James I. 18: Creation or Redemption?

L. E. Elliott-Binns

doi:10.1017/S0028688500023651

James I. 18: Creation or Redemption?

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009

L. E. Elliott-Binns

Show author details

L. E. Elliott-Binns: Affiliation:
Saffron Walde

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Short Studies
Information: New Testament Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , January 1957 , pp. 148 - 161

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500023651 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 148 note 1} In the appendix to the 1913 edition of his commentary Mayor examined Hort's arguments in some detail.

^{page 148 note 2} Christianity according to St John, p. 94.

^{page 148 note 3} The Epistle of St James (1909), pp. 31 f.

^{page 149 note 1} θέω means more than mere volition. Westcott on Heb. xiii. 18 defined it as involving desire. In LXX θέλημα and its cognates frequently render or הצר and so emphasize the idea of ‘delight’ rather than ‘choice’ (cf. Lev. xxii. 42). See further Riesenfeld, H., Zum Gebrauch von θέλω N.T. (1936) and Stauffer, N.T. Theology (E.T. 1936), p. 305, n. 608.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} But cf. Moulton, and Milligan, , Vocabulary of Gk. Test., p. 115.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} In the latter part of the verse ‘created’ should probably be read for ‘builded’.

^{page 149 note 4} Cf. Eriuxgina, , De Division Naturae iii (Migne, Patr. Lat. cxxii, col. 674).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 5} Aquinas, St Thomas, Summa Theol. Pt. 1—1 qn. xix, art. iv.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} Cf. the saying of Eckhardt: ‘God merely willed, the world was.’

^{page 150 note 2} For some of its uses see Edsman, op. cit. pp. 14f.

^{page 150 note 3} This is not obvious from Vulg. genuit, though seen in peperit of Old Latin ff. In classical Latin incidentally pario in a few doubtful and poetic passages seems to be used of the male.

^{page 150 note 4} Since the ‘first man’ was made in the image of God he too was bisexual: cf. Philo, Leg. All. ii. 13.

^{page 150 note 5} Hymni, ii. 63f. A Babylonian name Ilu-um-mu (God is mother) occurs: see Hehn Die biblische und die babylonische Gottesidee (1913), p. 169.

^{page 151 note 1} In the Poimandres ⋯γίῳ λόγῳ is used in connexion with the Genesis creation story. But the use of λόγος “is probably due to the Jewish doctrine of the creative Word of the Lord, since the Hermetist is here following the myth of Genesis as interpreted in Jewish-Hellenistic exegesis’ (Dodd, The Fourth Gospel, pp. 40f.).

^{page 151 note 2} Armitage Robinson defined it as ‘The teaching which told you the truth of things… the good tidings of salvation’, and A. C. King in Expos. Times, Lxiii, p. 275 as ‘a semi-technical phrase to cover the first impulse to a new life”.

^{page 151 note 3} Parry, St James, p. 24 takes λόγος ⋯ληθειας as the instrument of creation, λόγος ἔμϕυτος as that of redemption.

^{page 151 note 4} The Fourth Gospel (2nd ed.), p. 161.

^{page 151 note 5} The First Epistle of St Peter, p. 151.

^{page 152 note 1} In Heb. i. 3, xi. 3 ῥ⋯ματι is used (cf. sustaining all things in i. 3, which in Philo was a function of the Logos). In I Pet. i. 23 λόγος is used though the quotation from Isa. xl. 8 to which it refers has This incidentally is given correctly in v. 25, showing thatλόγος and bore the same meaning.

^{page 152 note 2} Some passages which are usually taken in this sense may, however, be doubtful. In Luke viii. ii, according to Creed, λόγος probably signifies something general, equivalent to teaching or preaching (The Gospel According to St Luke, p. 116).

^{page 152 note 3} The article is used in Ps. xxxiii. 6 (quoted above): cf. Heb. xi. 2; II Pet. iii. 5, and see Moule, Idiom Book of N.T. Greek, p. 112.

^{page 152 note 4} It is o“mitted by the Old Latin m and ff, an omission which was accepted by John Wordsworth in Studio Biblica, 1, p. 138.

^{page 152 note 5} In II Thess. ii. 13 ⋯παρχήν is read by BGP Vg. Syr. Harcl. Boh. etc., but άπ' is preferred by Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles, p. 119 and is adopted by the Revisers and by WH.

