Amos's River of Justice

Category: Christianity in the World

James 1:21
This entry is part 16 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 4 minutes
```
Wherefore strip off all filthiness and prodigality of vice, and with meekness accept the implanted Word (implanted by those who have preached the gospel to you), which is able to save your souls.(James 1:21)
```
No Soul Can be Called Saved or Lost Until the Final Judgment

In this commentary on James 1:21, there is quote which I think is especially relevant to our time. I say this because we’ve heard some despair of going to heaven, as if it’s all been decided. Adamson refutes this sentiment:

No soul can be called saved, or lost, until the Final Judgment; hence James’s gospel of faith continuing at work in hope of that final approbation, 1:3.

The Convert to Christ is Called to Cleanse Himself (or Herself)

When the convert to Christ is taught that he must cleanse himself, this does not only refer to cleansing his words, or the malice that appears in one’s speech. A Christian must cleanse himself of all sin referred to in James 1:12-15. Ropes ¹ calls this ‘the abounding of evil…which we find in our hearts‘.

On the other hand, Adamson disagrees with some of Ropes’s interpretations. The disagreement has to do with the nature of human wickedness, and it centers on the word, prodigality. Adamson tells us this word has presented difficulties for many translators.

We cannot find any merit in Ropes’s theory that the word for prodigality ‘calls attention to the fact that wickedness is really an excrescence on character, not a normal part of it.’ Ropes rightly rejects ‘malice’ and malitia and rightly points out that meekness is in contrast with ‘wrath’; but he fails to see that the exhortation to meekness in 1:21b harks back to 1:19, 20, while the conversion from sin enjoined in 1:21a catches up the earlier verses, 12ff. Translators have had difficulty with this phrase…(Adamson p. 80)

Adamson gives several examples of the attempt to translate prodigality: Bauer, s.v., interprets it as ‘all the evil prevailing around you’; Beza, says it means ‘excrement’; Spitta, says, ‘all the finery of sin’; R. A. Knox, following Hofmann, says residuum; NEB says ‘reckless dissipation’; and KJV says ‘superfluity of naughtiness’ …

Adamson concludes that the word prodigality is the best choice in this case, although some might prefer ‘enormity of vice‘.

The Difference Between Verse 21 a, and 21 b

To be clear, the exhortation to meekness in 1:21 b refers to 1:19, 20. But the conversion from sin in 1:21a refers to verse 12 and the verses following it (Verses 12 to 15 are linked above in the paragraph introducing Ropes).

James is Similar to Peter Regarding the Moral and Spiritual Qualities of Christians

Like Peter, James urges the moral and spiritual qualities of Christians. For this comparison, Adamson cites Moffatt, page 24:².

he (James) passes from the idea of the regenerating Word to the conception of the Word as seed which has to be cared for, if it is to thrive; indeed he develops the metaphor more definitely than Peter. Give the divine seed a clean soil.

But How Can we Accept the Seed of the Word if it is Already Implanted (emphytos)?

Adamson provides a long clarification of this question using Hort, Herodotus, and the Torah.

Hort (page 37) believes emphytos means ‘innate’, not implanted. However, he is aware that for Herodotus, emphytos implies something received after birth. (ix.94)

Emphytos can mean congenital, like the instinct for self-preservation, or wickedness (Wisdom 12:10), but Hort admits it can mean something added later to our nature. The example is a divine gift of prophecy long after birth, as in the Herodotus reference above. However, he prefers to call it a ‘secondary ingrowth’, or a ‘second nature’ rather than implanted.

For both Herodotus and James the ‘Divine gift’ happened first. The postnatal ingrowth was added in addition to that gift. Therefore, Adamson agrees with Hort that we can say ‘sown’ or ‘implanted’, (but not ‘ingrafted’ as in the KJV).

Torah was said to be implanted in God From the Very Beginning

Torah was said to be implanted in God from the very beginning, like Wisdom. It was then rooted in every Jew from the earliest years³.

The seed must be implanted, but the implanting has already been done since the gospel has been preached. However the soil of the heart must be hospitable if the seed is to grow. We must give up impure living and fully accept the ‘Word of truth,’ showing by meekness (acceptance and obedience), that self-subduing gentleness which is among the fruits of the Spirit (v.19). (Adamson p. 81)

Conclusion

The end of the logic is the reward: Accept the implanted Word: for that is able to save your souls. The Jewish Torah was held to be redemptive, the medicine of life and a ‘spice’ against the yetser.⁴ ‘Torah is the only way that leadeth to life.⁵ Like the Torah, the implanted Word was redemptive, uniquely so since this was the ‘Torah of the Messiah.’ James may not mention Christ by name, but Christ’s Saviorhood, if not explicitly elaborated here or elsewhere, is everywhere implied. The reference to salvation is to be interpreted in the light of the rapidly approaching Day of Judgment (see Acts 17:30). It is charged with the eschatological urgency of the NT, including (conspicuously) the Epistle of James.
April 13, 2026
James 1:20
This entry is part 15 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 3 minutes
```
...for a man's wrath (or "anger") does not express in action the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)
```
There was apparently a mistaken notion in James’s time that anger is sometimes valuable as an engine of righteousness. But according to the Jews, certain divine qualities, including anger, are forbidden to man.

