THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.
CHAPTER II.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ."—Jas. i. 1.
THE question of the authenticity of this Epistle
resolves itself into two parts—Is the Epistle the genuine
product of a writer of the Apostolic age? if so, which of the persons
of the Apostolic age who bore the name of James is the author of it?
In answering the former of these two questions it is important to put
it in the proper way. We have done a good deal towards the solution of
a problem when we have learned to state it correctly; and the way in
which we ought to approach the problem of the genuineness of this and
other books of the New Testament is not, Why should we believe that
these writings are what they profess to be? but, Why should we
refuse to believe this? Have we any sufficient reason for
reversing the decision of the fourth and fifth centuries, which
possessed far more evidence on the question than has come down to
us?
It must be remembered that that decision was not given mechanically
or without consideration of doubts and difficulties; nor was it
imposed by authority, until independent Churches and scholars had
arrived at pretty much the same conclusion. And the decision, as soon
as it was pronounced, was unanimously accepted in both East and
West—a fact which was ample guarantee that the decision was
universally recognized as correct; for there was no central authority
of sufficient influence to force a suspected decision upon mistrustful
Churches. Eusebius, it is true, classes most of the Catholic Epistles
among the "disputed" (ἀντιλεγόμενα)
books of the New Testament, without, however, affirming that he shared
the doubts which existed in some quarters respecting them. This fact,
which is sometimes rather hastily taken as telling altogether against
the writings which he marks as "disputed," really tells both
ways. On the one hand, it shows that doubts had existed respecting
some of the canonical books; and these doubts must have had some
reason (whether valid or not) for existing. On the other hand, the
fact that the authority of these books was sometimes disputed in the
third century shows that the verdict formally given and ratified at
the Council of Laodicea (c. 364)The date so frequently given, A.D. 363, cannot be substantiated,
and on the whole is not probable. See Hefele, History of the Church
Councils, II. vi. 93.
was given after due examination of the adverse evidence, and with a
conviction that the doubts which had been raised were not justified;
and the universal welcome which was accorded to the verdict throughout
Christendom shows that the doubts which had been raised had ceased to
exist. If, then, on the one hand we remember that misgivings once
existed, and argue that these misgivings must have had some basis, on
the other we must remember that these misgivings were entirely
abandoned, and that there must have been reason for abandoning them.
What reason, then, have we
for disturbing the verdict of the fourth century, and
reviving misgivings long ago put to rest?
Of course those who gave that verdict and those who ratified it
were fallible persons, and no member of the English Church, at any
rate, would argue that the question is closed and may not be reopened.
But the point to be insisted upon is that the onus probandi
rests with those who assail or suspect these books, rather than with
those who accept them. It is not the books that ought, on demand,
again and again to be placed on their trial, but the pleas of those
who would once more bring them into court that ought to be sifted.
These objectors deserve a hearing; but while they receive it, we have
full right to stand by the decision of the fourth century, and refuse
to part with, or even seriously to suspect, any of the precious
inheritance which has been handed down to us. It may be confidently
asserted that thus far no strong case has been made out against any of
the five "disputed" Epistles, excepting 2 Peter; and with regard
to that it is still true to affirm that the Petrine authorship
remains, on the whole, a reasonable "working hypothesis."
Do not let us forget what the epithet "disputed,"
applied to these and one or twoThe Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse.
other books of the New Testament, really means. It does not
mean that at the beginning of the fourth century Eusebius found that
these writings were universally regarded with suspicion; that is a
gross exaggeration of the import of the term. Rather it means that
these books were not universally accepted; that although they
were, as a rule, regarded as canonical, and as part of the contents of
the New Testament (ἐνδιάθηκοι
γραφαί), yet in some
quarters their authority was doubted or denied. And the reasons for
these doubts were naturally not in all cases the same. With regard to
2 Peter, the doubt must have been as to its genuineness and
authenticity. It claimed to be written by "Simon Peter, an Apostle of
Jesus Christ" and a witness of the Transfiguration (2 Peter
i. 1, 18); but the obscurity of its origin and other
circumstances were against it. With regard to James, Jude, and 2 and
3 John the doubt was rather as to their Apostolicity. They did
not claim to be written by Apostles. There was no reason for doubting
the antiquity or the genuineness of these four books; but granting
that they were written by the persons whose name they bore, were these
persons Apostles? And if they were not, what was the authority of
their writings? The doubts with regard to the Revelation and to the
Epistle to the Hebrews were in part of the same character. Were they
in the full sense of the term Apostolic, as having been written by
Apostles, or at least under the guidance of Apostles? Eusebius says
expressly that all these "disputed" books were "nevertheless well
known to most people."γνωρίμων δ' οὖν ὅμως
τοῖς πολλοῖς (H. E. III. xxv. 3), where γνώριμος, as usual, indicates familiar
knowledge. Eusebius is a desultory writer, and one has to gather his
views from statements scattered over chaps. iii., xxiv., and xxv.,
some of which are not very precise. The following table seems to
represent his opinion:—
| Canonical Books (ἐνδιάθηκοι γραφαί) |
Universally acknowledged (τὰ ὁμολογούμενα) |
Four Gospels, Acts, fourteen Epistles of Paul
(Hebrews ?), 1 John, 1 Peter, Apocalypse (?). |
|
Disputed (τὰ
ἀντιλεγόμενα) |
As to authenticity—2 Peter. |
|
|
As to Apostolicity—James, Jude, 2 and 3 John. |
| Uncanonical |
Orthodox, but of no authority, because defective |
As to authenticity—Acts of Paul, Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter. |
|
|
As to Apostolicity—Epistle of Barnabas, Doctrines of the Apostles, Gospel according to Hebrews, Apocalypse (?). |
|
Heretical |
Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc., etc. |
|
|
|
And it is manifest that the doubts which Eusebius records were
ceasing to exist. Only in some cases does he indicate, and that
without open statement, that he himself was at all inclined to
sympathize with them. And Athanasius, writing a very short time
afterwards (A.D. 326), makes no distinction
between acknowledged and disputed books, but places all seven of the
Catholic Epistles, as of equal authority, immediately after the
Acts of the Apostles.Epist. Fest. xxxix. The passage is given in full by Westcott
On the Canon, Appendix D., xiv. The Ecclesiastical
History of Eusebius cannot have been completed later than
A.D. 325, but the earlier books were probably
written about A.D. 313, soon after the Edict of
Milan. See Bishop Lightfoot, Dict. of Chris. Biog., I., p.
322.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, written before his
episcopate, c. A.D. 349, does the same
(Lect. IV. x. 36). Some fifteen years later we have the
Council of Laodicea, and near the end of the century the Council of
Hippo, and the third Council of Carthage, giving formal ratification
to these generally received views; after which all questioning for
many centuries ceased. So that while the classification into
"acknowledged" and "disputed" writings proves that each book was
carefully scrutinized, and in various quarters independently, before
it was admitted to the canon, the cessation of this distinction proves
that the result of all this scrutiny was
that the sporadic doubts and hesitations respecting certain of the
books of the New Testament were finally put to rest.
And it must not be supposed that the process was one of general
amnesty. While some books that had here and there been excluded were
finally accepted, some that had here and there been included in the
canon, such as the Epistles of Clement and of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hermas, were finally rejected. The charge of uncritical or
indiscriminate admission cannot be substantiated. The facts are quite
the other way.
When we confine our attention to the Epistle of James in
particular, we find that if the doubts which were here and there felt
respecting it in the third century are intelligible, the universal
acceptance which it met with in the fourth and following centuries is
well founded. The doubts were provoked by two facts—(1) the
Epistle had remained for some time unknown to a good many Churches;
(2) when it became generally known it remained uncertain what the
authority of the writer was, especially whether he was an Apostle or
not. It is possible also that these misgivings were in some cases
emphasized by the further fact that there is a marked absence of
doctrinal teaching. In this Epistle the articles of the Christian
faith are scarcely touched upon at all. Whether the apparent
inconsistency with the teaching of St. Paul respecting the
relation between faith and works, of which so much has been made since
Luther's time, was discovered or not by those who were inclined to
dispute the authority of this Epistle, may be doubted. But of course,
if any inconsistency was believed to exist, that also would
tell against the general reception of the letter as canonical.
That the Epistle should at first remain very little known, especially
in the West and among the Gentile congregations, is exactly what we
should expect from the character of the letter and the circumstances
of its publication. It is addressed by a Jew to Jews, by one who never
moved from the Church over which he presided at Jerusalem to those
humble and obscure Christians outside Palestine who, by their
conscientious retention of the Law side by side with the Gospel, cut
themselves off more and more from free intercourse with other
Christians, whether Gentile converts or more liberally-minded Jews. A
letter which in the first instance was to be read in Christian
synagogues (James ii. 2) might easily remain a long time
without becoming known to Churches which from the outset had adopted
the principles laid down in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians.
The constant journeys of the Apostle of the Gentiles caused his
letters to become well known throughout the Churches at a very early
date. But the first Bishop of the Mother Church of Jerusalem had no
such advantages. Great as was his influence in his own sphere, with a
rank equal to that of an Apostle, yet he was not well known outside
that sphere, and he himself seems never to have travelled beyond it,
or even to have left the centre of it. With outsiders, who simply knew
that he was not one of the Twelve, his influence would not be great;
and a letter emanating from him, even if known to exist, would not be
eagerly inquired after or carefully circulated. Gentile prejudice
against Jewish Christians would still further contribute to keep in
the background a letter which was specially addressed to Jewish
Christians, and was also itself distinctly Jewish in tone. Nor would
the exclusive class of believers to whom the
letter was sent care to make it known to those Christians from whom
they habitually kept aloof. Thus the prejudices of both sides
contributed to prevent the Epistle from circulating outside the
somewhat narrow circle to which it was in the first instance
addressed; and there is therefore nothing surprising in its being
unknown to Irenæus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and the author of
the Muratorian Canon. There is no sign that these writers
rejected it; they had never heard of it.Harnack, Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 200 (Freiburg I. B.,
1889), p. 79.
And yet the Epistle did become known at a very early date, at any
rate to some outsiders, even in the West. It was almost certainly
known to Clement of Rome, whose Epistle to the Church of Corinth
(written c. A.D. 97) contains several
passages, which seem to be reminiscences of St. James. And
although not one of them can be relied upon as proving that Clement
knew our Epistle, yet when they are all put together they make a
cumulative argument of very great strength.
| Compare Clement |
with James. |
| x. 1 |
ii. 23. |
| xi. 2 |
i. 8; iv. 8. |
| xii. 1 |
ii. 25. |
| xvii. 6 |
iv. 14. |
| xxx. 2 |
iv. 6. |
| xxxi. 2 |
ii. 21. |
| xlvi. 5 |
iv. 1. |
| xlix. 5 |
x. 20. |
So cautious and critical a writer as Bishop Lightfoot does not
hesitate to assert, in a note on Clement, chap. xii., "The instance of
Rahab was doubtless suggested by Heb. xi. 31; James ii. 25;
for both these Epistles were known to St. Clement, and are
quoted elsewhere." And the Epistle of St. James was certainly
known to Hermas, a younger contemporary of Clement, and
author of the Shepherd, which was written in the first half,
and possibly in the first quarter, of the second century.Salmon, Introduction to the N.T., pp. 52, 582-91, 4th Ed. (Murray,
1889); Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen,
1889), p. 962.
Origen, in the works of which we have the Greek original, quotes it
once as "the Epistle current as that of James" (τῇ φερομένῃ Ἰακώβου
ἐπιστολῇ—In Johan. xix. 6), and once (In
Psal. xxx.) without any expression of doubt; and in the inaccurate
Latin translations of others of his works there are several distinct
quotations from the Epistle. So that it would seem to have reached
Alexandria just as Clement, Origen's instructor and predecessor, left
the city during the persecution under Septimius Severus (c.
A.D. 202).If Zahn is right in thinking that Clement knew, and perhaps commented
on, the Epistle of James, it may have become known in Alexandria
somewhat earlier. A few passages in Clement have possible
reminiscences of James; e.g. in Strom. II. v. he says of
Abraham that he is found to have been expressly called the "friend" of
God (James ii. 23); and in Strom. VI. xviii., in connexion
with loving one's neighbour (the βασιλικὸς νόμος of James ii. 8), he speaks of being
βασιλικοί (Zahn, Geschichte des
Neutestamentlichen Kanons, I., pp. 322, 323—Erlangen, 1888).
The Hypotyposeis, in which Clement perhaps treated of the
Catholic Epistles, were written after he left Alexandria
(Ibid., p. 29).
But the conclusive fact in the external evidence respecting the
Epistle is that it is contained in the Peshitto. This ancient Syriac
Version was made in the second century, in the country in which the
letter of James would be best known; and although the framers of this
translation omitted 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, they
admitted James without scruple. Thus the earliest evidence for this
Epistle, as for that to the Hebrews, is chiefly Eastern; while that
for Jude, as for 2 and 3 John, is chiefly Western.
And the evidence of the Peshitto is not weakened by the fact, if it be
a fact, that there was a still earlier Syrian canon which contained
none of the Catholic Epistles. There is no certain allusion to them or
quotation from them in the Homilies of Aphrahat or Aphraates
(c. A.D. 335); and in the "Doctrine of
Addai" (A.D. 250-300) the clergy of Edessa are
directed to read the Law and the Prophets, the Gospel, St. Paul's
Epistles, and the Acts, no other canonical book being mentioned. In
all Churches the number of Christian writings read publicly in the
liturgy was at first small, and in no case were the Catholic Epistles
the first to be used for this purpose.
The internal evidence, as we shall see when we come to examine it
more closely, is even more strong than the external. The character of
the letter exactly harmonizes with the character of James the first
Bishop of Jerusalem, and with the known circumstances of those to whom
the letter is addressed, and this in a way that no literary forger of
that age could have reached. And there is no sufficient motive for a
forgery, for the letter is singularly wanting in doctrinal statements.
The supposed opposition to St. Paul will not hold; a writer who
wished to oppose St. Paul would have made his opposition much
more clear. And a forger who wished to get the authority of
St. James wherewith to counteract St. Paul's teaching would
have made us aware that it was either an Apostle, the son of Zebedee
or the son of Alphæus, or else the brother of the Lord, who was
addressing us, and would not have left it open for us to suppose that
the Epistle was from the pen of some unknown James, who had no
authority at all equal to that of St. Paul. And let any one
compare this Epistle with those of
Clement of Rome, and of Barnabas, and of Ignatius, and mark its
enormous superiority. If it were the work of a forger, what a
perplexing fact this superiority would be! If it be the work either of
an Apostle or of one who had Apostolic rank, everything is
explained.
Luther's famous criticism on the Epistle, that it is "a veritable
Epistle of straw," is amazing, and is to be explained by the fact that
it contradicts his caricature of St. Paul's doctrine of
justification by faith. There is no opposition between St. James
and St. Paul, and there is sometimes no real opposition between
St. James and Luther (see p. 147). And when Luther gives as his
opinion that our Epistle was "not the writing of any Apostle" we can
agree with him, though not in the sense in which he means it; for he
starts from the erroneous supposition that the letter bears the name
of the son of Zebedee. We must also bear in mind his own explanation
of what is Apostolic and what is not. It has a purely subjective
meaning. It does not mean what was written or not written by an
Apostle or the equal of an Apostle. "Apostolic" means that which, in
Luther's opinion, an Apostle ought to teach, and all that fails
to satisfy this condition is not Apostolic. "Therein all true holy
books agree, that they preach and urge Christ. That too is the right
touchstone whereby to test all books—whether they urge Christ or
not; for all Scripture testifies of Christ (Rom. iii. 21)....
That which does not teach Christ is still short of Apostolic, even if
it were the teaching of St. Peter or St. Paul. Again, that
which preaches Christ, that were Apostolic, even if Judas, Annas,
Pilate, and Herod preached it." The Lutheran Church has not followed
him in this principle, which places the authority of any book of
Scripture at the mercy of the likes and dislikes
of the individual reader; and it has restored the Epistles to the
Hebrews and of James and Jude to their proper places in the New
Testament, instead of leaving them in the kind of appendix to which
Luther had banished them and the Revelation. Moreover, the passage
containing the statement about the "veritable Epistle of straw"Or, more literally, "a right strawy Epistle"—"eine rechte strohern
Epistel.... Denn sie doch keine evangelische Art an sich hat"
(Luther's Werke, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt, 1840, p. 1412; see also
pp. 1423, 1424, and Westcott On the Canon, 3rd ed., pp. 448-54).
is now omitted from the preface to his translation. And with regard to
this very point, his former friend and later opponent Andrew Rudolph
Bodenstein, of Karlstadt, pertinently asked, "If you allow the Jews to
stamp books with authority by receiving them, why do you refuse to
grant as much power to the Churches of Christ, since the Church is not
less than the Synagogue?" We have at least as much reason to trust the
Councils of Laodicea, Hippo, and Carthage, which formally defined the
limits of the New Testament, as we have to trust the unknown Jewish
influences which fixed those of the Old. And when we examine for
ourselves the evidence which is still extant, and which has greatly
diminished in the course of fifteen hundred years, we feel that both
on external and internal grounds the decision of the fourth century
respecting the genuineness of the Epistle of St. James, as a
veritable product of the Apostolic age and as worthy of a place in the
canon of the New Testament, is fully justified.
CHAPTER III.
THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE:
JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD.
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ."—Jas. i. 1
WE have still to consider the second half of the
question as to the authenticity of this letter. Granting that it is a
genuine Epistle of James, and a writing of the Apostolic age, to which
of the persons in that age who are known to us as bearing the name of
James is it to be attributed? The consensus of opinion on this point,
though not so great as that respecting the genuineness of the letter,
is now very considerable, and seems to be increasing.
The name James is the English form of the Hebrew name Yacoob
(Jacob), which in Greek became Ἰάκωβος,
in Latin Jacōbus, and in English James, a form which grievously blurs
the history of the name. From having been the name of the patriarch
Jacob, the progenitor of the Jewish race, it became one of the
commonest of proper names among the Jews; and in the New Testament we
find several persons bearing this name among the followers of Jesus
Christ. It would be possible to make as many as six; but these must
certainly be reduced to four, and probably to three.
These six are—
1. James the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and brother
of John the Apostle (Matt. iv. 21; x. 2; xvii. 5; Mark
x. 35; xiii. 3; Luke ix. 54; Acts xii. 2).
2. James the Apostle, the son of Alphæus (Matt.
x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13).
3. James the Little, the son of Mary the wife of
Clōpas (John xix. 25), who had one other son, named
Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40).
4. James the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19), a
relationship which he shares with Joses, Simon, and
Judas (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3) and some unnamed
sisters.
5. James the overseer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts
xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 7; Gal.
ii. 9, 12).
6. James the brother of the Jude who wrote the
Epistle (Jude i. 1).
Besides which, we have an unknown James, who was father of the
Apostle Judas, not Iscariot (Luke v. 16); but we do not know that
this James ever became a disciple.
Of these six we may safely identify the last three as being one and
the same person; and we may probably identify James the Apostle, the
son of Alphæus, with James the Little, the son of Mary and Clopas; in
which case we may conjecture that the epithet of "the Little" (ὁ μικρός) was given him to distinguish him
from the other Apostle James, the son of Zebedee. Clopas (not
Cleophas, as in the A.V.) may be one Greek form of the Aramaic name
Chalpai, of which Alphæus may be another Greek form; so that the
father of this James may have been known both as Clopas and as
Alphæus. But this is by no means certain. In the ancient Syriac
Version we do not find both Alphæus and Clopas represented by Chalpai;
but we find
Alphæus rendered Chalpai, while Clopas reappears as Kleopha. And the
same usage is found in the Jerusalem Syriac.
We have thus reduced the six to four or three; and it is sometimes
proposed to reduce the three to two, by identifying James the Lord's
brother with James the son of Alphæus. But this identification is
attended by difficulties so serious as to seem to be quite fatal; and
it would probably never have been made but for the wish to show that
"brother of the Lord" does not mean brother in the literal sense, but
may mean cousin. For the identification depends upon making
Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James the son of Alphæus)
identical with the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, in the
much-discussed passage John xix. 25; so that Jesus and James
would be first cousins, being sons respectively of two sisters, each
of whom was called Mary.The supposed relationship may be exhibited thus:—
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Mary = Joseph. |
|
Mary = Clopas or Alphæus. |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JESUS CHRIST. |
James the Apostle. |
Joseph. |
Simon |
Judas |
|
|
|
(Apostle?). |
(Apostle?). |
The difficulties under which this theory labours are mainly
these:—
1. It depends on an identification of Clopas with
Alphæus, which is uncertain, though not improbable.
2. It depends on a further identification of Christ's "mother's
sister" with "Mary the wife of Clopas" in John xix. 25, which is
both uncertain and highly improbable. In that verse we almost
certainly have four women, and not three, contrasted with the four
soldiers just mentioned (vv. 23, 24), and arranged in
two pairs: "His mother, and His mother's sister; Mary
the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."
3. It assumes that two sisters were both called Mary.
4. No instance in Greek literature has been found in which
"brother" (ἀδελφός) means "cousin." The
Greek language has a word to express "cousin" (ἀνεψιός), which occurs Col. iv. 10; and
it is to be noted that the ancient tradition preserved by Hegesippus
(c. A.D. 170) distinguishes James the first
overseer of the Church of Jerusalem as the "brother of the
Lord" (Eus. H. E. II. xxiii. 1), and his successor Symeon
as the "cousin of the Lord" (IV. xxii. 4). Could
Hegesippus have written thus if James were really a cousin? If a vague
term such as "kinsman" (συγγενής) was
wanted, that also might have been used, as in Luke i. 36, 58;
ii. 44.
5. In none of the four lists of the Apostles is there any hint that
any of them are the brethren of the Lord; and in Acts i. 13, 14,
and 1 Cor. ix. 5, "the brethren of the Lord" are expressly
distinguished from the Apostles. Moreover, the traditions of the age
subsequent to the New Testament sometimes make James the Lord's
brother one of the Seventy, but never one of the Twelve, a fact which
can be explained only on the hypothesis that it was notorious that he
was not one of the Twelve. The reverence for this James and for the
title of Apostle was such that tradition would eagerly have given him
the title had there been any opening for doing so.
6. The "brethren of the Lord" appear in the Gospels almost always
with the mother of the Lord (Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 32;
Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12); never with Mary the wife of
Clopas; and popular
knowledge of them connects them with Christ's mother, and not with any
other Mary (Mark vi. 3; Matt. xiii. 55). "My brethren," in
Matt. xxviii. 10, and John xx. 17, does not mean Christ's
earthly relations, but the children of "My Father and your Father."
7. But the strongest objection of all is St. John's express
statement (vii. 5) that "even His brethren did not believe on
Him;" a statement which he could not have made if one of the brethren
(James), and possibly two others (Simon and Judas), were already
Apostles.
The identification of James the son of Alphæus with James the
Lord's brother must therefore be abandoned, and we remain with three
disciples bearing the name of James from which to select the writer of
this Epistle—the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphæus, and the
brother of the Lord. The father of Judas, not Iscariot, need not be
considered, for we do not even know that he ever became a believer.
In our ignorance of the life, and thought, and language of the son
of Zebedee and the son of Alphæus, we cannot say that there is
anything in the Epistle itself which forbids us to attribute it to
either of them; but there is nothing in it which leads us to do so.
And there are two considerations which, when combined, are strongly
against Apostolic authorship. The writer does not claim to be an
Apostle; and the hesitation as to the reception of the Epistle in
certain parts of the Christian Church would be extraordinary if the
letter were reputed to be of Apostolic authorship. When we take either
of these Apostles separately we become involved in further
difficulties. It is not probable that any Apostolic literature existed
in the lifetime of James the son of Zebedee, who was martyred, under
Herod Agrippa I., i.e. not later than the spring
of A.D. 44, when Herod Agrippa died. That any
Apostle wrote an encyclical letter as early as
A.D. 42 or 43 is so improbable that we ought to
have strong evidence before adopting it, and the only evidence worth
considering is that furnished by the Peshitto. The earliest MSS. of
this ancient Syriac Version, which date from the fifth to the eighth
century, call it an Epistle of James the Apostle; but evidence which
cannot be traced higher than the fifth century respecting an
improbable occurrence alleged to have taken place in the first century
is not worth very much. Moreover, the scribes who put this heading and
subscription to the Epistle may have meant no more than that it was by
a person of Apostolic rank, or they may have shared the common Western
error of identifying the brother of the Lord with the son of Alphæus.
Editors of the Syriac Version in a much later age certainly do
attribute the Epistle to the son of Zebedee, for they state that the
three Catholic Epistles admitted to that version—James,
1 Peter, and 1 John—are by the three Apostles who
witnessed the Transfiguration. The statement seems to be a blundering
misinterpretation of the earlier title, which assigned it to James the
Apostle. And if we attribute the letter to the son of Alphæus we get
rid of one difficulty, only to fall into another; we are no longer
compelled to give the Epistle so improbably early a date as
A.D. 43, but we are left absolutely without any
evidence to connect it with the son of Alphæus, unless we
identify this Apostle with the brother of the Lord, an identification
which has already been shown to be untenable.It seems to be right to take this opportunity of preventing a
name of great authority from being any longer quoted as favouring
the identification. Dr. Döllinger, in his Christenthum und Kirche in
der Zeit der Grundlegung (1860), translated by H. N. Oxenham as
The First Age of Christianity and the Church, advocated the identification
(chap. iii.). The venerable author told the present writer, in
June, 1877, that he was convinced that his earlier opinion on this
subject was entirely erroneous, and that the Apostle James of
Alphæus was a different person from James Bishop of Jerusalem and
brother of the Lord. He added that the Eastern Church had always
distinguished the two, and that their identification in the West was
due to the influence of Jerome.
The evidence of Martyrologies and Calendars is worth noting as
indicating the tradition on the subject. The Hieronymian Martyrology
and other early Roman Martyrologies commemorate James of Alphæus
June 22nd, and James the Lord's brother December 27th; the Ambrosian
Liturgy, James of Alphæus December 30th, and the Lord's
brother May 1st; the Byzantine Calendar, James of Alphæus October
9th, and the Lord's brother October 23rd; the Egyptian and Ethiopic
Calendars, James of Alphæus October 2nd, and the Lord's brother
October 23rd.
Therefore, without further hesitation, we may assign the Epistle to
one of the most striking and impressive figures in the Apostolic age,
James the Just, the brother of the Lord, and the first overseer of the
Mother Church of Jerusalem.
Whether James was the brother of the Lord as being the son of
Joseph by a former marriage, or as being the son of Joseph and Mary
born after the birth of Jesus, need not be argued in detail. All that
specially concerns us, for a right understanding of the Epistle, is to
remember that it was written by one who, although for some time not a
believer in the Messiahship of Jesus, was, through his near
relationship, constantly in His society, witnessing His acts and
hearing His words. This much, however, should be noted, that there is
nothing in Scripture to warn us from understanding that Joseph and
Mary had other children, and that "firstborn" in Luke
ii. 7, and "till" in Matt. i. 25, appear to imply that they
had; a supposition
confirmed by contemporary belief (Mark vi. 3; Matt.
xiii. 55), and by the constant attendance of these "brethren" on
the mother of the Lord (Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 32; Luke
viii. 19; John ii. 12); that, on the other hand, the theory
which gives Joseph children older than Jesus deprives Him of His
rights as the heir of Joseph and of the house of David; seems to be of
apocryphal origin (Gospel according to Peter, or Book of James); and
like Jerome's theory of cousinship, appears to have been invented in
the interests of ascetic views and of à priori convictions as
to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. The immense
consensus of belief in the perpetual virginity does not begin until
long after all historical evidence was lost. Tertullian appears to
assume as a matter of course that the Lord's brethren are the children
of Joseph and Mary, as if in his day no one had any other view
(Adv. Marc., IV. xix.; De Carne Christi, vii.).Alford, Farrar, Meyer, Schaff, Stier, Weiss, Wieseler, Winer,
and others support this view. See also McClellan's note on Matt. xiii. 55,
and Plumptre's Introduction to St. James. Bishop Lightfoot contends
for the Epiphanian theory.
According to either view, James was the son of Joseph, and almost
certainly was brought up with his Divine Brother in the humble home at
Nazareth. His father, as St. Matthew tells us (i. 19) was a
just or righteous man, like the parents of the Baptist
(Luke i. 6), and this was the title by which James was known
during his lifetime, and by which he is still constantly known. He is
James "the Just" (ὁ δίκαιος). The
epithet as used in Scripture of his father and others (Matt.
i. 19; xxiii. 35; Luke i. 6; ii. 25;
xxiii. 50; Acts x. 20; 2 Peter ii. 7), and in
history of him, must not be understood as implying precisely what the
Athenians meant
when they styled Aristeides "the Just," or what we mean by being
"just" now. To a Jew the word implied not merely being impartial and
upright, but also having a studied and even scrupulous reverence for
everything prescribed by the Law. The Sabbath, the synagogue worship,
the feasts and fasts, purification, tithes, all the moral and
ceremonial ordinances of the Law of the Lord—these were the
things on which the just man bestowed a loving care, and in which he
preferred to do more than was required, rather than the bare minimum
insisted on by the Rabbis. It was in a home of which righteousness of
this kind was the characteristic that St. James was reared, and
in which he became imbued with that reverent love for the Law which
makes him, even more than St. Paul, to be the ideal "Hebrew of
Hebrews." For him Christ came "not to destroy, but to fulfil."
Christianity turns the Law of Moses into a "royal law" (ii. 8),
but it does not abrogate it. The Judaism which had been his moral and
spiritual atmosphere during his youth and early manhood remained with
him after he had learned to see that there was no antagonism between
the Law and the Gospel.
It would be part of his strict Jewish training that he should pay
the prescribed visits to Jerusalem at the feasts (John vii. 10);
and he would there become familiar with the magnificent liturgy of the
Temple, and would lay the foundation for that love of public and
private prayer within its precincts which was one of his best-known
characteristics in after-life. A love of prayer, and a profound belief
in its efficacy, appear again and again in the pages of his Epistle
(i. 5; iv. 2, 3, 8; v. 13-18). It was out of a strong
personal experience that the man who knelt in prayer until "his
knees became hard like a camel's" declared that "the supplication of a
righteous man availeth much in its working."
Strict Judaism has ever a tendency to narrowness, and we find this
tendency in the brethren of the Lord, in their attitude both towards
their Brother, and also towards Gentile converts after they had
accepted Him (Gal. ii. 12). Of the long period of silence during
which Jesus was preparing Himself for His ministry we know nothing.
But immediately after His first miracle, which they probably
witnessed, they went down with Him, and His mother, and His disciples
to Capernaum (John ii. 12), and very possibly accompanied Him to
Jerusalem for the Passover. They would be almost certain to go thither
to keep the feast. It was there that "many believed on His Name,
beholding His signs which He did. But Jesus did not trust Himself unto
them, for that He knew all men." He knew that when the immediate
effect of His miracles had passed off the faith of these sudden
converts would not endure. And this seems to have been the case with
His brethren. They were at first attracted by His originality, and
power, and holiness, then perplexed by methods which they could not
understand (John vii. 3, 4), then inclined to regard Him as a
dreamer and a fanatic (Mark iii. 21), and finally decided against
Him (John vii. 5). Like many others among His followers, they
were quite unable to reconcile His position with the traditional views
respecting the Messiah; and instead of revising these views, as being
possibly faulty, they held fast to them, and rejected Him. It was not
merely in reference to the people of Nazareth, who had tried to kill
Him (Luke iv. 29), but to those who were still closer to Him by
ties of blood
and home, that He uttered the sad complaint, "A prophet is not without
honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in
his own house" (Mark vi. 4).
The fact that our Lord committed His mother to the keeping of
St. John harmonizes with the supposition that at the time of the
Crucifixion His brethren were still unbelievers. The Resurrection
would be likely to open their eyes and dispel their doubts (Acts
i. 14); and a special revelation of the risen Lord seems to have
been granted to St. James (1 Cor. xv. 7), as to
St. Paul; in both cases because behind the external opposition to
Christ there was earnest faith and devotion, which at once found its
object, as soon as the obstructing darkness was removed. After his
conversion, St. James speedily took the first place among the
believers who constituted the original Church of Jerusalem. He takes
the lead, even when the chief of the Apostles are present. It is to
him that St. Peter reports himself, when he is miraculously freed
from prison (Acts xii. 17). It is he who presides at the
so-called Council of Jerusalem (xv. 13; see esp. ver. 19). And it
is to him that St. Paul specially turns on his last visit to
Jerusalem, to report his success among the Gentiles (xxi. 17).
St. Paul places him before St. Peter and St. John in
mentioning those "who were reputed to be pillars" of the Church (Gal.
ii. 9), and states that on his first visit to Jerusalem after his
own conversion he stayed fifteen days with Peter, but saw no other of
the Apostles, excepting James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 18,
19); a passage of disputed meaning, but which, if it does not imply
that James was in some sense an Apostle, at least suggests that he was
a person of equal importance. (Comp. Acts ix. 26-30.) Moreover, we
find that at Antioch St. Peter himself allowed his attitude
towards the Gentiles to be changed in deference to the representations
of "certain that came from James," who had possibly misunderstood or
misused their commission; but the narrowness already alluded to may
have made St. James himself unable to move as rapidly as
St. Peter and St. Paul in adopting a generous course with
Gentile converts.
Unless there is a reference to St. James in Heb. xiii. 7,
as among those who had once "had the lead over you," but are now no
longer alive to speak the word, we must go outside the New Testament
for further notices of him. They are to be found chiefly in Clement of
Alexandria, Hegesippus, and Josephus. Clement (Hypotyp. VI. ap.
Eus. H. E. II. i. 3) records a tradition that Peter,
James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, although they had
been preferred by the Lord, did not contend for distinction, but that
James the Just became Bishop of Jerusalem. And again (Hypotyp.
VII.), "To James the Just, John, and Peter, the Lord, after the
Resurrection, imparted the gift of knowledge (τὴν γνῶσιν); these imparted it to the rest of the
Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the Seventy, of whom
Barnabas was one. Now, there have been two Jameses—one the Just,
who was thrown from the gable [of the Temple], and beaten to death by
a fuller with a club, and another who was beheaded."Comp. Strom. VI. viii., where Clement speaks of James, Peter,
John, Paul (note the order) as possessing the true gnosis, and knowing
all things.
The narrative of Hegesippus is also preserved for us by Eusebius
(H. E. II. xxiii. 4-18). It is manifestly legendary, and
possibly comes from the Essene Ebionites, who appear to have been fond of
religious romances. It is sometimes accepted as historical, as by
Clement in the passage just quoted; but its internal improbabilities
and its divergencies from Josephus condemn it. It may, however,
contain some historical touches, especially in the general sketch of
St. James; just as the legends about our own King Alfred,
although untrustworthy as to facts, nevertheless convey a true idea of
the saintly and scholarly king. It runs thus: "There succeeds to the
charge of the Church, James, the brother of the Lord, in conjunction
with the Apostles, the one who has been named Just by all, from the
time of our Lord to our own time, for there were many called
James.Hegesippus evidently distinguishes James the brother of the
Lord from any of the Twelve.
Now, he was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor
strong drink; nor did he eat animal food. No razor ever came upon his
head; he anointed not himself with oil; and he did not indulge in
bathing. To him alone was it lawful to go into the Holy PlaceIt is incredible that he should be allowed the privileges of the
high priest.
;
for he wore no wool, but linen. And he would go into the Temple alone,
and would be found there kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness
for the people, so that his knees became dry and hard as a camel's,
because he was always on his knees worshipping God and asking
forgiveness for the people. On account, therefore, of his exceeding
justness, he was called Just and Oblias, which is in Greek 'bulwark of
the people' and 'justness,' as the prophets show concerning him. Some,
then, of the seven sects among the people, which have been mentioned
before by me in the Memoirs, asked him, What is the Door of
Jesus? And he said that
He was the Saviour. From which some believed Jesus is the Christ. But
the sects aforesaid did not believe, either in the Resurrection or in
One coming to recompense to each man according to his works. But as
many as believed did so through James. When many, therefore, even of
the rulers were believing, there was a tumult of the Jews and scribes
and Pharisees, who said, It looks as if all the people would be
expecting Jesus as the Christ. They came together, therefore, and said
to James, We pray thee, restrain the people, for it has been led
astray after Jesus, as though He were the Christ. We pray thee to
persuade all that come to the day of the Passover concerning Jesus;
for to thee we all give heed. For we bear witness to thee, and so do
all the people, that thou art just, and acceptest not the person of
any. Do thou, therefore, persuade the multitude not to be led astray
concerning Jesus; for all the people and all of us give heed to thee.
Stand, therefore, upon the gable of the Temple, that thou mayest be
visible to those below, and that thy words may be readily heard by all
the people. For on account of the Passover there have come together
all the tribes, with the Gentiles also. Therefore the aforesaid
scribes and Pharisees placed James upon the gable of the Temple, and
cried to him and said, O just one, to whom we ought all to give heed,
seeing that the people is being led astray after Jesus, who was
crucified, tell us what is the Door of Jesus. And he answered with a
loud voice, Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? Even He
sitteth in heaven, at the right of the Mighty Power, and He is to come
on the clouds of heaven. And when many were convinced, and gave glory
on the witness of James, and said, Hosannah to the Son of David, then
again the
same scribes and Pharisees said unto one another, We have done ill in
furnishing such witness to Jesus. But let us go up, and cast him down,
that they may be terrified, and not believe him. And they cried out,
saying, Oh! oh! even the Just has been led astray. And they fulfilled
the Scripture, which is written in Isaiah, Let us take away the Just
One, for he is troublesome to us; therefore shall they eat the fruit
of their deeds. So they went up, and cast down the Just, and said to
one another, Let us stone James the Just. And they began to stone him,
seeing that he was not dead from the fall, but turning round, knelt,
and said, I pray Thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do. But whilst they were thus stoning him, one of
the priests of the sons of Rechab, son of Rechabim,What is the meaning of this tautology? And could a Rechabite,
who was not a Jew, become a priest?
to whom Jeremiah the prophet bears testimony, cried, saying, Stop!
what are ye doing? The Just One is praying for you. And one of them,
one of the fullers, took the club with which clothes are pressed, and
brought it down on the head of the Just One. And in this way he bore
witness. And they buried him on the spot by the Temple, and his
monument still remains by the Temple. This man has become a true
witness, to both Jews and Gentiles, that Jesus is the Christ. And
straightway Vespasian lays siege to them." That is, Hegesippus regards
the attack of the Romans as a speedy judgment on the Jews for the
murder of James the Just, and consequently places it
A.D. 69. This is probably several years too late.
Josephus places it A.D. 62 or 63. His account is
as follows:—
"Now, the younger Ananus, whom we stated to have
succeeded to the high-priesthood, was precipitate in temper and
exceedingly audacious, and he followed the sect of the Sadducees, who
are very harsh in judging offenders, beyond all other Jews, as we have
already shown. Ananus, therefore, as being a person of this character,
and thinking that he had a suitable opportunity, through Festus being
dead, and Albinus still on his journey (to Judæa), assembles a
Sanhedrin of judges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who
was called Christ (his name was James) and some others, and delivered
them to be stoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law. But
as many as seemed to be most equitable among those in the city, and
scrupulous as to all that concerned the laws, were grievously affected
by this; and they send to the king [Herod Agrippa II.], secretly
praying him to order Ananus to act in such a way no more; for that not
even his first action was lawfully done. And some of them go to meet
Albinus on his journey from Alexandria, and inform him that Ananus had
no authority to assemble a Sanhedrin without his leave. And Albinus,
being convinced by what they said, wrote in anger to Ananus,
threatening to punish him for this. And for this reason King Agrippa
took away the high-priesthood from him after he had been in office
three months, and conferred it upon Jesus the son of Damnæus"
(Ant. XX. ix. 1).
This account by Josephus contains no improbabilities, and should be
preferred to that of Hegesippus. It has been suspected of Christian
interpolation, because of the reference to Jesus Christ, whom Josephus
persistently ignores in his writings. But a Christian who took the
trouble to garble the narrative at all would probably have done so to
more purpose, both as regards
Jesus and James. In any case Hegesippus and Josephus agree in
confirming the impression produced by the New Testament, that James
the Just was a person held in the greatest respect by all in
Jerusalem, whether Jews or Christians, and one who exercised great
influence in the East over the whole Jewish race. We shall find that
this fact harmonizes well with the phenomena of the Epistle, and it
leads directly to the next question which calls upon us for
discussion.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PERSONS ADDRESSED IN THE EPISTLE;
THE JEWS OF THE DISPERSION.
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ, to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,
greeting."—James i. 1.
THESE words appear to be both simple and plain. At
first sight there would seem to be not much room for any serious
difference of opinion as to their meaning. The writer of the letter
writes as "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," i.e.
as a Christian, "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,"
i.e. to the Jews who are living away from Palestine. Almost the
only point which seems to be open to doubt is whether he addresses
himself to all Jews, believing and unbelieving, or, as one might
presume from his proclaiming himself at the outset to be a Christian,
only to those of his fellow-countrymen who, like himself, have become
"servants of the Lord Jesus Christ." And this is a question which
cannot be determined without a careful examination of the contents of
the Epistle.
And yet there has been very great difference of opinion as to the
persons whom St. James had in his mind when he wrote these words.
There is not only the triplet of opinions which easily grow out of the
question just indicated, viz. that the letter is addressed
to believing Jews only, to unbelieving Jews only, and to
both: there are also the views of those who hold that it is
addressed to Jewish and Gentile Christians regarded separately,
or to the same regarded as one body, or to Jewish Christians
primarily, with references to Gentile Christians and unconverted
Jews, or finally to Gentile Christians primarily, seeing that
they, since the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, are the true sons of
Abraham and the rightful inheritors of the privileges of the twelve
tribes.
In such a Babel of interpretations it will clear the ground
somewhat if we adopt once moreSee The Pastoral Epistles in this series, pp. 285-6.
as a guiding principle the common-sense canon of interpretation laid
down by Hooker (Eccles. Pol. V. lix. 2), that "where a
literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is
commonly the worst." A literal construction of the expression "the
twelve tribes of the Dispersion" will not only stand, but make
excellent sense. Had St. James meant to address all Christians,
regarded in their position as exiles from their heavenly home, he
would have found some much plainer way of expressing himself. There is
nothing improbable, but something quite the reverse, in the
supposition that the first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, who,
as we have seen, was "a Hebrew of Hebrews," wrote a letter to those of
his fellow-countrymen who were far removed from personal intercourse
with him. So devoted a Jew, so devout a Christian, as we know him to
have been, could not but take the most intense interest in all who
were of Jewish blood, wherever they might dwell, especially such as
had learned to believe in Christ, above all when he knew that they
were suffering from habitual oppression
and ill-treatment. We may without hesitation decide that when
St. James says "the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" he
means Jews away from their home in Palestine, and not Christians away
from their home in heaven. For what possible point would the
Dispersion (ἡ διασπορά) have in such
a metaphor? Separation from the heavenly home might be spoken of as
banishment, or exile, or homelessness, but not as "dispersion." Even
if we confined ourselves to the opening words, we might safely adopt
this conclusion, but we shall find that there are numerous features in
the letter itself which abundantly confirm it.
It is quite out of place to quote such passages as the sealing of
"the hundred and forty and four thousand ... out of every tribe of the
children of Israel" (Rev. vii. 4-8), or the city with "twelve
gates, ... and names written thereon, which are the names of the
twelve tribes of the children of Israel" (Rev. xxi. 12). These
occur in a book which is symbolical from the first chapter to the
last, and therefore we know that the literal construction cannot
stand. The question throughout is not whether a given passage is to be
taken literally or symbolically, but what the passage in question
symbolizes. Nor, again, can St. Peter's declaration that "ye are
an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's
own possession" (1 Pet. ii. 9), be considered as at all
parallel. There the combination of expressions plainly shows that the
language is figurative; and there is no real analogy between an
impassioned exhortation, modelled on the addresses of the Hebrew
prophets, and the matter-of-fact opening words of a letter. The words
have the clear ring of nationality, and there is nothing whatever
added to them to turn the simple note into the complex sound of
a doubtful metaphor. As Davidson justly remarks, "The use of the
phrase twelve tribes is inexplicable if the writer intended all
believers without distinction. The author makes no allusion to Gentile
converts, nor to the relation between Jew and Gentile incorporated
into one spiritual body."
Let us look at some of the features which characterize the Epistle
itself, and see whether they bear out the view which is here
advocated, that the persons addressed are Israelites in the national
sense, and not as having been admitted into the spiritual "Israel of
God" (Gal. vi. 16).
(1) The writer speaks of Abraham as "our father," without a hint
that this is to be understood in any but the literal sense. "Was not
Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his
son upon the altar?" (ii. 21). St. Paul, when he speaks of
Abraham as "the father of all them that believe," clearly indicates
this (Rom. iv. 11). (2) The writer speaks of his readers as
worshipping in a "synagogue" (ii. 2), which may possibly mean
that, just as St. James and the Apostles continued to attend the
Temple services after the Ascension, so their readers are supposed to
attend the synagogue services after their conversion. But at least it
shows that the writer, in speaking of the public worship of those whom
he addresses, naturally uses a word (συναγωγή) which had then, and continues to
have, specially Jewish associations, rather than one (ἐκκλησία) which from the first beginnings of
Christianity was promoted from its old political sphere to indicate
the congregations, and even the very being, of the Christian Church.
(3) He assumes that his readers are familiar not only with the life of
Abraham (ii. 21, 23), but of Rahab (25), the
prophets (v. 10), Job (11), and Elijah (17). These frequent
appeals to the details of the Old Testament would be quite out of
place in a letter addressed to Gentile converts. (4) God is spoken of
under the specially Hebrew title of "the Lord of Sabaoth" (v. 4);
and the frequent recurrence of "the Lord" throughout the Epistle
(i. 7; iii. 9; iv. 10, 15; v. 10, 11, 15) looks
like the language of one who wished to recall the name Jehovah to his
readers. (5) In discountenancing swearing (v. 12) Jewish forms of
oaths are taken as illustrations. (6) The vices which are condemned
are such as were as common among the Jews as among the
Gentiles—reckless language, rash swearing, oppression of the
poor, covetousness. There is little or nothing said about the gross
immorality which was rare among the Jews, but was almost a matter of
course among the Gentiles. St. James denounces faults into which
Jewish converts would be likely enough to lapse; he says nothing about
the vices respecting which heathen converts, such as those at Corinth,
are constantly warned by St. Paul. (7) But what is perhaps the
most decisive feature of all is that he assumes throughout that for
those whom he addresses the Mosaic Law is a binding and final
authority. "If ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being
convicted by the law as transgressors. ... If thou dost not commit
adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law"
(ii. 9-11). "He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his
brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law"
(iv. 11).
Scarcely any of these seven points, taken singly, would be at all
decisive; but when we sum them up together, remembering in how short a
letter they occur, and when we add them to the very plain and simple language
of the address, we have an argument which will carry conviction to
most persons who have no preconceived theory of their own to defend.
And to this positive evidence derived from the presence of so much
material that indicates Jewish circles as the destined recipients of
the letter, we must add the strongly confirmatory negative evidence
derived from the absence of anything which specially points either to
Gentile converts or unconverted heathen. We may therefore read the
letter as having been written by one who had been born and educated in
a thoroughly Jewish atmosphere, who had accepted the Gospel, not as
cancelling the Law, but as raising it to a higher power; and we may
read it also as addressed to men who, like the writer, are by birth
and education Jews, and, like him, have acknowledged Jesus as their
Lord and the Christ. The difference between writer and readers lies in
this, that he is in Palestine, and they not; that he appears to be in
a position of authority, whereas they seem for the most part to be a
humble and suffering folk. All which fits in admirably with the
hypothesis that we have before us an Epistle written by the austere
and Judaic-minded James the Just, written from Jerusalem, to comfort
and warn those Jewish Christians who lay remote from his personal
influence.
That it is Jewish Christians, and not unbelieving Jews, or
Jews whether believing or not, who are addressed, is not open to
serious doubt. There is not only the fact that St. James at the
outset proclaims himself to be a Christian (i. 1), but also the
statement that the wealthy oppressors of his poor readers "blaspheme
the honourable Name by which ye are called," or more literally "which
was called upon you," viz. the Name of Christ. Again, the famous
paragraph about faith and works assumes that the faith of the readers
and the faith of the writer is identical (ii. 7, 14-20). Once
more, he expressly claims them as believers when he writes, "My
brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord
of glory, with respect of persons" (ii. 1). And if more be
required, we have it in the concluding exhortations: "Be patient,
therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.... Stablish
your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand" (v. 7,
8).
Whether or no there are passages which glance aside at unbelieving
Jews, and perhaps even some which are directly addressed to them,
cannot be decided with so much certainty; but the balance of
probability appears to be on the affirmative side in both cases. There
probably are places in which St. James is thinking of unbelieving
Israelites, and one or more passages in which he turns aside and
sternly rebukes them, much in the same way as the Old Testament
prophets sometimes turn aside to upbraid Tyre and Sidon and the
heathen generally. "Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag
you before the judgment-seats?" (ii. 6), seems to refer to rich
unconverted Jews prosecuting their poor Christian brethren before the
synagogue courts, just as St. Paul did when he was Saul the
persecutor (Acts ix. 2). And "Do not they blaspheme the
honourable Name by which ye are called?" can scarcely be said
of Christians. If the blasphemers were Christians they would be said
rather to blaspheme the honourable Name by which they
themselves were called. There would lie the
enormity—that the name of Jesus Christ had been "called upon
them," and yet they blasphemed it. And when we come to look at the
matter in detail we shall find reason for believing that the
stern words at the beginning of chapter v. are addressed to
unbelieving Jews. There is not one word of Christian, or even moral,
exhortation in it; it consists entirely of accusation and threatening,
and in this respect is in marked contrast to the equally stern words
at the beginning of chapter iv., which are addressed to worldly and
godless Christians.
To suppose that the rich oppressors so often alluded to in the
Epistle are heathen, as Hilgenfeld does, confuses the whole
picture, and brings no compensating advantage. The heathen among whom
the Jews of the Dispersion dwelt in Syria, Egypt, Rome, and elsewhere,
were of course, some of them rich, and some of them poor. But wealthy
Pagans were not more apt to persecute Jews, whether Christians or not,
than the needy Pagan populace. If there was any difference between
heathen rich and poor in this matter, it was the fanatical and
plunder-seeking mob, rather than the contemptuous and easy-going rich,
who were likely to begin a persecution of the Jews, just as in Russia
or Germany at the present time. And St. James would not be likely
to talk of "the Lord of Sabaoth" (v. 4) in addressing wealthy
Pagans. But the social antagonism so often alluded to in the Epistle,
when interpreted to mean an antagonism between Jew and Jew,
corresponds to a state of society which is known to have existed in
Palestine and the neighbouring countries during the half-century which
preceded the Jewish war of A.D. 66-70. (Comp.
Matt. xi. 5; xix. 23, 24; Luke i. 53; vi. 20, 24;
xvi. 19, 20.) During that period the wealthy Jews allied
themselves with the Romans, in order more securely to oppress their
poorer fellow-countrymen. And seeing that the Gospel in the first
instance spread chiefly among the poor, this social
antagonism between rich and poor Jews frequently became an antagonism
between unbelieving and believing Jews. St. James, well aware of
this state of things, from personal experience in Judæa, and hearing
similar things of the Jews of the Dispersion in Syria, reasonably
supposes that this unnatural tyranny of Jew over Jew prevails
elsewhere also, and addresses all "the twelve tribes which are of the
Diaspora" on the subject.See Salmon, Introduction to the N.T., p. 502, 4th ed. (Murray,
1889); Renan, L'Antechrist, p. xii.; Ewald, History of Israel, vol.
vii., p. 451, Eng. Tr. (Longmans, 1885); Weiss, Introduction to the
N.T., vol. ii., pp. 102-3 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).
In any case his opportunities of knowing a very great deal respecting
Jews in various parts of the world were large. Jews from all regions
were constantly visiting Jerusalem. But the knowledge which he must
have had respecting the condition of things in Palestine and Syria
would be quite sufficient to explain what is said in this Epistle
respecting the tyranny of the rich over the poor.
The Diaspora,See the immense amount of information collected in Schürer, The
Jewish People in the Time of Christ, div. ii., vol. ii., pp.
219-327; also Westcott's article "Dispersion," in Smith's Dict. of
Bible; Herzog and Plitt, Real-Encykl., vol. vii., pp.
203-8; and esp. Philo, Legat. ad Caium.
or Dispersion of the Jews throughout the inhabited world, had
been brought about in various ways, and had continued through many
centuries. The two chief causes were forcible deportation and
voluntary emigration. It was a common policy of Oriental
conquerors to transport whole populations, in order more completely to
subjugate them; and hence the Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors of
Israel carried away great multitudes of Jews to the East, sending
Eastern populations to take their place. Pompey on a much smaller
scale transported Jewish captives to the West, carrying hundreds of
Jews to Rome. But disturbances in Palestine, and opportunities of
trade elsewhere, induced large multitudes of Jews to emigrate of their
own accord, especially to the neighbouring countries of Egypt and
Syria; and the great commercial centres in Asia Minor, Alexandria,
Antioch, Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamus, Cyprus, and Rhodes contained
large numbers of Jews. While Palestine was the battle-field of foreign
armies, and while newly founded towns were trying to attract
population by offering privileges to settlers, thousands of Jews
preferred the advantages of a secure home in exile to the risks which
attended residence in their native country.
At the time when this Epistle was written three chief divisions of
the Dispersion were recognized—the Babylonian, which ranked as
the first, the Syrian, and the Egyptian. But the Diaspora was by no
means confined to these three centres. About two hundred years before
this time the composer of one of the so-called Sibylline Oracles could
address the Jewish nation, and say, "But every land is full of
thee,—aye and every ocean."Πᾶσα δὲ
γαῖα σέθεν πλήρης καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα.
And there is abundance of evidence, both in the Bible and outside it,
especially in Josephus and Philo, that such language does not go
beyond the limits of justifiable hyperbole. The list of peoples
represented at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, "from every nation
under heaven," tells one a great deal (Acts ii. 5-11. Comp.
xv. 21, and 1 Macc. xv. 15-24). Many passages from
Josephus might be quoted (Ant. XI. v. 2; XIV. vii. 2;
Bell. Jud. II. xvi. 4; VII. iii. 3), as stating in
general terms the same fact. But perhaps no original
authority gives us more information than Philo, in his famous treatise
On the Embassy to the Emperor Caius, which went to Rome
(c. A.D. 40) to obtain the revocation of a
decree requiring the Jews to pay divine homage to the Emperor's
statue. In that treatise we read that "Jerusalem is the metropolis,
not of the single country of Judæa, but of most countries, because of
the colonies which she has sent out, as opportunity offered, into the
neighbouring lands of Egypt, Phœnicia, Syria, and Cœlesyria, and the
more distant lands of Pamphylia and Cilicia, most of Asia, as far as
Bithynia and the utmost corners of Pontus; likewise unto Europe,
Thessaly, Bœotia, Macedonia, Ætolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, with the
most parts and best parts of Greece. And not only are the continents
full of Jewish colonies, but also the most notable of the
islands—Eubœa, Cyprus, Crete—to say nothing of the lands
beyond the Euphrates. For all, excepting a small part of Babylon and
those satrapies which contain the excellent land around it, contain
Jewish inhabitants. So that if my country were to obtain a share in
thy clemency it would not be one city that would be benefited, but ten
thousand others, situated in every part of the inhabited
world—Europe, Asia, Libya, continental and insular, maritime and
inland" (De Legat. ad Caium xxxvi., Gelen., pp. 1031-32). It
was therefore an enormous circle of readers that St. James
addressed when he wrote "to the twelve tribes which are of the
Dispersion," although it seems to have been a long time before his
letter became known to the most important of the divisions of the
Diaspora, viz. the Jewish settlement in Egypt, which had its chief
centre in Alexandria. We may reasonably suppose that it was the Syrian
division which he had chiefly in view
in writing, and it was to them, no doubt, that the letter in the first
instance was sent. It is of this division that Josephus writes that,
widely dispersed as the Jewish race is over the whole of the inhabited
world, it is most largely mingled with Syria on account of its
proximity, and especially in Antioch, where the kings since Antiochus
had afforded them undisturbed tranquillity and equal privileges with
the heathen; so that they multiplied exceedingly, and made many
proselytes (Bell. Jud. VII. iii. 3).
The enormous significance of the Dispersion as a preparation for
Christianity must not be overlooked. It showed to both Jew and Gentile
alike that the barriers which had hedged in and isolated the hermit
nation had broken down, and that what had ceased to be thus isolated
had changed its character. A kingdom had become a
religion. What henceforth distinguished the Jews in the eyes of
all the world was not their country or their government, but their
creed, and through this they exercised upon those among whom they were
scattered an influence which had been impossible under the old
conditions of exclusiveness. They themselves also were forced to
understand their own religion better. When the keeping of the letter
of the Law became an impossibility, they were compelled to penetrate
into its spirit; and what they exhibited to the heathen was not a mere
code of burdensome rites and ceremonies, but a moral life and a
worship in spirit and truth. The universality of the services of the
synagogue taught the Jew that God's worship was not confined to
Jerusalem, and their simplicity attracted proselytes who might have
turned away from the complex and bloody liturgies of the Temple. Even
in matters of detail the services in the synagogue prepared
the way for the services of the Christian Church. The regular
lessons—read from two divisions of Scripture, the antiphonal
singing, the turning towards the east, the general Amen of the whole
congregation, the observance of the third, sixth, and ninth hours as
hours of prayer, and of one day in seven as specially holy—all
these things, together with some others which have since become
obsolete, meet us in the synagogue worship, as St. James knew it,
and in the liturgies of the Christian Church, which he and the
Apostles and their successors helped to frame. Thus justice once more
became mercy, and a punishment was turned into a blessing. The
captivity of the Jew became the freedom of both Jew and Gentile, and
the scattering of Israel was the gathering in of all nations unto God.
"He hath scattered abroad; He hath given to the poor: His
righteousness abideth for ever" (Ps. cxii. 9; 2 Cor.
ix. 9).
CHAPTER V.
THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE
TO THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL AND OF ST. PETER.
THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
THE DOCTRINE OF JOY IN TEMPTATION.
"Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold
temptations, knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience.
And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and
entire, lacking in nothing."—James i. 2-4.
THIS passage at once raises the question of the
relation of this Epistle to other writings in the New Testament. Did
the writer of it know any of the writings of St. Paul or of
St. Peter? It is contended in some quarters that the similarity
of thought and expression in several passages is so great as to prove
such knowledge, and it is argued that such knowledge tells against the
genuineness of the Epistle. In any case the question of the
date of the Epistle is involved in its relation to these other
documents; it was written after them, if it can be established that
the author of it was acquainted with them.
With Dr. SalmonIntroduction to the N.T., pp. 509-10, 4th Ed.
we may dismiss the coincidences which have been pointed out by
Davidson and others between expressions in this Epistle and the
Epistles to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Philippians. Some
critics seem to forget that a large number of words
and phrases were part of the common language, not merely of Jews and
early Christians, but of those who were in the habit of mixing much
with such persons. We can no more argue from such phrases as "be not
deceived" (1 Cor. vi. 9; xv. 33; Gal. vi. 7, and
James i. 16), "but some one will say" (1 Cor. xv. 35,
and James ii. 18), "a transgressor of the law" (Rom. ii. 25,
27, and James ii. 11), "fruit of righteousness" (Phil.
i. 11, and James iii. 18), or from such words as "entire"
(1 Thess. v. 23, and James i. 4), "transgressor" used
absolutely (Gal. ii. 18, and James ii. 9), and the like,
that when they occur in two writings the author of one must have read
the other, than we can argue from such phrases as "natural selection,"
"survival of the fittest," and the like that the writer who uses them
has read the works of Darwin. A certain amount of stereotyped
phraseology is part of the intellectual atmosphere of each generation,
and the writers in each generation make common use of it. In such
cases even striking identity of expressions may prove nothing as to
the dependence of one author upon another. The obligation is not of
one writer to another, but of both to a common and indefinite source.
In other words, both writers quite naturally make use of language
which is current in the circles in which they live.It is quite possible that both St. Paul and St. James derive the
phrase "a transgressor of the law" from the remarkable addition to
the canonical Gospels which is found in Codex D (Beza) after
Luke vi. 4: "The same day He beheld a certain man working on
the Sabbath, and said to him, Man, if thou knowest what thou art
doing, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not thou art accursed
and a transgressor of the law." Note that in Rom. ii., where the
phrase occurs twice (vv. 25, 27), the address "O man" also occurs
twice. Comp. Gal. ii. 18, and see A. Resch, Agrapha; Aussercanonische
Evangelienfragmente (Leipzig, 1889), pp. 36, 189-92.
