James 1:1-8 in context

Introduction: There are some who quote James 1:5 in a way that pulls it out of its intended context and changes the original intent. That is, if you lack wisdom, ask God. While it's perfectly fine to ask God for wisdom according to the context and orginal intent of the author, James 1:5 is not the verse to claim for general wisdom as it is specific to wisdom in trials. I believe the Bible teaches that when we ask for wisdom, we ask with a selfless heart and that in granting the wisdom God may be glorified. There are limits on why God grants wisdom, such as if asked for selfish reasons. And pulling James 1:5 out of context puts no such limitations on what or how we request wisdom.

In verse 1 James uses the same word Paul used in Romans 1:1 and calls himself a servant of God the Father and God the Son. The word for servant can be defined as:

The first removal occurred when the people of the Northern Kingdom (whose capital was in Samaria) were conquered by the Assyrians and were carried away into captivity in Assyria (2 Kings 17:23 and 1 Chronicles 5:26).

The second removal occurred around 580 B.C. when the Babylonians conquered the Southern Kingdom (whose capital was Jerusalem), and carried the best of the people away to Babylon (2 Kings 24:14-16 and Psalm 137).

The third removal took place around 63 B.C., when Pompey conquered the Jews and took Jerusalem and many Jews were transplanted to Rome as slaves.

Still, far greater numbers of Jews left on their own free will, looking for more comfortable living conditions. Jews moved to Egypt and Syria. Alexander the Great moved 2000 Jewish families to Lydia and Phrygia. Thus, Jews were spread all over the world.

The Greek geographer, Strabo wrote: "It is hard to find a spot in the world which is not occupied and dominated by Jews." The Jewish Historian, Josephus wrote: "There is no city, no tribe, whether Greek or barbarian, in which Jewish law and Jewish customs have not taken root."

James continues with his introduction, saying: "Joy to you." Even though you are scattered among the nations and facing trials of many kinds, do not be robbed of your joy.

James never suggests to his audience that Christianity would be an easy road. In verse 2 we see just that with his use of the word trials. The Greek word for trials means: trials or testing directed towards an end. What is that end? He who is tested should emerge stronger and purer from the testing. The attached verb means strengthening and purifying.

The root word for trials can be used for trials or temptations (internal), with trials an external meaning, such as the adversity his readers are experiencing. With the external meaning, the word is used especially to refer to trials of persecution (1 Peter 4:12).

James says to consider it pure joy, or consider it all joy when we experience trials of many kinds. He doesn't say to be joyous for the trial but in the trial. The verb translated face might more literally be expressed as "fall into," much as the poor man "fell among robbers" (Luke 10:30).

James uses an interesting word for describing the testing process. It's the word for sterling coinage (genuine unalloyed money). Meeting the testing in the right way will produce much more than patience or perseverance. The word means the ability to turn testing into greatness and to glory.

Something that amazed the heathen during the persecution centuries was that the martyrs didn't die grimly. It's been told that a martyr was smiling in the flames so they asked him at what he was smiling. He responded: "I saw the glory of God and was glad." That's the type of character generated when we meet the trial in the right way, it produces greatness and glory.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us mature. The Greek word for mature is teleios and means perfection for a given end. A sacrificial animal is teleios if it is fit to offer to God. A scholar is teleious if he is mature. A person is teleios if he is full grown.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us complete. The word means perfect in every part. In meeting the trial in the right way we eventually remove weaknesses and imperfections.

Meeting the trial in the right way makes us lacking nothing. The word means deficient in nothing and has been used in the following ways: the defeat of an army, the giving up of a struggle and the failure to reach a standard that should have been reached.

Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure so valuable that a man would sell everything he owns to obtain it and would do so "in his joy" (Matt 13:44). Paul said we "rejoice in our sufferings" because "suffering produces perseverance" (Romans 5:3). Peter said Christians should "greatly rejoice" in "all kinds of trials" (1 Peter 1:6). Perseverence isn't the end result, it's the lifestyle by which the Christian attains maturity.

During the trial, if you're deficient in the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, ask God. James speaks of the period of testing before perseverance has completed its work. During such testing, if anyone lacks or is deficient in wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, he may have it by asking.

Wisdom is not just acquired information but practical insight with spiritual implications (Prov 1:2-4; 2:10-15; 4:5-9; 9:10-12). With James' Jewish background, wisdom is a practical thing. It isn't philosophic speculation or intellectual knowledge, to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics.

James lists two examples to illustrate the spiritual dynamics of trials. The first example: lacking wisdom (5-8), the second: lacking money (9-12).

Wisdom is a perfect first example because it is so important for Christians in trials. A cry from the heart of a Christian during trials might be "What do I do?" Look at 2 Chronicles 20:12 for a great example of a need for wisdom in trials.

We can ask God for the needed wisdom without fear, for God gives without holding our failures or lack of wisdom against us. Fortunately God doesn't respond by reminding us of our faults!

The context tells us it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes Christians mature. If we lack the wisdom to do this, ask God. The context tells us:

The Greek sentence structure also tells us those falling into trials do indeed lack wisdom, again making the wisdom here specific to trials. Claiming this verse for anything other than wisdom to endure trials changes the original meaning, and understanding the original intent is required to have correct theology, no matter what the subject of study.