Thrice was Moses angry, and thrice he failed to produce the mind of God. ⁶

If I understand Adamson correctly, he’s saying that the verb, produce, or ‘failed to produce‘ means something like ‘does not forward the righteousness of God.’ The verb is being used in the sense of ‘work’, or ‘do’, rather than ‘produce’.

What is the Objection to Wrath?

The objection to wrath is not simply that it’s bad tactics and futile. After all, a teacher’s wrath may produce righteousness in his pupil. But Christians are told to avoid wrath because it does not have a good effect on the persons wronged. In Christianity, sin is forbidden primarily because of its effect on the sinner.

One way to interpret Adamson’s meaning is to say that the sinner is the one who is angry.

James’s Meaning is more Broad than “the Justice of God”

In Adamson’s opinion, it’s best not to interpret ‘the justice of God” as the judgment of God upon sinners. Then it would simply warn Christians not to avenge themselves. For example, R. A. Knox⁷ (p. 95) believes James is referring to resentment against our persecutors. This is in the tradition of Romans 12:19.

Ajax

God’s vengeance on sinners is one of the oldest ideas for both the Greeks⁸ and the Hebrews⁹. In Romans 3:5, God is said to inflict his anger on us. And in Romans 12:19, cited above, human self-help by revenge is forbidden.

This interpretation does not disagree with James’s epistle, where the dominant idea of God is God as a Judge. Adamson refers in particular to James 5:9. However, he thinks this interpretation is too narrow. He prefers the word, righteousness, as demonstrated by his translation of James 1:20 at the beginning of this article. This avoids a too narrow interpretation of the judgement of God. It also demonstrates an important pattern in James’s writing, the rotary or rondo structure.

The Rotary or Rondo Structure of Verse 20 Continues James’s Theme of Righteousness

The theme of righteousness is repeated in James 3:13-18. In 1:19, 20, James exhorts us to meekness and peace. In 1:21, he exhorts to purity.

The Greek Dikē and the Hebrew Tsedeq

Apparently, it is well-known among scholars that finding one word (just(ice)/ right(eous)ness) that fits both the Greek Dikē and the Hebrew Tsedeq and their cognates is impossible.

It is used here in the conventional Jewish, nontechnical, un-Pauline sense of ‘righteous action’ (Easton. p. 31¹⁰, against Hofmann and others); compare similar OT phrases (e.g., Genesis 18:19; Psalms 15:2), but contrast the parallel of James 2:9. In Hebrew the word is much richer than the classical notion of ‘justice’; it is a modus vivendi or conduct required by Christian faith and obedience to God, as, for example, in accordance with 1:25-27. It depicts the Christian life under the scrutiny and standards of God. A man’s animosity toward his fellows does not create that kind of life. God’s righteousness here refers not to the righteousness that is part of his character(subjective genitive) but the way of life, in deed and thought, that he requires in us. Such righteousness will become ours, if we genuinely accept what is called, in the next verse, ‘the implanted word’.
April 8, 2026
James 1:19
This entry is part 14 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 2 minutes
```
Wherefore, my beloved brothers, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. (James 1:19)
```
The phrase “quick to hear,” refers to the “Word” of verse 18. The concept is also found in the Old Testament (Sir. 5:11).¹¹

According to Adamson, verse 1:19 makes the moral logic of James’ thought even more clear. The verse begins with, “wherefore, my beloved brothers…” James will argue that a Christian’s conduct will be outward evidence of the new birth.

“Slow to speak” may refer to the perils of too much speaking.

Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in they deeds slack and remiss.¹²

The Sin of the Tongue

In chapters 3 and 4 of James’ epistle, he will mention a very serious sin of the tongue–malicious slander. The Rabbis called it “the third tongue” (lishan telitay). The third tongue slays three persons: the speaker, the spoken to, and the spoken of. When the third tongue appears the Shechinah departs.¹³

Divine Light Behind Clouds

Terms

“Slow” means humility and patience; “Every man” means teachers.

A Warning Against Anger

James 1:19 also warns against anger toward anyone. Its opposite is good temper and self-restraint” (Ropes, p. 169).¹

It was believed that the ‘angry’ man had not mastered his yetser.¹⁴ To lose one’s temper was to lose the Shechinah (Jas. 2:1).¹⁵
Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
March 4, 2026
James 1:18
This entry is part 13 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 3 minutes
```
He of his own wish begot us by the Word of truth, for us to be a kind of firstfruits of his creation. (James 1:18)
```
Adamson says the beginning phrase, Of his own wish, is rather emphatic. He includes Hort’s¹ suggestion that in the previous verse, James 1:17, the word ‘shadow’ was followed by ‘he’ in the Greek text. Hort thought it was a false reading and left it out. However, Adamson thought it was correct and he disagreed with Hort’s decision to leave it out of 1:18.

