James 1.18 Part III
Meat
January 25th 2015
Welcome.
Prayer
Music
Silence
Verse by verse – James 1 at verse 12
Okay, we left off last week with James having written:
“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.”
And we talked about temptation once again – which was what James started with – cheerfully enduring trials and temptations because we know that these difficult times produce the grand Christian character called, patience.
At verse thirteen, speaking of temptations, James now lays it on the line on how temptations come about.
In preparing this message I came to some really revelatory convictions – they convicted me and really made me sit back in awe. I hope to articulate them for you now.
Now the word he uses for temptation is the same Greek word he uses in verse 2 so we know we are talking about ANYTHING that tries or tests us – trials, difficulties, or temptations for sin.
Because of the way James now presents his material I am convinced that he is speaking of actual temptations to sin.
In other words, in verses 2-12 he seems to be speaking of any sort of circumstance that goes against a state of peace and comfort but here at verse 13 he seems to specifically speak of being tempted to sin.
And this is what he says:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.
Verse 13
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”
Let no man say when he is tempted, “I am tempted of God.”
Now, two considerations. Is James referring to sin only or any sort of trial or test? In the end I would strongly suggest it doesn’t matter at all. I’ll explain why in a second.
Different commentators, however, suggest different interpretations.
On the one hand some say that no matter the trial or difficulty or illness, God is not bringing it to the forefront of people’s lives to induce them to sin.
His motivations in allowing anything to come to our plate is loving. We cannot possibly see it in any other way.
In other words He is not allowing for poverty to move a person to steal and rob. He allows poverty to bring them to Him or for some other magnanimous purposes.
On the other hand, some suggest that the passage is speaking specifically of tempting a person to sin (and not to present them with the trials of sickness or poverty or death of loved ones or whatever) and in this case they say James is saying that God is not the one dangling the carrot (as it were) in an effort to tempt us to do wrong.
Again, I am pretty much convinced that whatever James is speaking of here is irrelevant – and that bottom line God is exempt from ever trying to get people to react wrongly.
In other words I read it this way:
Whatever heads our way (by Satan or what God allows or from our own actions) . . . trials, difficulties, or temptations to sin – the object from God is NOT EVER to induce us to sin.
And James seems to be teaching us that when we do sin we cannot lay it at God’s feet.
Apparently God does nothing (in any way) with the view to get men to do evil. In other words, IF sin is the result of what God allows (or does) it is incidental to His purposes.
Bringing it all home, we might say that God bakes the most delicious cookies and places them honestly on the window sill of the universe not to tempt or try but because baking cookies is a good thing and as a Good God He does Good things WITHOUT any intent to create or cause or effect evil.
Of course some of us will sneak up to steal the cookies, and others may come to the door and ask or beg for them, and others will work hard to earn enough money to try and buy some of them and then others will avoid them all together knowing that it is impolite to ask for things not intended for them in the first place but NONE of our reactions have anything to do with God’s intentions.
He is good and as the Good God He bakes good cookies. It’s just that people, in response, will of their own accord choose how to react to their presence.
From what I can tell James seems to be saying that it doesn’t even cross God’s mind that these cookies could be used to tempt or try us or move us to evil.
There is NOTHING in Him that is part of the trial or temptation – because there is no shadow or darkness in Him at all.
Think on this for a minute. There is no evil passion to be gratified in Him, as there is in men. No diabolical notions to get us to fail or fall or suffer.
There is certainly no desire for power or control or to bind us up in twisted lies or traps. He is love without shadow WHAT could move Him to such behavior?
There is no desire to capitalize on us or make merchandise of us – He has not desire or need for wealth – He is over and owner of all things.
And with Him being love and being light and being goodness and being spirit He has no need to introduce or relate to darkness at all.
I think we may have really gotten God wrong when we try and assign evil to His person, or any type of trickery or diabolical schemes.
I don’t think there is ANYTHING that could possibly be present in His divine mind toward any evil at all.
Of course, from our LOUSY and LIMITED human hearts it may appear to us like God is really trying to jack us up sometimes.
But James seems to clear this matter up entirely.
First He says that
God cannot be tempted with evil.
This is a HUGE premise and I think it is beyond our comprehensions of Him.
But this is HOW FAR AWAY from evil God is – and its NOT like He gets curious or desires or wants to dabble in evil like we do – He is utterly removed from its presence.
And being so far removed this must play out in how He sees and relates to us.