If you encounter a trial and don't have the wisdom for meeting the trial in the right way, ask God for help and don't doubt at all. The only barrier that exists is our faith. We shouldn't be afraid to ask God because of our lack of wisdom. James says he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown [horizontally] and tossed [vertically] by the wind. The image of being driven on the sea was common in Greek literature and occurs in Jewish wisdom texts, Isaiah 57:20, Ephesians 4:14 and the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus 33:2.

Jewish wisdom texts also condemn the double-minded or double-tongued person as does Psalm 12:2. Philosophers and Jewish sages abhorred the hypocrisy of saying one thing and living another, and speaking or living inconsistently.

James tells us not to be double-minded when we ask for wisdom. See James 4:8 as well. A double-minded man is a man with two souls or two minds inside him. One believes he'll receive wisdom and the other disbelieves.

When quoting Scripture we must be careful to quote in context. When requesting wisdom, God has given us the following verses and when used in context, are perfect for requesting wisdom.

If you want to properly claim Scripture it must be done in context, otherwise you can use Scripture to support just about anything.

If a Christian is going through trials they have James 1:5 as supporting Scripture when asking for wisdom to endure. The wisdom given in James 1:5 is specific to trials.

If a Christian desires wisdom for selfless reasons such as King Solomon requested to lead God's people, claim 1 Kings 3:5-14 (repeated in 2 Chronicles) in prayer.

The Matthew and Luke passages are in regards to selfless prayer. If a Christian asks for wisdom to advance the cause of Christ, to glorify God, or to further God's kingdom, Matthew and Luke are prime examples to use.

We must understand the original intent of the writer and the context to properly claim a verse in prayer.

George M. Stulac, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, James, IVP
Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 12, Zondervan
William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, Westminster Press
Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, Victor Books
The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV, with Apocryphal books, Harper Collins
The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, IVP

Another translation of James 1:1-8 can be found here:

James 1:1-8 from The New Testament, Expanded Translation, Kenneth S. Wuest, p. 539

James, a bondslave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes, those in the dispersion. Be constantly rejoicing. Consider it a matter for unadulterated joy [without any admixture of sorrow] whenever you fall into the midst of variegated trials which surround you, knowing experientially that the approving of your faith, that faith having been put to the test for the purpose of being approved, and having met the test, has been approved, [that this approving process] produces a patience which bears up and does not lose heart or courage under trials. But be allowing the aformentioned patience to be having its complete work in order that you may be spirtually mature and complete in every detail, lacking in nothing.
And if, as is the case, anyone of you [when undergoing these trials] is deficient in wisdom, let him keep on presenting his request in the presence of the giving God who gives to all with simplicity and without reserve, [a pure, simple giving of good without admixture of evil or bitterness], and who does not [with the giving of the gift] reproach [the recipient with any manifestation of displeasure or regret], and it shall be given him. But let him be presenting his request in a trusting attitude, not in an expression of that hesitation which vacillates [between faith and unbelief and inclines toward unbelief], for the person who vacillates [between faith and unbelief] is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for let not that individual be supposing that he shall receive anything from the presence of the Lord, [being] a dubious, undecided man, vacillating in all his ways.

For anyone not familiar with the background here, scripter and I have been discussing the proper meaning and use of James 1:5 for some while in a couple other threads. This thread is his attempt to explain the reasoning behind his conclusions. As you may guess, I disagree with the position taken that James intended v5 to mean we can ONLY ask for wisdom to endure a trial, or that we can only ask for wisdom because we are facing a trial.

Scripter, I’m glad that you are continuing to make this effort to come to an understanding. I hope you are benefiting from it as I am, even though at times it has been frustrating. I think will take some effort yet on both our parts however. I’m going to try and express the what and why of my disagreement as clearly as I can here.

“There are limits on why God grants wisdom, such as if asked for selfish reasons”

Selfishness is a motive, and it is not clear to me at what point a request for wisdom could be called selfish. In the broadest sense, any wisdom will be of benefit to the person it comes to, and thus asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree.

Rather than say God will not grant wisdom that is requested for selfish reasons, I would say God would not grant wisdom that is requested for an unrighteous purpose. It is not even possible because no unrighteous purpose can be correctly called wise. A person with unselfish motives may still ask for something that is not in keeping with God’s will, thinking it to be wisdom. Such a person would not get what they asked for however, even though the request was not selfish.

I expect you meant much the same thing as I just said; I just want it clearly defined.

“We must understand the original intent of the writer”

Yes, a key point. Specifically that it is the original intent of the author that is important. Words are a tool that we use to attempt to convey a message from one person to another, and it is a rather faulty and limited tool at that, especially when it is the written word that is being used.

Consider the sentence “Did you take the cookie?” The intent of the question is not perfectly clear. Were they asking “Did YOU take the cookie (or was it someone else who took it)”, “Did you TAKE the cookie (or did you do something else with it)”, “Did you take THE COOKIE (or did you take something else)?” Because of these inherent weaknesses with the written word, what was clear in the mind of the author might not always be clear in the minds of those who read what the author wrote.

When the author is not available to clarify any questions in the minds of the readers, it is wise to look to both the content and the context of the remarks to attempt to gain insight into what the intended meaning of the author was, but a person doing this may still ‘strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel’ and read far more (or less) into a remark than what was intended. Context is a useful tool, not a magic infallible decoder ring.

