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

Lets go to the transcript shall we....

WOODBRIDGE: He had sexually molested me for the five years that my mom was married to him.

KING: Did you tell your mom?

WOODBRIDGE: Yes, I did. And we had told authorities. And charges were pressed. And they dropped the charges against him and let him go. [looks like the police blew it]

KING: Why?

WOODBRIDGE: They didn't say why. I feel -- well, this is hard. They didn't think that one, we were telling the truth.

KING: Really?

WOODBRIDGE: ... that we were lying about it. And the bishop didn't believe my mom when she had told him. And they wanted to just act like nothing had happened.

KING: This is the Mormon bishop?

WOODBRIDGE: Yes, from my mom's church. The bishop at that time. He's no longer there.

KING: Debbie, as soon as you found out, why didn't you separate and leave him right away?

D. MITCHELL: I didn't find out about it until we were separated.

So, back in the 70's some bishop had a woman come to him saying that her husband that she was separated from was abusing her daughter. The police didn't belive her and neither did the Bishop. Yet JesseShurun says 'they were told to live with it, not to make it public'

Now the mom does go on to say that the church was trying to help the family stay together and heal the marriage, but that was all BEFORE the separation, BEFORE she was aware of any abuse and BEFORE the Bishop was told of any abuse.

Also, don't leave out this...

D MITCHELL: I -- maybe a word of comfort. I feel that if anything like this would have come forth, like we brought forth 19 years ago to a bishop, I know now it would have been taken care of immediately because of the things that have been said by our prophet. But back then, this wasn't addressed the way it is now. So I don't think anybody else would ever go through what we went through.

So, unlike some other churchs, we cleaned up instead of covered up. Back in the 70's child abuse was considered about as belivable as UFO's by most people. It's sad that society was blind to how evil some men can be, and I suppose that good christians found it harder to belive such things than others.

As for you JS, twice now you've totaly misrepresented the truth. Clearly you have an axe to grind against the LDS and don't feel compelled to stick to the facts.

"Don't say you can, do it."

I won’t attempt to use an appeal to authority since it not a valid argument.

"And I'd like to see their credentials."

Why? You already admitted that just being LDS is reason enough to dismiss them. I'm not going to play along with your attempt to start some petty 'my-scholar-is-better-than-yours' game. The wisest man to walk the earth was a carpenter, not a scholar will all kinds of worldly credentials. Besides, you can't even handle Calvin's agreeing with me.

"The web link says: 'For wisdom here, I confine to the subject of the passage' My book Calvin's New Testament Commentary translated by A.W. Morrison on page 263 says: 'I refer the word wisdom exactly to the context' "

And in both cases, Calvin is clearly saying '*I*' (not 'the Greek text requires), it is his interpretation.

"What you want to do is take that and say it's a general case, "

So does Calivin it seems. " the sentance [v5] may be generally applied to every branch of right knowledge."

"the idea can be applied in general to the whole range of right understanding."

And just what what idea would that be? Why the one expressed in v5. Calvin and I agree the context is trial, we also agree that the idea expressed in v5 can be applied in general to the whole range of right understanding.

"In other words, you're going to continually dodge the question because it rips out the sand foundation on which you've built your position. "

No, I've answered it. It must have gone over your head, so I'll try walking you though it my original reply in post 68
again....

from #68
Simply using the long interpretation of a Greek word that is in the manuscript doesn't require using []. Take for example John 4:24

KJV: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

WET: God as to his nature is spirit, and for those who are worshipping, it is necessary in the nature of the case to be worshipping in a spiritual sphere and in the sphere of truth

The WET verse is greatly expanded, but no [] are used as the expansion stems directly from the Greek text, not from interpretation or explanation by the author.

So, none of the comments in [] are directly from the Greek text, they are from Wuest.

from 68
Now if we look at Matt 1:16

KJV: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

WET: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary out of whom [feminine relative pronoun, singular number, referring to Mary only] was born Jesus, He who is called Christ.

Here we have [], an interruption by the author that contains two things. First is 'feminine relative pronoun, singular number' to explain properties of the Greek word translated as 'whom'. Next is 'referring to Mary only', his interpretation of who the pronoun is referring to. I agree with it, but 'feminine relative pronoun, singular number, referring to Mary only' is from Wuest, not contained in the Greek text. The first part is useful and accurate information the author is sharing, the kind of thing that normally would be a footnote. The second part is an interpretative comment by Wuest.

His comment at the start of v5 is not giving detail about the nature of a particular Greek word, it is an interpretative comment. It comes from Wuest, not the manuscript. I view each comment inside the [] as an interruption by the author where he adds his own comments, often interpretive comments. Many of them I agree with, but that first one in v5 is interpretative and I lean towards disagreeing with it. Disagree or not however, I don't see it as portraying James intent as being to restrict such requests to only those circumstances, so it doesn't relate to our disagreement from my POV.