^{page 152 note 6} Grammar of N.T. Greek, ii, p. 299.

^{page 152 note 7} See my note on the passage in Westminster Commentary.

^{page 153 note 1} This holds good for other Semitic languages. Akkadian rēshtu (plural rēshēti) can mean the choicest gifts (for the gods): see Delitzsch, Assyr. H. Wb., pp. 606f. In Phoenician a bowl could be described as ‘of first quality’ of bronze.

^{page 153 note 2} See my note on the passage in Westminster Commentary.

^{page 153 note 3} Adam is described in Tanchuma, i. 28 as the first-fruits of the world (quoted by Schlatter). But in a Jewish document this has no significance, one way or the other, for our enquiry.

^{page 153 note 4} The earth was cursed for man's sin (Gen. iii. 17, v. 29); cf. i Enoch lxxx. 2ff., ci. If., III Baruch viii. 4 ff.

^{page 153 note 5} Cf. Westcott, Christus Cauummator, p. 133: ‘His [man's] isolation from the realm committed to him is a doctrine of heathen philosophy and not of Judaism or Christianity.’

^{page 153 note 6} On God's care for animals cf. Jonah iv. II and see M. Sachs, Tefillah Velachatunim (1939), p. 354. For the restoration of the natural world see Isa. xi. 6ff., Sib. Orac. iii. 785ff., etc.

^{page 153 note 7} Cf. Eriugina, , De Divisione Naturae, 111 (Mine, Patr. Lat. cxx, col. 678): Deus in creatura mirabili modo creatur seipsum manifestans (cf. 689).Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} Paed. 1. vii. 1.

^{page 154 note 2} Clement seems to have forgotten Ps. cii. 25 ‘the heavens are the work of thy hands’. LXX (ci. 26) inserted κύριε in the earlier part of the verse, and so in Heb. i. I0 it was applied to the Son.

^{page 154 note 3} Francis Paget in Lux Mundi, p. 309.

^{page 154 note 4} Wisd. ix. 2 definitely distinguishes man from the κτισμ⋯των.

^{page 154 note 5} Cf. the Rabbinic notion that Israel was one of the six things created before the world.

^{page 155 note 1} See According to the Scriptures, pp. 18, 47, 8rf., 126. A similar method seems to have been used by the Qumrân sect: see Z.A.W. Lxvi, p. 113.

^{page 155 note 2} The Epistle of St James and Judaic Christianity, pp. 63 ff.

^{page 155 note 3} Wisd. ix. 2, ίνα δεσπόӡῃὑπ⋯γενομένων κτισμάτων.

^{page 155 note 4} Op. cit. p. clxxvi.

^{page 155 note 5} It is possible that both passages come from catechetical material. This would strengthen Mayor's argument but is far from conclusive, for even if James made use of such material there is nothing to show that he had it in exactly the same form, much less that he interpreted it in exactly the same way. My own opinion, after much study of the matter, is that James had some sort of catechetical outline before him, but that it was in a more primitive form than that used by other N.T. writers.

^{page 156 note 1} The Epistle of St James, p. 84.

^{page 156 note 2} See Bousset, , Die Relig. des Judentums im Späthellenistischen Zeitalter, p. 296.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 3} Reitzenstein took i. 18 as a reference to the new birth and cited Corp. Herm. xiii. 4 (cf. 8): see Die hellenistiehen Mysterien-relig., p. 114. Elsewhere he pointed out that in the Hermetic literature ‘regeneration’ was the end and aim of all revelation (Poimandres, p. 217).

^{page 156 note 4} Knox, W. L., Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity, p. 61 and note pp. 90ff. Perdelwitz (cited by Selwyn, First Peter, p. 306) thought that the whole conception, having no Jewish precedent, was to be accounted for by its use in the Mystery Religions.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} Turner, A. C. in Concerning Prayer, p. 420.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 6} See Gennerich, P., Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt in dogmengeschicht. und religionugeschicht. Bedeutung (1907).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 7} St Paul and his Interpreters, pp. 190f., 221.

^{page 157 note 1} Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, ii, pp. 420 ff.

^{page 157 note 2} Our Lord's call to men to become as little children has no connexion with rebirth, though verbally Matt. xviii. 3 has a striking resemblance to John iii. 3.

^{page 157 note 3} The Gospel and its Tributaries, p. 118.