Anyway, we agree on the content ‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God’ When we look at the content of the book of James, there is no statement (content) that limits the type of wisdom being asked for or when wisdom can be asked for.

Your claim as I understand it is that the context justifies claiming that James’ intent is better expressed by ‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only.’ I disagree with that.

I do agree that James is discussing trials, but in the course of discussing a specific topic, general statements are often made that are not intended to be limited to only that context. For example consider this analogy:

Some guy (lets call him James) teaches a lesson on cabinet making. Three guys (named scripter1, scripter2 and Grig) get a transcript of the lesson. The context is about building cabinets, and near the beginning James identifies a hammer as one of the tools needed to build cabinets, and says you can get one at Home Depot. Grig goes 'Great! I need a hammer to put up some picture hangers!’ but scripter1 leaps to his feet and says, 'NO, because of the context, you can only get a hammer from Home Depot if you need it to build cabinets! You are taking that part out of context!' Scripter2 also leaps up and says 'No! You cannot use a hammer to put up picture hangers, the context shows that you can only use hammers for building cabinets. You are taking that part out of context!'

It is not my intent to mock anyone with this example, I only want clearly show that using the context alone to infer such restrictions is not justifiable. There was no intent on the part of the teacher to suggest that you could only get hammers from Home Depot if and when you needed the hammer for building cabinets. Likewise, the context of James 1, by itself, doesn’t justify restricting the wisdom discussed in v5 to ONLY wisdom about dealing with a trial and/or ONLY asking when we are in the midst of a trial. The context does justify ruling IN asking for wisdom about enduring trials, but it doesn’t justify ruling OUT other requests for wisdom at other times.

Let’s look at it from another angle.
You yourself admit that requesting wisdom from God is not restricted to only asking for wisdom to endure trials and you give scripture references to that effect. Given that, how can it be argued that James intended a restriction that is in opposition to other scripture? You can’t. Since he intended no such restriction, then you cannot say that using James 1:5 to support seeking wisdom from God for other righteous purposes changes the intended meaning.

I see James 1:5 as a clear unqualified statement of a general principle. The context applies that principle to a specific situation (trials), but he did not intend that specific application to be taken as the ONLY application of the principle, he knew the gospel better than that.

Selfishness is a motive, and it is not clear to me at what point a request for wisdom could be called selfish. In the broadest sense, any wisdom will be of benefit to the person it comes to, and thus asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree.

I consider the above a very myopic statement. King Solomon's request was for wisdom to lead God's great people. He could have asked for anything, yet he respected God's great people so much, his only request was for wisdom to lead them with discernment. God responded to Solomon's request and said because it was Solomon's hearts desire, he granted the request. And because Solomon didn't request anything for selfish gains, God granted Solomon so very, very much more.

When you say things like "asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree," that tells me something about you, which you've said more than once. I'm going to say something that may sound very strange to you, it may sound arrogant and mean, but please believe me, that is not my intent. Maybe you cannot request wisdom without some degree of selfish motives. I can to, but then I would be like the double-minded man, not really believing God will grant my request. I also know I can request wisdom for completely selfless reasons, and how do I know, the indwelling Holy Spirit. I honestly believe that is the difference between us. Without the Holy Spirit I would completely agree with you here.

I expect you meant much the same thing as I just said; I just want it clearly defined.

Pretty much. The sins of selfishness and unrighteousness would look like a superset of each.

When the author is not available to clarify any questions in the minds of the readers, it is wise to look to both the content and the context of the remarks to attempt to gain insight into what the intended meaning of the author was, but a person doing this may still .strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. and read far more (or less) into a remark than what was intended. Context is a useful tool, not a magic infallible decoder ring.

Of course context is nothing magic, it's not much more (if anything) than the Occam's razor approach to reading the passage.

Anyway, we agree on the content. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. When we look at the content of the book of James, there is no statement (content) that limits the type of wisdom being asked for or when wisdom can be asked for.

Nor should there be any such statement. That's what context tells us.

Your claim as I understand it is that the context justifies claiming that James. intent is better expressed by .If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only.. I disagree with that.

Yes, you understand my claim perfectly. Here you said that by "following God's wisdom we become more perfect and entire". Yet that is not what the passage says at all and something I stressed in the above study. When you look at the Greek words it is quite obvious it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us perfect and entire. For what is the wisdom here? To help us endure so we can meet the trial in the right way. By no means does the passage say it's wisdom that makes us perfect and entire You're missing the entire point of the passage. The wisdom here is specifically for trials.

Let.s look at it from another angle. You yourself admit that requesting wisdom from God is not restricted to only asking for wisdom to endure trials and you give scripture references to that effect. Given that, how can it be argued that James intended a restriction that is in opposition to other scripture? You can.t. Since he intended no such restriction, then you cannot say that using James 1:5 to support seeking wisdom from God for other righteous purposes changes the intended meaning.

You're still stuck on this in opposition issue. That's not the issue, it's context.

I see James 1:5 as a clear unqualified statement of a general principle.

You should make your case from from the Greek sentence structure and Greek words. I listed the general bibliography I used for the study. In addition to the books listed, I also consulted an additional 4 Greek dictionaries, all of which gave the same definitions. Kenneth Wuest's expanded translation agrees with the expanded translation I put together.