Some of the coincidences between the Epistle of James and the
Epistle to the Romans are of a character to raise the question
whether they can satisfactorily be explained by considerations of this
kind, and one of these more remarkable coincidences occurs in the
passage before us. St. James writes, "Knowing that the proof of
your faith worketh patience." St. Paul writes, "Knowing that
tribulation worketh patience; and patience, probation" (Rom.
v. 3). In this same chapter we have another instance.
St. James says, "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only"
(i. 22). St. Paul says, "Not the hearers of a law are just
before God, but the doers of a law shall be justified" (Rom. 13).
There is yet a third such parallel. St. James asks, "Whence come
fightings? Come they not hence, even of your pleasures which war in
your members?" (iv. 1). St. Paul laments, "I see a different
law in my members, warring against the law of my mind" (Rom.
vii. 23).In order to do justice to these coincidences one must look at
them in the original Greek; but to those who cannot read Greek the
accuracy of the Revised Version gives a very fair idea of the amount
of similarity.
1. γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως
κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν (James i. 3):
εἰδότεσ ὅτι ἡ θλίπσις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, ἡ δὲ
ὑπομον δοκιμήν (Rom. v. 3).
2. γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ μὴ ἀκροαταὶ μόνον (James i. 22):
οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ
τῷ θεῷ, ἀλλ' οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμοι δικαιωθήσονται (Rom.
ii. 13).
3. ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν
ὑμῶν (James iv. 1):
ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μελεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον
τῳ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου (Rom vii. 23).
The effect of this evidence will be different upon different minds.
But it may reasonably be doubted whether these passages, even when
summed up together, are stronger than many other strange coincidences in
literature, which are known to be accidental. The second instance,
taken by itself, is of little weight; for the contrast between hearers
and doers is one of the most hackneyed commonplaces of rhetoric. But
assuming that a primâ facie case has been established, and that
one of the two writers has seen the Epistle of the other, no
difficulty is created, whichever we assume to have written first. The
Epistle to the Romans was written in A.D. 58, and
might easily have become known to St. James before
A.D. 62. On the other hand, the Epistle of
St. James may be placed anywhere between
A.D. 45 and 62, and in that case might easily have
become known to St. Paul before A.D. 58. And
of the two alternatives, this latter is perhaps the more probable. We
shall find other reasons for placing the Epistle of St. James
earlier than A.D. 58; and we may reasonably
suppose that had he read the Epistle to the Romans, he would have
expressed his meaning respecting justification somewhat differently.
Had he wished (as some erroneously suppose) to oppose and correct the
teaching of St. Paul, he would have done so much more
unmistakably. And as he is really quite in harmony with St. Paul
on the question, he would, if he had read him, have avoided words
which look like a contradiction of St. Paul's words.
It remains to examine the relations between our Epistle and the
First Epistle of St. Peter. Here, again, one of the coincidences
occurs in the passage before us. St. James writes, "Count it all
joy, when ye enter into manifold temptations; knowing that the proof
of your faith worketh patience;" and St. Peter writes, "Ye
greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, ye have
been put to grief in manifold temptations, that the proof of your
faith ... might be
found" (1 Peter i. 6, 7). Here there is the thought of
rejoicing in trials common to both passages, and the expressions for
"manifold temptations" and "proof of your patience" are identical in
the two places. This is remarkable, especially when taken with other
coincidences. On the other hand, the fact that some of the language is
common to all three Epistles (James, Peter, and Romans) suggests the
possibility that we have here one of the "faithful sayings" of
primitive Christianity, rather than one or two writers remembering the
writings of a predecessor.
In three places St. James and St. Peter both quote the
same passages from the Old Testament. In i. 10, 11 St. James
has, "As the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the
sun ariseth with the scorching wind, and withereth the grass; and
the flower thereof falleth," where the words in italics are
from Isaiah xl. 6-8. St. Peter (i. 24) quotes the words
of Isaiah much more completely and consecutively, and in their
original sense; he does not merely make a free use of portions of
them. Again, in iv. 6 St. James quotes from Prov.
iii. 34, "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
humble." In v. 5 St. Peter quotes exactly the same words.
Lastly, in v. 20 St. James quotes from Prov. x. 12 the
expression "covereth sins." In iv. 8 St. Peter quotes a word
more of the original, "love covereth sins." And it will be observed
that both St. James and St. Peter change "covereth
all sins" into "covereth a multitude of sins."
Once more we must be content to give a verdict of "Not proven."
There is a certain amount of probability, but nothing that amounts to
proof, that one of these writers had seen the other's Epistle. Let us,
however, assume that echoes of one Epistle are found in the
other; then, whichever letter we put first, we have no chronological
difficulty. The probable dates of death are, for St. James
A.D. 62, for St. Peter
A.D. 64-68. Either Epistle may be placed in the
six or seven years immediately preceding A.D. 62,
and one of the most recent criticsB. Weiss, Introduction to the N.T., vol. ii., pp. 106, 150 (Hodder
and Stoughton, 1888).
places 1 Peter in the middle of the year
A.D. 50, and the Epistle of James any time after
that date. But there are good reasons for believing that 1 Peter
contains references to the persecution under Nero, that "fiery trial"
(iv. 12) in which the mere being a Christian would lead to penal
consequences (iv. 16), and in which, for conscience' sake, men
would have to "endure griefs, suffering wrongfully" (ii. 19),
thereby being "partakers of Christ's sufferings" (iv. 13). In
which case 1 Peter cannot be placed earlier than
A.D. 64, and the Epistle of James must be the
earlier of the two. And it seems to be chiefly those who would make
our Epistle a forgery of the second century (Brückner, Holtzmann) who
consider that it is James that echoes 1 Peter, rather than
1 Peter that reproduces James. There is a powerful consensus of
opinionBeyschlag's revision of Meyer's Brie des Jacobus (Göttingen,
1888), p. 22.
that if there is any influence of one writer upon the other, it is
St. James who influences St. Peter, and not the other
way.
We must not place the Epistle of St. James in or close after
A.D. 50. The crisis respecting the treatment of
Gentile converts was then at its height (Acts xv.); and it would be
extraordinary if a letter written in the midst of the crisis, and by
the person who took the leading part in dealing with it, should
contain no allusion
to it. The Epistle must be placed either before
(A.D. 45-49) or some time after
(A.D. 53-62) the so-called Council of Jerusalem.
There is reason for believing that the controversy about compelling
Gentiles to observe the Mosaic Law, although sharp and critical, was
not very lasting. The modus vivendi decreed by the Apostles was
on the whole loyally accepted, and therefore a letter written a few
years after it was promulgated would not of necessity take any notice
of it. Indeed, to have revived the question again might have been
impolitic, as implying either that there was still some doubt on the
point, or that the Apostolic decision had proved futile.
In deciding between the two periods (A.D. 45-49
and 53-62) for the date of the Epistle of St. James, we have not
much to guide us if we adopt the view that it is independent of the
writings of St. Peter and of St. Paul. There is plenty in
the letter to lead us to suppose that it was written before the war
(A.D. 66-70) which put an end to the tyranny of
the wealthy Sadducees over their poorer brethren, before controversies
between Jewish and Gentile Christians such as we find at Corinth had
arisen or become chronic, and before doctrinal controversies had
sprung up in the Church; also that it was written at a time when the
coming of Christ to judgment was still regarded as near at hand
(v. 8), and by some one who could recollect the words of Christ
independently of the Gospels, and who therefore must have stood in
close relationship to Him. All this points to its having been written
within the lifetime of James the Lord's brother, and by such a person
as he was; but it does not seem to be decisive as to the difference
between c. A.D. 49 and c.
A.D. 59. We must be content to leave this
undecided. But it is
worth while pointing out that if we place it earlier than
A.D. 52 we make it the earliest book in the New
Testament. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written late in
A.D. 52 or early in 53; and excepting our Epistle,
and perhaps 1 Peter, there is no other writing in the New
Testament that can reasonably be placed at so early a date as 52.
"Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into
manifold temptations." "My brethren," with or without the epithet
"beloved," is the regular form of address throughout the Epistle (16,
19; ii. 1, 5, 14; iii. 1, 10, 12; v. 12), in one or two
places the "my" being omitted (iv. 11; v. 7, 9, 19). The
frequency of this brotherly address seems to indicate how strongly the
writer feels, and wishes his readers to feel, the ties of race and of
faith which bind them together.
In "Count it all joy," i.e. "Consider it as nothing but
matter for rejoicing,"This rendering has been questioned; but it is justified by such
expressions as πᾶσαν ἀληθείην
μυθήσομαι, "I will tell nothing but what is true" (Hom. Od.
xi. 507). See Pastoral Epistles in this series, p. 392.
we miss a linguistic touch which is evident in the Greek, but cannot
well be preserved in English. In saying "joy" (χάραν) St. James is apparently carrying on
the idea just started in the address, "greeting" (χαίρειν), i.e. "wishing joy." "I wish
you joy; and you must account as pure joy all the
troubles into which you may fall." This carrying on a word or thought
from one sentence into the next is characteristic of St. James,
and reminds us somewhat of the style of St. John. Thus "The proof
of your faith worketh patience. And let patience have
its perfect work" (i. 3, 4). "Lacking in nothing. But if any of
you lacketh wisdom" (4, 5). "Nothing doubting: for he
that doubteth is like the surge of the sea" (6). "The lust,
when it hath conceived, beareth sin; and the sin, when
it is full grown, bringeth forth death" (15). "Slow to wrath:
for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God" (19,
20). "This man's religion is vain. Pure religion and
undefiled before our God and Father is this" (26, 27). "In many things
we all stumble. If any man stumbleth not in word"
(iii. 2). "Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a
fire! And the tongue is a fire" (iii. 5, 6). "Ye
have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not"
(iv. 2, 3). "Your gold and your silver are rusted; and
their rust shall be for a testimony against you" (v. 3).
"We call them blessed which endured: ye have heard of the
endurance of Job" (v. 11).
It is just possible that "all joy" (πᾶσαν χάραν) is meant exactly to balance
"manifold temptations" (πειρασμοῖς ποικίλοις). Great diversity of
troubles is to be considered as in reality every kind of joy.
Nevertheless, the troubles are not to be of our own making or seeking.
It is not when we inflict suffering on ourselves, but when we "fall
into" it, and therefore may regard it as placed in our way by God,
that we are to look upon it as a source of joy rather than of sorrow.
The word for "fall into" (περιπίπτειν) implies not only that what one
falls into is unwelcome, but also that it is unsought and unexpected.
Moreover, it implies that this unforeseen misfortune is large enough
to encircle or overwhelm one. It indicates a serious calamity.
The word for "temptations" in this passage is the same as is used in
the sixth petition of the Lord's Prayer; but the word is not used in
the same sense in both places. In the Lord's Prayer all kinds of
temptation are included,
and especially the internal solicitations of the devil, as is shown by
the next petition: "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
the tempter." In the passage before us internal temptations, if not
actually excluded, are certainly quite in the background. What
St. James has principally in his mind are external trials,
such as poverty of intellect (ver. 5), or of substance (ver. 9), or
persecution (ii. 6, 7), and the like; those worldly troubles
which test our faith, loyalty, and obedience, and tempt us to abandon
our trust in God, and to cease to strive to please Him. The trials by
which Satan was allowed to tempt Job are the kind of temptations to be
understood here.See F. D. Maurice, Unity of the N.T. (Parker, 1854), p. 318.
They are material for spiritual joy, because (1) they are
opportunities for practising virtue, which cannot be learned without
practice, nor practised without opportunities; (2) they teach us that
we have here no abiding city, for a world in which such things are
possible cannot be a lasting home; (3) they make us more Christlike;
(4) we have the assurance of Divine support, and that no more will
ever be laid upon us than we, relying upon that support, can bear; (5)
we have the assurance of abundant compensation here and hereafter.
St. James here is only echoing the teaching of his Brother:
"Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and
be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven" (Matt.
v. 11, 12). In the first days after Pentecost he had seen the
Apostles acting in the very spirit which he here enjoins, and he had
himself very probably taken
part in doing so, "rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer
dishonour for the Name" (Acts v. 41. Comp. iv. 23-30). And
as we have already seen in comparing the parallel passages,
St. Peter (1 Peter 1, 6) and St. Paul (Rom. v. 3)
teach the same doctrine of rejoicing in tribulation.
As St. Augustine long ago pointed out, in his letter to
Anastasius (Ep. cxlv. 7, 8), and Hooker also (Eccl.
Pol. V. xlviii. 13), there is no inconsistency in teaching
such doctrine, and yet praying, "Lead us not into temptation." Not
only is there no sin in shrinking from both external trials and
internal temptations, or in desiring to be freed from such things; but
such is the weakness of the human will, that it is only reasonable
humility to pray to God not to allow us to be subjected to severe
trials. Nevertheless, when God, in His wisdom, has permitted such
things to come upon us, the right course is, not to be cast down and
sorrowful, as though something quite intolerable had overtaken us, but
to rejoice that God has thought us capable of enduring something for
His sake, and has given us the opportunity of strengthening our
patience and our trust in Him.
This doctrine of joy in suffering, which at first sight seems to be
almost superhuman, is shown by experience to be less hard than the
apparently more human doctrine of resignation and fortitude. The
effort to be resigned, and to suffer without complaining, is not a
very inspiriting effort. Its tendency is towards depression. It does
not lift us out of ourselves or above our tribulations. On the
contrary, it leads rather to self-contemplation and a brooding over
miseries. Between mere resignation and thankful joy there is all the
difference that there is between mere
obedience and affectionate trust. The one is submission; the other is
love. It is in the long run easier to rejoice in tribulation, and be
thankful for it, than to be merely resigned and submit patiently. And
therefore this "hard saying" is really a merciful one, for it teaches
us to endure trials in the spirit that will make us feel them least.
It is not only "a good thing to sing praises unto our God;" it is also
"a joyful and pleasant thing to be thankful" (Ps. cxlvii. 1).
And here it may be noticed that St. James is no Cynic or
Stoic. He does not tell us that we are to anticipate misfortune, and
cut ourselves off from all those things the loss of which might
involve suffering; or that we are to trample on our feelings, and act
as if we had none, treating sufferings as if they were non-existent,
or as if they in no way affected us. He does not teach us that as
Christians we live in an atmosphere in which excruciating pain,
whether of body or mind, is a matter of pure indifference, and that
such emotions as fear or grief under the influence of adversity, and
hope or joy under the influence of prosperity, are utterly unworthy
and contemptible. There is not a hint of anything of the kind. He
points out to us that temptations, and especially external trials, are
really blessings, if we use them aright; and he teaches us to meet
them in that conviction. And it is manifest that the spirit in which
to welcome a blessing is the spirit of joy and thankfulness.
St. James does not bid us accept this doctrine of joy in
tribulation upon his personal authority. It is no philosopher's
ipse dixit. He appeals to his readers' own experience: "Knowing
that the proof of your faith worketh patience." "Knowing" (γινώσκοντες), i.e. "in that ye are
continually finding out and getting
to know." The verb and the tense indicate progressive and continuous
knowledge, as by the experience of daily life; and this teaches us
that proving and testing not only brings to light, but brings into
existence, patience. This patience (ὑπομονή), this abiding firm under attack or
pressure, must be allowed full scope to regulate all our conduct; and
then we shall see why trials are a matter for joy rather than sorrow,
when we find ourselves moving onwards towards, not the barrenness of
Stoical "self-sufficiency" (αὐτάρκεια),
but the fulness of Divine perfection. "That ye may be perfect and
entire,On the strength of the word for "entire" (ὁλόκληρος), which occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament, excepting 1 Thess. v. 23, it has been
asserted that the writer of this Epistle must have seen that passage.
The adjective is used in the Septuagint of whole, unhewn stones,
saxis informibus et impolitis (Deut. xxvii. 6), and in
Josephus of entire animals used for sacrifice (Ant. III.
ix. 2). It is fairly common in Plato and Aristotle. The
substantive ὁλοκληρία occurs in Acts
iii. 16, of the "perfect soundness" given to the impotent man,
and in the Septuagint (Isa. i. 6), of the "soundness" which was
wholly wanting in Israel. If St. James did not get his knowledge
of the word simply from his knowledge of the Greek language, which is
manifestly very complete, he probably derived it from the Septuagint.
It is absurd to base an argument as to acquaintance with
1 Thessalonians on so common a word.
lacking in nothing," is perhaps one of the many reminiscences of
Christ's words which we shall find in this letter of the Lord's
brother. "Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect" (Matt. v. 48).
CHAPTER VI.
THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE
TO THE BOOKS OF ECCLESIASTICUS AND OF THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.
THE VALUE OF THE APOCRYPHA, AND THE MISCHIEF OF NEGLECTING IT.
"But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to
all liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But
let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like
the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that
man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a double-minded
man, unstable in all his ways."—St. James i. 5-8.
THE previous section led us to the question as to
the relation of this Epistle to certain Christian writings, and in
particular to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and to the
First Epistle of St. Peter. The present section, combined with
the preceding one, raises a similar question—the relation of our
Epistle to certain Jewish writings, and especially the Books of
Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon.
The two sets of questions are not parallel. In the former case,
even if we could determine that the writer of one Epistle had
certainly seen the Epistle of the other, we should still be uncertain
as to which had written first. Here, if the similarity is found to be
too great to be accounted for by common influences acting upon both
writers, and we are compelled to suppose
that one has made use of the writing of the other, there cannot be any
doubt as to the side on which the obligation lies. The Book of
Ecclesiasticus certainly, and the Book of Wisdom possibly, had come
into circulation long before St. James was born. And if, with
some of the latest writersGrätz, Noack, Plumptre, F. W. Farrer.
on the subject, we place the Book of Wisdom as late as
A.D. 40, it nevertheless was written in plenty of
time for St. James to have become acquainted with it before he
wrote his Epistle. Although some doubts have been expressed on the
subject, the number of similarities, both of thought and expression,
between the Epistle of St. James and Ecclesiasticus is too great
to be reasonably accounted for without the supposition that
St. James was not only acquainted with the book, but fond of its
contents. And it is to be remembered, in forming an opinion on the
subject, that there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the
supposition that St. James had read Ecclesiasticus. Indeed, the
improbability would rather be the other way. Even if there were no
coincidences of ideas and language between our Epistle and
Ecclesiasticus, we know enough about St. James and about the
circulation of Ecclesiasticus to say that he was likely to become
acquainted with it. As Dr. Salmon remarks on the use of the Apocrypha
generally, "The books we know as Apocrypha are nearly all earlier than
the New Testament writers, who could not well have been ignorant of
them; and therefore coincidences between the former and the latter
are not likely to have been the result of mere accident."The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha, vol. i., p. xli. (Murray, 1888).
But it will be worth while to quote a decided expression
of opinion, on each side of the question
immediately before us, from the writings of scholars who are certainly
well qualified to give a decided opinion. On the one hand, Bernhard
Weiss says, "It has been incorrectly held by most that the author
adheres very closely to Jesus Sirach.... But it must be distinctly
denied that there is anywhere an echo of the Book of Wisdom."Introduction to the N.T., vol. ii., pp. 114, 115 (Hodder and
Stoughton, 1888).
On the other hand, Dr. Edersheim, after pointing out the parallel
between Ecclus. xii. 10, 11, and James v. 3, concludes, "In
view of all this it cannot be doubted that both the simile and
the expression of it in the Epistle of St. James were derived
from Ecclesiasticus." And then he gives some more coincidences between
the two writings, and sums up thus: "But if the result is to prove
beyond doubt the familiarity of St. James with a book which
at the time was evidently in wide circulation, it exhibits with even
greater clearness the immense spiritual difference between the
standpoint occupied in Ecclesiasticus and that in the Epistle of
St. James."The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23
(Murray 1888).
And Archdeacon Farrar quotes with approval an estimate that
St. James "alludes more or less directly to the Book of the
Wisdom of Solomon at least five times, but to the Book of
Ecclesiasticus more than fifteen times.... The fact is the more
striking because in other respects St. James shows no sympathy
with Alexandrian speculations. There is not in him the faintest tinge
of Philonian philosophy; on the contrary, he belongs in a marked
degree to the school of Jerusalem. He is a thorough Hebraiser, a
typical Judaist. All his thoughts and phrases move normally in the
Palestinian sphere.
This is a curious and almost unnoticed phenomenon. The "sapiential
literature" of the Old Testament was the least specifically
Israelite. It was the direct precursor of Alexandrian morals. It deals
with mankind, and not with the Jew. Yet St. James, who shows so
much partiality for this literature, is of all the writers of the New
Testament the least Alexandrian, and the most Judaic."The Early Days of Christianity, vol. i., pp. 517-18. Dr. Salmon
leaves the question undecided (Introduction to N.T., p. 511).
Let us endeavour to form an opinion for ourselves; and the only way
in which to do this with thoroughness is to place side by side, in the
original Greek, the passages in which there seems to be coincidence
between the two writers. Want of space prevents this from being done
here. But some of the most striking coincidences shall be placed in
parallel columns, and where the coincidence is inadequately
represented by the English Version the Greek shall be given also.
Other coincidences, which are not drawn out in full, will be added, to
enable students who care to examine the evidence more in detail to do
so without much trouble. Two Bibles, or, still better, a Septuagint
and a Greek Testament, will serve the purpose of parallel columns.
It will be found that by far the greater number of coincidences
occur in the first chapter, a fact which suggests the conjecture that
St. James had been reading Ecclesiasticus shortly before he began
to write. In the middle of the Epistle there is very little that
strongly recalls the son of Sirach. In the last chapter there are one
or two striking parallels; but by far the larger proportion is in the
first chapter.
| ECCLESIASTICUS. |
ST. JAMES. |
1. A patient man will bear for a time, and afterward joy shall
spring up unto him (i. 23).
My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul
for temptation (πειρασμόν). Set thy
heart aright, and constantly endure.... Whatsoever is brought upon
thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art changed to a low
estate. For gold is tried (δοκιμάζεται) in the fire, and acceptable
men in the furnace of adversity (ii. 1-5). |
Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold
temptations (πειρασμοῖς), knowing
that the proof (τὸ δοκίμιον) of your
faith worketh patience. And let patience have her perfect work, that
ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing (i. 2-4).
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation (πειρασμόν); for when he hath been approved
(δόκιμος γενόμενος), he shall
receive the crown of life (i. 12). |
2. If thou desire wisdom (σοφίαν),
keep the commandments, and the Lord shall give her unto thee
(i. 26).
I desired wisdom (σοφίαν)
openly in my prayer.... The Lord hath given me a tongue for my reward
(li. 13, 22).
Thy desire for wisdom (σοφίας) shall be given thee (vi. 37.
Comp. xliii. 33). [A fool] will give little, and will upbraid
(ὀνειδίσει) much (xx. 15).
After thou hast given, upbraid (ὀνείδιζε) not (xli. 22. Comp.
xviii. 18). |
But if any of you lacketh wisdom (σοφίαν), let him ask of God, who giveth to all
men liberally, and upbraideth not (μὴ
ὀνειδίζοντος); and it shall be given him (i. 5). |
3. Distrust not the fear of the Lord; and come not unto Him with
a double heart (i. 28).
Woe be to fearful hearts, and faint hands, and the sinner
that goeth two ways (ii. 12).
Be not faint-hearted when thou makest thy prayer
(vii. 10. Comp. xxxiii. 2; xxxv. 16, 17). |
But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth
is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let
not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a
double-minded man, unstable in all his ways (i. 6-8. Comp.
iv. 8). |
4. Exalt not thyself, lest thou fall, and bring dishonour upon
thy soul (i. 30).
The greater thou art, the more humble thyself, and thou
shalt find favour before the Lord (iii. 18. Comp. xxxi. 1-9). |
But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate; and
the rich in that he is made low (i. 9, 10). |
|
5. Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away: for thou
oughtest not to do the things that He hateth. Say not thou, He hath
caused me to err: for He hath no need of the sinful man (xv. 11,
12). |
Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God
cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man
(i. 13). |
| 6. Be swift in thy listening (ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου); and with patience give answer
(v. 11). |
Let every man be swift to hear (ταχὺς εὶς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι), slow to speak, slow to wrath
(i. 19). |
7. Thou shalt be to him as one that hath wiped a mirror (ἔσοπτρον), and shalt know that it is not
rusted (κατίωται) for ever
(xii. 11).
Like as bronze rusteth (ἰοῦται), so is his wickedness
(xii. 10).
Lose money through a brother and a friend, and let it not
rust (ἰωθήτω) under the stone unto loss
(xxix. 10). |
He is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror
(ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ).... Your gold and your
silver are rusted (κατίωται); and their
rust (ἰός) shall be a testimony against you
(i. 23; v. 3). |
8. He that looketh in (ὁ
παρακύπτων) through her windows, i.e. the windows of
wisdom (xiv. 23).
A fool peepeth in (παρακύπτει) at the door (xxi. 23). |
He that looketh into (ὁ
παρακύψας) the perfect law (i. 25). |
| 9. A prey of lions are wild asses in the wilderness; so the
fodder of the rich are the poor (οὕτω νομαὶ πλουσίων πτωχοί: xiii. 19. Comp.
xiii. 3, 17, 18). |
But ye have dishonoured the poor man (τὸν πτωχόν). Do not the rich (οἱ πλούσιοι) oppress you, and themselves drag you
before the judgment-seats? (ii. 6). |
It will be observed that of these nine examples all come out of the
first two chapters of St. James, and six are from the first two
chapters of Ecclesiasticus. This fact is worth considering in
estimating the probabilities of St. James being under the
influence of this earlier and popular book. Owing to recent reading,
or some other cause, he seems to have been specially familiar with the
opening chapters of Ecclesiasticus.
Probably most persons who study these coincidences will be of the
opinion that Bernhard Weiss is needlessly cautious and sceptical when
he refuses to assent to the common opinion that in some portions of
the Epistle St. James closely follows the Wisdom of Jesus, the
son of Sirach. The strongest coincidence is the seventh in the table.
The word for "to rust" (κατιόω) occurs
nowhere else either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament, and the
passages in Ecclesiasticus and St. James "are the only Biblical
passages in which the figure of rust as affecting unused silver and
gold occurs" (Edersheim). The fifth instance is also very striking.
Let us now look at some of the coincidences between the Book of the
Wisdom of Solomon and the Epistle of St. James.
| WISDOM. |
ST. JAMES. |
| 1. The hope of the ungodly is like thistle-down carried away by
the wind; like a thin froth that is driven away by the blast, and
like smoke is dispersed by the wind (v. 14. Comp. μαρανθῆναι in ii. 8). |
He that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind
and tossed.... As the flower of the grass he shall pass away.... So
also shall the rich man fade away (μαρανθήσεται) in his ways (i. 6,
10, 11). |
| 2. In eternity it weareth a crown and triumpheth (iv. 2). |
When he hath been approved he shall receive the crown of life,
which the Lord promised to them that love Him (i. 12). |
| 3. The alterations of the solstices and the change of seasons
(τροπῶν ἀλλαγὰς καὶ
μεταβολὰς καιρῶν: vii. 18). |
With whom can be no variation, neither shadow of turning (παρ' ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι
παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα: i. 17). |
| 4. Let us oppress (καταδυναστεύσωμεν) the poor
righteous man.... Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture
(ii. 10, 19). |
Ye have dishonoured the poor man. Do not the rich oppress (καταδυναστεύουσιν) you, and
themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? (ii. 6). |
| 5. For the lowest is pardonable by mercy; but mighty men shall be
mightily chastised (vi. 6). |
For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no
mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment (ii. 13). |
|
6. What hath pride profited us? or what good hath riches with our
vaunting (ἀλαζονείας) brought us? All
those things are passed away like a shadow, and as a post that hasted
by, etc. etc.; even so we, as soon as we were born, came to an end"
(v. 8-14). |
Go to now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this
city, and spend a year there, and trade and get gain: whereas ye know
not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a
vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away....
But now ye glory in your vauntings (ἀλαζονίαις): all such glorying is evil
(iv. 13-16). |
| 7. Let us lie in wait for the righteous (τὸν δίκαιον).... Let us condemn him (καταδικάσωμεν) with a shameful death
(ii. 12, 20). |
Ye have condemned (κατεδικάσατε), ye have killed the
righteous one (τὸν δίκαιον); he doth
not resist you (v. 6). |
It will at once be perceived that these parallels are neither so
numerous nor so convincing as those which have been pointed out
between Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle of St. James; but they are
sufficient to make a primâ facie case of considerable
probability, whatever date we assign to the Book of Wisdom. This
probability is strengthened by the fact that this book, with the rest
of the Apocrypha or deutero-canonical writings, constituted to a large
extent the religious literature of the Jews of the Dispersion;
and therefore in writing to such Jews St. James would be likely
to make conscious allusions to writings with which his hearers would
be sure to be familiar; a consideration which strengthens the case as
regards the coincidences with Ecclesiasticus, as well as regards those
with the Wisdom of Solomon. Even if the probability as to the
Alexandrian origin of Wisdom were a certainty, and if the conjectural
date A.D. 40 were established, there would be
nothing surprising in its becoming well known in Jerusalem within
twenty years of its production. It is, therefore, far too
strong an assertion when Weiss declares that "it must be distinctly
denied that there is anywhere [in the Epistle of St. James] an
echo of the Book of Wisdom." All that one can safely say is that the
evidence for his acquaintance with the book does not approach to
proof.
But the use of these two books of the Apocrypha by writers in the
New Testament does not depend upon the question whether St. James
makes use of them or not. If this were the place to do it, it might be
shown that other coincidences, both of language and thought, far too
numerous and too strong to be all of them accidental, occur in the
writings of St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John.See Dr. Salmon's General Introduction to the Apocrypha in the
Speaker's Commentary, vol. i., pp. xli., xlii.
Such things also occur outside the New Testament in the Epistles of
Clement and of Barnabas; while Clement of Alexandria frequently quotes
Ecclesiasticus with the introductory formula, "The Scripture
saith."
These facts go a long way towards proving that the neglect of the
Apocrypha which is so prevalent among ourselves is a thing which
cannot be defended, either by an appeal to Scripture or by the
practice of the primitive Church; for both the one and the other show
a great respect for these deutero-canonical writings. That the New
Lectionary omits a good deal of what used to be read publicly in
church is not a thing to be lamented. We gladly sacrifice portions of
the Apocrypha in order to obtain more of Ezekiel and Revelation. It is
the neglect of them in private reading that is so much to be deplored.
Passages which are too grotesque and too unspiritual to be edifying
when read to a mixed congregation are nevertheless full of
instruction, and throw most valuable light both on the Old and on the
New Testament. The Apocryphal writings, instead
of being a worthless interpolation between the Old Testament and the
New, like a block of paltry buildings disfiguring two noble edifices,
are among our best means of understanding how the Old Testament led up
to the New, and prepared the way for it. They show us the Jewish mind
under the combined influences of Jewish Scriptures, Gentile culture,
and new phases of political life, and being gradually brought into the
condition in which it either fiercely opposed or ardently accepted the
teaching of Christ and His Apostles. A huge chasm yawns between
Judaism as we leave it at the close of the Old Testament canon, and as
we find it at the beginning of the Gospel history; and we have no
better material with which to bridge the chasm than the writings of
the Apocrypha. This is well brought out, not only in the commentary on
the Apocrypha already quoted more than once, but also in a valuable
review of the commentary from which some of what follows is taken.Edinburgh Review, No. 345, January, 1889, pp. 58-95.
The neglect of the Apocrypha has not been by any means entirely
accidental. It is partly the result of a deliberate protest against
the action of the Council of Trent in placing these books on a level
with the books of the Old and New Testament. In the seventeenth
century we find the learned John Lightfoot writing, "Thus sweetly and
nearly should the two Testaments join together, and thus Divinely
should they kiss each other, but that the wretched Apocrypha doth
thrust in between." And the fact that many people are now unable to
recognize or appreciate an allusion to the Apocrypha is by no means
the most serious result of this common neglect of its contents.
Appreciation of the Bible in general, and especially of those books
in which the Old and New Testaments come most in contact, is
materially diminished in consequence. The Apocrypha is not a barrier,
but a bridge; it does not separate, but unite the two Covenants. What
thoughtful reader can pass from the Old to the New Testament without
feeling that he has entered another world? He is still in Palestine,
still among the Jews; but how different from the Palestine and the
Judaism of Ezra, and Nehemiah, and Malachi! He "finds mention of
persons, and sects, and schools of which he can find no trace in the
Old Testament. He comes upon beliefs and opinions for which the
earlier canon does not even furnish a clue. He discovers institutions
long settled, and dominating the religious life of the people, of
which the Old Testament supplies not even the name. He finds popular
ideas, religious terms and phrases in current use wholly unlike those
of ancient psalmists and prophets." And there is no literature that
can explain all these changes to him either so surely or so fully as
the Apocrypha. It supplies instances of the early use of New Testament
words, of old words in new senses. It throws light upon the growth of
the popular conception of the Messiah. It illuminates still more the
development of the doctrine of the Logos. Above all, it helps us to
see something of the evolution of that strange religious system which
became the raw material out of which the special doctrines of
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were formed, and which had a
powerful influence upon Christianity itself.
The neglect of the Apocrypha has been greatly increased by the
widespread practice of publishing Bibles without it, and even of
striking out from the margins of these mutilated Bibles all references
to it. And this mischief has lately been augmented by the fact that
the Revised Version omits it. Yet no portion of the Bible was in
greater need of revision. The original texts used by the translators
of 1611 were very bad; and perhaps in no part of the Authorized
Version are utterly faulty translations more abundant. A comparison of
the quotations given above with the text of the Authorized Version of
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus will show that considerable changes have
been made in order to bring the quotations into harmony with the true
readings of the Greek text, and thus give a fair comparison with the
words of St. James.
Books which the writers of the New Testament found worthy of study,
and from which they derived some of their thoughts and language, ought
not to be lightly disregarded by ourselves. We cannot disregard them
without loss; and it is the duty of every reader of the Bible to see
that his apprehension of the Old and New Testaments is not hindered
through his ignorance of those writings which interpret the process of
transition from the one to the other. Neglect of the helps to
understanding His Word which God has placed easily within our reach
may endanger our possession of that wisdom which St. James here
assures us will be given to every one who asks for it in faith.
A discussion of that heavenly wisdom, and of the efficacy of prayer
offered in faith, will be found in the expositions of later passages
in the Epistle.See on iii. 13-18, and on v. 13-18. In connexion with this
subject the Inaugural Lecture of Professor Margoliouth, on The
Place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature (Clarendon Press,
1890), and his defence of the position there maintained in the pages
of the Expositor, should be studied. It is possible that
from the language of Ecclesiasticus we may be able to demonstrate that
the late date assigned by recent critics to certain books in the Old
Testament is quite untenable for the language of them is centuries
older than that of Ecclesiasticus.
CHAPTER VII.
THE EXALTATION OF THE LOWLY, AND THE FADING AWAY OF THE RICH.
THE METAPHORS OF ST. JAMES AND THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
"But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the
rich in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he
shall pass away. For the sun ariseth, with the scorching wind, and
withereth the grass; and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace
of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away
in his goings."—St. James i. 9-11.
IN this section St. James returns to what is
the main thought of the first chapter, and one of the main thoughts of
the whole Epistle, viz. the blessedness of enduring temptations, and
especially such temptations as are caused by external trials and
adversity. He adds another thought which may help to console and
strengthen the oppressed Christian.
The Revisers have quite rightly restored the "But" (δέ) at the beginning of this section. There seems to
be absolutely no authority for its omission; and we may conjecture
that the earlier English translators ignored it, because it seemed to
them to be superfluous, or even disturbing. The Rhemish Version, made
from the Vulgate (Glorietur autem), is the only English Version
which preserves it; and Luther (Ein Bruder aber) preserves it
also. The force of the conjunction is to connect the advice given in
this section with the items
of advice already given. They form a connected series. "Count it all
joy, when ye fall into manifold temptations.... But (δέ) let patience have its perfect work. ... But
(δέ) if any lacketh wisdom, let him ask of
God.... But (δέ) let him ask in faith.... But
(δέ) let the brother of low degree glory in
his high estate: and the rich in that he is made low."
The meaning of this last item in the series is by no means clear.
Various interpretations have been suggested, and it is difficult or
even impossible to arrive at a conclusive decision as to which of them
is the right one. But we may clear the ground by setting aside all
explanations which would make "the brother of low degree" (ὁ ταπεινός) to mean the Christian who is
lowly in heart (Matt. xi. 29), and "the rich" (ὁ πλούσιος) the Christian who is rich in faith
(ii. 5) and in good works (1 Tim. vi. 18). Both words
are to be understood literally. The lowly man is the man of humble
position, oppressed by poverty, and perhaps by unscrupulous neighbours
(ii. 3), and the rich man, here, as elsewhere in this Epistle, is
the man of wealth who very often oppresses the poorer brethren
(i. 11; ii. 6; v. 1).
What, then, is the meaning of the "high estate" (ὕψος) in which the brother of low degree is to
glory, and of the "being made low" (ταπείνωσις), in which the rich man is to do
the same? At first sight one is disposed to say that the one is the
heavenly birthright, and the other the Divine humiliation, in which
every one shares who becomes a member of Christ; in fact, that they
are the same thing looked at from different points of view; for what
to the Christian is promotion, to the world seems degradation. If this
were correct, then we should have an antithesis analogous to that
which is drawn out by St. Paul, when he says, "He that was called
in the Lord, being a bond-servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise he
that was called, being free, is Christ's bond-servant" (1 Cor.
vii. 22). But on further consideration this attractive
explanation is found not to suit the context. What analogy is there
between the humiliation in which every Christian glories in Christ and
the withering of herbage under a scorching wind? Even if we could
allow that this metaphor refers to the fugitive character of earthly
possessions, what has that to do with Christian humiliation, which
does not depend upon either the presence or the absence of wealth?
Moreover, St. James says nothing about the fugitiveness of
riches: it is the rich man himself, and not his wealth, that is
said to "pass away," and to "fade away in his goings." Twice over
St. James declares this to be the destiny of the rich man; and
the wording is such as to show that when the writer says that "the
rich man shall fade away in his goings" he means the man, and not his
riches. "His goings," or "journeys," very likely refers to his "going
into this city to spend a year there, and trade, and get gain"
(iv. 13); i.e. he wastes himself away in the pursuit of
wealth. But what could be the meaning of wealth "fading away
in its journeys"? Evidently, we must not transfer what is said
of the rich man himself to his possessions.
It is a baseless assumption to suppose that the rich man here
spoken of is a Christian at all. "The brother of low degree" is
contrasted, not with the brother who is rich, but with the rich
man, whose miserable destiny shows that he is not "a brother,"
i.e. not a believer. The latter is the wealthy Jew who rejects
Christ. Throughout this Epistle (ii. 6, 7; v. 1-6)
"rich" is a term of reproach. This is what is meant by the Ebionite
tone of the Epistle; for poverty is the condition which Ebionism
delights to honour. In this St. James seems to be reproducing the
thoughts both of Jesus Christ and of Jesus the son of Sirach. "Woe
unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe
unto you, ye that are full now! for ye shall hunger" (Luke
vi. 25, 26. Comp. Matt. xix. 23-25). "The rich man hath done
wrong, and is very wroth besides: the poor man is wronged, and he must
intreat also.... An abomination to the proud is lowliness; so the poor
are abomination to the rich" (Ecclus. xiii. 3, 20).
But when we have arrived at the conclusion that the "being made
low" does not refer to the humiliation of the Christian, and that the
rich man here threatened with a miserable end is not a believer, a new
difficulty arises. What is the meaning of the wealthy unbeliever being
told to glory in the degradation which is to prove so
calamitous to him? In order to avoid this difficulty various
expedients have been suggested. Some propose a rather violent change
of mood—from the imperative to the indicative. No verb is
expressed, and it is said that instead of repeating "let him glory"
from the previous clause, we may supply "he glories," as a statement
of fact rather than an exhortation. The sentence will then run, "But
let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate; but (δέ) the rich glorieth in his being made low;"
i.e. he glories in what degrades him and ought to inspire him
with shame and grief. Others propose a still more violent change, viz.
of verb; they would keep the imperative, but supply a word of
opposite meaning: "so let the rich man be ashamed of his being made
low." Neither of these expedients seems to be necessary,
or indeed to be a fair treatment of the text.1 Tim. iv. 3, where commanding is understood from
forbidding, is not strictly parallel: "forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meats." The context is such as to
prevent any misunderstanding of the loosely worded sentence. See
Moulton's Winer, p. 777; also Bede, who rightly remarks, "Subauditur a
superiore versa, glorietur. Quod per irrisionem quæ Græce
ironia vocatur, dictum esse constat ... ut humiliatus in æternum
pereat cum purpurato illo divite qui Lazarum despexit egentem."
It is quite possible to make good sense of the exhortation, without
any violent change either of mood or of verb. In the exhortation to
the rich man St. James speaks in severe irony: "Let the brother
of low degree glory in his high estate; and the rich man—what is
he to glory in?—let him glory in the only thing upon which he
can count with certainty, viz. his being brought low; because as the
flower of the grass he shall pass away." Such irony is not uncommon in
Scripture. Our blessed Lord Himself makes use of it sometimes, as when
He says of the hypocrites that they have their reward, and have it in
full (ἀπέχουσι: Matt. vi. 2, 5,
16).
Whether or no this interpretation be accepted—and no
interpretation of this passage has as yet been suggested which is free
from difficulty—it must be clearly borne in mind that no
explanation can be correct which does not preserve the connexion
between the humiliation of the rich man and his passing away as the
flower of the grass. This fading away is his humiliation,
is the thing in which he is to glory, if he glories in anything
at all. The inexorable "because" must not be ignored or explained away
by making the wealth of the rich man shrivel up, when St. James
twice over says that it is the rich man himself who fades away.
The metaphor here used of the rich man is common enough in the Old
Testament. Man "cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down" (ὥσπερ ἄνθος ἀνθῆσαν
ἐξέπεσεν LXX.), says Job, in his complaint (xiv. 2); and,
"As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so he
flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the
place thereof shall know it no more," says the Psalmist
(ciii. 15, 16). But elsewhere, with a closer similarity to the
present passage, we have this transitory character specially
attributed to the ungodly, who "shall soon be cut down like the grass,
and wither as the green herb" (Ps. xxxvii. 2). None of these
passages, however, are so clearly in St. James's mind as the
words of Isaiah: "All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof
is as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth;
because the breath of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is
grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God
shall stand for ever" (Isa. xl. 6, 7). Here the words of
St. James are almost identical with those of the Septuagint
(ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου·
ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν ... ἐξηράνθη χόρτος, ἐξέπεσεν
τὸ ἄνθος); and, as has been already pointed out (p. 59), this
is one of the quotations which our Epistle has in common with that of
St. Peter (1 Peter i. 24).
"Grass" throughout is a comprehensive term for herbage, and the
"flower of grass" does not mean the bloom or blossom of grass in the
narrower sense, but the wild flowers, specially abundant and brilliant
in the Holy Land, which grow among the grass. Thus, in the Sermon on
the Mount, what are first called "the lilies (τὰ κρίνα) of the field" are immediately afterwards
called "the grass (τὸν χόρτον) of the
field" (Matt. vi. 28, 30).
"The scorching wind" (ὁ καύσων) is one
of the features in the Epistle which harmonize well with the fact that
the writer was an inhabitant of Palestine. It is the furnace-like
blast from the arid wilderness to the east of the Jordan. "Yea,
behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither
when the east wind toucheth it? It shall wither in the beds where it
grew" (Ezek. xvii. 10). "God prepared a sultry east wind; and the
sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted" (Jonah iv. 8).
The fig-tree, olives, and vine (iii. 12) are the chief
fruit-trees of Palestine; and "the early and latter rain" (v. 7)
points still more clearly to the same district.
It has been remarked with justice that whereas St. Paul for
the most part draws his metaphors from the scenes of human
activity—building, husbandry, athletic contests, and
warfare—St. James prefers to take his metaphors from the
scenes of nature. In this chapter we have "the surge of the
sea" (ver. 6) and "the flower of the grass" (ver. 10). In the third
chapter we have the "rough winds" driving the ships, the "wood kindled
by a small fire," "the wheel of nature," "every kind of beasts and
birds, of creeping things, and things in the sea," "the fountain
sending forth sweet water," "the fig-tree and vine" (vv. 4, 5, 6,
7, 11, 12). In the fourth chapter human life is "a vapour, that
appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away" (ver. 14). And
in the last chapter, besides the moth and the rust, we have "the fruit
of the earth," and "the early and latter rain" (vv. 2, 3, 7,
18).
These instances are certainly very numerous, when the brevity of
the Epistle is considered. The love of nature which breathes through
them was no doubt learned and cherished in the village home at Nazareth,
and it forms another link between St. James and his Divine
Brother. Nearly every one of the natural phenomena to which
St. James directs attention in this letter are used by Christ
also in His teaching. The surging of the sea (Luke xxi. 25), the
flowers of the field (Matt. vi. 28), the burning of wood (John
xv. 6), the birds of the air (Matt. vi. 26; viii. 20;
xiii. 4, 32), the fountain of sweet water (John iv. 10-14;
vii. 38), the fig-tree (Matt. vii. 16; xxi. 19;
xxiv. 32), the vine (John xv. 1-5), the moth (Matt.
vi. 19), the rust (Matt. vi. 19), and the rain (Matt.
v. 45; vii. 25). In some cases the use made by
St. James of these natural objects is very similar to that made
by our Lord, and it may well be that what he writes is a reminiscence
of what he had heard years before from Christ's lips; but in other
cases the use is quite different, and must be assigned to the love of
nature, and the recognition of its fitness for teaching spiritual
truths, which is common to the Lord and His brother. Thus, when
St. James asks, "Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a
vine figs?" we seem to have an echo of the question in the Sermon on
the Mount, "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" And
when St. James tells the rich oppressors that their "garments are
moth-eaten; their gold and their silver are rusted," is he not
remembering Christ's charge, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon
the earth, where moth and rust do consume, and where thieves break
through and steal"? But in most of the other cases there is little or
no resemblance between the similes of Christ and the figurative use of
the same natural phenomena made by St. James. Thus, while Jesus
uses the flowers of the field to illustrate God's care for every
object in the universe, and
the superiority of the glory which He bestows over that with which man
adorns himself, St. James teaches thereby the transitory
character of the glory which comes of riches; and while Christ points
to the rain as illustrating God's bounty to good and bad alike,
St. James takes it as an illustration of His goodness in answer
to patient and trusting prayer.
It is manifest that in this matter St. James is partly
following a great example, but partly also following the bent of his
own mind. The first, without the second, would hardly have given us so
many examples of this kind of teaching in so small a space.
St. John had equal opportunities with St. James of learning
this method of teaching from Christ, and yet there are scarcely any
examples of it in his Epistles. Possibly his opportunities were even
greater than those of St. James; for although he was at most the
cousin of the Lord, whereas St. James was His brother, yet he was
present during the whole of Christ's ministry, whereas St. James
was not converted until after the Resurrection. But there is this
great difference between Christ's teaching from nature and that of
St. James: St. James recognizes in the order and beauty of
the universe a revelation of Divine truth, and makes use of the facts
of the external world to teach spiritual lessons; the incarnate Word,
in drawing spiritual lessons from the external world, could expound
the meaning of a universe which He Himself had made. In the one case
it is a disciple of nature who imparts to us the lore which he himself
has learned; in the other it is the Master of nature, who points out
to us the meaning of His own world, and interprets to us the voices of
the winds and the waves, which obey Him.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SOURCE OF TEMPTATIONS AND THE REALITY OF SIN.
THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE DETERMINIST.
"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he hath been
approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord
promised to them that love Him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I
am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He
Himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted when he is drawn
away by his own lust and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath
conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth
forth death. Be not deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift
and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of
lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast
by turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of
truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of His
creatures."—St. James i. 12-18.
After the slight digression respecting the
short-lived glory of the rich man, St. James returns once more to
the subject with which the letter opens—the blessing of trials
and temptations as opportunities of patience, and the blessedness of
the man who endures them, and thus earns "the crown of life, which the
Lord has promised to them that love Him." These last words are very
interesting as being a record of some utterance of Christ's not
preserved in the Gospels, of which we have perhaps other traces
elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Pet. v. 4; Rev.
ii. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 8).In the Acta Philippi, Apocal. Apocr., ed. Tischendorf, p. 147, we
have, "Blessed is he who hath his raiment white; for he it is who
receiveth the crown of joy." See A. Resch, Agrapha; Aussercanonische
Evangelienfragmente (Leipzig, 1889), p. 254.
They
imply a principle which qualifies what goes before, and leads on to
what follows. The mere endurance of temptations and afflictions will
not win the promised crown, unless temptations are withstood, and
afflictions endured in the right spirit. The proud self-reliance and
self-repression of the Stoic has nothing meritorious about it. These
trials must be met in a spirit of loving trust in the God who sends or
allows them. It is only those who love and trust God who have the
right to expect anything from His bounty. This St. James
continually insists on. Let not the double-minded man, with his
affections and loyalty divided between God and Mammon, "think that he
shall receive anything of the Lord" (i. 7). God has chosen the
poor who are "rich in faith" to be "heirs of the kingdom which
He promised to them that love Him" (ii. 5). And this love
of God is quite incompatible with love of the world. "Whosoever
therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of
God" (iv. 4).
It is the loving withstanding of temptation, then, that wins the
crown of life: the mere being tempted tends rather to death. "Lust,
when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is
full-grown, bringeth forth death." With these facts before him, the
loving Christian will never say, when temptations come, that they come
from God. It cannot be God's will to seduce him from the path of life
to the path of death. The existence of temptations is no just ground
of complaint against God. Such complaints are an attempt to shift the
blame from himself to his Creator. The temptations proceed, not from
God, but from the man's own evil nature; a nature which God created stainless,
but which man of his own free will has debased. To tempt is to try to
lead astray; and one has only to understand the word in its true sense
to see how impossible it is that God should become a tempter. By a
simple but telling opposition of words St. James indicates where
the blame lies. God "Himself tempteth no man (πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα); but
each man is tempted when by his own lust he is drawn away and
enticed" (ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ
δελεαζόμενος). It is his own evil desire which plays the part
of the temptress, drawing him out from his place of safety by the
enticement of sinful pleasure.The punctuation and order of words in both A.V. and R.V.
seem to be faulty: "enticed," quite as much as "drawn away,"
belongs to "by his own lust." Moreover, the metaphor is not seduction
from the right road, but alluring out of security into danger.
So that the fault is in a sense doubly his. The desire which tempts
proceeds from his own evil nature, and the will which consents to the
temptress is his own. Throughout the passage St. James represents
the evil desire as playing the part of Potiphar's wife. The man who
withstands such temptation is winning the promised crown of life; the
man who yields has for the offspring of his error death. The one
result is in accordance with God's will, as is proved by His promising
and bestowing the crown; the other is not, but is the natural and
known consequence of the man's own act.
At the present time there is a vehement effort being made in some
quarters to shift the blame of man's wrong-doing, if not on to God
(and He is commonly left out of the account, as unknown or
non-existing), at any rate on to those natural laws which determine
phenomena. We are asked to believe that such ideas
as moral freedom and responsibility are mere chimæras, and that the
first thing which a reasonable person has to do, in raising himself to
a higher level, is to get rid of them. He is to convince himself that
character and conduct are the necessarily evolved result of inherited
endowments, developed in certain circumstances, over neither of which
the man has any control. He did not select the qualities of body and
mind which he received from his parents, and he did not make the
circumstances in which he has had to live since his birth. He could no
more help acting as he did on any given occasion than he could help
the size of his heart or the colour of his brain. He is no more
responsible for the acts which he produces than a tree is responsible
for its leaves. And of all senseless delusions and senseless wastes of
power, those which are involved in the feeling of remorse are the
worst. In remorse we wring our hands over deeds which we could not
possibly have avoided doing, and reproach ourselves for emitting what
we could not by any possibility have done. Ethiopians might as
reasonably blame themselves for their black skins, or be
conscience-stricken for not having golden hair, as any human being
feel remorse for what he has done or left undone in the past. Whatever
folly a man may have committed, he eclipses it all by the folly of
self-reproach.
Positivism will indeed have worked marvels when it has driven
remorse out of the world; and until it has succeeded in doing so, it
will remain confronted by an unanswerable proof—as universal as
the humanity which it professes to worship—that its moral system
is based upon a falsehood. Whether or no we admit the belief in a God,
the fact of self-reproach in every human heart remains to be accounted
for. And it is
a fact of the most enormous proportions. Think of the years of mental
agony and moral torture which countless numbers of the human race have
endured since man became a living soul, because men have invariably
reproached themselves with the folly and wickedness which they have
committed. Think of the exquisite suffering which remorse has
inflicted on every human being who has reached years of reflexion.
Think of the untold misery which the misdeeds of men have inflicted
upon those who love and would fain respect them. It may be doubted
whether all other forms of human suffering, whether mental or bodily,
are more than as a drop in the ocean, compared with the agonies which
have been endured through the gnawing pangs of remorse for personal
misconduct, and of shame and grief for the misconduct of friends and
relations. And if the Determinist is right, all this mental torture,
with its myriad stabs and stings through centuries of centuries, is
based on a monstrous delusion. These bitter reproachers of themselves
and of those dearest to them might have been spared it all, if only
they had known that not one of the acts thus blamed and lamented in
tears of blood could have been avoided.
Certainly the Positivist, who shuts God out from his consideration,
has a difficult problem to solve, when he is asked how he accounts for
a delusion so vast, so universal, and so horrible in its consequences;
and we do not wonder that he should exhaust all the powers of rhetoric
and invective in the attempt to exorcize it. But his difficulty is as
nothing compared with the difficulties of a thinker who endeavours to
combine Determinism with Theism, and even with Christianity. What sort
of a God can He be who has allowed, who
has even ordained, that every human heart should be wrung with this
needless, senseless agony? Has any savage, any inquisitor, ever
devised torture so diabolical? And what kind of a Saviour and Redeemer
can He be who has come from heaven, and returned thither again,
without saying one word to free men from their blind, self-inflicted
agonies; who, on the contrary, has said many things to confirm them in
their delusions? Whence came moral evil and the pangs of remorse, if
there is no such thing as free will? They must have been fore-ordained
and created by God. The Theist has no escape from that. If God made
man free, and man by misusing his freedom brought sin into the world,
and remorse as a punishment for sin, then we have some
explanation of the mystery of evil. God neither willed it nor created
it; it was the offspring of a free and rebellious will. But if man was
never free, and there is no such thing as sin, then the madman gnawing
his own limbs in his frenzy is a reasonable being and a joyous sight,
compared with the man who gnaws his own heart in remorse for the deeds
which the inexorable laws of his own nature compelled him, and still
compel him, to commit.
Is there, or is there not, such a thing as sin? That is the
question which lies at the bottom of the error against which
St. James warns his readers, and of the doctrines which are
advocated at the present time by Positivists and all who deny the
reality of human freedom and responsibility. To say that when we are
tempted we are tempted by God, or that the Power which brought us into
existence has given us no freedom to refuse the evil and to choose the
good, is to say that sin is a figment of the human mind, and that a
conscious revolt of the human mind against the
power of holiness is impossible. On such a question the appeal to
human language, of which Aristotle is so fond, seems to be eminently
suitable; and the verdict which it gives is overwhelming. There is
probably no language, there is certainly no civilized language, which
has no word to express the idea of sin. If sin is an illusion, how
came the whole human race to believe in it, and to frame a word to
express it?See R. H. Hutton on The Service of Man, in the Contemporary
Review, April, 1887, p. 492.
Can we point to any other word in universal, or even very general use,
which nevertheless represents a mere chimæra, believed in as real, but
actually non-existent? And let us remember that this is no case in
which self-interest, which so fatally warps our judgment, can have led
the whole human race astray. Self-interest would lead us entirely in
the opposite direction. There is no human being who would not
enthusiastically welcome the belief that what seem to him to be
grievous sins are no more a matter of reproach to him than the
beatings of his heart or the winkings of his eyes. Sometimes the
conscience-stricken offender, in his efforts to excuse his acts before
the judgment-seat of his higher self, tries to believe this. Sometimes
the Determinist philosopher endeavours to prove to him that he ought
to believe it. But the stern facts of his own nature and the bitter
outcome of all human experience are too strong for such attempts. In
spite of all specious excuses, and all plausible statements of
philosophic difficulties, his conscience and his consciousness compel
him to confess, "It was my own lust that enticed me, and my own will
that consented."
How serious St. James considers the error of attempting
to make God responsible for our temptations is
shown both by the earnest and affectionate insertion of "Be not
deceived,Or, "led astray" (πλανᾶσθε). The word
implies fundamental departure from the truth (v. 19; John
vii. 47; 1 John i. 8; ii. 26; iii. 7; Rev.
xviii. 23).
my beloved brethren," and also by the pains which he takes to disprove
the error. After having shown the true source of temptation, and
explained the way in which sin and death are generated, he points out
how incredible it is on other grounds that God should become a
tempter. How can the Source of every good gift and every perfect
boonThe words form an hexameter in the original, which may be either
accidental or a quotation: πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τελειον ("Every
gift that is good, and every boon that is perfect").
be also a source of temptations to sin? How can the Father of lights
be one who would lead away His creatures into darkness? If what we
know of human nature ought to tell us whence temptations to sin are
likely to come, what we know of God's nature and of His dealings with
mankind ought to tell us whence such things are not likely to
come.
And He is far above those heavenly luminaries of which He is the
Author. They are not always bright, and are therefore very
imperfect symbols of His holiness. In their revolutions they are
sometimes overshadowed. The moon is not always at the full, the sun is
sometimes eclipsed, and the stars suffer changes in like manner. In
Him there is no change, no loss of light, no encroachment of shadow.
There is never a time at which one could say that through momentary
diminution in holiness it had become possible for Him to become a
tempter.
Nor are the brightness and beneficence which pervade
the material universe the chief proofs of God's goodness
and of the impossibility of temptations to sin proceeding from Him. It
was "of His own will" that He rescued mankind from the state of death
into which their rebellious wills had brought them, and by a new
revelation of Himself in "the Word of truth," i.e. the Gospel,
brought them forth again, born anew as Christians, to be, like the
first-born under the Law, "a kind of first-fruits of His
creatures."See F. D. Maurice, Unity of the N.T. (Parker, 1854), pp.
320-23.
When, therefore, we sum up all the known facts of the case, there
is only one conclusion at which we can justly arrive. There is the
nature of God, so far as it is known to us, utterly opposed to evil.
There is the nature of man, as it has been debased by himself,
constantly bringing forth evil. There is God's goodness, as manifested
in the creation of the universe and in the regeneration of man. It is
a hopeless case to try to banish remorse by making God responsible for
man's temptations and sin.
There is only one way of getting rid of remorse, and that is to
confess sin—to confess its reality, to confess it to God, and if
need be to man. No man ever yet succeeded in justifying himself by
laying the blame of his sins on God. But he may do so by laying the
sins themselves upon "the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the
world," and by washing his stained robes, "and making them white in
the blood of the Lamb." That done, remorse will have no power over
him; and instead of fruitlessly accusing God, and seeking vain
substitutes for the service of God, he will humbly "give Him glory,"
and "serve Him day and night in His temple" (Joshua vii. 19; Rev.
vii. 15).
Note.—The
difficult expression (τροπῆς
ἀποσκίασμα) rendered in the Authorized Version "shadow of
turning," and in the Revised "shadow that is cast by turning," has
received a great variety of translations and explanations. The Old
Latin, modicum obumbrationis, like the Greek commentators,
makes ἀποσκίασμα = σκιά = "shade, trace, small amount." It is
doubtful whether the rare compound ἀποσκίασμα
ever acquired this meaning; but the opinion of Greeks on this point is
of great weight, and certainly this meaning makes good sense. The
Vulgate, vicissitudinis obumbratio, is as difficult as the
Greek; and Augustine's momenti obumbratio comes from the false
reading ῥοπῆς. "Shadow cast by turning"
does not seem to be very helpful, whether we interpret "turning" to
mean the revolutions of the sun or of the earth, or the changes of
nature generally. Perhaps the genitive is the genitive of quality,
"shadow of change" for "changing shadow;" so Stier and Theil,
wechselnde Beschattung, and Stolz abwechselnde
Verdunkelung. Comp. ἀκροατὴς
ἐπιλησμονῆς (i. 25), and, see the Expositor, Sept.
