Re: James 1:13
Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Wed, 09 Jul 1997 01:08:50 EDT
On Tue, 8 Jul 1997 13:36:45 -0500 (CDT) Jeffrey Gibson
<jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu> writes:
>Lits Membres:
>
>In our discussions of the meaning of the term PEIRASMOS in Matt.
>6:13//Lk. 11:4, reference has frequently been made to how what is
>said in James 1:13b with regard to God's engaging in PEIRASMOS may
>or may not contribute to the question under review.
>
>What strikes me in reviewing this aspect of the discussion is the
>unanimity with which it has been assumed by virtually every one
>participating in it (myself included) that what James says when he
>claims hO GAR QEOS APEIRASTOS ESTIN KAKWN PEIRAZEI DE AUTOS OUDENA
>is, as almost all English translations and modern commentators take
>it, "for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no
>one" (a partial exception being Oesterly who, in his work on James
>in the 1894 Expositors Commentary on the GNT, renders hO GAR QEOS
>APEIRASTOS ESTIN KAKWS as "for God is inexperienced in evil").
>
>The question I wish to raise now is, Is this really what James is
>saying? In an often cited, but seemingly little used article
>entitled "The Meaning of APEIRASTOS in James 1:13" (NTS [24], pp.
>386-392) Peter Davids makes what I think is an ultimately
>convincing case that hO GAR QEOS APEIRASTOS ESTIN should actually
>be taken as saying not "for God cannot be tempted" but "for God is
>not to be put to the test". This interpretation seems to work well
>not only linguistically, thematically, and grammatically, but
>contextually, since James seems to be intent here to give reasons
>why the believer who experiences PEIRASMOS and fails the test
>should place the blame for this failure on God who wishes us all
>good gifts. THAT would be to do challenge God's faithfulness.
>
>And yet it puzzels me because it does not seem to take into account
>what function KAKOWN ("evils", genitive plural) has within the
>verse.
>
>To save Davids, I propose the following solution: That KAKWN goes
>not with hO GAR QEOS APEIRASTOS ESTIN but with the following
>phrase PEIRAZEI DE AUTOS OUDENA, and therefore allows James 1.13b
>to say "for God himself puts no one to the test (by means) of
>evils" or "with the intent of evil resulting"? The advantages of
>taking KAKWN as linked with PEIRAZEI DE AUTOS OUDENA and with this
>meaning are (1) that it allows PEIRAZW to retain the meaning it
>characteristic of its usage elsewhere, namely, "test faithfulness
>or integrity" not "tempt/solicit to evil", and (2) it relieves us
>not only of having to say that here in James we find the first
>known instance of PEIRAZW being used with the sense "tempt/solicit
>to evil), but also of the conundrum of how much James 1:13 seems to
>stand in contradiction with both the rest of James and the massive
>biblical witness that God frequently "tests" people.
>
>Against this, however, is the question of whether the genitive can
>be used in this way or would even allow such an interpretation.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
Jeff:
Assuming that the three occurrences of PEIRAZW in vv 13-14, PEIRAZOMENOS
... PEIRAZEI ... PEIRAZETAI, all mean or refer to testing, and not to
tempting, as I believe you are espousing, then there seem to be two
additional problems.
1) How would the GAR clause in 13b give the cause, reason, or
explanation for the discussion in 13a? That is, how does "for God
Himself puts no one to the test by means of evils" explain or give the
reason for why no one should say, "I am being tested by (or, apart) from
God"? If your rendering of 13b is correct, should we not expect to see
KAKWN in 13a, as well?
2) Verse 14 gives the contrast (DE) with 13a. The individual is not
tested by God (13a). He is tested when he is drawn up by his own lusts
and enticed (14). Does this not seem strange? First of all, it is clear
that we are tested by God (Gen 22:1). Secondly, does scripture ever say
we are tested any other way? I don't think so. If your thesis is
correct, then are tested in at least two ways: by God, and by our lusts
and desires.
For these reasons alone it seems compelling to define PEIRAZW, at least
in this context, as being temptation to evil.
Paul Dixon