I'll repeat something said in the above study:

The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom. What they need is not the speculative or theoretical wisdom of a philosophical system. It is the kinds of wisdom that we read about in Proverbs (passages listed above). It is the God-given understanding that enables a person to avoid the paths of wickedness and to live a life of righteousness. In this context wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously.

I am not making this up. There are very specific reasons for my position, which are based on taking a deep look at the Greek words and sentence structure. If you disagree, you should show where my study misuses the Greek.

Claiming James 1:5 for something other than wisdom to endure trials is changing the original meaning and ripping it completely out of context.

"When you say things like "asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree," that tells me something about you,...Maybe you cannot request wisdom without some degree of selfish motives"

What I am saying is that the term 'unselfish' is poorly defined and that motive is not an inherent part of the request. Two different people could ask for the exact same thing but have different motives, one selfish, one not. Some people are cynical enough to say that any request that results in some benefit to the asker is not (or might not be) totally 100% unselfish, others would disagree with that. Whether some request is for an unrighteous purpose or not is not so ambiguous as whether it is selfish or unselfish.

Anyway, this is a minor point and I don’t think we need to dwell on it, suffice it to say that we agree that God will answer as it seems best in his view, and sometimes that will mean no answer.

“Nor should there be any such statement.”

I don’t see why there shouldn’t be any such statement, if there was, we would be far more likely to be in agreement with each other by now.

“‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only.’…Yes, you understand my claim perfectly”

Well, I’d call that progress.

Now, if your claim was that James intended meaning was better represented by ‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial’ I would agree with you much more than I do now. It’s when you tack that word ONLY on the end that I object and fail to see how the context justifies claiming James meant that these are the ONLY circumstances under which a person may ask for and get wisdom from God, and that that is the ONLY kind of wisdom God will give a person. Those restrictions are an extrapolation and would not be intended by James because James would have known they are not true from earlier scripture. James is giving an example of how a general principle can be put to use in a specific situation, and quoting verse 5 isolates that principle without altering the meaning of it.

“you said that by "following God's wisdom we become more perfect and entire". Yet that is not what the passage says at all… By no means does the passage say it's wisdom that makes us perfect and entire You're missing the entire point of the passage.”

I said:
James says that God wants us to become 'perfect and entire, wanting nothing' (v4)
James says if we 'lack wisdom', we can obtain it from God. (v5)
Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become 'perfect and entire, wanting nothing'.
In reply to your request for clarification on that I said: “I'm saying that if in the course of becoming perfect and entire we find ourselves at some point where we lack the wisdom to know what choice is right, or what action to take or whatever and we need God's input, we can get that wisdom from God. After that it is up to us to follow God's wisdom, even if it grates against our natural inclinations. By FOLLOWING God's wisdom [we] become more perfect and entire, not just by getting it.”

“When you look at the Greek words it is quite obvious it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us perfect and entire. For what is the wisdom here? To help us endure so we can meet the trial in the right way.”

And that idea is captured in my conclusion ‘Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become perfect and entire, wanting nothing’ We can obtain that wisdom we need to correctly meet the trials we face, but that is not the only kind wisdom a person needs to become perfect and entire, and so it is not the only kind of wisdom we can receive from God. We can also obtain the wisdom we need to avoid foolishly bringing trials on ourselves, the wisdom to discern truth from error, and the wisdom to correctly handle each of life’s important crossroads in the way God would have us handle them.

“You're still stuck on this in opposition issue. That's not the issue, it's context. “

No, the issue is not context. The issue is what was James’ original intent. Context is a tool we can use to help determine that (when used properly), but as Christians we must assume that his intent is not in contradiction with the truth.

“You should make your case from the Greek sentence structure and Greek words.”

Did James, a Jew, write to the Jewish Christians in the Greek language? We can’t say with certainty since we don’t have the original manuscript, but I think it is rather unlikely. So what language was it written in, who translated it to Greek, did James approve of the translation etc. etc. These are rather important things to know before putting so much trust in what Greek sentence structure and words are used in existing manuscripts. Had a translator thought as you do, the translations would be somewhat different than if done by someone who thought as I do.

“According to The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 12, pp. 168-169: The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom”

OK, note however that it doesn’t say that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. Identifying the context is one thing, how we apply that context to the content is another.

“In this context wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously.”

Those are the comments of the authors of that commentary and I don’t see how Greek sentence structure gets them from ‘people facing trials do lack wisdom’ to ‘wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously’ The first part comes from Greek sentence structure, but the second part seems to just come from themselves.

On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows ‘wisdom’ referring to the wisdom needed to not get into the trial in the first place or any other kind of wisdom? On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows a person NOT in the midst of a trial from seeking wisdom?

According to ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary (http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejam1.htm) for James 1:5, “Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour.” I’m not holding up Mr. Clarke as an authority of some type, I just want you to see where text analysis ends and opinion begins. I’m sure many other commentaries contain many other opinions on how ‘wisdom’ is meant to be taken in that verse.

“If you disagree, you should show where my study misuses the Greek.”

It isn’t the use of the Greek I’m objecting to, we pretty much agree on the context but disagree on what valid inferences can be drawn from the context.