What the ramifications are I don’t know but I know they are there and this is where it becomes incomprehensible to our way of thinking.
And then James adds to God cannot be tempted, “Neither tempteth He any man.”
Taking this to heart I think we can say that He places nothing before any human being with a view to entice us to do wrong.
If you didn’t realize this this is one of the most unambiguous statements in the Bible.
God tempts no man.
Apparently, by taking the first claim that God cannot be tempted with evil we can say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to tempt any man.
Numbers 23:19, in describing God says:
“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
2nd Timothy 2:13 “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”
Romans 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
Paul introduces himself in Titus 1:1-2 and says:
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
I wonder if I have wrongly assigned certain characteristics to God over the course of my Christian life.
I used to say things like, “Well God is God! He can do what He wants.”
I’m not so sure this is the best way to get the point across. God CAN do what He wants, but God does not want, nor does He desire, nor (apparently) can He even fathom wanting, to do or to cause evil.
It is wholly absent from His character.
If we can get our minds around this at all we are then presented with a unique view of God which utterly reinforces His goodness and trustworthiness – God cannot think, act, desire or do evil.
It’s impossible – as impossible as a rock doing algebra!
This gives us some tremendous insights into why things happen, how things happen, and what God’s intentions are in the midst of it all.
And it gives passages like Jeremiah 29:11 deeper meaning when God actually says:
“For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.”
Admittedly, however, we are left with as many questions as we are answers aren’t we?
If we can say that “God does NOT tempt any man” neither is He tempted, how do we offset this knowledge with the notion that God, knowing all things, created them in the first place, realizing before hand that human beings would react to them sinfully?
I mean are we allowed to suggest that omniscient God, knowing that Satan would induce us to sin but created him anyway is the one who indirectly tempts us when the rubber meets the road?
Apparently not.
The source of sin – the real origin of darkness or evil or sin – and the tempting elements of them could NOT be God authored or James is wrong.
Somehow we have to reconcile that fact that while God is all knowing, and all powerful, the creator of heaven and earth (and all the angels and every man) that His hand in all things has been good, and not evil, but that men and angels have taken His good and twisted it to their own devious means.
Here where I believe God will have total victory over all things in the end. For where in the short run Satan and Man may approach the blessed acts of God with evil intent, God will work all of this to His good and bring about an expected end.
That in all He has done there has not been any darkness, shadow or temptation, and that as a result of His pure intentions the ultimate end of His intensions will be pure.
Good.
Beneficial.
Nevertheless, the real force of temptation must be traced to some other source –
Mostly ourselves – and never to God.
We do have a “hair-splitting caveat” here in what James says through the Greek because most of the literal translations say:
“Neither does He HIMSELF tempt any man.”
We know in the case of Job that He HIMSELF certainly did not tempt Job either with difficulty or with temptation to sin but He certainly allowed Satan to get involved, didn’t He?
Admittedly, there is a lot that we will never understand while in the flesh, but I think we can state a few things emphatically:
God cannot be tempted
Neither does God tempt Man
So what’s the gig with us and temptation? (verse 14)
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
In other words, James seems to suggest that the fountain or source of all temptation is located in Man himself.
First of all let’s examine this word lust used in the King James.
The word is EPI THOO MEA and means desire of any kind and not just lusty sexual desire but would include this.
Epithoomea is a desire for ANYTHING and we have to note that such desires have to relate to what is naturally and normally desired in our person.
In my opinion a person cannot desire that which he or she first does not nor can relate to.
Again, the giant bolder, which has no mouth or taste buds or stomach or intestines to soak up nutrients cannot desire to eat a bacon cheeseburger.
There would be zero lust or desire present for this normal drive AND (listen) there would be zero lust or desire to consume FOUR bacon Cheeseburgers.
So neither the natural desire nor the sinful desires toward gluttony would ever be present in a boulder.
So we know first and foremost that for sin to occur there has to be a natural desire first.
This fact automatically removes much of the onus for some sins being worse that others right off the map.
Why?
Because all of us possess – for reasons known and unknown – desires that may or may NOT be found in the common man.
In fact what some of us deem desirable others would find themselves utterly repulsed.
We make a serious error in judgment when we assassinate people because they possess a natural (or what we might call an unnatural desire or proclivity) what we find repulsive for the simple reason that we could probably flip the tables and discover that we possess some inclination that would repulse the person we are judging.
