbis to Judges 5:31.6 Man’s duty of love to God is as old as any in Hebrew religion, and from Ezekiel onward the prophets take up the theme with renewed emphasis, in which they are followed by Jesus and, after his example, by James and Paul.

    See Also: Religion Must Guide the Political Moment
    1. A. Meyer, Das Ratsel des Jakobusbriefes (1930). ↩︎
    2. B. S. Easton, The Epistle of James. Interpreter’s Bible (1957). ↩︎
    3. J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James, ICC (1916). ↩︎
    4. Exod. R. xxi. 11. ↩︎
    5. A. Resch, Agrapha (1906), p. 253. ↩︎
    6. M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, The Epistle of James, E.T. (1975). ↩︎

  • The Right is Passing Judgment on the Left

    This video published just a few hours ago indicates that the Right is doubling down on the claim that Kirk was shot by Tyler Robinson. Turning Point USA has issued a statement saying there was no exit wound in Kirk’s neck after he was shot with a .30-06 caliber bullet. Apparently, the bullet was stopped by his strong neck bones because he is a man of steel. This has unpleasant implications. It implies that the propaganda surrounding this assassination is going to be maintained. Because the alleged assassin has been identified as a member of the Left, the Right is passing judgment on the Left.

    The Accusations Are Not Going Away

    I regret to tell you, reader, what this means. It means outrageousness, and not truth, is the point. And because of its similarities with the JFK assassination, I think we have to assume outrageousness was the point there too. Whoever did this to Charlie Kirk is saying they can do whatever they want and no one can stop them. And when the authorities publicly ignore evidence in the public domain, they seem to be saying it’s all a joke. In my opinion, there is no response from the Left that will make this go away.

    Taking Refuge in the Epistle of James

    In this article, I’m taking the opportunity to share what James the Just says about judging one’s neighbor. I have been writing a series on the Epistle of James on my other website, but I’ve only got as far as James 1:11. I’m writing this here because I think these verses are particularly relevant in this context. The verses I would like to share are James 4:11-12. Please pay close attention to the conclusion in the commentary by James B. Adamson. I think it’s the best response to the Right’s accusations.

    James 4:11-12

    11.  Do not speak ill of one another, brothers. He that speaks ill of his brother and passes judgment on his brother is speaking ill of the law and passing judgment on the law; but if you pass judgment on the law, you are not a servant of the law but a judge of it.
    12.  There is one dispenser of law and judge, he who has power of life and death. And who are you, that you pass judgment on your fellow? (Translation by Adamson, p. 175-6)

    Previously in this chapter, James has focused on the temptations of the tongue. “Who are you to judge another?” He has made it clear that the failure to control the tongue is a form of self-righteous pride.

    The Word Brother

    11. The word brother is repeated three times in verse 11. Some have argued that James is talking to hypercritical Christians, anti-Pauline Christians, or Gnostic teachers. Adamson disagrees. He believes this signals a change of tone and a fresh appeal. This verse refers to all who submit to the world, and especially the proud (4:10). It is a warning. It is also an echo of James’s previous verses, 1:26; 2:12, 13; and 3:10. (Please hover your cursor over the verses if you want to read them.)

    Evil Speaking Kills Three Persons

    The Old Testament denounces evil speaking more often than any other offense, both against God (Numbers 21:5) and man (Psalms 49:20). Slander was called the third tongue because it killed three persons: the speaker, the spoken to, and the spoken of. It has been said there is no salvation for anyone who slanders his neighbor.1 Here Adamson compares James’s view of the seriousness of slander to what Christ said in Matthew 7:1. James equates slander of a fellow Christian with breaking the Christian Torah2, because the interests of both are the same.