You have again not responded directly to my analogy of the cabinet building lesson and the hammer. I might not get time to come back to this until next Sunday so I would very much appreciate your taking the time to address that in your next post.

If any part of this is unclear, it's because it's late, and I'm not proofreading this a lot.

What I am saying is that the term 'unselfish' is poorly defined and that motive is not an inherent part of the request. Two different people could ask for the exact same thing but have different motives, one selfish, one not. Some people are cynical enough to say that any request that results in some benefit to the asker is not (or might not be) totally 100% unselfish, others would disagree with that. Whether some request is for an unrighteous purpose or not is not so ambiguous as whether it is selfish or unselfish.

You may not remember a conversation we had last week where you asked how I defined a selfless request and my answer here was "pure motives." A selfish request would be impure motives. That's seems pretty clear to me, but we can use righteous, unrighteous, pure, impure... whatever fits your fancy.

Anyway, this is a minor point and I don.t think we need to dwell on it, suffice it to say that we agree that God will answer as it seems best in his view, and sometimes that will mean no answer.

I believe we can agree here.

I don.t see why there shouldn.t be any such statement, if there was, we would be far more likely to be in agreement with each other by now.

It's the context that sets the limits, whether you're talking about 1 Kings 3, 2 Chronicles 1, Matthew 7 or Luke 11.

Now, if your claim was that James intended meaning was better represented by .If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial. I would agree with you much more than I do now.

Sounds good.

It.s when you tack that word ONLY on the end that I object and fail to see how the context justifies claiming James meant that these are the ONLY circumstances under which a person may ask for and get wisdom from God, and that that is the ONLY kind of wisdom God will give a person. Those restrictions are an extrapolation and would not be intended by James because James would have known they are not true from earlier scripture. James is giving an example of how a general principle can be put to use in a specific situation, and quoting verse 5 isolates that principle without altering the meaning of it.

I'm not tacking the word only on it. The context, the sentence structure and the Greek words state the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. The intended meaning is trials so claiming James 1:5 for anything other than trials is changing the intended meaning and pulling it completely out of context.

And that idea is captured in my conclusion .Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

No. That's not the context nor the meaning of perfect and entire. You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related. It is not wisdom that makes us perfect and entire (which is a horrible translation), it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us mature, strengthened and purified, removes our weaknesses and imperfections and gives us the abilitity to turn the trial into greatness and glory; all of which stems from the Greek words translated as perfect and entire.

It's trials that make us "perfect and entire" if we meet the trial in the right way. If we lack the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, we can ask God for wisdom to meet the trial in the right way.

We can obtain that wisdom we need to correctly meet the trials we face, but that is not the only kind wisdom a person needs to become perfect and entire

It's the wisdom of James 1:5 that helps us meet the trial in the right way.

No, the issue is not context. The issue is what was James. original intent. Context is a tool we can use to help determine that (when used properly), but as Christians we must assume that his intent is not in contradiction with the truth.

Context includes author, history, language, culture, mannerisms, original intent, reason for writing, etc. We get the original intent by studying the entire context, which I've done in this study while still trying to keep it short.

Did James, a Jew, write to the Jewish Christians in the Greek language? We can.t say with certainty since we don.t have the original manuscript, but I think it is rather unlikely. So what language was it written in, who translated it to Greek, did James approve of the translation etc. etc. These are rather important things to know before putting so much trust in what Greek sentence structure and words are used in existing manuscripts.

When you say things like that it really demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. First you say since James was a Jew, would he have written in Greek, then say that's unlikely and make some really bad assumptions. You're talking about the heart of Hellenistic times. Greek was the language to speak and write, and every single copy we have of James was written in Greek. The ironic thing here is, the Greek is so good, so clear, so fine in James, that it's even more obviously written by a Jew. You appear to be trying so hard to avoid the implications of the Greek language supporting my position in detail, that what you're missing is my position is based on the Greek, nothing else.

OK, note however that it doesn.t say that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. Identifying the context is one thing, how we apply that context to the content is another.

The entire passage supports wisdom for trials, not just the sentence structure but the words themselves.

Those are the comments of the authors of that commentary and I don.t see how Greek sentence structure gets them from .people facing trials do lack wisdom. to .wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously. The first part comes from Greek sentence structure, but the second part seems to just come from themselves.

It doesn't just come from themselves, it comes from understanding the context and the expanded meaning behind the Greek words.

On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows .wisdom. referring to the wisdom needed to not get into the trial in the first place or any other kind of wisdom? On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows a person NOT in the midst of a trial from seeking wisdom?

The context.

According to ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary (http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejam1.htm) for James 1:5, .Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour.. I.m not holding up Mr. Clarke as an authority of some type, I just want you to see where text analysis ends and opinion begins. I.m sure many other commentaries contain many other opinions on how .wisdom. is meant to be taken in that verse.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above and welcome additional commentaries and dictionaries.

It isn.t the use of the Greek I.m objecting to, we pretty much agree on the context but disagree on what valid inferences can be drawn from the context.

You're saying it isn't the Greek you object to, it's the Greek you object to.

"You may not remember a conversation we had last week where you asked how I defined a selfless request and my answer here was "pure motives." "

I missed that post, thanks for the link.

