James 1:13-18

III. FIRST ADMONITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIRST FORM OF TEMPTATION: VISIONARINESS

CAUTION AGAINST THE VISIONARINESS WHICH REPRESENTS THE TEMPTATION AS GOD’S CAUSE. THE HIDEOUS FORM OF THE SELF-TEMPTATION OF THE ERRING AND THEIR END, DEATH.—THE OPPOSING IMMUTABILITY OF THE FATHER OF LIGHTS IN HIS BLESSING RULE AND THE EXALTATION OF HIS PRINCELY CHILDREN BORN BY THE WORD OF TRUTH.

James 1:13-18

(VJames James 1:16-21. Epistle for Fourth Sunday after Easter.)

13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:35 for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 16Do not err, my beloved brethren. 17Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom Isaiah 36:0 no variableness, neither shadow of turning37 18Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Analysis:—The first form of temptation—visionariness. The representation of the tempting thought as of God’s cause and caution against the deceptiveness of this temptation, James 1:13.—The hideous form of the self-temptation of the erring and their end,—death, James 1:14-16.—The opposing image of the true God in His blessing rule and His fixed immutability, James 1:17.—The exaltation of His princely children begotten by the word of truth, James 1:18.

The first form of the temptation—fanaticism, represented as a glorious cause of God, or a Divine admonition.

James 1:13. Let no one who is tempted say.—Caution against the deceptiveness of the temptation. It is incorrect to affirm that James opposes ὅς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν to ὅς πειράζεται, etc.; something like Huther, Pott, Olshausen, Schneck-enburger and al. For how could any one abide the temptation, without having first been tempted? James in this dehortation refers indeed to those who really say that they are tempted from God (which is also indicated by the forcible participial form) but even these he desires to reclaim while warning his better readers against their error. According to Calvin (and Wiesinger) James here treats de alio tentationis genere. But the matter is simply this; James now explains the one great πειρσμός according to the separate ποικίλοις πει ρασμοῖς and begins with the first form of the temptation.—[The force of the Participle should be brought out in the translation.—M.].

Shall Say,—λεγέτω according to Schneckenburger and al.=cogitet or sibi persuadeat, which is of course implied but not all, as Huther justly observes, [Bengel: corde aut ore—M.]. James connects this saying with the uncommonly much-saying of the Judaizing Jewish Christians and Jews, to which he alludes.

I am tempted from God.—Grotius, Hottinger and al. have rightly felt that the word ‘tempt’ bears a somewhat different sense in the two places, while Huther asserts without sufficient reason that the sense in both cases must be identical, viz.: to be inwardly solicited to sin. Let no one say: I am inwardly solicited to sin of God; but with such an exhortation James could not possibly have warned the twelve tribes. Said expositors miss however the correct distinction by saying that in the one instance it denotes: adversa pati, and in the other malis ad defectionem sollicitari. It is a sententious oxymoron conveying the idea: Let no one say that the impulse, which to him is really a temptation, and in the end a devilish one (James 3:15), in which he is already entangled (πειραζόμενος), is a monition of God, a cause of God, an incentive to maintain His honour. For this the Jews at a somewhat later period did really say in their uprising against the Romans, this they said even then in their fanatical utterings against the pagans, and the Judaizing Jewish Christians said in a similar manner: It is the will of God that we maintain His law and therefore separate from the Gentile Christians, as far as they do not receive the whole law or only in part. But James doubtless chose this poignant mode of expression in order to reproach those sayers with their making, though unconsciously, God the Author of evil. But it cannot be absolutely assumed that he is here inveighing against an impertinence generally or variously current among Jewish Christians, which made them charge God with temptations to evil, of which they were conscious, for we have no data to warrant such an assumption. This was not the language of the Sadducees, nor of the Pharisees, or Essenes (as has been thought by Bull, Ittig and Schneckenburger with reference to their doctrine of the εἱμαρμένη), still less could he aim at Simon Majus (Calov); on the other hand the reference is not simply to the general bias of the natural man to charge God somehow with the πειράζεσθαι, which the Jews might strengthen by misinterpretations of the Old Testament (Huther; see also the Note p. 59; Proverbs 19:3; Sir 15:11-12); for our Epistle deals throughout not with mere generalities, but with concrete relations.—ὅτι is a much used formula of quotation; ἀπό, as Huther observes, is not as strong as ὑπό. [See Winer, p. 382, ἀπό= through influences proceding from God.—M.].

For God is not temptable.—The reasons for the foregoing in a twofold assertion respecting God. First, He is ἀπείραστος. This ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the New Testament must not be confounded with the classical ἀπείρατος (in the sense of inexperienced) as denoting: God has no experience of evil (Schulthess, de Wette, Huther). Equally objectionable is the active construction of the word (Luther following the Vulgate ‘intentator’), for its weak grammatical basis, the Genitive κακῶν, its tautology both with respect to what goes before and to what follows forbid the active construction. The passive-adjective construction, however, not tempted, not temptable, which is generally adopted is not only not against grammatical usage as Huther maintains, (see the adjectival ἀκατάστατος James 5:8), nor against the connection, as he thinks also. For James wants to strengthen the dehortation, “Let no man say, etc.” For this saying, like all fanaticism, was a tempting God, and therefore vain and impious, because God does not suffer Himself to be tempted. Hence we might feel inclined to take κακῶν in the Masculine and to denote evil men; but this would probably be expressed more definitely. To think of evils (Oecumenius) is somewhat far-fetched, but also the evil in the Singular would be too general; the Plural in the present connection points to concrete and intensively evil things. [But there is an insuperable objection to Lange’s derivation of the word from πειράζω; for ἀπείραστος=untempted, not temptable: but James argues not concerning God being tempted, but concerning God tempting. I therefore prefer the common usage of the word ‘inexperienced in’; so Alford, Winer and (in part at least) Wordsworth, who adds, “that James may perhaps refer to the false tenet of some of the heretics of the early Church, who said that it was the duty of men to have experimental knowledge of all evil, in order to the attainment of perfection.” See Palm and Rost’s Lexicon and Weststein for examples in favour of ‘inexperienced in’.—M.]. Secondly: But He Himself tempteth no one.—[Lange takes no notice of δὲ which has here adversative force and makes therefore against his rendering ‘not temptable,’ while it favours the rendering ‘inexperienced in;’ and δὲ here is=“not so, but” Alford.—M.]. Second negation aimed at the substance of the proposition “I am tempted from God”(Huther). Αὐτός is construed differently; Huther takes it as antithesis to what follows in the sense: it is not He who tempts, but every man is tempted etc. Theile and Wiesinger take it in contrast with what goes before: He Himself (self-active). And this is probably right; He suffers Himself not to be drawn by God-tempting fanatics into their unholy interests, but He Himself becomes tempter to no man; the solicitation to evil, in the trial which He appoints, is not from Him. Stress must therefore be laid on both—not He,—tempteth not any one. [Lange hardly does justice to Huther whose view is very lucid. “Let no one say when he is tempted to evil, from God I am tempted: for God has no part in evil: but as to the temptation, He tempts no man etc.”—M.].

[Wordsworth here quotes Augustine, Tractat. in Joann. 43 and de consensu Evang. ii. 30, who raises a question on this passage. If God tempts no one, how is it that He is said in Scripture to tempt Abraham (Genesis 22:1)? To which he replies that St. James is speaking of temptations arising from evil motives with a view to an evil end. No such temptations are from God. But God is said to have tempted, that is, to have tried Abraham, from a good motive and for a good end. He tried him, in love to him and to all men, in order that he might become the Father of the faithful and be an example of obedience to all ages of the world.” See also Tertullian de Orat. c. 8. “God forbid that we should imagine that He tempts any one, as if He were ignorant of any man’s faith, or desired to make any one fall. No, such ignorance and malice belong not to God, but to the devil. Abraham was commanded to slay his son, not for his temptation but for the manifestation of his faith, as a pattern and proof to all, that no pledges of love, however dear, are to be preferred to God.—Christ, when tempted by the devil, showed who it is that is the author of temptation, and who it is that is our Guardian against it.”—M.].

With reference to the seemingly contradictory passages Genesis 22:1; Deuteronomy 8:2 and others, it is first of all necessary to distinguish as much between temptation and obduracy as between Abraham and Pharaoh. According to the concrete expression of the Old Testament God tempts Abraham by subjecting him to a trial to which the popular idea, handed down by tradition, clings as an element of temptation. He tempts Pharaoh by subjecting him to a trial in which the judgment of his self-delusion must reach its consummation. God therefore has no part whatsoever in the temptation itself as a solicitation to evil but throughout concurs in it, in the beginning trying or proving, at the end judging, at the intermediate stages chastising and punishing. It is with reference to the punishing feature in temptation that we pray: lead us not into temptation. God, as Calvin remarks, is never the author of evil.

