Amos's River of Justice

Series: The Epistle of James

This is a study of the Epistle of James based on the commentary of James B. Adamson.

  • 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). ↩︎

  • 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
    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 1:18

    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. ↩︎

  • James 1:19

    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).1

    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.2

    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.3

    James 1:19
    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).4

    It was believed that the ‘angry’ man had not mastered his yetser.5 To lose one’s temper was to lose the Shechinah (Jas. 2:1).6

    Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

  • 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. 7

    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. Knox8 (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 Greeks9 and the Hebrews10. 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. 3111, 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’.

  • 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 4 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 24:12.

    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 years13.

    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.14 ‘Torah is the only way that leadeth to life.15 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.

  • Mercy and Judgment in 2025

    This entry is part 17 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
    Reading Time: 6 minutes

    This is an essay for politicians who seem to have forgotten the important relationship between mercy and judgment in 2025. It’s also for their colleagues and loved ones.

    If you’re wondering why I’m picking on politicians, it’s because there is a raging epidemic of politicians who don’t feel they have to answer to anyone, least of all their constituents. Nor do they bother to respond to the pleas of religious leaders begging them to change their ways. This is particularly reckless behavior because it is the duty of religious leaders to care for their immortal souls.

    (more…)

  • The Epistle of James, Chapter 3

    This entry is part 18 of 18 in the series The Epistle of James
    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    In the Epistle of James, Chapter 3, James continues his teachings on wisdom. The first half of the Epistle instructs the Christian on the duty to guard his tongue. Adamson refers to James 1:26 for example.

    If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. (Bible quotations are taken from the Catholic Bible NABRE unless otherwise stated).
    (more…)
error: Content is protected !!