1889, pp. 228-30.
CHAPTER IX.
THE DELUSION OF HEARING WITHOUT DOING.
THE MIRROR OF GOD'S WORD.
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your
own selves. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer,
he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he
beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what
manner of man he was. But he that looketh into the perfect law, the
law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that
forgetteth, but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in
his doing."—St. James i. 22-25.
HERE we reach what on the whole seems to be the
main thought of the Epistle—the all-importance of Christian
activity and service. The essential thing, without which other
things, however good in themselves, become insignificant or worthless,
or even mischievous, is conduct. Everything else, if not
accompanied by practice, by avoiding evil and doing good, is vain. In
Bishop Butler's words, religion "does not consist in the knowledge and
belief even of fundamental truth," but rather in our being brought "to
a certain temper and behaviour;" or as St. John puts it still
more simply, only "he who doeth righteousness is righteous."
Suffering injuries, poverty, and temptations, hearing the Word,
teaching the Word, faith, wisdom (i. 2, 9, 12, 19;
ii. 14-26; iii. 7-13), are all of them excellent; but if
they are not accompanied by a holy life, a life of prayer and gentle
words and good deeds, they are valueless.
There are two or three other leading thoughts, but they are all of
them subordinated to this main thought of the necessity for Christian
conduct as well as Christian belief and wisdom. One of these secondary
thoughts has already been noticed more than once—the blessedness
of enduring temptations and other trials; it is specially prominent in
the first and last chapters (i. 2-4, 12; v. 7-11). Another
of the secondary topics which have a prominent place in the letter is
the peril of much speaking. It introduces and closes the section which
lies immediately before us (i. 19, 26), and it is dwelt upon at
length in the third chapter. Yet a third topic which cannot fail to
attract the attention of the reader is the preference given to the
poor over the rich as regards their spiritual opportunities, and the
stern warnings addressed to all those whose wealth leads them to
become tyrannical. This subject is specially prominent in the first,
second, and last chapters (i. 10, 11; ii. 1-7; v. 1-6).
But all these matters are looked at from the point of view of
Christian conduct and service. They are not in any one case the idea
which binds together the whole Epistle, but they lead up to it and
emphasize it. If we were to single out one verse as in a special way
summing up the teaching of the whole letter, we could hardly find one
more suitable for the purpose than the first of the four which stand
at the head of the present chapter: "Be ye doers of the word, and not
hearers only, deluding your own selves." It will be worth while to
examine this simple and most practical exhortation somewhat in
detail.
It is one of the many sayings in the Epistle which
irresistibly remind us of the teaching of Jesus Christ;
not as being a quotation from any of His recorded discourses,
but as being an independent reproduction of the substance of His
conversation by one who was quite familiar with it, but was not
familiar with the written Gospels. Had the writer of this letter been
well acquainted with any of the four Gospels, he could hardly have
escaped being influenced by them, and the echoes of Christ's teaching
which we find in its pages would have been more closely in accordance
with the reports of His words which they contain. This feature of the
Epistle harmonizes well with its being written by the Lord's brother,
who must have been very familiar with the Lord's teaching, and who
wrote before A.D. 62, i.e. at a time when
perhaps not one of our Gospels was written, and when certainly none of
them can have had a very wide circulation. More will be said upon this
point hereafter (p. 308): for the present it suffices to point out the
resemblance between this warning against the delusion of thinking that
hearing without doing is of any avail, and the warning which closes
the Sermon on the Mount: "Every one which heareth these words of Mine,
and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which built his
house upon the rock.... And every one that heareth these words of
Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which
built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and
great was the fall thereof" (Matt. vii. 24-27).
"Be ye doers of the Word." Both verb and tense are remarkable
(γίνεσθε): "Become doers of the
Word." True Christian practice is a thing of growth; it is a process,
and a process which has already begun, and is continually going on. We
may compare, "Become ye therefore wise as serpents, and
harmless as doves"
(Matt. x. 16); "Therefore become ye also ready"
(xxiv. 44); and "Become not faithless, but believing"
(John xx. 27; where see Westcott's note). "Become doers of the
Word" is more expressive than "Be doers of the Word," and a good deal
more expressive than "Do the Word." A "doer of the Word" (ποιητὴς λόγου) is such by profession and
practice; the phrase expresses a habit. But one who merely
incidentally performs what is prescribed may be said to "do the Word."
By the "Word" is meant what just before has been called the "implanted
Word" and the "Word of truth" (w. 21, 18), and what in this passage is
also called "the perfect law, the law of liberty" (ver. 25),
i.e. the Gospel. The parable of the Sower illustrates in detail
the meaning of becoming an habitual doer of the implanted Word.
"And not hearers only." The order of the words in the Greek is a
little doubtful, the authorities being very much divided; but the
balance is in favour of taking "only" closely with "hearers" (μὴ ἀκροαταὶ μόνον rather than μὴ μόνον ἀκροαταί); "Be not such as
are mere hearers and nothing more." The word for "hearer" occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament, excepting in the singularly similar
passage in the Epistle to the Romans, which is one of the passages
that give support to the theory that either St. Paul had seen
this Epistle, or St. James had seen St. Paul's: "Not the
hearers (ἀκροαταί) of a law are just
before God, but the doers of a law shall be justified," (Rom.
ii. 13; see above, p. 57). The verb (ἀκροάομαι) does not occur in the New
Testament; but another cognate substantive (ἀκροατήριον), meaning "a place of hearing,"
is found in the Acts (xxv. 23). In classical Greek this group of
words indicates attentive listening, especially in the case of
those who attend the lectures of philosophers and the addresses of
public speakers. It is thus used frequently in Plato, Aristotle,
Thucydides, and Plutarch. It is somewhat too hastily concluded that
there is nothing of this kind included either in this passage or in
Rom. ii. 13. Possibly that is the very thing to which both
St. James and St. Paul allude. St. James, in the
address which he made to the so-called Council of Jerusalem, says,
"Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath" (Acts xv. 21).
The Jews came with great punctiliousness to these weekly gatherings,
and listened with much attention to the public reading and exposition
of the Law; and too many of them thought that with that the chief part
of their duty was performed. This habitual public testimony of respect
for the Mosaic Law and the traditional interpretations of it, and this
zeal to acquire a knowledge of its contents and an insight into its
meaning, was the main portion of what was required of them. This,
St. James tells them, is miserably insufficient, whether what
they hear be the Law or the Gospel, the Law with or without the
illumination of the life of Christ. "Being swift to hear" (ver. 19)
and to understand is well, but "apart from works it is barren." It is
the habitual practice in striving to do what is heard and
understood that is of value. "Not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer
that worketh" is blessed, and "blessed in his doing." To suppose that
mere hearing brings a blessing is "deluding your own selves." Bede
rightly quotes Rev. i. 3 in illustration: "Blessed are they that
hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are
written therein."
The word here used for deluding (παραλογιζόμενοι)
is found nowhere else in the New Testament, excepting in one passage
in the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 4), in which St. Paul
warns them against allowing any one to "delude them with
persuasiveness of speech." But the word is fairly common both in
ordinary Greek and in the Septuagint. Its meaning is to mislead with
fallacious reasoning, and the substantive (παραλογισμός) is the Aristotelian term for
a fallacy. The word does not necessarily imply that the fallacious
reasoning is known to be fallacious by those who employ it. To express
that we should rather have the word which is used in 2 Peter
i. 16 to characterize "cunningly devised fables" (σεσοφισμένοι μῦθοι). Here we are
to understand that the victims of the delusion do not, although they
might, see the worthlessness of the reasons upon which their
self-contentment is based. It is precisely in this that the danger of
their position lies. Self-deceit is the most subtle and fatal deceit.
The mere knowledge of the law derived from their attentive listening
to it does but increase their evil case, if they do not practise it.
"To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin"
(iv. 17).
The Jews have a saying that the man who hears without practising is
like a husbandman who ploughs and sows, but never reaps. Such an
illustration, being taken from natural phenomena, would be quite in
harmony with the manner of St. James; but he enforces his meaning
by employing a far more striking illustration. He who is a hearer and
not a doer "is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a
mirror." Almost all the words in this sentence are worthy of separate
attention.
"Is like unto a man" (ἔοικεν ἀνδρί).
St. James uses the more definite word, which usually excludes
women, and sometimes boys also. He does not say, "is like unto a
person" (ἀνθρώπῳ), which would
have included both sexes and all ages. A somewhat quaint explanation
has been suggested by Paes, and adopted as probable elsewhere; viz.
that men, as a rule, give only a passing look to themselves in the
glass; whereas it is a feminine weakness to be fond of attentive
observations. But it is fatal to this suggestion that the word here
used for beholding (κατανοεῖν) means to
fix one's mind upon, and consider attentively. It is the word used in
"Consider the ravens," and "Consider the lilies" (Luke xii. 24,
27). Moreover, the Greeks sometimes do what we very frequently do in
speaking of the human race; they employ the male sex as representative
of both. This usage is found in the New Testament; e.g. "The
queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with the men
(τῶν ἀνδρῶν) of this generation, and
shall condemn them.... The men (ἄνδρες)
of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and
shall condemn it" (Luke xi. 31, 32). Here it is impossible that
the women are not included. And this use of "man" (ἀνήρ) in the sense of human being is specially
common in St. James. We have it four times in this chapter
(vv. 8, 12, 20, 23), and again in the second (ver. 2) and third
(ver. 2).
This man, then, attentively studies his natural face in a mirror.
The words for "his natural face" literally mean "the face of his
birth" (τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς
γενέσεως αὐτοῦ), i.e. the features with which he was
born; and the mirror would be a piece of polished metal, which,
however excellent, would not reflect the features with the clearness
and fidelity of a modern looking-glass. Hence the necessity for
attentive observation, the
result of which is that the man recognizes his own face beyond all
question. But what follows? "He beheld himself, and he has gone away,
and he straightway forgot what manner of man he was." The perfect
tense between two aorists gives a lively simplicity to the narration
(κατενόησεν
... ἀπελήλυθεν ... ἐπελάθετο). This is represented as a common
case, though not an invariable one. Most of us know our own features
sufficiently well to recognize them in a good representation of them,
but do not carry in our minds a very accurate image of them. But what
has all this to do with being hearers, and not doers, of the Word?
The spoken or written Word of God is the mirror. When we hear it
preached, or study it for ourselves, we can find the reflexion of
ourselves in it, our temptations and weaknesses, our failings and
sins, the influences of God's Spirit upon us, and the impress of His
grace. It is here that we notice one marked difference between the
inspiration of the sacred writers and the inspiration of the poet and
the dramatist. The latter show us other people to the life;
Scripture shows us ourselves.
"Our mirror is a blessed book,
Where out from each illumined page
We see one glorious image look,
All eyes to dazzle and engage,
The Son of God; and that indeed
We see Him as He is we know,
Since in the same bright glass we read
The very life of things below.
Eye of God's Word, where'er we turn
Ever upon us! thy keen gaze
Can all the depths of sin discern,
Unravel every bosom's maze.
Who that has felt thy glance of dread
Thrill through his heart's remotest cells,
About his path, about his bed,
Can doubt what Spirit in thee dwells?"The Christian Year, St. Bartholomew's Day.
Keble's metaphor is somewhat more elaborate than St. James's.
He represents the Bible as a mirror, out of which the reflected image
of the Son of God looks upon us and reads our inmost selves.
St. James supposes that in the mirror we see ourselves reflected.
But the thought is the same, that through hearing or reading God's
Word our knowledge of our characters is quickened. But does this
quickened knowledge last? does it lead to action, or influence our
conduct? Too often we leave the church or our study, and the
impression produced by the recognition of the features of our own case
is obliterated. "We straightway forget what manner of men we are," and
the insight which has been granted to us into our own true selves is
just one more wasted experience.
But this need not be so, and in some cases a very different result
may be noticed. Instead of merely looking attentively for a short
time, he may stoop down and pore over it. Instead of forthwith
going away, he may continue in the study of it. And instead of
straightway forgetting, he may prove a mindful doer that
worketh. Thus the three parts of the two pictures are made exactly
to balance. The word for "looking into" is an interesting one (παρακύπτειν). It indicates bending forward
to examine earnestly. It is used of Peter looking into the sepulchre
(Luke xxiv. 12, a verse of doubtful genuineness); and of Mary
Magdalene doing the same (John xx. 11); and of the angels
desiring to look into heavenly mysteries (1 Peter i. 12).
He who does this recognizes God's Word as being "the perfect law, the
law of liberty." The two things are the same. It is when the law is
seen to be perfect that it is found to be the law of liberty. So long
as the law is not seen in the beauty of its perfection, it is not
loved, and men either disobey it or obey it by constraint and
unwillingly. It is then a law of bondage. But when its perfection is
recognized men long to conform to it; and they obey, not because they
must, but because they choose. To do what one likes is freedom, and
they like to obey. It is in this way that the moral law of the Gospel
becomes "the law of liberty," not by imposing fewer obligations than
the moral law of the Jew or of the Gentile, but by infusing into the
hearts of those who welcome it a disposition and a desire to obey.
Christian liberty is never licence. It is not the relaxation of
needful restraints, but the spontaneous acceptance of them as
excellent in themselves and beneficial to those who observe them. It
is the difference between a code imposed by another, and a
constitution voluntarily adopted. To be made to work for one whom one
fears is slavery and misery; to choose to work for one whom one loves
is freedom and happiness. The Gospel has not abolished the moral law;
it has supplied a new and adequate motive for fulfilling it.
"Being not a hearer that forgetteth." Literally, "having become not
a hearer of forgetfulness" (οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς γενόμενος); i.e.
having by practice come to be a hearer, who is characterized, not by
forgetfulness of what he hears, but by attentive performance of it.This "characterizing genitive" is not exactly a Hebraism, like
"children of wrath," "son of perdition," "son of light," and the
like; but the use of the genitive in place of an adjective is more
common in Oriental languages, and therefore in Greek which is under
Oriental influences. See p. 122.
The unusual word "forgetfulness" occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament, nor in classical Greek; but it is
found in Ecclesiasticus (xi. 27), "The affliction of an hour
causeth forgetfulness of pleasure;" and this adds a trifle to the
evidence that St. James was acquainted with that book (see above,
p. 71). "A hearer of forgetfulness" exactly balances, both in form and
in thought, "a doer of work;" and this is well brought out by the
Revisers, who turn both genitives by a relative clause: "a
hearer that forgetteth," and "a doer that worketh." The Authorized
Version is much less happy: "a forgetful hearer, but a doer of
the work." There is no article in the Greek, and the
translation of one genitive by an adjective, and of the other by a
genitive, is unfortunate. "A doer of work" (ποιητὴς ἔργου), or "a doer that
worketh," is an expression that emphasizes just what
St. James wishes to emphasize, viz. the necessity of actively
practising what is attentively heard. "A doer" would have sufficed,
but "a doer that worketh" makes the idea of habitual action still more
prominent.
"This man shall be blessed in his doing" (ἐν τῇ ποιήσει). Once more we have a word which is
found nowhere else in the New Testament, but occurs in Ecclesiasticus
(xix. 20), and with much the same meaning as here: "All wisdom is
fear of the Lord; and in all wisdom there is doing of the law" (ποίησις νόμου). The correspondence
between the meaning of St. James and the meaning of the son of
Sirach is very close. Mere knowledge without performance is of little
worth: it is in the doing that a blessing can be found.
The danger against which St. James warns the
Jewish Christians of the Dispersion is as pressing now as it was when
he wrote. Never was there a time when interest in the Scriptures was
more keen or more widely spread, especially among the educated
classes; and never was there a time when greater facilities for
gratifying this interest abounded. Commentaries, expositions,
criticisms, introductions, helps of all kinds, exegetical, homiletic,
historical, and textual, suitable both for learned and unlearned
students, multiply year by year. But it is much to be feared that with
many of us the interest in the sacred writings which is thus roused
and fostered remains to a very large extent a literary interest. We
are much more eager to know all about God's Word than from it
to learn His will respecting ourselves, that we may do it; to prove
that a book is genuine than to practise what it enjoins. We study
Lives of Christ, but we do not follow the life of Christ. We pay Him
the empty homage of an intellectual interest in His words and works,
but we do not the things which He says. We throng and press Him in our
curiosity, but we obtain no blessing, because in all our hearing and
learning there is no true wisdom, no fear of the Lord, and no doing of
His Word.
CHAPTER X.
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES.
THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF INVOLVED IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP.
"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord
of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your
synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come
in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that
weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place;
and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my
footstool; are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges
with evil thoughts?"—St. James ii. 1-4.
AS has been stated already, in a previous chapter
(p. 23), one of Luther's main objections to this Epistle is that it
does not "preach and urge Christ." "It teaches Christian people, and
yet does not once notice the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of
Christ. The writer names Christ a few times; but he teaches nothing of
Him, but speaks of general faith in God."
This indictment has been more fully drawn out by a modern writer.
"The author's stand-point is Jewish rather than Christian. The ideas
are cast in a Jewish mould. The very name of Christ occurs but twice
(i. 1; ii. 1), and His atonement is scarcely touched. We see
little more than the threshold of the new system. It is the teaching
of a Christian Jew, rather than of one who had reached a true
apprehension of
the essence of Christ's religion. The doctrinal development is
imperfect. It is only necessary to read the entire Epistle to perceive
the truth of these remarks. In warning his readers against
transgression of the law by partiality to individuals, the author
adduces Jewish rather than Christian motives (ii. 8-13). The
greater part of the third chapter, respecting the government of the
tongue, is of the same character, in which Christ's example is not
once alluded to, the illustrations being taken from objects in nature.
The warning against uncharitable judgment does not refer to Christ, or
to God, who puts His Spirit in the hearts of believers, but to the law
(iv. 10-12). He who judges his neighbour judges the law. The
exhortation to feel and act under constant remembrance of the
dependence of our life on God belongs to the same category
(iv. 13-17). He that knows good without doing it is earnestly
admonished to practise virtue and to avoid self-security, without
reference to motives connected with redemption. Job and the Prophets
are quoted as examples of patience, not Christ; and the efficacy of
prayer is proved by the instance of Elias, without allusion to the
Redeemer's promise (v. 17). The Epistle is wound up after the
same Jewish fashion, though the opportunity of mentioning Christ, who
gave Himself a Sacrifice for sin, presented itself naturally."Davidson, Introduction to the Study of the N.T. vol. i. pp. 327,
328, 2nd ed. (Longmans, 1882).
All this may be admitted, without at all consenting to the
conclusion which is drawn from it. Several other considerations must
be taken into account before we can form a satisfactory opinion
respecting the whole case. Few things are more misleading, in the
interpretation of Scripture, than the insisting upon one set of
facts and texts, and passing over all that is to be found on the other
side. In this manner the most opposite views may be equally proved
from Scripture. Universalism and the eschatology of Calvin,
Pelagianism and Fatalism, Papalism and Presbyterianism.
First, both logically and chronologically the teaching of
St. James precedes that of St. Paul and of St. John. To
call it "retrograde" when compared with either of them is to call a
child retrograde when compared with a man. St. Paul had to feed
his converts with milk before he fed them with meat, and the whole of
the congregations addressed by St. James in this letter must have
been at a comparatively early stage of development. In some respects
even the Mother Church of Jerusalem, from which his letter was
written, did not get beyond these early stages. Before it had done so
the centre of Christendom had moved from Jerusalem to Antioch; and to
Jerusalem it never returned. It was useless to build a structure of
doctrine before a foundation of morality had been laid. Advent must
come before Christmas, and Lent before Easter. The manifold
significance of the great truths of the Incarnation and the
Resurrection would not be well appreciated by those who were
neglecting some of the plainest principles of the moral law; and to
appeal to the sanctions which every Jew from his childhood had been
accustomed to regard as final was probably in the long-run more
convincing than to remind these converts of the additional sanctions
which they had admitted when they entered the Christian Church.
Moreover, there are passages in the Epistle which seem to show that
St. James at times looks aside to address Jews who are not
Christians at all, and it may be that even when He addresses Christian
converts he deliberately
prefers arguments which would weigh with Jew and Christian alike to
those which would appeal to the latter only. Like St. Paul
himself, he was willing to become to the Jews a Jew, that he might win
the Jews. Besides which, we must allow something for the bias of his
own mind. To his death he remained in many respects, not only a
saintly shepherd of the Christian Church, but also a Hebrew of
Hebrews. He is the last Jewish prophet as well as the first Christian
bishop, a Hebrew Rabbi inside the Church; and even if the condition of
his readers had not made it desirable to lay much stress upon the Law
and the Old Testament, the associations of a lifetime would have led
him frequently to those old sources of truth and morality, all the
more so as no authoritative Christian literature was as yet in
existence. It was part of his mission to help in creating such a
literature. He sets one of the first, it may be the very first, of the
mystic stones, which, although apparently thrown together without
order or connexion, form so harmonious and so complete a whole; and
alike in the solidity of its material and in the simplicity of its
form this Epistle is well fitted to be one of the first stones in such
a building.
But it is easy to go away with an exaggerated view of the so-called
deficiencies of this letter as regards distinctly Christian teaching.
The passage before us is a strong piece of evidence, and even if it
stood alone it would carry us a long way. Moreover, the strength of it
is not much affected by the ambiguity of construction which confronts
us in the original. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty
how the genitive "of glory" (τῆς δόξης)
ought to be taken; but the Revisers are possibly right: "Hold not the
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with
respect of persons."There is, however, a good deal to be said for Bengel's suggestion,
that τῆς δόξης is in apposition with
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰ.
Χριστοῦ, i.e. "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (who
is) the Glory." Comp. Luke ii. 32; Eph. i. 7; 1 Peter
iv. 14; 2 Peter i. 17; Col. i. 27; John
i. 14. See J. B. Mayor's note in the Expositor, Sept.,
1889, pp. 225-28.
Nor does it much matter whether we take the Greek negative (μὴ ... ἔχετε) as an imperative, "Do not
go on holding;" or as an interrogative which expects a negative reply,
"Do ye hold?" In any case we have the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and
the fact of His being an object of faith to Christians, placed before
us in clear language. No mere Jew, and no Ebionite who believed that
Jesus was a mere man, could have written thus. And the words with
which the Epistle opens are scarcely less marked: "James, of God and
of the Lord Jesus Christ a bond-servant." In both passages the title
"Lord," which in the Old Testament means Jehovah, is given to Jesus
Christ, and in the opening words God and the Lord Jesus are placed
side by side as equal. Moreover, St. James, who might have
claimed honour as the brother of the Lord, prefers to style himself
His bond-servant. He has "known Christ after the flesh," few more
closely and intimately, and he knows from experience how little such
knowledge avails: "henceforth knows he Him so no more." He who does
the will of God is the true brother of the Lord, and it is this kind
of relationship to Christ that he wishes to secure for his readers.
Nor do these two passages, in which Jesus Christ is mentioned by
name, stand alone. There is the question, "Do not they blaspheme the
honourable Name by which ye were called?" The honourable Name, which
had been "called upon" them, is that of
Christ, and if it can be blasphemed it is a Divine Name (ii. 7).
The Second Advent of Christ, "the coming of the Lord," is a thing for
which Christians are to wait patiently and longingly (v. 7-9),
and the office which He will then discharge is that of the Divine
Judge of all mankind. "The coming of the Lord is at hand. Murmur not,
brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the
Judge standeth before the doors" (v. 8, 9).
Nor have we yet exhausted the passages which in this singularly
practical and undoctrinal Epistle point clearly to the central
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ and His eternal relation to His
Church. "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the
Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name
of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and
the Lord shall raise him up" (v. 14, 15). As in the case of the
man healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts iii. 6, 16)
it is "in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom God raised
from the dead, even in this Name," that the sick man is to be
restored. And some interpreters (Dorner and Von Soden) think that
Christ is included, or even exclusively intended, in "One is the
Lawgiver and the Judge" (iv. 12. Comp. v. 9). Thus Liddon:
"Especially noteworthy is his assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ,
the Judge of men, is not the delegated representative of an absent
Majesty, but is Himself the Legislator enforcing His own laws. The
Lawgiver, he says, is One Being with the Judge who can save and can
destroy; the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven, has enacted
the law which He thus administers."Bampton Lectures, Lect. VI, p. 433 (Rivingtons, 1867).
But without taking into
account expressions of which the interpretation is open to doubt,
there is quite enough to show us that the Divinity of Jesus Christ,
His redeeming death, His abiding power, and His return to judgment are
the basis of the moral teaching of St. James, and are never long
absent from his thoughts. Expressions, some of which no mere Jew or
Ebionite could have used, and others which no such imperfect believer
would have been likely to use, abound in this short Epistle, in spite
of its simple and practical character.Among these should be included the phrases which St. James
uses to indicate the Gospel revelation: "the Word of truth" (i. 18);
"the implanted Word" (i. 21); "the perfect law, the law of liberty"
(i. 25); "the royal law" (ii. 8).
"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord
of glory, with respect of persons." These words open a new section of
the letter, as the renewed address indicates; and although the Epistle
is not a set treatise, capable of analysis, but a letter, in which the
subjects to be treated are loosely strung together in the order in
which they occur to the writer, yet the connexion between the two very
different subjects of this section and the preceding one can be
traced. The previous section teaches that much hearing is better than
much talking, and that much hearing is worthless without corresponding
conduct. This section denounces undue respect of persons, and
especially of wealthy persons during public worship. The connecting
thoughts are religious worship and the treatment of the poor. The
conduct which is true devotion is practical benevolence, moral purity,
and unworldliness. This conclusion suggests a new subject, worldly
respect of persons in public worship. That is the very reverse of pure
devotion. To profess
one's belief in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and at the same time
show one's belief in the majesty of mere money, is grievously
incongruous. St. James is not making any attack on differences of
rank, or asserting that no man is to be honoured above another. He is
pointing out that reverence for the wealthy is no part of
Christianity, and that such reverence is peculiarly out of place in
the house of God, especially when it brings with it a corresponding
disregard of the poor.
"If there come into your synagogue." This is one of several
improvements which the Revisers have introduced into this passage. The
Authorized Version has "assembly," which obscures the fact that the
letter is written in those very early days of the Church in which the
Jewish Christians still attended the worship of the Temple and the
synagogue, or if they had a separate place of worship, spoke of it
under the old familiar name. The latter is probably what is meant
here. St. James, in writing to Christians, would hardly speak of
a Jewish place of worship as "your synagogue," nor would he
have rebuked Christians for the way in which different persons were
treated in a synagogue of the Jews. The supposition that "the article
(τὴν συναγωγὴ ὑμῶν) indicates
that the one synagogue of the entire Jewish Christian
Dispersion is meant, i.e. their religious community
symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship," is
quite unfounded, and against the whole context. A typical
incident—perhaps something which had actually been witnessed by
St. James, or had been reported to him—is made the vehicle
of a general principle (comp. i. 11). That the reference is to
judicial courts often held in synagogues is also quite gratuitous, and
destroys the contrast between "pure religion" and
worldly respect of persons in public worship.
Another improvement introduced by the Revisers is a uniform
translation of the word (ἐσθής)
capriciously rendered "apparel," "raiment," and "clothing." Only one
word is used in the Greek, and it is misleading to use three different
words in English. By a quaint misuse of the very passage before us,
the translators of 1611 defend their want of precision in such
matters, and avow that in many cases precision was deliberately
sacrificed to variety and to a wish to honour as many English words as
possible by giving them a place in the Bible! In ordinary copies of
the Authorized Version the Address to King James is commonly given,
the far more instructive Address to the Reader never. Near the close
of it the translators say as follows:—
"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader)
that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an
identity of words, as some peradventure would wish we had done,
because they observe, that some learned men some where, have been as
exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the
sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified
the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of
the same sense every where) we were especially careful, and made a
conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the
same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we
translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by
Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where
Journeying, never Travelling; if one where Think,
never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if
one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the
matter, we thought to savour more of
curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the
Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of
God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if
we may be free, use one precisely, when we may use another no less
fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the primitive time shewed
himself greatly moved, that one of new-fangleness called κράββατοω σκίμπους though the
difference be little or none (Niceph. Call. viii. 42); and
another reporteth, that he was much abused for turning
Cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into
Hedera (Jerome in iv. Jonæ. See S. Augustine,
Epist. 71). Now if this happen in better times, and upon so
small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we
should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged
(by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good
English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher,
that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images
to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks
behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words,
Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of a
like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed
peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partial in our
selves and judges of evil thoughts."From the Exact Reprint Page for Page of the A.V. published in the
Year MDCXI. (Oxford, 1833). See also Trench On the A.V. of the
N.T., pp. 83-101, and Lightfoot On a Fresh Revision of the
N.T., pp. 33-59, for some excellent remarks on the harm done by
making differences in the English where there is no difference in the
Greek. In the present passage, besides the threefold translation of
ἐσθής, there is a double translation of
λαμπρός ("goodly apparel" and "gay
clothing"), and also of εἰσέλθῃ ("come"
and "come in"). In 1 John ii. 24 we have the same word
(μένειν) translated in three different
ways ("abide," "remain," "continue") in the same verse, entirely
destroying the effect of St. John's impressive repetition.
In the passage before us the repetition of one and
the same word for "clothing" is possibly not accidental. The
repetition accentuates the fact that such a thing as clothing is
allowed to be the measure of a man's merit. The rich man is neither
the better nor the worse for his fine clothes, the poor man neither
the better nor the worse for his shabby clothes. The error lies in
supposing that such distinctions have anything to do with religion, or
ought to be recognized in public worship; and still more in supposing
that any one, whether rich or poor, may at such a time be treated with
contumely.
"Are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges with evil
thoughts?" Here, as in the first verse, there is a doubt whether the
sentence is an interrogation or not. In the former case the meaning is
the same, whichever way we take it; for a question which implies a
negative answer (μή interrogative) is
equivalent to a prohibition. In the present case the meaning will be
affected if we consider the sentence to be a statement of fact, and
the number of translations which have been suggested is very large. In
both cases we may safely follow the Vulgate and all English
versions in making the first verse a prohibition, and the fourth a
question. "Are ye not divided in your own mind?" Or more literally,
"Did ye not doubt in yourselves?" i.e. on the typical occasion
mentioned. At the outset St. James says, "Hold not the faith of
our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons." But the conduct
described respecting the treatment of the gold-ringed man and the
squalidly clothed man shows
that they do have respect of persons in their religion, and that shows
that genuine faith in Christ is wanting. Such behaviour proves that
they doubt in themselves. They are not single-hearted believers
in the Lord Jesus, but double-minded doubters (i. 6, 7), trying
to make the best of both worlds, and to serve God and Mammon.
The word rendered "doubt" (διακρίνεσθαι) may mean
"distinguish:" "Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?" It is
so taken by Renan (L'Antéchrist, p. 49) and others. This makes
sense, but it is rather obvious sense; for of course to give a rich
man a good place, and a poor man a bad one, is making distinctions. It
seems better to adhere to the meaning which the word certainly has in
the preceding chapter (i. 6), as well as elsewhere in the New
Testament (Matt. xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23; Acts x. 20; Rom.
iv. 20; xiv. 23), and understand it as referring to the want
of faith in Christ and in His teaching which was displayed in a
worldly preference for the rich over the poor, even in those services
in which His words were to be taught and His person adored.
"Judges with evil thoughts" is an improvement on the more
literal but misleading "judges of evil thoughts" (κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν ποωηρὼν).
The meaning of the genitive case is that the evil thoughts
characterize the judges, as in such common phrases as "men
of evil habits," "judges of remarkable severity" (see
above on "hearers of forgetfulness," p. 108). The word for "thoughts"
is one which in itself suggests evil, even without any epithet. It is
the word used of the reasonings of the Pharisees, when they taxed our
Lord with blasphemy for forgiving sins (Luke v. 22. Comp.
xxiv. 38). St. Paul uses it of those who are "vain in their
reasonings" (Rom. i. 21; 1 Cor. iii. 20), and couples
with it "murmurings" (Phil. ii. 14) as congenial company. Those
men who, even while engaged in the public worship of God, set
themselves up as judges to honour the rich and condemn the poor, were
not holding the faith of Jesus Christ, but were full of evil doubts,
questionings, and distrust.
CHAPTER XI.
THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING THE POOR.
THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW.
"Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor
as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which
He promised to them that love Him? But ye have dishonoured the poor
man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the
judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by the
which ye are called? Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to
the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by
the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of
all."—St. James ii. 5-10.
ST. JAMES is varied in his style. Sometimes he
writes short, maxim-like sentences, which remind us of the Book of
Proverbs; sometimes, as in the passage before us, he is as
argumentative as St. Paul. Having condemned worldly respect of
persons as practical infidelity, he proceeds to prove the justice of
this estimate; and he does so with regard to both items of the
account: these respecters of persons are utterly wrong, both in their
treatment of the poor and in their treatment of the rich. The former
is the worse of the two; for it is in flat contradiction of the Divine
decree, and is an attempt to reverse it. God has said one thing about
the poor man's estate, and these time-servers, publicly in the house
of God, say another.
"Hearken, my beloved brethren." He invites their attention to an
affectionate and conclusive statement of the case. "Did not God choose
them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of
the kingdom? But ye have dishonoured the poor man." By the
humble life which, by Divine decree, God's Son led upon the earth, by
the social position of the men whom He chose as His Apostles and first
disciples, by blessings promised to the poor and to the friends of the
poor, both under the Law and under the Gospel, God has declared His
special approbation of the poor man's estate. "But ye" (ὑμεῖς δέ, with great emphasis on the pronoun)
"have dishonoured the poor man." With Haman-like impiety ye would
disgrace "the man whom the King delights to honour."
Let us not misunderstand St. James. He does not say or imply
that the poor man is promised salvation on account of his poverty, or
that his poverty is in any way meritorious. That is not the case, any
more than that the wealth of the rich is a sin. But so far as God has
declared any preference, it is for the poor, rather than for the rich.
The poor man has fewer temptations, and he is more likely to live
according to God's will, and to win the blessings that are in store
for those who love Him. His dependence upon God for the means of life
is perpetually brought home to him, and he is spared the peril of
trusting in riches, which is so terrible a snare to the wealthy. He
has greater opportunities of the virtues which make man Christlike,
and fewer occasions of falling into those sins which separate him most
fatally from Christ. But opportunities are not virtues, and poverty is
not salvation. Nevertheless, to a Christian a poor man is an object of
reverence, rather than of contempt.
But the error of the worldly Christians whom St. James is here
rebuking does not end with dishonouring the poor whom God has
honoured; they also pay special respect to the rich. Have the rich, as
a class, shown that they deserve anything of the kind? Very much the
reverse, as experience is constantly proving. "Do not the rich oppress
you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they
blaspheme the honourable Name by the which ye are called?" Unless we
consider the "synagogue" mentioned above to be a Jewish one, in which
Christians still worship, as in the Temple at Jerusalem, the
gold-ringed worshipper is to be understood as a Christian; and reasons
have been given above (p. 118) for believing that the "synagogue" is a
Christian place of worship. But in any case the rich oppressors here
spoken of are not to be thought of as exclusively or principally
Christian. They are the wealthy as a class, whether converts to
Christianity or not; and apparently, as in chap. v. 1-6, it is
the wealthy unbelieving Jews who are principally in the writer's mind.
St. James is thinking of the rich Sadducees, who at this period
(A.D. 35-65) were among the worst oppressors of
the poorer Jews, and of course were specially bitter against those who
had become adherents of "the Way," and who seemed to them to be
renegades from the faith of their forefathers. It was precisely to
this kind of oppression that St. Paul devoted himself with
fanatical zeal previous to his conversion (Acts ix. 1, 2;
1 Tim. i. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6).
"The judgment-seats" before which these wealthy Jews drag their
poorer brethren may be either heathen or Jewish courts (comp.
1 Cor. vi. 2, 4), but are probably the Jewish courts
frequently held in the
synagogues. The Roman government allowed the Jews very considerable
powers of jurisdiction over their own people, not only in purely
ecclesiastical matters, but in civil matters as well. The Mosaic Law
penetrated into almost all the relations of life, and where it was
concerned it was intolerable to a Jew to be tried by heathen law.
Consequently the Romans found that their control over the Jews was
more secure, and less provocative of rebellion, when the Jews were
permitted to retain a large measure of self-government. This applied
not only to Palestine, but to all places in which there were large
settlements of Jews. Even in the New Testament we find ample evidence
of this. The high priest grants Saul "letters to Damascus, unto
the synagogues," to arrest all who had become converts to "the Way"
(Acts ix. 2). And St. Paul before Herod Agrippa II. declares
that, in his fury against converts to Christianity, he "persecuted
them even unto foreign cities" (Acts xxvi. 11). Most, if
not all, of the five occasions on which he himself "received of the
Jews forty stripes save one" (2 Cor. xi. 24) must have been
during his travels outside Palestine. The proconsul Gallio told the
Jews of Corinth, not only that they might, but that they must, take
their charges against Paul, for breaking Jewish law, to a Jewish
tribunal; and when they ostentatiously beat Sosthenes before his own
tribunal, for some Jewish offence, he abstained from interfering. It
is likely enough that provincial governors, partly from policy, partly
from indifference, allowed Jewish officials to exercise more power
than they legally possessed; but they possessed quite enough to enable
them to handle severely those who contravened the letter or the
traditional interpretation of the Mosaic Law. That the dragging before
the judgment-seats refers to bringing Christians before Roman
magistrates, in a time of persecution, is a gratuitous hypothesis
which does not fit the context. It was the mob, rather than the rich,
that in the earlier persecutions acted in this way. The rich were
contemptuously indifferent. There is, therefore, no evidence here that
the letter was written during the persecution under Domitian or under
Trajan. Nevertheless, their Christianity, rather than their debt, was
probably the reason why these poor Jewish Christians were prosecuted
in the synagogue courts by the wealthy Jews.
So far from this passage being evidence that the Epistle was
written at a time long after the death of St. James, it is, as
Renan has carefully shown, almost a proof that it was written during
his lifetime. As regards the relations between rich and poor, "the
Epistle of James is a perfect picture of the Ebionim at Jerusalem in
the years which preceded the revolt." The destruction of Jerusalem
"introduced so complete a change into the situation of Judaism and of
Christianity, that it is easy to distinguish a writing subsequent to
the catastrophe of the year 70 from a writing contemporary with the
third Temple. Pictures evidently referring to the internal contests
between the different classes in Jerusalem society, such as that which
is presented to us in the Epistle of James, are inconceivable after
the revolt of the year 66, which put an end to the reign of the
Sadducees."L'Antechrist, pp. xi.-xiii., 49-54.
These were the times when women bought the priesthood for their
husbands from Herod Agrippa II., and went to see them officiate, over
carpets spread from their own door to the Temple; when wealthy priests
were too
fastidious to kill the victims for sacrifice without first putting on
silk gloves; when their kitchens were furnished with every appliance
for luxurious living, and their tables with every delicacy; and when,
supported by the Romans, to whom they truckled, they made war upon the
poor priests, who were supported by the people. Like Hophni and
Phinehas, they sent out their servants to collect what they claimed as
offerings, and if payment was refused the servants took what they
claimed by force. Facts like these help us to understand the strong
language used here by St. James, and the still sterner words at
the beginning of the fifth chapter. In such a state of society the
mere possession of wealth certainly established no claims upon the
reverence of a Christian congregation; and the fawning upon rich
people, degrading and unchristian at all times, would seem to
St. James to be specially perilous and distressing then.
"Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by which ye are called?"
The last clause literally means "which was called upon you" (τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς); and we
need not doubt that the reference is to the Name of Christ which was
invoked upon them at their baptism; quod invocatum est super
vos, as the Vulgate has it. The same expression is found in the
Septuagint of those who are called by God's Name (2 Chron.
vii. 14; Jer. xiv. 9; xv. 16; Amos ix. 12). Some
have suggested that the name here indicated is that of "poor," or of
"brethren," or of "Christian;" but none of these is at all probable.
It may be doubted whether the last was already in common use; and
"blaspheme" would be a very strong expression to use of any of them;
whereas both it and "honourable" are quite in keeping if the name be
that of Christ. The word
rendered "honourable" (καλόν) cannot be
adequately translated. It is the same as that which is rendered "good"
when we read of "the Good Shepherd" (John x. 11). It
suggests what is beautiful, noble, and good, as opposed to what is
foul, mean, and wicked; and such is the Name of Christ, which is
called in a special sense "the Name" (Acts v. 41;
3 John 7. Comp. Ignatius, Eph. iii., vii.; Philad.
x.; Clem. Rom. ii., xiii.). That the blasphemers are not Christians is
shown by the clause "which was called upon you." Had Christians
been intended, St. James would have written "Do not they
blaspheme the honourable Name which was called upon them?" That
they blasphemed the Name in which they were baptized would have been
such an aggravation of their offence that he would not have failed to
indicate it. These blasphemers were no doubt Jews; and St. James
has in his mind the anathemas against Jesus Christ which were frequent
utterances among the Jews, both in the synagogues and in conversation.
St. Paul alludes to these when he says, "No man speaking in the
Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema;" and Justin Martyr writes,
"That which is said in the Law, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree, confirms our hope which is hung upon the crucified Christ, not
as if God were cursing that crucified One, but because God foretold
that which would be done by all of you (Jews) and those like you....
And you may see with your eyes this very thing coming to pass; for in
your synagogues you curse all those who from Him have become
Christians" (Trypho, xcvi.). The text, "Cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree," was a favourite one with the Jews in their
controversies with Christians, as St. James would know well (see
Gal. iii. 13); and all this tends
to show that he refers to literal blasphemy by word of mouth, and not
to the virtual blasphemy which is involved in conduct that dishonours
Christ.
His argument, therefore, amounts to this, that the practice of
honouring the rich for their riches is (quite independently of any
dishonour done to the poor) doubly reprehensible. It involves the
meanness of flattering their own oppressors, and the wickedness of
reverencing those who blaspheme Christ. It is a servile surrender of
their own rights, and base disloyalty to their Lord.
But perhaps (the argument continues) some will defend this respect
paid to the rich as being no disloyalty to Christ, but, on the
contrary, simple fulfilment of the royal law, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." Be it so, that the rich as a class are unworthy
of respect and honour, yet nevertheless they are our neighbours, and
no misconduct on their side can cancel the obligation on our side to
treat them as we should wish to be treated ourselves. We ourselves
like to be respected and honoured, and therefore we pay respect and
honour to them. To those who argue thus the reply is easy. Certainly,
if that is your motive, ye do well. But why do you love your neighbour
as yourselves if he chances to be rich, and treat him like a dog if he
chances to be poor? However excellent your reasons for honouring the
wealthy may be, you still do not free yourselves from the blame of
showing an unchristian respect of persons, and therefore of committing
sin, "being convicted by the law as transgressors."
The law of loving one's neighbour as oneself is a "royal law," not
as having emanated from God or from Christ as King, still less as
being a law which binds
even kings, or which makes kings of those who observe it. It is a
royal law, as being sovereign over other laws, inasmuch as it is one
of those two on which "hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt.
xxii. 40). Indeed, either of the two may be interpreted so as to
cover the whole duty of man. Thus St. Paul says of this royal
law, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal. v. 14). And St. John
teaches the same truth in a different way, when he declares that "he
that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he
hath not seen" (1 John iv. 20). The expression "royal law"
occurs nowhere else, either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint,
but it is found in a dialogue entitled Minos (p. 317), which is
sometimes wrongly attributed to Plato. It is one which might readily
occur to any one as a name for a supreme moral principle.
"Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all."This text caused St. Augustine much perplexity. He sent a long
discussion of it to Jerome, asking for his opinion. Augustine's
solution is that the whole law hangs on the love of God, and that
every transgression is a breach of love (Ep. CLXVII. iv. 16).
The law is the expression of one and the same principle—love;
and of one and the same will—the will of God. Therefore he who
deliberately offends against any one of its enactments, however
diligently he may keep all the rest, is guilty of offending against
the whole. His guiding principle is not love, but
selfishness—not God's will, but his own. He keeps nine tenths of
the law because he likes to do so, and he breaks one tenth because he
likes to do so. The fact of his wilful disobedience proves that his
obedience is not the fruit of
love or loyalty, but of self-seeking. If we ask what his character is,
the answer must be, "He is a lawbreaker." These respecters of persons
claimed to be observers of the law, because they treated their rich
neighbours as they would have liked to be treated themselves.
St. James shows them that, on the contrary, they are
transgressors of the law, because they pick and choose as to what
neighbours shall be treated thus kindly. They keep the law when it is
convenient to keep it, and break it when it is inconvenient to keep
it. Such keeping of the law is in its essence, not obedience, but
disobedience. He who follows honesty only because honesty is the best
policy is not an honest man, and he who obeys the law only because
obedience suits him is not an obedient man. There is no serving God
with reservations. However small the reservation may be, it vitiates
all the rest. In order to "fulfil the law" (a rare expression,
found only here and in Rom. ii. 27), we must keep it all round,
independently of our own likes and dislikes.
St. James is not here countenancing the severity of Draco,
that small crimes deserve death, and that there is no worse punishment
for great crimes; nor yet the paradox of the Stoics, that the theft of
a penny is as bad as parricide, because in either case the path of
virtue is left, and one is drowned as surely in seven feet of water as
in seventy fathoms. He is not contending that all sins are equal, and
that to break one of God's commands is as bad as to break them all.
What he maintains is that no one can claim to be a fulfiller of the
law in virtue of his extensive obedience so long as there is any
portion of the law which he wilfully disobeys. Why does he disobey in
this? Because it pleases him to do so. Then he would
disobey in the rest if it pleased him to do so. The
motive of his conduct is not submission, but self-will.
He is in character "a transgressor of the law."
Both defects are common enough still, and are likely to remain so.
Paying respect to persons, dignities, and
positions is a frequent form of meanness, especially in the
manner here condemned, of courting the rich and slighting the poor. It
is a Christian duty to respect the rank or the office of those whom
God has placed in a position superior to ourselves, and it is also a
Christian duty to reverence those who by God's grace are leading lives
of virtue and holiness; but it is unchristian partiality to honour a
man merely for his wealth, or to dishonour him merely for his poverty.
And secondly, we are all of us prone to plead, both before the world
and our own consciences, the particulars in which we do not
offend as a set-off against those in which we do. To detect
ourselves thus balancing a transgression here, against many
observances there, ought at once to startle us into the conviction
that the whole principle of our lives must be faulty. Our aim is, not
to love God, or to obey Him, but to get to heaven, or at least to
escape hell, on the cheapest terms.
CHAPTER XII.
FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION OF THE TEACHING
OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL.
THE RELATION OF LUTHER TO BOTH.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but
have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be
naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in
peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things
needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have
not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith,
and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my
works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is One; thou
doest well: the devils also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know,
O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham
our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son
upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by
works was faith made perfect; and the Scripture was fulfilled which
saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by
works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner
was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she
received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the
body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is
dead."—St. James ii. 14-26.
THIS famous passage has been quoted in full,
because one needs to have the whole of it before one in order to
appreciate the value of the arguments used on this side and on that as
to its relation to the teaching of St. Paul on the connexion
between faith and works; for which purpose mere extracts will not
do; and also because considerable changes, some of them important,
have been made throughout the passage by the Revisers, and these will
influence the impression derived from reading the passage as a
whole.
It might be thought that here, at any rate, we have got, in this
singularly practical and undogmatic Epistle, a paragraph which is,
both in intention and in effect, distinctly doctrinal. It seems at
first sight to be a careful exposition of St. James's views as to
the nature and value of faith and its relation to conduct. But a
little attention will prove to us that throughout the passage
St. James is as practical in his aim as in any part of the
letter, and that whatever doctrinal teaching there may be in the
passage is there because the practical purpose of the writer could not
be fulfilled without involving doctrine, and not at all because the
writer's object is to expound or defend an article of the Christian
faith. He has agenda rather than credenda in his mind.
An orthodox creed is assumed throughout. What needs to be produced is
not right belief, but right action.
In this affectionate pastoral St. James passes in review the
defects which he knows to exist in his readers. They have their good
points, but these are sadly marred by corresponding deficiencies. They
are swift to hear, but also swift to speak and slow to act. They
believe in Jesus Christ; but they dishonour Him by dishonouring His
poor, while they profess to keep the law of charity by honouring the
rich. They are orthodox in a Monotheistic creed; but they rest content
with that, and their orthodoxy is as barren as a dead tree. It is with
this last defect that St. James is dealing in the passage before
us. And as so often
(i. 12, 19; ii. 1; iii. 1, 13; iv. 1, 13;
v. 1, 7, 13), he clearly states his main point first, and then
proceeds to enforce and elucidate it.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but
have not works? Can that faith save him?" "That faith" is
literally "the faith," or "his faith;" viz. such faith
as he professes, a faith that produces nothing. There is no emphasis
on "say." St. James is not insinuating that the man says he has
faith, when he really has none. If that were the case, it would be
needless to ask, "Can his faith save him?" The question then would be,
"Can his profession of faith save him?" But St. James
nowhere throws doubt on the truth of the unprofitable believer's
professions, or on the possibility of believing much and doing
nothing. Why, then, does he put in the "say"? Why not write, "If a man
have faith"? Perhaps in order to indicate that in such cases the man's
own statement is all the evidence there is that he has faith. In the
case of other Christians their works prove them to be believers; but
where there are no works you can only have the man's word for it that
he believes. The case is parallel to that sketched by our blessed
Lord, which St. James may have in his mind. "Not every one that
saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many
will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Thy
Name, and by Thy Name cast out devils, and by Thy Name do many mighty
works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart
from Me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. vii. 21-23). In this case
it is manifest that the profession of faith is not mere empty
hypocrisy; it is not
a saying of "Lord, Lord," to one who is not believed to be the Lord.
It is a faith that can remove mountains, but divorced from the love
which makes it acceptable. The two, which God hath joined together,
have by man's self-will been put asunder.
The relation, therefore, of the teaching of St. James to that
of His Divine Brother is clear: the two are in perfect harmony. What
is its relation to the teaching of St. Paul? Omitting minor
differences, there are in the main three answers to this question: (1)
The writer of this Epistle is deliberately contradicting and
correcting the teaching of St. Paul. (2) St. James is
correcting prevalent misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable
misunderstandings, of the teaching of St. Paul. (3)
St. James writes without reference to, and possibly without
knowledge of, the precise teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles
respecting the relation between faith and works.
(1) Those who hold the first of these three views naturally
maintain that the Epistle is not genuine, but the production of some
one of a later age than St. James, who wished to have the great
authority of his name to cover an attack upon the teaching of
St. Paul. Thus F. C. Baur maintains that "the doctrine of this
Epistle must be considered as intended to correct that of Paul." This,
which is taken from the second edition of his work on the Life and
Work of St. Paul, published after his death in 1860, by his
pupil Zeller, may be taken as his matured opinion. In his history of
the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, published in
1853, he expresses himself a little less positively: "It is impossible
to deny that the Epistle of James presupposes the Pauline doctrine of
justification. And if this be so, its tendency is distinctly anti-Pauline,
though it may not be aimed directly against the Apostle himself. The
Epistle contends against a one-sided conception of the Pauline
doctrine, which was dangerous to practical Christianity." In both
works alike Baur contends that the Epistle of James cannot be genuine,
but is the product of some unknown writer in the second century. The
opinions that our Epistle is directed against the teaching of
St. Paul, and that it is not genuine, naturally go together. It
is against all probability that St. James, who had supported
St. Paul in the crisis at Jerusalem in A.D. 50
(Acts xv.), and who had given to him and Barnabas the right hand of
fellowship (Gal. ii. 9), should attack St. Paul's own
teaching. But to deny the authenticity of the Epistle, and place it in
a later age, does not really avoid the difficulty of the supposed
attack on St. Paul, and it brings with it other difficulties of a
no less serious character. In any case the letter is addressed to
Jewish Christians (i. 1); and what need was there to put
them on their guard against the teaching of a man whom they
regarded with profound distrust, and whose claim to be an Apostle they
denied? It would be as reasonable to warn Presbyterians against the
doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Besides all which, as Renan
has shown, the letter sketches a state of things which would be
inconceivable after the outbreak of the war which ended in the
destruction of Jerusalem; i.e. it cannot be placed later than
A.D. 66.
Dr. Salmon justly observes, "To a disciple of Baur there is no more
disappointing document than this Epistle of James. Here, if anywhere
in the New Testament, he might expect to find evidence of anti-Pauline
rancour. There is what looks like flat contradiction between this
Epistle and the teaching of
St. Paul.... But that opposition to Paul which, on a superficial
glance, we are disposed to ascribe to the Epistle of James, disappears
on a closer examination. I postpone for the moment the question
whether we can suppose that James intended to contradict Paul; but
whether he intended it or not, he has not really done so; he has
denied nothing that Paul has asserted, and asserted nothing that a
disciple of Paul would care to deny. On comparing the language of
James with that of Paul, all the distinctive expressions of the latter
are found to be absent from the former. St. Paul's thesis is that
a man is justified not by works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ. James speaks only of works without any mention of the law, and
of faith without any mention of Jesus Christ, the example of faith
which he considers being merely the belief that there is one God. In
other words, James is writing not in the interests of Judaism, but of
morality. Paul taught that faith in Jesus Christ was able to justify a
man uncircumcised and unobservant of the Mosaic ordinances.... For
this Pauline teaching James not only has no word of contradiction, but
he gives no sign of ever having heard of the controversy which,
according to Baur, formed the most striking feature in the early
history of the Church.... Whatever embarrassment the apparent
disagreement between the Apostles has caused to orthodox theologians
is as nothing in comparison with the embarrassment caused to a
disciple of Baur by their fundamental agreement."Introduction to the N.T., 4th ed. (Murray, 1889), pp. 504, 506, a
work which may be most heartily commended to every student of the
New Testament.
We may, therefore, safely abandon a theory which
involves three such difficulties. It assigns a date to
the Epistle utterly incompatible with its contents. It makes the
writer warn Jewish Christians against teaching which they, of all
Christians, were least likely to find attractive. And after all, the
warning is futile; for the writer's own teaching is fundamentally the
same as that which it is supposed to oppose and correct. Besides all
which, we may say with Reuss that this Tübingen criticism is mere
baseless ingenuity. It "overlooks the unique originality of the
Epistle;" and to ascribe to the writer of it "any ulterior motives at
all is simply a useless display of acuteness."History of the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T., translated by E. L.
Houghton (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1884), p. 143.
(2) This last remark will not predispose us to regard with favour
the second hypothesis mentioned above—that in this passage
St. James is correcting prevalent misunderstandings, or is
anticipating probable misunderstandings, of the teaching of
St. Paul. There is no trace of any such intention, or of any
anxiety on the subject. The purpose of the passage is not doctrinal at
all, but, like the rest of the Epistle, eminently practical. The
writer's object throughout is to inculcate the necessity of right
conduct. Readiness in hearing the Word of God is all very well, and
correctness of belief in God is all very well; but without readiness
to do what pleases Him it is as useless as a dead vine. Whether
St. James remembered the words, "We reckon that a man is
justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (Rom.
iii. 28), must remain doubtful; for, as has been pointed out in a
previous exposition (p. 57), there is some reason for believing that
he had seen the Epistle to the Romans. But there is no reason for
believing that he was acquainted with the parallel statement in the
Epistle to
the Galatians, "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believe on Jesus
Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the
works of the law; because by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified" (ii. 15, 16). Of one thing, however, we may feel
confident, that, had St. James been intending to give the true
meaning of either or both of these statements by St. Paul, in
order to correct or obviate misunderstanding, he would not have worded
his exposition in such a way that it would be possible for a hasty
reader to suppose that he was contradicting the Apostle of the
Gentiles instead of merely explaining him. He takes no pains to show
that while St. Paul speaks of works of the law,
i.e. ceremonial observances, he himself is speaking of good
works generally, which St. Paul no less than himself regarded as
a necessary accompaniment and outcome of living faith.
Moreover, was there any likelihood that the Jewish Christians would
thus misinterpret St. Paul? Among Gentile Christians there was
danger of this, because they misunderstood the meaning of the
Christian liberty which he so enthusiastically preached. But with
Jewish converts the danger was that they would refuse to listen to
St. Paul in anything, not that they would be in such a hurry to
accept his teaching that they would go away with a wrong impression as
to what he really meant. And precisely that doctrine of St. Paul
which was so liable to be misunderstood St. James proclaims as
clearly as St. Paul does in this very Epistle. He also declares,
more than once, that the Gospel is the "law of liberty"
(i. 25; ii. 12). Had
St. James been writing to Gentiles, there might have been some
reason for his putting his readers on their guard against
misinterpreting St. Paul's manner of preaching the Gospel: in
writing "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" there was
little or no reason for so doing.
(3) We fall back, therefore, upon the far more probable view that
in this passage St. James is merely following the course of his
own argument, without thinking of St. Paul's teaching respecting
the relation between faith and works. How much of St. Paul's
teaching he knew depends upon the date assigned to this Epistle,
whether before A.D. 50 or after
A.D. 60. At the later date St. James must
have known a good deal, both from St. Paul himself, and also from
the many Jews of the Dispersion, who had heard the preaching of the
Apostle in his missionary journeys, had seen some of his letters, and
brought both good and evil reports of his work to the Church at
Jerusalem. Each year, at the Passover and other festivals, James would
receive multitudes of such visitors. But it does not follow that
because he knew a good deal about St. Paul's favourite topics,
and his manner of presenting the faith to his hearers, therefore he
has his teaching in his mind in writing to Jewish converts. The
passage before us is thoroughly intelligible, if it is treated on its
own merits without any reference to Pauline doctrine; and not only so,
but we may say that it becomes more intelligible when so treated.
At the opening of the Epistle St. James insists on the
necessity of faith: "knowing that the proof of your faith
worketh patience" (ver. 3); and "Let him ask in faith, nothing
doubting" (ver. 6). Then he passes on to insist upon the necessity of
practice: "Be ye doers of
the Word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves" (ver. 22);
and "Being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh"
(ver. 25). At the beginning of the second chapter he does exactly the
same. He first assumes that as a matter of course his hearers have
faith (ver. 1), and then goes on to show how this must be
accompanied by the practice of charity and mercy towards all,
and especially towards the poor (vv. 2-13). The passage before us
is precisely on the same lines.
It is assumed that his readers profess to have faith
(vv. 14, 19); and St. James does not dispute the truth of
this profession. But he maintains that unless this faith is productive
of a corresponding practice, its existence is not proved, and
its utility is disproved. It is as barren as a withered tree, and as
lifeless as a corpse. Three times over he asserts, with simple
emphasis, that faith apart from practice is dead (vv. 17, 20,
26). All which tends to show that the present paragraph comes quite
naturally in the course of the exhortation, without any ulterior
motive being assumed to explain it. It is in close harmony with what
precedes, and thoroughly in keeping with the practical aim of the
whole letter. We see how easily it might have been written by any one
who was in earnest about religion and morality, without having heard a
word about St. Paul's teaching respecting faith in Christ and
works of the law.
It has been already pointed out that a letter addressed by a Jewish
Christian to Jewish Christians would not be very likely to take
account of St. Paul's doctrine, whether rightly or wrongly
understood. It has also been shown that St. James, as is natural
in such a letter, makes frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and
also has numerous coincidences with portions of that now
much-neglected Jewish literature which forms a connecting-link between
the Old and the New, especially with the Books of Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus. It was in the period in which that literature was
produced that discussions as to the value of faith in God, as distinct
from the fear of God, and in particular as to the faith of Abraham,
the friend of God, began to be common among the Jews, especially in
the Rabbinical schools. We find evidence of this in the Apocrypha
itself. "Abraham was a great father of many people, ... and when he
was proved he was found faithful" (Ecclus. xliv. 19, 20). "Was
not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him
for righteousness?" (1 Macc. ii. 52), where the
interrogative form of sentence may have suggested the interrogation of
St. James. It will be observed that in these passages we have the
adjective "faithful" (πιστός); not yet the
substantive "faith" (πίστις). But in the
composite and later work which in our Bibles bears the name of the
Second Book of Esdras we have faith frequently spoken of. "The way of
truth shall be hidden, and the land shall be barren of faith"
(v. 1). "As for faith, it shall flourish, corruption shall be
overcome, and the truth, which hath been so long without fruit, shall
be declared" (vi. 28). "Truth shall stand, and faith shall wax
strong" (vii. 34). And in two remarkable passages faith is spoken
of in connexion with works. "And every one that shall be saved, and
shall be able to escape by his works, and by faith, whereby ye have
believed, shall be preserved from the said perils, and shall see My
salvation" (ix. 7, 8). "These are they that have works and faith
towards the Most Mighty" (xiii. 23). With Philo faith and the
faith of Abraham are common topics. He calls it "the queen
of the virtues," and the possessor of it "will bring a faultless and
most fair sacrifice to God." Abraham's faith is not easy to imitate,
so hard is it to trust in the unseen God rather than in the visible
creation; whereas he without wavering believed that the things which
were not present were already present, because of His most sure faith
in Him who promised.See the passages quoted by Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek,
pp. 85-87 (Oxford, 1889).