    Hillel said, “Judge not your neighbor before you find yourself in the same situation.“3

    The Difference Between Judging and Doing the Law

    The difference between judging and doing the law is carefully explained. Man must obey the law, not judge it. To set oneself above the law is to usurp the divine prerogative. In fact, the Rabbis taught that judging our neighbor leads to the graver sin of judging God. Respect for law and order is necessary for the health of modern society, but James reminds us that God is the source of all law. So, what is at stake in a ‘permissive society’ is respect for the authority of God himself. (From the context of this commentary, I think he means a society that permits Christians to judge one another.)

    James 4:12 is the Most Important Point in the Entire Section

    Adamson thinks the next verse, James 4:12, is the most important point in the entire section. The section in question is James 4:4 to 5:8. For ease of reading I’l repeat James 4:12 here.

    There is one dispenser of law and judge, he who has power of life and death.
    And who are you, that you pass judgment on your fellow?

    (Adamson believes Matthew 10:5-42 makes the same point, especially verses 15, 22, and 28.)

    James’s Personification of the Law

    12. James personifies the law and he seems to identify it as the brother. In his view, “any slander or judgment of a brother implies not only an active disregard of Torah but also an attitude of superiority reserved solely for God, who is the omnipotent Lawgiver and Judge.“

    This is a characteristic Jewish monotheistic doctrine of God’s supreme sovereignty. Rabbi Ishmael spoke on God as the final source of judicial authority: “Judge not alone; for there is none save One that judgeth alone.” Adamson also quotes Dibelius: “Truly, the Eternal destroys life and sustains.” and “One he casts down and the other he raises up….”

    Adamson’s Conclusion: Salvation (or its Opposite) at the Last Judgement

    Adamson believes James is referring to ‘salvation’ or its opposite at the Last Judgement (5:9).

    The point is clinched with a devastating question. The disjunctive pronoun is sarcastic, emphasizing the sheer folly of the world to judge, while the vigorous proleptic ‘you‘ serves to widen the gulf between God’s judgment and man’s. ‘And who are you that pass judgment on another?’ To which John Wesley replies: ‘A poor, weak, dying worm.’ For James, as for us, however, the best answer is scornful silence. (Adamson, p. 178)

    1. Derek Erets Zuta 1: Midr. R. Deut. vi. 9; Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, p. 99; SB 1, pp. 226ff., 905. ↩︎
    2. On this as Jewish Torah, see Oesterley, Knowling. ↩︎
    3. Aboth ii. 4; see b. Shab. 127a; Matt. 7:1f.; John 12:31. ↩︎

  • James 1:9-11

    This entry is part 6 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James

    c. As comforting the lowly poor and chastening the haughty rich (James 1:9-11)

    9 (in the equality of Christian brotherhood) let the brother  
         of humble degree exult in his being made high,
    10 and the rich (brother) in his being made low: for he
         (in his being-only-rich) shall pass away like the flower  
         among the grass.
    11. For the sun arises, with the scorching wind, and parches
         the grass, and the flower among it falls off, and the 
         beauty of its appearance perishes: so he who is (only)
         rich shall wither in his ways (Translation: Adamson p. 61)

    Adamson begins by focusing on James’s intended meaning of the terms. His analysis is based on the Greek language version, and both New Testament and Old Testament verses.

    Brother

    Concerning verse 9, Adamson says the wording in Greek is significant for understanding who is meant by the word, ‘brother’. He argues that we must read ‘brother’ with the rich (v. 10) as well as with the lowly (of humble degree). This is contrary to another view which assumes that the phrase the rich refers to the non-Christian man in general. Adamson agrees with the argument provided by Ropes.

    My Approach to Adamson’s Bibliography

    Ropes is one of the entries in Adamson’s ‘select bibliography’, which begins on page 40. Adamson sometimes disagrees with the authors on this list. Or he agrees with them and uses their works to illustrate his own view. In the discussion of ‘brother’ he depends completely on Ropes’s argument that ‘brother’ does not refer to the non-Christian man in general. So, I included the citation. If the reader is not comfortable with this approach, please compare my summary against Adamson’s book.

