James 1:19-27 Bible Teaching

James 1.19
February 1st 2015
Meat
Welcome
Pray
Music
Silence

So last week we covered James 1:13-15 which say:

“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. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

And we talked at length about temptations and trials and tests and how, when or if God is involved in them in our lives.

At verse 16 and 17 James, who has told us that God does not tempt us add some real clarifications about God that I think, when taken seriously, better describe Him than most, saying:

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.

In other words James has told us clearly that God cannot be tempted and neither does He tempt any man.

And then at verse 16 he adds:

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

In other words do not think about this wrongly, he says. Don’t make the error of thinking God is the one tempting us to sin.

I would suggest that this point supports the idea also that God is not the author of any of the pains that lead us into the potential to sin.

Now I am well aware (as I’m sure you are) that we are presented with some conflicting messages here.

Let me explain. There are a number of passages and references that speak of God doing things to humans that are harmful.

From sending plagues and weather miseries to other unfortunate things.

In Judges 9:23 we read:

“Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.”

The question is did God send the evil spirit or did God allow the evil spirit to infiltrate because Abimelech and the men of Shechem were at a place where that evil spirit was warranted, earned, or would serve to work things out to an expected end?

Throughout the Old Testament we have stories that seem to suggest that God is destroying and wiping out and killing and pouring all sorts of revenge and trials and stinging serpents down in the disobedient people, and yet James says:

God is not tempted neither does He tempt ANY man . . . and don’t kid yourself, verse 17

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 passage seems to support James claims that God is NOT tempted (tried, tested or tempted) with evil, that He does NOT tempt us with evil (trials, difficulties, temptations, sickness or sin) and the proof he provides is this amazingly clear description of the God we seek – that . . .

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.

Another translation puts it this way.

“Every gift which is good, and every perfect boon, is from above, and comes down from the Father, who is the source of all Light. In Him there is no variation nor the slightest suggestion of change.”

Passages and description like this of God make it sound as if He is incapable of doing harm – but especially in the sense of doing or causing anything that would lead to sin or evil.

So a philosophical question to consider?

If God will send or allow plagues and death and disease to overwhelm a people or person as a result of their sinful disobedience can we consider those things BAD?

Certainly in our book they appear sinful or painful or evil but if God who is the Father of Lights through whole all good and perfect gifts come are they?

Is it possible that when He allows anything to occur that it is ALWAYS for good and never for evil – since evil is not present in Him, nor shadow or turning?

Taking this out a step further – and for your consideration – how would a God who is nothing but good and light and love – create a world KNOWING that most of it was going to go so contrary to His will and ways that most of it was going to wind up suffering to some extent or another?

How would a good God of lights, who knows all things, and in whom there is NO shadow nor darkness choose to create such a world in the first place KNOWING the results?

I mean bring it all the way down to the failing human level of things. Let’s say that you get married and there is some mechanism that will determine the outcome of your offspring.

And let’s say that you know – KNOW – that the first child you bear will be anti social, struggle from day one with friends and ultimately become a serial rapist, and the second child you bear will have spina bifida so badly that she will require constant care for thirty five years straight. And then let’s say you know that the third child will suffer from horrible depression and social ostracization where most children and adults will be cruel to him for life . . . and this will be the fate of your offspring.

Would you have children? Some would, but most people, out of love for welfare of these souls would not, right?

So why would the Father of Lights, who only does good and perfect things, create such a world?

(beat)

Now, what if you knew that your children would certainly go through the things I just described, but that in the end, and at the end of it all they would become happy, well adjusted, souls. Or that even if they didn’t they would wind up redeemed of God. And you knew this too?

How many more parents would then choose to create these children anyway?

Far more, right?

This is my proposal in the face of all of this (and it is a proposal I don’t see our getting around):

If James is correct in his description of God – that there is no evil thing in God – that He is light sending perfect gifts and tempts nor tests us – I think we have to re-assess our historic view of Him.

I think we need to re-evaluate how we have described Him and what we have assigned to Him and His person, and to rethink His motives, and purposes, and His relation to us.

To me there is no other way to justify these apparently contradictory descriptions of Him.

In other words I accept what James says and His descriptions of God. And in the light of these descriptions, and in the wake of how His Son lived, and what He taught, and who He was, and what He revealed about the invisible God, I suggest that God – and all He has done, from the creation to this very minute – can only be viewed as benevolent, good in the purest sense, and ultimately in charge and ensuring that all souls will be reconciled – no matter what they do to themselves or others in this life.

James uses two important words here in verse 17 saying that every

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift . . .

The first word means what it says – every good gift. Partially what makes the gifts in question “good” is they are perfect – and the Greek for the word is teleois – meaning it brings about a complete end result.

It is good because it is based on completion and is therefore perfect – complete. It will ultimately want or lack for nothing.

How could the Father of Lights actually deliver or give gifts that were bad or lacking? He couldn’t.

And so the general sense seems to be that God is the author of all good. Everything that is good on the earth we are to trace to him and evil (and all that is associated or connected with evil) has another origin.