"It's the context that sets the limits, "

And I showed how just because something is said in a certain context doesn't by itself establish that the author intended the remark to be limited to only that context. You've had well over a full week to consider and reply to the analogy I posted to you. I have not seen any reply to it. If I missed it, please point me to it, but if you have not responded to it, either do so or say you won't.

"I'm not tacking the word only on it."

You most certainly are. There is nothing in the context that indicates the limits you infer.

You are making a classic logical error. 'If A then B' doesn't also mean that 'If notA then notB' Example: 'if it is raining, the driveway is wet' is true, but 'if it is not raining the driveway is not wet' is not true all the time, the driveway doesn't become dry the instant the rain stops, and it can become wet in other ways.

Likewise, if you need wisdom to deal with your trials, you can get it from God' is true and we agree on it, but it doesn't justify saying if you need wisdom for some other reason, you can't get it from God' You can't legitimatly say the author intended that unless you can show evidence specific to that restriction. The inference you make is illogical.

"The context, the sentence structure and the Greek words state the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials."

'Tied to' is not the same thing as 'limited to'. Look at it again:

According to The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 12, pp. 168-169: The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom.

That doesn’t say or mean that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. It says and means that people facing trials lack wisdom, something we have agreed on.

"The intended meaning is trials so claiming James 1:5 for anything other than trials is changing the intended meaning and pulling it completely out of context."

If you claim that James intented v5 to be taken as meaning the only wisdom God will give those who ask in faith is wisdom to endure trials, then you are saying James didn't know his stuff, he would be contridicting 2 Chronicles 1, Matt 7, Luke 11 and the other verses YOU pointed to.

"You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related."

So v3 and v5 ARE related, but v4 and v5 are not?

"It is not wisdom that makes us perfect and entire"

And I repeatedly agreed with you on that. It's a quality that makes it possilbe to become perfect and entrire, one required ingredient you could say.

"it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us mature, strengthened and purified, removes our weaknesses and imperfections and gives us the abilitity to turn the trial into greatness and glory"

Right, that's why James told them they should be HAPPY about the trials they faced. It was giving them the chance to become further strengthened and purified, closer to wanting [lacking] nothing.

But what if a person lacks the wisdom needed to become as God wants them to be? Where does one get such wisdom if they lack it? We need wisdom from him, and he will give it to those who ask in faith, whatever wisdom it is we need to become as He wants us to be. The idea that James intention was to say that God will grant you wisdom to endure a trial but you are on your own for everything else is both foolish and wrong IMHO.

"We get the original intent by studying the entire context"

There are limits to what we can tell of a person's intent from a frequently transcribed and translated copy of a letter they wrote to another group of people.

"When you say things like that it really demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the subject."

Hey, if you are going to look to those manuscripts to try and discern the author's intent, then the accuracy of the manuscripts is a valid thing to investigate. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

"First you say since James was a Jew, would he have written in Greek,"

I didn't say that, I ASKED if he did.

"then say that's unlikely"

I say I consider it unlikely, not impossible, I just think using either Hebrew or Aramaic are possibilities too.

"and make some really bad assumptions."

I asked some questions.

"You're talking about the heart of Hellenistic times. Greek was the language to speak and write"

He wasn't writing to everyone though, just the Jewish christians. The common language of the Jews after the return from Babylon was Aramaic, and it is most probable that Jesus and the Twelve spoke Galilean Aramaic.

"every single copy we have of James was written in Greek"

That tells us NOTHING about what language the original was in.

"The ironic thing here is, the Greek is so good, so clear, so fine in James, that it's even more obviously written by a Jew"

But was that Jew the author or a translator? We just don't know.

"You appear to be trying so hard to avoid the implications of the Greek language supporting my position in detail"

No, because you still haven't shown anything to support your claim. I'm just pointing to a weakness in your method and assumptions.

"that what you're missing is my position is based on the Greek, nothing else...The entire passage supports wisdom for trials, not just the sentence structure but the words themselves."

And nothing in the sentence structure or the words supports ONLY wisdom for trials.

"I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above "

Good, please note it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial.

You're saying it isn't the Greek you object to, it's the Greek you object to.

No, I'm saying the restriction you place is not justified, you are drawing invalid inferences.

'Tied to' is not the same thing as 'limited to'.

The context, the sentence structure and the words are referencing trials. Everything is tied to trials. That is the context. That is the reference. The wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. If you use the reference for anything else you're pulling it out of context and changing the intended meaning.

Likewise, if you need wisdom to deal with your trials, you can get it from God' is true and we agree on it,

Yes.

but it doesn't justify saying if you need wisdom for some other reason, you can't get it from God'

I have no idea why you said that. We have talked over and over about the other verses that support asking God for whatever we want if it glorifies Him, including wisdom. We have talked about Solomon asking for whatever he wanted and he asked for discernment - basically wisdom to lead God's great people. I have said over and over that if we need wisdom from God we should claim the 1 Kings 3 passage, the Matthew 7 passage and the Luke 11 passage. That's why I say I have no idea why you think that I think God will only grant wisdom for trials.

That is not the issue. The issue is the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. That is the specific context. Using James 1:5 to support asking for wisdom for anything and everything is changing the original intended meaning.

You can't legitimatly say the author intended that unless you can show evidence specific to that restriction. The inference you make is illogical.

