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.