Other instances might be quoted from Jewish literature; but these
suffice to show that the nature of faith, and the special merit of
Abraham's faith, were subjects often discussed among Jews, and were
likely to be familiar to those whom St. James addresses. This
being so, it becomes probable that what he has in his mind is not
Pauline doctrine, or any perversion of it, but some Pharisaic tenet
respecting these things. The view that faith is formal
orthodoxy—the belief in one God—and that correctness of
belief suffices for the salvation of a son of Abraham, seems to be the
kind of error against which St. James is contending. About faith
in Christ or in His Resurrection there is not a word. It is the cold
Monotheism which the self-satisfied Pharisee has brought with him into
the Christian Church, and which he supposes will render charity and
good works superfluous, that St. James is condemning.This kind of error is alluded to by Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue
with the Jew Trypho: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not
impute sin; that is, who receives remission of his sins from God as
having repented of his sins; but not as ye deceive yourselves, and
some other (Jews) who resemble you in this, who say that even if
they are sinners, but attain to a knowledge of God, the Lord will not
impute sin to them" (cxli., p. 370, D).
So far from this being a contradiction to St. Paul, it is
the very doctrine which he taught, and almost in the
same form of words. "What doth it profit (τί ὄφελος), my brethren," asks St. James, "if a
man say he hath faith, but have not works?" "If I have all faith, so
as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing," says
St. Paul. "And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if
I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me
nothing" (οὐδὲω
ὠφελοῦμαι).
St. Paul and St. James are thus found to be agreed. It
remains to be shown that in spite of his own statements to the
contrary, Luther was as fully agreed with the latter as with the
former. When he writes about St. James, Luther's prejudices lead
him to disparage a form of teaching which he has not been at the pains
to comprehend. But when he expounds St. Paul he does so in words
which would serve excellently as an exposition of the teaching of
St. James. In his preface to the Epistle to the Romans he writes
thus: "But faith is a Divine work in us, that changes us and begets us
anew of God (John i. 13); and kills the old man, makes of us
quite other men in heart, courage, mind, and strength, and brings the
Holy Spirit with it. Oh, it is a living, active, energetic, mighty
thing, this faith, so that it is impossible that it should not work
what is good without intermission. It does not even ask whether good
works are to be done, but before one asks it has done them, and is
ever doing. But he who does not do such works is a man without
faith, is fumbling and looking about him for faith and good works, and
knows neither the one nor the other, yet chatters and babbles many
words about both.
"Faith is a living, deliberate confidence in the grace
of God, so sure that it would die a thousand times for
its trust. And such confidence and experience of
Divine grace make a man merry, bold, and joyful towards God and all
creatures; all which the Holy Spirit does in faith. Hence the man
without compulsion becomes willing and joyful to do good to every one,
to serve every one, to endure everything, for the love and praise of
God, who has shown him such grace. Therefore it is impossible to
sever works from faith; yea, as impossible as to sever burning and
shining from fire."Werke, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt am Main, 1840, p. 1415.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;
AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT.
"Thou believest that God is One; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and shudder."
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered
up Isaac his son upon the altar?"
"And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by
works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out
another way?"—St. James ii. 19, 21, 25.
In the preceding chapter several points of great
interest were passed over, in order not to obscure the main issue as
to the relation of this passage to the teaching of St. Paul. Some
of these may now be usefully considered.
Throughout this volume, as in the companion volume on the Pastoral
Epistles and other volumes for which the present writer is in no way
responsible, the Revised Version has been taken as the basis of the
expositions. There may be reasonable difference of opinion as to its
superiority to the Authorized Version for public reading in the
services of the Church, but few unprejudiced persons would deny its
superiority for purposes of private study and both private and public
exposition. Its superiority lies not so much in happy treatment of
difficult texts, as in the correction of a
great many small errors of translation, and above all in the
substitution of a great many true or probable readings for others that
are false or improbable. And while there are not a few cases in which
there is plenty of room for doubt whether the change, even if clearly
a gain in accuracy, was worth making, there are also some in which the
uninitiated student wonders why no change was made. The passage before
us contains a remarkable instance. Why has the word "devils" been
retained as the rendering of δαιμόνια,
while "demons" is relegated to the margin?
There are two Greek words, very different from one another in
origin and history, which are used both in the Septuagint and in the
New Testament to express the unseen and spiritual powers of evil.
These are διάβολος and δαιμόνιον, or in one place δαίμων (Matt. xlii. 31; not Mark
v. 12, or Luke vii. 29, or Rev. xvi. 14 and
xviii. 2). The Scriptural usage of these two words is quite
distinct and very marked. Excepting where it is used as an adjective
(John vi. 70; 1 Tim. iii. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 3;
Titus ii. 3), διάβολος is one of
the names of Satan, the great enemy of God and of men, and the prince
of the spirits of evil. It is so used in the Books of Job and of
Zechariah, as well as in Wisdom ii. 24, and also throughout the
New Testament, viz. in the Gospels and Acts, the Catholic and Pauline
Epistles, and the Apocalypse. It is, in fact, a proper name, and is
applied to one person only. It commonly, but not invariably
(1 Chron. xxi. 1; Ps. cviii. [cix.] 5) has the definite
article. The word δαιμόνιον, on the
other hand, is used of those evil spirits who are the messengers and
ministers of Satan. It is thus used in Isaiah, the Psalms, Tobit,
Baruch, and throughout the New Testament. It is used also of the false
gods of the
heathen, which were believed to be evil spirits, or at least the
productions of evil spirits, who are the inspirers of idolatry;
whereas Satan is never identified with any heathen divinity. Those who
worship false gods are said to worship "demons," but never to worship
"the devil." Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New are the two
words ever interchanged. Satan is never spoken of as a δαίμων or δαιμόνιον,
and his ministers are never called διάβολοι.
Is it not a calamity that this very marked distinction should be
obliterated in the English Version by translating both Greek words by
the word "devil," especially when there is another word which, as the
margin admits, might have been used for one of them? The Revisers have
done immense service by distinguishing between Hades, the abode
of departed spirits of men, and Hell or Gehenna, the
place of punishment (iii. 6). Why did they reject a similar
opportunity by refusing to distinguish the devil from the
demons over whom he reigns? This is one of the suggestions of the
American Committee which might have been followed with great advantage
and (so far as one sees) no loss.
St. James has just been pointing out the advantage which the
Christian who has works to show has over one who has only faith. The
one can prove that he possesses both; the other cannot prove that he
possesses either. The works of the one are evidence that the faith is
there also, just as leaves and fruit are evidence that a tree is
alive. But the other, who possesses only faith, cannot prove that he
possesses even that. He says that he believes, and we may believe his
statement; but if any one doubts or denies the truth of his profession
of faith he is helpless. Just as a leafless and fruitless tree may be
alive; but
who is to be sure of this? We must note, however, that in this case
the statement is not doubted. "Thou hast faith, and I
have works;" the possibility of possessing faith without works is not
disputed. And again, "Thou believest that God is One;" the
orthodox character of the man's creed is not called in question. This
shows that there is no emphasis on "say" in the opening verse, "If a
man say he hath faith, but have not works;" as if such a
profession were incredible (see p. 137). And this remains equally true
if, with some of the best editors, we turn the statement of the man's
faith into a question, "Dost thou believe that God is One?" For "Thou
doest well" shows that the man's orthodoxy is not questioned. The
object of St. James is not to prove that the man is a hypocrite,
and that his professions are false; but that, on his own
showing, he is in a miserable condition. He may plume himself upon
the correctness of his Theism; but as far as that goes, he is no
better than the demons, to whom this article of faith is a source, not
of joy and strength, but of horror.
It is most improbable that, if he had been alluding to the teaching
of St. Paul, St. James would have selected the Unity of the
Godhead as the article of faith held by the barren Christian. He would
have taken faith in Christ as his example. But in writing to Jewish
Christians, without any such allusion, the selection is very natural.
The Monotheism of his creed, in contrast with the foolish "gods many,
and lords many," of the heathen, was to the Jew a matter of religious
and national pride. He gloried in his intellectual and spiritual
superiority to those who could believe in a plurality of deities. And
there was nothing in Christianity to make him think less highly of this
supreme article of faith. Hence, when St. James desires to give
an example of the faith on which a Jewish Christian, who had sunk into
a dead formalism, would be most likely to rely, he selects this
article, common to both the Jewish and the Christian creed, "I believe
that God is One." "Thou doest well" is the calm reply; and then
follows the sarcastic addition, "The demons also believe—and
shudder."
Is St. James here alluding to the belief mentioned above, that
the gods of the heathen are demons? They, of all evil spirits, might
be supposed to know most about the Unity of God, and to have most to
fear in reference to it. "They sacrificed unto demons, which were no
God," we read in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 17). And again, in the
Psalms, "They sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons"
(cvi. 37. Comp. xcvi. 5). In these passages the Greek word
δαιμόνια represents the Elilim or
Shedim, the nonenities who were allowed to usurp the place of
Jehovah.Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew, II., pp. 384, 386, Eng. Tr.,
Heidenthum und Judenthum, pp. 825, 827.
And St. Paul affirms, "That the things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God" (1 Cor.
x. 20). It is quite possible, therefore, that St. James is
thinking of demons as objects of idolatrous worship, or at any rate as
seducing people into such worship, when he speaks of the demons'
belief in the Unity of God.
But a suggestion which Bede makes, and which several modern
commentators have followed, is well worth considering. St. James
may be thinking of the demons which possessed human beings, rather
than those which received or promoted idolatrous worship.
Bede reminds us of the many demons who went out at Christ's command,
crying out that He was the Son of God, and especially of the man with
the legion among the Gadarenes, who expressed not only belief, but
horror: "What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God?
I adjure Thee by God, that Thou torment me not." Without falling into
the error of supposing that demons can mean demoniacs, we may imagine
how readily one who had witnessed such scenes as those recorded in the
Gospels might attribute to the demons the expressions of horror which
he had heard in the words and seen on the faces of those whom demons
possessed. Such expressions were the usual effect of being confronted
by the Divine presence and power of Christ, and were evidence both of
a belief in God and of a dread of Him. St. James, who was then
living with the Mother of the Lord, and sometimes followed His Divine
Brother in His wanderings, would be almost certain to have been a
witness of some of these healings of demoniacs. And it is worth noting
that the word which in the Authorized Version is rendered "tremble,"
and in the Revised "shudder" (φρίσσειν),
expresses physical horror, especially as it affects the hair;
and in itself it implies a body, and would be an inappropriate word to
use of the fear felt by a purely spiritual being. It occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament; but in the Septuagint we find it used in
the Book of Job: "Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my
flesh stood up" (iv. 15). It is a stronger word than either
"fear" or "tremble," and strictly speaking can be used only of men and
other animals.
This horror, then, expressed by the demons through
the bodies of those whom they possess, is evidence
enough of faith. Can faith such as that save any one? Is it not
obvious that a faith which produces, not works of love, but the
strongest expressions of fear, is not a faith on which any one can
rely for his salvation? And yet the faith of those who refuse to do
good works, because they hold that their faith is sufficient to save
them, is no better than the faith of the demons. Indeed, in some
respects it is worse. For the sincerity of the demons' faith cannot be
doubted; their terror is proof of it: whereas the formal Christian has
nothing but cold professions to offer. Moreover, the demons are under
no self-delusion; they know their own terrible condition. For the
formalist who accepts Christian truth and neglects Christian practice
there is a dreadful awakening in store. There will come a time when
"believe and shudder" will be true also of him. "But, before it is too
late, willest thou to get to know, O vain man, that faith apart from
works is barren?"
"Wilt thou know" does not do justice to the full meaning of the
Greek (θέλεισ γνῶναι). The meaning
is not, "I would have you know," but, "Do you wish to have acquired
the knowledge?" You profess to know God and to believe in Him; do you
desire to know what faith in Him really means? "O vain man" is
literally, "O empty man," i.e. empty-headed, empty-handed, and
empty-hearted. Empty-headed, in being so deluded as to suppose that a
dead faith can save; empty-handed, in being devoid of true spiritual
riches; empty-hearted, in having no real love either for God or man.
The epithet seems to be the equivalent of Raca, the term of
contempt quoted by our Lord as the expression of that angry spirit
which is akin to murder (Matt. v. 22). The use of it by
St. James may be taken as an indication that the primitive Church
saw that the commands in the Sermon on the Mount are not rules to be
obeyed literally, but illustrations of principles. The sin lies not so
much in the precise term of reproach which is employed as in the
spirit and temper which are felt and displayed in the employment of
it. The change from "dead" (A.V.) to "barren" (R.V.) is not a change
of translation, but of reading (νεκρά to
ἀργή), the latter term meaning
"workless, idle, unproductive" (Matt. xx. 3, 6;
1 Tim. v. 13; Titus i. 12; 2 Peter i. 8).
Aristotle (Nic. Eth., I. vii. 11) asks whether it is
likely that every member of a man's body should have a function or
work (ἔργον) to perform, and that man as a
whole should be functionless (ἀργός). Would
nature have produced such a vain contradiction? We should reproduce
the spirit of St. James's pointed interrogation if we rendered
"that faith without fruits is fruitless."
In contrast with this barren faith, which makes a man's spiritual
condition no better than that of the demons, St. James places two
conspicuous instances of living and fruitful faith—Abraham and
Rahab. The case of "Abraham our father" would be the first that would
occur to every Jew. As the passages in the Apocrypha (Wisdom
x. 5; Ecclus. xliv. 20; 1 Macc. ii. 52) prove,
Abraham's faith was a subject of frequent discussion among the Jews,
and this fact is quite enough to account for its mention by
St. James, St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6), and
the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 17), without
supposing that any one of them had seen the writings of the others.
Certainly there is no proof that the writer of this Epistle is the
borrower, if there is borrowing on either side. It is urged that
between the authors of this Epistle and that to the Hebrews there must be
dependence on one side or the other, because each selects not only
Abraham, but Rahab, as an example of faith; and Rahab is so strange an
example that it is unlikely that two writers would have selected it
independently. There is force in the argument, but less than at first
sight appears. The presence of Rahab's name in the genealogy of the
Christ (Matt. i. 5), in which so few women are mentioned, must
have given thoughtful persons food for reflexion. Why was such a woman
singled out for such distinction? The answer to this question cannot
be given with certainty. But whatever caused her to be mentioned in
the genealogy may also have caused her to be mentioned by
St. James and the writer of Hebrews; or the fact of her being in
the genealogy may have suggested her to the authors of these two
Epistles. This latter alternative does not necessarily imply that
these two writers were acquainted with the written Gospel of
St. Matthew, which was perhaps not in existence when they wrote.
The genealogy, at any rate, was in existence, for St. Matthew no
doubt copied it from official or family registers. Assuming, however,
that it is not a mere coincidence that both writers use Abraham and
Rahab as examples of fruitful faith, it is altogether arbitrary to
decide that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote first. The
probabilities are the other way. Had St. James known that
Epistle, he would have made more use of it.
The two examples are in many respects very different. Their
resemblance consists in this, that in both cases faith found
expression in action, and this action was the source of the believer's
deliverance. The case of Abraham, which St. Paul uses to prove
the worthlessness of "works of the law" in comparison
with a living faith, is used by St. James to prove the
worthlessness of a dead faith in comparison with works of love which
are evidence that there is a living faith behind them. But it should
be noticed that a different episode in Abraham's life is taken in each
Epistle, and this is a further reason for believing that neither
writer refers to the other. St. Paul appeals to Abraham's faith
in believing that he should have a son when he was a hundred, and
Sarah ninety years of age (Rom. iv. 19). St. James appeals
to Abraham's faith in offering up Isaac, when there seemed to be no
possibility of the Divine promise being fulfilled if Isaac was slain.
The latter required more faith than the former, and was much more
distinctly an act of faith; a work, or series of works, that
would never have been accomplished if there had not been a very
vigorous faith to inspire and support the doer. The result
(ἐξ ἔργων) was that Abraham was
"justified," i.e. he was accounted righteous, and the reward of
his faith was with still greater solemnity and fulness than on the
first occasion (Gen. xv. 4-6) promised to him: "By Myself have I
sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and
hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will
bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars
of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed
shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed My
voice" (Gen. xxii. 16-18).
With the expression "was justified as a result of works"
(ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη), which
is used both of Abraham and of Rahab, should be compared our Lord's
saying, "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou
shalt be condemned" (Matt. xii. 37),
which are of exactly the same form; literally, "As a result of
thy words thou shalt be accounted righteous, and as a result of
thy words thou shalt be condemned" (ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου
δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ); that is, it is
from the consideration of the words in the one case, and of the works
in the other, that the sentence of approval proceeds; they are the
source of the justification. Of course from the point of view
taken by St. James words are "works;" good words spoken for the
love of God are quite as much fruits of faith and evidence of faith as
good deeds. It is not impossible that his phrase is an echo of
expressions which he had heard used by Christ.
That the words rendered "offered up Isaac his son upon the altar"
really mean this, and not merely "brought Isaac his son as a victim up
to the altar," is clear from other passages where the same phrase
(ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ
θυσιαστήριον) occurs. Noah "offering burnt offerings on the
altar" (Gen. viii. 20) and Christ "offering our sins on the tree"
(1 Pet. ii. 24) might be interpreted either way, although
the bringing up to the altar and to the tree does not seem so
natural as the offering on them. But a passage in Leviticus
about the offerings of the leper is quite decisive: "Afterward he
shall kill the burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt
offering and the meal offering upon the altar" (xiv. 19, 20). It
would be very unnatural to speak of bringing the victim up to the
altar after it had been slain. (Comp. Baruch i. 10; 1 Macc.
iv. 53.) The Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and all English versions
agreed in this translation; and it is not a matter of small
importance, not a mere nicety of rendering. In all completeness, both
of will and deed, Abraham had actually surrendered and offered up to God his
only son, when he laid him bound upon the altar, and took the knife to
slay him—to slay that son of whom God had promised, "In Isaac
shall thy seed be called." Then "was the Scripture fulfilled;"
i.e. what had been spoken and partly fulfilled before (Gen.
xv. 6) received a more complete and a higher fulfilment. Greater
faith hath no man than this, that a man gives back His own promises
unto God. The real but incomplete faith of believing that aged parents
could become the progenitors of countless thousands had been accepted
and rewarded. Much more, therefore, was the perfect faith of offering
to God the one hope of posterity accepted and rewarded. This last was
a work in which his faith co-operated, and which proved the
complete development of his faith; by it "was faith made perfect."
"He was called the Friend of God." Abraham was so called in Jewish
tradition; and to this day this is his name among his descendants the
Arabs, who much more commonly speak of him as "the Friend" (El
Khalil), or "the Friend of God" (El Khalil Allah), than by
the name Abraham. Nowhere in the Old Testament does he receive this
name, although our Versions, both Authorized and Revised, would lead
us to suppose that he is so called. The word is found neither in the
Hebrew nor in existing copies of the Septuagint. In 2 Chron.
xx. 7, "Abraham Thy friend" should be "Abraham Thy beloved;" and
in Isaiah xli. 8, "Abraham My friend" should be "Abraham whom I
loved." In both passages, however, the Vulgate has the rendering
amicus, and some copies of the Septuagint had the reading
"friend" in 2 Chron. xx. 7, while Symmachus had it in Isa.
xli. 8 (See Field's Hexapla, I., p. 744; II., p. 513).
Clement of Rome (x., xvii.) probably derived this name for Abraham
from St. James. But even if Abraham is nowhere styled "the Friend
of God," he is abundantly described as being such. God talks with him
as a man talks with his friend, and asks, "Shall I hide from Abraham
that which I do?" (Gen. xviii. 17); which is the very token of
friendship pointed out by Christ. "No longer do I call you servants;
for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you
friends; for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known
unto you" (John xv. 15). It is worthy of note that St. James
seems to intimate that the word is not in the sacred writings. The
words, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness," are introduced with the formula, "The Scripture was
fulfilled which saith." Of the title "Friend of God" it is simply said
"he was called," without stating by whom.The following story is given by Mahometan commentators on the
passage, "God took Abraham for His friend," which occurs in the
fourth chapter of the Koran, entitled Nessa, or "Women:" Abraham
was the father of the poor, and in a famine he emptied his granaries
to feed them. Then he sent to one of his friends, who was a great
lord in Egypt, for corn. But the friend said, "We also are in danger
of famine. The corn is not wanted for Abraham, but for his poor.
I must keep it for our own poor." And the messengers returned
with empty sacks. As they neared home they feared being mocked
for their failure; so they filled their sacks with sand, and came in
well laden. In private they told Abraham of his friend's refusal,
and Abraham at once retired to pray. Meanwhile Sarah opened
one of the sacks, and found excellent flour in it, and with this began
to bake bread for the poor. When Abraham returned from prayer
he asked Sarah whence she obtained the flour. "From that which
your friend in Egypt has sent," she replied. "Say rather from that
which the true Friend has sent, that is God; for it is He who never
fails us in our need." At the moment when Abraham called God his
Friend God took Abraham also to be His friend. (See the notes
in Sale's Koran; D'Herbelot's Bibliothèque Orientale, Maestricht,
1776, p. 13; Bishop Thirlwall's Letters to a Friend, Bentley, 1882,
pp. 63, 64).
Eusebius (Præp. Evan. IX. xix., p. 420) quotes Alexander
Polyhistor (c. B.C. 80) as stating that
Molon (Josephus, Contra Apionem, II. xiv.) interpreted the name
Abraham as meaning the "Father's Friend" (πατρὸς φίλος), probably through a misspelling of the
name. (See Lightfoot's note on Clem. Rom. x.)
"In like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified
by works?" It is because of the similarity of her
case to Abraham's, both of them being a contrast to the formal
Christian and the demons, that Rahab is introduced. In her case also
faith led to action, and the action had its result in the salvation of
the agent. If there had been faith without action, if she had merely
believed the spies without doing anything in consequence of her
belief, she would have perished. She was glorified in Jewish
tradition, perhaps as being a typical forerunner of proselytes from
the Gentile world; and it may be that this accounts for her being
mentioned in the genealogy of the Messiah, and consequently by
St. James and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The
Talmud mentions a quite untrustworthy tradition that she married
Joshua, and became the ancestress of eight persons who were both
priests and prophets, and also of Huldah the prophetess.
St. Matthew gives Salmon the son of Naasson as her husband; he
may have been one of the spies.
But the contrast between Abraham and Rahab is almost as marked as
the similarity. He is the friend of God, and she is of a vile heathen
nation and a harlot. His great act of faith is manifested towards God,
hers towards men. His is the crowning act of his spiritual
development; hers is the first sign of a faith just beginning to
exist. He is the aged saint, while she is barely a catechumen. But
according to her light,
which was that of a very faulty moral standard, "she did what she
could," and it was accepted.
These contrasts have their place in the argument, as well as the
similarities. The readers of the Epistle might think, "Heroic acts are
all very suitable for Abraham; but we are not Abrahams, and must be
content with sharing his faith in the true God; we cannot and need not
imitate his acts." "But," St. James replies (and he writes ὁμοίως δέ, not καὶ
ὁμοίως), "there is Rahab, Rahab the heathen, Rahab the harlot;
at least you can imitate her." And for the Jewish Christians of that
day her example was very much in point. She welcomed and believed the
messengers, whom her countrymen persecuted, and would have slain. She
separated herself from her unbelieving and hostile people, and went
over to an unpopular and despised cause. She saved the preachers of an
unwelcome message for the fulfilment of the Divine mission with which
they had been entrusted. Substitute the Apostles for the spies, and
all this is true of the believing Jews of that age. And as if to
suggest this lesson, St. James speaks not of "young men," as
Joshua vi. 23, nor of "spies," as Hebrews xi. 31, but of
"messengers," a term which is as applicable to those who were sent by
Jesus Christ as to those who were sent by Joshua.
Plutarch, who was a young man at the time when this Epistle was
written, has the following story of Alexander the Great, in his
"Apothegms of Kings and Generals": The young Alexander was not at all
pleased with the successes of his father, Philip of Macedon. "My
father will leave me nothing," he said. The young nobles who were
brought up with him replied, "He is gaining all this for you." Almost
in the words of St. James, though with a very different meaning, he
answered, "What does it profit (τί
ὄφελος;), if I possess much and do nothing?" The future
conqueror scorned to have everything done for him. In quite another
spirit the Christian must remember that if he is to conquer he must
not suppose that his heavenly Father, who has done so much for him,
has left him nothing to do. There is the fate of the barren fig-tree
as a perpetual warning to those who are royal in their professions of
faith, and paupers in good works.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS.
THE POWERS AND PROPENSITIES OF THE TONGUE.
THE SELF-DEFILEMENT OF THE RECKLESS TALKER.
"Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive
heavier judgment. For in many things we all stumble. If any stumble
not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body
also. Now if we put the horses' bridles into their mouths, that they
may obey us, we turn about their whole body also. Behold, the ships
also, though they are so great, and are driven by rough winds, are
yet turned about by a very small rudder, whither the impulse of the
steersman willeth. So the tongue also is a little member, and
boasteth great things. Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small
a fire! And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our
members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on
fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell. For every kind
of beasts and birds, of creeping things and things in the sea, is
tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind: but the tongue can no man
tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison."—
St. James iii. 1-8.
FROM the "idle faith" (πίστις ἀργή) St. James goes on to speak of the "idle
word" (ῥῆμα ἀργόν). The change from
the subject of faith and works to that of the temptations and sins of
speech is not so abrupt and arbitrary as at first sight appears. The
need of warning his readers against sins of the tongue has been in his
mind from the first. Twice in the first chapter it comes to the
surface. "Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath"
(ver. 19), as if being slow to hear and swift to speak were much the
same as being swift to wrath. And again, "If any man thinketh himself
to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his
heart, this man's religion is vain" (ver. 26). And now the subject of
barren faith causes him to return to the warning once more. For it is
precisely those who neglect good works that are given to talk much
about the excellence of their faith, and are always ready to instruct
and lecture others. That controversies about faith and works
suggested to him this section about offences of the tongue, is a
gratuitous hypothesis. St. James shows no knowledge of any such
controversies. As already pointed out, the purpose of the preceding
section (ii. 14-26) is not controversial or doctrinal, but purely
practical, like the rest of the Epistle. The paragraph before us is of
the same character; it is against those who substitute words for
works.
St. James is entirely of Carlyle's opinion that in the
majority of cases, if "speech is silvern, silence is golden;" but he
does not write twenty volumes to prove the truth of this doctrine. "In
noble uprightness, he values only the strict practice of concrete
duties, and hates talk" (Reuss); and while quite admitting that
teachers are necessary, and that some are called to undertake this
office, he tells all those who desire to undertake it that what they
have to bear in mind is its perils and responsibilities. And it is
obvious that true teachers must always be a minority. There is
something seriously wrong when the majority in the community, or even
a large number, are pressing forward to teach the rest.
"Be not many teachers, my brethren;" or, if we
are to do full justice to the compact fulness of the
original, "Do not many of you become teachers." St. James is not
protesting against a usurpation of the ministerial office; to suppose
this is to give far too specific a meaning to his simple language. The
context points to no such sin as that of Korah and his company, but
simply to the folly of incurring needless danger and temptation. In
the Jewish synagogues any one who was disposed to do so might come
forward to teach, and St. James writes at a time when the same
freedom prevailed in the Christian congregations. "Each had a psalm,
had a teaching, had a revelation, had a tongue, had an
interpretation.... All could prophesy one by one, that all might learn
and all be comforted" (1 Cor. xiv. 26, 31). But in both
cases the freedom led to serious disorders. The desire to be called of
men "Rabbi, Rabbi," told among Jews and Christians alike, and many
were eager to expound who had still the very elements of true religion
to learn. It is against this general desire to be prominent as
instructors both in private and in public that St. James is here
warning his readers. The Christian Church already has its ministers
distinct from the laity, to whom the laity are to apply for spiritual
help (v. 14); but it is not an invasion of their office by the
laity to which St. James refers, when he says, "Do not many of
you become teachers." These Jewish Christians of the Dispersion were
like those at Rome to whom St. Paul writes; each of them was
confident that his knowledge of God and the Law made him competent to
become "a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, a
corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the Law the
form of knowledge and of the truth" (Rom. ii. 17 ff.). But
in teaching others they forgot to teach themselves; they
failed to see that to preach the law without being a doer of the law
was to cause God's name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles; and that
to possess faith and do nothing but talk was but to increase their own
condemnation; for it was to place themselves among those who are
condemned by Christ because "they say and do not" (Matt.
xxiii. 3). The phrase "to receive judgment" (κρῖμα λαμβάνειν) is in form a neutral one:
the judgment may conceivably be a favourable one, but in usage
it implies that the judgment is adverse (Mark xii. 40; Luke
xx. 47; Rom. xiii. 2). Even without the verb "receive" this
word "judgment" in the New Testament generally has the meaning of a
condemnatory sentence (Rom. ii. 2, 3; iii. 8;
v. 16; 1 Cor. xi. 29; Gal. v. 10; 1 Tim.
iii. 6; v. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 17; 2 Pet.
ii. 3; Jude 4; Rev. xvii. 1; xviii. 20). And there
is no reason to doubt that such is the meaning here; the context
requires it. The fact that St. James with affectionate humility
and persuasiveness includes himself in the judgment—"we
shall receive"—by no means proves that the word is here used in
a neutral sense. In this he is like St. John, who breaks the
logical flow of a sentence in a similar manner, rather than seem not
to include himself: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate"
(1 John ii. 1); he is as much in need of the Advocate
as others. So also here, St. James, as being a teacher, shares in
the heavier condemnation of teachers. It was the conviction that the
word is not neutral, but condemnatory, which produced the rendering in
the Vulgate, "knowing that ye receive greater condemnation"
(scientes quoniam majus judicium sumitis), it being thought
that St. James ought not to be included in such a judgment.
But this is to miss the point of the passage. St. James says that
"in many things we stumble—every one of us." He uses the
strong form of the adjective (ἅπαντες
for πάντες), and places it last with great
emphasis. Every one of us sins, and therefore there is condemnation in
store for every one of us. But those of us who are teachers will
receive a heavier sentence than those of us who are not such; for our
obligations to live up to the law which we know, and profess, and urge
upon others, are far greater. Heaviest of all will be the condemnation
of those who, without being called or qualified, through fanaticism,
or an itch for notoriety, or a craze for controversy, or a love of
fault-finding, push themselves forward to dispense instruction and
censure. They are among the fools who "rush in where angels fear to
tread," and thereby incur responsibilities which they need not, and
ought not, to have incurred, because they do not possess the
qualifications for meeting them and discharging them. The argument is
simple and plain: "Some of us must teach. All of us frequently fall.
Teachers who fall are more severely judged than others. Therefore do
not many of you become teachers."
In what sphere is it that we most frequently fall? Precisely in
that sphere in which the activity of teachers specially lies—in
speech. "If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man."
St. James is not thinking merely of the teacher who never makes a
mistake, but of the man who never sins with the tongue. There is an
obvious, but by no means exclusive, reference to teachers, and that is
all. To every one of us, whatever our sphere in life, the saying comes
home that one who offends not in word is indeed a perfect man.
By "perfect" (τέλειος) he means
one who has attained full spiritual and moral development, who is
"perfect and entire, lacking in nothing" (i. 4). He is no longer
a babe, but an adult; no longer a learner, but an adept. He is a full
and complete man, with perfect command of all the faculties of soul
and body. He has the full use of them, and complete control over them.
The man who can bridle the most rebellious part of his nature, and
keep it in faultless subjection, can bridle also the whole. This use
of "perfect," as opposed to what is immature and incomplete, is the
commonest use of the word in the New Testament. But sometimes it is a
religious or philosophical term, borrowed from heathen mysteries or
heathen philosophy. In such cases it signifies the initiated,
as distinct from novices. Such a metaphor was very applicable to the
Gospel, and St. Paul sometimes employs it (1 Cor.
ii. 6; Col. i. 28); but it may be doubted whether any such
thought is in St. James's mind here, although such a metaphor
would have suited the subject. He who never stumbles in word can be no
novice, but must be fully initiated in Christian discipline. But the
simpler interpretation is better. He who can school the tongue can
school the hands and the feet, the heart and the brain, in fact "the
whole body," the whole of his nature, and is therefore a perfect
man.
In his characteristic manner, St. James turns to natural
objects for illustrations to enforce his point. "Now if we put the
horses' bridles into their mouths, that they may obey us, we turn
about their whole body." The changes made here by the Revisers are
changes caused by a very necessary correction of the Greek text (εἰ δέ instead of ἴδε,
which St. James nowhere else uses, or ἰδού,
which here has very little evidence in its favour); for the text has
been corrupted
in order to simplify a rather difficult and doubtful construction. The
uncorrupted text may be taken in two ways. Either, "But if we
put the horses' bridles into their mouths, that they may obey us, and
so turn about their whole body"—(much more ought we to do so to
ourselves); this obvious conclusion being not stated, but left for us
to supply at the end of an unfinished sentence. Or, as the
Revisers take it, which is simpler, and leaves nothing to be
understood. A man who can govern his tongue can govern his whole
nature, just as a bridle controls, not merely the horse's mouth, but
the whole animal. This first metaphor is suggested by the writer's own
language. He has just spoken of the perfect man bridling his
whole body, as before he spoke of the impossibility of true religion
in one who does not bridle his tongue (i. 26); and this
naturally suggests the illustration of the horses.
The argument is à fortiori from the horse to the man, and
still more from the ship to the man, so that the whole forms a climax,
the point throughout being the same, viz. the smallness of the part to
be controlled in order to have control over the whole. And in order to
bring out the fact that the ships are a stronger illustration than the
horses, we should translate, "Behold, even the ships, though
they are so great," etc., rather than "Behold, the ships also,
though they are so great." First the statement of the case (ver. 2),
then the illustration from the horses (ver. 3), then "even the
ships" (ver. 4), and finally the application, "so the tongue
also" (ver. 5). Thus all runs smoothly. If, as is certainly the
case, we are able to govern irrational creatures with a small bit, how
much more ourselves through the tongue; for just as he who has
lost his hold of the reins has lost control over the horse, so he who
has lost his hold on his tongue has lost control over himself. The
case of the ship is still stronger. It is not only devoid of reason,
but devoid of life. It cannot be taught obedience. It offers a dead
resistance, which is all the greater because of its much greater size,
and because it is driven by rough winds; yet its whole mass can be
turned about by whoever has control of the little rudder, to lose
command of which is to lose command of all. How much more, therefore,
may we keep command over ourselves by having command over our tongues!
There is nothing more in the metaphor than this. We may, if we please,
go on with Bede, and turn the whole into a parable, and make the sea
mean human life, and the winds mean temptations, and so on; but we
must beware of supposing that anything of that kind was in the mind of
St. James, or belongs to the explanation of the passage. Such
symbolism is read into the text, not extracted from it. It is
legitimate as a means of edifying, but it is not interpretation.
The expression "rough winds" (σκληρῶν
ἀνέμων) is peculiar, "rough" meaning hard or harsh, especially
to the touch, and hence of what is intractable or disagreeable in
other ways (1 Sam. xxv. 3; Matt. xxv. 24; John
vi. 60; Acts xxvi. 14; Jude 15). Perhaps in only one
other passage in Greek literature, previous to this Epistle, is it
used as an epithet of wind, viz. in Prov. xxvii. 16, a passage in
which the Septuagint differs widely from the Hebrew and from our
versions. St. James, who seems to have been specially fond of the
sapiential books of Scripture, may have derived this expression from
the Proverbs.
"So the tongue also is a little member, and boasteth
great things." The tongue, like the bit and the rudder, is only a very
small part of the whole, and yet, like them, it can do great things.
St. James says, "boasteth great things," rather than "doeth great
things," not in order to insinuate that the tongue boasts of what it
cannot or does not do, which would spoil the argument, but in order to
prepare the way for the change in the point of the argument. Hitherto
the point has been the immense influence which the small organ of
speech has over our whole being, and the consequent need of
controlling it when we want to control ourselves. We must take care to
begin the control in the right place. This point being established,
the argument takes a somewhat different turn, and the necessity of
curbing the tongue is shown, not from its great power, but from its
inherent malignity. It can be made to discharge good offices,
but its natural bent is towards evil. If left unchecked, it is certain
to do incalculable mischief. The expression "boasteth great things"
marks the transition from the one point to the other, and in a measure
combines them both. There are great things done; that shows the
tongue's power. And it boasts about them; that shows its bad character.There is a story that Amasis, King of Egypt, sent a sacrifice to
Bias the sage, asking him to send back the best part and the worst;
and Bias sent back the tongue.
This second point, like the first, is enforced by two illustrations
taken from the world of nature. The first was illustrated by the power
of bits and rudders; the second is illustrated by the capacity for
mischief in fire and in venomous beasts. "Behold, what a fire kindles
what a wood!" is the literal rendering of the Greek, where "what a
fire" evidently means "how small a
fire," while "what a wood" means "how large a wood." The traveller's
camp-fire is enough to set a whole forest in flames, and the camp-fire
was kindled by a few sparks. "Fire," it is sometimes truly said, "is a
good servant, but a bad master," and precisely the same may with equal
truth be said of the tongue. So long as it is kept under control it
does excellent service; but directly it can run on unchecked, and lead
instead of obeying, it begins to do untold mischief. We sometimes
speak of men whose "pens run away with them;" but a far
commoner case is that of persons whose tongues run away with
them, whose untamed and unbridled tongues say things which are neither
seriously thought nor (even at the moment) seriously meant. The habit
of saying "great things" and using strong language is a condition of
constant peril, which will inevitably lead the speaker into evil. It
is a reckless handling of highly dangerous material. It is playing
with fire.
Yes, "the tongue is a fire. The world of iniquity among our members
is the tongue, which defileth the whole body." The right punctuation
of this sentence cannot be determined with certainty, and other
possible arrangements will be found in the margin of the Revised
Version; but on the whole this seems to be the best. The one thing
that is certain is that the "so" of the Authorized
Version—"so is the tongue among our members"—is not
genuine; if it were, it would settle the construction and the
punctuation in favour of what is at least the second best arrangement:
"The tongue is a fire, that world of iniquity: the tongue is among our
members that which defileth the whole body." The meaning of "the world
of iniquity" has been a good deal discussed, but is not really doubtful.
The ordinary colloquial signification is the right one. The tongue is
a boundless store of mischief, an inexhaustible source of evil, a
universe of iniquity; universitas iniquitatis, as the Vulgate
renders it. It contains within itself the elements of all
unrighteousness; it is charged with endless possibilities of sin. This
use of "world" (κόσμος) seems not to occur
in classical Greek; but it is found in the Septuagint of the Proverbs,
and again in a passage where the Greek differs widely from the Hebrew
(see above, p. 172). What is still more remarkable, it occurs
immediately after the mention of sins of speech: "An evil man
listeneth to the tongue of the wicked; but a righteous man giveth no
heed to false lips. The faithful man has the whole world of
wealth; but the faithless not even a penny" (xvii. 4).
"Is the tongue." The word for "is" must be observed (not
ἐστι, nor ὑπάρχει,
but καθίσταται). Its literal meaning is
"constitutes itself," and it occurs again in iv. 4, where the
Revisers rightly translate it "maketh himself:" "Whosoever would be a
friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God." The tongue
was not created by God to be a permanent source of all kinds of evil;
like the rest of creation, it was made "very good," "the best member
that we have." It is by its own undisciplined and lawless career that
it makes itself "the world of iniquity," that it constitutes
itself among our members as "that which defileth our whole body."
This helps to explain what St. James means by "unspotted"
(ἄσπθλον) or "undefiled" (i. 27). He
who does not bridle his tongue is not really religious. Pure religion
consists in keeping in check that "which defileth (ἡ σπιλοῦσα) our whole body." And the tongue
defiles us in three ways;—by suggesting sin to ourselves and
others; by committing
sin, as in all cases of lying and blasphemy; and by excusing or
defending sin. It is a palmary instance of the principle that the best
when perverted becomes the worst—corruptio optimi fit
pessima.
It "setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by
hell." We must be content to leave the precise meaning of the words
rendered "the wheel of nature" (τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως) undetermined. The general
meaning is evident enough, but we cannot be sure what image
St. James had in his mind when he wrote the words. The one
substantive is obviously a metaphor, and the other is vague in meaning
(as the latter occurs i. 23, the two passages should be compared
in expounding); but what the exact idea to be conveyed by the
combination is, remains a matter for conjecture. And the conjectures
are numerous, of which one must suffice. The tongue is a centre from
which mischief radiates; that is the main thought. A wheel that has
caught fire at the axle is at last wholly consumed, as the fire
spreads through the spokes to the circumference. So also in society.
Passions kindled by unscrupulous language spread through various
channels and classes, till the whole cycle of human life is in flames.
Reckless language first of all "defiles the whole" nature of the man
who employs it, and then works destruction far and wide through the
vast machinery of society. And to this there are no limits; so long as
there is material, the fire will continue to burn.
How did the fire begin? How does the tongue, which was created for
far other purposes, acquire this deadly propensity? St. James
leaves us in no doubt upon that point. It is an inspiration of the
evil one. The enemy, who steals away the good seed, and sows weeds
among the wheat, turns the immense powers of
the tongue to destruction. The old serpent imbues it with his own
poison. He imparts to it his own diabolical agency. He is perpetually
setting it on fire (present participle) from hell.
The second metaphor by which the malignant propensity of the tongue
is illustrated is plain enough. It is an untamable, venomous beast. It
combines the ferocity of the tiger and the mockery of the ape with the
subtlety and venom of the serpent. It can be checked, can be
disciplined, can be taught to do good and useful things; but it can
never be tamed, and must never be trusted. If care and watchfulness
are laid aside, its evil nature will burst out again, and the results
will be calamitous.
There are many other passages in Scripture which contain warnings
about sins of the tongue: see especially Proverbs xvi. 27, 28;
Ecclus. v. 13, 14, and xxviii. 9-23, from which
St. James may have drawn some of his thoughts. But what is
peculiar to his statement of the matter is this, that the
reckless tongue defiles the whole nature of the man who owns it.
Other writers tell us of the mischief which the foul-mouthed man does
to others, and of the punishment which will one day fall upon himself.
St. James does not lose sight of that side of the matter, but the
special point of his stern warning is the insisting upon the fact that
unbridled speech is a pollution to the man that employs it.
Every faculty of mind or body with which he has been endowed is
contaminated by the subtle poison which is allowed to proceed from his
lips. It is a special application of the principle laid down by
Christ, which was at first a perplexity even to the Twelve, "The
things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man"
(Mark vii. 15, 20, 23). The
emphasis with which Christ taught this ought to be noticed. On purpose
to insist upon it, "He called to Him the multitude again, and
said unto them, Hear ye all of you, and understand:
there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile
him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile
the man." And He repeats this principle a second and a third time to
His disciples privately. "Are ye so without understanding also?...
That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.... All
these things proceed from within, and defile the man." If even an
unspoken thought can defile, when it has not yet proceeded farther
than the heart, much greater will be the pollution if the evil thing
is allowed to come to the birth by passing the barrier of the lips.
This flow of evil from us means nothing less than this, that we have
made ourselves a channel through which infernal agencies pass into the
world. Is it possible for such a channel to escape defilement?
CHAPTER XV.
THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER.
"Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men,
which are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth
cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought
not so to be. Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening
sweet water and bitter? Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or
a vine figs? neither can salt water yield sweet."—St. James
iii. 9-12.
IN these concluding sentences of the paragraph
respecting sins of the tongue St. James does two things—he
shows the moral chaos to which the Christian who fails to control his
tongue is reduced, and he thereby shows such a man how vain it is for
him to hope that the worship which he offers to Almighty God can be
pure and acceptable. He has made himself the channel of hellish
influences. He cannot at pleasure make himself the channel of heavenly
influences, or become the offerer of holy sacrifices. The fires of
Pentecost will not rest where the fires of Gehenna are working, nor
can one who has become the minister of Satan at the same time be a
minister to offer praise to God.
When those who would have excused themselves for
their lack of good works pleaded the correctness of
their faith, St. James told them that such faith was
barren and dead, and incapable of saving them from condemnation.
Similarly, the man who thinks himself to be religious, and does not
bridle his tongue, was told that his religion is vain (i. 26).
And in the passage before us St. James explains how that is. His
religion or religious worship (θρησκεία)
is a mockery and a contradiction. The offering is tainted; it comes
from a polluted altar and a polluted priest. A man who curses his
fellow men, and then blesses God, is like one who professes the
profoundest respect for his sovereign, while he insults the royal
family, throws mud at the royal portraits, and ostentatiously
disregards the royal wishes. It is further proof of the evil character
of the tongue that it is capable of lending itself to such chaotic
activity. "Therewith bless we the Lord and Father," i.e. God in
His might and in His love; "and therewith curse we men, which are made
after the likeness of God." The heathen fable tells us the apparent
contradiction of being able to blow both hot and cold with the same
breath; and the son of Sirach points out that "if thou blow the spark,
it shall burn; if thou spit upon it, it shall be quenched; and both
these come out of thy mouth" (Ecclus. xxviii. 12).
St. James, who may have had this passage in his mind, shows us
that there is a real and a moral contradiction which goes far beyond
either of these: "Out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and
cursing." Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness, "My
brethren, these things ought not so to be."
Assuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has
been, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think
themselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in
which persons professing to have a desire to serve God are
more ready to invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce
those who differ from themselves, and are supposed to be therefore
under the ban of Heaven. "They have a zeal for God, but not according
to knowledge. For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking
to establish their own, they do not subject themselves to the
righteousness of God" (Rom. x. 2, 3). Hence they rashly and
intemperately "curse whom the Lord hath not cursed, and defy whom the
Lord hath not defied" (Num. xxiii. 8). There are still many who
believe that not only in the psalms and hymns in which they bless the
Lord, but also in the sermons and pamphlets in which they fulminate
against their fellow-Christians, they are "offering service to God"
(John xvi. 2). There are many questions which have to be
carefully considered and answered before a Christian mouth, which has
been consecrated to the praise of our Lord and Father, ought to
venture to utter denunciations against others who worship the same God
and are also His offspring and His image. Is it quite certain that the
supposed evil is something which God abhors; that those whom we would
denounce are responsible for it; that denunciation of them will
do any good; that this is the proper time for such denunciation; that
we are the proper persons to utter it? About every one of these
questions the most fatal mistakes are constantly being made. The
singing of Te Deums after massacres and dragonnades is
perhaps no longer possible; but alternations between religious
services and religious prosecutions, between writing pious books and
publishing exasperating articles, are by no means extinct. For one
case in which harm has been done because no one has come forward to
denounce a wrongdoer, there are ten cases in which harm has been done
because some one has been indiscreetly, or inopportunely, or
uncharitably, or unjustly denounced. "Praise is not seasonable (ὡραῖος) in the mouth of a sinner" (Ecclus.
xv. 9); and whatever may have been the writer's meaning in the
difficult passage in which it occurs, we may give it a meaning that
will bring it into harmony with what St. James says here. The
praise of God is not seasonable in the mouth of one who is ever
sinning in reviling God's children.
The illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the
touches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with
Palestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of
this Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are
not rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern slope of
the hill-country of Judæa are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and
the olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and
St. James, if he looked out of window as he was writing, would be
likely enough to see all three. It is not improbable that in one or
more of the illustrations he is following some ancient saying or
proverb. Thus, Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a
century later, asks, "How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but
olivewise, or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but
vinewise? It is impossible, inconceivable." It is possible that our
Lord Himself, when He used a similar illustration in connexion with
the worst of all sins of the tongue, was adapting a proverb already in
use. In speaking of "the blasphemy against the Spirit" He says,
"Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree
corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye
offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for
out of the abundance of
the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure
bringeth forth good things; and the evil man out of his evil treasure
bringeth forth evil things. And I say unto you, That every idle word
that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of
judgment" (Matt. xii. 33-36). And previously, in the Sermon on
the Mount, where He is speaking of deeds rather than of words, "By
their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or
figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit,
but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good
fruit" (Matt. vii. 16-18).
Can it be the case that while physical contradictions are not
permitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral
contradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of
all earthly creatures? The "double-minded man," who prays and doubts,
receives nothing from the Lord, because his petition is only in form a
prayer; it lacks the essential characteristic of prayer, which is
faith. But the double-tongued man, who blesses God and curses men,
what does he receive? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his
doubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is
judged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one
or the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is
prayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no
prayer—no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other
case: if God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no
cursing of His children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot
acceptably be blessed; the very words
of praise, coming from such lips, will be an offence to Him.
But it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of
strong denunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes
and Pharisees; and again, St. Paul cursed Hymenæus and Alexander
(1 Tim. i. 20), the incestuous person at Corinth
(1 Cor. v. 5), and Elymas the sorcerer (Acts xiii. 10).
Most true. But firstly, these curses were uttered by those who could
not err in such things. Christ "knew what was in man," and could read
the hearts of all; and the fact that St. Paul's curses were
supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was acting under Divine
guidance in what he said. And secondly, these stern utterances had
their source in love; not, as human curses commonly have, in hate. It
was in order that those on whom they were pronounced might be warned,
and schooled to better things, that they were uttered; and we know
that in the case of the sinner at Corinth the severe remedy had this
effect; the curse was really a blessing. When we have
infallible guidance, and when we are able by supernatural
results to prove that we possess it, it will be time enough to begin
to deal in curses. And let us remember the proportion which
such things bear to the rest of Christ's words and of St. Paul's
words, so far as they have been preserved for us. Christ wrought
numberless miracles of mercy: besides those which are recorded in
detail, we are frequently told that "He healed many that were sick
with divers diseases, and cast out many devils" (Mark i. 34);
that "He had healed many" (iii. 10); that "wheresoever He
entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid
the sick in the market-places, and besought Him that they might touch
if it were but
the border of His garment; and as many as touched Him were made whole"
(vi. 56); and so forth (John xxi. 25). But He wrought only
one miracle of judgment, and that was upon a tree, which could teach
the necessary lesson without feeling the punishment (Mark
xi. 12-23). All this applies with much force to those who believe
themselves to be called upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to
them to be enemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force
to those who in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on
their own account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems
to them to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves!
That such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer
acceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral
contradiction of the most startling kind. And are such cases rare? Is
it so uncommon a thing for a man to attend church regularly, and join
with apparent devotion in the services, and yet think little of the
grievous words which he allows himself to utter when his temper is
severely tried? How amazed and offended he would be if he were invited
to eat at a table which had been used for some disgusting purpose, and
had never since been cleansed! And yet he does not hesitate to "defile
his whole body" with his unbridled tongue, and then offer praise to
God from this polluted source!
Nor is this the only contradiction in which such a one is involved.
How strange that the being who is lord and master of all the animal
creation should be unable to govern himself! How strange that man's
chief mark of superiority over the brutes should be the power of
speech, and that he should use this power in such a way as to make it
the instrument of his own
degradation, until he becomes lower than the brutes! They, whether
tamed or untamed, unconsciously declare the glory of God; while he,
with his noble powers of consciously and loyally praising Him, by his
untamed tongue reviles those who are made after the image of God, and
thus turns his own praises into blasphemies. Thus does man's rebellion
reverse the order of nature and frustrate the will of God.
The writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has
been urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty
of that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the
case is over-stated, and that the highly coloured picture is a
caricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that
can honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief
may be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado;
what confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood;
what suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements;
what careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy
jests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single
utterance in each case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years.
One reckless word may blight a whole life. "Many have fallen by the
edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue"
(Ecclus. xxviii. 18). And there are persons who habitually pour
forth such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is
unkind, or false, or impure. When we look around us, and see the moral
ruin which in every class of society can be traced to reckless
language—lives embittered, and blighted, and brutalized by words
spoken and heard—can we wonder at the severe words of
St. James, whose
experience was not very different from our own? Violent and
uncharitable language had become one of the besetting sins of the
Jews, and no doubt Jewish Christians were by no means free from it.
"Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued," says the son of Sirach,
"for such have destroyed many that were at peace" (Ecclus.
xxviii. 13). To which the Syriac Version adds a clause not given
in the Greek, nor in our Bibles: "Also the third tongue, let it
be cursed; for it has laid low many corpses." This expression, "third
tongue," seems to have come into use among the Jews in the period
between the Old and New Testament. It means a slanderous tongue, and
it is called "third" because it is fatal to three sets of
people—to the person who utters the slander, to those who listen
to it, and to those about whom it is uttered. "A third tongue hath
tossed many to and fro, and driven them from nation to nation; and
strong cities hath it pulled down, and houses of great men hath it
overthrown" (Ecclus. xxviii. 14); where not only the Syriac, but
the Greek, has the interesting expression "third tongue," a fact
obscured in our version.
The "third tongue" is as common and as destructive now as when the
son of Sirach denounced it, or St. James wrote against it with
still greater authority; and we all of us can do a great deal to check
the mischief, not merely by taking care that we keep our own tongues
from originating evil, but by refusing to repeat, or if possible even
to listen to, what the third tongue says. Our unwillingness to hear
may be a discouragement to the speaker, and our refusal to repeat will
at least lessen the evil of his tale. We shall have saved ourselves
from becoming links in the chain of destruction.
There is one kind of sinful language to which the severe sayings of
St. James specially apply, although the context seems to show
that it was not specially in his mind—impure language. The foul
tongue is indeed a "world of iniquity, which defileth the whole body,
and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell."
In no other case is the self-pollution of the speaker so manifest, or
the injury to the listener so probable, so all but inevitable. Foul
stories and impure jests and innuendoes, even more clearly than oaths
and curses, befoul the souls of those who utter them, while they lead
the hearers into sin. Such things rob all who are concerned in them,
either as speakers or listeners, of two things which are the chief
safeguards of virtue—the fear of God, and the fear of sin. They
create an atmosphere in which men sin with a light heart, because the
grossest sins are made to look not only attractive and easy, but
amusing. What can be made to seem laughable is supposed to be not very
serious. There is no more devilish act that a human being can perform
than that of inducing others to believe that what is morally hideous
and deadly is "pleasant to the eye and good for food." And this
devil's work is sometimes done merely to raise a laugh, merely for
something to say. Does any one seriously maintain that the language of
St. James is at all too strong for such things as these? We
hardly need his authority for the belief that a filthy tongue pollutes
a man's whole being, and owes its inspiration to the evil one.
It is of angry, ill-tempered, unkind words that we do not believe
this so readily. Words that are not false or calumnious, not running
out into blasphemies and curses, and certainly not tainted with anything
like impurity, do not always strike us as being as harmful as they
really are, not only to others, whom they irritate or sadden, but to
ourselves, who allow our characters to be darkened by them. The
captious word, that makes everything a subject for blame; the
discontented word, that would show that the speaker is always being
ill-treated; the biting word, that is meant to inflict pain; the
sullen word, that throws a gloom over all who hear it; the provoking
word, that seeks to stir up strife—of all these we are most of
us apt to think too lightly, and need the stern warnings of
St. James to remind us of their true nature and of their certain
consequences. As regards others, such things wound tender
hearts, add needlessly and enormously to the unhappiness of mankind,
turn sweet affections sour, stifle good impulses, create and foster
bad feelings, embitter in its smallest details the whole round of
daily life. As regards ourselves, indulgence in such language
weakens and warps our characters, blunts our sympathies, deadens our
love for man, and therefore our love for God. "In particular it makes
prayer either impossible or half useless. Whether we know it or not,
the prayer that comes from a heart indulging in evil temper is hardly
a prayer at all. We cannot really be face to face with God; we cannot
really approach God as a Father; we cannot really feel like children
kneeling at His feet; we cannot really be simply affectionate and
truthful in what we say to Him, if irritation, discontent, or gloom,
or anger, is busy at our breasts. An undisciplined temper shuts out
the face of God from us. We may see His holy Law, but we cannot see
Himself. We may think of Him as our Creator, our Judge, our Ruler, but
we cannot think of Him as our Father,
nor approach Him with love."Sermons preached in Rugby School Chapel, by the Rev. Frederick
Temple, D.D. (Macmillan, 1867), pp. 324, 325.
"Salt water cannot yield sweet."
It was once pleaded on behalf of a man who had been criticized and
condemned as unsatisfactory, that he was "a good man, all but his
temper." "All but his temper!" was the not unreasonable reply; "as if
temper were not nine tenths of religion." "If any man stumbleth not in
word, the same is a perfect man."
CHAPTER XVI.
THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW.
"Who is wise and understanding among you? let him show by his good
life his works in meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter jealousy
and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is
earthly, sensual, devilish. For where jealousy and faction are, there
is confusion and every vile deed."—St. James iii. 13-16.
THIS section, which again looks at first sight like
an abrupt transition to another subject, is found, upon closer
examination, to grow quite naturally out of the preceding one.
St. James has just been warning his readers against the lust of
teaching and talking. Not many of them are to become teachers, for the
danger of transgressing with the tongue, which is great in all of us,
is in them at a maximum, because teachers must talk. Moreover, those
who teach have greater responsibilities than those who do not; for by
professing to instruct others they deprive themselves of the plea of
ignorance, and they are bound to instruct by example of good deeds, as
well as by precept of good words. From this subject he quite naturally
passes on to speak of the difference between the wisdom from above and
the wisdom from below; and the connexion is twofold. It is those who
possess only the latter wisdom, and are proud of their miserable
possession, who are so eager to make themselves of importance by
giving instruction; and it is the fatal love of talk, about which he
has just been speaking so severely, that is one of the chief symptoms
of the wisdom that is from below.
This paragraph is, in fact, simply a continuation of the
uncompromising attack upon sham religion which is the main
theme throughout a large portion of the Epistle. St. James first
shows how useless it is to be an eager hearer of the word, without
also being a doer of it. Next he exposes the inconsistency of loving
one's neighbour as oneself if he chances to be rich, and neglecting or
even insulting him if he is poor. From that he passes on to prove the
barrenness of an orthodoxy which is not manifested in good deeds, and
the peril of trying to make words a substitute for works. And thus the
present section is reached. Throughout the different sections it is
the empty religiousness which endeavours to avoid the practice
of Christian virtue, on the plea of possessing zeal, or faith, or
knowledge, that is mercilessly exposed and condemned. "Deed, deeds,
deeds," is the cry of St. James; "these ought ye to have done,
and not to have left the other undone." Without Christian practice,
all the other good things which they possessed or professed were
savourless salt.
"Who is wise and understanding among you?" (τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν). The
same two words meet us in the questionings of Job (xxviii. 12):
"Where shall wisdom (σοφία) be found? and
where is the place of understanding (ἐπιστήμη)?"Comp. also Deut. i. 13, and iv. 6, where we have the same
combination.
Of all the words which signify some kind of intellectual endowment,
e.g. "prudence" (φρόνησις),
"knowledge" (γνῶσις
or ἐπίγνωσις), and "understanding"
(ἐπιστήμη
or σύνεσισ),
"wisdom" (σοφία)
always ranks as highest. It indicates, as Clement of Alexandria
defines it (Strom. I. v.), "the understanding of things human
and Divine, and their causes." It is the word which expresses the
typical wisdom of Solomon (Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31), the
inspiration of St. Stephen (Acts vi. 10), and the Divine
wisdom of Jesus Christ (Matt. xiii. 54; Mark vi. 2; and
comp. Luke xi. 49 with Matt. xxiii. 34). It is also employed
in the heavenly doxologies which ascribe wisdom to the Lamb and to God
(Rev. v. 12; vii. 12). St. James, therefore, quite
naturally employs it to denote that excellent gift for which
Christians are to pray with full confidence that it will be granted to
them (i. 5, 6), and which manifests its heavenly character by a
variety of good fruits (iii. 17).