So, his comments fall into two basic groups, providing details about the properties of a Greek word that IS in the text, and interpreative comments. I thought it would be clear that each comment inside [] in the WET for James 1:2-5 is not detailing the properties of a Greek word as does the first part of the comment in Matt 1:16. Each comment inside [] in the WET for James 1:2-5 is a comment I would consider interpreative.

You want me to go and assign the comments to categories you have chosen, but I don't fully agree with those categories.

'Expanding the Greek words' can be interpreative or not depending on the comment itself. For example: '[without any admixture of sorrow]' is a completly redundant rewording of 'unadultered joy' and rewording something requires interpreting it, but I can see how some people would also call that 'expanding' it. 'Providing the context' is an act of interpretation as well.

I focused specificly on the first comment of v5 since that has been the focus of our discussion and I've made my view on it very clear. If you have some point about those other comments, make it. If you think my position rests on a ' sand foundation' then turn on the water hose and go to it.

You can call that a dodge all you want, but I'm not going to be boxed into answering question in some format you spell out.

"I have made my point very clearly "

By relying on interpretation of the scriptures. English scholars are not the authority on interpreting the constitution, and Greek scholars are not the authority on interpreting the New Testement IMHO.

"According to the context, and Calvin no matter what translation you use, the wisdom to meet the testing in the right way is referring to the context. Any other usage is changing the authors intent. "

That is your opinion, and Calvin has no problem with it being 'generally applied to every branch of right knowledge' so clearly he did not think doing so changed James intent.

"I look at the Greek and read the passage in context to find the intent."

And people read each others's posts here on FR and misunderstand what was intended all the time. There isn't even any need to translate the text but it still happens. Just because it seems clear to you what the intent is doesn't mean your view of the intent is correct.

"How do you derive the authors intent? "

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/scholarship_eom.htm If you want to discuss that, I suggest a new thread for that.

"I believe in absolutes and not some wishy-washy subjective method of determining intent."

But 'I look at the Greek and read the passage in context to find the intent' IS subjective. The intent is not stated, you derive it by interpreting scripture, and two people reading the same text often come away with a different idea of what the intent is.

"you have not demonstrated from the Greek in any way whatsoever that James 1:5 is a general case. Please do so. "

Why? Just because you ask? I've already clearly said that neither my position nor yours can be ruled out when all you go by is the Greek text. It doesn't state it either way.

It was YOUR claim that the Greek text makes the case for your position. I've explained what my position is and what my reasons for it are. If you want to ignore that just because those reasons don't hinge on some Greek based argument, then you have chosen to turn your eternal fate over to the wisdom of men.

"Why do you say verse 5 is only related to verse 4 "

v5 is directly related to v4 because it comes directly after v4. When you skip over that last half of v4 YOU are misrepresenting James' remarks.

"Wuest has it as And if, as is the case. To understand the intent we need to look and see to what the Greek is connecting. To what is this referring?"

I already answered that, see post 58.

I won.t attempt to use an appeal to authority since it not a valid argument.

Then you shouldn't make statements like:

I can line up similar commentaries that agree with my view.

Throwing out immeasurables and then backing off supporting your statements is as cheesy as it gets. The point is, you haven't presented any scholars that read it the way you read it, and I surely haven't seen any, and that speaks volumes.

I previously wrote:

And I'd like to see their credentials.

Why? You already admitted that just being LDS is reason enough to dismiss them. I'm not going to play along with your attempt to start some petty 'my-scholar-is-better-than-yours' game. The wisest man to walk the earth was a carpenter, not a scholar will all kinds of worldly credentials. Besides, you can't even handle Calvin's agreeing with me.

Jesus wasn't the wisest man to walk the earth, He's God. If you only have scholars that are LDS that doesn't say much about your position. Besides that, I'm asking for credentials. By reading information from only one organization you're setting yourself up to fall for anything. Please, please consider reading sources outside the LDS organization.

And no, Calvin does not agree with you. Both translations state the wisdom is specific to the context. You cannot deny that fact. What Calvin states agrees with my position 100%. That is, James probably used Matthew 7:7 and Luke 11:9 as a basis for the passage, which are the verses to claim in prayer instead of ripping James 1:5 out of context, changing the intent.

And in both cases, Calvin is clearly saying '*I*' (not 'the Greek text requires), it is his interpretation.

What does the Greek say?

So does Calivin it seems. " the sentance [v5] may be generally applied to every branch of right knowledge."

"the idea can be applied in general to the whole range of right understanding."