Consider the resulting translation we have given: He of his own wish….He (God) is the author of our Christian being and purpose, a being which is endowed with truth, and a purpose which is to be holy as firstfruits. In contrast to man’s “desire,” which begets spiritual death (1:13ff), God’s deliberate purposive will is gracious, choosing to initiate and to beget new spiritual life. (Adamson, p. 75-6)

James Emphasized the Omnipotence and Benevolence of God

Adamson argues that the emphatic he emphasizes the omnipotence as well as the benevolence of the great Father. Furthermore, this emphatic use of he is common in Greek and in Greek grammars. As he often remind us, no New Testament writer is more Greek than James.

The Idea of a God Who Can Beget Would Have Been Familiar to the Rabbis

The idea of a God who can beget would have also been familiar to the rabbis: “I made thee (Israel) a new creation as a woman conceives and brings forth.”

In Jewish tradition God is sexless. Divine birth-giving can be figuratively applied to God as easily as the concepts “Father” (Ps. 68:5; 103:13; Matt. 6:9), or “Mother” (Isa. 66:13; cf. “breasts of Son and Father,” Odes Sol. 8:16; 19:3). Even “birth-pangs” could be applied to God the Father (Deut. 32:8).

James is Preaching Christianity, Not Just Humanity

Several scholars hold the view that the quote above that begins, “I made thee (Israel)…” refers to the creation of man. Adamson considers their arguments on page 76. However, he disagrees with this interpretation.

If God is said to have begotten everyone by the word of truth, it would mean that he gave man priority over the ‘brute creation’ in his capacity and appetite for truth. In that case, James would be saying in effect, “Therefore, having this potential for truth bestowed on you in the creation of (human beings), use it, be swift to hear, slow to speak, and open your hearts and minds, not to strife and other vile passions, but to the innate Word of God-given reason.”

There is a problem with this hypothesis in Adamson’s view. He argues that James is telling Christians to behave like Christians, like he did in verses 3:13 and 4:10. The alternate interpretation as stated above would merely be telling people not behave like the beasts. Here Adamson quotes Ropes²:

The objection which seems decisive…is that the figure of begetting was not used for creation…whereas it came early into use with reference to the Christians, who deemed themselves ‘sons of God.'(p. 166)

Adamson adds: “In fact, human knowledge of good and evil, which is tantamount to the gift of truth, came through another channel (Gen. 3:22).”

The Idea of Begetting and the Idea of the New Birth

According to Adamson, the idea of divine begetting and of the entrance into Christian life as a new birth has its roots in Greek not Jewish thought. It came to Judaism via Hellenism.

In James’ time, the Rabbinic notion of the new creation was different from the Greek notion. It did not include the New Testament concept of moral renewal as a part of Christian rebirth. He cites Elliott-Binns³, who said, “James knows nothing of any ‘new’ creation (in Christian theology).” That understanding came later.

…but it is known in Eph 2:10 and the Fourth Gospel, which (John 3:3 and John 3:7 like James 1:17) has the word for “from above”: this remarkable coincidence suggests that in both these sources we have evidence of yet another verbum Christi (word of Christ). (Adamson p. 77)

First Fruits

The firstfruits of body or field were sacred and were often offered to God. The Greek particle often indicates a figurative use of the term (kind of or “as it were”). The figure is used of Israel in Jeremiah 2:3, but it’s not as common in Jewish thought as it is in Greek thought. “Firstfruits” was used not merely of that which was first in order but of that which was first in honor.⁴

The Noun Creation

The biblical use of the noun creation (1 Tim. 4:4; Rev. 5:13; 8:9) follows from the Jewish use of the verb and its derivatives in this sense, a sense in which “creation” is not found in secular Greek. (Adamson, p. 77)
1. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James, i. 1-iv. 7 (1909) ↩︎
2. J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James. ICC (1916). ↩︎
3. “James i. 18; Creation or Redemption?” NTS 3 (1956-570, pp 148-161. ↩︎
February 20, 2026
The Divinity of Jesus Christ
Reading Time: 6 minutes
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. ↩︎
December 31, 2025
Isaiah 43:19
Reading Time: 6 minutes
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 ↩︎
December 28, 2025
James 1: 16-17
This entry is part 12 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 3 minutes
```
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
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. ↩︎
November 29, 2025
James 1:15
This entry is part 11 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 2 minutes
```
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). ↩︎
October 27, 2025
James 1:14
This entry is part 10 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 3 minutes
```
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. ↩︎
October 20, 2025
James 1:13
This entry is part 9 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
Reading Time: 5 minutes
```
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. 
```
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). ↩︎
October 5, 2025

error: Content is protected !!