The hideous form of the self-temptation of the erring by evil concupisence and its fruit—death, James 1:14-16.

James 1:14. But every one is tempted.—Wiesinger wrongly insists upon the necessity of distinguishing the being tempted in this verse from the falling into temptation James 5:2, as an intrinsical occurrence. The representation of tempting lust under the figure of an unchaste woman rather shows that James thinks of the lust belonging to the person tempted objectively in some folly which he encounters extrinsically, just as in Proverbs 7:5, etc. But he is quite right in opposing the above drawn course of good demeanour in temptation to the now drawn course of misdemeanour. But this point we shall touch further on. The objective folly, therefore, encountered by the person tempted, is, according to the Apostle’s idea, really nothing else than his very own (ἰδία emphasized) lust; first, because it springs also, as the temptation of Satan and the world, from the same ungodly ἐπιθυμία, from the alter ego of his own sinfulness, and secondly, because his evil lust which has now become objective can only control him by his subjective evil lust. If, according to a well-founded distinction, we are tempted by the world, the devil and our own flesh and blood, we must further explain this thus: the temptation of the world and the devil also is in its nature uniformly homogeneous worldliness and selfishness and it is only in a man’s self-own and subjective evil lust that temptation is able to become to him an ensnaring temptation in a narrower sense. Thus the great temptation of that time was everywhere only one temptation both to the Jews and the Jewish-Christians; all those glittering, variegated visionary expectations which seductively met the individual, had sprung from the matter of the chiliastic, world-lusting, spiritual pride. It is on this property in the dazzling object that James lays principal stress, because every one must overcome the world and Satan in his own strength by overcoming himself. In the first place we have now to inquire why he renders the ἰδία ἐπιθυμία objective in the figure of the unchaste woman. According to Theile and Wiesinger the words: Every one, etc., should be construed thus: Every one is tempted by his own lust in that he is lured etc. The pure expression of the antithesis: “tempted from God,” “tempted by his own lust,” seems to favour it. But this construction wipes out the figure that follows in its very conception. The sense is rather: “Every one is tempted, in that he,” etc., according to the construing of Luther, de Wette and Huther; viz., his own inward concupiscence meeting him as a soliciting unchaste woman. For this image is immediately indicated by the verbs ἐξέλκειν and δελεάζειν. Schneckenburger observes on it: Verba e re venatoria et piscatoria in rem amatoriam et inde in nostrum tropum translata. ἐξέλκειν (in N. T. ἅπαξ λεγ.) and δελεάζειν are not synonymous (Pott: protahere in littus), in fact it has hardly a specific meaning in the res venatoria (Schultess: elicere bestias ex tuto); but in the res amatoria we may distinguish it from allurement proper in that it draws men from their intrinsicality and independence by dazzling interest (to draw off and to allure—Germ. ablocken and anlocken); δελεάζειν (from δέλεαρ=esca exposita ad capienda animalia) occurs also 2Pe 2:14; 2 Peter 2:18, and is used also by the classics metaphorically, always in a bad sense. Now we must not overlook the force of the Participles ἐξελκόμενος etc., they denote the process of development (becoming) in the course of which temptation becomes entanglement as far as man continues in it. He is first drawn out from his inward self-control and fortress and then attracted (drawn to) by the unchaste woman’s allurings. [This is the reason why I have retained the Participles in my translation.—M.]. But the intrinsical decision proper is further expressed by εἶτα συλλαβοῦσα. Ἐπιθυμία however does not denote “innocent sensuousness.” “The word occurs here, as it, always occurs in the N. T. (except where its specific object is indicated, as in Luke 22:15; Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:17) also without the addition of κακή, σαρκική, or some similar adjective, in sensu malo.” Huther. Ἐπιθυμία is not, indeed, birth-sin per se (as Huther rightly observes), but just as little only an evil lusting for the commission of the deed springing from birth-sin, as he argues against Wiesinger, whose almost equivalent exposition he scruples to admit. It is birth-sin itself in its concrete activity (“prava concupiscentia”) viewed from its positive side as worldliness and selfishness, assuming in different situations innumerable variations. Maintaining with Pott the figurative description of different personifications, we find that the reference is not to four but to three generations. We have in succession the unchaste mother or the ἐπιθυμία, the unchaste daughter or ἁμαρτία in the narrower sense of deed-sin and the son and grandson of the voluptuous mothers, the murderer-son death. Man yielding with his will to the allurement of evil lust, his moral relations assume a kind of natural sequence and the rest follows of itself. Lust becomes impregnated and brings forth sin, while sin brings forth (as it were out of itself or pursuant to its essential connection with ἐπιθυμία—hastening along with its own maturity the maturing of the hereditary death-germ) death.

James 1:15. Then, when lust hath conceived.—This denotes man’s proper surrendering to his evil lust in a manner which indicates that it was to be expected because he kept standing (continued,) in the allurement (δελεαζόμενος). The evil lust is fecundated i.e. it has obtained the mastery over the will of man.

It bringeth forth sin. (וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֵד).—De Wette and al. make ἁμαρτία denote the intrinsical act of sin and ἁμαρτία the extrinsical deed-sin. But Wiesinger and Huther are right in saying that the intrinsical act is involved in συλλαβοῦσα. On the other hand Calvin, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger and al. take the ἁμαρτία to denote the whole sinful life. But Huther says that it denotes the equal deed-sin, yet, in its entire development passing through its different stages until it subjects man to itself so that all reaction is at an end. “For ἀποτελεῖν is neither =perpetrare (Pott), nor=operari (Laurentius), nor=τίκτειν (τεχθεῖσα, Baumgarten), but=to complete; hence ἡ ἁμαρτία =sin advanced to the completeness of its development. Now since sin makes its first appearance as a new-birth the allusion to the now matured unchaste young woman which several commentators have found in the ἀποτελεσθεῖσα, is not outside the cycle of James’s thoughts; the expression certainly brings out the idea that she did reach a false τέλος which is the opposite of the τέλος to which the believing Israelite attains in virtue of his well-demeanour. True Judaism has matured into Christianity, Judaizing into anti christian apostasy. In point of meaning the exposition of Wiesinger coincides pretty much with that of Huther, but the latter has the preference of firmly keeping up the image of sin itself in its process of completion.

Bringeth forth death.—“The word ἀποκύει (found in the N. T. only here and in James 1:18) differs from τίκτει only in that the former indicates more clearly that the ἁμαρτία is from the outset pregnant with the θάνατος.” Huther.—Huther and Wiesinger explain death both of temporal and eternal death, Romans 6:23. But between the two lies the historical, indeterminate (unabsehbar) death (which being indeterminate must therefore be distinguished from absolute death [Untergang]), and as soon as we consider the concrete import of this passage, this feature of death becomes of the utmost importance. And here we have to call attention to the antithesis which Wiesinger has found between James 1:3-4 and this passage. The first proposition that “the trial of faith by tribulation answers to the incitement of the will by lust” we consider to be false; to fall into temptation and to be tempted are identical. But the consciousness of the πειράζεσθαι and the ἐξελκόμενοζ and δελεαζόμενος in connection with the antithesis of operative πίστις there and operative ἐπιθυμία here, this is one real antithesis; the second is the ὑπομονή there and ἁμαρτία here. Again the ἔργον τέλειον there and the ἁμαρτία here; lastly the τέλειοι there (connected with the στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς James 5:12) and the θάνατος here. The last two antitheses Wiesinger has taken together. Applying now the whole passage to the circumstances peculiar to the time of James, the completed sin denotes the completed apostasy of the Jewish people and death their historical judgment (see James 5:0. and Romans 10:0). This of course does not exclude the more general meaning of our passage which opens the prospect of eternal death as well as the most specific meaning according to which every mortal sin is followed by spiritual death. We have still to notice the different dogma-tropes: sin brings forth death (James), sin is followed by death as its wages or punishment (Paul), sin is death (John).—Likewise we must guard our passage against the [Roman] Catholic inference that sin as such must be distinguished from evil concupiscence (lust) with Calvin: “Neque enim disputat Jacobus, quando incipiat nasci peccatum, ita ut peccatum sit et reputetur coram deo, sed quando emergat.” James, to be sure, and all Holy Scripture prompt us to distinguish intrinsical deed-sin or the evil counsel of the heart from the direct and natural motions of sinful desire. Lastly we must avoid the presumption that James by the use of this frightful image simply wanted to didactically prove that temptation does not come from God; he also wanted his readers to understand it as to its real nature, origin and working. Hence the further admonition: “Be ye not deceived.” [Alford develops another view of the above image. “The harlot ἐπιθυμία, ἐξέλκει and δελεάζει the man: the guilty union is committed by the will embracing the temptress: the consequence is that she τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν sin, in general, of some kind, of that kind to which the temptation inclines: then ἡ ἁμαρτία that particular sin, when grown up and mature—herself ἀποκύει, ‘extrudit,’ as if all along pregnant with it, death, the final result of sin. So that temptation to sin cannot be from God, while trial is from Him.”—He also recalls the sublime allegory in Milton’s Paradise Lost (Book II) where Satan by his own evil lust brings forth sin (“out of thy head I sprung”), and then by an incestuous union with sin

(——Back they recoil’d afraidAt first and called me sin, and for a signPortentous held me; but familiar grown,I pleased and with attractive graces wonThe most averse, thee chiefly, who full oftThyself in me thy perfect image viewingBecam’st enamour’d, and such joy thou took’stWith me in secret, that my womb conceivedA growing burden.—)causes her to bring forth Death.—M.].

