If you don't mind, I think the meaning of PEIRAZW in James 1:13-14 can be
established right up front, at least as to what it cannot mean.
There is no question that PEIRAZEIN can and often does mean "to test, to
try." But that it does not mean that here is clear from PEIRAZEI DE
AUTOS OUDENA. (where the 3rd person singular refers to the preceding
QEOS), for this would be saying that God tests no one. Yet, we know from
other scripture (Gen 22:1, Jas 1:2) that God does test His people.
Therefore, it means something else here. But, what?
You have suggested "provoke" which at least is a significant departure
from "test," and conjures up a provoking to evil. It does not seem much
different than "tempt to evil." Actually, the verses do support this
idea. If in v. 13 GAR is explanatory, and DE is copulative, then both hO
... QEOS APEIRASTOS ESTIN KAKWN and PEIRAZEI ... AUTOS OUDENA are an
explanatory parallel to APO QEOU PEIRAZOMAI. Even if KAKWN goes with the
second clause, the point remains. Somehow KAKWN must be understood in the
clause APO QEOU PEIRAZOMAI. Since it is not stated, it must be bound up
in the meaning of PEIRAZOMAI. Hence, the meaning is "provoke or tempt to
evil."
Verse 14 gives the contrast. DE has to be adversative. If the provoking
or tempting to evil does not have its source in God (APO QEOU, genitive
of source), whence does it come? The agent or cause is our evil desires
(hUPO THS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS).
This, I believe is the tradition interpretation. It makes the best
sense.
Paul Dixon
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:59:26 -0500 (CDT) Jeffrey Gibson
<jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu> writes:
>
>List Members:
>
>
>As the discussion on James 1:13 continues, I would like comments on,
>refinements of, additions to, what I think are the questions that need
>to
>be resolved if we are to understand what this verse is saying.
>
>It may be in the end that the traditional translation of the verse is
>correct, and that what we have in James 1:13 is the very first use of
>PEIRAZW with the sense of "tempt" not "test". Though just yet, if we
>do
>have semantic change here, I would accept more readily another
>suggestion,
>namely, that PEIRAZW = "provoke" [Let no man say when he is provoked
>(to
>do evil? put God to the test?), "It is God who provokes me, for God is
>not
>to be Provoked with (such) evil things and God (moreover) does not
>Provoke
>anyone] than "tempt.
>
>
>In any case, here is what I see needs to be determined:
>
>To intepret James 1:13, several questions need to be resolved:
>
>1. What is the relationship between James 1:13 and its context?
>
> Is James 1:13 linked with what comes before it and what
> follows after it, and if so, in what way?
>
> Or is James 1:13 a fresh thought, at least, as
> Dibelius/Greeven claim, with respect to James 1:12,
> since, in their view, James 1:12 "is an isolated saying
> which is connected neither to what follows nor what
> precedes"?
>
>2. what is the nature of the GAR clause in James 1:13. If
> explanatory, what does it explain?
>
>3. what is the nature of the DE clause in James 1:13? -- a question
> which itself is dependent on knowing:
>
>4. what sense does DE bear in that clause (adversative?
> copulative)?
>
>5. what is signified by the phrase hO GAR QEOS APEIRASTOJ ESTIN
> KAKWN?
>
> That God is untemptable by evils?
>
> That God is inexperienced in Evil?
>
> That God is not to be put to the test by evils (or evil
> men)?
>
>6. What experience is presumed to have befallen the man who cries
>out APO QEOU PEIRAZOMAI and causes or motivates him to do so?
>
> Is it that of being "seduced to sin"?
>
> Is it failing a test of faithfulness?
>
>7. What is the significance of APO in the phrase APO QEOU
>PEIRAZOMAI?
>
>
>Jeffrey Gibson
>jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu
>