Jas 1:13 is a popular Arminian prooftext. This is said to be incompatible with absolute predestination or meticulous providence.
I've read a number of commentators on this passage, reflecting a broad theological spectrum (Blomberg/Kamell, Davids, Johnson, McCartney, McKnight, Moo, Witherington), but I don't find any of them entirely satisfactory. They discuss the word-play. They distinguish between external testing and internal inducement to sin, but that's inadequate.
The prima facie problem is that, on a number of memorable occasions, the OT attributes to divine agency the very thing that James seems to deny. For the OT does depict Yahweh inciting/enticing some men to evil (e.g. Josh 11:20; Judges 9:23; 14:4; Ps 105:25; 1 Sam 2:25; 16:14; 2 Sam 17:14; 1 Kgs 12:15; 22:20-23; 2 Kgs 19:5-7; 2 Chron 18:22; 25:20; Ezk 14:9; 38:10).
If there's a contradiction, the contradiction is not, in the first instance, between Jas 1:13 and Calvinism, but between Jas 1:13 and OT theism. Put another way, if Jas 1:13 poses a problem for Calvinism, the problem is hardly unique to Calvinism, for the deeper problem is not how to square Jas 1:13 with Calvinism, but how to square it with various passages in the OT.
Since James and his Judaic audience were undoubtedly aware of these sorts of passages in the OT, I think we need to consider an alternative interpretation. Seems to me that commentators are construing James 1:13 too broadly.
i) V13 comes on the heels of v12, with its proverbial phrase about the righteous. That alludes to OT passages like Ps 1:1. So v13 may have reference, not to men in general, but to the faithful in particular.
ii) If his target audience consists of Diaspora Jewish-Christians, they'd be exposed to types of pagan fatalism, like astrology and oracles of doom (e.g. Croesus). So 1:13 might, in part, be a corrective to fatalistic apathy.
iii) This would dovetail with v14f. You never sin against your will. Repentance is always an option.
"So v13 may have reference, not to men in general, but to the faithful in particular."
ReplyDeleteWasn't David "incited" (2 Samuel 24:1)? Wouldn't he qualify as "the faithful"?
"If there's a contradiction, the contradiction is not, in the first instance, between Jas 1:13 and Calvinism, but between Jas 1:13 and OT theism. Put another way, if Jas 1:13 poses a problem for Calvinism, the problem is hardly unique to Calvinism, for the deeper problem is not how to square Jas 1:13 with Calvinism, but how to square it with various passages in the OT."
ReplyDeleteSpot-on.
Just musing here but is there a difference between tempting someone to sin and causing someone to sin?
ReplyDeleteS&S,
ReplyDeletei) Of course, 2 Sam 24 is an enigmatic text on any approach, be it Reformed, Arminian,or something else.
ii) Part of the obscurity may be due to the fact that this is in-house literature, regarding ancient politics and palace intrigue. It alludes to events which would be more familiar to the original audience. It's hard to jump headfirst into a text like this and know where we are. Where are the road signs? We lack the same background information, so we have to read between the lines as best we can.
iii) In addition, the narrator chooses to focus on the aspects of this event which are relevant to his narrative aims. As such, he leaves many loose ends. Raises many incidental questions that he doesn't circle back to answer.
iv) That said, God incites David as a means to an end. This is not to precipitate his downfall or destroy his faith, but to purify his faith. In the course of the narrative, David gains greater self-understanding, humility, and altruism (vv10,14,17). He emerges from the crisis chastened and edified.