The point is, first, there must be an ability or proclivity for a specific desire in the individual before sin can occur.
That desire might be very slight, weak or mighty, but it has to exist to some extent.
The second point to consider is the desire can be for almost anything for it to become sin:
It might be all the obvious things:
Sex
Money
Control
Power
Food
Getting high (carnal pleasures) OR
Material possessions
Or they might be things not so obvious like
Popularity or social status
Intelligence (or knowledge)
Vanity
Revenge
Ego-centrism
Pride
Cruelty or Meanness
Thrill seeking
Domination
Victimization
And on and on and on
Whatever it is, it has to be present in the individual (genetically or environmentally or both) before it can move from simply being a desire to becoming sin.
Note that James does NOT place the “EPITHOOMEA” in the category of sin itself.
Did you catch that?
Now, our nature is sinful and we all need to experience new life in Christ so whether we are acting on our desires or not it takes Christ to help us overcome them.
This is why Paul says in Ephesians 4
Ephesians 4:22-23 “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind.”
Why? Because as long as the natural desires are present (whatever they are) in our natural man (our old man) there is a tendency to allow them to rise up and consume our attentions . . . and even our actions, right?
But sin itself has not occurred until the desire is consummated. And there are a few steps in the process between being tempted and sinning. James says-
14 But every man “is tempted (tried, tested, burdened, challenged), when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
The word for drawn is only used here in the entire new testament and it means to drag or draw toward something. The imagery being like a woman of ill repute standing in a doorway and beckoning a passing sailor to her chambers.
She is pulling on the natural desires in the sailor and reeling him in by those desires hoping to get him to express them in a way outside the boundaries God has established.
James, again notes that we are drawn away of our OWN lusts . . . and enticed.
The word for enticed is delayodzo and it means trapped. It is formed from the root word which means to be “tricked, trapped, deceived” and is employed in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament coverage of Eve and the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Appealing to this original sin we find all of the same elements James is describing in Eve.
I mean just listen to Moses account of Eve and what tempted her. (Genesis 3:6)
“And when the woman saw that the tree was 1) good for food, and that it was 2) pleasant to the eyes, and 3) a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
Obviously Eve allowed her natural taste buds or hunger or stomach to draw her to the fruit was appeared tasty, and she also let her eyes entice her (so she found the fruit appealing visually) and then from her own desire to be wise she was drawn to these promised effects, she ate the fruit.
And sinned.
In 1st John 2:16 we read the same exact enticements present in John’s description of what is NOT of the Father, when he says:
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Each of these elements were at play all the way back to the Garden of Eden at the fall.
Where John says
“The lust of the flesh” (Eve seeing the fruit was good for food – lust in her flesh)
“The lust of the eyes” (Eve was drawn in to the fruits appearance) and,
“And the pride of life” (Eve seeing the fruit would make her wise)
This is what James is saying. All the elements of these desires were present in Eve – and played upon what was already IN her well before she took and ate the fruit.
James point is that when we are tempted and tried by such things we are first drawn away by what is IN us, and then we are trapped by these inclinations, like a sailor in the apartment and watching her slip into something more comfortable.
Or a glutton stepping into the smorgasborg and watching the food get prepared, or the alcoholic sitting at the bar and staring at the pretty bottles, or the pedophile going to the park and watching the children.
It is of interest, and I know most of you know this, but that our King, who had NONE of the world in Him, was not enticed or drawn in by the worlds desires – they could not move Him to sin.
But it is not by mistake that when Jesus was taken in the wilderness – having fasted already forty days and nights – that Satan hit Him up with all the same temptations Eve faced – and hit Him when He was most vulnerable.
Remember? He took Him and these are the temptations he presented the Lord:
Like Eve, who gave into the lust of the flesh, Satan tempted Jesus by first
“If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.”
“Feed yourself, Jesus. Eat the fruit! It is good and tasty. You’re hungry right?”
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Had Eve responded to Satan she would have been saying to him (in effect) “We do not live by fruit alone but by every word of God!”
“Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.”
Here, I believe Satan was appealing to the wisdom and power that the fruit represented to Eve. She ate because it would make her wise – it was the pride of life driving her.
And it would have been the same driving Jesus had he cast Himself off the ledge and then saved himself.
The final temptation of Jesus relates directly to what John calls the lust of the eye, and what Moses said attracted Eve to the fruit – it was pleasant to the eyes, as we read in Matthew 4:
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
All the same, “there is nothing new under the sun” PRINCIPLES exist when any of us are tempted, drawn, and enticed to sin.