James 1:16. Be not ye deceived.—Although this sentence refers also to what follows (Theile) and not solely to what goes before (Gebser) the reference to the latter (Wiesinger) is greater than that to the former. The expression, moreover, has the full pregnancy of a warning against objective images and spirits of temptation, according to de Wette, “be not ye deceived,” and not with Gebser, “err not.” The warmth of this caution is heightened by the address:

My beloved brethren, although they were to find the means of strengthening and confirming this exhortation in the subsequent instruction concerning the true God of revelation. Huther: “The same formula is found in 1Co 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Galatians 6:7 (a similar one 1 John 3:7 [μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς.—M.], in all these passages it follows up a thought peculiar to the Christian consciousness, by which an antecedent statement receives its confirmation.” [Wordsworth: The formulas μὴ πλανῶ “be not thou deceived,” and μὴ πλανᾶσθε “be not ye deceived,” are the preambles used in Scripture and by ancient Fathers, in order to introduce cautions against, and refutations of some popular error, as here.—M.].

The opposing image of the true God, etc.

James 1:17. Every good giving (bestowing).—We ask leave to reproduce the Hexameter (see Winer, § 68, 5a, p. 663) because nothing but a close consideration of the text has led us to do so. [The German rendering is as follows: “Jegliche gute Bescherung und alle vollkommene Gabe”—the Greek original reads thus: πᾱσᾰ δῠ | σῑς ᾰγ̆α | θ̄η κᾱι | πᾱν δω̄ | ρ̄ημ̆α τ̆ε | λε̄ιο̆ν, the last syllable in the second foot σις being lengthened by the arsis.—M]. Standing by the side of δώρημα, δόσις can hardly have the same meaning as the former (as Huther maintains); δόσις rather denotes primarily the act of giving and secondarily the gift. But alongside of δώρημα, which denotes gift, donation, present, it becomes at all events the lesser giving, while δώρημα is the more weighty expression. To this must be added the gradation of the adjectives ἀγαθή, τέλειον. It is certainly unfounded to apply δόσις to gifts of nature and δώρημα to gifts of grace, but this does not involve an identity (so Huther) which is here very tautologically expressed. Τέλειου must be made the starting-point of the exposition. According to the New Testament idea of τελείωσις, τέλειονcorresponds with the ἔργον τέλειον and the Christians as τέλειοι, and with the ἁμαρτία , James 5:15. And just as the perfect work can only be understood as the consistent practical exhibition of the theocratical faith in Christianity, and as the τέλειος describes one who has decided for Christ, while sin completed denotes the sin of Christ-inimical apostasy, so also δώρημα τέλειου signifies the gift of God completed in Christianity. Our δώρημα reminds us of Christ as χάρισμα Romans 5:15; but here the reference is probably to the Christian revelation in the fulness of its gifts. This would make πᾶσα δόσις to denote everything which served to prepare this completed gift in the olden time, especially in the old covenant, according to the analogy of Hebrews 1:1. The readers here and there should know that the one and only God presides over the difference and antithesis between the Old Covenant and the New. It is not to be wondered at that several commentators (Raphelius, Augusti) were tempted to take πᾶσα and πᾶν in an exclusive sense, for the antithesis lay near: God tempts no man, nothing but good comes from Him. This would be a more distinct statement of the antithesis, but James wanted to present it in a richer form: not only does no evil come from God, nay rather all good comes from Him. It is moreover ἄνωθεν καταβαῖνων in uninterrupted permanence, a perpetual rain and sunshine of gifts. The Participle is to be duly considered and we ought really to render: it comes and comes. The word gift for δώρημα is rather weak and donating would be more weighty than donation. [Bengel renders δόσις datio and δώρημα donum. On the whole δόσις=datio=giving, and δώρημα=donum=gift, is probably the nearest rendering which the Latin and English tongues admit. Bp. Andrews, who has two sermons on this text, vol. iii. p. 36, and vol. v. p. 311 observes p. 313, that δόσις , donatio bona or good giving, represents rather the act of giving which bestows things of present use for this life, whether for our souls or bodies, in our journey to our heavenly country; but δώρημα τέλειον or perfect gift, designates those unalloyed and enduring treasures, which are laid up for us in eternity. I have retained the Participle in my translation.—M.].

From the Father of the lights.—Huther and Wiesinger agree with the majority of modern commentators that the lights here signify the heavenly bodies. But we do not believe that a single passage of Holy Writ can be produced in support of such an abnormal mode of expression, Psalms 136:0. the LXX. say concerning the stars τῷ ποιήσαντι φῶτα μεγάλα, Jeremiah 4:23 τὰ φῶτα αὐτοῦ. But Scripture as well as the Nicene Creed uniformly distinguish make from create and beget. Job 38:28 surely does not mean that God is the father of rain. Setting aside the following explanations of the lights: knowledge (Hornejus), joy (Michaelis), wisdom or goodness (Wolf), it is hardly necessary to think of the Urim and Thummim (Heisen) and even the reference to the angels (Kern and Olshausen) cannot be retained. But the reference to the Sermon on the Mount, with which James is so intimately connected, is less remote. In Matthew 5:14, the disciples are called τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου and in James 5:16, they are actually distinguished from their light as candlesticks or light-bearers. The Messiah is often called a Light in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:2; Isaiah 49:6, etc.) and in the New Testament it is an appellation by which He describes Himself (John 8:12; cf. James 1:4 and other passages). Also John the Baptist He calls a light John 5:35 and Philippians 2:15 Christians are referred to: ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ. If in favour of the aforesaid exposition it is alleged that God Himself is called φῶς 1 John 1:5 (cf. 1 Timothy 6:15) it is necessary clearly to distinguish that ethical idea from the physical. The subsequent metaphors: παρ’ ᾦ, are claimed in favour of the disputed exposition; but they constitute an antithesis between God, the Light without shadow and the symbolical bodies of light, which are not without casting their shadows. Besides all this, believers as God-begotten children are distinguished in James 1:18 as an ἀπαρχή from the κτίσματα. The Scholion ap. Matth; ἤτοι τῶν , ἤ τῶν πεφωτισμένων , seems accordingly to be right in the last clause in the sense that the whole line of organs of revelation from Abraham to Christ as the representatives of all good spirits is what is meant here, [Bengel: Patris appellatio congruens huic loco; sequitur ἀπεκύησεν. Ipse Patris, et matris, loco est. Est Pater luminum etiam spiritualium in regno gratiæ et gloriæ. Ergo multo magis Ipse Lux est, 1 John 1:5. Lucis mentione statim, ut solet, subjungitur mentio vitæ, ex regeneratione. James 5:18. There is no reason why the two interpretations should not be combined. God is the Father of all lights, the lights of nature and the lights of grace; the Father not only of the light of reason and conscience, the light of knowledge and goodness but also the Father of the children of Light. To enter in this connection upon hair-splitting distinctions between create, make and beget, seems hardly the thing. Whatever is gross and material is of course eliminated from the meaning of any of said three expressions, and if the spiritual conception of the Divine character as Maker, Creator and Father, has once been reached, metaphysical quibbles may well be dispened with.—M.].

With whom (as peculiar to whom) there is not existing.—We give this construction of the passage on account of ἔνι, without discussing the question whether ἔνι is a peculiar form (Buttmann, Winer), or an abbreviation of ἔνεστι (Meyer, Huther).