In Matthew 13 Jesus gives a parable describing the Kingdom of Heaven and says beginning at verse 24:

24 The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Of course the Father of Lights would be aware that enemies of truth and light would be a natural result of those that love the light in the first place, but these will all be dealt with and delivered by the Father of Lights in the end as well – and the means He deals with them would have to be good and perfect and not bad and incomplete.

James appeals to what I do not believe is just imagery in describing God but is literal – and He refers to God as “the source of all light.”

He adds that in Him is no shadow, no variableness, no turning which is another way to suggest no deviation.

That which is all light or the source of all light has no shadow or shade or darkness or obscurity.

John confirms James point saying in

1st John 1:5 “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

Again, in the face of such descriptions we have to acknowledge that what we see as an evil thing coming upon us must, if authored or allowed by God cannot in ANY way shape or form be viewed as bad.

Couldn’t be bad – He is the author and deliverer of light. The only way it might be seen as bad is if we are bad, and the light – in overcoming our darkness – becomes painful.

For this reason we know that all men and women who are His children must be transformed from the image of this world and into the image of His Son – who is the Light of the World.

By and through Him we, His children are cleansed with our darkness eradicated by His light, making it possible for Him to dwell in us, and us to ultimately dwell in Him.

Verse 18, in my opinion, brings us around to a very important but somewhat vague premise.

James has been describing to us the fact that we cannot claim our temptation or trials or sins are the result of God bringing such things to us.

He has reinforced the idea that God is the light that sends and gives only good and perfect gifts. And I have suggested that if this is the case we might need to re-evaluate a number of things we have errantly assigned to God’s person and purposes over the ages.

At this point James brings another important point about God and His dealings toward us saying:

18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Now, you may recall that when it comes to God’s will there are a few words that describe it to us from the Greek – and two of them describe His will as what Christians today describe as permissive and expressive.

Desired or Perfect.

Admittedly some scholars suggest there is no difference but the two Greek words seem to suggest that there is with His desired will being expressed in the word Thelo and His “expressed,” “perfect,” or “finished will” being described in the word “Boolamay.”

Why bring all this up?

Listen to verse 18 again.

18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

What do you think? He desired us to be begotten with the Word of Truth or He expressely caused us (boolamay) us to be begotten?

He expressly caused it. He did it.

Why did He choose us? According to most scholars it was by his own good will and choice not due to anything of our own goodness, abilities or choices.

This seems to be a well- established principle in scripture. God is not a respecter of persons and so His choices are solely up to Him and His will and reasons.

Offset this fact with the words of James that God is pure light and no darkness or shadow and has no evil disposition in Him and we are forced to see His decision to elect some to being born of the Spirit as the first-fruits of the rest is good – even if we are NOT one of those elected.

Now that’s faith isn’t it?

We have an example of this very situation played out in the life of Jesus. He had come to the House of Israel ONLY and He even goes so far as to tell His apostles to go to none but the House of Israel.

Matthew 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Is it possible, in light of passages like this, that God certainly, of His own will, begets some to be the firstfruits of all of His creatures BUT being a God of Goodness and Light would never reject any He has not elected from His adoption?

In my estimation this parable lends to such a perspective.

When it comes to those who are chosen BY Him however, this passages seems to suggest that it is all about His will and not our own.

When we say that it was of His own good will and pleasure I wonder if we need to be careful when we imply that there is no rhyme or reason to His will being expressed in such a fashion.

Could it be, for instance that God, of His own good will and pleasure, elected the House of Israel to bring forth the oracles and the Messiah because He knew they were suited to do such things all the way down the line and far better than say the Scots, or the Vietnamese, or the Philistines?

Could we also suggest that He has elected those to be His children (His first-fruits) due to the fact that for some purpose or reason only He is privy to they would facilitate something in His overall efforts that the others who are not elected would never produce?

I used to believe (especially when I was LDS and bought into all the valiant pre-existence rhetoric) that people were chosen or elected by God in the world today for the same reason God sent His pre-incarnate Son – they were worthy and prepared.

I am now of the opinion, based off passages found in books like 1st Corinthians 1 (which clearly state that God elects and chooses the weak things of the world) that the Gospel God elects to bestow typically falls on the most derelict, the weakest, and the biggest reprobates.

Such elections make much better sense of the entire biblical narrative (especially the New Testament) than anything else.

They are who Jesus came to save, who He spent time with, and by virtue of their weakened state to resist the world, they are perhaps most inclined to faith and love and humility, relying on God for all things instead of themselves or their own wisdom.

Whoever they are , God is the one who begets them out of the human race to be His own, His children, joint heirs with Christ, His first-born.

James has just explained to us the process by which sin is conceived, and then how it gives birth.

Here we seem to find a juxtaposition and reversed parallel.

In terms of sin, we are instructed that it originates from OUR own desires before it conceives and gives birth to death.

But in these passages we seem to read that our desires have nothing to do with us being conceived in God through Christ and being born-again.

Rather it is God who does it all – again – for and by His own will and purposes.

What does it mean to be chosen or elected by God to be His children. It seems to mean everything.

Are we to assume that because He has begotten us of His own will that all of us will be forced to remain in His family as His kids?

Can’t say. Many say so. That when He points or elects the choices are over. Not so sure I agree with this.