    Ropes’s Rebuttal of the View that ‘Brother’ means the Non-Christian Man 1

    • The refusal to supply ‘brother’ is unnatural.
    • The addition of ‘let him exult’ would require excessive irony.
    • [‘Brother’ has a] loose connection with the context and especially with the initial and continuing idea of peirasmoi.

    Exalted

    For ease of reading, I’ll repeat Adamson’s translation of verse 9: ‘let the brother of humble degree exult in his being made high‘. In this section, Adamson lists several verses to demonstrate the use of the verb exult.

    The Old Testament

    In the Old Testament, the verb ‘exult’ is used for any ‘proud and exulting joy’. (Hover or click on the citation to read the verse. The verses are not visible on mobile view. I’m trying to fix it.).

    • Psalms 5:11
    • Psalms 32:11
    • Jeremiah 9:23
    • Ben Sira 39:8

    The New Testament

    The verb is used frequently in the New Testament, especially by Paul who uses it more than thirty times.

    • 2 Corinthians 7:14
    • Romans 5:3
    • 2 Corinthians 12:9
    • 2 Corinthians 11:12 (Ropes p. 145)

    According to Adamson, the way the verb is used here harks back to the exhortation to joy of James 1:2 and it stresses the opposition to double-mindedness. The moral quality of this joy depends on the occasion.

    To exult is bad in James 4:16. Adamson offers the following verses for comparison, and leaves it to the reader to decide if these verses support his view that they refer to the moral quality of exulting joy:

    • Romans 2:17
    • Romans 2:23
    • Romans 3:27
    • Romans 4:2
    • 1 Corinthians 1:29
    • 1 Corinthians 4:7
    • 2 Corinthians 11:18
    • Galations 6:13
    • 1 Corinthians 5:6

    In the following verses the exulting is good:

    • Romans 5:2
    • Romans 5:11
    • Philippians 3:3
    • Romans 15:17
    • 1 Corinthians 1:31

    ‘Lowly’ as Referring to the Outward Social Status

    Adamson argues that when James used ‘lowly’ he did not have in mind the Christian grace of humility. That would be to ‘spiritualize’ the word. He was referring to outward social status, like the status of a slave or a beggar. In other words, ‘poverty in relation to glorying and contempt, a state despised by the mass of mankind’ (Hort)2.

    Here Adamson refers us to Luke 1:52 and Romans 12:16.

    • Luke 1:52
    • Romans 12:16

    The Greek word means ‘low’. This is not a virtue in mind or status, as in classical thought, but rather it is like our ‘poor-spirited’. In the LXX (the Septuagint), the word may mean literally ‘poor’ (1 Samuel 18:23).

    Lowly can also have a religious connotation

    But it sometimes has a special religious connotation when contrasted with the ‘rich’:

    • Psalms 10:2
    • Psalms of Solomon 2:35 (a collection of ancient Jewish religious poems)

    James also used ‘lowly’ in an inward spiritual way (4:6). The two uses were sometimes associated in Jewish literature (Ben Sira 10:30f).

    Among Christians, humility is the virtue of voluntary acceptance or confession of a low or subordinate status in esteem or function; (compare) Phil. 2:1-13, the locus classicus on Christian, and Christ’s, humility.

    Even under Christianity, the metaphor implicit in the word ‘humility’ is not very pleasing in an equalitarian age. In Jas. 1:9 the meaning is literal, referring to a man’s mean social station in life. ‘Highness’, ‘exaltation’, refers to the present spiritual status which, by virtue of his relation to Christ, the Christian now enjoys. (Adamson p. 62)

    Philippians 2:1-13
    2:1  If there is any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, 

    2:2  complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing. 

    2:3  Do nothing out of selfishness or our of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, 

    2:4  each looking out for his own interests, but (also) everyone for those of others. 

    2:5  Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus.

    2:6-11   
    6  Who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God 
    something to be grasped. 
    7  Rather, he emptied himself, 
    taking the form of a slave, 
    coming in human likeness;
    and found human in appearance, 
    8  he humbled himself, 
    becoming obedient to death,
    even death on a cross.
    9  Because of this, God greatly exalted him
    and bestowed on him the name
    that is above every name,
    10  that at the name of Jesus
    every knee should bend,
    of those in heaven and on earth 
    and under the earth,
    11  and every tongue confess that 
    Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.
    2:12  So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 
    2:13  For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. (The Catholic Bible NABRE)

    Abasement

    In verse 10, Adamson focuses on the word ‘abasement’. Here it means self-abasement. This refers to a new mind of humility which Christians adopt. James urges this adoption on some of the brothers in 4:10, 13-16.

    The Flowers of Palestine

    Adamson likens James to Peter in his use of Isaiah 40:6,7. Its theme: ‘all flesh is grass’. He translates it as ‘the flower among the grass’ and emphasizes that flowers are profuse in Palestine. He names anemone, cyclamen, and lily.

    James 1:9-11
    Cyclamen Credit: Gideon Pisanty (Gidip)

    Adamson also cites Matthew 6:28, 30. In my opinion, it is painful to read these verses with present-day Palestine in mind:

    28  Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin.

    30  If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?

    It is also painful to read Hort’s description of the flowers of Palestine:

    By ‘the flower of the field’ the prophet doubtless meant the blaze of gorgeous blossoms which accompanies the first shooting of the grass in spring, alike in the Holy Land and on the Babylonian plain (Hort p. 15).

    According to Adamson, in the Mediterranean region the spring is brilliant but very brief. The flowers only live for a short time every year. H. B. Tristram is quoted next:

    Al Najah University, Palestine Credit: CC by 2.0

    The downs of Bethlehem in February are one spangled carpet of brilliant flowers…In May all traces of verdure are gone.

    The Flower and its Implications for the Rich

    In verse 11, the implications for the rich are described poetically by means of ‘the flower’. Adamson’s focus in this section is the intricacies of the Greek words. For example, he informs us that the Greek ‘aorist‘ is used here.

    Needless to say, aorist has a complex meaning, not to mention the various words chosen by the other scholar’s listed in his bibliography. Much of this section explains the translations that Adamson rejects and his reasons for his own choices. In my opinion, including every word of this part of the text would be fruitless for those of us who don’t read Greek. Normally my main interest is in making his conclusions as clear as possible for all readers. However, the importance he gives this verse demands attention–his commentary takes up three pages. In this case, I summarize it as accurately as I can.

    Regarding the word aorist, Adamson thinks it may represent the Hebrew perfect in order to emphasize the suddenness and completeness of the withering. Here is a reminder of what the verse says:

     11 For the sun arises, with the scorching wind, and parches
         the grass, and the flower among it falls off, and the 
         beauty of its appearance perishes: so he who is (only)
         rich shall wither in his ways.

    The Scorching Wind

    Rather than using obscure tribal references as some do, or the comparison of Christ to the rising of the sun, Adamson chose ‘scorching wind’. He thinks it is a better description of the vividness of the country life.

    No one who has ever lived in Palestine can forget the sirocco (sharqiya)–the blasting, scorching southeast wind which blows there in the spring; once begun it blows incessantly night and day. (Adamson p. 63)

    He also highlights a comment by E. F. F. Bishop.3

    The temperature hardly seems to vary. Flowers and herbage wilt and fade, lasting as long as ‘morning glory’. Anemones and cyclamen, carpeting the hillsides of Galilee in spring, have a loveliness that belongs only to the past, when the hot wind comes. Drooping flowers make fuel. The fields of lupins are here today and gone tomorrow.

    Adamson was certain that James must have seen the flowers that bloom on the Galilean hills as they wilt in the scorching wind.

    Appearance

    The word ‘appearance’ also rates its own examination. Adamson prefers the ‘easier’ meaning of appearance or show, and he illustrates its use with verses from the Old Testament. He credits Ropes for these references.