A change or a shadow-casting.—In the first place it is to be remembered that these words are ἅπαξ λεγ. in the New Testament. Then the first word, being the more general, must be explained by the second and more definite one. The Greek commentators limit the figurative to the ἀποσκίασμα (Oecumenius, Theophylact and al.): with God there is no mutation or a shadow (i.e. a trace or appearance of a change, or also of a reservation; they are followed among modern expositors by Morus, Rosenmüller, Hensler, Theile. The Latin commentators, on the other hand (Justinianus, Estius, a Lapide and al.) apply the expression ad solis vicissitudines et conversiones. Then also Luther (see the Translation), Grotius, Wetstein, Flatt, Schulthess. For a full treatment of the passage see Gebser, who explains it of the shadows cast by the solstice. Wiesinger suggests changes of the moon, solar and lunar eclipses and regards the shadow as the effect of τροπή; similar is the exposition of Huther: the shadow cast on the heavenly body, effected by its changing position. But solar and lunar eclipses are phenomena too rare and transient in order to give a pregnant expression to the idea in question. And although there may not be used here any termini technici of Astronomy (as Huther observes) in their strict sense, the contemplation of the world in every age led probably to a sufficient knowledge of astronomy in order to recognize in the diurnal phenomenal revolution of the sun, the moon and the stars the cause of all nocturnal obscurings of the earth. The sun has not only its annual but its diurnal solstice. In like manner the moon and the stars rise and set and leave us in absolute night. But God is in a very different sense the Light of the world, a Sun that never sets. To this refer Psalms 139:9; Psalms 139:12; Job 34:22; it was also symbolized by the pillar of fire in the camp of the Israelites. Now if the expression τροπῆς denotes such a phenomenal shadow-casting of the revolving heavenly bodies, we can hardly take παραλλαγή in a purely general sense (Huther)=mutation, but as a figurative description of a change of position (standing-place). This alternation is the first thing: the constant progression of the celestial bodies, the turning, follow as the result. Now if the heavenly bodies, as the created symbols of the Divine being of light, possess the property of being not without shadow and night we get the antithesis that God, the Father of the Lights is eternally the same, not only per se, but also in the phenomena of these lights: that is to say, He makes no revolution with the Old Testament which could cast a night-shadow on the New (as the Talmud at a later period attempted to make such a revolution), nor does He suffer the New Testament to cast a night-shadow on the Old (according to the later opinion of the Gnostics and of all rationalists). The Father of the lights remains unchanged even in this antithesis. [“God is always in the meridian.” Wetstein.—Bengel’s note will be found useful: “παραλλαγὴ dicit mutationem in intellectu; (vide LXX. 2 Reg. 9:20), τροπὴ mutationem voluntatis. In utroque vocabulo est metaphora a stellis, huic loco, ubi luminum mentio fit, aptissima. παραλλαγὴ et τροπὴ est in natura (vid. τροπὰς Job 38:33) quæ habet quotidianam vicissitudinem diei et noctis, et longiores modo dies modo noctes: in Deo nil tale est. Ipse est Lux mera, παραλλαγὴ et τροπὴ, si qua accidit, penes nos est, non penes Patrem luminum. ἀποσκίασμα interdum dicit ὁμοίωμα. Sic enim Hesychius, interpretatur. unde Gregorius Naz. τὸ τῆς tanquam synonyma ponit: et apud Tullium, Budæo observante, adumbratio rei opponitur perfectioni ejus; sed hoc loco opponitur luminibus, adeoque magis proprie sumitur, ut ἀποσκίασμα τροπῆς sit jactus umbræ primulus, revolutionem habens conjunctam. Idem Hebraismus genitivi mox, abundantiam malitiæ, ex quo colligere licet, τὸ transmutatio opponi τῷ datio bona, quemadmodum vicissitudinis obumbratio opponitur τῷ donum perfectum. παραλλαγὴ aliquid majus est. Hinc gradatio in oratione negante: ne quidem vicissitudinis adumbratio. Hoc demum efficit perfectionem; illud bonum est. Perfectior est, qui ne quidem vicissitudinis adumbrationem habet.”—M.].

The exaltation of the children of God begotten by the word of truth.

James 1:18. Pursuant to free decree hath He begotten us.—The connection of these words with what goes before is differently construed: 1. as coördination: God the Father of lights is also the Author of our regeneration (Theile); 2. as exemplification: generatio spiritualis, quasi exemplum aliquod donorum istorum spiritualium (Laurentius, de Wette); 3. as an inference drawn from the general idea of the former (Huther). But regeneration, as matter of experience, cannot be inferred from a dogma concerning God; 4. as proof or demonstration (Gebser, Kern). Wiesinger’s remarks are excellent: “The greatest δώρημα (James 1:18) which consists in the Divinely effected regeneration of man by the word of truth, is now mentioned by the author in lieu of everything else as the brightest actual proof that nothing evil, but all good comes from God. This act of His holy love is at once the strongest exhortation to a demeanour well-pleasing to Him. (James 1:19 etc.).” The Apostle shows therefore how the heaven-descended δώρημα τέλειον had evidenced itself as such by its effect, viz. the regeneration of believers. Now in thus laying the strongest emphasis on the exalted dignity, the ὕψος of Christians following from their regeneration, he also emasculates thereby the fallacy of that seductive fanaticism, which would fain mislead them to pursue a false phantom of this exaltation on chiliastic and revolutionary paths. At the same he presents to all Jews this true life-picture of their exaltation. Βουληθείς is the emphatic beginning of the sentence. “Pursuant to his established (Aorist) free decree.” The element of love (Bengel: voluntate amantissima) lies primarily not in the word itself but in its connection. The antithesis is (according to Bede, Calvin and al.) the meritoriousness of good works. It lies however nearer to see the primary reference to the Jewish claims to the kingdom (Romans 9:0), especially because the βουληθείς at any rate contains the element of voluntary determination. The verb itself, used here, shows plainly that reference is made not to natural birth, but to regeneration, for ἀποκύειν is the synonyme of γεννᾷν etc. (1 John 3:9; 1 Peter 1:23; 2 Peter 1:4).” So Huther rightly answers Pott, who wants to explain ἀποκύειν by facere, efficere.

Us, i.e., the Christians. But the objective regeneration of humanity in Christ was primarily also designed for the Jews as the regeneration of the nation and the theocracy, and to this teleological element the sequel constrains us to give a proper share of our consideration. Besides this objective element, subjectively realized by believers, We must also take cognizance of the emphasis: begotten by the Father of lights and thus destined to the enjoyment of the most exalted dignity. [Bengel, as usual, gives us the pith of the whole riches of thought in a nutshell and supplies commentators with mental food. Much of Lange’s view may be traced back to Bengel, and some of the beautiful reflections of Wordsworth, which we shall produce under Doctrinal and Ethical, seem to flow from the same source. He says: βουληθεῖς, volens, voluntate amantissima, liberrima, purissima, fœcundissima. Hebr. אב ab אבה voluit; cf. John 1:13. Congruit ἔλεος, misericordia, 1 Peter 1:3. Antitheton, concupiscentia cum conceperit.—ἀπεκύησεν. Antitheton, ἀποκύει, James 1:15 (cf. also what he says on James 1:17, Ipse (Deus) Patris et matris loco est.—M.].

By the word of truth.—The Gospel as the completion of the whole word of revelation. The word of truth regarded not only as opposed to the law as such, or even to the tradition of the law, but especially also as opposed to the lies and frauds of fanaticism which promised to make the readers of the Epistle sons of the kingdom. This also chimes in with the antithesis in time: what the temptation promises you in a phantom, the word of truth has already made us in reality. The word of truth, i.e., the word which is truth (Genit. Appos. [cf. John 17:17 : ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς —M.)], but also the expression and life of truth (1 Peter 1:23; cf. Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5=εὐαγγέλιον; 2 Timothy 2:15). The whole Epistle shows that James meant the mediation of this word by Christ, but the idea is more general because by this completion he comprehends into one whole the entire old Testament as Christianity in process of being (or becoming). [These words are also susceptible of a different interpretation. According to it the λόγος is personal and denotes the Eternal Word, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, by Whom we have been born again (cf. 1 Peter 1:23), “Who for our sakes became Incarnate and by being Incarnate gave “to those, who receive Him power to become sons of God,” who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God (John 1:13), and through whom we cry “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15; Galatians 3:26), and become “partakers of the Divine nature.” Wordsworth. The noble array of authorities, in favour of this interpretation, will be found under “Doctrinal and Ethical.”—M.].

That we should be; not that we should become. But the teleological mode of expression is probably chosen in order to indicate that the Jews should become what Christians already are.