^{page 157 note 4} Strack-Billerbeck on John iii. 3.

^{page 157 note 5} Cf. Lightfoot on Gal. vi. 15.

^{page 157 note 6} Agape and Eros, p. 54. Quick thought this a dangerous distinction for ‘Nothing can be itself at all apart from its relation to God; and it is this same relation which gives both existence and value’ (Doctrines of the Creed, p. 53).

^{page 157 note 7} William, Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 154.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} Op. Cit. p. 125.

^{page 158 note 2} Ramsey, A. M., The Glory of God etc., p. 151.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 3} Cf. Epist. Barnabas, vi. 11–19, xvi. 8 (πάλιν έξτιӡόμενοι).

^{page 158 note 4} The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 43 ff. Commenting on this M. Black in Scottish four. Theol. vii, p. 170 writes ‘It is difficult to see why Burney omitted St Matthew, for it is the first evangelist who gives us the name for the ‘renewal’ of creation (xix. 38 palingenesia, the ‘second Genesis’): cf. Philo, V. Mos. 11, 12, de aetern. Mundi 15'.

^{page 158 note 5} James, E. O. in The Labyrinth, pp. 238 and 241. Cf. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 6} Adv. Haer. v. xvi. 1 (ed. Harvey): neque alteram manum Dei praeter hanc, quae ab initio usque ad fnem format nos, et coaptat in vitam, et adest plasmati suo, et perflcit illud secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei.

^{page 158 note 7} Westcott, , Religious Thought in the West, p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 8} Hoskyns, , The Fourth Gospel, pp. 140f.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 9} Cf. Thornton, L. S., The Dominion of Christ, p. 4. He thinks that this may have been in the minds of the apostolic writers. Papias and others found in the cosmogony of Genesis a mystery of Christ and the Church, a tradition which was followed by Hermas: C. Taylor, Hermas and the Four Gospels P. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 10} Illingworth, J. R. in Lux Mundi, p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} In Concerning Prayer, p. 6.

^{page 159 note 2} Stauffer, , N.T. Theology, pp. 216 and 307.

^{page 159 note 3} See Manson, T. W., The Sayings of fesus, p. 216.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 4} Such ideas are a commonplace in Apocryphal and Rabbinic writings. See the passages collected by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 210 ff. and cf. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels etc., p. 172.

^{page 159 note 5} Parry, St James (1903), p. 62. According to Cullmann, Christ and Time, p. 185, in St Paul's view ‘the entire creation is affected by the redemptive event’.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 6} Quoted by Barth, Romans (E.T.), p. 307.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 7} The Mishnah speaks of good works in this life providing the first-fruits, the bulk being laid up in the life to come (Peak i. 1).

^{page 160 note 1} After writing the above I came across the very similar view of Stauffer, op. cit. p. 18: ‘wherever the presuppositions of primitive Christian theology are not sufficiently self-evident, we must turn to the O.T. to find their antecedent’, Stauffer considers that ‘primitive Christianity is both prehellenistic and antihellenistic’, Following Harnack he distinguishes it from Catholicism which was ‘a synthesis of Christianity and hellenism’ (p. 107).

^{page 160 note 2} Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 124 writes ‘at Alexandria, where especially the Old Testament was brought into contact with the Platonism and Stoicism of the eclectic philosophy of the Hellenistic world, the idea of the heavenly originals or counterparts of terrestrial things supplied a new language for the expression of the Biblical doctrine of the divine creation of the world’.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 3} James makes no use of personifications.

^{page 160 note 4} Z.N.T. (1939), p.44: ‘Er greift häufig Begriffe and Ausdrücke auf, ohne ihren eigentlichen Sinn and ihre Tragweite zu verstehen; in unausgeglichener Weise verbindet er disparate Vorstellungskreise.’

^{page 160 note 5} Cf. Quick, , Doctrines of the Creed, p. 260: ‘God would never have created man, if the main issue of that creation were to be the condemnation of man.’ Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 490, held that God's essential activity was redemption and not creation.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 6} There is no thought of salvation ‘as the liberation of men's souls from the order of creation rather than the redemption of creation itself’ a thought which F. N. Davey, in reviewing Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in J.T.S. (1953), p. 244, suggested might be contained in that work.

^{page 161 note 1} Dodd, According to the Scriptures, p. 14.

Article contents

James I. 18: Creation or Redemption?

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests