21st Century Progressivism

Tag: peirasmos

  • The Scholastic Examination: Approbation and the Two-Fold Law of Testing

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    It is necessary to discuss some terms before we begin Adamson’s commentary on James 1:3-4. As in any scholastic examination, the terms matter. In this article James B. Adamson discusses the importance of approbation and the two-fold law of testing.

    Approbation

    Approbation is a formal noun meaning approval or praise. Adamson compares approbation in Christianity to a scholastic examination course. It requires endurance under trial and temptation.

    Peirasmos

    According to an online source: “The matter of significance about peirazo (the verb form) is that it is used in both a good sense and a bad sense. It can have the idea of testing with the purpose of bringing out that which is good, or it can have the idea of testing with the purpose of bringing out that which is bad.”

    Translations By Adamson and the Catholic Bible

    Peirasmos doesn’t actually appear in Adamson’s translation of James 1:3-4, at least not in that form. This is Adamson’s translation:

    You must realize that your approbation is accomplished by constancy in endurance. But let that constancy perfect its work, so that you may be perfect, and complete in everything part, lacking in nothing (but able to withstand any kind of assault of evil by which you may be tried. (James 1:3-4)

    Nor does the word peirasmos appear in the Catholic Bible’s translation.

    For you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. And let perseverance be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

    So, why bring the word up? In both translations ‘peirasmos’ is present in a different form. According to the website cited above, the same Greek word is used for ‘trial’ and ‘tempted’. In the translations of Adamson and the Catholic Bible, ‘assault’ and ‘testing’ are used in the place of peirasmos. Adamson’s next statement makes sense in that light.

    The Probationary Function of Peirasmos

    Experience itself shows the probationary function of peirasmos: the wind of tribulation blows away the chaff of error, hypocrisy, and doubt, leaving that which survives the test, viz., the genuine element of true character (Adamson p. 54).

    Adamson argues that Judaism has a similar understanding of peirasmos. Both Judaism and Christianity regard peirasmos as training and testing the seeker after righteousness in his battles with adversity and with his own evil inclinations.

    The Yetser Ha-Ra

    Judaism speaks specifically of the internal testing by the yetser ha-ra. This is the name for the willful animal impulses that are indispensable to the survival of the human species. The main Jewish idea emphasized here by Adamson is that God purifies the righteous each one according to his rank and his deeds. He cites b. Pes. 118a. I didn’t find this source in the bibliography, but I believe he is referring to Pesachim 118a.

    Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good” (Psalms 136:1)? It means give thanks to the Lord who exacts one’s debt, the punishment for a person’s sins and wickedness, in accordance with the goodness of each individual. God punishes each person based on his means. He punishes a wealthy person by taking his ox, and He punishes a poor person by means of his sheep. He punishes the orphan by taking away his egg, and He punishes the widow by means of her chicken. God punishes each person based on his ability to endure deprivation, and He does not punish people with more than they can handle.

    Adamson says the concept of the evil inclination is important in James’s doctrine of peirasmos. James describes its activity in 1:13 as well as the verse under discussion, James 1:2.

    No one experiencing temptation should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’, for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. (James 1:13)

    Did Temptation Have This Double Meaning in the First Century?

    Some have questioned if ‘temptation’ had this meaning in the first century. But because James used ‘peirasmos’ it’s generally agreed that it did.

    Adamson’s ‘Constancy in Endurance’

    Before I end this article, I have to mention a possible source of confusion in this section of Adamson’s commentary. It’s his discussion of ‘endurance’ and ‘perfection’ on page 55. He explains that in verse 3 he used the phrase ‘constancy in endurance’ instead of ‘endurance’.

    In the usual text “endurance” is the result achieved; in our emended text, in endurance, it is the means and method by which we strive for (and, we hope, win) approbation.

    He believes Christian constancy is ‘that permanent and underlying active trait of the soul from which endurance springs’. It means ‘steadfastness’, or ‘staying power’, and not patience. Here he cites Romans 5:3:

    Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance…

    And 2 Peter 1:6:

    …knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion…

    Adamson argues that in Romans 5:4 the present tense of ‘works’ signifies progress, not completion. So, it is not a question of more of our fruits which will give completeness of Christian character but of continued striving by God’s grace to see that our endurance be unremittingly carried on till our death. Therefore, ‘Perfect’ and ‘complete’ and ‘lacking in nothing’ have a different meaning than we normally give them. In his view, they are the essence of the doctrine.

    A Request for Correction or Clarification

    Sadly, I missed some of Adamson’s tonal qualities when I read this the first time. At the moment I’m surprised that these simple verses sound so demanding and joyless and that it isn’t apparent until one tries to share them. The most relevant concern that comes to mind is that perhaps some won’t be able to apply them to our present conversation.

    On the other hand, my concern might say something about our secular times. I appreciated the commentary when I read it myself, but I lose confidence in it when I share it. In one sense, to be concerned about strenuous admonitions ignores the fact that we witness demanding and joyless policies and practices every day with no accompanying encouragement. Life is not a trivial thing even in the best of times.

    The Concluding Paragraph of This Section

    The Scholastic Examination: Approbation and the Two-Fold Law of Testing
    Ancient Tent Camp

    Perfection, at first conceived in terms of OT cultic requirements (e.g., Exod. 12:5), later came to mean completeness in wholehearted dedication to Israel (Deut. 18:13), as in Noah and others (e.g., Gen. 6:9); here James continues the OT idea of perfection as a right relationship to God expressed in undivided obedience and unblemished life. Balance pervades the Epistle of James: here–characteristically–James has sounded the prelude (1:3) to the theme to be developed in 1:16-21.

  • The Crucible of Patience: Peirasmos and the Defiance of Joy

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    James’s Capacity for Joy Even in the Trials of Life

    It is fitting to call this verse the crucible of patience. But joy is an important part of it. In Adamson’s view, when James exhorts his audience to see joy even in the trials of life, he is in tune with the capacity for joy found in Greek art and literature. This article will explain the meaning of peirasmos and the defiance of joy in the Christian context.

    Adamson argues that James writes and thinks in Greek better than any other New Testament author. Perhaps that’s why he objects to the inclusion of the ne nos inducas (“Lead us not…”) in the Lord’s prayer. He believed this had a different spirit than the opening words of James. 

    Deem it nothing but an occasion for joy, my brothers, whenever (on each occasion when) you encounter trying assaults of evil in their various forms. (James 1:2)

    Sympathy for the Poor

    In Adamson’s opinion, no New Testament author expresses more sympathy for the poor or more indignation at their sufferings. But it was the joy James saw in their sufferings that makes him stand out among the Christians of that period. 

    Mastery of the Greek Language

    Adamson continues his praise for James arguing that James is close to the Greeks in his mastery of their language. He thinks this puts him in the company of ‘the unidentified author of the Epistle to the Hebrews’ or, for that matter, in the company of Aeschylus.

    This is Agamemnon, my
    Lord husband, slain, the deed of this right hand
    Fulfilling justice; thus this matter stands. 
    (Aeschylus Agamemnon 1403-1405, as translated by Adamson)

    Peirasmos

    According to Adamson, the dominant ideas of the Epistle are the duty and the reward of endurance under peirasmos, a ‘certain and not distant victory’. The words and example of Jesus inspire this approach. He cites Luke 6:22.

    Peirasmos roughly means temptation or temptations. (The KJV translation, Strong’s translation, and an outline of Biblical usage can be seen here.)

    The Concept of Christian Joy

    In the following paragraph, Adamson discusses the concept of joy. Christian joy is a kind of activity. He compares it to Aristotle’s notion of happiness. However, the word ‘happiness’ falls short of Aristotle’s thought in Greek, and ‘joy’ in English falls short of the Christian’s thought.

    Christian joy is a man’s pleasure in his (and his brothers’) progress toward Christian salvation; and it is not undiluted pleasure. Judaism also ‘baptized moral joy into religion’ (Adamson p. 53).

    Adamson cites the rabbis (b. San. 101a and Exod R. i.1); and R. Joshua B. Levi (Ta’an. 8a), who declared that ‘He who gladly accepts the sufferings of this world brings salvation to the world’.

    Pagan philosophy understood this concept in much the same way: ‘True joy is an exacting business’ (the Stoic Seneca, p. 53).

    The Crucible of Patience: Peirasmos and the Defiance of Joy
    Lucio Anneo Seneca

    Internal and External Temptations

    Some commentators have argued that James distinguishes between internal and external temptations. But Adamson tells us that in the Christian life, there is no effective difference. Both external and internal stimuli can goad a man into sin. This is due to the defects inherent in human nature.

    When it comes to sexual lust, for example, the temptation of straying thought is no less real or potent than a provocative woman. (Adamson’s term was ‘ provocative temptress’. I am aware of the importance of words and meanings when it comes to Bible verses and commentary, so I’m making you aware of this change. I changed it because I believe Adamson’s commentary on the Epistle of James is worthwhile and I prefer not to lose readers in the first chapter. This particular word choice is not representative of Adamson’s work.)

    The Greek Version Regarding Internal and External Temptations

    I’m afraid I don’t understand Adamson’s point here well enough to summarize the rest of the paragraph. It was obviously important to him because he provided his argument in careful detail so, I’ve included the direct quote. Don’t be discouraged. Most of the book is enjoyable to read.

    In the Greek of this verse, the picturesque adjective ‘various’, or ‘varied’, (ποικίλος) is in an emphatic position; and it would not have been wasted here by a master of the language on a tepid armchair dichotomy to signify or emphasize such difference as may exist between ‘external’ and ‘internal’ temptations. There are no otiose adjectives in James’s style; in 1:2 (against Ropes, one of the sources listed in his bibliography) ‘varied’, as the order shows to the discerning, is as emphatic as the noun ‘endurance’ in the next verse and the adjectives and participial phrase in v. 4, and the noun’ wisdom’ and the adverb ‘simply’ in v. 5. If James had wanted to use peirasmos in a selective sense he would scarcely have given it the expansive and emphatic ‘varied’ in hyperbaton without any indication that the sense of the noun was restricted. It is only in a clear context that peirasmoi has the narrower meaning. The Greek verb, encounter, note #18 on page 54, is apt for both kinds of temptation (Hort, against Mayor). Like the Latin incido it can have a deliberate meaning, as in a memorable passage in Xenophon, but it often indicates an unplanned and frequently, as here, an undesired incident. Much of the strength of temptation lies in our never knowing what it is going to do next.