A (kind of) first fruit.—Calvin: τινὰ similitudinis est nota; nos quodam modo esse primitias. So Huther, Wiesinger, Gebser and al. But James hardly needed to give prominence to this symbolical mode of speech in an Epistle, symbolical throughout. It was self-evident. But on that account we are hardly prepared to understand the reference in the word with Bengel: “quædam habet modestiam, nam primitiæ proprie et absolute est Christus.” Christ is here included as Mediator of the Christian first fruit. But James, using this expression, might well recollect that the angels of God are a different kind of first-fruit of the creation. It has been inferred from this passage that Christians are also superior to the angels; at all events they are coördinated with them as a different type of celestial first-born. The frequent occurrence of this word in a symbolical sense (Leviticus 23:10; Numbers 18:12; Deuteronomy 26:2) removes all doubt that ἀπαρχή alludes to the God-consecrated first-fruit in the Old Covenant (Laurentius: allusio est ad ritum legalem in V. T. de consecratione primogenitorum, frugum, jumentorum et hominum). The word therefore involves also the idea that Christians are a people consecrated to the service of God, even as the first-consecrated in relation to the future conversion of the Gentiles and “the glorification of the world.” (Huther.) But this does not warrant the inference drawn by Huther and Wiesinger that the first-born in point of time settles the idea of first-fruit in point of dignity. Even in the province of nature the idea of the first-born or matured is more or less connected with the idea of the excellent. In the New Testament, however, this idea of the word in a spiritual sense, is repeatedly made prominent (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1Co 15:23; 1 Corinthians 16:15; Revelation 14:4). But there is yet another element of the idea, which has to be decidedly held fast. As the first-fruit was at once the prophecy and surety of the whole subsequent harvest, so Christ as ἀπαρχή of the resurrection is surety for the subsequent stages of the resurrection, so the Holy Ghost in believers is surety for the subsequent glory (Romans 8:23); so the first believers of Israel in their unity are sureties for the future conversion of the whole nation, Romans 11:6. We see no reason for abandoning any one of these three elements, 1. The God-consecrated first-fruit people, 2. the first dignity of the real children of God involved in it, 3. the living security for future conversions, even for the glorification of the world. Huther ojects to the second element that instead of τινὰ we ought to have κτισμάτων followed by νέων or καινῶν. But the difficulty with regard to τινὰ has been settled above, and Huther’s exposition, not ours, would require a νέων. Even the taking of πρῶτοι in the sense of τιμιώτατοι or some similar word (in Oecumenius) is not against the Apostle’s idea; it only presents modifications and consequences of πρῶτοι.

Of His creatures.—This expression which relates generally to the whole creation but particularly to God’s moral institutions in mankind, brings out primarily the second sense of ἀπαρχή, as in Psalms 8:0.; Romans 8:0 :1 Corinthians 6:2-3; but also the third sense. Christians as God’s ἀπαρχή are not only superior to the doings of the moral world and to the propensities of the natural world, but they are also as God’s ἀπαρχή sureties for the glorification of the world. The κτίσματα τοῦ θεοῦ, although they are not really the καινὴ κτίσις (Olshausen), but the ἀπαρχὴ θεοῦ belongs also to them, as a surety that they will ripen into the καινή κτίσις, just as the first-fruits are an ἀπαρχή of the ripening fields. The depth of Christian knowledge contained in this passage has been admirably set forth by Wiesinger, p. 88, etc., to which the reader is referred. [We give it below under “Doctrinal and Ethical.”—M.]. Particular note should be taken of the striking accord of this passage in James with the fundamental ideas of the doctrine of Paul, in βουληθείς, election, free grace; in ἀπεκύησεν the doctrine of regeneration and the new creature, in the λόγος the antithesis of law and symbol, in the ἀπαρχή not only the relation of Christians to the world, but in particular the relation of the Jewish Christians to the Jews (Romans 10:0), and in the κτίσματα his doctrine of the glorification of the world by Christ, Romans 8:0.; Ephesians 1:0.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

If there is one question, which for centuries has engaged and exhausted the reflection of the most celebrated philosophers, it is this: whence is moral evil? Moral evil, disorder in the dominion of a God of order and justice, a discord in the harmony of creation, an ever-flowing spring of misery by the side of so many and copious fountains of happiness opened for us by a higher Love. Who is the author of its disastrous existence? Does it come from God? If so, how could God be just and holy? And if it does not come from Him, how could it originate, continue and rule from the world’s first dawn until now? There is no thinker who has not stood in silent contemplation of the riddle and there is also no thinker who has been able to resist the temptation of making at least an effort towards its solution. The various schools of Greek philosophy exhibit the most contradictory principles. The most different gnostic systems of the second century we see revolve round this problem as if it were their immutable centre. And even the speculative philosophy of our century, no matter how often its idealism departed from the maxims of experience, found it impossible wholly to overlook this dark back-ground of all human self-consciousness and had to include the investigation of evil in the course of its contemplations, if for no other purpose than that of denying the reality of sin as constituting the guilt of mankind. The most important efforts of human thought to explain the origin of moral evil have been discussed in a masterly manner by Julius Müller in his classical work, “Die Christliche Lehre von der Sünde” (new edition, 1844.)

2. The principal features of the doctrine, which James here presents concerning the origin of sin, may be compressed into one sentence, viz.: Sin is in no event God’s fault but altogether our own. Every explanation of the origin of sin which makes God directly or indirectly the causa efficiens mali, James condemns in toto (as to its inmost ground), as does also Paul, Romans 3:8.

3. Nothing is more common than the endeavour to charge God directly or indirectly with the guilt of our transgressions. Even the heathen sought shelter in the subterfuge that some divinity or irresistible demon had impelled them to evil and the Jews asked “Why does he yet find fault?” Romans 9:19. The most ancient art of sinful mankind was the sewing of fig-leaves (Genesis 3:7), and also the modern rationalism of our century in this respect seems neither to have learnt nor to have forgotten any thing. Sin, in the opinion of modern rationalists, is a relative, yet an altogether unavoidable evil. Is God not the Almighty who creates light and darkness, the Infinite from whom, by whom, and to whom are all things absolutely, the Omniscient, who foresaw the abuse of moral freedom and might easily have prevented it? It is therefore plainly thus: man could not but altogether fall and he falls not only with the high sanction but also according to the will and arrangement of God. Sin is a wholly indispensable part of our earthly plan of education just as a child would never have learned to walk without having previously stumbled. Sin is the inseparable shade-side of the light of perfection, which as it shines is inconceivable without a shadow. Sin is a want of development, an imperfection, grounded nolens volens in the organization of our race, for which we can no more be held accountable than for having feet but no wings. Thus sin, which is free choice and a daring opposition to God, is fundamentally made to be a rule and what might yet be wanting to the fair-seeming theory, appears in still more glaring colours in practice. Even the dullest mind becomes inexhaustible in wit and understanding if it is necessary to excuse the commission of evil. There is nothing more difficult even to infant lips than the admission of personal guilt. Now it is the fault of others or of circumstances in which we find ourselves placed, again it is the fault of our temperament or the natural infirmity of an originally excellent heart. Aye, how many a Christian seeks to lessen his guilt with the pious sigh that God had let go his hand for a moment, that the Lord had hidden His countenance from him so that now he could not evince himself as a child of light; that the flesh had proved too strong for him and it was really not he that kept on sinning, but the invincible principle of flesh within himself. If James were to revisit us, he would not have any occasion to withdraw his exhortation as superfluous: “Let no man, being tempted, say, I am tempted from God.”

4. It is only necessary to enter somewhat more profoundly into the idea that God in the most absolute sense of the word is ἀπείραστος κακῶν in order to perceive the infinite superiority of the Christian conception of God to the ethnical. James, in this respect, occupies not only a lofty religious but also a purely ethical standpoint. Just as the conception of God with many is obscured by sins, so on the other hand, the Christian conception of God corrects many confused or one-sided theories of the origin of sin.

5. In order that we may thoroughly understand the teaching of James respecting the origin of sin, we must in particular not lose sight of the point, that it is not so much his intention to account for the origin of sin among mankind as to describe it in the human individual: in other words that he here treats of the matter rather psychologically than metaphysically. Rationalistic commentators who consequently use James 1:14-15 as a weapon against Genesis 3:0 and John 8:44, act most arbitrarily. The matter has two sides only one of which is touched by James, while he does not invalidate the other, no matter how true it may be in itself. Cf. James 4:7. What he describes is the history of sin in every individual man, and that in three different periods: in its beginning, its progress and its end.