Whether we are to understand any very marked difference between the
two adjectives ("wise" and "understanding") used in the opening
question, is a matter of little moment. The question taken as a whole
amounts to this: Who among you professes to have superior knowledge,
spiritual or practical? The main thing is not the precise scope of the
question, but of the answer. Let every one who claims to have a
superiority which entitles him to teach others prove his
superiority by his good life. Once more it is a call for deeds,
and not words—for conduct, and not professions. And
St. James expresses this in a specially strong way. He might have
said simply, "Let him by his conduct show his wisdom," just as he said
above, "I by my works will show thee my faith." But he says, "Let him
show by his good life his works in meekness of wisdom." Thus the
necessity for practice and conduct, as distinct from
mere knowledge, is enforced twice over;
and besides that, the particular character of the conduct, the
atmosphere in which it is to be exhibited, is also indicated. It is to
be done "in meekness of wisdom." There are two characteristics
here specified which we shall find are given as the infallible signs
of the heavenly wisdom; and their opposites as signs of the other. The
heavenly wisdom is fruitful of good deeds, and inspires those who
possess it with gentleness. The other wisdom is productive of nothing
really valuable, and inspires those who possess it with
contentiousness. The spirit of strife, and the spirit of meekness;
those are the two properties which chiefly distinguish the wisdom that
comes from heaven from the wisdom that comes from hell.
This test is a very practical one, and we can apply it to ourselves
as well as to others. How do we bear ourselves in argument and in
controversy? Are we serene about the result, in full confidence that
truth and right should prevail? Are we desirous that truth should
prevail, even if that should involve our being proved to be in
the wrong? Are we meek and gentle towards those who differ from us? or
are we apt to lose our tempers, and become heated against our
opponents? If the last is the case we have reason to doubt whether our
wisdom is of the best sort. He who loses his temper in argument has
begun to care more about himself, and less about the truth. He has
become like the many would-be teachers rebuked by St. James; slow
to hear, and swift to speak; unwilling to learn, and eager to
dogmatize; much less ready to know the truth than to be able to say
something, whether true or false.
The words "by his good life" (ἐκ
τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς) are a change made by the Revisers for other
reasons than the two which commonly weighed with them. As already
stated (p. 150), their most valuable corrections are those which have
been produced by the correction of the corrupt Greek text used by
previous translators. Many more are corrections of mistranslations of
the correct Greek text. The present change of "good
conversation" into "good life" comes under neither of
these two heads. It has been necessitated by a change which has taken
place in the English language during the last two or three centuries.
Words are constantly changing their meaning. "Conversation" is one of
many English words which have drifted from their old signification;
and it is one of several which have undergone change since the
Authorized Version was published, and in spite of the enormous
influence exercised by that version. For there can be no doubt that
our Bible has retained words in use which would otherwise have been
dropped, and has kept words to their old meaning which would otherwise
have undergone a change. This latter influence, however, fails to make
itself felt where the changed meaning still makes sense; and that is
the case with the passages in which "conversation" (as a rendering of
ἀναστροφή) occurs in the New
Testament. "Conversation" was formerly a word of much wider meaning,
and its gradual restriction to intercourse by word of mouth is
unfortunate. Formerly it covered the whole of a man's walk in
life (Lebenswandel), his going out and coming in, his behaviour
or conduct. Wherever he "turned himself about" and lived, there he had
his "conversation" (conversatio, from conversari, the
exact equivalent of ἀναστροφή, from
ἀναστρέφεσθαι). It was exactly
the word that was required by the translators of the Greek Testament.
In the Septuagint it does not occur until the Apocrypha (Tobit
iv. 14). But it causes serious misunderstanding to restrict the
meaning of all the passages in which the word occurs to "conversation"
in the modern sense, as if speaking were the only thing included; and
the Revisers have done very rightly in removing this source of
misunderstanding; but they have been unable to find any one expression
which would serve the purpose, and hence have been compelled to vary
the translation. Sometimes they give "manner of life" (Gal.
i. 13; Eph. iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12; 1 Peter
i. 18); iii. 16; once "manner of living" (1 Peter
i. 15); three times "behaviour" (1 Peter ii. 12;
iii. 1, 2); three times "life" (Heb. xiii. 7; 2 Peter
ii. 7; and here); and once "living" (2 Peter iii. 11).
These different translations are worth collecting together, inasmuch
as they give a good idea of the scope of "conversation" in the old sense,That "conversation" should also have been used as a rendering of πολίτευμα (Phil. iii. 20; comp.
i. 27) and τρόπος (Heb. xiii. 5)
is very unfortunate.
which really represents the word used by St. James. That
"conversation," with the modern associations which inevitably cling to
it now, should be used in the passage before us, is singularly
unfortunate. It not only misrepresents, but it almost reverses the
meaning of the writer. So far from telling a man to show his wisdom by
what he says in his intercourse with others, St. James
rather exhorts him to show it by saying as little as possible, and
doing a great deal. Let him show out of a noble life the conduct of a
wise man in the gentle spirit which befits such. In modern language,
let him in the fullest sense be a Christian gentleman.
"In meekness of wisdom." On this St. James lays
great stress. He has already told his readers to "receive with
meekness the implanted word" (i. 21), and what implies the same
thing, although the word is not used, to "be swift to hear, slow to
speak, slow to wrath" (i. 19). And in the passage before us he
insists with urgent repetition upon the peaceable and gentle
disposition of those who possess the wisdom from above (vv. 17,
18). The Christian grace of meekness is a good deal more than the
rather second-rate virtue which Aristotle makes to be the mean between
passionateness and impassionateness, and to consist in a due
regulation of one's angry feelings (Eth. Nic. IV. v.). It
includes submissiveness towards God, as well as gentleness towards
men; and it exhibits itself in a special way in giving and receiving
instruction, and in administering and accepting rebuke. It was,
therefore, just the grace which the many would-be teachers, with their
loud professions of correct faith and superior knowledge, specially
needed to acquire. The Jew, with his national contempt for all who
were not of the stock of Israel, was always prone to self-assertion,
and these Christian Jews of the Dispersion had still to learn the
spirit of their own psalms. "The meek will He guide in judgment; and
the meek will He teach His way" (xxv. 9). "The meek shall inherit
the land, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace"
(xxxvii. 11). "The Lord upholdeth the meek" (cxlvii. 6). "He
shall beautify the meek with salvation" (cxlix. 4). In all these
passages the Septuagint has the adjective (πραεῖς) of the substantive used by
St. James (πραΰτης). "But if,"
instead of this meekness, "ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your
heart, glory not, and lie not against the truth." With a gentle
severity St. James states as a mere supposition
what he probably knew to be a fact. There was plenty of bitter
zealousness and party spirit among them; and from this fact they could
draw their own conclusions. It was an evil from which the Jews greatly
suffered; and a few years later it hastened, if it did not cause, the
overthrow of Jerusalem. This "jealousy" or zeal (ζῆλος) itself became a party name in the
fanatical sect of the Zealots. It was an evil from which the primitive
Church greatly suffered, as passages in the New Testament and in the
sub-Apostolic writers prove; and can we say that it has ever become
extinct? The same conclusion must be drawn now as then.
Jealousy or zeal may be a good or a bad thing according to the
motive which inspires it. God Himself is called "a jealous God," and
is said to be "clad with zeal as a cloak" (Isa. lix. 17), and to
"take to Him jealousy for complete armour" (Wisdom v. 17). To
Christ His disciples applied the words, "The zeal of Thine house shall
eat me up" (John ii. 17). But more often the word has a bad
signification. It indicates "zeal not according to knowledge" (Rom.
x. 2), as when the high priest and Sadducees arrested the
Apostles (Acts v. 17), or when Saul persecuted the Church (Phil.
iii. 6). It is coupled with strife (Rom. xiii. 13), and is
counted among the works of the flesh (Gal. v. 20). To make it
quite plain that it is to be understood in a bad sense here,
St. James adds the epithet "bitter" to it, and perhaps thereby
recalls what he has just said about a mouth that utters both curses
and blessings being as monstrous as a fountain spouting forth both
bitter water and sweet. Moreover, he couples it with "faction" (ἐριθεία), a word which originally meant
"working for hire," and especially "weaving
for hire" (Isa. xxxviii. 12), and thence any ignoble pursuit,
especially political canvassing, intrigue, or factiousness (Arist.
Pol. V. ii. 6; iii. 9; Rom. ii. 8; Phil.
i. 16; ii. 3). This also St. Paul classes among the
works of the flesh (Gal. v. 20). What St. James seems to
refer to in these two words is bitter religious animosity; a hatred of
error (or what is supposed to be such), manifesting itself, not in
loving attempts to win over those who are at fault, but in bitter
thoughts, and words, and party combinations.
"Glory not, and lie not against the truth." To glory with their
tongues of their superior wisdom, while they cherished jealousy and
faction in their hearts, was a manifest lie, a contradiction of what
they must know to be the truth. In their fanatical zeal for the truth
they were really lying against the truth, and ruining the cause which
they professed to serve. Of how many a controversialist would that be
true; and not only of those who have entered the lists against heresy
and infidelity, but of those who are preaching a crusade against vice!
"The whole Christianity of many a devotee consists only, we may say,
in a bitter contempt for the sins of sinners, in a proud and loveless
contention with what it calls the wicked world" (Stier).
"This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is
earthly, sensual, devilish." The wisdom which is exhibited in such a
thoroughly unchristian disposition is of no heavenly origin. It may be
a proof of intellectual advantages of some kind, but it is not such as
those who lack it need pray for (i. 5), nor such as God bestows
liberally on all who ask in faith. And then, having stated what it is
not, St. James tells in three words, which form a climax, what
the wisdom on which they plume themselves, in
its nature, and sphere, and origin, really is. It belongs to this
world, and has no connexion with heavenly things. Its activity
is in the lower part of man's nature, his passions and his human
intelligence, but it never touches his spirit. And in its origin and
manner of working it is demoniacal. Not the gentleness of God's
Holy Spirit, but the fierce recklessness of Satan's emissaries,
inspires it. Just as there is a faith which a man may share with
demons (ii. 19), and a tongue which is set on fire by hell
(iii. 6), so there is a wisdom which is demoniacal in its source
and in its activity.
The second of the three terms of condemnation used by
St. James (ψυχικός) cannot be
adequately rendered in English, for "psychic" or "psychical" would
convey either no meaning or a wrong one. It does not occur in the
Septuagint, but is found six times in the New Testament—four
times in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ii. 14;
xv. 44, 46), where most English versions have "natural;" once in
Jude (19), where Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan have "fleshly," the
Rhemish, the Authorized, and the Revised "sensual;" and once here,
where Genevan, Rhemish, Authorized, and Revised all give "sensual,"
the last placing "natural or animal" in the margin.Purvey has "beastly" in all six places, which is a translation of
the animalis of the Vulgate: "earthly, beastly, fiendly" is his
triplet. See p. 453.
When man's nature is divided into body and soul, or flesh and spirit,
every one understands that the body or flesh indicates the lower and
material part, the soul or spirit the higher and immaterial part. But
when a threefold division is made, into body, soul, and spirit, we are
apt to allow the more simple and more familiar division to disturb our
ideas. "Soul" is
allowed to keep its old meaning, and to be understood as much more
allied with "spirit" than with "body" or "flesh." This causes serious
misunderstanding. When the soul is distinguished, not only from the
flesh, but from the spirit, it represents a part of our nature which
is much more closely connected with the former than with the latter.
The "natural" or "sensual" man, though higher than the carnal man, who
is the slave of his animal passions, is far below the spiritual man,
who is ruled by the highest portion of his nature, which is under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. The natural man does not soar above the
things of this world. His inspirations are not heavenly. "Of the earth
he is, and of the earth he speaketh." The wisdom from above is
heavenly, spiritual, Divine; the wisdom from below is earthly,
sensual, devilish.
Does this seem to be an exaggeration? St. James is ready to
justify his strong language. "For where jealousy and faction are,
there is confusion and every vile deed." And who are the authors of
confusion and vile deeds? Are they to be found in heaven, or in hell?
Is confusion, or order, the mark of God's work? If one wished to sum
up succinctly the manner in which the activity of demons specially
exhibits itself, could one do so better than by saying "confusion and
every vile deed"? "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace," says
St. Paul, using the very word that we have here (1 Cor.
xiv. 33); and every one heartily assents to the doctrine. The
reason and conscience of every man tell him that disorder cannot in
origin be Divine; it is part of that ruin which Satanic influences
have been allowed to make in a universe which was created "very good."
Jealousy and faction mean anarchy; and anarchy means a moral chaos in which
every vile deed finds an opportunity. We know, therefore, what to
think of the superior wisdom which is claimed by those in whose hearts
jealousy and faction reign supreme. It may have a right to the name of
wisdom, just as a correct belief about the nature of God may have a
right to the name of faith, even when it remains barren, and therefore
powerless to save. But an inspiration which prompts men to envy and
intrigue, because, when many are rushing to occupy the post of
teacher, others find a hearing more readily than themselves, is the
inspiration of Cain and of Korah, rather than of Moses or of Daniel.
The professed desire to offer service to God is really only a craving
to obtain advancement for self. Self-seeking of this kind is always
ruinous. It both betrays and aggravates the rottenness that lurks
within. It was immediately after there had been a contention among the
Apostles, "which of them was accounted to be greatest" (Luke
xxii. 24), that they "all forsook Him and fled."
Note.—A
portion of Dr. Newman's description of a gentleman will serve to
illustrate what has been said above. It occurs in his Discourses
addressed to the Catholics of Dublin. "It is almost a definition
of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain.
He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder
the free and unembarrassed action of those about him, and he concurs
with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. He
carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of
those with whom he is cast—all clashing of opinion, or collision
of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his
great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He
has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful,
gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd. He guards
against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate. He has
no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to
those who interfere with him, and interprets everything for the
best."
CHAPTER XVII.
THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE.
"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure,
then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good
fruits, without variance, without hypocrisy. And the fruit of
righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace."—St. James iii. 17, 18.
AT the beginning of his Epistle St. James
exhorts those of his readers who feel their lack of wisdom to pray for
it. It is one of those good and perfect gifts from above, which come
down from the Father of lights, who "giveth to all liberally, and
upbraideth not" (i. 5, 17). He now, after having sketched its
opposite, states, in a few clear, pregnant words, what the
characteristics of this heavenly gift of wisdom are. In both passages
he probably had in his mind, and wished to suggest to the minds of his
readers, well-known utterances on the same subject in the Books of
Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom.
"My son, if thou cry after discernment, and lift up thy voice for
understanding; if thou seek her as silver, and search for her as for
hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and
find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom; out of His
mouth cometh knowledge and understanding" (Prov. ii. 3-6).
Again, the magnificent "Praise of Wisdom" in the
twenty-fourth chapter of Ecclesiasticus, in which Wisdom
is made to tell her own glories, opens thus: "I came forth from the
mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a cloud;" and it
continues, "Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and
He that created me caused my tabernacle to rest, and said, Let thy
dwelling be in Jacob, and thine inheritance in Israel. Before time
was, from the beginning, He created me, and until times cease I shall
in nowise fail" (vv. 3, 8, 9).
And in the similar passage in the Book of Wisdom, in which the
praise of Wisdom is put into the mouth of Solomon, he says, "Wisdom,
which is the worker of all things, taught me.... She is the breath of
the power of God, and a pure emanation from the glory of the Almighty:
therefore doth no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the
effulgence (ἀπαύγασμα: Heb. i. 3)
of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God,
and the image of His goodness. And being one, she can do all things;
and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new; and in all
generations entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God,
and prophets. For God loveth nothing but him that dwelleth with
wisdom" (vii. 22, 25-28).
Three thoughts are conspicuous in these passages. Wisdom originates
with God. It is consequently pure and glorious. God bestows it upon
His people. These thoughts reappear in St. James, and to them he
adds another, which scarcely appears in the earlier writers. Wisdom is
"peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy, and good
fruits." In Proverbs we do indeed read that "all her paths are peace"
(iii. 17); but the thought is not followed up. It does not seem
to occur to the son of Sirach; and not one of the twenty-one epithets
which the writer of Wisdom piles
up in praise of this heavenly gift (vii. 22, 23) touches upon its
peaceable and placable nature. It was left to the Gospel to teach,
both by the example of Christ and by the words of His Apostles, how
inevitably the Divine wisdom produces, in those who possess it,
gentleness, self-repression, and peace.
"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable,
gentle, easy to be entreated." The "first" and the "then" may be
seriously misunderstood. St. James does not mean that the
heavenly wisdom cannot be peaceable and gentle until all its
surroundings have been made pure from everything that would oppose or
contradict it; in other words, that the wise and understanding
Christian will first free himself from the society of all whom he
believes to be in error, and then, but not till then, will he be
peaceable and gentle. That is, so long as folly and falsehood remain,
they must be denounced, and made either to recant or to retire; for
only when they have disappeared will wisdom show itself easy to be
entreated. Purity, i.e. freedom from all that would dim the brightness
of truth, must precede peace, and there can be no peace until it is
obtained.
This interpretation contradicts the context, and makes
St. James teach the opposite of what he says very plainly in the
sentences which precede, and in those which follow, the words which we
are considering. It tries to enlist him on the side of partisanship
and persecution, at the very moment when he is pleading most earnestly
against them. He is stating a logical, and not a chronological order,
when he declares that true wisdom is "first pure, then peaceable." In
its inmost being it is pure; among its very various external
manifestations are the six or seven beneficent
qualities which follow the "then." If there were no one to be gentle
to, no one coming to entreat, no one needing mercy, the wisdom from
above would still be pure; therefore this quality comes first.
When the author of the Book of Wisdom says that wisdom is "a pure
emanation from the glory of God: therefore can no defiled thing fall
into her" (vii. 25), he is thinking of a pure stream, into which
no foul ditch is able to empty its polluting contents, or of a pure
ray of light, which does not admit of mixture with anything that would
colour or darken it. He does not use the word for pure which we have
here (ἁγνός), but one which signifies
"unmixed," and hence "unsullied" (εἰλικρινής), and which occurs Phil.
i. 10 and 2 Pet. iii. 1. The word used here by
St. James is akin to "holy" (ἅγιος),
and primarily signifies what is associated with religious awe (ἅγος), and hence "hallowed," especially by
sacrifice. From this it became narrowed in meaning to what is free
from the pollution of unchastity or bloodshed. As a Biblical word it
sometimes has this narrow meaning; but generally it implies freedom
from all stain of sin, and therefore is not far removed in meaning
from "holy." But it is worth noting that whereas Christ and good men
are spoken of as both pure and holy, yet God is called holy, but never
pure. Divine holiness cannot be assailed by any polluting influence.
Human holiness, even that of Christ, can be so assailed, and in
resisting the assault it remains "pure."
In the passage before us "pure" must certainly not be limited to
mean simply "chaste." The word "sensual," applied to the wisdom from
below, does not mean unchaste, but living wholly in the world of
sense; and the purity of the heavenly wisdom does not consist
merely in victory over temptations of the flesh, but in freedom from
worldly and low motives. Its aim is that truth should become known and
prevail, and it condescends to no ignoble arts in prosecuting this
aim. Contradiction does not ruffle it, and hostility does not provoke
it to retaliate, because its motives are thoroughly disinterested and
pure. Thus, its peaceable and placable qualities flow out of its
purity. It is "first pure, then peaceable." It is
because the man who is inspired with it has no ulterior selfish ends
to serve that he is gentle, sympathetic, and considerate towards those
who oppose him. He strives, not for victory over his opponents, but
for truth both for himself and for them; and he knows what it costs to
arrive at truth. We have a noble illustration of this temper in some
of the opening passages of St. Augustine's treatise against the
so-called Fundamental Letter of Manichæus. He begins
thus:—
"My prayer to the one true God Almighty, of whom, and through whom,
and in whom are all things, has been and is, that in refuting and
disproving the heresy of you Manichæans, to which you adhere perchance
more through thoughtlessness than evil intent, He would give me a mind
composed and tranquil, and aiming rather at your amendment than your
discomfiture.... It has been our business, therefore, to prefer and
choose the better part, that we might have an opportunity for your
amendment, not in contention, and strife, and persecutions, but in
gentle consolation, affectionate exhortation, and quiet discussion; as
it is written, The Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle
towards all, teachable, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that
oppose themselves....
"Let those rage against you who know not with what
toil truth is found, and how difficult it is to avoid
errors.... Let those rage against you who know not with how great
difficulty the eye of the inner man is made whole, so that it can
behold its Sun.... Let those rage against you who know not with what
sighs and groans it is made possible, in however small a degree, to
comprehend God. Finally, let those rage against you who have never
been deceived by such an error as that whereby they see you
deceived....
"Let neither of us say that he has already found the truth. Let us
seek it as if it were unknown to us both. For it can be sought for
with zeal and unanimity only if there be no rash assumption that it
has been found and is known."
And to the same effect, although in a different key, a critical
writer of our own day has remarked that "by an intellect which is
habitually filled with the wisdom which is from heaven, in all its
length and breadth, 'objections' against religion are perceived at
once to proceed from imperfect apprehension. Such an intellect cannot
rage against those who give words to such objections. It sees that the
objectors do but intimate the partial character of their own
knowledge."Mark Pattison, Essays: Life of Bishop Warburton, vol. ii.,
pp. 163, 164 (Oxford: 1889).
It will be observed that while the writer just quoted speaks about
the intellect, St. James speaks about the heart.
The difference is not accidental, and it is significant of a
difference in the point of view. The modern view of wisdom is that it
is a matter which mainly consists in the strengthening and enrichment
of the intellectual powers. Increase of capacity for acquiring and
retaining knowledge; increase in the possession of knowledge: this is
what is meant by growth in wisdom. And by knowledge is meant
acquaintance with the
nature and history of man, and with the nature and history of the
universe. All this is the sphere of the intellect rather than of the
heart. The purification and development of the moral powers, if not
absolutely excluded from the scope of wisdom, is commonly left in the
background and almost out of sight. What St. James says here is
fully admitted: the highest wisdom keeps a man from the bitterness of
party spirit. But why? Because his superior intelligence and
information tell him that the opposition of those who dissent from him
is the result of ignorance, which requires, not insult and abuse, but
instruction. St. James does not dissent from this view, but he
adds to it. There are further and higher reasons why the truly wise
man does not rail at others, or try to browbeat and silence them.
Because, while he abhors folly, he loves the fool, and would win him
over from his foolish ways; because he desires not only to impart
knowledge, but to increase virtue; and because he knows that strife
means confusion, and that gentleness is the parent of peace.
Christians are charged to be "wise as serpents, but harmless as
doves."
The Scriptural view of wisdom does not contradict the modern one,
but it is taken from the other side. In it the education of the moral
and spiritual powers is the main thing, while intellectual advancement
is in the background or out of sight. There is nothing in the teaching
of Christ or his Apostles that is hostile to intellectual progress;
but neither by His example, nor by the directions which His disciples
received or delivered, do we find that culture was regarded as part
of, or necessary to, or even a very desirable companion for, the
Gospel. Neither Christ nor any one of His immediate followers came
forward as a great promoter
of intellectual pursuits. Why is this? It would perhaps be a sound and
sufficient answer to say, that valuable as such work would have been,
there was much more serious and important work to be done. To convert
men from sin to righteousness was far more urgent than to improve
their minds. But there is more to be said than this. That perverse
generation had to "turn, and become as little children," before it
could enter into the kingdom of heaven. To develop a man's
intellectual powers is not always the best way to make him "humble
himself as a little child." Increase of knowledge may make a Newton
feel like a child picking up pebbles on the shore of truth, but it is
apt to make "the natural man" less childlike. But for no one, whether
catechumen, or convert, or mature Christian, can the cultivation of
his intellect be as pressing a duty as the cultivation of his heart.
"To speak with the tongues of men and of angels," and to "know all
mysteries and all knowledge," is as nothing in comparison with love.
And it is in some measure possible to see why this is so. Man's moral
nature certainly suffered, and ruinously suffered, at the Fall. It is
not so certain that his intellectual nature suffered also. If it did
suffer, it suffered through the moral nature, because
depravation of the heart depraved the brain. In neither case would
there be any necessity for the Gospel to pay special attention to the
regeneration of the intellect. If man's intellect was unscathed by his
fall from innocence, it could continue its natural development, and go
on from strength to strength towards perfection. If, however, the loss
of innocence has entailed a loss of mental capacity, then the wound
inflicted on the intellectual nature through the moral nature must be
healed in the same way. First purify
the heart and regenerate the will, and then the recovery
of the intellect will follow in due course.See Jellett's Thoughts on the Christian Life, p. 49 (Dublin: 1884).
It is easy to reach the intellect through the heart, and this is what
the wisdom that is from above aims at doing. If we begin with the
intellect, we shall very likely end there; and in that case the man is
not raised from his degradation, but equipped with additional powers
of mischief. "Into a soul that deviseth evil, wisdom will not enter,
nor yet dwell in a body that is sunk in sin" (Wisdom i. 4).
"Full of mercy and good fruits." The wisdom from above is not only
peaceable, reasonable, and conciliatory, when under provocation or
criticism, it is also eager to take the initiative in doing all the
good in its power to those whom it can reach or influence. Thus it
goes hand in hand with that pure and undefiled religion which visits
"the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (i. 27). Just as
St. James has no sympathy with a faith which does not clothe the
naked and feed the hungry, and offer of its best to God (ii. 15,
16, 21), nor with a tongue which blesses God and curses men
(ii. 9), so he has no belief in the heavenly character of a
wisdom which holds itself aloof in calm superiority to all cavil and
complaint, with a condescending air of passionless impartiality. The
intellectual miser, who gloats over the treasures of his own
accumulated knowledge, and smiles with lofty indifference upon the
criticisms and squabbles of the imperfectly instructed, has no share
in the wisdom that is from above. He is peaceful and moderate, not out
of love and sympathy, but because his time is too precious to be
wasted in barren controversy, and because he is too proud to
place himself on a level with those who would dispute with him. No
selfish arrogance of this kind has any place in the character of the
truly wise. His wisdom not only enlightens his intellect, but warms
his heart and strengthens his will. He believes that "the wise man
alone is king," and that "the wise man alone is happy," yet not
because he has the crown of knowledge and abundance of intellectual
enjoyment, but because he "fulfils the royal law, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself" (ii. 8), and because happiness is to be
found in promoting the happiness of others.
"Without variance, without hypocrisy." These are the last two of
the goodly qualities which St. James gives as marks of the
heavenly wisdom. Similarity in sound, which cannot well be preserved
in English, has evidently had something to do with their selection
(ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος).
The first of the two has perplexed translators, and the English
versions give us considerable choice: "without variance," "without
wrangling," "without partiality," "without doubtfulness," "without
judging." Purvey has for the two epithets "deeming without feigning,"
following the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate, which has judicans
sine simulatione, instead of non judicans, sine
simulatione. The word occurs nowhere else either in the Old or in
the New Testament; but it is cognate with a word which St. James
uses twice at the beginning of this Epistle (διακρινόμενος: i. 6), and which is
there rendered "doubting" or "wavering." Of the various possible
meanings of the word before us we may therefore prefer "without
doubtfulness." The wisdom from above is unwavering, steadfast,
single-minded. Thus Ignatius charges the Magnesians (xv.) to "possess
an unventuring spirit" (ἀδιάκριτον
πνεῦμα), and tells the
Trallians (i.) that he has "learned that they have a mind unblameable
and unwavering in patience" (ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ). And Clement of Alexandria
(Pæd. II. iii., p. 190) speaks of "unwavering faith" (ἀδιακρίτῳ πίστει), and a few lines
farther on he reminds his readers, in words that suit our present
subject, that "wisdom is not bought with earthly coin, nor is sold in
the market, but in heaven." If he had said that wisdom is not sold in
the market, but given from heaven, he would have made the
contrast both more pointed and more true.
"The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make
peace." The Greek may mean either "for them that make peace,"
or "by them that make peace;" and we need not attempt to
decide. In either case it is the peacemakers who sow the seed whose
fruit is righteousness, and the peacemakers who reap this fruit. The
whole process begins, progresses, and ends in peace.
It is evident that the heavenly wisdom is pre-eminently a
practical wisdom. It is not purely or mainly intellectual; it
is not speculative; it is not lost in contemplation. Its object is to
increase holiness rather than knowledge, and happiness rather than
information. Its atmosphere is not controversy and debate, but
gentleness and peace. It is full, not of sublime theories or daring
hypotheses, but of mercy and good fruits. It can be confident without
wrangling, and reserved without hypocrisy. It is the twin sister of
that heavenly love which "envieth not, vaunteth not itself, seeketh
not its own, is not provoked, taketh no account of evil."
CHAPTER XVIII.
ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES OF STRIFE;
THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER.
"Whence come wars, and whence come fightings among
you? come they not hence, even of your pleasures which war in your
members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain:
ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and
receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your
pleasures."—St. James
iv. 1-13.
THE change from the close of the third chapter to
the beginning of the fourth is startling. St. James has just been
sketching with much beauty the excellences of the heavenly wisdom, and
especially its marked characteristic of always tending to produce an
atmosphere of peace, in which the seed that produces the fruit of
righteousness will grow and flourish. Gentleness, good-will, mercy,
righteousness, peace—these form the main features of his sketch.
And then he abruptly turns upon his readers with the question, "Whence
come wars, and whence come sightings among you?"
The sudden transition from the subject of peace to the opposite is
deliberate. Its object is to startle and awaken the consciences of
those who are addressed. The wisdom from below produces bitter
jealousy and faction; the wisdom from above produces gentleness and
peace. Then how is to be explained the origin of the wars and
fightings which prevail among the twelve
tribes of the Dispersion? That ought to set them thinking. These
things must be traced to causes which are earthly or demoniacal rather
than heavenly; and if so, those who are guilty of them, instead of
contending for the office of teaching others, ought to be seriously
considering how to correct themselves. Here, again, there is the
strangest contradiction between their professions and their practice.
Clement of Rome seems to have this passage in his mind when he writes
(c. A.D. 97) to the Church of Corinth,
"Wherefore are there strifes and wraths, and factions and divisions,
and war among you?" (xlvi.).
"Wars" (πόλομοι) and "fightings"
(μάχαι) are not to be understood
literally. When the text is applied to international warfare between
Christian states in modern times, or to any case of civil war, it may
be so interpreted without doing violence to its spirit; but that is
not the original meaning of the words. There was no civil war among
the Jews at this time, still less among the Jewish Christians.
St. James is referring to private quarrels and law-suits, social
rivalries and factions, and religious controversies. The
subject-matter of these disputes and contentions is not indicated,
because that is not what is denounced. It is not for having
differences about this or that, whether rights of property, or posts
of honour, or ecclesiastical questions, that St. James rebukes
them, but for the rancorous, greedy, and worldly spirit in which their
disputes are conducted. Evidently the lust of possession is among the
things which produce the contentions. Jewish appetite for wealth is at
work among them.
It was stated in a former chapter (p. 48) that,
there are places in this Epistle in which St. James
seems to go beyond the precise circle of readers addressed
in the opening words, and to glance at the whole Jewish nation,
whether outside Palestine or not, and whether Christian or not. These
more comprehensive addresses are more frequent in the second half of
the Epistle than in the first, and one is inclined to believe that the
passage before us is one of them. In that case we may believe that the
bitter contentions which divided Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians,
Essenes, Zealots, and Samaritans from one another are included in the
wars and fightings, as well as the quarrels which disgraced Christian
Jews. In any case we see that the Jews who had entered the Christian
Church had brought with them that contentious spirit which was one of
their national characteristics. Just as St. Paul has to contend
with Greek love of faction in his converts at Corinth, so
St. James has to contend with a similar Jewish failing among the
converts from Judaism. And it would seem as if he hoped through these
converts to reach many of those who were not yet converted. What he
wrote to Christian synagogues would possibly be heard of and noted in
synagogues which were not Christian. At any rate this Epistle contains
ample evidence that the grievous scandals which amaze us in the early
history of the Apostolic Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and Ephesus
were not peculiar to converts from heathenism: among the Christians of
the circumcision, who had had the advantage of life-long knowledge of
God and of His law, there were evils as serious, and sometimes very
similar in kind. The notion that the Church of the Apostolic age was
in a condition of ideal perfection is a beautiful but baseless
dream.See the volume on the Pastoral Epistles in this series, pp. 264,
265.
"Whence wars, and whence fightings among you?
come they not hence, even of your pleasures which war in your
members?" By a common transposition, St. James, in answering his
own question, puts the pleasures which excite and gratify the lusts
instead of the lusts themselves, in much the same way as we use
"drink" for intemperance, and "gold" for avarice. These lusts for
pleasures have their quarters or camp in the members of the body,
i.e. in the sensual part of man's nature. But they are there,
not to rest, but to make war, to go after, and seize, and take for a
prey that which has roused them from their quietude and set them in
motion. There the picture, as drawn by St. James, ends.
St. Paul carries it a stage farther, and speaks of the "different
law in my members, warring against the law of my mind" (Rom.
vii. 23). St. Peter does the same, when he beseeches his
readers, "as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts,
which war against the soul" (1 Peter ii. 11); and
some commentators would supply either "against the mind" or "against
the soul" here. But there is no need to supply anything, and if one
did supply anything the "wars and sightings among you" would
rather lead us to understand that the lusts in each one's members make
war against everything which interferes with their gratification, and
such would be the possessions and desires of other people. This
completion of St. James's picture agrees well also with what
follows: "Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot
obtain." But it is best to leave the metaphor just where he leaves it,
without adding anything. And the fact that he does not add "against
the mind" or "against the soul" is some slight indication that he had
not seen either the passage in Romans or in the Epistle of
St. Peter. (See above, p. 57.)
In the Phædo of Plato (66, 67) there is a beautiful passage,
which presents some striking coincidences with the words of
St. James. "Wars, and factions, and sightings have no other
source than the body and its lusts. For it is for the getting of
wealth that all our wars arise, and we are compelled to get wealth
because of our body, to whose service we are slaves; and in
consequence we have no leisure for philosophy, because of all these
things. And the worst of all is that if we get any leisure from it,
and turn to some question, in the midst of our inquiries the body is
everywhere coming in, introducing turmoil and confusion, and
bewildering us, so that by it we are prevented from seeing the truth.
But indeed it has been proved to us that if we are ever to have pure
knowledge of anything we must get rid of the body, and with the soul
by itself must behold things by themselves. Then, it would
seem, we shall obtain the wisdom which we desire, and of which we say
that we are lovers; when we are dead, as the argument shows, but in
this life not. For if it be impossible while we are in the body to
have pure knowledge of anything, then of two things one—either
knowledge is not to be obtained at all, or after we are dead; for then
the soul will be by itself, apart from the body, but before that not.
And in this life, it would seem, we shall make the nearest approach to
knowledge if we have no communication or fellowship whatever with the
body, beyond what necessity compels, and are not filled with its
nature, but remain pure from its taint, until God Himself shall set us
free. And in this way shall we be pure, being delivered from the
foolishness of the body, and shall be with other like souls, and shall
know of ourselves all that is clear and cloudless, and that is perhaps
all one with the truth."
Plato and St. James are entirely agreed in holding that wars and
fightings are caused by the lusts that have their seat in the body,
and that this condition of fightings without, and lusts within, is
quite incompatible with the possession of heavenly wisdom. But there
the agreement between them ceases. The conclusion which Plato arrives
at is that the philosopher must, so far as is possible, neglect and
excommunicate his body, as an intolerable source of corruption,
yearning for the time when death shall set him free from the burden of
waiting upon this obstacle between his soul and the truth. Plato has
no idea that the body may be sanctified here and glorified hereafter;
he regards it simply as a necessary evil, which may be minimized by
watchfulness, but which can in no way be turned into a blessing. The
blessing will come when the body is annihilated by death.
St. James, on the contrary, exhorts us to cut ourselves off, not
from the body, but from friendship with the world. If we resist the
evil one, who tempts us through our ferocious lusts, he will flee from
us. God will give us the grace we need, if we pray for that rather
than for pleasures. He will draw nigh to us if we draw nigh to Him;
and if we purify our hearts He will make His Spirit to dwell in them.
Even in this life the wisdom that is from above is attainable, and
where that has found a home factions and fightings cease. When the
passions cease to war, those who have hitherto been swayed by their
passions will cease to war also. But those whom St. James
addresses are as yet very far from this blessed condition.
"Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot
obtain: ye fight and war." In short, sharp, telling
sentences he puts forth the items of his indictment; but
it is not easy to punctuate them satisfactorily, nor to decide whether
"ye kill" is to be understood literally or not. In none of the English
versions does the punctuation seem to bring out a logical sequence of
clauses. The following arrangement is suggested for consideration: "Ye
lust, and have not; ye kill. And ye covet, and cannot obtain; ye fight
and war." In this way we obtain two sentences of similar meaning,
which exactly balance one another. "Ye lust, and have not,"
corresponds with, "Ye covet, and cannot obtain," and "ye kill" with
"ye fight and war;" and in each sentence the last clause is the
consequence of what precedes. "Ye lust, and have not; therefore
ye kill." "Ye covet, and cannot obtain; therefore ye fight and
war." This grouping of the clauses yields good sense, and does no
violence to the Greek.
"Ye lust, and have not; therefore ye kill." Is "kill" to be
understood literally? That murder, prompted by avarice and passion,
was common among the Christian Jews of the Dispersion, is quite
incredible. That monstrous scandals occurred in the Apostolic age,
especially among Gentile converts, who supposed that the freedom of
the Gospel meant lax morality, is unquestionable; but that these
scandals ever took the form of indifference to human life we have no
evidence. And it is specially improbable that murder would be frequent
among those who, before they became Christians, had been obedient to
the Mosaic Law. St. James may have a single case in his mind,
like that of the incestuous marriage at Corinth; but in that case he
would probably have expressed himself differently. Or again, as was
suggested above, he may in this section be addressing the whole Jewish
race, and not merely those who had become converts to Christianity;
and in that case he may be referring to the brigandage and
assassination which a combination of causes, social, political, and
religious, had rendered common among the Jews, especially in
Palestine, at this time. Of this evil we have plenty of evidence both
in the New Testament and in Josephus. Barabbas and the two robbers who
were crucified with Christ are instances in the Gospels. And with them
we may put the parable of the man "who fell among robbers," and was
left half-dead between Jerusalem and Jericho; for no doubt the
parable, like all Christ's parables, is founded on fact, and is no
mere imaginary picture. In the Acts we have Theudas with his four
hundred followers (B.C. 4), Judas of Galilee
(A.D. 6), and the Egyptian with his four thousand
"Assassins," or Sicarii (A.D. 58); to whom
we may add the forty who conspired to assassinate St. Paul
(v. 36, 37; xxi. 38; xxiii. 12-21). And Josephus tells
us of another Theudas, who was captured and put to death with many of
his followers by the Roman Procurator Cuspius Fadus (c.
A.D. 45); and he also states that about fifty
years earlier, under Varus, there were endless disorders in Judæa,
sedition and robbery being almost chronic. The brigands inflicted a
certain amount of damage on the Romans, but the murders which they
committed were on their fellow-countrymen the Jews (Ant. XVII.
x. 4, 8; XX. v. i).If φονεύετε is taken with what follows,
it is best to render φονεύετε καὶ
ζηλοῦτε "Ye act as Assassins and Zealots," referring both words
to the fanatics who a little later killed James himself, and were the
hasteners of the downfall of Jerusalem.
In either of these ways, therefore, the literal interpretation of a
"kill" makes good sense; and we are not justified in saying, with
Calvin, that "kill in no way
suits the context." Calvin, with Erasmus, Beza, Hornejus, and others,
adopts the violent expedient of correcting the Greek from "kill"
(φονεύετε) to "envy" (φθονεῖτε), a reading for which not a single
MS., version, or Father can be quoted. It is accepted, however, by
Tyndale and Cranmer and in the Genevan Bible, all of which have, "Ye
envy and have indignation, and cannot obtain." Wiclif and the
Rhemish of course hold to the occiditis of the Vulgate, the one
with "slay," and the other with "kill."
But although the literal interpretation yields good sense, it is
perhaps not the best interpretation. It was pointed out above that "ye
kill" balances "ye fight and war," and that "wars and fightings"
evidently are not to be understood literally, as the context
shows. If then, "ye fight and war" means "ye quarrel, and dispute, and
intrigue, and go to law with one another," ought not "ye kill" to be
explained in a similar way? Christ had said, "Ye have heard that it
was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall
kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That
every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the
judgment" (Matt. v. 21, 22). And St. John tells us that
"every one who hateth his brother is a murderer" (1 John
iii. 15). "Every one who hateth" (πᾶς
ὁ μισῶν) is an uncompromising expression, and it covers all
that St. James says here. Just as the cherished lustful thought
is adultery in the heart (Matt. v. 28), so cherished hatred is
murder in the heart.
But there is an explanation, half literal and half metaphorical,
which is well worth considering. It has been pointed out how
frequently St. James seems to have portions of the Book of
Ecclesiasticus in his mind.
We read there that "the bread of the needy is the life of the poor: he
that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood. He that taketh away his
neighbour's living slayeth him (φονεύων);
and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a blood-shedder"
(xxxiv. 21, 22). If St. James was familiar with these words,
and still more if he could count on his readers also being familiar
with them, might he not mean, "Ye lust, and have not; and then, to
gratify your desire, you deprive the poor of his living"? Even Deut.
xxiv. 6 might suffice to give rise to such a strong method of
expression: "No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to
pledge: for he taketh a man's life to pledge." Throughout this section
the language used is strong, as if the writer felt very strongly about
the evils which he condemns.
While "ye lust, and have not, and thereupon take a man's livelihood
from him," would refer specially to possessions, "Ye covet (or
envy) and cannot obtain, and thereupon fight and war," might refer
specially to honours, posts, and party
advantages. The word rendered "covet" (ζηλοῦτε) is that which describes the thing
which love never does: "Love envieth not" (1 Cor.
xiii. 4). When St. James was speaking of the wisdom from
below (iii. 14-16) the kind of quarrels which he had chiefly in
view were party controversies, as was natural after treating just
before of sins of the tongue. Here the wars and fightings are not so
much about matters of controversy as those things which minister to a
man's "pleasures," his avarice, his sensuality, and his ambition.
How is it that they have not all that they want?
How is that there is any need to despoil others, or to
contend fiercely with them for possession? "Ye have
not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask
amiss." That is the secret of these gnawing wants and lawless
cravings. They do not try to supply their needs in a way that would
cause loss to no one, viz. by prayer to God; they prefer to employ
violence and craft against one another. Or if they do pray for the
supply of their earthly needs, they obtain nothing, because they pray
with evil intent. To pray without the spirit of prayer is to court
failure. That God's will may be done, and His Name glorified, is the
proper end of all prayer. To pray simply that our wishes may be
satisfied is not a prayer to which fulfilment has been promised; still
less can this be the case when our wishes are for the glorification of
our lusts. Prayer for advance in holiness we may be sure is in
accordance with God's will. About prayer for earthly advantages we
cannot be sure; but we may pray for things so far as they are to His
glory and for our own spiritual welfare. Prayer for earthly goods,
which are to be used as instruments, not of His pleasure, but of ours,
we may be sure is not in accordance with His will. To such a prayer we
need expect no answer, or an answer which at the same time is a
judgment; for the fulfilment of an unrighteous prayer is sometimes its
most fitting punishment.
St. James is not blaming his readers for asking God to give
them worldly prosperity. About the lawfulness of praying for temporal
blessings, whether for ourselves or for others, there is no question.
St. John prays that Gaius "in all things may prosper and be in
health, even as his soul prospereth" (3 John 2), and
St. James plainly implies that when one has temporal needs one
ought to bring them before God in prayer, only with a right
purpose and in a right spirit. In the
next chapter he specially recommends prayer for the recovery of the
sick. The asking amiss consists not in asking for temporal things, but
in seeking them for a wrong purpose, viz. that they may be squandered
in a life of self-indulgence. The right purpose is to enable us to
serve God better. Temporal necessities are often a hindrance to good
service, and then it is right to ask God to relieve them. But in all
such things the rule laid down by Christ is the safe one, "Seek ye
first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these
things shall be added unto you." A life consecrated to the service of
God is the best prayer for temporal blessings. Prayer that is offered
in a grasping spirit is like that of the bandit for the success of his
raids.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE SEDUCTIONS OF THE WORLD,
AND THE JEALOUSY OF THE DIVINE LOVE.
"Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of
the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, would be a friend
of the world maketh himself an enemy of God. Or think ye that the
Scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the Spirit which He made to dwell in
us long unto envying? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore the
Scripture saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
humble."—St. James
iv. 4-6.
THE Revisers are certainly right in rejecting,
without even mention in the margin, the reading, "Ye adulterers
and adulteresses." The difficulty of the revised reading pleads
strongly in its favour, and the evidence of MSS. and versions is
absolutely decisive. The interpolation of the masculine was doubtless
made by those who supposed that the term of reproach was to be
understood literally, and who thought it inexplicable that
St. James should confine his rebuke to female offenders.
But the context shows that the term is not to be understood
literally. It is not a special kind of sensuality, but greed and
worldliness generally, that the writer is condemning. It is one of the
characteristics of the letter that being addressed to Jewish, and not
Gentile converts, and occasionally to Jews whether Christians or not,
it says very little about the sins of
the flesh; and "adulteresses" here is no exception. The word is used
in its common Old Testament sense of spiritual
adultery—unfaithfulness to Jehovah regarded as the Husband of
His people. "They that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou hast
destroyed all them that go a-whoring from Thee" (Ps. lxxiii. 27).
"Thus will I make thy lewdness to cease from thee, and thy whoredom
brought from the land of Egypt" (Ezek. xxiii. 27). "Plead with
your mother, plead; for she is not My wife, neither am I her Husband"
(Hos. ii. 2). The fifty-seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a
terrible working out of this simile; and indeed the Old Testament is
full of it. Our Lord is probably reproducing it when he speaks of the
Jews of His own time as an "adulterous and sinful generation" (Matt.
xii. 39; xvi. 4; Mark viii. 38). And we find it again
in the Apocalypse (ii. 22).
But why does St. James use the feminine? Had he accused his
readers of adultery, or called them an adulterous generation, the
meaning would have been clear enough. What is the exact meaning of "Ye
adulteresses"?
St. James wishes to bring home to those whom he is addressing
that not only the Christian Church as a whole, or the chosen people as
a whole, is espoused to God, but that each individual soul stands to
Him in the relation of a wife to her husband. It is not merely the
case that they belong to a generation which in the main has been
guilty of unfaithfulness, and that in this guilt they share; but each
of them, taken one by one, has in his or her own person committed this
sin against the Divine Spouse. The sex of the person does not affect
the relationship: any soul that has been wedded to God, and has then
transferred its affection and
allegiance to other beings, is an unfaithful wife. St. James,
with characteristic simplicity, directness, and force, indicates this
fact by the stern address, "Ye adulteresses."
"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?"
He implies that they might know this, and that they can scarcely help
doing so; it is so obvious that to love His opponent is to be
unfaithful and hostile to Him. At the beginning of the section
St. James had asked whence came the miserable condition in which
his readers were found; and he replied that it came from their own
desires, which they tried to gratify by intrigue and violence, instead
of resorting to prayer; or else from the carnal aims by which they
turned their prayers into sin. Here he puts the same fact in a
somewhat different way. This vehement pursuit of their own pleasures,
in word, and deed, and even in prayer—what is it but a desertion
of God for Mammon, a sacrifice of the love of God to the friendship
(such as it is) of the world? It is a base yielding to seductions
which ought to have no attractiveness, for they involve the
unfaithfulness of a wife and the treason of a subject. There can be no
true and loyal affection for God while some other than God is loved,
and not loved for His sake. If a woman "shall put away her husband,
and marry another, she committeth adultery" (Mark xi. 12); and if
a soul shall put away its God, and marry another, it committeth
adultery. A wife who cultivates friendship with one who is trying to
seduce her becomes the enemy of her husband; and every Christian and
Jew ought to know "that the friendship of the world is enmity with
God."
St. John tells us (and the words are probably not his,
but Christ's) that "God loved the world" (John iii. 16).
He also charges us not to love the world (1 John
ii. 15). And here St. James tells us that to be friends with
the world is to be the enemy of God. It is obvious that "the world"
which God loves is not identical with "the world" which we are told
not to love. "World" (κόσμος) is a term
which has various meanings in Scripture, and we shall go seriously
astray if we do not carefully distinguish them. Sometimes it means the
whole universe in its order and beauty; as when St. Paul says,
"For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made" (Rom.
i. 20). Sometimes it means this planet, the earth; as when the
evil one showed to Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory
of them" (Matt. iv. 8). Again, it means the inhabitants of the
earth; as when Christ is said to "take away the sin of the world"
(John i. 2; 1 John iv. 14). Lastly, it means those who
are alienated from God—unbelievers, faithless Jews and
Christians, and especially the great heathen organization of Rome
(John viii. 23; xii. 31). Thus a word which originally
signified the natural order and beauty of creation comes to signify
the unnatural disorder and hideousness of creatures who have rebelled
against their Creator. The world which the Father loves is the whole
race of mankind, His creatures and His children. The world which we
are not to love is that which prevents us from loving Him in return,
His rival and His enemy. It is from this world that the truly
religious man keeps himself unspotted (i. 25). Sinful men, with
their sinful lusts, keeping up a settled attitude of disloyalty and
hostility to God, and handing this on as a living tradition, is what
St. Paul, and St. James, and St. John mean by "the
world."
This world has the devil for its ruler (John xiv. 30). It lies
wholly in the power of the evil one (1 John v. 19). It
cannot hate Christ's enemies, for the very reason that it hates Him
(John vii. 7). And for the same reason it hates all those whom He
has chosen out of its midst (xv. 18, 19). Just as there is a
Spirit of God, which leads us into all the truth, so there is a
"spirit of the world," which leads to just the opposite (1 Cor.
ii. 12). This world, with its lusts, is passing away (1 John
ii. 17), and its very sorrow worketh death (2 Cor.
vii. 10). "The world is human nature, sacrificing the spiritual
to the material, the future to the present, the unseen and the eternal
to that which touches the senses and which perishes with time. The
world is a mighty flood of thoughts, feelings, principles of action,
conventional prejudices, dislikes, attachments, which have been
gathering around human life for ages, impregnating it, impelling it,
moulding it, degrading it. Of the millions of millions of human beings
who have lived, nearly every one probably has contributed something,
his own little addition, to the great tradition of materialized life
which St. [James] calls the world. Every one, too, must have
received something from it. According to his circumstances the same
man acts upon the world, or in turn is acted on by it. And the world
at different times wears different forms. Sometimes it is a solid
compact mass, an organization of pronounced ungodliness. Sometimes it
is a subtle, thin, hardly suspected influence, a power altogether airy
and impalpable, which yet does most powerfully penetrate, inform, and
shape human life."Liddon, Easter Sermons, vol. ii., pp. 56, 57 (Rivingtons, 1885).
There is no sin in a passionate love of the ordered
beauty and harmony of the universe, as exhibited either in this planet
or in the countless bodies which people the immensity of space; no sin
in devoting the energies of a lifetime to finding out all that can be
known about the laws and conditions of nature in all its complex
manifestations. Science is no forbidden ground to God's servants, for
all truth is God's truth, and to learn it is a revelation of Himself.
If only it be studied as His creature, it may be admired and loved
without any disloyalty to Him.
Still less is there any sin in "the enthusiasm of humanity," in a
passionate zeal for the amelioration of the whole human race. A
consuming love for one's fellow-men is so far from involving enmity to
God that it is impossible to have any genuine love of God without it.
"He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom
he hath not seen" (1 John iv. 20). The love of the world
which St. James condemns is a passion which more than anything
else renders a love of mankind impossible. Its temper is selfishness,
and the principle of its action is the conviction that every human
being is actuated by purely selfish motives. It has no belief in
motives of which it has no experience either in itself or in those
among whom it habitually moves. Next to a cultivation of the love of
God, a cultivation of the love of man is the best remedy for the
deadly paralysis of the heart which is the inevitable consequence of
choosing to be a friend of the world.
This choice is a very important element in the matter. It is lost
in the Authorized Version, but is rightly restored by the Revisers.
"Whosoever, therefore, would be (βουλληθῇ εἶναι) a friend of the world maketh himself
(καθίσταται) an enemy of God." It is
useless for him to plead that he has no wish to be hostile to God. He
has of his own free will adopted a condition of life which of
necessity involves hostility to Him. And he has full opportunity of
knowing this; for although the world may try to deceive him by
confusing the issue, God does not. The world may assure him that there
is no need of any choice: he has no need to abandon God; it is quite
easy to serve God, and yet remain on excellent terms with the world.
But God declares that the choice must be made, and that it is absolute
and exclusive. "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of
thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to
love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and
with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord, and
His statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?" (Deut.
x. 12, 13; comp. vi. 5 and xxx. 6).
The next two verses are a passage of known difficulty, the most
difficult in this Epistle, and one of the most difficult in the whole
of the New Testament. In the intensity of his detestation of the evil
against which he is inveighing, St. James has used condensed
expressions which can be understood in a variety of ways, and it is
scarcely possible to decide which of the three or four possible
meanings is the one intended. But the question has been obscured by
the suggestion of explanations which are not tenable. The choice lies
between those which are given in the margin of the Revised Version and
the one before us in the text; for we may safely discard all those
which depend upon the reading "dwelleth in us" (κατῴκησεν), and we must stand by the reading
"made to dwell in us" (κατῴκισεν).
The questions which cannot be answered with
certainty are these: 1. Are two Scriptures quoted, or only one? and if
two are quoted, where is the first of them to be found? 2. Who is it
that "longeth" or "lusteth?" is it God, or the Holy Spirit, or our own
human spirit? 3. What is it that is longed for by God or the Spirit?
Let us take these three questions in order.
1. The words which follow "Think ye that the Scripture speaketh in
vain?" do not occur in the Old Testament, although the sense of them
may be found piecemeal in a variety of passages. Therefore, either the
words are not a quotation at all, or they are from some book no longer
extant, or they are a condensation of several utterances in the Old
Testament.Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9; ix. 10; Eph. v. 14, in all
which places we have quotations the source of which cannot be
determined. Similar phenomena are frequent in patristic literature.
See A. Resch's Agrapha; Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente in
Texte und Untersuchungen z. Gesch. d. Altchr. Lit. (Leipzig,
1889), p. 256.
The first of these suppositions seems to be the best, but neither of
the others can be set aside as improbable. We may paraphrase,
therefore, the first part of the passage thus:—
"Ye unfaithful spouses of Jehovah! know ye not that to be friendly
with the world is to be at enmity with Him? Or do ye think that what
the Scripture says about faithlessness to God is idly spoken?" But as
regards this first question we must be content to remain in great
uncertainty.
2. Who is it that "longeth" or "lusteth" (ἐπιποθεῖ)?
To decide whether "longeth" or "lusteth" is the right translation will
help us to decide this second point, and it will also help us to
decide whether the sentence is interrogative or not. Is this word of
desiring used here in the good sense of longing or yearning, or in the
bad sense of lusting? The word occurs frequently in the New Testament,
and in every one of these passages it is used in a good sense (Rom.
i. 11; 2 Cor. v. 2; ix. 14; Phil. i. 8;
ii. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 10; 2 Tim. i. 4;
1 Peter ii. 2). Nor is this the whole case. Substantives and
adjectives which are closely cognate with it are fairly common, and
these are all used in a good sense (Rom. xv. 23; 2 Cor.
vii. 7; vii. 11; Phil. iv. 1). We may therefore set
aside the interpretations of the sentence which require the rendering
"lusteth," whether the statement that man's spirit lusteth enviously,
or the question, Doth the Divine Spirit in us lust enviously? The word
here expresses the mighty and affectionate longing of the Divine love.
And it is the Spirit which God made to dwell in us which
longeth over us with a jealous longing. If we make the sentence mean
that God longeth, then we are compelled to take the Spirit
which He made to dwell in us as that for which He longs; God has a
jealous longing for His own Spirit implanted in us. But this does not
yield very good sense; we decide, therefore, for the rendering, "Even
unto jealousy doth the Spirit which He made to dwell in us yearn over
us." "Even unto jealousy;" these words stand first, with great
emphasis. No friendship with the world or any alien object can be
tolerated.
3. The third question has been solved by the answer to the second.
That which is yearned for by the Spirit implanted in us is ourselves.
The meaning is not that God longs for man's spirit (the human spirit
would hardly be spoken of as that which God "made to dwell in us"), or
that He longs for the Holy Spirit in us (a meaning which would be very
hard to explain),
but that His Holy Spirit yearns for us with a jealous yearning. God is
a jealous God, and the Divine love is a jealous love; it brooks no
rival. And when His Spirit takes up its abode in us it cannot rest
until it possesses us wholly, to the exclusion of all alien
affections.
At one of the conferences between the Northern and the Southern
States of America during the war of 1861-1866 the representatives of
the Southern States stated what cession of territory they were
prepared to make, provided that the independence of the portion that
was not ceded to the Federal Government was secured. More and more
attractive offers were made, the portions to be ceded being increased,
and those to be retained in a state of independence being
proportionately diminished. All the offers were met by a steadfast
refusal. At last President Lincoln placed his hand on the map so as to
cover all the Southern States, and in these emphatic words delivered
his ultimatum: "Gentlemen, this Government must have the
whole." The constitution of the United States was at an end if any
part, however small, was allowed to become independent of the rest. It
was a vital principle, which did not admit of exceptions or degrees.
It must be kept in its entirety, or it was not kept at all.
Just such is the claim which God, by the working of His Spirit,
makes upon ourselves. He cannot share us with the world, however much
we may offer to Him, and however little to His rival. If a rival is
admitted at all, our relation to Him is violated and we have become
unfaithful. His government must have the whole.
Do these terms seem to be harsh? They are not
really so, for the more we surrender, the more He bestows. We give up
the world, and that appears to us to be a great sacrifice. "But He
giveth more grace." Even in this world He gives far more than we give
up, and adds a crown of life in the world to come (i. 12).
"Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or
brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for
My sake, and for the Gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold
now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come
eternal life" (Mark x. 29, 30). "God resisteth the proud, but
giveth grace to the humble." Those who persist in making friends with
the world, in seeking its advantages, in adopting its standards, in
accepting its praise, God resists. By choosing to throw in their lot
with His enemy they have made themselves His enemies, and He cannot
but withstand them. But to those who humbly submit their wills to His,
who give up the world, with its gifts and its promises, and are
willing to be despised by it in order to keep themselves unspotted
from it, He gives grace—grace to cling closer to Him, in spite
of the attractions of the world; a gift which, unlike the gifts of the
world, never loses its savour.
Was St. James acquainted with the
Magnificat? May not he, the Lord's brother, have sometimes
heard the Mother of the Lord recite it? The passage before us is
almost like an echo of some of its words: "His mercy is unto
generations and generations of them that fear Him. He hath showed
strength with His arm; He hath scattered the proud in the imagination
of their
heart. He hath put down princes from their thrones, and hath exalted
them of low degree. The hungry He hath filled with good things; and
the rich He hath sent empty away." At any rate the Magnificat
and St. James teach the same lesson as the Book of Proverbs and
St. Peter, who, like St. James, quotes it (1 Peter
v. 5), that God resists and puts down those who choose to unite
themselves with the world in preference to Him, and gives more and
more graces and blessings to all who by faith in Him and His Christ
have overcome the world. It is only by faith that we can
overcome. A conviction that the things which are seen are the most
important and pressing, if not the only realities, is sure to betray
us into a state of captivity in which the power to work for God, and
even the desire to serve Him, will become less and less. We have
willed to place ourselves under the world's spell, and such influence
as we possess tells not for God, but against Him. But a belief that
the chief and noblest realities are unseen enables a man to preserve
an attitude of independence and indifference towards things which,
even if they are substantial advantages, belong to this world only. He
knows how insignificant all that this life has to offer is, compared
with the immeasurable joys and woes of the life to come, and he cannot
be guilty of the folly of sacrificing a certain and eternal future to
a brief and uncertain present. The God in whom he believes is far more
to him than the world which he sees and feels. "This is the victory
which hath overcome the world, even his faith."
CHAPTER XX.
THE POWER OF SATAN AND ITS LIMITS.
HUMILITY THE FOUNDATION OF PENITENCE AND OF HOLINESS.
"Be subject therefore unto God; but resist the
devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw
nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts,
ye double-minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your
laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble
yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall exalt
you."—St. James
iv. 7-10.
SUBMISSION to God is the beginning, middle, and end
of the prodigal's return from disastrous familiarity with the world to
the security of the Father's home. A readiness to submit to whatever
He may impose is the first step in the conversion, just as
unwillingness to surrender one's own will is the first step towards
revolt and desertion. "I am no more worthy to be called Thy son: make
me as one of Thy hired servants." As soon as the resolve to make this
act of submission is formed, the turning-point between friendship with
the world and fidelity to God has been passed. The homeward path is
not an easy one, but it is certain, and those who unflinchingly take
it are sure of a welcome at the end of it. The prodigal was tenderly
received back by his offended father, and these adulterous souls will
be admitted to their old privileges again, if they will but return.