And just what what idea would that be? Why the one expressed in v5. Calvin and I agree the context is trial, we also agree that the idea expressed in v5 can be applied in general to the whole range of right understanding.

As I stated above, the idea is that James probably used Matthew 7:7 and Luke 11:9 as a basis for the passage. Or James used the idea of what was taught that is written down in the gospels, depending on who wrote what first. You appear to want to forget that both translations state the wisdom is specific to the context of trials. Hmm, you think it's in the Greek?

I prevously wrote:

In other words, you're going to continually dodge the question because it rips out the sand foundation on which you've built your position.

No, I've answered it. It must have gone over your head, so I'll try walking you though it my original reply in post 68 again....

... So, none of the comments in [] are directly from the Greek text, they are from Wuest.

You want me to go and assign the comments to categories you have chosen, but I don't fully agree with those categories.

'Expanding the Greek words' can be interpreative or not depending on the comment itself. For example: '[without any admixture of sorrow]' is a completly redundant rewording of 'unadultered joy' and rewording something requires interpreting it, but I can see how some people would also call that 'expanding' it. 'Providing the context' is an act of interpretation as well.

I focused specificly on the first comment of v5 since that has been the focus of our discussion and I've made my view on it very clear. If you have some point about those other comments, make it. If you think my position rests on a ' sand foundation' then turn on the water hose and go to it.

You can call that a dodge all you want, but I'm not going to be boxed into answering question in some format you spell out.

Please. Again you appear to insist James' puts the preceeding context in every proceeding sentence. And no, insisting on sticking to the context in no way contradicts other Scripture. If you believe otherwise you simply don't understand context.

I've turned the water hose on and completly washed away your position. Then you come along and put the same sand foundation in place and say: "no you didn't." Repeat.

By relying on interpretation of the scriptures. English scholars are not the authority on interpreting the constitution, and Greek scholars are not the authority on interpreting the New Testement IMHO.

Yet you can't make your case from the Greek.

That is your opinion, and Calvin has no problem with it being 'generally applied to every branch of right knowledge' so clearly he did not think doing so changed James intent.

I don't have a problem stating the idea of using Matthew 7:7 and Luke 11:9 can be generally applied to asking for wisdom, which is what Calvin is saying and actually references.

I previously wrote:

How do you derive the authors intent?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/scholarship_eom.htm If you want to discuss that, I suggest a new thread for that.

I summarized my position in a simple sentence. When it comes to deriving the authors intent about all you can say is: "as far as it is translated correctly." Yeah, we've heard that before. Nothing like a nice subjective position.

But 'I look at the Greek and read the passage in context to find the intent' IS subjective. The intent is not stated, you derive it by interpreting scripture, and two people reading the same text often come away with a different idea of what the intent is.

I'll get into this below.

I previously wrote:

you have not demonstrated from the Greek in any way whatsoever that James 1:5 is a general case. Please do so.

Why? Just because you ask? I've already clearly said that neither my position nor yours can be ruled out when all you go by is the Greek text. It doesn't state it either way.

You want to use it as a general case but have yet to support your position. The fact that you've stated many times the context is trials but you want to use it as a general case is why I ask. If you're going to make statements like that you need to support them from the Greek. As far as I know you can't do that but you won't even try, and that tells me you can't.

It was YOUR claim that the Greek text makes the case for your position. I've explained what my position is and what my reasons for it are. If you want to ignore that just because those reasons don't hinge on some Greek based argument, then you have chosen to turn your eternal fate over to the wisdom of men.

That speaks volumes. You can't support your claim from the Greek but you believe it anyway.

I previously wrote:

Why do you say verse 5 is only related to verse 4

v5 is directly related to v4 because it comes directly after v4. When you skip over that last half of v4 YOU are misrepresenting James' remarks.

Verse 5 is related to verse 4 because of more than that and you've said so yourself. Is verse 4 a continuation of verses 2 and 3, which are the same sentence?

I previously wrote:

Wuest has it as And if, as is the case. To understand the intent we need to look and see to what the Greek is connecting. To what is this referring?"

I already answered that, see post 58.

No, you didn't. That was a different matter entirely. This is what I stated in post 57:

It is very obvious the And if as is the case at the beginning of verse 5 refers to the previous verses

To which you said:

I would say it refers to the previous verse (singular)

I'm talking about the context here, not the verse. I think you really knew to what I was referring but don't want to answer because of the sand foundation on which you've built your position. If you actually answered the question you would be forced to realize the word wisdom is exactly tied to the context, which is what Calvin says and is what I've said all along. But you want to refuse to state the obvious. There's a battle over your mind going on. Please run from Mormonism and straight into a Bible based church.

If you can't make your case from the Greek then say so.

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.