I sure can. The fact that everything is tied to trials supports my position. The fact that everything is tied to trials offers no support for your position. Your position is the illogical position as you yank the wisdom specifically tied to trials right out of it's context of trials and use it to support whatever you want. That is illogical.

I previously said:

You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related.

So v3 and v5 ARE related, but v4 and v5 are not?

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

The idea that James intention was to say that God will grant you wisdom to endure a trial but you are on your own for everything else is both foolish and wrong IMHO.

I have never said that. Not once. This is a straw man.

Hey, if you are going to look to those manuscripts to try and discern the author's intent, then the accuracy of the manuscripts is a valid thing to investigate. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

That is an argument from silence. You are reaching for things for which no physical evidence exists.

That tells us NOTHING about what language the original was in.

Another argument from silence.

Then you say things like since James was a Jew, why would he write in Greek, when that was the language of the day. When you say things like this you demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. Everytime you say something on this subject you just make it worse for yourself. I have offered to point you to some books on the subject but you never take me up on the offer.

The common language of the Jews after the return from Babylon was Aramaic, and it is most probable that Jesus and the Twelve spoke Galilean Aramaic.

The common language was Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic as we see in Matthew where Jesus said "talitha coum" if I remember it right, which means little girl I say to you, get up. So Jesus spoke Aramaic and most likely Hebrew, but the common language was Greek and is what the entire New Testament is written in. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament and the Septuagint is the version quoted by everyone in the New Testament. Everything we have is Greek. You're argument is from silence.

And nothing in the sentence structure or the words supports ONLY wisdom for trials.

One more time. You don't understand context. What's so strange is you admit the context is trials. You admit the wisdom is tied to trials, but you want to use the wisdom in James 1:5 to support whatever you want, and that is changing the original meaning whether you see it or not.

Good, please note it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial.

You're reading something into it that isn't there. Here is what he said.

Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour..

The first part doesn't apply as we're only interested in wisdom in Scripture. If you'll notice he's saying the same thing I am - the throrough practical knowledge of God. Here's what I said:

Wisdom is not just acquired information but practical insight with spiritual implications (Prov 1:2-4; 2:10-15; 4:5-9; 9:10-12). With James' Jewish background, wisdom is a practical thing. It isn't philosophic speculation or intellectual knowledge, to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics.

What he doesn't do is go into more detail, but he says the same thing I said.

And I showed how just because something is said in a certain context doesn't by itself establish that the author intended the remark to be limited to only that context. You've had well over a full week to consider and reply to the analogy I posted to you. I have not seen any reply to it. If I missed it, please point me to it, but if you have not responded to it, either do so or say you won't.

I have called your analogy a straw man but you seem to have ignored or missed it entirely. I can't help but wonder if you're doing this on purpose to avoid admitting my point or if you just don't get it. I've also never seen a perfect analogy for anything - they always break down somewhere.

Just as in your view of James 1:5, you are leaving out specific issues that are required in your analogy. That is, perseverance which is meeting the trial in the right way and being complete which is removing our weaknesses and imperfections. With the lesson on cabinet making being trials in your analogy, Home Depot being God which is probably a first for God, the hammer representing wisdom and cabinets the end product or the mature Christian, you have left out two very important issues.

Let's say being complete is filling holes in the cabinet with wood putty and sanding the cabinets, which is a nice fit to removing our weaknesses and imperfections.

What's left is perseverence and is key to being mature and complete. To be true to your analogy we have to use the hammer in the right way (perseverence) to complete the cabinet and use the hammer to remove defects in the cabinet. But the analogy falls short here because we don't use just a hammer to build cabinets. We might also use a miter saw, table saw, router, finishing nails, putty, sand paper, screws, glue, drill, and more. We don't use just hammers to build cabinets, if we even use a hammer at all to build cabinets.

In the same way we don't request wisdom for trials and trials alone - we can use wisdom and hammers for different purposes. I have repeatedly said the same regarding wisdom from the beginning, saying we should use the 1 Kings 3, Matthew 7 and Luke 11 passages to request wisdom. There are other verses as well but from his choice of words, those are the verses James probably used as a basis for his words.

Your analogy is a straw man because you mispresent what I've said. Your analogy is a also straw man because you're trying to say we can use a hammer to put up picture hangers, one of the many uses of a hammer. When James is saying if we lack the wisdom in using a hammer in the right way to put up straight picture hangers without any defects in the wall, ask Home Depot how to do it.

"The context, the sentence structure and the words are referencing trials."

And none of that shows that the author intended his advice on seeking wisdom to ONLY be valid advice in that context.

"If you use the reference for anything else you're pulling it out of context and changing the intended meaning. "

If James intended to convey the idea that God will ONLY give wisdom to those who need it for enduring trials then he is wrong, if he didn't intend that limit you claim, then nothing I did changed the intended meaning.

"I have no idea why you said that. "

Because that is just what you have claimed (many, many times) James' intent was.

"We have talked over and over about the other verses that support asking God for whatever we want if it glorifies Him, including wisdom. We have talked about Solomon asking for whatever he wanted and he asked for discernment - basically wisdom to lead God's great people. "

Exactly why I can not agree that that James intended such a restriction as you claim. James applied a general principle (we can seek wisdom from God if we have faith) to a specific context (trials), but there is nothing to justify saying he intended that to be the ONLY context that principle can be applied to. Since trials is not the only context that it can be applied to, I assume James intended no such restriction.