James continues with the final phase of sin.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
“When lust conceives” is a pretty clear way to illustrate that our natural desires have triumphed over our desires to refrain – and at this point desire meets action and sin is conceived.
Another way a number of the more literal translations put this is, “and when Passion conceives it gives birth to sin.”
Again, the point and purpose of James seems to be to show that within the heart of Man sin abides and has no need whatsoever for God to be involved in its conception at ANY phase of the way.
He does not need to tempt us, He does not need to draw us, He does not need to entices us, and He does not get us to act.
We do it all because all of the desires, whatever they may be, reside in the fleshy tables of our hearts.
As long as they abide there we run the risk of them rising up to life – and so we learn from other passages the need to become new creatures, to be crucified with Christ daily, for our old man to be buried with Christ and for our new man to be at the helm.
Whether we are exceedingly effective at living in the New man and remaining dead to the Old is not the point here. The point is God is not authoring our temptations or our sin – we are.
And what does James mean when he says that when desires have conceived it brings forth sin?
The word for sin is harmatia and it comes from the Greek root word harmartano which ( as you know) means to miss the mark.
The bulleye – which is the heart of God, a heart of love and light and goodness – and to miss that mark means to not be in line with God’s very nature, His very will.
Here’s the gig folks – we have all missed the mark because that mark is so high, so bright, so good, so pure, so clear and so void of any evil that mark cannot even conceive of darkness or wrongdoing or evil.
That bulls-eye is so beyond the realm of the fallen human nature that everyone of us – even the best of the believers over the course of time – are missing the mark, if not by their sinful hearts (which can conceive of sin and evil) then by their sinful hands which does conceive of evil.
And so we praise God that He, being love, loved us so much that He sent His Son to save us while we were yet sinners.
James short treatise on the conception of sin does not appear to be a treatise on the need to rid ourselves of it – we can find such instructions in other places in scripture – but he seems to first make us aware that we ought not even try and lay any of the blame for its existence at the feet of God, and secondly to rehearse for us exactly what goes on when we give birth to sin, and miss the mark God desires of those who are His.
In the end, our missing the mark does not come about by target practice. It comes by a change of heart, an internal alteration, which in time and due to exposure, will steady our hands and our desires and bring them in line with Him and His will.
He concludes his short expose with a sobering comment:
“And sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
Death in all of its forms – physical, spiritual, social, emotional, psychological, all death can be traced to sin.
Since God is life eternal, and good, and living, sin – which misses the mark of who He is and what He is all about – is opposite of Him, therefore death.
There is a strong similarity between this declaration and that of the apostle Paul, found in Romans 6:21-23 which says:
Roman 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It is possible that these very verses inspired James to this point.
STOP
😉 and it is probable that James had this passage in his eye. See Barnes for Ro 6:21 and see Barnes for Ro 5:12. Any one who indulges in a sinful thought or corrupt desire, should reflect that it may end in death–death temporal and eternal. Its natural tendency will be to produce such a death. This reflection should induce us to check an evil thought or desire at the beginning. Not for one moment should we indulge in it, for soon it may secure the mastery, and be beyond our control; and the end may be seen in the grave, and the awful world of woe.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Verse 16. Do not err, my beloved brethren. This is said as if there were great danger of error in the point under consideration. The point on which he would guard them, seems to have been in respect to the opinion that God was the author of sin, and that the evils in the world are to be traced to him. There was great danger that they would embrace that opinion, for experience has shown that it is a danger into which men are always prone to fall. Some of the sources of this danger have been already alluded to. See Barnes for Jas 1:13. To meet the danger, he says that, so far is it from being true that God is the source of evil, he is in fact the author of all that is good: every good gift, and every perfect gift, (Jas 1:17,) is from him, Jas 1:18.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
The difference between good and perfect here, it is not easy to mark accurately. It may be that the former means that which is benevolent in its character and tendency; the latter that which is entire, where there is nothing even apparently wanting to complete it; where it can be regarded as good as a whole and in all its parts. The general sense is, that God is the author of all good. Everything that is good on the earth we are to trace to him; evil has another origin. Compare Mt 13:28. Is from above. From God, who is often represented as dwelling above–in heaven.