And there does remain the idea that He elects all to be His – but only some remain or abide in the vine. That is a whole other subject.

But what we can say from James words here is God does do the choosing and electing, and that He begets children . . .

“With the word of truth.”

Because James uses the Logos of Alatheuia (word of truth) and LOGOS can mean anything from actual words spoken, to images, messages, communications, the heart of, the conveyance, the total mentality, the spirit and a whole bunch of other things that depict forms or bodies of meaning, we know that God begats His children by presenting them with “concepts of truth.”

We could be dogmatic and believe that this is speaking of the Word (as in Jesus OR the written Word) and this line would certainly include these things (in fact I would love to present a whole sermon on the wonderful life-generating force found in the written word of God) but I can’t help but believe that God reaches His chosen through any and ALL expressions of truth.

And when truth presents itself to those He has elected they see, they hear, they convert, they are born-again, they become new creatures, long story short, His children.

And then James ends the passage with one heck of a whopper.

“That we (His elected children) should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.”

There are several things about this line that make it unique and highly intriguing.

James is writing to the converted to the House of Israel. This is his audience. And so when he writes that:

“We should be a kind of first-fruits of His (meaning God’s) creatures” we can take it in a couple of ways.

First we could say that James is saying that of all of God’s creatures they were the first to come out of the House of Israel and into the body of Christ – that, “by the word of truth they were begotten by the will of God to be the first.”

That makes sense to me.

We have covered the idea of first-fruits here in Meat before so I won’t go into all the minutia but the idea conveys one of rank and order and quality.

That which is first taken from anything and typically (at least biblically speaking) the portion which was usually offered to God.

If this reference was not James calling these Jewish converts the first out of the House of Israel then the reference could be to the rank and dignity which all who are born again would have among the creatures of God by virtue of the new birth.

If the first application is the case then it has NO bearing on us today – and we can cut the passage out so it never crosses our eyes again.

But since I think scripture is for us today, I would suggest that the passage has application to us (as well).

And so we have to ask, if the passage HAS meaning to us today when we read it what does it mean?

Taking aalllllll that we have discussed and putting it together in a giant ball, it seems to me that God who is good and pours out light from above, has chosen and elected certain things to bring about more good.

It is interesting that James uses a word to describe the mass of living things from which God has called us – the word is KTIS-MAH and it means a class or body of created things.

In this case, I think we can safely assume James is speaking of all the human creations (or creatures) of God.

And of course the question I have is why does James call us (if the passage has application to us) as the first (first fruits which always implies more fruits) “of His creations.”

To me if the meaning was that He would begat ONLY us from the vat of his Human creations James would NOT have used first fruits.

And if his message was only to the scattered converts from the House of Israel then why are we reading it today as if it has purpose and meaning?

To bring it all together I can’t help but believe that the passage intimates the fact that God will make the first fruits of His total harvest His Children – who come to Him by faith, but these will only be the beginning of the total harvest of all of His creatures, with Him being only good and light.

And so while it is certainly by His expressed will that those He has chosen will be the first fruits of His total harvest, others – in fact all – will ultimately come along in some form or another.

Before we move on to James directives that come as a response to all that he has said we might ask:

Would a good, fair God only call or choose some out of all of His creations to be His children? Why not all?

Again, because He has certainly called those who are this does NOT mean that He has not called or elected the others.

Maybe those who are His children are the only ones who respond to His call.

I don’t read the word irresistible in the text but I do read an awful lot about choosing, and remaining, and abiding.

So I would caution God’s critics against the inclination to assign evil to God.

James makes it very clear this is NOT part of His nature.

Okay, let’s read through to the end of the chapter and move into these last verses a bit before wrapping it up. (verse 19)

19 “Wherefore,” (James says, or as a result of all I have said) “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Alright back to verse 19.

19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

Since God is the only source of good; since he tempts no man; and since by his mere sovereign goodness, without any claim on our part, we have the ultimate honor of being called the first-fruits of his creatures (or creations) we ought to be:

Swift to hear.
Slow to speak.
Slow to wrath.

It is at this point, having established all the points that we have covered these past few weeks, that James begins to “tap, tap, tappy” on the topic that will not only remain with us through the rest of this chapter and chapter two but it is the foundation of what sent Luther over the edge – genuine faith (NOT just said faith or professed faith) but true genuine faith will (not must) subdue the natural man and bring forth fruit from the soul.

Here in verse 19 he starts to prance around the idea before throwing it down in the next chapter.

As His chosen children, who have been begotten by the Word of Truth, James advice is inferential to the character of what a true child of God would be like in character.

And since God does not entice us to evil but only sends down good and perfect gifts of light (especially upon His children) our response ought to be one where we are

Swift to hear.
Slow to speak.
Slow to wrath.

The advice is right on the border of the proverbial. In fact it IS proverbial as Proverbs says:

“In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin;” Proverbs 10:19

Proverbs 13:3, “He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life;”

Proverbs 15:2, “The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright, but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.”

Of course there are all sorts of secular statements about the value of a slow mouth and long ear.

James adds, Slow to wrath and then continues on with this point in the next verse – WHICH we will cover next week.