6. James in declaring that lust, having conceived, brings forth sin, does by no means imply that ἐπιθυμία per se is not altogether sin. The concupiscentia in this case is already prava, but it is here expressly set forth not as the mother of the sinful principle but of the sinful deed. The Protestant Church at every period has rightly opposed to the pelagianizing tendencies of [Roman] Catholicism the assertion that also the ἐπιθυμία of man, which eventually becomes deedsin, is sinful in itself (per se). Paul also denies that the law is sin, not that lust is sin, Romans 7:7. Besides the history of every more signal sin, e.g., that of Adam or Pharaoh, David, Ahab and many others furnishes the most striking proofs of the correctness of the delineation here given. “This passage is greatly abused if it is cited as a proof that evil desires are not sin, provided man withhold his consent. For James does not discuss the question when sin begins, when it is sin before God and imputed as sin, but when it breaks forth. Thus he gradually progresses to show that the completion of sin is the cause of eternal death, but that sin is rooted in a man’s own lust; whence it follows that men shall reap in eternal ruin the fruit which they themselves have sowed.” Chrysostom.

7. The idea of guilt, which is here so emphatically expressed by James, is of the utmost importance to the whole development of scientific theology. Not until sin in its true nature is acknowledged as guilt, are we able to appreciate the depth of the doctrines of the atonement and of redemption. But then it must be equally acknowledged that only a Redeemer, who was really God-man, was able to deliver us from eternal ruin. The right conception of Soteriology and Christology is thoroughly rooted in the deeper insight into Hamartology.

8. It is impossible that God should be at variance with Himself, that His holiness should conflict with His love. The same God whom James describes in James 5:17 as ἀπείραστος κακῶν he sets forth in James 5:17 as the eternal source (German primal source) of light from whom all gifts and only good gifts flow to us. This declaration also reminds us of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:11. God is here called the Father of lights, as elsewhere He is described as the Father of spirits, the God of the spirits of all flesh, Hebrews 12:9; Numbers 16:22. James describes the inexhaustible riches of the goodness and the glory of the immutability of God in a form at once poetical and metrical “πᾶσα δόσις , καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον,” in order to show also thereby that the inference “that such a God could yet be the cause of sin” contains the strongest contradictio in terminis. For it is impossible that the Father of lights should love darkness; He, with whom there is no change, cannot possibly cause to-day the evil which yesterday He did forbid or punish; detestable sin, so often condemned by Him, in no event can belong to His good and perfect gifts. “The New Testament positively opposes the repulsive assertion of a self-development of God.” Heubner.

9. The greatest proof of the absolute impossibility of God being the cause of sin lies in the opposite experience of believers themselves (James 1:18), where the greatest and most glorious of all good gifts (James 1:17), although stated in general terms, is yet specifically named. The history of the birth of sin (James 1:15) is opposed (James 1:18) to the spiritual history of the birth of Christians in order to shed thereby the brightest light on the fact that God who effects regeneration, cannot possibly be the author of its contrary—evil. Those who attach but little importance to the Epistle of James in a dogmatical point of view would do well to give their earnest and thoughtful attention to his dictum classicum concerning regeneration, James 5:18. We have here in fact the depth and riches of Paul in a brief compendium. See the exegetical notes on the passage. James’ mode of statement exhibits also a surprising agreement with that of Peter (1 Peter 1:23).

[James 1:15. The progressive development of temptation is thus stated by Bede: 1. Suggestio. 2. Delectatio. 3. Consensus. Suggestio est hostis, delectatio autem vel consensus est nostræ fragilitatis. Si delectationem cordis partus sequitur pravæ actionis, nobis jam mortis reis victor hostis abscedit. For further illustration see Wordsworth.

James 1:16. Bp. Andrewes [Sermons, 3, p. 374): “Though of man it be truly said by Job, “he never continueth in one stay” (Job 14:2); though the lights of heaven have their parallaxes; yea, “the angels of heaven, he found not steadfastness in them” (Job 4:18); yet for God, He is subject to none of them. He is “Ego sum quisum” (Exodus 3:14); that is, saith Malachi, “Ego Deus et non mutor (Malachi 3:6). We are not what we were awhile since, what we shall be awhile after, scarce what we are; for every moment makes us vary. With God it is nothing so, “He is that He is; He is and changeth not.” He changes not his tenor; He says not, before Abraham was, I was; but “before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

Yet are there “varyings and changes,” it cannot be denied. We see them daily: True, but the point is per quem, on whom to lay them? Not on God. Seems there any recess? It is we forsake Him, not He us (Jeremiah 2:17). It is the ship that moves, though they that be in it think the land goes from them, not they from it. Seems there any variation, as that of the night? It is umbra terræ makes it, the light makes it not. Is there anything resembling a shadow? A vapour rises from us, and makes the cloud, which is as a pent-house between, and takes Him from our sight. That vapour is our lust, there is the apud quem. Is any tempted? It is his own lust doth it; that enticeth him to sin; that brings us to the shadow of death. It is not God. No more than He can be tempted, no more can He tempt any. If we find any change, the apud is with us, not Him; we change, He is unchanged. “Man walketh in a vain shadow.” (Psalms 39:6). His ways are the truth. He cannot deny Himself.

Every evil, the more perfectly evil it is, the more it is from below: it either rises from the steam of our nature corrupted; or yet lower, ascends as a gross smoke, from the bottomless pit, from the prince of darkness, as full of varying and turning into all shapes and shadows, as God is far from both, who is uniform and constant in all His courses.—The lights may vary, He is invariable; they may change, He is unchangeable, constant always and like Himself. Now our lessons from these are—

1. Are they given? Then, quid gloriaris? Let us have no boasting. Are they given, why forget the Giver? Let Him be had in memory, He is worthy so to be had.

2. Are the “giving” as well as the “gift” and the “good” as the “perfect,” of gift, both? Then acknowledge it in both; take the one as a pledge, make the one as a step to the other.

3. Are they from somewhere else, not from ourselves? Learn then to say, and to say with feeling, Non nobis, Domine, quia non a nobis (Psalms 106:1).

4. Are they from on high? Look not down to the ground, then, as swine to the acorns they find lying there, and never once up to the tree they come from. Look up; the very frame of our body gives that way. It is nature’s check to us to have our head bear upward and our heart grovel below.

5. Do they descend? Ascribe them then to purpose, not to time or chance. No table to fortune, saith the prophet. Isaiah 65:11.

6. Are they from the “Father of lights?” (Jeremiah 10:12) then never go to the children, a signis cœli nolite timere: “neither fear nor hope for any thing from any light of them at all.”

7. Are His “gifts without repentance?” (Romans 2:29). Varies He not? Whom He loves, doth “He love to the end?” (John 13:1). Let our service be so too, not wavering. O that we changed from Him no more than He from us! Not from the light of grace to the shadow of sin, as we do full often.

But above all, that which is ex totâ substantiâ, that if we find any want of any giving or gift, good or perfect, this text gives us light, whither to look, to whom to repair for them; to the “Father of lights.” And even so let us do. Ad patrem luminum cum primo lumine: “Let the light, every day, so soon as we see it, put us in mind to get us to the Father of Lights.” Ascendat oratio, descendat miseratio; “let our prayer go up to Him that His grace may come down to us,” so to lighten us in our ways and works, that we may in the end come to dwell with Him, in the light which is φῶς , “light whereof there is no eventide,” the sun whereof never sets, nor knows tropic—the only thing we miss, and wish for in our lights here, primum et ante omnia. [A part of the above really belongs to “homiletical and practical” but I doubt not that the reader will be thankful to me for not having attempted to sever the practical element from the doctrinal—M.].

[James 1:18. Wordsworth:—With reverence be it said, in the work of our Regeneration, God is both our Father and Mother; and this statement well follows the declaration of the Apostle that every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights. He is a Father, the Father of lights, and He is like a Mother also, and gives birth to us by the Word of truth.

Compare the use of the maternal word ὠδίνω, parturio, used by St. Paul in one of his tenderest expressions of affectionate yearning for his spiritual children, Galatians 4:19.

By this word ἀπεκύησεν, He brought us forth, St. James declares God’s maternal love for our souls. Isaiah 49:15.Psalms 27:12.

—The view which makes ὁ λόγος personal is not in conflict with the common view; it is based on the recognition of the two senses in which St. James and St. Paul use it. Cf. Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 1:3; Galatians 4:19. The comparison of this verse (James 1:18) with James 1:21 shows that James passes by a natural transition from the Incarnate Word to the reception of the Inspired Word.

Athanasius (contra Arianos iii. § 61, p. 483): “Whatsover the Father determines to create, He makes and creates by Him (the Word), as the Apostle says. By His Will he brought us forth by the Word. Therefore the will of the Father, which concerns those who are born again, or which concerns those things that are made by any other way, is in the Word, in whom He makes and regenerates what He thinks fit.”

Irenæus (James 2:25; James 2:3):—“Thou, O man, are not uncreated, nor wert thou always coëxistent with God, like His own Word, but thou art gradually learning from the Word the dispensations, of God who made thee.”

Tertullian (c. Praxean. c. 7) illustrating the word ἀπεκύησεν says: “Christus. primogenitus et unigenitus Dei proprie de vulva cordis Ipsius.”

Novatian (de Trinit. 31):—“There is one God, without any origin, from wham the Word, the Son was born. He, born of the Father, dwells ever in the Father.”

Theophilus of Antioch (§ 10): “God, having His Own Word indwelling in His own bowels (σπλάγχνοις), begat Him, having breathed Him forth before all things, and through Him He hath made all things; and He is called the Beginning, because He is the Principle and Lord of all things which were created through Him.”

Hippolitus (Philos. p. 334):—“The One Supreme God generates the Word in His own mind. The word was in the Father, bearing the Will of the Father who begat Him; and when the Father commanded that the world should be created, the Word was executing what was pleasing to the Father,—The Word alone is of God, of God Himself; wherefore He is God. The Word of God regulates all things, the First-born of the Father. Christ is God over all, who commanded us to wash away sin from man; regenerating the old man, and having called man His image from the beginning; and if thou hearkenest to His holy commandment and imitatest in goodness Him who is good, thou wilt be like Him, being honoured by Him, for God has a longing for thee, having divinized thee also for his glory.”

Bp. Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. III. James 2) says: “The Son of God, born from Eternity, is said by the Fathers to have certain other births in time. He was born into the world when He came forth to create the world. He was born again in a wonderful manner, when He descended into the womb of the virgin and united Himself to His creature. He is daily born in the hearts of those who embrace Him by faith and love.”

Bp. Pearson (p. 219) says: “This use of the term Word was familiar to the Jews, and this was the reason that St. John delivered to them so great a mystery in so few words.” Wordsworth adds that the same remark is applicable to the language of St. James.

Bp. Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. I. James 1. § 17–19, and Harm. Apost. Diss. 2. James 15). In the latter passage he declares the meaning of St. James to be that our Christian graces proceed from “the good pleasure of God through Christ, and from the regeneration which the Holy Spirit works in us through the Gospel.”

Wordsworth:—“They whom St. James addressed, being born again by adoption and created anew in Christ Jesus, the Eternal Word (Ephesians 2:10), might well be said to be designed by God to be a first–fruit of His creatures, for they were new creatures in Christ (Galatians 6:15; 2 Corinthians 5:17), who is the first begotten of every creature (Colossians 1:15), the beginning of the creation of God (Revelation 3:14), by whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16). By virtue of His incarnation and of their incorporation and filiation in Him, who is the first-born among many brethren (Romans 8:29), they were made the first-fruits of creation, being advanced to a high preëminence and primacy, beyond that which was given to Adam before the fall (Genesis 1:28) and even above the angels themselves. Cf. Hebrews 1:5-13; Hebrews 2:5; Hebrews 2:7-16.”—“This higher sense of λόγος includes also the lower one, God brought us forth by the Word of truth, preached to the world.”—M.].

[The Note of Wiesinger, referred to under “Exegetical and Critical” is as follows: “this passage is among those which reveal the depth of Christian knowledge in which the practical and moral exhortations’ of the writer are grounded: lying as it does expressly (διό James 5:19) at the basis of them. We will here bring together in a few words the teaching of the passage, for the sake of its important bearing on the rest of the Epistle. It teaches us.

1. As a positive supplement to James 1:14-15, that the life of man must be renewed, from its very root and foundation;

2. It designates this renewal as God’s work, moreover as an imparting of the life of God (ἀπεκύησε), as only possible by the working of the Spirit, only on the foundation of the objective fact of our redemption in Christ, which is the contents of the λόγος ;

3. It sets forth this regeneration as an act once for all accomplished (ἀπεκύησεν, Aor.) and distinguishes it from the gradual penetration and sanctification of the individual life by means of this new principle of life imparted in the regeneration.

4. It declares also expressly that the regeneration is a free act of God’s Love (βουληθείς) not induced by any work of man (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), so that man is placed by God in his right relation to God, antecedently to all works wellpleasing to God: for this the expression ἀπεκύησεν involves: cf. ἐξελέξατο, James 2:5, and in so far as this ἀπεκύησεν necessarily implies the justification of the sinner (the δικαιοῦσθαι of St. Paul), it is plain also, that St. James cannot, without contradicting himself, make this δικαιοῦσθαι, in the sense of St. Paul, dependent on the works of faith.

5. λόγος is specified as the objective medium of regeneration; and herewith we must have πίστις as the appropriating medium on the part of man himself: of the central import of which πίστις in St. James we have already seen something (James 2:5; James 2:14, etc.).

6. Together with this act of regeneration proceeding from God, we have also the high destination of the Christian, which the Apostle gives so significantly and deeply in εἰς τὸ εἶναι κ. τ. λ. And that which God has done to him, is now in the following verses made the foundation of that which the Christian on his part has to do: by which what we have said under 3, and 4, receives fresh confirmation. This passage is one to be remembered, when we wish to know what the Apostle understands by the νόμος τέλειος (James 1:25; James 2:12) and what he means, when (James 2:14, etc.) he deduces δικαιοῦσθαι from the works of faith. As regards the dogmatical use, which we make of this passage, wishing to show that regeneration is brought about by the word, as distinguished from the Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5-7), we may remark, that seeing that λόγος designates the Gospel, as a whole, without any respect to such distinction, nothing regarding it can be gathered from this passage. The word of the Lord constitutes, we know, the force of the Sacrament also. “Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit Sacramentum.” And it is meant to be in ferred that the readers of this Epistle were not baptized.”—M.].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

It is impossible to pursue the course of life while we regard God in any way the cause of sin.—The attempt of charging God with the guilt of one’s transgression: 1, The traces of this perverseness: a, in the Jewish world, b, in the heathen world, c, in the Christian world. 2. The springs of this perverseness; a, in a darkened understanding, b, in a proud heart, c, in a sinful will. 3, The sad consequences of this perverseness; by it a, God is insulted, b, our brother offended, c, and our own sanctification and salvation opposed.—God in opposition to moral evil.—The ethical excellency of the Christian conception of God, also a proof of its heavenly origin.—No excuse for sin, cf. Genesis 3:12; John 15:22.—The history of the development of sin in every individual man: 1, beginning, 2, progress, 3, end.—How very different sin appears a posteriori from what it appears a priori.—Sin should never be contemplated in the light of speculative understanding only, but always in the light of conscience, the Bible and experience.—The erring Christian also should still be addressed as a beloved brother.—Error manifold, truth only one.—The errors of men in morals are mainly the effect of their not looking up sufficiently to the Father of light.—The riches of God: 1, all good lights come from Him; 2, only good gifts come from Him.—God cannot be tempted to evil but He is never supplicated in vain for good.—The exaltation of the Creator above the most exalted work of His hands.—The constant alternation in the natural world contrasted with the immutable order in the moral world.—The immutability of the Father of lights viewed 1, on its heart-stirring and consoling side, but also 2, on its solemnly-admonishing and warning side.—The miracles of regeneration: 1, God has begotten us, 2, according to His free decree, 3, by the word of truth, 4, that we should be etc.—On the whole lesson James 5:13-18. Sin not God’s fault but solely our own, a truth, 1, which man is only too prone to forget (James 1:13), 2, which confirms the history of the development of sin (James 1:14-15), 3, which a glance at the being of God (James 1:16-17) and at the work of God (James 1:18), removes beyond all doubt.—On the conclusion: “Do not err,” James 1:16. “Do not err,” how James here cautions us against a threefold error: 1, Do not err, ye who expect the highest good from beneath (the earth): all good giving is from above, 2, Do not err, ye who dwelling on the goodness of God, forget His holiness: the Giver of all good is also the Father of lights. 3, Do not err, ye who think that His holiness in your case would cease to be just: with the Father of lights is neither variableness, nor a shadow of turning.

Starke:—Man as long as he lives in time is liable to temptations.—Every man has a lust and bias peculiar to himself and carries the origin of all his temptations within himself, John 12:6.