God has given them
no bill of divorcement to put them away for ever (Isa. l. 1). "If
a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man's,
shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly
polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return
again to Me, saith the Lord" (Jer. iii. 1). An amount of mercy
and forgiveness which cannot be shown by an earthly husband to his
unfaithful wife is readily promised by God.
But the return must be a complete one. There must be every
guarantee that the penitent is in earnest and has utterly broken with
the past. And St. James with affectionate sternness points out
the necessary steps towards reconciliation. He will not be guilty of
the crime of those who "have healed the hurt of the daughter of My
people lightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jer.
viii. 11). The results of intimacy with the world cannot be
undone in a day, and there is painful work to be done before the old
relationship can be restored between the soul and its God.
Among the most grievous consequences of yielding to the world and
its ways are the weakening of the will and the lowering of the moral
tone. They come gradually, but surely; and they act and react upon one
another. The habitual shirking of the sterner duties of life, and the
living in an atmosphere of self-indulgence, enervate the will; and the
conscious adoption of a standard of life which is not approved by
conscience is in itself a lowering of tone. And this is one of the
essential elements of worldliness. The pleas that "I can't help it,"
and that "everybody does it," are among the most common excuses urged
by those whose citizenship is not in heaven (Phil. iii. 20) but
in that
commonwealth of which Satan is the presiding power. They like to
believe that temptations are irresistible, and that there is no
obligation to rise above the standard of morality which those about
them profess to accept. Such men deliberately surrender to what they
know to be evil, and place what they think to be expedient above what
they know to be right, forgetting that even the worldlings who set
them this low standard, and openly defend it, very often do not really
approve it, but despise while they applaud the man that conforms to
it.
St. James enters an earnest and simple protest against the
weak plea that temptations are irresistible. To maintain that
is to assert that the evil one has more will and power to destroy
mankind than God has to save them. The truth is exactly the other way.
God not only allows to Satan no power to coerce a man into sin, but He
Himself is ever ready to aid when He is faithfully prayed to do so.
Every Christian is endowed with sufficient power to withstand Satan,
if only the will to withstand is present, because he has the power to
summon God to his assistance. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from
you;" that is one side of the blessed truth; and the other is its
correlative: "Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you."
It will be observed that St. James, quite as much as
St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. John, speaks of the
chief power of evil as a person. The passage is not
intelligible on any other interpretation; for there is a manifest and
telling antithesis between the devil who yields to opposition, and the
God who responds to invitation. It is a contrast between two personal
agencies. Whether St. James was aware of the teaching of the
Apostles on this point is not of great moment; his own
teaching is clear enough. As a Jew he had been brought up in the
belief that there are evil spiritual beings of whom Satan is the
chief, and since he became a Christian he had never been required to
revise this belief. He was probably well aware of the teaching of
Jesus Christ as to the real source of temptations. He may have heard
Christ's own interpretation of the birds in the parable of the Sower:
"And when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away
the word which hath been sown in them" (Mark iv. 15). He probably
had heard of Christ's declaration to St. Peter, "Simon, Simon,
behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but
I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not" (Luke
xxii. 31), where we have a contrast similar to this, an infernal
person on one side, and a Divine Person on the other, of the man
assailed by temptation. How easy to have interpreted the birds in the
parable as the impersonal solicitations of a depraved nature, the
hearers' own evil tendencies; and perhaps if we had not possessed
Christ's own explanation we should so have explained the birds by the
wayside. But Christ seems to have made use of this, the queen of all
the parables (Mark iv. 13), in order to teach that a personal
enemy there is, who is ever on the watch to deprive us of what will
save our souls. And the warning to St. Peter might easily have
been given in a form that would not have implied a personal tempter.
Nor do these two striking passages stand alone in our Lord's teaching.
How unnecessary to speak of the woman who "was bowed together, and
could in nowise lift up herself," as one "whom Satan had bound,"
unless He desired to sanction and enforce this belief (Luke
xiv. 11, 16). And why speak of having "beheld Satan
fall as lightning from heaven" (Luke x. 18), unless He had this
desire? When the Jews said that He cast out devils by the aid of the
prince of the devils, it would have been a much more complete
contradiction to have replied that no such person existed, than to
argue that Satan was not likely to fight against his own interests. If
the belief in personal powers of evil is a superstition, Jesus Christ
had ample opportunities of correcting it; and He not only steadfastly
abstained from doing so, but in very marked ways, both by His acts and
by His teaching, He did a great deal to encourage and inculcate the
belief. He showed no sympathy with the scepticism of the Sadducees
about such things. He argued convincingly against them as regards the
doctrine of the resurrection and a future life, and He gave full
sanction to the belief in angels and spirits, both good and bad. There
is no need to lay much stress upon the disputed meaning of the last
petition in the Lord's Prayer; the evidence is quite ample without
that. Yet those who are convinced that "Lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil," must mean, "Lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from the tempter," have a
very important piece of evidence to add to all the rest. Is a gross
superstition embodied in the very wording of the model prayer?
In the volume in this series which treats of the Pastoral Epistles
is a passage on this subject respecting which a very friendly critic
has said that he cannot quite see the force of it.Sunday School Chronicle, March 15th, 1889; also the Durham
Chronicle, Jan. 31st, 1890.
As the argument is of value, it may be worth while to state it here
more clearly. The statement criticized is the concluding sentence of
the following passage: "It has been said that if there were no God we
should have to invent one; and with almost equal truth we might say
that if there were no devil we should have to invent one. Without a
belief in God bad men would have little to induce them to conquer
their evil passions; without a belief in a devil good men would
have little hope of ever being able to do so."Expositor's Bible: Pastoral Epistles (Hodder and Stoughton,
1888), p. 80.
The meaning of the last statement is this, that if good men were
compelled to believe that all the devilish suggestions which rise up
in their minds come from themselves alone, they might well be
in despair of ever getting the better of themselves or of curing a
nature capable of producing such offspring. But when they know that "a
power, not themselves, which makes for" wickedness is the
source of these diabolical temptations, then they can have confidence
that their own nature is not so hopelessly corrupt but that, with the
help of "the Power, not themselves, that makes for
righteousness" they will be able to gain the victory.
The plea that the devil is irresistible, and that therefore to
yield to temptation is inevitable, is only another form of the
fallacy, against which St. James has already protested, of trying
to shift the responsibility of temptation from oneself to God
(i. 13-15). It is the old fallacy carried a stage farther. The
former plea has reference to the temptation; the present one has
reference to the fall. As regards both the facts are conclusive. We
often provoke our own temptations; we always can resist them if we in
faith draw nigh to God for protection. "To this end the Son of man was
manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John
iii. 8). And the Son of God preserveth
every child of God, "and the evil one toucheth him not" (1 John
v. 18). But the man himself must consent and co-operate, for God
saves no man against his will. "Return unto Me, and I will return unto
you," is the principle of the Old Covenant (Zech. i. 3); and
"Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you," is the principle of
the New.
The converse of this is true also, and it is a fact of equal
solemnity and of great awfulness. Resist God, and He will
depart from you. Draw nigh to the devil, and he will draw nigh
to you. If we persist in withstanding God's grace, He will at last
leave us to ourselves. His Spirit will not always strive with us; but
at last He Himself hardens the heart which we have closed against him,
for He allows things to take their course, and the heart which refuses
to be softened by the dew of His grace must become harder and harder.
And the more we place ourselves in the devil's way, by exposing
ourselves to needless temptations, the more diligently he will seek us
and abide with us. Those who voluntarily take up their abode in the
tents of ungodliness have surrendered all claim to be kept unspotted
from the world. They have lost their right to join in the cry, "Why
standest Thou afar off, O Lord? why hidest Thou Thyself in times of
trouble?"
But the hands which one raises in prayer to God must be cleansed by
withholding them from all evil practices, and from all grasping after
the contaminating gifts of the world; and the heart must be purified
by the quenching of unholy desires and the cultivation of a godly
spirit. In this St. James is but repeating the principles laid
down by the Psalmist: "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? and
who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands
and a pure heart" (Ps. xxiv. 3, 4). And in similar
language we find Clement of Rome exhorting the Corinthians, "Let us
therefore approach Him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure
and undefiled hands unto Him" (xxix.). In all these instances the
external instruments of human conduct are mentioned along with the
internal source of it.
St. James is not addressing two classes of people when he
says, "Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts,
ye double-minded." Every one whose hands have wrought
unrighteousness is a sinner who needs this cleansing; and every one
who attempts to draw nigh to God, without at the same time
surrendering all unholy desires, is a double-minded man who needs this
purification. The "halting between two opinions," between God and
Mammon, and between Christ and the world, is fatal to true conversion
and efficacious prayer. What is necessary, therefore, for these
sinners of double mind, is outward amendment of life and inward
purification of the desires. "The sinner that goeth two ways" must
with "a single eye" direct his path along the narrow way. "Whoso
walketh uprightly shall be delivered; but he that walketh perversely
in two ways shall fall at once" (Prov. xxviii. 18). The whole
exhortation is in spirit very similar to the second half of the second
chapter of Ecclesiasticus. Note especially the concluding verses:
"They that fear the Lord will prepare their hearts and humble their
souls in His sight, saying, We will fall into the hands of the Lord,
and not into the hands of men; for as His majesty is, so is His
mercy."
There must be no "light healing," or treatment of the grievous sins
of the past as of no moment. There must be genuine sorrow for the
unfaithfulness which
has separated them so long from their God, and for the pride which has
betrayed them into rebellion against Him. "Be afflicted, and mourn,
and weep." The first verb refers to the inward feeling of
wretchedness, the other two to the outward expression of it. These two
are found in combination in several passages, both in the Old
Testament and in the New (2 Sam. xix. 2; Neh. viii. 9;
Mark xvi. 10; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 15, 19). The
feelings of satisfaction and self-sufficiency in which these friends
of the world have hitherto indulged, and the glowing complacency which
has been manifest in their demeanour, have been quite out of place,
and must be exchanged for feelings and manifestations of grief. Their
worldly merriment also must be abandoned; those who have cut
themselves off from God have no true spring of joy. "Let your laughter
be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness." The last word
(κατήφεια), which occurs nowhere else
in Scripture, refers primarily to the dejected look which accompanies
heaviness of heart. The writer of the Book of Wisdom uses the
adjective (κατηφής) to express the
"gloomy phantoms with unsmiling faces" which he supposes to
have appeared to the Egyptians during the plague of darkness
(xvii. 4). The term admirably expresses the opposite of
boisterous lightheartedness.
St. James ends as he began, with submission to the Almighty.
He began his exhortation as to the right method of conversion with "Be
subject unto God." He ends with "Humble yourselves in the sight of the
Lord, and He will exalt you." The root of their worldliness and their
grasping at wealth and honour is pride and self-will, and the cure for
that is self-abasement and self-surrender. If it is God's will that
they should
occupy a lowly place in society, let them humbly accept their lot, and
not try to change it by violence or fraud. If they will but remember
their own transgressions against the Lord, they will admit that the
humblest place is not too humble for their merits; and it is the
humble whom God delights to honour. Here, again, St. James is
reproducing the teaching of his Divine Brother: "Every one that
exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall
be exalted" (Luke xiv. 11; Matt. xxiii. 12). And the Old
Testament teaches the same lesson. "The humble person He shall save,"
says Eliphaz the Temanite (Job xxii. 29); and the Psalmist gives
us both sides of the Divine law of compensation: "Thou wilt save the
afflicted people; but the haughty eyes Thou wilt bring down"
(xviii. 27).
"Humble yourselves;" "He that humbleth himself."
Everything depends on that. It must be self-abasement. There is
nothing meritorious in chancing to be in a humble position, still less
in being forced to descend to one. It is the voluntary
acceptance, or the choice, of a lowly place that is pleasing to God.
We must choose it as knowing that we deserve nothing better, and as
wishing that others should be promoted rather than ourselves. And this
must be done "in the sight of the Lord;" not in
self-consciousness, to "to be seen of men," which is "the pride that
apes humility," but in the consciousness of the ineffable presence of
God. That is the source of all true self-abasement and humility. To
realize that we are in the presence of the All-holy and All-pure, in
whose sight the stars are not clean, and who charges even the angels
with folly, is to feel that all differences of merit between man and
man have faded away in the immeasurable abyss which
separates our own insignificance and pollution from the majesty of His
holiness. "Now mine eye seeth Thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and
repent in dust and ashes," is the language of Job (xlii. 5, 6).
And it was the same feeling which wrung from St. Peter, as he
fell down at Jesus' knees, the agonizing cry, "Depart from me, for I
am a sinful man, O Lord" (Luke v. 8). Hence it is that the most
saintly persons are always the most humble; for they realize most
perfectly the holiness of God and the ceaselessness of His presence,
and are therefore best able to appreciate the contrast between their
own miserable imperfections and His unapproachable purity. The
language which they at times use about themselves is sometimes
suspected of unreality and exaggeration, if not of downright
hypocrisy; but it is the natural expression of the feelings of one who
knows a great deal about the difference between a creature who is
habitually falling into sin and One who, in holiness, as in wisdom and
power, is absolute and infinite perfection. Humility is thus the
beginning and end of all true religion. The sinner who turns to God
must be humble; and this is the humility which St. James is
urging. And the saint, as he approaches nearer to God, will be humble;
for he knows what the approach has cost him, and how very far off he
still remains.
"And He will exalt you." This is the result, not the motive. To
strive to be humble in order to be exalted would be to poison
the virtue at its source. Just as the conscious pursuit of happiness
is fatal to its attainment, so also the conscious aim at Divine
promotion. The way to be happy is not to think about one's own
happiness, but to sacrifice it to that of others; and the way to be
exalted by God is not to think of one's
own advancement, but to devote oneself to the advancement of others.
The exaltation is sure to come, if only humility is attained; an
exaltation of which there is a foretaste even in this life, but the
full fruition of which lies in those unknown glories which await the
humble Christian in the world to come.
Note.—It
may be that in the phrase "Resist the devil" we have an echo of
another unrecorded utterance of Christ, of which we have possible
traces also in St. Paul's "Stand against the wiles of the devil"
(Eph. vi. 11), and St. Peter's "Whom withstand, steadfast in
your faith" (1 Peter v. 9). Comp. Shepherd of Hermas,
Mand. XII. v. 2; iv. 7; Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Neph. viii., where James iv. 7 (or its source)
would seem to be quoted.
CHAPTER XXI.
SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
INVOLVED IN THE LOVE OF CENSURING OTHERS.
"Speak not one against another, brethren. He that
speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against
the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art
not a doer of the law, but a judge. One only is the Lawgiver and
Judge, even He who is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou
that judgest thy neighbour?"—St. James iv. 11, 12.
FROM sins which are the result of a want of love to
God St. James passes on, and abruptly, to some which are the
result of a want of love for one's neighbour. But in thus passing on
he is really returning to his main subject, for the central portion of
the Epistle is chiefly taken up with one's duty towards one's
neighbour. And of this duty he again singles out for special notice
the necessity for putting a bridle on one's tongue (i. 26;
iii. 1-12). Some have supposed that he is addressing a new class
of readers; but the much gentler address, "brethren," as compared with
"ye adulteresses" (ver. 4), "ye sinners," "ye double-minded" (ver. 8),
does not at all compel us to suppose that. After a paragraph of
exceptional sternness, he returns to his usual manner of addressing
his readers (i. 2, 16, 19; ii. 1, 5, 14; iii. 1, 10,
12; v. 7, 9, 10, 12, 19), and
with all the more fitness because the address "brethren" is in itself
an indirect reproof for unbrotherly conduct. It implies what Moses
expressed when he said, "Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to
another?" (Acts vii. 26).
"Speak not against one another, brethren." The context shows what
kind of adverse speaking is meant. It is not so much abusive or
calumnious language that is condemned, as the love of finding
fault. The censorious temper is utterly unchristian. It means that
we have been paying an amount of attention to the conduct of others
which would have been better bestowed upon our own. It means also that
we have been paying this attention, not in order to help, but in order
to criticize, and criticize unfavourably. It shows, moreover, that we
have a very inadequate estimate of our own frailty and shortcomings.
If we knew how worthy of blame we ourselves are, we should be much
less ready to deal out blame to others. But over and above all this,
censoriousness is an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. It is not
merely a transgression of the royal law of love, but a setting oneself
above the law, as if it were a mistake, or did not apply to oneself.
It is a climbing up on to that judgment-seat on which God alone has
the right to sit, and a publishing of judgments upon others which He
alone has the right to pronounce. This is the aspect of it on which
St. James lays most stress.
"He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth a brother, speaketh
against the law and judgeth the law." St. James is probably not
referring to Christ's command in the Sermon on the Mount, "Judge not,
that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged" (Matt. vii. 1, 2). It is a law of far
wider scope that is in his mind, the same as that of which he has
already spoken, "the perfect law, the law of liberty" (i. 25);
"the royal law, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself" (ii. 8). No one who knows this law, and has
at all grasped its meaning and scope, can suppose that observance of
it is compatible with habitual criticism of the conduct of others, and
frequent utterance of unfavourable judgments respecting them. No man,
however willing he may be to have his conduct laid open to
criticism, is fond of being constantly subjected to it. Still
less can any one be fond of being made the object of slighting and
condemnatory remarks. Every man's personal experience has taught him
that; and if he loves his neighbour as himself, he will take care to
inflict on him as little pain of this kind as possible. If, with full
knowledge of the royal law of charity, and with full experience of the
vexation which adverse criticism causes, he still persists in framing
and expressing unfriendly opinions respecting other people, then he is
setting himself up as superior, not only to those whom he presumes to
judge, but to the law itself. He is, by his conduct, condemning the
law of love as a bad law, or at least as so defective that a superior
person like himself may without scruple disregard it. In judging and
condemning his brother he is judging and condemning the law; and he
who condemns a law assumes that he is in possession of some higher
principle by which he tests it and finds it wanting. What is the
higher principle by which the censorious person justifies his contempt
for the law of love? He has nothing to show us but his own arrogance
and self-confidence. He knows what the duty of other persons
is, and how signally they fall short of it. To talk of
"hoping all things, and enduring all things," and of "taking not
account of evil," may be all very well theoretically of an ideal state
of society; but in the very far from ideal world in which we have to
live it is necessary to keep one's eye open to the conduct of other
people, and to keep them up to the mark by letting them and their
acquaintances know what we think of them. It is no use mincing matters
or being mealy-mouthed; wherever abuses are found, or even suspected,
they must be denounced. And if other persons neglect their duty in
this particular, the censorious man is not going to share such
responsibility. This is the kind of reasoning by which flagrant
violations of the law of love are frequently justified. And such
reasoning, as St. James plainly shows, amounts really to this,
that those who employ it know better than the Divine Lawgiver the
principles by which human society ought to be governed. He has clearly
promulgated a law; and they ascend His judgment-seat, and intimate
that very serious exceptions and modifications are necessary; indeed,
that in some cases the law must be entirely superseded. They,
at any rate, are not bound by it.
This proneness to judge and condemn others is further proof of that
want of humility about which so much was said in the previous section.
Pride, the most subtle of sins, has very many forms, and one of them
is the love of finding fault; that is, the love of assuming an
attitude of superiority, not only towards other persons, but towards
the law of charity and Him who is the Author of it. To a truly humble
man this is impossible. He is accustomed to contrast the outcome of
his own life with the requirements of God's law, and to know how awful
is the gulf which separates
the one from the other. He knows too much against himself to take
delight in censuring the faults of others. Censoriousness is a sure
sign that he who is addicted to it is ignorant of the immensity of his
own shortcomings. No man who habitually considers his own
transgressions will be eager to be severe upon the transgressions of
others, or to usurp functions which require full authority and perfect
knowledge for their equitable and adequate performance.
Censoriousness brings yet another evil in its train. Indulgence in
the habit of prying into the acts and motives of others leaves us
little time and less liking for searching carefully into our own acts
and motives. The two things act and react upon one another by a
natural law. The more seriously and frequently we examine ourselves,
the less prone we shall be to criticize others; and the more
pertinaciously we busy ourselves about the supposed shortcomings and
delinquencies of our neighbours, the less we are likely to investigate
and realize our own grievous sins. All the more will this be the case
if we are in the habit of giving utterance to the uncharitable
judgments which we love to frame. He who constantly expresses his
detestation of evil by denouncing the evil doings of his brethren is
not the man most likely to express his detestation of it by the
holiness of his own life; and the man whose whole life is a protest
against sin is not the man most given to protesting against sinners.
To be constantly speculating, to be frequently deciding, to be ready
to make known our decisions, as to whether this man is "awakened" or
not, whether he is "converted" or not, whether he is a "Catholic" or
not, whether he is a "sound Churchman" or not—what is this but
to climb up into the White Throne, and with
human ignorance and prejudice anticipate the judgments of Divine
Omniscience and Justice, as to who are on the right hand, and who on
the left?
"One only is Lawgiver and Judge, even He who is able to save and to
destroy." There is one and only one Source of all law and authority,
and that Source is God Himself. Jesus Christ affirmed the same
doctrine when He consented to plead, as a prisoner charged with many
crimes, before the judgment-seat of His own creature, Pontius Pilate.
"Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee
from above" (John xix. 11). It was Christ's last word to the
Roman Procurator, a declaration of the supremacy of God in the
government of the world, and a protest against the claim insinuated in
"I have power to release Thee, and I have power to crucify Thee," to
be possessed of an authority that was irresponsible. Jesus declared
that Pilate's power over Himself was the result of a Divine
commission; for the possession and exercise of all authority is the
gift of God, and can have no other origin. And this sole Fount of
authority, this one only Lawgiver and Judge, has no need of assessors.
While He delegates some portions of His power to human
representatives, He requires no man, He allows no man, to share his
judgment-seat, or to cancel or modify His laws. It is one of those
cases in which the possession of power is proof of the possession of
right. "He who is able to save and to destroy," who has the
power to execute sentences respecting the weal and woe of immortal
souls, has the right to pronounce such sentences. Man has no right to
frame and utter such judgments, because he has no power to put them
into execution; and the practice of uttering them is a perpetual
usurpation of Divine prerogatives.
It is an approach to that sin which brought about the
fall of the angels.
Is not the sin of a censorious temper in a very real sense
diabolical? It is Satan's special delight to be "the accuser of the
brethren" (Rev. xii. 10). His names, Satan ("adversary") and
devil (διάβολος = malicious accuser"),
bear witness to this characteristic, which is brought prominently
forward in the opening chapters of the Book of Job.Dr. Hatch thinks that in both the Septuagint and the New Testament
διάβολος, when used as a proper name,
has "the general connotation of enmity, and without implying
accusation, whether true or false." As an adjective it has its usual
meaning of "slanderous" (1 Tim. iii. 11; 2 Tim.
iii. 3; Titus ii. 3) (Biblical Greek pp. 46, 47).
It is of the essence of censoriousness that its activity is displayed
with a sinister motive. The charges are commonly uttered, not to the
person who is blamed, but to others, who will thereby be prejudiced
against him; or if they are made to the man's own face, it is with the
object of inflicting pain, rather than with the hope of thereby
inducing him to amend. It is no "speaking truth in love" (Eph.
iv. 15), but reckless or malevolent speaking evil, without much
caring whether it be true or false. It is a poisoning of the wells out
of which respect and affection for our fellow-men flow. Thus the
presumption which grasps at functions that belong to God alone leads
to a fall and a course of action which is indeed Satanical.
"One only is the Lawgiver and the Judge, even He who is able to
save and to destroy." St. Peter and St. Paul teach the same
doctrine in those Epistles which (as has been already pointed out) it
is possible that the writer of this Epistle may have seen. "Be
subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake:
whether it be to the king, as supreme (i.e. to the Roman
Emperor); or unto governors, as sent by him" (1 Peter
ii. 13). However much of human origination (κτίσις ἀνθρωπίνη) there may be about civil
government, yet its sanctions are Divine. And St. Paul affirms
that its real origin is Divine also: "There is no power but of God;
and the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. xiii. 1). The
ultimate sanction of even Pilate's misused jurisdiction was "from
above;" and it was to inhabitants of Rome, appalled by the frantic
atrocities of Nero, that St. Paul declared that the authority of
their Emperor existed by "the ordinance of God." If to resist this
delegated authority be a serious matter, how much more to attempt to
anticipate or to contradict the judgments of Him from whom it
springs!
"But who art thou, that judgest thy neighbour?" St. James
concludes this brief section against the sin of censoriousness by a
telling argumentum ad hominem. Granted that there are grave
evils in some of the brethren among whom and with whom you live;
granted that it is quite necessary that these evils should be noticed
and condemned; are you precisely the persons that are best qualified
to do it? Putting aside the question of authority, what are your
personal qualifications for the office of a censor and a judge? Is
there that blamelessness of life, that gravity of behaviour, that
purity of motive, that severe control of tongue, that freedom from
contamination from the world, that overflowing charity which marks the
man of pure religion? To such a man finding fault with his brethren is
real pain; and therefore to be fond of finding fault is strong
evidence that these necessary qualities are not possessed. Least of
all is such a one fond of disclosing to others the sins which he has
discovered in an erring brother. Indeed, there is scarcely a better
way of detecting our own "secret faults" than that of noticing what
blemishes we are most prone to suspect and denounce in the lives of
our neighbours. It is often our own personal acquaintance with
iniquity that makes us suppose that others must be like ourselves. It
is our own meanness, dishonesty, pride, or impurity that we see
reflected on what is perhaps only the surface of a life whose secret
springs and motives lie in a sphere quite beyond our grovelling
comprehension. Here, again, St. James is quite in harmony with
St. Paul, who asks the same question: "Who art thou that judgest
the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth.... But
thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou
set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the
judgment-seat of God?" (Rom. xiv. 4, 10).
But are not St. James and St. Paul
requiring of us what is impossible? Is it not beyond our power to
avoid forming judgments about our brethren? Certainly this is beyond
our power, and we are not required to do anything so unreasonable as
to attempt to avoid such inevitable judgments. Whenever the conduct of
others comes under our notice we necessarily form some kind of an
opinion of it, and it is out of these opinions and judgments, of which
we form many in the course of a day, that our own characters are to a
large extent slowly built up; for the way in which we regard the
conduct of others has a great influence upon our own conduct. But it
is not this necessary judging that is condemned. What is condemned is
the inquisitorial examination of our neighbours' views and
actions, undertaken without authority and without love. Such judging
is sinister in its purpose, and is disappointed if it can find nothing
to blame. It is eager, rather than unwilling, to think evil, its
prejudices being against, rather than in favour of, those whom it
criticizes. To discover some grievous form of wrong-doing is not a
sorrow, but a delight.
But what both St. James and St. Paul condemn, even more
than the habit of forming these unfavourable judgments about our
neighbours, is the giving effect to them. "Speak not one
against another." "Why dost thou set at nought thy brother?"
This at any rate we all can avoid. However difficult, or impossible,
it may be to avoid forming unfavourable opinions of other people, we
can at any rate abstain from publishing such opinions to the world.
The temper which delights in communicating suspicions and criticisms
is even more fatal than the habit of forming and cherishing them; it
is the difference between a disease which is infectious, and one which
is not. The bitterness and misery which are caused by the love of evil
speaking is incalculable. It is one enormous item in that tragic sum
of human suffering which is entirely preventable. Much of human
suffering is inevitable and incurable; it may be compensated or
consoled, but it can be neither escaped nor remedied. There is much,
however, that need never be incurred at all, that is utterly wanton
and gratuitous. And this pathetic burden of utterly needless misery in
great measure consists of that which we heedlessly or maliciously
inflict upon one another by making known, with quite inadequate
reason, our knowledge or suspicion of the misconduct of other people.
Experience seems to do little towards curing us of this fault. Over
and over again we have
discovered, after having communicated suspicions, that they are
baseless. Over and over again we have found out that to disclose what
we know to the discredit of a neighbour does more harm than good. And
not infrequently we have ourselves had abundant reason to wish that we
had never spoken; for curses are not the only kind of evil speaking
that is wont to "come home to roost." And yet, each time that the
temptation occurs again, we persuade ourselves that it is our duty to
speak out, to put others on their guard, to denounce an unquestionable
abuse, and so forth. And forthwith we set the whisper in motion, or we
write a letter to the papers, and the supposed delinquent is "shown
up." An honest answer to the questions, "Should I say this of him if
he were present? Why do I not speak to him about it, instead of to
others? Am I sorry or glad to make this known?" would at once make us
pause, and perhaps abstain. They would lead us to see that we are not
undertaking a painful duty, but needlessly indulging an unchristian
censoriousness, and thereby inflicting needless pain. It is not given
to many of us to do a great deal towards making other persons holier;
but it is within the power of all of us to do a very great deal
towards making others happier; and one of the simplest methods of
diminishing the miseries and increasing the joys of society is to
maintain a firm control over our tempers and our tongues, and to
observe to the utmost St. James's pregnant rule, "Speak not one
against another, brethren."
CHAPTER XXII.
SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
INVOLVED IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.
THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM.
"Go to now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will
go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain:
whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life?
For ye are a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then
vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall
both live, and do this or that. But now ye glory in your vauntings:
all such glorying is evil. To him therefore that knoweth to do good,
and doeth it not, to him it is sin."—St. James iv. 13-17.
WORLDLINESS and want of humility are the two
kindred subjects which form the groundwork of this portion of the
Epistle. This fourth chapter falls into three main divisions, of which
the third and last is before us; and these two subjects underlie all
three. In the first the arrogant grasping after the pleasures,
honours, and riches of the world, in preference to the love of God, is
condemned. In the second the arrogant judging of others in defiance of
the Divine law of charity is forbidden. In the third arrogant trust in
the security of human undertakings, without consideration of God's
will, is denounced. The transition from the false confidence which
leads men to judge others with a light heart, to the false confidence
which leads men to account the future as their own, is easily made;
and thus once more, while
we seem to be abruptly passing to a fresh topic, we are really moving
quite naturally from one branch of the main subject to another. The
assurance which finds plenty of time for censuring others, but little
or none for censuring self, is closely akin to the assurance which
counts on having plenty of time for all its schemes, without thought
of death or of the Divine decrees. This, then, is the subject before
us—presumptuous security as to future undertakings. The future
is God's, not ours, just as to judge mankind belongs to Him, and not
to us. Therefore to think and speak of the future as if we had the
power to control it is as presumptuous as to think and speak of our
fellow-men as if we had the power to judge them. In both cases we
assume a knowledge and an authority which we do not possess.
"Go to now" (ἄγε νῦω) is a vigorous
form of address, which occurs nowhere in the New Testament, excepting
here and at the beginning of the next section. Although originally an
imperative singular, it has become so completely an adverb that it can
be used, as here, when a number of persons are addressed. It serves to
attract attention. Those who think that they can acquit themselves of
the charge of censoriousness have yet another form of presumptuous
confidence to consider. The parable of the Rich Fool, who said to his
soul, "Soul, thou hast much good laid up for many years; take thine
ease, eat, drink, and be merry" (Luke xii. 19), should be
compared with this exhortation. And it is remarkable that it was just
after our Lord had refused to be made a judge over two contending
brothers that He spoke the parable of the Rich Fool.
There is no special emphasis on "ye that say," as if
the meaning were, "ye who not only have these presumptuous thoughts,
but dare to utter them." In the previous section giving utterance to
unfavourable judgments about one's neighbours is evidently worse than
merely thinking them, and is a great aggravation of the sin; but here
thinking and saying are much the same. The presumptuous people look
far ahead, think every step in the plan quite secure, and speak
accordingly. To-day and to-morrow are quite safe. The journey to the
proposed city is quite safe. That they will spend a year there is
regarded as certain, and that they will be able to spend it as they
please, viz. in trading. Lastly, they have no doubts as to the success
of the whole enterprise; they will "get gain." All this is thought of
and spoken of as being entirely within their own control. They have
only to decide on doing it, and the whole will be done. That there is
a Providence which needs to be considered is entirely left out of
sight. That not even their own lives can be counted on for a single
day is a fact that is equally ignored.
It was long ago remarked that "All men are mortal" is a proposition
which each man believes to be true of every one excepting himself. Not
that any one seriously believes that he himself will be exempt from
death; but each one of us habitually thinks and acts as if in his case
death were such an indefinite distance off that practically there is
no need to take account of it—at any rate at present. The young
and the strong rarely think of death as a subject that calls for
serious attention. Those who are past the prime of life still think
that they have many years of life in store. And even those who have
received the solemn warning which is involved in reaching man's
allotted threescore and ten
years remember with satisfaction that many persons have reached
fourscore and ten or more, and that therefore there is good reason for
believing that they themselves have a considerable portion of life
still in front of them. Perhaps the man of ninety finds himself
sometimes thinking, if not talking to others, of what he means to do,
not only to-morrow, but next year.
Such habits of thought and language are very common, and a man has
to be carefully on the watch against himself, in order to avoid them.
They are entirely opposed to the spirit of both the Old and the New
Testament, and in the most literal sense of the term may be
stigmatized as godless. The security which ignores the will of
God in its calculations, and thinks and acts as an independent power,
is godless. Dependence upon God is the centre both of Judaism and of
Christianity. A story of the Rabbinists brings this out as clearly on
the Jewish side as the parable of the Rich Fool does on the Christian.
At his son's circumcision a Jewish father set wine that was seven
years old before his guests, with the remark that with this wine he
would continue for a long time to celebrate the birth of his son. The
same night the Angel of Death meets the Rabbi Simeon, who accosts him
and asks him, "Why art thou thus wandering about?" "Because," said the
angel, "I slay those who say, We will do this or that, and think not
how soon death may come upon them. The man who said that he would
continue for a long time to drink that wine shall die in thirty days."
It is in this way that "the careless ease of fools shall
destroy them" (Prov. i. 32). And hence the warning, "Boast not
thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth"
(Prov. xxvii. 1). The man who makes plans for the future without taking
account of Providence is not far removed from "the fool, who says in
his heart, There is no God" (Ps. xiv. 1; liii. 1). "Set not
thy heart upon thy goods; and say not, I have enough for my life.
Follow not thine own mind and thy strength, to walk in the ways of thy
heart; and say not, Who shall control me? for the Lord will surely
avenge thy pride" (Ecclus. v. 1-3). "There is that waxeth rich by
his wariness and pinching, and this is the portion of his reward.
Whereas he saith, I have found rest, and now will eat continually of
my good; and yet he knoweth not what time shall come upon him, and
that he must leave those things to others, and die" (Ecclus.
xi. 18, 19).
The Cyrenaics and their more refined followers the Epicureans
started from the same premises, viz. the utter uncertainty of the
future, and the inability of man to control it, but drew from them a
very different conclusion. Dependence upon God was one of the last
doctrines likely to be inculcated by those who contended that there is
no such thing as Providence, for the gods do not concern themselves
with the affairs of men. True wisdom, they said, will consist in the
skilful, calm, and deliberate appropriation of such pleasure as our
circumstances afford moment by moment, unruffled by passion,
prejudice, or superstition. The present alone is ours, and we must
resolutely make the most of it, without remorse for a past which we
can never alter, and without disquietude about a future which we
cannot determine, and may never possess. This is not very profound as
philosophy, for in the wear and tear of life it can neither fortify
nor console; and as a substitute for religion it is still less
satisfying. The whole difference which separates Paganism from
Christianity lies between two such stanzas as these;—
"Quid sit futurum cras, fuge quærere; et
Quem Fors dierum cunque dabit, lucro
Appone, nec dulces amores
Sperne puer neque tu choreas;"
and—
"Lead, kindly Light, amid th' encircling gloom,
Lead Thou me on:
The night is dark, and I am far from home;
Lead Thou me on.
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me."Horace, Odes I. ix. 13. J. H. Newman, Verses on Various
Occasions, "The Pillar of the Cloud," June 16th, 1833.
"We will go into this city, and spend a year there,
and trade, and get gain." The frequent conjunctions
separate the different items of the plan, which are rehearsed thus one
by one with manifest satisfaction. The speakers gloat over the
different steps of the programme which they have arranged for
themselves. St. James selects trading and getting gain as the end
of the supposed scheme, partly in order to show that the aims of these
presumptuous schemers are utterly worldly, and partly because a
restless activity in commercial enterprise was a common feature among
the Jews of the Dispersion. Such pursuits are not condemned; but they
are liable to become too absorbing, especially when not pursued in a
God-fearing way; and it is this which St. James denounces.
"Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your
life? For ye are a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then
vanisheth away." It is not easy to determine the original Greek text
with certainty, but about the general sense there is no doubt. It is
possible, however, that we ought to read, "Whereas ye know not as to
the morrow of what kind
your life will be: for ye are a vapour," etc. In any case "Whereas ye
know not" represents words which literally mean, "Since ye are people
of such nature as not to know" (οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε). As human beings, whose life
is so full of changes and surprises, it is impossible for them to know
what vicissitudes the next day will bring. The real uncertainty of
life is in marked contrast to their unreal security.
"What is your life?" Of what kind is it? What is its nature (ποῖα)? Bede remarks that St. James does not
ask, "What is our life?" He says, "What is your life?"
It is the value of the life of the godless that is in question, not
that of the godly. Those who, by their forgetfulness of the Unseen,
their desire for material advantages, and their friendliness with the
world, have made themselves enemies of God—what is their life
worth? Such persons "are a vapour, that appeareth for a little time,
and then vanisheth away." But it may be doubted whether St. James
is here speaking of the emptiness of an ungodly life. He is
addressing godless persons, and in rebuking them reminds them how
unstable and fleeting life is, not merely to them, but to all men. It
is the same thought as we find in Job's complaint, "As the cloud is
consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall
come up no more" (vii. 9); and we shall see that in the next two
sections (v. 1-6, 7-11) there are coincidences with the Book of
Job (see pp. 281, 291). But it is perhaps the Book of Wisdom that is
specially in the writer's mind: "Our life shall pass away as the trace
of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, that is driven away with
the beams of the sun, and overcome with the heat thereof"
(ii. 4). "For the hope of the ungodly is like dust that is blown away
with the wind; like a thin froth that is driven away with the storm;
like as the smoke which is dispersed here and there with a tempest,
and passeth away as the remembrance of a guest that tarrieth but a
day" (v. 14). And if these passages are the source of
St. James's metaphor, Bede's interpretation becomes more
probable; for in both of them it is the life of the ungodly that is
likened to everything that is unsubstantial and transitory.In commenting on Wisdom ii. 4, Farrar quotes Gregory Nazianzen:
"We are a flitting dream, a phantom that cannot be grasped,
the scud of a passing breeze, a ship that leaves no trace on the sea,
dust, vapour, morning dew, a flower that now blossoms, and now is
done away" (Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha, I., p. 431).
"For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live,
and do this or that." We must beware of understanding these words in
such a way as to lose the spirit of them. It is one of many passages
of Scripture which are often taken according to the letter, when the
letter is of little or no importance. As in so much of the teaching in
the Sermon on the Mount, we have a principle given in the form
of a rule. Rules are given that they may be observed literally.
Principles are given that they may be applied intelligently and
observed according to their spirit. We do not obey Christ when we
allow the thief who has taken our upper garment to have our under one
also; nor do we obey St. James when we say, "If the Lord will,"
or "Please God," of every future event, and make a plentiful use of
"D.V." in all our correspondence. Nor is it enough to say that
everything depends upon the spirit in which the second garment
is surrendered, and in which the "Please God" is uttered, or the
"D.V." written. It is quite possible to keep Christ's precept
without ever surrendering the second garment at all; and indeed we
ought not to surrender it. And it is quite possible to keep His
brother's precept without ever writing "D.V." or saying "Please God,"
the habitual use of which would be almost certain to generate
formalism and cant in ourselves, and would be quite certain to provoke
needless criticism and irreverent ridicule. St. James means that
we should habitually feel that moment by moment we are absolutely
dependent upon God, not only for the way in which our lives are
henceforth to be spent, but for their being prolonged at all. At any
instant we may be called upon to surrender, not only all the materials
of enjoyment which He has bestowed upon us, but life itself, which is
equally His gift; and whenever He does so call upon us we shall have
neither the right nor the power to resist. "Shall He not do what He
will with His own?" "The Lord gave; and the Lord may take away.
Blessed be the name of the Lord."
The man who is thoroughly impressed with the fact of his utter
dependence upon God for life and all things is sure to express this in
his bearing, his tone, and his manner of speaking about the future,
even although such phrases as "Please God" and "If the Lord will"
never come from his lips or his pen. Indeed, the more complete his
realization of this truth is, the less likely will he be to be
constantly expressing it in a formula. It is the habitual setting of
his thoughts, and does not need to be stated any more than the
conditions of time and space. On rare occasions it may be well to
remind others of this truth by giving expression to it in words; but
in most cases it will be wisest to retain it as an unforgotten but
unexpressed premise in the mind. But it is for each one of us to take
care that it is not
forgotten. Only those who have it constantly in their hearts can
safely absolve themselves from the obligation of obeying the words of
St. James literally.
"But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is evil."
The carnal self-confidence with which people serenely talk about what
they mean to do next year, or many years hence, is only part of a
general spirit of arrogance and worldliness which pervades their whole
life and conduct; it is one of the results of the thoroughly vitiated
moral atmosphere which they have chosen for themselves, and to the
noxiousness of which they are constantly contributing. The word here
rendered "vaunting," and in 1 John ii. 16 "vainglory,"
(ἀλαζονεία), indicates insolent and
empty assurance; and here the assurance lies in presumptuous trust in
the stability of oneself and one's surroundings. Pretentious
ostentation is the radical signification of the word, and in Classical
Greek it is the pretentiousness which is most prominent, in
Hellenistic Greek the ostentation. There is manifest ostentation in
speaking confidently about one's future; and seeing how transitory
everything human is, the ostentation is empty and pretentious. To be
guilty of such vaunting is serious enough; but these fellow-countrymen
of St. James, with their minds absorbed in material interests,
gloried in their godless view of life. The simple character of his
comment makes its severity all the more impressive: "all such glorying
is evil." He uses the very word which is commonly used to express "the
evil one" (ὁ πονηρός), and thereby
indicates the character and source of such glorying.
In concluding this section of his letter, St. James brings the
conduct which he has been condemning within the sweep of a very
comprehensive principle:
"To him, therefore, that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him
it is sin." No Jew, whether Christian or not, could plead ignorance as
an excuse for his transgressions in this matter. Every human being has
experienced the uncertainty of the future and the transitoriness of
human life; and every Jew was well instructed in the truth that man
and all his surroundings are absolutely dependent upon the Divine
will. Moreover, those whom St. James is addressing prided
themselves on their spiritual knowledge (i. 19); they were
professed hearers of God's Word (i. 22, 23), and were anxious to
become teachers of others (iii. 1). Theirs is the case of
servants who knew their master's will, and neglected to do it (Luke
xii. 47). They themselves declared, "We see;" and the rejoinder
is, "Your sin remaineth" (John ix. 41). They knew, long before
St. James instructed them on the subject, what was seemly for
human beings living as creatures in dependence upon their Creator; and
they neglected to do what is seemly. To them this neglect is sin.
The passage is very commonly understood as applying to all sins of
omission; and no doubt it is very capable of such application, but it
does not follow that St. James was thinking of more than the
particular case before him. The words may be interpreted in three
different degrees of comprehensiveness, and St. James may have
meant one, or two, or all three of them.
1. The relation in which a creature ought to stand to the Creator
is one of humility and entire dependence; and he who knows that he is
a creature, and adopts an attitude of self-confidence and
independence, sins.
2. In all cases of transgression knowledge of what is right
aggravates the sin, which is then a sin against
light. "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin:
but now they have no excuse for their sin" (John xv. 22).
3. This applies not only to transgressions, but to omissions.
Knowledge of what is evil creates an obligation to avoid it, and
knowledge of what is good constitutes an obligation to perform it. The
latter truth is not so readily admitted as the former. Everyone
recognizes that an opportunity of doing evil is not a thing
about which any choice is allowable. We are not permitted to use the
opportunity or not, just as we please; we must on no account make use
of it. But not a few persons imagine that an opportunity of doing
good is a thing about which they have full right of choice;
that they may avail themselves of the opportunity or not, just as they
please; whereas there is no more freedom in the one case than in the
other. We are bound to make use of the opportunity of doing good. "To
him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
Some of those who think that St. James knew the Epistle to the
Romans see here an allusion to the principle which St. Paul there
lies down: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (xiv. 23). For
reasons already stated (p. 57), it must remain doubtful whether
St. James had knowledge of that Epistle; and even if he had, we
could not by any means be sure that he had it in his mind when he
wrote the words before us. But his words and St. Paul's, when
combined, give us a complete statement of a great moral principle
respecting the possession or non-possession of knowledge as to what is
right and wrong in any given case. So long as we have no
knowledge that a given act is right, i.e. so long as we are in
doubt as to whether it is allowable
or not, it is sin to do it. As soon as we have knowledge
that a given act is right it is sin to leave it undone.
This principle cuts at the root of that unwholesome growth which in
moral theology is known as the doctrine of Probabilism, and
which has worked untold mischief, especially in the Roman Church, in
which its chief supporters are to be found. This doctrine teaches that
in all cases in which there is doubt as to whether a given act is
allowable or not the less safe course may be followed, even when the
balance of probability is against its being allowable, if only there
are grounds for believing that it is allowable. And some
supporters of this doctrine go so far as to maintain that the amount
of probability need not be very great. So long as it is not certain
that the act in question is forbidden it may be permitted. The object
of which teaching is not that which ought to be the object of all
moral teaching, viz. to save beings with immortal souls from making
serious mistakes of conduct, but to enable beings with strong desires
and passions to gratify them without scruple. The moral law is not so
much explained as explained away. The very titles of some of the
treatises in which the doctrine of Probabilism is advocated indicate
their tendency, e.g. "The Art of Perpetual Enjoyment."Ars Semper Gaudendi, by Alphonso de Sarasa, a Flemish theologian
of Spanish extraction, 1741. For the fullest account of the
history of Probabilism see the great work by Döllinger and Reusch,
Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der Römisch-katholischen Kirche
(Nördlingen, 1889).
To all such special pleading, and making the Word of God of none
effect by human glosses, the simple principles laid down by
St. Paul and St. James are the best antidote: "Whatsoever is
not of faith is sin;" and "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth
it not, to him it is sin."
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE FOLLIES AND INIQUITIES OF THE RICH;
THEIR MISERABLE END.
"Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries
that are coming upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your
garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are rusted; and
their rust shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your
flesh as fire. Ye have laid up your treasure in the last days.
Behold, the hire of the labourers who mowed your fields, which is of
you kept back by fraud, crieth out: and the cries of them that reaped
have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Ye have lived
delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure; ye have nourished
your hearts in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned, ye have killed
the righteous one; he doth not resist you."—St. James v. 1-6.
HERE, if anywhere in the Epistle, the writer
glances aside from the believing Jews of the Dispersion, to whom the
letter as a whole is addressed, and in a burst of righteous
indignation which reminds us of passages in the old Hebrew Prophets,
denounces members of the twelve tribes who not even in name are
Christians. In the preceding section such a transition is in
preparation. When he is condemning the godless presumption of those
seekers after wealth who dared, without thought of their own frailty
and of God's absolute control over their lives and fortunes, to think
and speak confidently of their schemes for future gains, he seems to
be thinking almost as much of unbelieving Jews as of those who have
accepted the Gospel. Here
he appears for the moment to have left the latter entirely out of
sight, and to be addressing those wealthy Jews who not only continued
the policy and shared the guilt of the opponents and murderers of
Christ, but by scandalous tyranny and injustice oppressed their poor
brethren, many of whom were probably Christians. The severity of the
condemnation is not the only or the main reason for thinking that the
paragraph is addressed to unconverted Jews. The first ten verses of
chapter iv. are very severe; and there also, as here, the affectionate
form of address, "brethren," so frequent elsewhere in the Epistle, is
wanting; but there is no doubt that those ten verses, like the
paragraphs which immediately precede and follow them, are addressed to
Christians. What is so exceptional in the passage now under
consideration is the entire absence of any exhortation to
repentance, or of any indication that there is still hope of being
reconciled to the offended Jehovah. They are to "weep and howl," not
in penitence, but in despair. The end is at hand; the day of reckoning
is approaching; and it is a fearful account which awaits them. In this
respect there is a very marked difference between this paragraph and
the one which follows it. In both the nearness of the Day of Judgment
is the motive; but this nearness is to "the rich" a terror, to "the
brethren" a comfort. This difference would be very difficult to
explain if both paragraphs were addressed to believing Jews.
Throughout the Epistle there are strains which sound like echoes
from the Prophets of the Old Testament, with whom St. James has
much in common; but the passage before us is specially in their
spirit. It would not surprise us to meet with it in Isaiah or Jeremiah.
One or two similar passages are worth comparing: "Woe to thee that
spoilest, and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and
they dealt not treacherously with thee! When thou hast ceased to
spoil, thou shalt be spoiled; and when thou hast made an end to deal
treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee" (Isa.
xxxiii. 1). "Woe to him that getteth an evil gain for his house,
that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the
hand of evil! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house, by cutting off
many peoples, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall
cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it"
(Hab. ii. 9). In the New Testament the passage which most
resembles it is our Lord's denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees
(Matt. xxiii. 13-36).
"Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are
coming upon you." We have the same combination of words in Isaiah: "In
their streets they gird themselves with sackcloth: on their housetops,
and in their broad places, every one howleth, weeping
abundantly" (xv. 3). And in an earlier chapter we have a still
closer parallel to the spirit of this verse: "Howl ye; for the day
of the Lord is at hand" (xiii. 6). The miseries to which
St. James alludes are those which shall befall them at "the
coming of the Lord" (ver. 8). It is the impending judgment of the
tyrannous rich that is primarily in his mind. He may also have
foreseen something of the horrors of the Jewish war and the
destruction of Jerusalem, and in accordance with Christ's prophecy may
have considered these calamities typical of the judgment, or part and
parcel of it. In the Jewish war the wealthy classes suffered terribly.
Against
them, as having been friendly to the Romans, and having employed Roman
influence in oppressing their own countrymen, the fury of the
fanatical party of the Zealots was specially directed; and although
the blow fell first and heaviest upon the Jews in Jerusalem and Judæa,
yet it was felt by all Jews throughout the world.
They imagined themselves to be rich; they were really most poor and
most miserable. So sure is the doom that is coming upon them, that in
prophetical style St. James begins to speak of it as already
here; like a seer, he has it all before his eyes. "Your riches are
corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver
are rusted." We have here three kinds of possessions indicated. First,
stores of various kinds of goods. These are "corrupted;" they have
become rotten and worthless. Secondly, rich garments, which in the
East are often a very considerable portion of a wealthy man's
possessions. They have been stored up so jealously and selfishly that
insects have preyed upon them and ruined them. And thirdly, precious
metals. These have become tarnished and rusted, through not having
been put to any rational use. Everywhere their avarice has been not
only sin, but folly. It has failed of its sinful object. The
unrighteous hoarding has tended not to wealth, but to ruin. And thus
the rust of their treasures becomes "a testimony against them." In the
ruin of their property their own ruin is portrayed; and just as
corruption, and the moths, and the rust consume their goods, so shall
the fire of God's judgment consume the owners and abusers of them.
They have reserved all this store for their selfish enjoyment, but God
has reserved them for His righteous anger.
"Ye laid up your treasure in the last days." There was the
monstrous folly of it. The end of all things was close at hand; "the
last days" had already begun; and these besotted graspers after wealth
were still heaping up treasures which they would never have any
opportunity of using. The Authorized Version spoils this by a small,
but rather serious, mistranslation. It has, "Ye have heaped up
treasure together for the last days," instead of "in the
last days" (ἐν ἐσχάταις
ὑμέραις). The case is precisely that which Christ foretold: "As
were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For
as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and
drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah
entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took
them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man" (Matt.
xxiv. 37-39). "Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of
Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they
builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire
and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same
manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed" (Luke
xvii. 28-30).
That the "last days" mean the days immediately preceding the Second
Advent can scarcely be doubted. The context renders this very
probable, and the exhortation in the next section renders it
practically certain. "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for
the coming of the Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one
against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the Judge standeth
before the doors." That the first Christians believed that Jesus
Christ would return in glory during the lifetime of many who were then
living, will hardly be disputed by any one who is acquainted with the
literature of the Apostolic age and of the period immediately
following. Nor, perhaps, will many at the present time care to dispute
that this erroneous opinion was shared, for a time at any rate, even
by Apostles. "Ye are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to
be revealed in the last time," says St. Peter (1 Peter
i. 5). "We that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the
Lord, shall in nowise precede them that are fallen asleep"
(1 Thess. iv. 15; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 51); and
again, writing some years later, "In the last days grievous times
shall come," about which Timothy is to be on his guard, says
St. Paul (2 Tim. iii. 1). And much nearer to the close
of the Apostolic age we have St. John telling his little children
that "it is the last hour" (1 John ii. 18). Some twenty or
thirty years later St. Ignatius writes to the Ephesians, "These
are the last times. Henceforth let us be reverent; let us fear the
longsuffering of God, lest it turn into a judgment against us. For
either let us fear the wrath which is to come, or let us love the
grace which now is" (xi.).
Only very gradually did the Christian Church attain to something
like a true perspective as to the duration of Christ's kingdom upon
earth. Only very gradually did even the Apostles obtain a clear vision
as to the nature of the kingdom which their Lord had founded and left
in their charge, for them to occupy until He came. Pentecost did not
at once give them perfect insight into the import of their own
commission. Much still remained to be learned, slowly, by experience.
And if this was the case with Apostles, we need not wonder that it was
so with James, the Lord's brother. It is remarkable that Christ's
solemn warning
against speculating as to the time of His return seems to have made
only partial impression upon the disciples. "Of that day or that hour
knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the
time is" (Mark xiii. 32, 33). But it is our gain that they were
allowed for a time to hold a belief that the Lord would return very
speedily. The Epistles and Gospels were written by men under the
influence of that belief, and such influence is a very considerable
guarantee for the honesty of the writers. It was because the rich whom
St. James here denounces had no such belief in a speedy judgment,
indeed had very little thought of a judgment at all, that they were
guilty of such folly and iniquity.
Having indicated their folly in amassing wealth which was no
blessing to themselves or others, but simply deteriorated by being
hoarded, St. James passes on to point out their iniquity. And
first of all he mentions the gross injustice which is frequently
inflicted by these wealthy employers of labour upon those who work for
them. The payment of the wages which have been earned is either
unfairly delayed or not paid at all. "Behold, the hire of the
labourers who mowed your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud,
crieth out." Several passages in the Old Testament appear to be in the
writer's mind. "Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor
and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are
in thy land within thy gates: in his day thou shalt give him his
hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and
setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the
Lord, and it be sin unto thee" (Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; cf. 17, and
Lev. xix. 13). "And I will come
near you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against ... those
that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the
fatherless, and that turn away the stranger from his right, and fear
not Me, saith the Lord" (Mal. iii. 5; cf. Jer.
xxii. 13). Perhaps also, "Their cry came up unto God by reason of
the bondage" (Exod. ii. 23); and "The voice of thy brother's
blood crieth unto me from the ground" (Gen. iv. 10). The
frequency with which the subject is mentionedIn addition to the passages quoted in the text see Job vii. 1, 2;
ix. 24; xii. 5, 6; xxiv. 1-12; xxxi. 38, 39.
seems to show that the evil which St. James here denounces had
long been a common sin among the Jews. Tobit, in his charge to his
son, says, "What is hateful to thee do not thou to others. Let not the
wages of any man, which hath wrought for thee, tarry with thee (abide
with thee all night), but give him it out of hand" (Tobit
iv. 14). And in Ecclesiasticus, which St. James seems so
often to have in his thoughts, we read, "The bread of the needy is the
life of the poor: he that defraudeth him thereof (ὁ ἀποστερῶν αὐτήν) is a man of blood. He that
taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth
the labourer of his hire (ὁ ἀποστερῶν μισθόν μισθίου)It is uncertain whether the word which St. James uses
is ἀπεστερημένος or ἀφυστερημένος.
is a blood-shedder" (Ecclus. xxxiv. 21, 22).
But none of these passages determine for us a point of some
interest in the construction used by St. James. The words
translated "of you," in "of you kept back by fraud," literally
mean "from you" (ἀφ' ὑμῶν, not
ὑφ' ὑμῶν). Two explanations are
suggested: 1. The fraudulent action proceeds from them, and
hence "from" becomes nearly equivalent to "by;" and the
use of "from" (ἀπό), rather than "by" (ὑπό), is all the more natural because the word for
"kept back by fraud" has the former preposition compounded with it. 2.
"From you," being placed between "kept back by fraud" and "crieth out"
(ὁ ἀπεστερημένος ἀφ'
ὑμῶν κράζει), may go with either, and it will be better to take
it with "crieth out:" "The hire kept back by fraud crieth out from
you." The wrongfully detained wages are with the rich employers,
and therefore it is from the place where they are detained that their
cry goes up to heaven. The passage quoted above from Exodus
ii. 23 slightly favours this view, for there the Septuagint has,
"Their cry came up unto God from their labours" (ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων); but the passages are not
really parallel.
The word used for "fields" (χώρας) is
worth noting. It implies extensive lands, and therefore adds point to
the reproach. The men who own such large properties are not under the
temptations to fraud which beset the needy, and it is scandalous that
those who can so well afford to pay what is due should refuse.
Moreover, the labour of mowing and reaping such fields must be great,
and therefore the labourers have well earned their wage. The words
"into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth" probably come from Isaiah
(v. 9), and perhaps St. James was led to them by the thought
that these extensive fields are the result of fraud or violence; for
the verse which precedes the words in Isaiah runs thus: "Woe unto them
that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no
room, and ye be made to dwell alone in the midst of the land!" No
other New Testament writer uses the expression "the Lord of Sabaoth,"
although St. Paul once quotes it from Isaiah (Rom. ix. 29).
Bede may be right in thinking
that its point here is that the rich fancy that the poor have no
protector; whereas the Lord of hosts hears their cry. And there is
possibly another point in mowers and reapers being selected as the
representatives of all hired labourers. Calvin suggests that it is
specially iniquitous that those whose toil supplies us with food
should themselves be reduced to starvation; and to this it has been
added that the hard-heartedness of the grasping employers is indeed
conspicuous when not even the joy of the harvest moves them to pay the
poor who work for them their hardly earned wage.
The second feature in the iniquity of the rich is the voluptuous
and prodigal life which they lead themselves, at the very time that
they inflict such hardships upon the poor. "Ye lived delicately on the
earth, and took your pleasure; ye nourished your hearts in a day of
slaughter." The aorists should perhaps be translated as aorists
throughout these verses: "Ye laid up your treasure, ... ye lived
delicately," etc. rather than, "Ye have laid up, ye have
lived," etc. The point of view is that of the Day of Judgment, when
these wealthy sinners are confronted by the enormities which they
committed during their lives. But it is a case in which it is quite
permissible to render the Greek aorist by the English perfect. "On the
earth" may either mean "during your lifetime," or may be in contrast
to "entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." All the while that
the cry against their iniquity was ascending to heaven, as an
accumulating charge that would at last overwhelm them, they were
living in luxury on earth, thinking nothing of the wrath to
come. It was the converse of the old Epicurean doctrine, so
graphically described by the Laureate in "The Lotus-eaters." There it
is the gods
who "lie beside their nectar" in ceaseless enjoyment, "careless of
mankind," who send up useless lamentations, which provoke no more than
a smile among the neglectful deities. Here it is the men who revel in
boundless luxury, careless of the righteous God, whose vengeance they
provoke by persistent neglect of His commands.
The meaning of "in a day of slaughter" is not easily determined.
The "as"—"as in a day of slaughter"—must certainly
be omitted. It was inserted to make more evident one of the possible
interpretations of "day of slaughter." "Ye fattened your heart with
perpetual banqueting, as if life were made up of killing and eating."
"And in that day did the Lord, the Lord of hosts, call to weeping and
to mourning, and baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: and behold,
joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and
drinking wine: let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die" (Isaiah
xxii. 12, 13). If this be the idea which is expressed by the
words in question, then the meaning would be, "Ye fared sumptuously
every day." But it is possible that "in a day of slaughter" here
balances "in the last days" just above. As the folly of heaping up
treasure was augmented by the fact that it was done when the end of
all things was at hand, so the iniquity of voluptuous living was
augmented by the fact that their own destruction was at hand. In this
case the wealthy owners, like stalled oxen, were unconsciously
fattening themselves for the slaughter. Instead of sacrificing
themselves to God's love and mercy, they had sacrificed and devoured
their poor brethren. They had fed themselves, and not the flock; and
unwittingly they were preparing themselves as a sacrifice to God's wrath.