"That's why I say I have no idea why you think that I think God will only grant wisdom for trials."

You have claimed over and over that James intended meaning was that a person can ONLY recieve wisdom from God to endure trial they are in, and no other kind of wisdom.

"Using James 1:5 to support asking for wisdom for anything and everything is changing the original intended meaning"

So you claim, but you have not shown it to be anything more than your opinion of what his intent was.

And what wisdom is there that doesn't help a person to avoid or handle a trial? Your comment 'James lists two examples to illustrate the spiritual dynamics of trials. The first example: lacking wisdom (5-8), the second: lacking money (9-12).' indicates that lacking wisdom is a trial IN AND OF ITSELF.

"The fact that everything is tied to trials supports my position."

No, that only shows you really don't understand my position. I agree that it's all tied to trials, but you claim his intent was that it's ONLY tied to trials and I say there is no justification to say his intent was so restricted.

"Your position is the illogical position as you yank the wisdom specifically tied to trials right out of it's context of trials and use it to support whatever you want. That is illogical. "

It would only be illogical if there was a clearly demonstrable intention by James to teach that a person can ONLY get wisdom from God to endure trials and for nothing else. If someone tells you that you can get a hammer at Home Depot to build cabinets with, it is silly to infer that you can get a hammer at Home Depot ONLY to use for building cabinets.

"I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here."

You say since v3 is about trials, v5 is as well. I point to v4 and say it shows God wants us 'perfect and entire, wanting [lacking] nothing.' James' very next words are 'If any of ye lack wisdom...' so I fail to see how this counts as connecting unrelated words.

"I have never said that. Not once"

You said James intent was 'perfectly' represented by :"If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial ONLY"

"That is an argument from silence."

No, it wasn't an argument at all, it was a question. Who made the choice to use that kind of Greek conditional sentance, James, or somebody else?

"You are reaching for things for which no physical evidence exists"

AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING WITH THE QUESTION. We don't know for a fact what language James wrote it in, we don't know for a fact who chose to use that sentance structure. You want to ignore that and treat the known manuscripts as if they are the originals, I'm saying you have to more scholarly than that and allow for the possibility that James did not write it in Greek and some scribe chose that sentance structure while translating it.

"Another argument from silence."

No, a statement of fact. An argument from silence reaches some kind of conclusion, all I did is point out that the fact the known manuscripts are Greek is not a valid proof for claiming the original was Greek, my claim is that the language of the orginal is unknown, a fact. It COULD have been Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or something else.

"Then you say things like since James was a Jew, why would he write in Greek, when that was the language of the day."

Greek was the most common language on a (old)worldwide level, but James wasn't writing to everybody, he was writing to the Jews, so Hebrew and Aramaic are also likely candidates for the original language and brushing off the possibility is not justified.

"The common language was Greek."

Not among the Jews at that time. I'm taking into account the language and culture of the intended audience and the author, and saying that we can't rule out certain posibilites. You reply that I'm ignoring the context when I do that is rather funny.

"You admit the wisdom is tied to trials,"

Yes, and that James did not intend the fact that he tied it to trials to be taken as it being limited to ONLY trials.

"and that is changing the original meaning whether you see it or not. "

It all comes down to how James intended it to be taken. You have your opinion and I have mine about what the intended scope of v5 is. So far you have not shown anything in the content or the context that even makes your claim seem like a possibility to me.

"If you'll notice he's saying the same thing I am - the throrough practical knowledge of God. "

Like I said, it does not limit wisdom to only wisdom to endure a trial. If you claim it does, then YOU are reading something into it that isn't there.

"to James wisdom is concerned with the business of living. Wisdom is "knowledge of the things human and divine" as defined by the Stoics...he says the same thing I said."

And again, the type of wisdom is not limited to only wisdom to endure a current trial.

"I have called your analogy a straw man but you seem to have ignored or missed it entirely. I can't help but wonder if you're doing this on purpose to avoid admitting my point or if you just don't get it. "

I missed a lot of posts in the past 9 days. I did tell you that I wouldn't be around nearly as much.

"I've also never seen a perfect analogy for anything - they always break down somewhere."

Of course, but they are still usefull.

"With the lesson on cabinet making being trials in your analogy, Home Depot being God which is probably a first for God, the hammer representing wisdom and cabinets the end product or the mature Christian, "

Already you have taken tha anaolgy much farther than intended.

"Just as in your view of James 1:5, you are leaving out specific issues that are required in your analogy. That is, perseverance which is meeting the trial in the right way and being complete which is removing our weaknesses and imperfections"

The analogy is intended to make one point: that just because something is said in one specific context doesn't by itself justify claiming that is the ONLY context it is valid for. It is not intended to be a 1:1 retelling of James 1.

"Your analogy is a straw man because you mispresent what I've said."

I was using the analogy to try and get you to see my POV. You say that because v5 is in a context of trials that it's valid to limit it's application to ONLY trials. I'm saying that makes as much sense to me as what scripter1 and scripter2 say in the story. The context (how to build cabinets) alone doesn't justify the accusation of altering the intended meaning of the author.

Could you address THAT, instead of all the details you dwelt on which are not relevant to the intent or purpose of the analogy?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.