Quesnel:—We ourselves are our own worst enemies by our own lusts, Proverbs 15:27.—Man becomes gradually sinful.—Whatever we receive from above should take us back from below upward to God.—The rivers of God’s grace flow from on high into the deep valleys; the lower the heart, the more gentle the supply [influx=the flow of God’s grace into the heart.—M.].—If God is the Father of light, then sin cannot be His child. For what communion has light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14.—If believers are God-begotten, they are of Divine descent [a Divine race—M.]. O, what high nobility!

Luther:—The lying word of the serpent has corrupted us but the true word of God makes us good again, John 17:17.

Stier:—Nothing good comes from below; not even outward help for outward need (cf. Sirach 38, 8, 9).—Good gifts in general are of no avail without the perfect gift, which restores to us light and-life in a regeneration (out of) God.

Heubner:—Being tempted refers not only to solicitations to apostasy from Christianity, from religion by adversities, but James manifestly speaks of sin in general.—Desire remains barren without the will.—All the woe of mankind is the fruit of sin.—Deriving evil from the Being of God is much worse than Parseeism with its dualism.—

Porubszky:—The nature of temptation [i.e. its essence—M.], 1, lies not in the outward assault but rather within ourselves; 2, it should not be combated from without but from within.—Of the holy power needed for pious deeds: 1, of the necessity of this power; 2, of its communication.

[James 1:13. God permits and overrules the temptation, but is not the Author of it.—God is neither temptable by evil things, nor versed in evil things.—Lust, the enchantress and temptress, cf. Proverbs 7:5-27. See also the admirable portrait of the gossamer approaches of sin in Southey’s Thalaba, Book 8, 23–29.—God, the Father of lights is not the Author of evil; contrast “Father of lights” and “Prince of darkness.”—

James 1:14-15. The way to death. 1. Man drawn by his evil inclinations out of the safe asylum of virtue (ἐξελκόμενος); 2. entrapped by the fascinations of vice and evil (δελεαζόμενος); 3. into the commission of voluntary sin (ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν), and 4. ripening in sin, hurried to ruin (ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ).—

James 1:16. The duty of Christian pastors to caution their flocks against error.—

James 1:17. God the Author of good—he cannot therefore be the Author of Evil.—God is the perennial fountain, whence gush in perpetual streams good gifts and perfect gifts.—Good living denotes not only temporal blessings but also spiritual—it comprehends the bestowal of every blessing accorded us by the munificence of our heavenly Father in this our imperfect state of existence; while perfect gifts are those eternal possessions laid up for us in heaven, of which regeneration is the beginning and pledge.—God is the Father of the lights, not only of heaven, not only of the lights of reason, wisdom, conscience, truth, inspiration and prophecy, but also the Father of the children of light (Luke 16:8; John 12:36; Ephesians 5:8; cf. also Matthew 5:14; Matthew 5:16).—M.].

[Wordsworth: James 5:13.—St. James delivers a caution against errors, which afterwards showed themselves in the heresies of Apelles, Hermogenes, Valentinus, Marcion and the Manichæans, which represented God as the Author of evil, or as subject to evil, and unable to resist and overcome it.—James 1:14. Concupiscence is the womb of sin, and the offspring of sin is death. All these are evil and none of these are from God, who is the Author of all good.—M.].

[Didymus: James 5:16.—The ministry of good is directly and indirectly from God; but evil comes only per accidens, indirectly and mediately, for the correction of man, who is chastened by suffering.—M.].

[Wordsworth: James 5:18.—Here is an Apostolic protest against two errors prevalent among the Jews, 1. that men are what they are either by necessity, as the Pharisees held, or else 2, as the Sadducees taught, by the unaided action of their own will, independently of Divine grace. See Maimonides in his Preface to Pirke Aboth, and Josephus Ant. xiii. 5, 9; xviii. 1, 3. Bp. Bull, Harm. Apost. Diss. 2, James 15. Thus they disparaged the dignity of the Divine Will.

[Man in Christ is the wave-sheaf of the harvest. See 1 Corinthians 15:20-28—M.].

[Rabbinical: James 5:13.—This is the custom of evil concupiscence; to-day it saith, Do this; tomorrow, worship an idol. The man goes and worships. Again it saith, be angry.—Evil concupiscence is, at the beginning, like the thread of a spider’s web; afterward it is like a cart-rope.—M.].

[Macknight: James 5:15.—The soul, which the Greek philosophers considered as the seat of the appetites and passions, is called by Philo τὸ θῆλυ, the female part of our nature; and the spirit, τὸ ἄῤῥεν, the male part. In allusion to this notion, James represents men’s lust as a harlot, who entices their understanding and will into its impure embraces and from that conjunction conceives sin. Sin being brought forth, immediately acts, and is nourished by frequent repetition, till at length it gains such strength that in its turn it begets death. This is the true genealogy of sin and death. Lust is the mother of sin and sin the mother of death; and the sinner the parent of both.”—M.].

[Bp. Sanderson: James 5:13.—St. James therefore concludes positively, that every man’s temptation, if it take effect, is merely from his own lust. It is then our own act and deed, if we are Satan’s vassals: disclaim it we cannot; and whatsoever misery or mischief ensueth thereupon, we ought not to impute to any other than ourselves alone.—M.].

[Abp. Secker: James 5:14.—Temptation has no power, the great tempter himself has no power, but that of using persuasion. Forced we cannot be, so long as we are true to ourselves, our own consent must be our own giving; and without it the rest is nothing.—M.].

[Dr. Jortin: James 5:17.—The unchangeable nature of God suggests very powerful dissuasions from vice. The Scripture contains no decrees concerning the reprobation and salvation of particular persons, without regard to their moral qualifications. But there is a law which declares that obstinate and impenitent vice shall end in destruction. This law is as eternal and unchangeable, as the nature of good and evil, or the nature and perfections of God. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but this decree shall not pass away: and therefore a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the everliving and immutable God. Yet this unchangeable nature of our Creator, considered in another view, affords no less comfort and peace to the greatest offenders, if they will repent and turn to Him. Their offences cannot be greater than His mercy and goodness, which endures to all eternity, ready to receive those who by an effectual repentance and reformation, through the satisfaction of Christ, make themselves proper objects of His mercy.—M.].

[Sermons and Sermon themes:

James 1:13. Sharp, Abp.: How far God is concerned in temptations to sin. Works 6, 263.

James 1:13-14. Tillotson Abp.: The sins of men not chargeable to God.

James 1:13-15. Apology for Providence in sin.

Simeon, Ch. Sin, the offspring of our own hearts. Works 20, 27.

James 1:15. Saurin, La manière d’étudier la religion. Sermons 4, 1.

James 1:16-17. Simeon, Ch. God the only source of all good. Works 20, 32.

James 1:17. Blair, H. On the unchangeableness of the Divine Nature. Sermons 2, 85.

James 1:18. Charnock, Stephen, The instrument of regeneration. Works 5, 521.

Hall, Robert, The cause, agent and purpose of regeneration. Works 5, 186.

Doddridge. Phil., Address to the regenerate. Works 2, 536.—M.].

Footnotes:

[35] James 1:13. Only several minuscules sustain the reading τοῦ θεοῦ. [τοῦ is omitted by A. B. C. K. L.—M.] Cod. Sin. reads ὑπὸ θεοῦ, but in James 1:17 erroneously ἀποσκίασματος. Lange: “No one, who is tempted [stands in temptation] shall say: I am tempted from God, for God is not temptable in respect of evil things, but He Himself tempteth [out of Himself] no one.

[Let no man, being tempted, say that (ὅτι recitantis) I am being tempted from God; for God is not experienced in respect of evil things, but He Himself tempteth no man.—M.]

James 1:14. Lange: … tempted in that he is drawn away [rendered an apostate] by his own lust and allured [by his evil inclination.]

[… being drawn away and lured by his own concupiscence.—M].

James 1:15. Lange: … conceived [is impregnated]…, but sin, when it is completed [has ripened] bringeth forth death.

James 1:16. Lange: M. Be not ye deceived, my beloved brethren.

James 1:17; James 1:17. [Cod. Sin. ἔστιν for ἔνι.—M.]

[37] James 1:17. [Cod. Sin. ἀποσκίασματος.—M.]

Every good giving and every perfect gift [donation] cometh [and cometh] down from above, from the Father of the lights [beings of light], with whom there is not existing a change, nor a shadow-casting of a turning.[Every good bestowing and … coming down from … with whom there is [essentially] not a change or shadow of turning.—M.]

James 1:18. Lange: Pursuant to free decree hath He begotten us by the word, [of His own Will [because He willed it, Alford; by the act of His own will, Wordsworth.] etc.—M.].