    • Genesis 2:6
    • 2 Samuel 14:20
    • Job 41:13

    Beauty

    As for the word beauty, Adamson prefers Ropes’s ‘goodly appearance’. He doesn’t think it should be allegorized too far. He says that we don’t think of the ‘pride’ of flowers, but of their short-lived beauty. The point is mainly that they perish. That’s why grass is often included in such Old Testament comparisons. And when we speak of the glory of flowers, or the sunrise or sunset, it is not the glory of pomp and pride as in plutocrats.

    The Withering of the Unbelieving Rich

    These verses are describing the fate of the unbelieving rich. Their withering is a simile.

    The picture of the rich ‘withering’ continues the simile of the fading flower: the verb, found only in the NT, is picturesque and may be used of the dying out of a fire.4 (Adamson p. 64)

    The verb is also used for many kinds of gradual enfeeblement (Wisdom 2:8)

    It is found in Philo, in connection with wealth5, and in 2 Talmud.

    The children of man are like the grasses of the field, some blossom and some fade.6

    Ways

    Adamson’s choice of the translation of ‘way’ is summed up in his view of James as an artist. This refers to the way James organizes his composition.

    Which passes away, the rich man or his riches?

    Hort poses this question, and he answers it by saying that the point is in the separation of a man from his wealth at death. Then follows a discussion of the state of the dead in Hebrew thought, and the problem of wealth without righteousness. Adamson concludes that the common fact of mortality has a special lesson for the rich, because they have a special temptation to forget it. He quotes Pindar:

    If any man who has riches excels others in beauty of form and has proved his strength by victory in the Games, let him remember that he puts his raiment on mortal limbs and in the end of all is clad with earth.7

    If any man fosters his wealth with honesty, abounding in possessions and winning good fame, let him not seek to be a god.8

    Conclusion

    Yet Hort perceives the truth. James indeed, as Hort says, has in view ‘not death absolutely but death as separating riches from their possessor and showing them to have no essential connection with him’. The pride of wealth ‘substituted another God for Jehovah and denied the brotherhood of man’. Speaking of his friend, a poor Christian, a wealthy unbeliever remarked: ‘When I die, I shall leave my riches. When he dies he will go to his’.9 In effect, this is what James is saying: Remember you are mortal and wealth per se does nothing for your soul: so be glad that by humbling yourself in Christ and the brotherhood you are likely to win the treasure of life everlasting. The old Hebrew thought of the premature end of the wicked and rich appears in James’s statement of his principle, which in fact is equally valid if the the man lives in wealth to the age of a hundred; besides, James is convinced that the end is at hand (see James 5:3, 8) (Adamson p. 66).

    1. J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James. ICC (1916). ↩︎
    2. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James, i. 1-iv. 7 (1909) ↩︎
    3. E. F. F. Bishop, Apostles of Palestine (1958). ↩︎
    4. Aristotle De Vita et Morte 5. ↩︎
    5. Special Laws i. 311 ↩︎
    6. b. Erubin 54a; Sir. 14:11-19. ↩︎
    7. Nem. xi. 13-16. ↩︎
    8. Ol. v. 23f ↩︎
    9. See J. Blanchard, Not Hearers Only 1 (1971), p. 68. Cf. K. Menninger, Whatever Became of sin?, on ‘the sin of affluence’ (pp. 149ff). ↩︎

  • James 1:5-8

    James 1:5-8

    This entry is part 5 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James

    James 1:5-8 as translated by James B. Adamson, p. 55:

    5  But if any of you is lacking knowledge (of God's way and will), let him ask of God, who gives it to all as a simple (unconditional) gift and chides not (the petitioner for previous ignorance).
    6  But let him ask in faith, with no halting between two opinions: for the man who halts between two opinions is like a sea of waves, the way it is blown and beaten under the winds.
    7  Let not that (sort of) man imagine that he will get anything from the Lord.
    8  A man who is of two minds is unsteady in all his ways.
    (more…)
error: Content is protected !!