And cometh down from the Father of lights. From God, the source and fountain of all light. Light, in the Scriptures, is the emblem of knowledge, purity, happiness; and God is often represented as light. Compare 1Jo 1:5; See Barnes for 1Ti 6:16. There is, doubtless, an allusion here to the heavenly bodies, among which the sun is the most brilliant. It appears to us to be the great original fountain of light, diffusing its radiance over all worlds. No cloud, no darkness seems to come from the sun, but it pours its rich effulgence on the farthest part of the universe. So it is with God. There is no darkness in him, (1Jo 1:5;) and all the moral light and purity which there is in the universe is to be traced to him. The word Father here is used in a sense which is common in Hebrew, (see Barnes for Mt 1:1,) as denoting that which is the source of anything, or that from which anything proceeds. See Barnes for Isa 9:6.
With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. The design here is clearly to contrast God with the sun in a certain respect. As the source of light, there is a strong resemblance. But in the sun there are certain changes. It does not shine on all parts of the earth at the same time, nor in the same manner all the year. It rises and sets; it crosses the line, and seems to go far to the south, and sends its rays obliquely on the earth; then it ascends to the north, recrosses the line, and sends its rays obliquely on southern regions. By its revolutions it produces the changes of the seasons, and makes a constant variety on the earth in the productions of different climes. In this respect God is not indeed like the sun. With him there is no variableness, not even the appearance of turning. He is always the same, at all seasons of the year, and in all ages; there is no change in his character, his mode of being, his purposes and plans. What he was millions of ages before the worlds were made, he is now; what he is now, he will be countless millions of ages hence. We may be sure that whatever changes there may be in human affairs; whatever reverses we may undergo; whatever oceans we may cross, or whatever mountains we may climb, or in whatever worlds we may hereafter take up our abode, God is the same. The word which is here rendered variableness (parallagh) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means change, alteration, vicissitude, and would properly be applied to the changes observed in astronomy. See the examples quoted in Wetstein. The phrase rendered shadow of turning would properly refer to the different shade or shadow cast by the sun from an object, in its various revolutions, in rising and setting, and in its changes at the different seasons of the year. God, on the other hand, is as if the sun stood in the meridian at noon-day, and never cast any shadow.
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Gr., willing, boulhyeiv. The idea is, that the fact that we are “begotten” to be his children is to be traced solely to his will. He purposed it, and it was done. The antecedent in the case on which all depended was the sovereign will of God. See Barnes for Joh 1:13. See Barnes for Eph 1:5. When it is said, however, that he has done this by his mere will, it is not to be inferred that there was no reason why it should be done, or that the exercise of his will was arbitrary, but only that his will determined the matter, and that is the cause of our conversion. It is not to be inferred that there are not in all cases good reasons why God wills as he does, though those reasons are not often stated to us, and perhaps we could not comprehend them if they were. The object of the statement here seems to be to direct the mind up to God as the source of good and not evil; and among the most eminent illustrations of his goodness is this, that by his mere will, without any external power to control him, and where there could be nothing but benevolence, he has adopted us into his family, and given us a most exalted condition, as renovated beings, among his creatures. Begat he us. The Greek word here is the same which in Jas 1:15 is rendered “bringeth forth”–” sin bringeth forth death.” The word is perhaps designedly used here in contrast with that, and the object is to refer to a different kind of production, or bringing forth, under the agency of sin, and the agency of God. The meaning here is, that we owe the beginning of our spiritual life to God.
With the word of truth. By the instrumentality of truth. It was not a mere creative act, but it was by truth as the seed or germ. There is no effect produced in our minds in regeneration which the truth is not fitted to produce, and the agency of God in the case is to secure its fair and full influence on the soul.
That we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures. Compare Eph 1:12. For the meaning of the word rendered first-fruits, see Barnes for Ro 8:23. Compare Ro 11:6; 16:5; 1Co 15:20,23; 16:15; Re 14:4. It does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It denotes, properly, that which is first taken from anything; the portion which was usually offered to God. The phrase here does not primarily denote eminence in honor or degree, but refers rather to time–the first in time; and in a secondary sense it is then used to denote the honor attached to that circumstance. The meaning here is, either
(1) that, under the gospel, those who were addressed by the apostles had the honor of being first called into his kingdom as a part of that glorious harvest which it was designed to gather in this world, and that the goodness of God was manifested in thus furnishing the first-fruits of a most glorious harvest; or
(2) the reference may be to the rank and dignity which all who are born again would have among the creatures of God in virtue of the new birth.