For a sacrifice, either willingly or unwillingly, every one must be.
Did any of those whom St. James here condemns remember his
words when, a few years later, thousands of the Jews of the Dispersion
were once more gathered together at Jerusalem for the sacrifice of the
Passover, and there became unwilling sacrifices to God's slow but sure
vengeance? As already pointed out, it was the wealthy among them who
specially suffered. Their prosperity and their friendship with the
Romans provoked the envy and enmity of the fanatical Zealots, and they
perished in a day of slaughter. Josephus tells us that it was all one
whether the richer Jews stayed in the city during the siege or tried
to escape to the Romans; for they were equally destroyed in either
case. Every such person was put to death, on the pretext that he was
preparing to desert, but in reality that the plunderers might get his
possessions. People who were evidently half-starved were left
unmolested, when they declared that they had nothing; but those whose
bodies showed no signs of privation were tortured to make them reveal
the treasures which they were supposed to have concealed (Bell.
Jud. V. x. 2).
"Ye condemned, ye killed the righteous one; he doth not resist
you." Does this refer to the condemnation and death of Jesus Christ?
This interpretation has found advocates in all ages—Cassiodorus,
Bede, Œcumenius, Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and other modern
commentators; and it is certainly attractive. St. Peter,
addressing the Jews in Solomon's Porch, says, "But ye denied the Holy
and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto
you, and killed the Prince of Life" (Acts iii. 14, 15). St. Stephen,
in his speech before the Sanhedrin, asks, "Which of the prophets
did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them which showed
before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now
become betrayers and murderers" (Acts vii. 52; cf.
xxii. 14, and 1 Pet. iii. 18). It is certainly no
objection to this interpretation that St. James uses the
aorist—"ye condemned, ye killed." That tense might fittingly be
used either of a course of action in the past, as in the aorists
immediately preceding, or of a single action, as of Abraham's offering
Isaac (ii. 21). Nor is it any objection that in "He doth not
resist you" St. James changes to the present tense. In any case
the change from past to present has to be explained, and it is as easy
to explain it of the present long-suffering of Christ, or of His
abandoning them to their wickedness, as of the habitual meekness of
the righteous man. Nor, again, is it any objection that the Jews
addressed in this Epistle could not rightly be charged with the
condemnation and death of Christ, for twenty or thirty years had
elapsed since that event. It is by no means improbable that among the
Jews then living there were many who had cried "Crucify Him" on Good
Friday; and even if there were not, the words of St. James are
quite justifiable. The Crucifixion was in a very real sense the act of
the whole nation, far more so than was the murder of Zacharias the son
of Jehoiada, and yet Jesus says to the Jews respecting Zacharias,
"whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar." If at the present
day the English might be told that they condemned and killed Charles
I., and the French be told that they condemned and killed Louis XVI.,
much more might the Jews in the middle of the first century be said to
have condemned and killed Jesus Christ.
But nevertheless, this attractive and tenable interpretation
is probably not the right one; the context is against it. It is the
evil that is inherent in class tyrannizing over class that is
condemned, the rich oppressing the poor, and the godless persecuting
the godly. "The righteous one" is here not an individual, but the
representative of a class. The iniquitous violence which slew Jesus
Christ and His martyrs, James the son of Zebedee and Stephen,
illustrates what St. James says here, just as his own
martyrdom does; but it does not follow from this that he is alluding
to any one of these events in particular. The Book of Wisdom seems
once more to be in the writer's mind: "Let us oppress the poor
righteous man; let us not spare the widow, nor reverence the ancient
grey hairs of the aged.... Let us lie in wait for the righteous;
because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our
doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to
our infamy the transgressings of our education.... He is grievous to
us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's; his ways are
of another fashion.... Let us examine him with despitefulness and
torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us
condemn him with a shameful death; for by his own saying he shall be
respected" (ii. 10-20).
Julius Cæsar on one occasion stated his financial
position by confessing that he needed half a million of money in order
to be worth nothing. The spiritual condition of many prosperous men
might be expressed in a similar way. Cæsar never allowed lack of funds
to stand between him and his political aims; when he had nothing he
borrowed at enormous interest. So also with us. In pursuing our
worldly aims we sink
deeper and deeper in spiritual ruin, and accumulate debts for an
eternal bankruptcy. Riches are not a whit less perilous to the soul
now than they were in the first century, and yet how few among the
wealthy really believe that they are perilous at all. The wisdom of
our forefathers has placed in the Litany a petition which every
well-to-do person should say with his whole heart: "In all time of our
wealth, Good Lord, deliver us."
CHAPTER XXIV.
PATIENCE IN WAITING. THE ENDURANCE OF JOB.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MENTION OF JOB BY ST. JAMES.
"Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth,
being patient over it, until it receive the early and latter rain. Be
ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is
at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not
judged; behold, the Judge standeth before the doors. Take, brethren,
for an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spake
in the Name of the Lord. Behold, we call them blessed which endured:
ye have heard of the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of the
Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and
merciful."—St. James v. 7-11.
"BE patient, therefore, brethren." The storm of
indignation is past, and from this point to the end of the Epistle
St. James writes in tones of tenderness and affection. In the
paragraph before us he, as it were, rounds off his letter, bringing it
back to the point from which he started; so that what follows
(vv. 12-20) is of the nature of a postscript or appendix. He
began his letter with the exhortation, "Count it all joy, my brethren,
when ye fall into manifold trials; knowing that the proof of your
faith worketh patience. And let patience have its perfect work, that
ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing" (i. 2-4). He
draws to a close with the charge, "Be patient therefore, brethren,
until the coming of the Lord".
The "therefore" shows that this sympathetic exhortation of the
brethren is closely connected with the stern denunciation of the rich
in the preceding paragraph. The connexion is obvious. These brethren
are in the main identical with the righteous poor who are so cruelly
oppressed by the rich; and St. James offers them consolation
mainly on two grounds: First, their sufferings will not last for ever;
on the contrary, the end of them is near at hand. Secondly, the end of
them will bring not only relief, but reward.
As has been already pointed out (p. 279), St. James evidently
shared the belief, which prevailed in the Apostolic age, that Jesus
Christ would very speedily return in glory to punish the wicked and
reward the righteous. This belief, as Neander observes, was very
natural: "Christ Himself had not chosen to give any information
respecting the time of his coming. Nay, He had expressly said that the
Father had reserved the decision to Himself alone (Mark
xiii. 32); that even the Son could determine nothing respecting
it. But still, the longing desire of the Apostolic Church was directed
with eager haste to the appearing of the Lord. The whole Christian
period seemed only as the transition-point to the eternal, and thus as
something that must soon be passed. As the traveller, beholding from
afar the object of all his wanderings, overlooks the windings of the
intervening way, and believes himself already near his goal, so it
seemed to them, as their eye was fixed on that consummation of the
whole course of events on earth."
Thus, by a strange but unperceived incongruity, St. James
makes the unconscious impatience of primitive Christianity a basis for
his exhortation to conscious patience. Early Christians, in their
eagerness for the
return of their Lord, impatiently believed that His return was
imminent; and St. James uses this belief as an argument for
patient waiting and patient endurance. It is only for a short time
that they will have to wait and endure, and then the rich reward will
be reaped. Ploughing and harrowing are toilsome and painful, but they
have to be gone through, and then, after no intolerable waiting, the
harvest comes.
Above, when St. James was rebuking his readers for their
presumptuous confidence respecting their future plans, he reminded
them of the shortness of life. "What is your life? For ye are a
vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away"
(iv. 14). Here the shortness of the interval between the present
moment and the end of all things is urged as a reason both for
circumspection and for patience. In both cases, with his
characteristic fondness for illustrations drawn from nature, he
employs physical phenomena to enforce his lesson. In the one case life
is a vapour, not substantial at any time, and soon dispersed;As already pointed out, this metaphor is perhaps a reminiscence
of the Book of Job, to which St. James alludes in the passage before
us. He was evidently fond of the sapiential writings, to which Job
is akin. "My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and are spent
without hope. As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he
that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more" (Job vii. 6, 9).
See [footnote 84].
in the other case life is the work and the waiting which must precede
the harvest.
The key-note of the whole passage is patience, which in one
form or another occurs six times in five verses In the original two
different words are used—one (μακροθμεῖν and μακροθμία) four times in the first four
verses; and the other (ὑπομένειν and
ὑπομενή)
twice in the last verse, where we certainly need "the endurance
of Job" rather than "the patience of Job," in order to preserve
the transition from the one word to the other. "Take, brethren, for an
example of suffering and of patience (μακροθυμίας) the prophets who spake in the
Name of the Lord. Behold, we call them blessed which endured
(τοὺς ὑπομείναντας): ye have
heard of the endurance (ὑπομενήν) of Job." It was perhaps because
"the patience of Job" has become a proverbial formula that the
Revisers banished "endurance" to the margin, instead of placing it in
the text.The Rhemish Version distinguishes the words—"be patient" and
"patience" for the one, "suffer" and "sufferance" for the other, the
Vulgate having patientia and sufferentia.
The two words are not infrequently found together (2 Cor.
vi. 4-6; Col. i. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 10; Clement of
Rome, lviii.; Ignatius, Ephes. iii.). The difference between
the two is, on the whole, this, that the first is the long-suffering
which does not retaliate upon oppressive persons, the second the
endurance which does not succumb under oppressive things. The
persecuted prophets exhibited the one; the afflicted Job exhibited the
other. The oppressed and poor Christians whom St. James addresses
are able to practise both these forms of patience, which Chrysostom
extols as the "queen of the virtues."
There is a remarkable diversity of readings in the illustration
about the husbandman's waiting. Some authorities make him wait for the
early and latter rain, others for the early and latter
fruit. The best witnesses leave the substantive to be
understood, and this is doubtless the original reading; it accounts
for the other two. Some copyists thought that rain was to be
understood, and therefore inserted it; while others for
a similar reason inserted fruit. No doubt it is rain that is intended,
in accordance with several passages in the Old Testament (Deut.
xi. 14; Jer. v. 24; Joel ii. 23; Zech. x. 1). The
rains of autumn and of spring are meant, not "morning rain and evening
rain" as Luther renders it in his version; and no moral or spiritual
facts are symbolized by these natural phenomena, such as the
penitential tears of youth and of old age, which would not fit the
context. The point of the simile lies in the patient waiting, not in
that which is waited for.
"Murmur not, brethren, one against another." The literal meaning of
the Greek is "Groan not;" that is, "Grumble not." Earlier
English versions have "Grudge not;" and "grudge" once had the meaning
of "murmur," as in "They will run here and there for meat, and
grudge if they be not satisfied" (Ps. lix. 15). It is
altogether a mistake to suppose that "one against another" includes
the wealthy oppressors spoken of in the preceding section. It is the
common experience of every one that men who are irritated and
exasperated by trying persons or circumstances are liable to vent
their vexation on those who are in no way responsible for what tries
them. St. James is well aware of this danger, and puts his
readers on their guard against it. "Be long-suffering," he says, "and
do not retaliate on those who maltreat you; and do not let the smart
of your troubles betray you into impatience towards one another. He
who is to judge your oppressors will judge you also, and He is close
at hand." We can hardly doubt that Christ's saying, "Judge not,
that ye be not judged" (Matt. vii. 1), is in his mind. The
way to lighten one's burden is not to groan over it, still less to
murmur against those who are in the same case, but
to try to console and help them. "Bear ye one another's burdens, and
so fulfil the law of Christ." It is a good thing to take as an example
of patience the prophets and others among God's suffering saints; but
it is a still better thing to give such an example ourselves.
By the prophets St. James no doubt means the prophets of the
Old Testament—Elijah, Jeremiah, and others. It is not likely
that he includes any of the persecuted disciples of the New Testament,
such as James the son of Zebedee, and Stephen. Here again we seem to
have an echo of Christ's words: "Blessed are ye when men shall
reproach you, and persecute you" (comp. "We call them blessed
which endured"): "for so persecuted they the prophets which
were before you" (Matt. v. 11, 12). It is the ceaseless reproach
against the Jews that they boasted that theirs were the prophets, and
yet were the persecutors of the prophets. "The children of Israel ...
have slain Thy prophets with the sword," says Elijah (1 Kings
xix. 10, 14). "That I may avenge the blood of My servants the
prophets," says God to Elisha (2 Kings ix. 7). They "slew
Thy prophets which testified against them to turn them again to Thee,"
says Nehemiah, in his prayer (Neh. ix. 26). "Your own sword hath
devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion," is the accusation of
Jeremiah (ii. 30). "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the
prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her!" is the lamentation
of Christ (Matt. xxiii. 37). And Stephen, just before he was
himself added to the number of the slain, asks, "Which of the prophets
did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them which showed
before of the coming of the Righteous One" (Acts vii. 52).
Certainly those who try to do
God's work in the world have no lack of examples of patient suffering
for such work. The reasonable question would seem to be, not, "Why
should I be made to suffer for endeavouring to do good?" but, "Why
should I not be made to suffer? Seeing what others have had to
endure, why should I be spared?"
"Ye have heard of the endurance of Job." It is possible that this
refers specially to the reading of the Book of Job in public service;
but there is no need to restrict the hearing to such occasions. We
need not doubt that the endurance of Job was a familiar topic among
the Jews long before this Epistle was written, and independently of
the book being read in the synagogues. Yet, in spite of this
familiarity, the passage before us is the only reference in the whole
of the New Testament to the story of Job, and there is only one
quotation from the Book: "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"
(Job v. 13) is quoted by St. Paul (1 Cor.
iii. 19). There are several loose quotations from it in the
Epistle of Clement of Rome (xvii., xx., xxvi., xxxix., lvi.); and the
remarkable insertion in the Vulgate Version of Tobit ii. 12-15 is
worthy of quotation: "This trial the Lord therefore permitted
to happen to him, that an example might be given to posterity of his
patience, as also of holy Job. For whereas he had always feared God
from his infancy, and kept His commandments, he repined not against
God because the evil of blindness had befallen him, but continued
immovable in the fear of God, giving thanks to God all the days of his
life. For as the kingsReges. "So Job's friends are here called, because they were
princes in their respective territories." Note in the Douay Version,
from which the translation of the passage is taken.
insulted over holy Job, so his relations and
kinsmen mocked at his life, saying, Where is thy hope, for which thou
gavest alms, and buriedest the dead? But Tobias rebuked them, saying,
Speak not so; for we are the children of saints, and look for that
life which God will give to them that never change their faith from
Him."
"Ye have heard of the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of
the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful." A
well-supported, but, on the whole, less probable reading, gives us the
imperative, "see the end of the Lord," instead of the
indicative, "ye have seen" (ἴδετε, instead
of εἴδετε). If it be correct, it may be
taken either with what precedes or with what follows: either, "Ye have
heard of the endurance of Job: see also the end of the Lord, how that
the Lord is full of pity, and merciful;" or, "Ye have heard of the
endurance of Job and the end of the Lord: see that the Lord is full of
pity, and merciful."
But a more important question than either the reading or the
division of the clauses is the meaning of the expression "the end of
the Lord." Bede follows Augustine in understanding it of the death of
Christ, which no doubt many of the readers of the Epistle had
witnessed—"Exitum quoque Domini in cruce quem longanimiter
suscepit, adstantes ipsi vidistis": and in this interpretation
Bede is followed by Wetstein, Lange, and some other modern writers. It
cannot be considered as probable. St. James would hardly couple
the endurance of Job with the death of Christ in this abrupt way; and
the words which follow—"that the Lord is full of pity, and
merciful"—do not fit on to this interpretation. "The end of the
Lord" much more probably means the end to which the Lord brought the
sufferings of Job. It may have special
reference to the concluding portion of the Book of Job, in which
Jehovah is represented as bringing the argument to a close: "Then the
Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that
darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" etc., etc.
(xxxviii.-xlii.). This appearance of Jehovah to end the trials of Job
would then be analogous to the appearance of Christ to end the trials
of the persecuted Christians; and it is possible that the combination
"ye have heard ... and have seen" was suggested by the last words of
Job: "I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now
mine eye seeth Thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in
dust and ashes" (xlii. 5, 6).
Stier remarks that the mention of Job in Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 16,
20), and here by St. James, shows us "that the man Job actually
lived, like Noah, Daniel, and all the prophets; that the narrative of
his life is not a didactic poem, but a real history." But is that a
necessary conclusion? Let us leave on one side the question whether or
no there really was such a person as Job, who experienced what is
recorded in the book which bears his name, and let us consider whether
the mention of him by Ezekiel and by St. James proves that there
was such a person. It proves nothing of the sort. It shows no more
than this, that the story of Job was well known, and was employed for
moral and spiritual instruction. Let us suppose that the Book of Job
is a parable, like that of Dives and Lazarus. Would the fact that its
contents are not historical prevent Ezekiel or St. James from
speaking of Job as a well-known person of exemplary life? There would
be nothing unnatural in coupling together Dives, who is probably an
imaginary person, and the
rich young man, who is certainly a real person, as examples of men to
whom great wealth has proved disastrous, nor, again, in speaking of
Lazarus and the penitent thief as instances of souls that had passed
from great earthly suffering to the rest of Paradise. Such
combinations would not commit the writer or speaker who made use of
them to the belief that Dives and Lazarus were historical persons.
Why, then, should the fact that an inspired writer couples Job with
Noah and Daniel commit us to the belief that Job is a real
person? He may have been so, just as Lazarus may have been so, but the
mention of him by Ezekiel and by St. James does not prove that he
was. We know too little about the effects of inspiration to be
justified in saying dogmatically that an inspired writer would never
speak of an unhistorical person as an example to be imitated. Is the
merchant who sold all that he had in order to buy one pearl of great
price an historical person? and is he not put before us as an example
to be imitated? It is quite possible that the story of Job is in the
main a narrative of facts, and not an inspired fiction; but the
mention of him by Ezekiel and by St. James is no proof of it. It
is neither fair nor prudent to cite either of them as witnesses to the
historical character of the Book of Job. It is not fair, because we
are ignorant of their opinion on the subject, and are also ignorant as
to whether their opinion on the subject would be under the direct
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And it is not prudent, because it may
be demonstrated hereafter that the story of Job is not historical; and
then we shall have pledged the testimony of inspired persons to the
truth of a narrative which is, after all, fictitious. If St. Paul
may cite Jannes and Jambres as instances
of malignant opposition to the truth, without compelling
us to believe that those names are historical,See The Pastoral Epistles, in this series, pp. 379-84 (Hodder and
Stoughton, 1888).
St. James may quote Job as an example of patient endurance,
without obliging us to believe that Job is an historical personage. In
each case the historical character of the illustrations must be
decided on other grounds than the fact that they are employed by
writers who were inspired.That the Book of Job is not pure history is plain from (1) the
dialogue between Jehovah and Satan, and the addresses ascribed to
the Almighty in the body of the poem; (2) the dramatic character of
Job's calamities, man and nature alternately inflicting blows at him,
and in each case just one messenger escaping; (3) the dramatic character
of his compensation, his goods being exactly doubled, and his
family being made exactly what it was before; (4) the elaboration of
the dialogue between Job and his friends. On the other hand, it is
not likely that it is pure invention. We have no evidence of literary
power equal to such invention at the early date to which the Book
of Job must be assigned, viz. before the Return from the Captivity;
and the writer's object would be better attained if he took an historical
person, than if he invented one, as his centre.
Questions of this kind are among the many spheres in which we need
that virtue on which St. James here insists with such simple
earnestness—patience. When certainty has not been attained, and
perhaps is not attainable, let us learn to wait patiently in
uncertainty. Was there ever such a person as Job? Who wrote the Book
of Job? What is its date? Does inspiration produce infallibility? and
if so, what are the limits to such infallibility? There are men to
whom uncertainty on such questions as these seems intolerable. They
cannot "learn to labour and to wait;" they cannot work patiently, and
wait patiently, until a complete solution is found. And hence they
hurry to a
definite conclusion, support it by evidence that is not relevant, and
affirm that it is demonstrated by what is perhaps relevant, but is far
short of proof. Intellectual probation is part of our moral probation
in this life, and it is a discipline much needed in an age of great
mental activity. Impatience of the intellect is a common blemish, and
it is disastrous both to him who allows himself to be conquered by it
and to the cause of truth. He does good service both to himself and to
others, who cultivates a dread of jumping to unproved conclusions, and
who in speaking and writing watchfully distinguishes what is certain
from what is only probable, and what is probable from what is only not
known to be untrue.
The great example of patience is not given by
St. James, although we can read it into his words. In a sense not
meant by him there is the Husbandman, who waiteth for the precious
fruit of the earth, until it receive the early and the latter rain.
There is that precious harvest of human souls which must receive and
welcome the dew of God's grace before it is ready for His garner. On
some it has never yet fallen; on some it has fallen, but as yet in
vain; and meanwhile the Husbandman waiteth, "being patient over it,"
until it receive the one thing needful. Through long, long centuries
He has been waiting, and He continues so doing. St. Augustine
tells us why. God is "patient, because He is eternal" (patiens quia
æternus). He who is "from everlasting to everlasting" can afford
to wait. He waits patiently for us, generation after generation. Can
we not wait for Him one hour? Let us patiently abide until "the end of
the Lord" comes, the end which He has prepared for us, and towards
which all things under His guiding hand are
working. When we have seen it we shall once more
see "that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful."The word for "full of pity" (πολύσπλανχνος) was possibly coined by
St. James himself; it occurs nowhere else. It might be rendered
"large-hearted." A few inferior MSS. have πολυεύσπλανχνος, a word which is found
in ecclesiastical and Byzantine writers. The simpler εὔσπλανχνος occurs 1 Pet.
iii. 8; Eph. iv. 32; and in the Prayer of Manasses; ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριοσ ὕψιστος, εὔσπλανχνος, μακρόθυμος, καὶ
πολυέλεος. The unique πολύσπλανχνος looks like a combination
of πολυέλεοσ and εὔσπλανχνος. Comp. Joel ii. 13; Jonah
iv. 2. The word for "merciful" occurs Luke vi. 36 (comp.
Col. iii. 12) and frequently in the Septuagint; e.g.
Ecclus. ii. 11; οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων ὁ κύριος.
CHAPTER XXV.
THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING. THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE
OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST.
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not,
neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but
let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under
judgment."—St. James v. 12.
THE main portion of the Epistle is already
concluded. St. James has worked through his chief topics back to
the point from which he started, viz. the blessedness of steadfast and
patient endurance of trials and temptations. But one or two other
subjects occur to him, and he reopens his letter to add them by way of
a farewell word of counsel.
One of the leading thoughts in the letter has been warning against
sins of the tongue (i. 19, 26; iii. 1-12; iv. 11, 13;
v. 9). He has spoken against talkativeness, unrestrained
speaking, love of correcting others, railing, cursing, boasting,
murmuring. One grievous form of sinful speech he has not mentioned
particularly; and about this he adds a strong word of warning in this
postscript to the Epistle: "Above all things, my brethren, swear
not."
Two questions are raised by this remarkable prohibition—first,
the exact meaning of it, especially whether it forbids swearing for
any purpose whatever; and
secondly, its relation to the almost identical prohibition uttered by
Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 35, 36). It will be
obvious that whatever this relation may be, the meaning of our Lord's
injunction determines the meaning of St. James in his injunction.
It is hardly worth arguing that he did not mean either more or less
than Christ meant.
I. The immediate context of the prohibition is worth noting in each
case; it seems to throw light upon the scope of the prohibition. Jesus
Christ, after saying "Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, ... nor
by the earth.... But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay," goes on
to forbid retaliation of injuries, and to enjoin love towards enemies.
St. James enjoins long-suffering towards enemies, thence goes on
to forbid swearing, and then again returns to the subject of how to
behave under affliction and ill-treatment: "Is any among you
suffering? let him pray." Prayer, not cursing and swearing, is the
right method of finding relief. There is, therefore, some reason for
thinking that both in the Sermon on the Mount and here the prohibition
of swearing has special reference to giving vent to one's feelings in
oaths when one is exasperated by injury or adversity. No kind of oath
is allowable for any such purpose.
But it is quite clear that this is not the whole meaning of the
injunction in either place. "But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay,
nay;" and, "But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay," manifestly
refers to strengthening affirmations and negations by adding to them
the sanction of an oath. There was an old saying, now unhappily quite
grotesque in its incongruity with facts, that "an Englishman's word is
as good as his bond." What Christ and St. James say is
that a Christian's word should be as good as his oath. There ought to
be no need of oaths. Anything over and above simple affirming or
denying "cometh of the evil one." It is because Satan, the father of
lies, has introduced falsehood into the world that oaths have come
into use. Among Christians there should be no untruthfulness, and
therefore no oaths. The use of oaths is an index of the presence of
evil; it is a symptom of the prevalence of falsehood.
But the use of oaths is not only a sign of the existence of
mischief, it is also apt to be productive of mischief. It is apt to
produce a belief that there are two kinds of truth, one of which it is
a serious thing to violate, viz. when you are on your oath; but the
other of which it is a harmless, or at least a venial thing to
violate, viz. when falsehood is only falsehood, and not perjury. And
this, both among Jews and among Christians, produces the further
mischievous refinement that some oaths are more binding than others,
and that only when the most stringent form of oath is employed is
there any real obligation to speak the truth. How disastrous all such
distinctions are to the interests of truth, abundant experience has
testified: for a common result is this;—that people believe that
they are free to lie as much as they please, so long as the lie is not
supported by the particular kind of oath which they consider to be
binding.
Thus much, then, is evident, that both our Lord and St. James
forbid the use of oaths (1) as an expression of feeling, (2) as a
confirmation of ordinary statements; for the prohibitions plainly mean
as much as this, and we know from other sources that these two abuses
were disastrously common among both Jews and Gentiles at that time.
That converts to Christianity were
exempt from such vices is most improbable; and hence the need that
St. James should write as he does on the subject.
But the main question is whether the prohibition is
absolute; whether our Lord and St. James forbid the use of
oaths for any purpose whatever; and it must be admitted that
the first impression which we derive from their words is that they do.
This view is upheld by not a few Christians as the right
interpretation of both passages. Christ says, "Swear not at all
(μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως).... But let your
speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." St. James says, "Swear not,
neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath
(μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον):
but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay." In both cases we have an
unqualified prohibition of what is to be avoided, followed by a plain
command as to what is to be done.
But further investigation does not confirm the view which is
derived from a first impression as to the meaning of the words.
Against it we have, first, the fact that the Mosaic Law not only
allowed, but enjoined the taking of an oath in certain circumstances;
and Christ would hardly have abrogated the law, and St. James
would hardly have contradicted it, without giving some explanation of
so unusual a course; secondly, the indisputable practice of the early
Church, of St. Paul, and of our Lord Himself.
In Deuteronomy we read, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; and Him
shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by His Name" (vi. 13);
and, "to Him shalt thou cleave, and by His Name shalt thou
swear" (x. 20). The Psalmist says, "The king shall rejoice in
God; every one that sweareth by Him shall glory: but the mouth of them
that speak lies shall be stopped" (lxiii. 11).
Isaiah says, "He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of
truth" (lxv. 16); and still more strongly Jeremiah: "Thou shalt
swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in
righteousness" (iv. 2); and, "If they will diligently learn the
ways of My people, to swear by My Name, As the Lord liveth; even as
they taught My people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built up in
the midst of My people" (xii. 16. Comp. xxiii. 7, 8). An
absolute prohibition of all swearing would have been so surprisingly
at variance with these passages of Scripture that it is difficult to
believe that it would have been made without any allusion to them.
Even the Essenes, who were very strict about swearing, and considered
it to be worse than perjury (for a man is condemned already who cannot
be believed except upon his oath), imposed "terrific oaths" (ὅρκους φρικώδεις) upon those who
wished to enter their community, before admitting them (Josephus,
Bell. Jud. II. viii. 6, 7; Ant. XV. x. 4); and
we can hardly suppose that St. James means to take up a more
extreme position than that of the Essenes.
But even if we suppose that he does mean this we have still to
explain the practice of those who were well aware of Christ's
command respecting swearing, and certainly had no intention of
deliberately violating it. If the first Christians were willing on
certain occasions to take certain oaths, it must have been because
they were fully persuaded that Jesus Christ had not forbidden them to
do so. When called upon by heathen magistrates to take an oath, the
distinction which they drew was not between swearing and not swearing,
but between taking oaths that committed them to idolatry and oaths
which did nothing of the kind. The latter oaths they were willing to
take.
Thus Tertullian says that they would not swear by the genii of
the emperors, because these were supposed to be demons; but by the
safety of the emperors they were willing to swear (Apol.
xxxii.). Origen writes to much the same effect (Con. Celsum,
viii., lxv.). The oath by the genius, or numen, or
"fortune" (τύχη) of the emperor was
recognized as a formula for abjuring Christianity. Thus the proconsul
presses Polycarp again and again: "Swear by the genius of Cæsar; swear
the oath, and I will release thee" (Mart. Pol. ix., x.); and
the fear of being betrayed into an act of idolatry was one of the main
reasons why the early Christians disliked taking oaths. But there was
also the feeling that for Christians oaths ought to be quite
unnecessary. Thus Clement of Alexandria says that the true Christian
ought to maintain a life calculated to inspire such confidence in
those without that an oath would not even be demanded of him. And of
course, when he swears, he swears truly; but he is not apt to swear,
and rarely has recourse to an oath. And his speaking the truth on oath
arises from his harmony with the truth (Strom. vii., viii.).
Pelagius maintained that all swearing was forbidden; but Augustine
contends, on the authority of Scripture, that oaths are not unlawful,
although he would have them avoided as much as possible (Ep.
clvii. Comp. Epp. cxxv., cxxvi.).
But there is not only the evidence as to how the primitive Church
understood the words of Christ and of St. James; there is also
the practice of St. Paul, who frequently calls God to witness
that he is speaking the truth (2 Cor. i. 23; xi. 31;
xii. 19; Gal. i. 20; Phil. i. 8), or uses other strong
asseverations which are certainly more than plain Yea and Nay (Rom.
ix. i.; 1 Cor. xv. 31; 2 Cor. i. 18; xi. 10).
Augustine quotes
St. Paul in defence of swearing, but adds that St. Paul's
swearing, when there was weighty reason for it, is no proof that we
may swear whenever we think proper to do so. And in the Epistle to the
Hebrews the fact that men swear in order to settle disputes is
mentioned without any intimation that the practice is utterly wrong.
On the contrary, we are told that God has condescended to do the same,
in order to give us all the assurance in His power
(vi. 16-18).
Lastly, we have the convincing fact that Jesus Christ allowed
Himself to be put upon His oath. After having kept silence for a long
time, He was adjured by the High Priest to answer; and then He
answered at once. The full meaning of the High Priest's words are, "I
exact an oath of Thee (ἐξορκίζω σε)
by the Living God" (Matt. xxvi. 63, 64). Had this been an
unlawful thing for the High Priest to do, our Lord would have kept
silence all the more, or would have answered under protest.
II. It remains to consider the relation of the prohibition of
swearing in this Epistle to the almost identical prohibition in the
Sermon on the Mount. Is St. James quoting Christ's words? and if
so, whence did he derive his knowledge of them?
No one who compares the two passages will believe that the
similarity between them is accidental. Even if such an hypothesis
could reasonably be entertained, it would be shattered by the number
of other coincidences which exist between passages in this Epistle and
the recorded words of Christ. In this instance we have the largest
amount of coincidence; and therefore the discussion of this point has
been reserved until this passage was reached, although numerous other
cases of coincidence have already occurred.
The remark is sometimes made that there are more quotations of
Christ's words in the Epistle of St. James than in all the
Epistles of St. Paul, or than in all the other books of the New
Testament other than the Gospels. It would be better to word the
remark somewhat differently, and say that there are more coincidences
which cannot be fortuitous between this Epistle and the recorded words
of Christ than in all the Epistles of St. Paul; or that there is
far more evidence of the influence of Christ's discourses upon the
language of St. James than there is of any such influence upon
the language of St. Paul. St. Paul tells us much about
Christ and His work, but he very rarely reproduces any of His sayings.
With St. James it is exactly the opposite; he says very little
indeed about Christ, but, without quoting them as such, he frequently
reproduces His words. It will be found that the largest number of
these coincidences are between St. James and sayings that are
recorded by St. Matthew, especially in the Sermon on the Mount.
But this does not warrant us in asserting that St. James must
have seen St. Matthew's Gospel or any other written Gospels. The
coincidences, as will be seen, are not of a character to show this.
Moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether any of the Gospels were
written so early as A.D. 62, the latest date which
can be given to our Epistle; and if any earlier date be assigned to
it, the improbability of the writer's having seen a written Gospel
becomes all the greater. The resemblances between the words of
St. James and the recorded words of Christ are such as would
naturally arise if he had himself heard Christ's teaching, and was
consciously or unconsciously reproducing what he remembered of it,
rather than such as would be found
if he had had a written document to quote from. If this be so, we have
a strong confirmation of the view adopted at the outset, that this
Epistle is the work of the Lord's brother, who had personal experience
of Christ's conversation, and was independent of both the oral and the
written tradition of His teaching. It will be worth while to tabulate
the principal coincidences, so that the reader may be able to judge
for himself as to their significance. They suffice to show how full
the mind of St. James must have been of the teaching of Jesus
Christ, and they lead to the highly probable conjecture that in other
parts of the Epistle we have reminiscences of Christ's words of which
we have no record in the Gospels.See Salmon's Introduction to the N.T., pp. 221, 500, 4th ed., 1889.
It is not likely that St. James has remembered and reproduced
only those sayings of which there is something recorded by the
Evangelists.
| ST. MATTHEW. |
ST. JAMES. |
| 1. Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness'
sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men
shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for
great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets
which were before you (v. 10-12). |
Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold
temptations; knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience
(i. 2, 3).
Take, brethren, for an example of suffering and of
patience, the prophets who spake in the name of the Lord. Behold, we
call them blessed which endured (v. 10, 11). |
| 2. Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect (v. 48). |
And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect
and entire, lacking in nothing (i. 4). |
| 3. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh
receiveth (vii. 7, 8). |
But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth
to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him
(i. 5). |
|
4. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven (v. 3. Comp. Luke vi. 20). |
Let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate (i. 9).
Did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to
be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom? (ii. 5). |
| 5. Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father
which is in heaven.... And every one that heareth these words of
Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which
built his house upon the sand (vii. 21, 26). |
Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own
selves. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is
like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror (i. 22, 23). |
6. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (v. 7).
If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses (vi. 15).
With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged (vii. 2). |
So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of
liberty. For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no
mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment (ii. 12, 13). |
| 7. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
(vii. 16). |
Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a vine figs?
(iii. 12). |
| 8. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the
other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon (vi. 24). |
Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?
Whosoever, therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an
enemy of God (iv. 4). |
| 9. Whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted (xxiii.
12). |
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall exalt
you (iv. 10). |
| 10. Be not therefore anxious for the morrow (vi. 34). |
Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow (iv. 14). |
| 11. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where
moth and rust doth consume (vi. 19). |
Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your
gold and your silver are rusted (v. 2, 3). |
|
12. Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of
God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by
Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou
swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your speech, be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more
than these is of the evil one (v. 34-37). |
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the
heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath.
But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall
not under judgment (v. 12). |
These twelve parallels are by no means exhaustive, but they are
among the most striking. The following are worthy of consideration,
although those which have been quoted above are more than sufficient
for our purpose:—
| St. Matthew |
St. James |
| i. 19 |
v. 19 |
| i. 20 |
v. 22 |
| ii. 8 |
vii. 12 |
| ii. 10, 11 |
v. 27 |
| iii. 17, 18 |
v. 9 |
| iv. 3 |
vii. 8 |
Let us now consider some coincidences between the language of
St. James and our Lord's words as recorded by the other three
Evangelists.
| ST. MARK. |
ST. JAMES. |
| 13. Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and
cast into the sea; and shall not doubt (διακριθῇ) in his heart, but shall believe
that what he saith cometh to pass; he shall have it
(xi. 23). |
If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to
all liberally and upbraideth not. But let him ask in faith, nothing
doubting (διακρινόμενος): for he
that doubteth etc. (i. 5, 6). |
| 14. They shall deliver you up to councils; and in synagogues
shall ye be beaten (xiii. 9). |
Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the
judgment-seats? (ii. 6). |
| 15. Know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors (xiii. 29; Matt.
xxiv. 33). |
Behold, the Judge standeth before the doors (v. 9). |
| ST. LUKE. |
ST. JAMES. |
|
16. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep
(vi. 25). |
Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to
heaviness (iv. 9). |
| 17. Woe unto you that are rich for ye have received your
consolation (vi. 24). |
Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are
coming upon you (v. 1). |
| ST. JOHN. |
ST. JAMES. |
| 18. If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them
(xiii. 17). |
Being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh, this man
shall be blessed in his doing (i. 25). |
| 19. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but
because ye are not of the world, ... therefore the world hateth you
(xv. 19. Comp. xvii. 14). |
Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?
Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an
enemy of God (iv. 4). |
It will be observed that these reminiscences of the teaching of
Christ are all of one kind. They are all of them concerned with the
morality of the Gospel, with Christian conduct and Christian life. Not
one of them is doctrinal, or gives instruction as to the Christian
creed. This, again, is what we might expect if the brother of the Lord
is the writer of the Epistle. At the time when he listened to his
Divine Brother's teaching he did not believe on Him. The doctrinal
part of His discourses was precisely that part which did not impress
him; it seemed to him as the wild fancies of an enthusiast (Mark
iii. 21). But the moral teaching of Jesus impressed many of those
who rejected His claims to be the Messiah, and it is this element
which St. James remembers.
Before concluding, let us return to the moral precept contained in
the verse which we have been considering: "Above all things, my
brethren, swear not." The prohibition has not ceased to be necessary,
as our daily
experience proves. The vice of profane swearing (and all swearing
about ordinary matters is profane) is a strange one. Where is the
pleasure of it? Where, before it becomes a fashion or a habit, is the
temptation to it? Where, in any case, is the sense of it? There is
pleasure in gluttony, in drunkenness, in lust, in pride, in avarice,
in revenge. But where is the pleasure in an oath? The sensualist, the
hypocrite, the miser, and the murderer can at least plead strong
temptation, can at least urge that they get something, however
pitiful, in exchange for eternal loss. But what can the blasphemer
plead? what does he get in exchange for his soul? In times of strong
excitement it is no doubt a relief to the feelings to use strong
language; but what is gained by making the strong language trebly
culpable by adding blasphemy to it? Besides which, there is the sadly
common case of those who use blasphemous words when there is no
temptation to give vent to strong feeling in strong language, who
habitually swear in cold blood. Let no one deceive himself with the
paltry excuse that he cannot help it, or that there is no harm in it.
A resolution to do something disagreeable every time an oath escaped
one's lips would soon bring about a cure. And let those who profess to
think that there is no harm in idle swearing ask themselves whether
they expect to repeat that plea when they give an account for every
idle word at the day of judgment (Matt. xii. 36).
CHAPTER XXVI.
WORSHIP THE BEST OUTLET AND REMEDY FOR EXCITEMENT.
THE CONNEXION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND CONDUCT.
"Is any among you suffering? let him pray. Is any
cheerful? let him sing praise."—St. James v. 13.
THE subject of this verse was probably suggested by
that of the preceding one. Oaths are not a right way of expressing
one's feelings, however strong they may be, and of whatever kind they
may be. There is, however, no need to stifle such feelings, or to
pretend to the world that we have no emotions. In this respect, as in
many others, Christianity has no sympathy with the precepts of
Stoicism or Cynicism. It is not only innocent, but prudent, to seek an
outlet for excited feelings; the right and wrong of the matter lie in
the kind of outlet which we allow ourselves. Language of some
kind, and in most cases articulate language, is the natural instrument
for expressing and giving vent to our feelings. But we need some
strong safeguard, or the consequences of freely giving expression to
our emotions in speech will be calamitous. This safeguard is clearly
indicated by the rules here laid down by St. James. Let the
expression of strongly excited feelings be an act of worship;
then we shall have an outlet for them which is not likely to involve
us in harmful results. By the very act in which we exhibit our
emotions we protect ourselves from the evil which they might produce.
The very mode of expressing them moderates them, and serves as an
antidote to their capacity for evil. Prayer and praise, or (in one
word) worship, according to St. James, is the Christian remedy
for "allaying or carrying off the fever of the mind." In all cases in
which the mind is greatly agitated, whether painfully or pleasantly,
whether by sorrow, anger, regret, or by joy, pleasure, hope,—the
wise thing to do is to take refuge in an act of worship.
Mental excitement is neither right nor wrong, any more than
physical hunger or thirst. Everything depends on the method of
expressing the one or gratifying the other. It will be easy in both
cases to indulge a legitimate craving in such a way as to turn a
natural and healthy symptom into a disease. Neither a heated mind nor
a heated body can without danger be kept heated, or treated as if they
were at their normal temperature. The advice of St. James is that
in all cases in which our minds are agitated by strong emotion we
should turn to Him who gave us minds capable of feeling such emotion;
we should cease to make ourselves our own centre, and turn our
thoughts from the causes of our excitement to Him who is the unmoved
Cause of all movement and rest.
We need not tie ourselves to the distribution of prayer and praise
expressed in the text. It is the most natural and most generally
useful distribution; but it is not the only one, and perhaps it is not
the highest. The precept will hold good with equal truth if we
transpose the two conclusions: "Is any among you suffering? let him
sing praise. Is any cheerful?
let him pray." "In everything give thanks," says St. Paul;
which involves our frequently giving thanks in suffering. This was
what Job, to whom St. James has just directed his readers, did in
his trouble. He "fell upon the ground and worshipped: and he said,
Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return
thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the
name of the Lord" (i. 20, 21). And the Psalmist teaches much the
same lesson as St. Paul: "I will bless the Lord at all
times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth"
(xxxiv. 1). But if praise is as suitable as prayer for suffering,
prayer is as suitable as praise for cheerfulness. He who is cheerful
has indeed great reason to bless and praise God. He has a priceless
gift, which is a blessing to himself and to all around him, a gift
which makes life brighter to the whole circle in which he moves. We
most of us take far too little pains to cultivate it, to retain it
when it has been granted to us, to regain it when we have lost it or
thrown it away. Yet cheerfulness has its dangers. The light-hearted
are apt to be light-headed, and to be free from care leads to being
free from carefulness. The cheerful may easily lose sobriety, and be
found off their guard. The remedy is prayer. Prayer steadies without
dimming the bright flame of cheerfulness; and just as thanksgiving
sweetens sorrow, so supplication sanctifies joy. "Is any suffering?
let him sing praise. Is any cheerful? let him pray."
But there is another advantage in making religious worship, whether
public or private, the outlet for our emotions. It secures a real
connexion between worship and life. Missionaries tell us that this is
a frequent difficulty in their work. It is a hard enough thing to
win converts from heathenism; but it is perhaps still harder to teach
the newly converted that the worship of God has any bearing whatever
upon their conduct. This idea is quite strange to them, and utterly
alien to their whole mode of thought. They have never been taught
anything of the kind before. They have been accustomed to regard the
worship of the gods as a series of acts which must be religiously
performed in order to win the favour of the deities, or at least to
avert their wrath. But it has never occurred to them, nor have their
priests impressed upon them, that their lives must be in accordance
with their worship, or that the one has any connexion with the other,
any more than the colour of their clothes with the amount that they
eat and drink. From this it follows that when the idolater has been
induced to substitute the worship of God for the worship of idols,
there still remains an immense amount to be done. The convert has
still to be taught that there can no longer be this divorce of
religion from conduct, but that prayer and praise must go hand in hand
with work and life.
Converts from heathenism are by no means the only persons who are
in need of this lesson. We all of us require to be reminded of it. All
of us are apt to draw far too strong a line of distinction between
Church and home, between Sunday and week-day, between the time that we
spend on our knees and that which we spend in work and recreation.
Not, alas! that we are too scrupulous about allowing worldly thoughts
to invade sacred times and places, but that we are very jealous about
allowing thoughts of God and of His service to mingle with our
business and our pleasures, or at least take no pains to bring about
and keep up any such mingling. Our worship is often profaned by being
shared with the world; our work is rarely consecrated by being shared
with God.
What St. James recommends here is a remedy for this. There can
be no wall of partition between conduct and religion if our feelings
of joy and sorrow, of elation and despondency, of hope and fear, of
love and dislike, are daily and hourly finding expression in praise
and prayer. Our emotions will thus become instruments for moving us
towards God. So much of life is filled with either vexation or
pleasure, that one who has learned to carry out the directions here
given of turning suffering into prayer, and cheerfulness into praise,
will have gone a long way towards realizing the Apostolic command,
"Pray without ceasing." As Calvin well observes, St. James "means
that there is no time in which God does not invite us to Himself. For
afflictions ought to stimulate us to pray; prosperity supplies us with
an occasion to praise God. But such is the perverseness of men, that
they cannot rejoice without forgetting God, and when afflicted they
are disheartened and driven to despair. We ought, then, to keep within
due bounds, so that the joy which usually makes us forget God may
induce us to set forth the goodness of God, and that our sorrow may
teach us to pray."
The word used by St. James for "to sing praise" (ψάλλειν) is worthy of notice. It is the source
of the word "psalm." Originally it meant simply to touch,
especially to make to vibrate by touching; whence it came to be
used of playing on stringed instruments. Next it came to mean to
sing to the harp; and finally to sing, whether with or without
a stringed accompaniment. This is its signification in the New
Testament (Rom. xv. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Eph.
v. 19);—to sing
praise to God. St. James, therefore, regards music as a natural
and reasonable mode of expressing joyous feelings; and few will care
to dispute that it is so; and it is evident that he is thinking
chiefly, if not exclusively, of the joyous Christian singing by
himself, rather than of his joining in psalms and hymns in the public
worship of the congregation. A portion of Hooker's noble vindication
of music as a part of religious worship may here with advantage be
quoted.
"Touching musical harmony, whether by instrument or by voice, it
being but of high and low in sounds a due proportionable disposition,
such, notwithstanding, is the force thereof, and so pleasing effects
it hath in that very part of man which is most divine, that some have
been thereby induced to think that the soul itself, by nature, is or
hath in it harmony. A thing which delighteth all ages and beseemeth
all states; a thing as seasonable in grief as in joy; as decent being
added unto actions of greatest weight and solemnity, as being used
when men most sequester themselves from action. The reason hereof is
an admirable facility which music hath to express and represent to the
mind, more inwardly than any other sensible mean, the very standing,
rising, and falling, the very steps and inflexions every way, the
turns and varieties of all passions whereunto the mind is subject;
yea, so to imitate them that whether it resemble unto us the same
state wherein our minds already are, or a clean contrary, we are not
more contentedly by the one confirmed, than changed and led away by
the other.... So that although we lay altogether aside the
consideration of ditty or matter, the very harmony of sounds being
framed in due sort, and carried from the ear to the spiritual
faculties of our souls, is by a native puissance
and efficacy greatly available to bring to a perfect temper whatsoever
is there troubled, apt as well to quicken the spirits as to allay that
which is too eager, sovereign against melancholy and despair, forcible
to draw forth tears of devotion if the mind be such as can yield them,
able both to move and to moderate all affections.
"The Prophet David having therefore singular knowledge, not in
poetry alone, but in music also, judged them both to be things most
necessary for the house of God, left behind him to that purpose a
number of Divinely indited poems, and was farther the author of adding
unto poetry melody both vocal and instrumental, for the raising up of
men's hearts, and the sweetening of their affections towards God. In
which considerations the Church of Christ doth likewise at this
present day retain it as an ornament to God's service, and an help to
our own devotion. They which, under pretence of the Law ceremonial
abrogated, require the abrogation of instrumental music, approving
nevertheless the use of vocal melody to remain, must show some reason
wherefore the one should be thought a legal ceremony, and not the
other" (Eccles. Pol., V. xxxviii. 1, 2).
It hardly needs to be stated that it is not necessary to be able to
sing in order to observe this precept of St. James. The "singing
and making melody with our hearts to the Lord" of which St. Paul
writes to the Ephesians (v. 19) is all that is necessary; "giving
thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to
God, even the Father." The lifting up of the heart is enough, without
the lifting up of the voice; and if the voice be lifted up also, it is
of little account, either to the soul or to God, whether its
tones be musical, always provided that he who thus offers praise is
alone, and not in the congregation. Those who have no music in their
voices, and yet persist in joining aloud in the singing of public
service, are wanting in charity. In order to gratify themselves, they
disturb the devotions of others. And that principle applies to many
other things in public worship, especially to details of ritual other
than those which are generally observed. There would be much less
difficulty about such things if each member of the congregation were
to ask, "By doing this, or by refusing to do it, am I likely to
distract my neighbours in their worship?" Ought not the answer to that
question to be conclusive as regards turning or not turning to the
East at the creed, bowing or not bowing the head at the Gloria
Patri, and the like? We come to church to be calmed, sobered,
soothed, not to be fretted and vexed. Let us take care that our own
behaviour is such as not to irritate others. By our self-will we may
be creating or augmenting mental excitement, which, as St. James
tells us, worship, whether public or private, ought to cure.
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH. THE ANOINTING OF
THE SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION.
"Is any among you sick? let him call for the elders
of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is
sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins,
it shall be forgiven him."—St. James v. 14-15.
TWO subjects stand out prominently in this
interesting passage—the elders of the Church, and the anointing
of the sick. The connexion of the passage with what immediately
precedes is close and obvious. After charging his readers in general
terms to resort to prayer when they are in trouble, St. James
takes a particular and very common instance of trouble, viz. bodily
sickness, and gives more detailed directions as to the way in which
the man in trouble is to make use of the relief and remedy of prayer.
He is not to be content with giving expression to his need in private
prayer to God; he is to "call for the elders of the
Church."
I. The first thing to be noted in connexion with this sending for
the elders of the congregation by the sick man is, that in this
Epistle, which is one of the very earliest among the Christian
writings which have come down to us, we already find a distinction
made between
clergy and laity. This distinction runs through the whole of the
New Testament. We find it in the earliest writing of all, the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which the Christians of Thessalonica
are exhorted "to know them that labour among you, and are over you in
the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in
love for their work's sake" (v. 12, 13). And here St. James
assumes as a matter of course, that every congregation has elders,
that is a constituted ecclesiastical government. Compare with these
the precept in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Obey them that have the
rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your
souls, as they that shall give account" (xiii. 17); and the
frequent directions in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim.
iii. 1-13; iv. 6, 13, 14; v. 17, 19, 22; Tit.
i. 5-9; ii. 15; 2 Tim. i. 6, 14; ii. 2;
iv. 5). What the precise functions of the clergy were is not told
us with much detail or precision; but it is quite clear, from the
passage before us, and those which have been quoted above, that
whatever the functions were, they were spiritual rather than secular,
and were duties which a select minority had to exercise in reference
to the rest; they were not such as any one might exercise towards any
one. In the present case the sick person is not to send for any
members of the congregation, but for certain who hold a definite, and
apparently an official position. If any Christians could
discharge the function in question, St. James would not have
given the sick person the trouble of summoning the elders rather than
those people who chanced to be near at hand. And it is quite clear
that not all Christians are over all other Christians in the Lord;
that not all are to rule, and all to obey and submit; therefore not
all have the same authority to
"admonish" others, or to "watch in behalf of their
souls, as they that shall give account."The question of the Origin of the Christian Ministry has been discussed
in another volume of this series. See the Pastoral Epistles,
pp. 104-117 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).
The reason why the elders are to be summoned is stated in different
ways by different writers, but with a large amount of substantial
agreement. "As being those in whom the power and grace of the Holy
Spirit more particularly appeared," says Calvin. "Because when they
pray it is not much less than if the whole Church prayed," says
Bengel. St. James, says Neander, "regards the presbyters in the
light of organs of the Church, acting in its name;" and, "As the
presbyters acted in the name of the whole Church, and each one as a
member of the body felt that he needed its sympathy and intercession,
and might count upon it; individuals should therefore, in cases of
sickness, send for the presbyters of the Church. These were to offer
prayer on their behalf." The intercession which St. James
recommends, says Stier, is "intercession for the sick on the part of
the representatives of the Church, ... not merely the intercession of
friends or brethren as such, but in the name of the whole community,
one of whose members is suffering." It is altogether beside the mark
to suggest that the elders were summoned as people of the greatest
experience, who perhaps also were specially skilled in
medicine. Of that there is not only no hint, but the context
excludes the idea. If that were in the writer's mind, why does he not
say at once, "Let him call for the physicians"? If the healing art is
to be thought of at all in connexion with the passage, the case is one
in which medicine has already done all that it can, or in which it can
do nothing at all. St. James
would doubtless approve the advice given by the son of Sirach: "My
son, in thy sickness be not negligent; but pray unto the Lord, and He
will make thee whole" (Ecclus. xxxviii. 9). This exactly agrees
with the precept, "Is any among you suffering? let him pray." "Then
give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let him
not go from thee, for thou hast need of him. There is a time when in
their hands there is good success" (12, 13). To this there is no
equivalent in St. James; but he says nothing that is inconsistent
with it. Then, after the physician has done his part, and perhaps in
vain, would come the summoning of the elders to offer prayer. But it
is simpler to suppose that the physician's part is left out of the
account altogether.
II. The second point of interest is the anointing of the sick
person by the elders. That what is said here affords no Scriptural
authority for the Roman rite of Extreme Unction, is one of the
commonplaces of criticism. One single fact is quite conclusive. The
object of the unction prescribed by St. James is the recovery of
the sick person; whereas Extreme Unction, as its name implies, is
never administered until the sick person's recovery is considered to
be almost or quite hopeless, and death imminent; the possibility of
bodily healing is not entirely excluded, but it is not the main
purpose of the rite. The only other passage in the New Testament in
which the unction of the sick is mentioned is equally at variance with
the Roman rite. We are told by St. Mark that the Twelve, when
sent out by Christ two and two, "anointed with oil many that were
sick, and healed them" (vi. 13). Here also recovery, and not
preparation for death, was the purpose of the anointing, which the
Apostles seem to have
practised on their own responsibility, for it is not mentioned in the
charge which Christ gave them when He sent them out (7-11).
But there is this amount of connexion between these two passages of
Scripture and the Roman sacrament of Extreme Unction, viz. that the
latter grew out of ecclesiastical practices which were based upon
these passages. As in not a few other instances, development has
brought about a state of things which is inconsistent with the
original starting-point. But in order to understand the development we
must understand the starting-point, and that requires us to find an
answer to the question, What purpose was the oil intended to serve?
Was it purely symbolical? and if so, of what? Was it merely for the
refreshment of the sick person, giving relief to parched skin and
stiffened limbs? Was it medicinal, with a view to a permanent cure by
natural means? Was it the channel or instrument of a supernatural
cure? Was it an aid to the sick person's faith? One or both of the
last two suggestions may be accepted as the most probable solution.
And the reason why oil was selected as a channel of Divine power and
an aid to faith was, that it was believed to have healing properties.
It is easier to believe when visible means are used than when nothing
is visible, and it is still easier to believe when the visible means
appear to be likely to contribute to the desired effect. Christ twice
used spittle in curing blindness, probably because spittle was
believed to be beneficial to the eyesight. And that oil was supposed
to be efficacious as medicine is plain from numerous passages both in
and outside of Holy Scripture. "From the sole of the foot even unto
the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and
festering sores: they
have not been closed, nor bound up, neither mollified with oil" (Isa.
i. 6). The Good Samaritan poured wine and oil into the wounds of
the man who fell among robbers (Luke x. 34). A mixture of oil and
wine was used for the malady which attacked the army of Ælius Gallus,
and was applied both externally and internally (Dion Cass. LIII. 29;
Strabo XVI., p. 780). His physicians caused Herod the Great to be
bathed in a vessel full of oil when he was supposed to be at death's
door (Josephus, Ant. XVII. vi. 5). Celsus recommends
rubbing with oil in the case of fevers and some other ailments (De
Med. II. 14, 17; III. 6, 9, 19, 22; IV. 2).For additional evidence see J. C. Wolf, Curæ Philol. et Crit.
V., pp. 79-81; Lightfoot, Horæ Hebr. II., pp. 304, 444, on
Matt. vi. 17 and Mark vi. 13; Launoi, De Sacramento
Unctionis Infirmorum, I., p. 444.
But it is obvious that St. James does not recommend the oil
merely as medicine, for he does not say that the oil shall cure the
sick person, nor yet that the oil with prayer shall do so; but that
"the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick," without mentioning
the oil at all. On the other hand, he says that the anointing is to be
done by the elders "in the name of the Lord." If the anointing were
merely medicinal, it might have been performed by any one, without
waiting for the elders. And it can hardly be supposed that oil was
believed to be a remedy for all diseases.
On the other hand, it seems to be too much to say that the
anointing had nothing to do with bodily healing at all, and was simply
a means of grace for the sick. Thus Döllinger says, "This is no gift
of healing, for that was not confined to the presbyters; and for that
Christ prescribed not unction, but laying on of hands. Had he meant
that, St. James would have bidden or advised the sick to send for
one who possessed this
gift, whether presbyter or layman.... What was to be conveyed by this
medium was, therefore, only sometimes recovery or relief, always
consolation, revival of confidence and forgiveness of sins, on
condition, of course, of faith and repentance" (First Age of the
Church, p. 235, Oxenham's translation, 2nd ed.: Allen, 1867). But
although the gift of healing was not confined to the elders, yet in
certain cases they may have exercised it; and although Christ
prescribed the laying on of hands (Mark xvi. 18), yet the
Apostles sometimes healed by anointing with oil (Mark vi. 13).
And that "shall save him that is sick" (σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα) means "shall cure him," is
clear both from the context, and also from the use of the same word
elsewhere. "Daughter, be of good cheer; thy faith hath saved
thee," to the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 22).
Jairus prays, "Come and lay Thy hands on her, that she may be
saved" (Mark v. 23). The disciples say of Lazarus, "Lord,
if he is fallen asleep, he will be saved" (John xi. 12).
And "the Lord shall raise him up" makes this interpretation still more
certain. The same expression is used of Simon's wife's mother (Mark
i. 31). "The Lord" is Christ, not the Father, both here and "in
the Name of the Lord." Thus St. Peter says to Æneas,
"Jesus Christ healeth thee" (Acts ix. 34. Comp.
iii. 6, 16; v. 10).
That St. James makes the promise of recovery without any
restriction may at first sight appear to be surprising; but in this he
is only following the example of our Lord, who makes similar promises,
and leaves it to the thought and experience of Christians to find out
the limitations to them. St. James is only applying to a
particular case what Christ promised in general terms. "All things,
whatsoever ye pray and ask for,
believe that ye have received them, and ye shall have them" (Mark
xi. 24. Comp. Matt. xvii. 20). "If ye shall ask [Me]
anything in My Name, I will do it" (John xiv. 14). "If ye shall
ask anything of the Father, He will give it you in My Name" (John
xvi. 23). The words "in My Name" point to the limitation; they do
not, of course, refer to the use of the formula "through Jesus Christ
our Lord," but to the exercise of the spirit of Christ: "Not My will,
but Thine be done." The union of our will with the will of God is the
very first condition of successful prayer. The Apostles themselves had
no indiscriminate power of healing. St. Paul did not heal
Epaphroditus, much as he yearned for his recovery (Phil. ii. 27).
He left Trophimus at Miletus sick (2 Tim. iv. 20). He did
not cure his own thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. xii. 7-9). How,
then, can we suppose that St. James credited the elders of every
congregation with an unrestricted power of healing? He leaves it to
the common sense and Christian submission of his readers to understand
that the elders have no power to cancel the sentence of death
pronounced on the whole human race. To pray that any one should be
exempt from this sentence would be not faith, but presumption.
Of the employment of the rite here prescribed by St. James we
have very little evidence in the early ages of the Church. Tertullian
mentions a cure by anointing, but it is not quite a case in point. The
Emperor Septimius Severus believed that he had been cured from an
illness through oil administered by a Christian named Proculus
Torpacion, steward of Evodias, and in gratitude for it he maintained
him in the palace for the rest of his life (Ad. Scap. iv.).
