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