Origen, in the second Homily on Leviticus (iv.), quotes the passage
from St. James, and seems to understand the sickness to be that
of sin. He interpolates thus: "Let him call for the elders of the
Church, and let them lay their hands on him, anointing him with
oil," etc. This perhaps tells us how the rite was administered in
Alexandria in his time; or it may mean that Origen understood the
"pray over him" (ἐπ' αὐτόν) of
St. James to signify imposition of hands. With him, then, the
forgiveness of sins is the healing. A century and a half later
Chrysostom takes a further step, and employs the passage to show that
priests have the power of absolution. "For not only at the time when
they regenerate us, but afterwards also, they have authority to
forgive sins." And then he quotes James v. 14, 15 (De
Sacerd. III. 6). It is evident that this is quite alien to the
passage. The sickness and the sins are plainly distinguished by
St. James, and nothing is said about absolution by the elders,
who pray for his recovery, and (no doubt) for his forgiveness.
When we reach the sixth century the evidence for the custom of
anointing the sick with holy oil becomes abundant. At first any one
with a reputation for sanctity might bless the oil—not only
laymen, but women. But in the West the rule gradually spread from Rome
that the sacred oil for the sick must be "made" by the bishop. In the
East this has never been observed. Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of
Canterbury, says that according to the Greeks it is lawful for
presbyters to make the chrism for the sick. And this rule continues to
this day. One priest suffices; but it is desirable to get seven, if
possible.
But the chief step in the development is taken when not only the
blessing of the oil, but the administering of it to the sick, is
reserved to the clergy. In Bede's time
this restriction was not yet made, as is clear from his comments on
the passage, although even then it was customary for priests to
administer the unction. But by the tenth century this restriction had
probably become general. It became connected with the communion of the
sick, which of course required a priest, and then with the
Viaticum, or communion of the dying; but even then the unction
seems to have preceded the last communion. The name "Extreme Unction"
(unctio extrema), as a technical ecclesiastical term, is not
older than the twelfth century. Other terms are "Last Oil" (ultimum
oleum) and "Sacrament of the Departing" (sacramentum
exeuntium). But when we have reached these phrases we are very far
indeed from the ordinance prescribed by St. James, and from that
which was practised by the Apostles. Jeremy Taylor, in the dedication
of the Holy Dying, says fairly enough, "The fathers of the
Council of Trent first disputed, and after their manner at last
agreed, that Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ; but afterwards
being admonished by one of their theologues that the Apostles
ministered unction to infirm people before they were priests, for fear
that it should be thought that this unction might be administered by
him that was no priest, they blotted out the word 'instituted,' and
put in its stead 'insinuated' this sacrament, and that it was
published by St. James. So it is in their doctrine; and yet in
their anathematisms they curse all them that shall deny it to have
been instituted by Christ. I shall lay no prejudice against it, but
add this only, that there being but two places of Scripture pretended
for this ceremony, some chief men of their own side have proclaimed
these two invalid as to the institution of it;" and he mentions in
particular Suarez and Cajetan. But he states more
than he can know when he declares of Extreme Unction that "since it is
used when the man is above half dead, when he can exercise no act of
understanding, it must needs be nothing." Those who receive the rite
are not always unconscious; and is it certain that an unconscious
person "can exercise no act of the understanding," or that prayer for
one who can exercise no act of the understanding "must needs be
nothing"? With similar want of caution Stier speaks of "the
superstition which sends for the minister to 'pray over the
sick,' when these have scarce any consciousness left." Whether or no
Extreme Unction is an edifying ceremony is a question worthy of
argument, and nothing is here urged on either side; but we are going
beyond our knowledge if we assert that it can have no effect on
the dying man; and we are unduly limiting the power of prayer if we
affirm that to pray for one who has lost consciousness is a useless
superstition. All that is contended for here is, that the Roman rite
is something very different from that which is ordered by
St. James.See letters in the Guardian of Mar. 12, 19, Apr. 9, 16, 23, May
7, 1890; pp. 447, 481, 594, 633, 682, 763.
In the Visitation of the Sick in the First Prayer Book of Edward
VI. there is provision for the older rite: "If the sicke person desyre
to be annoynted, then shall the priest annoynte him upon the forehead
or breast only, making the signe of the crosse, saying thus,
As with this visible oyle thy body outwardly is annoynted: so our
heavenly father almyghtye God graunt of his infinite goodnesse, that
thy soule inwardly may be annoynted with the holy gost, who is the
spirite of al strength, comforte, reliefe, and gladnesse. And vouchsafe
for his great mercy (yf it be his blessed will) to restore unto thee thy
bodely helth and strength, to serve him," etc.
Readers of the Confessions will remember how St. Augustine on
one occasion asked his friends to pray that he might be freed from great
pain, and forthwith found relief. "I have neither forgotten nor will
be silent about the severity of Thy scourge, and the marvellous speed
of Thy mercy. Thou didst then torture me with toothache (he says
elsewhere that this was so grievous that he could learn nothing fresh,
but could only think of what he already knew), and when the pain
became so severe that I was unable to speak the thought rose in my
heart to urge all my friends who were present to pray for me to Thee,
the God of all health. And I wrote this on a waxen tablet, and gave
it to them to read. Presently, as with suppliant desire we bowed our
knees, that great pain fled away. But what pain? and how did it
flee? I confess, my Lord and my God, that it frightened me; for
from my earliest days I had experienced nothing like it" (IX. iv. 12).
"And if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him." We ought
perhaps rather to translate, "Even if he have committed sins, it shall
be forgiven him." (The Greek is not καὶ
ἐάν or ἐὰν δέ, but κἄν, for which comp. John viii. 14;
x. 38; xi. 25). The meaning would seem to be, "even if his
sickness has been produced by his sins, his sin shall be forgiven, and
his sickness cured." It is possible, but unnatural, to join the first
clause of this sentence with the preceding one: "the Lord shall raise
him up, even if he have committed sins." In that case "It shall be
forgiven him" forms a very awkward independent sentence, without
conjunction. The ordinary arrangement of the clauses is much better:
even if the malady is the effect of the man's own wrong-doing, the
prayer offered by faith—his faith, and that of the
elders—shall still prevail. St. Paul tells the Corinthians
that their misconduct respecting the Lord's Supper had caused much
sickness among them, and not a few deaths (1 Cor. xi. 30);
and such direct punishments of sin were not confined to the Corinthian
Church nor to the Apostolic age. They still occur in abundance, and
those who experience them have the assurance of Scripture that if they
repent and pray in faith their sins will certainly be forgiven, and
their punishment possibly removed.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONFESSION OF SINS.
THE LAWFULNESS OF PRAYERS FOR RAIN.
"Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for
another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man
availeth much in its working. Elijah was a man of like passions with
us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not
on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again; and
the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her
fruit."—St. James v. 16-18.
THE connexion of this passage with the preceding
one is very close. This is evident even in the Authorized Version; but
it is made still more manifest by the Revisers, who have restored the
connecting "therefore" to the text upon overwhelming authority.
St. James is passing from the particular case of the sick person
to something more general, viz. mutual confession of sins. If we draw
out his thought in full, it will be something of this kind: "Even if
the sick person be suffering the consequences of his sins,
nevertheless the faith and prayers of the elders, combined with his
own, shall prevail for his forgiveness and healing. Of course he must
confess and bewail his sins: if he does not admit them and repent of
them, he can hope for nothing. Therefore you ought all of you
habitually to confess your sins to one another, and to intercede for
one another, in order that
when sickness comes upon you, you may the more readily be healed." It
is not quite certain that the word rendered "ye may be healed" (ἰαθῇτε) ought to be limited to bodily healing;
but the context seems to imply that the cure of bodily disorders is
still in the mind of St. James. If, however, with various
commentators, we take it to mean "that your souls may be
healed," then there is no need to supply any such thought as "when
sickness comes upon you."
It might surprise us to find that the practice of auricular
confession to a priest is deduced from the precept, "Confess your sins
one to another," if we had not the previous experience of finding the
rite of Extreme Unction deduced from the precept respecting the
anointing of the sick. But here also Cajetan has the credit of
admitting that no Scriptural authority for the Roman practice can be
found in the words of St. James. The all-important "to one
another" (ἀλλήλοις) is quite fatal to
the interpretation of confession to a priest. If the confession of a
layman to a priest is meant, then the confession of a priest to a
layman is equally meant: the words, whether in the Greek or in
the English, cannot be otherwise understood. But the injunction is
evidently quite general, and the distinction between clergy and laity
does not enter into it at all: each Christian, whether elder or
layman, is to confess to other Christians, whether elders or laymen,
either to one or to many, as the case may be. When the sick person
just spoken of confessed his sins, he confessed them to the elders of
the Church, because they were present; they did not come to receive
his confession, but to pray for him and to anoint him. He sent for
them, not because he wished to confess to them, but because he was
sick. Even if he had had nothing to
confess to them—a case evidently contemplated by St. James
as not only possible, but common—he would still have sent for
them. So far from its being among their functions as elders to hear
the sick man's confession, St. James seems rather to imply that
he ought to have made it previously to others. If Christians
habitually confess their sins to one another, there will be no special
confession required when any of them falls ill. But granting that this
interpretation of his brief directions is not quite certain, it is
quite certain that what he commends is the confession of any Christian
to any Christian, and not the confession of laity to presbyters. About
that he says nothing, either one way or the other, for it is not in
his mind. He neither sanctions nor forbids it, but he gives a
direction which shows that as regards the duty of confession to man,
the normal condition of things is for any Christian to confess to any
Christian. The important point is that the sinner should not keep his
guilty secret locked up in his own bosom; to whom he should tell it is
left to his own discretion. As Tertullian says, in his treatise On
Penance, "Confession of sins lightens as much as concealment
(dissimulatio) aggravates them. For confession is prompted by
the desire to make amends; concealment is prompted by contumacy"
(viii.). Similarly Origen, on Psalm xxxvii.: "See, therefore, what the
Divine Scripture teaches us, that we must not conceal sin within us.
For just as, it may be, people who have undigested food detained
inside them, or are otherwise grievously oppressed internally, if they
vomit, obtain relief, so they also who have sinned, if they conceal
and retain the sin, are oppressed inwardly. But if the sinner becomes
his own accuser, accuses himself and confesses, he at the
same time vomits out both the sin and the whole cause of his malady"
(Homil. II. 6). In much the same strain Chrysostom writes,
"Sin, if it is confessed, becomes less; but if it is not confessed,
worse; for if the sinner adds shamelessness and obstinacy to his sin,
he will never stop. How, indeed, will such a one be at all able to
guard himself from falling again into the same sins, if in the earlier
case he was not conscious that he sinned.... Let us not merely call
ourselves sinners, but let us make a reckoning of our sins, counting
them according to their kind, one by one.... If thou art of the
persuasion that thou art a sinner, this is not able so much to humble
thy soul as the very catalogue of thy sins examined into according to
their kind" (Homil. xxx. in Ep. ad Hebr.)
All these writers have this main point in common, that a sinner who
does not confess what he has done amiss is likely to become careless
and hardened. And the principle is at least as old as the Book of
Proverbs: "He that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper: but
whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain mercy"
(xxviii. 13). But, as the context clearly shows in each case,
they are each of them writing of a different kind of confession. The
confession (exomologesis) which Tertullian so urgently
recommends is public confession before the congregation; that which
Origen advises is private confession to an individual, particularly
with a view to deciding whether public confession is expedient. What
Chrysostom prefers, both here and elsewhere in his writings, is secret
confession to God: "I say not to thee, Make a parade of thyself; nor
yet, Accuse thyself in the presence of the others.... Before God confess
these things; before the Judge ever confess thy sins, praying, if not
with the tongue, at any rate with the heart, and in this way ask for
mercy." All which is in accordance with the principle laid down by
St. John, "If we confess our sins"—our sins in detail, not
the mere fact that we have sinned—"He is faithful and righteous
to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"
(1 John i. 9). Bellarmine has the courage to claim not only
St. James, but St. John, as teaching confession to a priest
(De Pœnit. III. iv.); but it is manifest that St. John is
speaking of confession to God, without either approving or condemning
confession to man, and that St. James is speaking of the latter,
without saying anything about the former. But just as St. James
leaves to the penitent's discretion the question to whom he shall
confess, whether to clergy or laity, so also he leaves it to his
discretion whether he shall confess to one or to many, and whether in
private or in public.In the Dict. of Chr. Biogr., I., p. 615, Tertullian's account
of public confession is given at some length, and then the question is
asked, "Is not this, clearly, the exomologesis which
St. James enjoins?" To this one replies that St. James
enjoins confession, but says nothing about publicity.
In the second, third, and fourth centuries public confession was
commonly part of public penance. And the object of it is well stated
by Hooker: "Offenders in secret" were "persuaded that if the Church
did direct them in the offices of their penitency, and assist them
with public prayer, they should more easily obtain that they sought
than by trusting wholly to their own endeavours." The primitive view,
he holds, was this: "Public confession they thought necessary by way
of discipline, not private confession as in the nature of a
sacrament" (Eccl. Pol., VI. iv. 2, 6). But
experience soon showed that indiscriminate public confession of
grievous sins was very mischievous. Therefore in the East, and (if
Sozomen is correct) at Rome also, penitentiary presbyters were
appointed to decide for penitents whether their sins must be confessed
to the congregation or not. Thus, what Origen advises each penitent to
do for himself, viz. seek a wise adviser respecting the expediency of
public confession and penance, was formally done for every one. But in
A.D. 391, Nectarius, the predecessor of Chrysostom
in the see of Constantinople, was persuaded to abolish the office,
apparently because a penitentiary presbyter had sanctioned
public confession in a case which caused great scandal; but neither
Socrates (V. xix.) nor Sozomen (VII. xvi.) makes this point very
clear. The consequence of the abolition was that each person was left
to his own discretion, and public penance fell into disuse.
But public confession had other disadvantages. Private enmity made
use of these confessions to annoy, and even to prosecute the penitent.
Moreover, the clergy sometimes proclaimed to the congregation what had
been told them in confidence; that is, they made public confession on
behalf of the sinner without his consent. Whereupon Leo the Great, in
a letter to the Bishops of Apulia and Campania, March 6th,
A.D. 459, sanctioned the practice of private
confession (Ep. clxviii. [cxxxvi.]). Thus, in the West, as
previously in the East, a severe blow was given to the practice of
public confession and penance.
But it is probable that the origin, or at least the chief
encouragement, of the practice of auricular confession is rather to be
looked for in monasticism. Offences against the rule of the
Order had to be confessed before the whole community; and it was
assumed that the only other grave offences likely to happen in the
monastic life would be those of thought. These had to be confessed in
private to the abbat. The influences of monasticism were by no means
bounded by the monastery walls; and it is probable that the rule of
private confession by the brethren to the abbat had much to do with
the custom of private confession by the laity to the priest. But it is
carefully to be noted that for a considerable period the chief
considerations are the penitent's admission of his sins and the fixing
of the penance. Only gradually does the further idea of the absolution
of the penitent by the body or the individual that hears the
confession come in; and at last it becomes the main idea. Confession
once a year to a priest was made compulsory by the Lateran Council in
1215; but various local synods had made similar regulations at earlier
periods; e.g. the Council of Toulouse in 1129, and of Liège in 710.The Council of Trent anathematizes any one "who denies that
sacramental confession was instituted of Divine right, or that it is
necessary to salvation, or who says that the manner of confessing
secretly to a priest alone, which the Church has ever observed from the
beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command
of Christ, and is a human invention" (Canon VI. ii. 165).
But when we have reached these regulations we have once more advanced
very far indeed beyond what is prescribed by St. James in this
Epistle.
There cannot be much doubt what is the main idea with
St. James: "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and
pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The
supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working.
Elijah ... prayed fervently.... And he prayed again,"
etc. It is in order that we may induce others to pray for us
that we are to confess our sins to them; and this is the great motive which
underlies the public confession of the primitive Church. As Hooker
well expresses it, "The greatest thing which made men forward and
willing upon their knees to confess whatever they had committed
against God ... was their fervent desire to be helped and assisted
with the prayers of God's saints." And the meaning of these prayers is
strikingly expressed by Tertullian, who thus addresses the penitent in
need of such intercession: "Where one and two meet, there is a Church;
and a Church is Christ. Therefore, when thou dost stretch forth thy
hands to the knees of thy brethren, it is Christ that thou touchest,
Christ on whom thou prevailest. Just so, when they shed tears
over thee, it is Christ who feels compassion, Christ who is
entreating the Father. Readily doth He ever grant that which the Son
requests" (De Pœnit. x.). To unburden his own heart was one
benefit of the penitent's confession; to obtain the intercession of
others for his forgiveness and recovery was another; and the latter
was the chief reason for confessing to man; confession to God might
effect the other. The primitive forms of absolution, when confession
was made to a priest, were precatory rather than declaratory. "May the
Lord absolve thee" (Dominus absolvat) was changed in the West
to "I absolve thee," in the twelfth century. From the Sarum Office the
latter formula passed into the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., in the
Visitation of the Sick, and has remained there unchanged; but in 1552
the concluding words of the preceding rubric, "and the same forme of
absolucion shalbe used in all pryvate confessions," were omitted.Moreover, "shall absolve hym after this forme" was changed to
"shall absolve hym after thys sorte," as if allowing another
form in the Visitation of the Sick.
In the Greek
Church the form of absolution after private confession is
precatory:—
"O my spiritual child, who dost confess to my humility, I, a
humble sinner, have no power on earth to remit sins. This God
alone can do. Yet by reason of that Divine charge which was
committed to the Apostles after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ, in the words, Whose soever sins ye forgive, etc., and by that
encouraged, we say, Whatsoever thou hast confessed to my most
lowly humility, and whatsoever thou hast omitted to confess, either
through ignorance or any forgetfulness, may God forgive thee,
both in this world and in that which is to come." And this is followed
by a prayer very similar to the absolution: "God ... forgive thee, by
the ministry of me a sinner, all thy sins, both in this world and in
that which is to come, and present thee blameless at His dread
tribunal. Go in peace, and think no more of the faults which thou hast
confessed." The "we say" holds fast to the doctrine that it is
to the Church as a whole, and not to Peter or any individual minister,
that the words, "Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto
them" (John xx. 23), were spoken.
"The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working."
"The effectual earnest prayer" of the Authorized Version cannot be
justified: either "effectual" or "earnest" must be struck out, as
there is only one word (ἐνεργουμένη)
in the original; moreover, the word for "prayer" is not the same as
before (δέησις, not εὐχή). But it may be doubted whether "earnest" is
not better than "in its working." Perhaps "in its earnestness" would
be better than either: "Great is the strength of a righteous man's
supplication, in its earnestness."
The example by which St. James proves the efficacy of a righteous
man's prayer is interesting and important in two respects:—
1. It is the only evidence that we have that the great drought in
the time of Ahab was prayed for by Elijah, and it is the only direct
evidence that he prayed for the rain which put an end to it. We are
told that Elijah prophesied the drought (1 Kings
xvii. 1) and the rain (1 Kings xviii. 41); and that
before the rain he put himself in an attitude of prayer, with his face
between his knees (ver. 42); but that he prayed, and for the rain
which he had foretold, is not stated. Whether the statement made by
St. James is an inference from these statements, or based on
independent tradition, must remain uncertain. We read in
Ecclesiasticus of Elijah that by "the word of the Lord he shut up
(held back) the heaven" (xlviii. 3); but that seems to refer to
prophecy rather than to prayer. The difference, if there be any,
between the duration of the drought as stated here and by
St. Luke (iv. 25), and as stated in the Book of the Kings,
will not be a stumbling-block to any who recognize that inspiration
does not necessarily make a man infallible in chronology. Three and a
half years (= 42 months = 1,260 days) was the traditional duration of
times of great calamity (Dan. vii. 25; xii. 7; Rev.
xi. 2, 3; xii. 6, 14; xiii. 5).
2. This passage supplies us with Biblical authority for prayers
for changes of weather, and the like; for the conduct of Elijah is
evidently put before us for our imitation. St. James carefully
guards against the objection that Elijah was a man gifted with
miraculous powers, and therefore no guide for ordinary people, by
asserting that he was a man of like nature (ὁμοιοπαθής)
with ourselves. And let us concede, for the sake of argument, that
St. James may have been mistaken in believing that Elijah prayed
for the drought and for the rain; yet still the fact remains that an
inspired New Testament writer puts before us, for our encouragement in
prayer, a case in which prayers for changes of weather were made and
answered. And he certainly exhorts us to pray for the recovery of the
sick, which is an analogous case. This kind of prayer seems to require
special consideration.
"Is it, then, according to the Divine will that when we are
individually suffering from the regularity of the course of
nature—suffering, for instance, from the want of rain, or the
superabundance of it—we should ask God to interfere with that
regularity? That in such circumstances we should pray for submission
to the Divine will, and for such wisdom as shall lead to compliance
with it in the future, is a matter of course, and results inevitably
from the relation between the spiritual Father and the spiritual
child. But ought we to go farther than this? Ought we to pray,
expecting that our prayer will be effectual, that God may interfere
with the fixed sequences of nature? Let us try to realize what would
follow if we offered such prayer and prevailed. In a world-wide Church
each believer would constitute himself a judge of what was best for
himself and his neighbour, and thus the order of the world would be at
the mercy everywhere of individual caprice and ignorance. Irregularity
would accordingly take the place of invariableness. No man could
possibly foretell what would be on the morrow. The scientist would
find all his researches for rule and law baffled; the agriculturist
would find all his calculations upset; nature, again, as in the days
of ignorance,
would become the master of man; like an eagle transfixed by an arrow
winged by one of its own feathers, man would have shackled himself
with the chains of his ancient servitude by the licentious employment
of his own freedom, and would have reduced the cosmos of which God
made him the master to a chaos which overwhelmed him by its unexpected
blows" (the Bishop of Manchester, September 4th, 1887, in Manchester
Cathedral, during a meeting of the British Association).
The picture which is here drawn sketches for us the consequences of
allowing each individual to have control over the forces of nature. It
is incredible that God could be induced to allow such control to
individuals; but does it follow from this that He never listens to
prayers respecting His direction of the forces of nature, and
that consequently all such prayers are presumptuous? The conclusion
does not seem to follow from the premises. The valid conclusion would
rather be this: No one ought to pray to God to give him absolute
control of the forces of nature. The prayer, "Lord, in Thy
control of the forces of nature have mercy upon me and my fellow men,"
is a prayer of a very different character.
The objection to prayers for rain, or for the cessation of rain,
and the like, is based on the supposition that we thereby "ask God to
interfere with the regularity of the course of nature." Yet it is
admitted that to "pray for submission to the Divine will, and for such
wisdom as shall lead to compliance with it in the future, is a matter
of course, and results inevitably from the relation
between the spiritual Father and the spiritual child." But is there no
regularity about the things thus admitted to be fit objects of prayer?
Are human
character and human intellect not subject to law? When we pray for a
submissive spirit and for wisdom, are we not asking God to "interfere
with that regularity" which governs the development of character and
of intelligence? Either the prayer is to obtain more submission and
more wisdom than we should otherwise get, or it is not. If it is to
obtain it, then the regularity which would otherwise have prevailed is
interrupted. If our prayer is not to obtain for us more submission and
more wisdom than we should have obtained if we had not prayed, then
the prayer is futile.
It will perhaps be urged that the two cases are not strictly
parallel. They are not; but for the purposes of this argument they are
sufficiently parallel. It is maintained that we have no right to pray
for rain, because we thereby propose to interfere with the regularity
of natural processes; yet it is allowed that we may pray for wisdom.
To get wisdom by prayer is quite as much an interference with the
regularity of natural processes as to get rain by prayer. Therefore,
either we ought to pray for neither, or we have the right to pray for
both. And so far as the two cases are not parallel, it seems to be
more reasonable to pray for rain than to pray for submissiveness and
wisdom. God has given our wills the awful power of being able to
resist His will. Are we to suppose that He exercises less control over
matter, which cannot resist Him, than over human wills, which He
allows to do so; or that He will help us or not help us to become
better and wiser, according as we ask Him or do not ask Him for such
help, and yet will never make any change as to giving or withholding
material blessings, however much, or however little, we may ask Him to
do this?
The objection is sometimes stated in a slightly
different form. God has arranged the material universe according to
His infinite wisdom; it is presumptuous to pray that He will make any
change in it. The answer to which is, that if that argument is valid
against praying for rain, it is valid against all prayer whatever. If
I impugn infinite wisdom when I pray for a change in the weather, do I
not equally impugn it, when I pray for a change in the life or
character of myself or of my friends? God knows without our asking
what weather is best for us; and He knows equally without our asking
what spiritual graces are best for us.
Does not the parallel difficulty point to a parallel solution? What
right have we to assume that in either case effectual prayer
interferes with the regularity which seems to characterize Divine
action? May it not be God's will that the prayer of faith should be a
force that can influence other forces, whether material or spiritual,
and that its influence should be according to law (whether
natural or supernatural) quite as much as the influence of other
forces? A man who puts up a lightning-conductor brings down the
electric current when it might otherwise have remained above, and
brings it down in one place rather than another; yet no one would say
that he interferes with the regularity of the course of nature. Is
there anything in religion or science to forbid us from thinking of
prayer as working in an analogous manner—according to a law too
subtle for us to comprehend and analyse, but according to a law none
the less? In the vast network of forces in which an all-wise God has
constructed the universe a Christian will believe that one force which
"availeth much," both in the material and in the spiritual world, is
the earnest prayer of the
righteous. It is better for us that we should be able to influence by
our prayers God's direction of events than that we should be unable to
do so; therefore a merciful Father has placed this power within our reach.Dean Plumptre has pointed out an "interesting coincidence" between
this mention of Elijah and the account given by Josephus of Caligula's
mad attempt to set up his statue in the Temple. P. Petronius
Turpilianus had been appointed Governor of Syria in the room of
Vitellius, and was commissioned to erect the statue; but he was much
impressed by the earnestness of the Jews in opposing the proposed
outrage, and promised large multitudes of them at Tiberias that he
would do all in his power to induce Caligula to desist. It was a year
of great drought, no rain falling even when the sky was overcast; but
on this day, although there had been no previous signs of it,
abundance of rain fell directly Petronius had finished his speech to
the Jews. Josephus speaks of this as God showing His presence (παρουσία) to Petronius, and says that
Petronius recognized it as a Divine manifestation (ἐπιφάνεια) of God's care of the Jews.
Dr. Plumptre says that the people—"Christians, we may
believe, as well as Jews"—had been praying for rain, and that
Petronius regarded the rain "partly as an answer to the prayers of the
people;" which may have been so, but it is not so stated by
Josephus. "According to the date which, on independent grounds,
has here been assigned to St. James's Epistle, the event referred
to must have happened but a few months before, or but a few
months after it. If before, he may well have had it in his
thoughts; if after, it may well have been in part the effect of his
teaching." Dr. Plumptre thinks that the Epistle was written
between A.D. 44 and 51. The events recorded by
Josephus took place A.D. 39. Caligula was
assassinated January 24th, A.D. 41. The
coincidence, therefore, breaks down upon examination. (1) The
unexpected rain is represented, not as an answer to prayer, but as a
sign of God's approval of the decision of Petronius. (2) Even if we
place the Epistle as early as A.D. 45, it was
written six years after the sudden rain at Tiberias; and
St. James did not need that occurrence (of which he had possibly
never heard) in order to be reminded of the drought and the rain
prophesied by Elijah.
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE WORK OF CONVERTING SINNERS; ITS CONDITIONS AND REWARDS.
"My brethren, if any among you do err from the
truth, and one convert him, let him know, that he which converteth a
sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and
shall cover a multitude of sins."—St. James v. 19, 20.
ST. JAMES has just been speaking of the case
of a man who is sick, and needs the prayers of others for his healing,
both in body and soul; for it may be that the sick man has sins to be
repented of as well as ailments to be cured. This leads naturally
enough to the common case of those who, whether sick in body or not,
feel their consciences burdened by sin. They are to make known their
trouble to one or more of the brethren, in order that efficacious
prayers may be offered to God on their behalf. But these cases do not
by any means cover the whole ground. Besides those who feel and make
known their bodily sickness, and those who feel and make known their
spiritual sickness, in order that their fellow Christians may pray to
God for their healing, there is the common case of those who either do
not feel, or if they feel do not confess, that their souls are sick
unto death. There are many who have left the path of life, and are
going steadily, and perhaps rapidly, to destruction, who are
ignorant of their piteous condition; and there are others who are
aware of their peril, but are either too hardened to desire any
serious change, or too proud to own their condition to others and ask
their help towards recovery. Are such unhappy persons to be left to
themselves, and allowed to go on their way to perdition, for want of
the aid which they are too insensate or to haughty to ask?
Certainly not, says the writer of this Epistle. The reclaiming of
such sinners is one of the noblest tasks which a Christian can
undertake; and the successful accomplishment of it is fraught with
incalculable blessings, the thought of which ought to move us to
undertake such work. To save one immortal soul from eternal death is
worth the labour of a lifetime. If to lead one soul astray is to share
the devil's work and incur guilt to which a violent death would be
preferable (Matt. xviii. 6; Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2),
to lead one soul back from death is to share Christ's work
(2 Cor. vi. 1) by blotting out from God's sight the sins
which cry for punishment.
We shall obtain a clearer view of the meaning of St. James in
these concluding verses of his Epistle if we begin with the last words
of the passage, and from them work back to what precedes.
"Shall cover a multitude of sins." Whose sins? Not the sins of him
who converts the erring brother. This view, which is perhaps the one
which most readily occurs to those who merely listen to the passage as
it is read in church, but have never studied it, may safely be
rejected, although it has the sanction of Erasmus and to some extent
also of the Venerable Bede. There are two reasons, each of which would
suffice to condemn this explanation, and which taken together are
almost unanswerable. (1) Nowhere else in Scripture do we find any such
doctrine, that a man may cover his own sins by inducing another sinner
to repent. On the contrary, it is one of the terrible possibilities
which attend the work of the ministry that a man may preach
successfully to others, and yet himself be a castaway (1 Cor.
ix. 27), and may move many hearts, while his own remains as hard
as the nether millstone. It is altogether misleading to quote Matt.
vi. 14 in connexion with this passage. There Christ says, "If ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you." What has that to do with converting sinners from their sins? Is
"Forgive, that ye may be forgiven," even parallel to "Convert,
that ye may be forgiven"? It is very far indeed from being equivalent
to it. The exact parallel would be, "Convert, that ye may be
converted;" and where in either the Old or the New Testament do we
find any such teaching as that? What we do find is the converse
of it: "Be converted, that ye may convert. Cast out first the beam out
of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote
out of thy brother's eye" (Matt. vii. 5). And this brings us to
the other reason why this interpretation ought to be set aside. (2) We
cannot suppose that St. James would contemplate, not merely as a
possible case, but as the normal condition of things, that a Christian
would undertake the task of converting others while his own conscience
was burdened with a multitude of sins. He no doubt assumed, and meant
his readers to assume, that before taking this very glorious, but also
very difficult work upon themselves, Christians would at least have
repented of their own sins, and thus have won the assurance that they
were covered
and forgiven. As we have seen, St. James shows an intimate
personal knowledge of the teaching of Christ, and especially of that
portion of it which is contained in the Sermon on the Mount. It is
difficult to believe that any one who was acquainted with the
fundamental principle involved in the saying just quoted, about the
mote and the beam, would end his exhortations to the Church with a
declaration which, according to the view of Erasmus and others, would
mean that it is precisely those who have a beam in their own eye who
should endeavour to convert sinners from the error of their ways, for
in this way they may get the beam removed, or at least overlooked.
It is the sins of the converted sinner that are covered when a
brother has had the happiness of converting him. The saying "cover
sins" is a proverbial one, and seems to have been common among the
Jews. St. Peter also makes use of it (1 Peter iv. 8);
and this is one of the points which make some persons think that the
writer of this Epistle had seen that of St. Peter, and others
that St. Peter had seen this one (see above, p. 59). The source
of the saying appears to be Prov. x. 12, "Hatred stirreth up
strifes: but love covereth all transgressions." It is, however,
by no means certain that St. James is consciously quoting this
saying, although his evident fondness for the sapiential books of
Scripture would incline us to think that he is doing so. But the
Septuagint of the passage in Proverbs has a different reading:
"Friendship shall cover those who love not strife." A similar
expression to the one before us occurs twice in the Psalms: "Thou hast
forgiven the iniquity of Thy people; Thou hast covered all their sin"
(lxxxv. 2): "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose
sin is covered" (xxxii. 1). The
fact that the phrase occurs so frequently renders it impossible for us
to determine the precise passage which suggested the use of the words
in this place. (See note at the end of this chapter.)
The statement that the converted sinner had "a multitude of sins"
which are covered by his returning from "the error of his way" shows
us plainly what is meant by "the error of his way" and by his "erring"
or "being led astrayπλανηθῇ. This aorist passive may
have a middle signification, but it is simpler to allow it to be
passive: the man has been led astray by evil influences, and he is led
back by good influences. It matters not whether we regard him as led
astray by sin (Bengel), or Satan, or wicked companions.
from the truth." St. James is evidently not thinking of purely
dogmatic error, about which his Epistle is almost, if not entirely,
silent. It is conviction as expressed in conduct with which he
deals throughout. As we have seen again and again, the evils which he
denounces are those of a sinful life: with the evils of erratic
speculation he does not deal at all. Quite in harmony, therefore, with
the practical character of the Epistle, we find that with him to "err
from the truth" means the apostasy that is involved in a life of sin.
"Of His own will God brought us forth by the word of truth,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures"
(i. 18); and those who allow themselves to be seduced into sinful
courses dishonour their Divine parentage and desert their Father's
home. To recover such from the path of destruction is the blessed work
to which St. James wishes to incite and encourage his
readers.
It is important to recognize the fact that it is the lives
of notorious sinners, and not the views of those who
differ from us, that we are urged to correct. The
latter interpretation is not an uncommon one. The expression "err from
the truth" seems at first sight to countenance it; and to many of us
the work of winning over others to accept our religious opinions is
much more congenial employment than that of endeavouring to reclaim
the profligate. But the duty to which St. James here exhorts us
is one of universal obligation. It is one which every Christian must
recognize, and according to his opportunities perform; and it is one
which every one, however ignorant, simple, and insignificant he may
be, is able in some measure to fulfil. But comparatively few of us are
qualified to deal with the erroneous opinions of others. Not
infrequently those which we think to be erroneous are nearer the truth
than those which we hold ourselves. Even where this is not the case,
the errors may be much less hurtful than we suppose, because, with
happy inconsistency, men allow the goodness of their hearts to direct
their conduct, rather than the erratic convictions of their heads. And
again, our efforts to change the erroneous opinions of others may do
more harm than good, for it is much more easy to unsettle than to
establish. We may take away a plank, without being able to supply an
ark; and an inadequate or even faulty principle is better than no
principle at all. The man who endeavours to act up to erroneous
convictions is in a much healthier state than the man who has lost all
convictions whatever. And this is the danger which always lies before
us when we attempt to win others over from sincere and steadfast
beliefs which seem to us to be untrue. We may succeed in shaking these
beliefs; but it by no means follows that we shall be equally
successful in giving them better beliefs in exchange for them. We may
accomplish no
more than the miserable result of having convinced them that in
religion everything is uncertain.
Of course there are times when it is our duty to do what we can to
bring others over to opinions which we are persuaded are much sounder
and safer than those which they at present hold; but such times are
very much less frequent than many of us are inclined to believe. It is
obviously our duty to undertake this difficult task when other people
consult us as to their religious convictions; but the mere fact that
we know what their convictions are, and that we hold them to be
perilously unsound, does not establish a right on our part to attempt
to change them. And as regards the passage before us, it is quite
clear, both from the context and from the tenour of the whole Epistle,
that the rare occasions on which we are under the obligation of
endeavouring to convert others to our own ways of thinking are not the
occasions to which St. James refers in these concluding sentences
of his letter.
The duty of reclaiming the lost grows out of the condition of
brotherhood which is assumed all through the Epistle as being the
relation which exists between those who are addressed. This is
manifestly the case here. "My brethren, if any among you
do err from the truth." If it be right to clothe and feed the naked
and hungry brother, to pray for the sick brother, and for those who
confess their faults to us, much more must it be right to do all that
is possible to bring back from the way of death those who are walking
in it, to convert them, turn them right round, and induce them to go
in the opposite direction. To believe in God, to believe that we are
His children, and yet to act as if the bodies and souls of others, who
are equally His children, are in no degree in our keeping, and that
their condition
is no concern of ours—this is indeed to have that faith which,
being apart from works, is dead.
How is the conversion of the erring brother to be effected?
St. James gives no explicit directions, but leaves all matters of
detail to the discretion of the worker. Yet he does not leave us
altogether without guidance as to what are the best methods. One of
these is intimated by what immediately precedes, and the other by the
general import of the letter. These two efficacious means for the
conversion of sinners are, not rebuke or remonstrance, not exhortation
or advice, not anger or contempt, but—prayer and good
example. It is by prayer that the sick may be restored to health;
it is by prayer that sinners who confess their sins may be healed; and
it is by prayer that sinners, who as yet will not confess and repent,
may be won over to do so. And here the appropriateness of the example
of Elijah becomes evident. Elijah was a prophet, and he knew that when
he prayed for drought and for rain he was praying for what was in
accordance with the will of God; and it is such prayers that are sure
of fulfilment. We are not prophets, and when we pray for changes of
weather we cannot be sure that what we ask is in accordance with God's
will. All that we can do is to submit humbly to His will, and to beg
that, so far as they are in harmony with it, our desires may be
granted. But when we pray for the conversion of sinners we are in the
same position as Elijah. We know from the outset that we are praying
for something which it is His will to grant, if only the rebellious
wills of impenitent sinners do not prove insuperable: for He forces no
one to be converted; He will have voluntary service, or none at all.
When, therefore, we ask Him for the assistance of His Holy Spirit in
bringing back sinners from the error of their ways, we may have the
greatest confidence that we are desiring that which He would have us
desire, and are uniting our wills to His. This, then, is one great
instrument for the conversion of our erring brethren—the
prayer of faith, which can remove mountains of sin out of God's
sight, by bringing the sinner, who has piled them up during years of
sinning, to confess, and repent, and be forgiven.
The case of St. Monica, praying for the conversion of her
sinful and heretical son Augustine, will occur to many as a beautiful
illustration of the principle here indicated. He himself tells us of
it in his immortal Confessions (III. xi., xii. 20, 21);
how that for years, especially from his nineteenth to his
twenty-eighth year, he went on seduced and seducing, deceived and
deceiving, in various lusts; and how his mother continued to pray for
him. "And her prayers entered into Thy presence; and yet Thou didst
leave me to wallow deeper and deeper in that darkness." Then she went
to a certain bishop, and entreated him to reason with her son; but he
declined, saying that the time for that had not yet come. "Leave him
alone for a time; only pray to God for him." But she was not
satisfied, and continued to implore him with tears that he would go
and see Augustine, and try to move him. At which he somewhat lost
patience, and sent her away, saying, "Go, leave me, and a blessing go
with thee: it is impossible that the son of such tears should perish."
Which answer, as she often told her son afterwards, she accepted as if
it were a voice from heaven; and all Christendom knows how her prayer
was heard. He himself attributed all that was good in him to his
mother's tears and prayers.
The other great instrument in accomplishing this blessed work is a
good example. A holy life is the best sermon, the most
effectual remonstrance, the strongest incentive, the most powerful
plea. Without it words are of little avail; with it words are scarcely
necessary. This is the instrument which St. James throughout this
Epistle commends. Not words, but works; not professions, but deeds;
not fair speeches, but kind acts (i. 19, 22, 27; ii. 1, 15,
16, 26; iii. 13; iv. 17). Nothing that we can say will ever
make such impression upon others as what we do and what we
are. Eloquence, reasoning, incisiveness, pathos,
persuasiveness, all have their uses, and may be of real service in the
work of winning back sinners from the error of their ways, but they
are as nothing compared with holiness. It is when deep calls to deep,
when life calls to life, when the life of manifest devotion at once
shames and attracts the life of flagrant sin, that spirits are moved,
that the loathing for vice and the longing for virtue are excited. The
man whose own habitual conduct most often makes other men ashamed of
themselves is the man who not only has the best of all qualifications
for winning souls to God, but is actually accomplishing this work,
even when he is not consciously attempting it. And such a one, when he
does attempt it, will have a large measure of the requisite wisdom.
The earnestness of his own life will have given him a knowledge of his
own heart, and that is the best of all keys to a knowledge of the
hearts of others.
There is something fatally wrong about us if we have no strong
desire to bring back sinners to God. We cannot be Christ's disciples
without having it. The man who would go to heaven alone is
already off the road thither. The man whose one consuming
thought is to save his own soul has not yet found out the best
means of saving it. The surest road to personal happiness is to devote
oneself to promoting the happiness of others, and the best way to
secure one's own salvation is to devote oneself to the Divine work of
helping forward the salvation of others. Let the fear of giving
scandal to others keep us from sin; let the hope of being a help to
others encourage us in well-doing; and let our prayers be more for
others than for ourselves. As Calvin says, on this passage, "We must
take heed lest souls perish through our sloth whose salvation God puts
in a manner in our hands. Not that we can bestow salvation on them,
but that God by our ministry delivers and saves those who seem
otherwise to be nigh destruction."
What is the reward which St. James holds out to us to induce
us to undertake the work of converting a sinner? He offers nothing; he
promises nothing. The work itself is its own reward. To win back an
erring brother is a thing so blessed, so glorious, so rich in
incalculable results, that to have been enabled to accomplish it is
reward enough—is a prize sufficient to induce any true hearted
Christian to work for it. It is no less than the "saving of a soul
from death;" and who can estimate what that means? It is the "covering
of a multitude of sins."
There is no need to make this last phrase include the sins which
the man would otherwise have committed had he not been converted. Sins
not committed cannot be covered. It is quite true that by conversion a
man is saved from sins into which he would certainly have fallen; and
this is a very happy result, but it is not the result pointed out by
St. James. The sins which have been committed during the daily walk
towards destruction are what he has in his mind; and they are not one
or two here and there, but a multitude. To aid a brother to get
rid of these by confession and repentance is an end that amply repays
all the trouble that we can take in attaining to it.
"But the number of renegades is so enormous; the multitude of
impenitent sinners is so overwhelming: how is it possible to convert
them?" St. James says nothing about converting multitudes; he
speaks only of converting one. "If any (ἐάν τις) among you do err from the truth, and one convert
him." To bring over one soul from eternal death to
eternal life may be within the power of any one earnest Christian. Is
each one of us making the attempt? Are we making our lives as
beneficent, as sympathetic, as unselfish as our opportunities admit
of? Do we give a generous, or even a moderate share of encouragement
to the numerous agencies which are at work to lessen the temptations
and increase the means of grace for those who are living in sin, and
to help and encourage those who, in however feeble a way, are making a
fight against it?
"Know ye,This is probably the true reading.
that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save
a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins." With these
words St. James abruptly takes leave of those whom he addresses.
The letter has no formal conclusion; not because it is unfinished, or
because the conclusion has been lost, but because St. James
wishes by means of a sudden close to leave his last words ringing in
the hearts of his readers. In this respect the Epistle reminds us of
the First Epistle of St. John. "Guard
yourselves from the idols" is the only farewell which the last of the
Apostles has for his "little children;" and a very summary statement
of what the conversion of one sinner means is the farewell of
St. James to his "brethren." In both cases it is the abruptness
of emphasis, as if the writer said, "If all else that I have written
be forgotten, at least remember this."
How beautiful to find one noble soul, and enter into frequent
communion with it! how happy to be the means of preserving it from
defilement! but most blessed of all to be instrumental in rescuing it
from degradation and destruction! "I say unto you, That there shall be
joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety
and nine righteous persons, which need no repentance."
Note.—It
is by no means impossible that in the phrase "cover a multitude of
sins" neither St. James is quoting St. Peter, nor
St. Peter St. James, nor either of them quoting Psalms or
Proverbs, but that each of them is reproducing a saying of Christ's
which is not recorded in the Gospels. The phrase occurs in both
Clement of Rome (XLV.) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I.
xxvii.; II. xv.; IV. xviii.; Quis Div. Salv. xxxviii.), in all
which places it may be a quotation from 1 Peter iv. 8. But
in one place (Pædag. III. xii.) he seems to give it as a saying
of our Lord's, for he couples it with a saying which is certainly His
(Luke xx. 25). Clement's wording is as follows: "Love, He saith,
covereth a multitude of sins; and respecting citizenship, Render to
Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are
God's;" where one and the same "He saith" (φησί) covers both sayings. In the
Didascalia (II. iii.) the saying is explicitly attributed to
Christ: "Because the Lord saith, Love covereth a multitude of sins."
See Resch, Agrapha; Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente
(Leipzig, 1889), pp. 248, 249.
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE.
CHAPTER XXX.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE.
"Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of
James, to them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept
for Jesus Christ: mercy unto you and peace and love be
multiplied."—St. Jude 1, 2.
Precisely as in the case of the Epistle of
St. James, the question as to the authenticity of this letter
resolves itself into two parts: Is the Epistle the veritable product
of a writer of the Apostolic age? If it is, which of the persons of
that age who bore the name of Judas is the author of it? Both of these
questions can be answered with a very considerable amount of
certainty.
Let us remember the right way of putting the first of these two
questions. Not, Why should we believe that this Epistle was written by
an Apostle or a contemporary of the Apostles? but, Why should we
refuse to believe this? What reason have we for rejecting the verdict
of ecclesiastics and theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries,
who were well aware of the doubts which had been raised respecting the
authority of the Epistle, and after full and prolonged consideration
decided that it possessed full canonical authority. Not only were they
in possession of evidence which is no longer available, and which
rendered it probable that their decision would be correct; but the
universal acceptance of their decision in all the
Churches proves that their decision was admitted to be correct by
those who had ample means of testing its soundness.
The Epistle of St. Jude, like that of St. James, is
reckoned by Eusebius as one of the six or seven "disputed" (ἀντιλεγόμενα) books of the New Testament,
which fact, while it proves that misgivings had existed in some
quarters respecting the authority of the letter, at the same time
proves that it was not admitted into the canon by an oversight. The
difficulties respecting it were well known, and were considered to be
by no means fatal to its otherwise strong claim to be accepted (see
above, pp. 15-18). And the difficulties respecting the two Epistles
were similar in kind. 1. Many Churches remained for a considerable
time without any knowledge of one or other of the two Epistles; but
whereas it was in the West that the Epistle of St. James was
least known, it was Eastern Churches that remained longest without
knowledge of that of St. Jude. 2. Even when the Epistle did
become known it remained doubtful whether the writer was a person of
authority. He was possibly not an Apostle, and if he was not such,
what were his claims to be heard? 3. To these two difficulties, which
were common to both Epistles, must be added another which was peculiar
to that of St. Jude. It may be stated in Jerome's words. "Because
in it Jude derives a testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is
apocryphal, it is rejected by some"A plerisque rejicitur. Possibly this means "is rejected by
very many;" it certainly ought not to be rendered "is rejected
by most." "Most" is the classical meaning of plerique;
but in Tacitus it means no more than "very many" (Hist.
iv. 84, etc.), and in Jerome and his contemporaries it need mean
no more than "some." Thus in Jerome's letter to Dardamus (Ep.
cxxix.) we have licet plerique eam vel Barnabæ vel Clementis
arbitrentur (of the Epistle to the Hebrews), where plerique
= the τινές of Eusebius and Origen (H.
E. VI. xx. 3; xxv. 14).
(Catal. Scr. Eccl. iv.). As we shall see hereafter, it probably
makes use
of yet another apocryphal book; and it was not unreasonably doubted
whether an Apostolic writer would compromise himself by the use of
such literature. If he were inspired, he would know it to be
apocryphal, and would abstain from quoting it; and if he did not know
its apocryphal character, how could he be inspired, or his words be of
any authority?
That so brief a letter should remain for a considerable time quite
unknown to some Churches, is not at all surprising. Its evident Jewish
tone would render it less attractive to Gentile Christians. Its making
no claim to Apostolic authority raised a doubt whether it had any
authority whatever, and this doubt was increased by the fact that it
quotes apocryphal writings. Consequently those Christians who knew the
Epistle would not always be ready to promote its circulation. Even if
we were compelled to infer that silence respecting it implies
ignorance of its existence, such ignorance would in most cases be very
intelligible: but this perilous inference from silence in some cases
can be shown to be incorrect. Hippolytus may possibly have
remained ignorant of it; but if, as Bishop Lightfoot suggests,See the Academy of September 21st, 1889, where he shows how
much of the Fragment can be turned quite literally into Greek verse,
and suggests that the εἰς πάσας
τὰς γράφας, "Odes referring to all the Scriptures," mentioned
among the works of Hippolytus whose titles are inscribed on his chair
(see Kraus, Real. Encykl. der Chris. Alterthümer, I., pp.
661-64), refers to metrical compositions on the contents of the Old
and New Testaments. The Fragment says respecting this Epistle,
"Epistola sane Iude et superscrictio (sic) Iohannis duas in
catholica habentur", where superscrictio is a clerical error
for superscripti, "the John mentioned above."
he is the author of the supposed Greek original of the Muratorian
Canon, he testifies strongly
(note the sane) to the general reception of the Epistle. This
holds good, however we may deal with the ambiguous in
catholica, which may possibly mean "in the Catholic Church," or be
a mistake for in catholicis, "among the Catholic Epistles."
Cyprian, who never quotes the Epistle of St. Jude, must have
known of it from the celebrated passage in "the master" Tertullian,
whose works he was always reading. And it is quite incredible that
Chrysostom, who in all his voluminous writings does not chance to
quote it even once, was not familiar with its contents. The brevity of
the Epistle is sufficient to explain a great deal of the silence
respecting it.
The most serious item in the external evidence against the Epistle
is its absence from the Peshitto, or ancient Syriac Version. The
considerations already mentioned go a long way towards explaining this
absence, and it is a great deal more than counterbalanced by the
strong external evidence in its favour. This is surprisingly strong,
especially when compared with that in favour of the Epistle of
St. James. In both cases the troubles which overwhelmed the
Church of Jerusalem and Jewish Christianity in the reign of Hadrian
interfered with the circulation of the letters; but it is the shorter
letter and the letter of the less-known writer which (so far as extant
testimony goes) seems in the first instance to have obtained the wider
circulation and recognition. The Muratorian Canon, as we have seen,
contains it; so also does the old Latin Version. Tertullian (De
Cult. Fem. I. iii.) vehemently contends that the Book of Enoch
ought to be accepted
as canonical, and he clenches his argument with the fact that it is
quoted by "the Apostle Jude." This appeal would have seemed dangerous
rather than conclusive, if in North Africa there had been any serious
misgivings about the authority of Jude's Epistle. Tertullian evidently
entertained nothing of the kind. In a similar spirit Augustine asks,
"What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not the canonical Epistle
of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied?" (De Civ. Dei,
xviii. 38). Clement of Alexandria quotes it as Scripture
(Pæd. III. viii., and Strom. III. ii.), and commented
upon it in his Hypotyposeis (Eus. H. E. VI. xiv. 1), of
which we probably still possess some translations into Latin made
under the direction of Cassiodorus. Origen, although he was aware that
it was not universally received, for in one place he uses the cautious
expression, "If any receive the Epistle of Jude," yet accepted it
thoroughly himself, as the frequent citations of it in his works show.
In one passage he speaks of it as "an Epistle of but few lines, yet
full of the strong words of heavenly grace" (Comm. on Matt.
xiii. 55). Athanasius places it in his list of the canonical
Scriptures without any mark of doubt. And Didymus, head of the
Catechetical School at Alexandria, and instructor of Jerome and
Rufinus, condemns the opposition which some offered to the Epistle on
account of the statement respecting the body of Moses (ver. 9), just
as Jerome virtually condemns those who opposed it because of the
quotation from the Book of Enoch.
This evidence, it will be observed, is mostly Western. The blank as
regards the East is to some extent filled by the letter of the Synod
at Antioch against Paul of Samasota, A.D. 269.
Portions of this letter have been
preserved by Eusebius, and Malchion, the presbyter who chiefly
composed it, seems to have had the Epistle of Jude in his mind when he
wrote. This is chiefly evident in the tone of the letter; but here and
there the wording approaches that of St. Jude; e.g.
"denying his God [and Lord]" reminds us of "denying our only Master
and Lord" (Jude 4); and "not guarding the faith which he once
held" may be suggested by "contend earnestly for the faith which was
once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). The quotations
from Jude in Ephrem Syrus (c. A.D. 308-73)
are somewhat discredited, for they occur only in the Greek
translations of his works, some of which, however, were made in his
lifetime; but the quotations may be insertions made by
translators.
That so short a letter should have so much testimony in its favour
is remarkable; and although it may be a slight exaggeration to say,
with Zahn, that about A.D. 200 it was accepted "in
the Church of all lands round the Mediterranean Sea" (Gesch. d.
Neutest. Kanons, I., p. 321), yet even Harnack admits that this is
not much in excess of the truth. The only abatement which he suggests
is that the misgivings to which Origen on one single occasion bears
witness, show that the Epistle was not everywhere in the East
part of the New Testament Scriptures (Das N.T. um d. Jahr 200,
p. 79). We may take it, therefore, as sufficiently proved that this
letter was written by one who belonged to the Apostolic age. Had it
been a forgery of the second century, it would not have found this
general acceptance. Moreover, a forger would have chosen some person
of greater fame and greater authority as the supposed writer of the
Epistle, or would at least have made Jude an Apostle; and above all, he would
have betrayed some motive for the forgery. There is nothing in
the letter to indicate any such motive. Renan accepts the Epistle as a
genuine relic of the Apostolic age, and indeed places it as early as
A.D. 54; yet his view of it would lead other
people to regard it as a forgery, for it supplies a strong motive.
Renan considers it to be an attack on St. Paul. The Clementine
literature shows us how a heretic of the second century can make a
covert attack on the Apostle of the Gentiles; and if we could believe
that the writer of this Epistle had St. Paul in his mind when he
denounced those who "in their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at
nought dominion, and rail at dignities," we should be ready enough to
believe that he was not really "Judas, brother of James," but one who
did not dare to say openly in the Church the accusations which he
tried to insinuate. But no critic has accepted this strange theory of
Renan's, and it is hardly worth while asking, Why was not
St. Peter or St. John taken as the authority wherewith to
counteract the influence of St. Paul? Of what weight would the
words of the unknown Jude be in comparison with his? Renan's literary
acuteness recognizes in this Epistle a veritable product of the first
century: his prejudices respecting anti-Pauline tendencies among the
Apostolic writers lead him amazingly astray as to the meaning of its
contents.
It remains to consider the second part of the question respecting
the authenticity of this Epistle. We are justified in believing that
it is a writing of the Apostolic age, by a person bearing the name of
Judas or Jude. But to which of the persons who bore that name in the
first age of the Church is the letter to be assigned? Only two persons
have to be considered—(1) "Judas
not Iscariot," who seems also to have been called Lebbæus or Thaddæus,
for in the lists of the Apostles Thaddæus or Lebbæus (the readings are
confused) stands in Matthew x. and Mark iii. as the equivalent of
"Judas [the son] of James" in Luke vi. and Acts i.; and (2) Judas one
of the four brethren of the Lord; the names of the other three being
James, Joseph or Joses, and Simon (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark
vi. 3). These two are sometimes identified, but the
identification is highly questionable, although the Authorized Version
encourages us to make it by giving to "Judas of James" the improbable
meaning, "Judas the brother of James," instead of the usual
meaning, "Judas the son of James."The Genevan Version introduced this rendering. Previous versions
either leave the meaning doubtful, "Judas of James," as Wiclif,
or translate "James' sonne," as Tyndale and Cranmer. Luther also
is for "son."
In other words, the Authorized Version assumes that the writer of this
Epistle is the Apostle "Judas not Iscariot;" the writer calls himself
"brother of James," and the Authorized Version makes this Apostle to
be "the brother of James."
We have seen already that both Tertullian and Augustine speak of
the writer of this Epistle as an Apostle. So also does Origen, but
only in two passages, of which the Greek original is wanting (De
Principiis, III. ii. 1; Comm. on Romans v. 13,
vol. iv., 549). In no passage of the Greek works, and in no other
passage of the Latin translations, does he call Jude an Apostle; so
that the addition of Apostle in these two places may be an insertion
of his not very accurate translator Rufinus. But even if the authority
of Origen is to be added to that of Tertullian and Augustine, the
opinion that the author of this letter
was an Apostle is not probable. Had he been such, it would have been
natural to mention the fact as a claim on the attention of his
readers, instead of merely contenting himself with naming his
relationship to his much more distinguished brother James. It is not
to the point to urge that St. Paul does not always call himself
an Apostle in his Epistles. He was a well-known person, especially
after his four great Epistles had been published, in all of which he
styles himself an Apostle. In the two to the Thessalonians he does
not, probably because he there associates Silvanus and Timothy with
himself (but see 1 Thess. ii. 6). St. Jude was
comparatively unknown, having written nothing else, and having
probably travelled little. The charge, "Remember ye the words which
have been spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ"
(ver. 17), although it does not necessarily imply that the writer
himself is not one of these Apostles, yet would be more suitable to
one who did not possess Apostolic rank. And when we ask what
James is meant, when he styles himself "brother of James," the
answer cannot be doubtful; it is James the brother of the Lord, one of
the three "Pillars" of the Jewish Christian Church, first overseer of
the Church of Jerusalem, and author of the Epistle which bears his
name. The Epistle of Jude is evidently by a Jewish Christian, who,
while writing to all that have been called to the faith, evidently has
Jewish Christians chiefly in his mind. To such a writer it was well
worth while to mention that he was brother of that James who was so
revered by all his fellow countrymen. Reasons have been given already
for believing that this James was not an Apostle (pp. 27-29), and
these will confirm us in the opinion that his brother Jude was not such.
The question of their relationship to Jesus Christ has also been
discussed (pp. 31, 32), and need not be reopened here. If it be argued
that, had St. Jude been the brother of the Lord, he would have
mentioned the fact, we may securely answer that he would not have done
so. "As the author of the Adumbrationes centuries ago remarked,
religious feeling would deter him, as it did his brother James, in his
Epistle, from mentioning this. The Ascension had altered all Christ's
human relationships, and His brethren would shrink from claiming
kinship after the flesh with His glorified body. This conjecture is
supported by facts. Nowhere in primitive Christian literature is any
authority claimed on the basis of nearness of kin to the Redeemer. He
Himself had taught Christians that the lowliest among them might rise
above the closest of such earthly ties (Luke xi. 27, 28); to be
spiritually the "servant of Jesus Christ" was much more than being His
actual brother."These words are quoted from a commentary which the writer
of this volume wrote in 1879 for Messrs. Cassell, in the New Testament
Commentary for English Readers, edited by Bishop Ellicott
(p. 505), of which, through the courtesy of the publishers, he is
allowed to make use for the present work.
We may suppose that Jude, like the rest of his brethren (John
vii. 5), did not at first believe in the Messiahship of Jesus,
but was converted by the convincing event of the Resurrection (Acts
i. 14). We know that he was married, not merely from the general
statement made by St. Paul respecting the brethren of the Lord
(1 Cor. ix. 5), but from the interesting story told by
Hegesippus, and preserved by Eusebius (H. E. III.
xx. 1-8), that two grandsons of Jude were taken before Domitian
as being of the royal family of David,
and therefore dangerous to his rule. "For," says Hegesippus, "he was
afraid of the appearance of the Christ, as Herod was." In answer to
his questions, they stated that they were indeed of the family of
David, but were poor and humble persons, who supported themselves by
their own labour; in proof of which they showed their horny hands.
When further questioned respecting the Christ and His kingdom, they
said that it was not earthly, but heavenly, and would arise at the end
of the world, when He came to judge the living and the dead. Whereupon
Domitian contemptuously dismissed them as too simple to be dangerous,
and ordered that the persecution of the descendants of David should
cease. These two men were afterwards honoured in the Churches, both as
confessors and as being near of kin to the Lord. A fragment of Philip
of Side (c. A.D. 425) lately discovered
says that Hegesippus gave the names of these two men as Zocer and
James (Texte und Untersuchungen, V. 2, p. 169).
This narrative implies that both St. Jude and the father of
these grandsons were already dead, and this gives us a terminus
respecting the date of the Epistle. St. Jude was almost certainly
dead when Domitian came to the throne, in A.D. 81,
and therefore this letter was written before that date. Whether, as
Hilgenfeld and others would have us believe, the Epistle is aimed at
Gnostic errors which did not arise until the second century, will be
considered hereafter, when the nature of the evils denounced by
St. Jude is discussed; but the evidence which has been examined
thus far entirely agrees with the supposition that the letter was
written during the Apostolic age.
It is not impossible that in calling himself "brother
of James" St. Jude is thinking of his brother's Epistle,
and wishes his readers to consider that the present letter is to be
taken in conjunction with that of St. James. Both letters are
Palestinian in origin and Jewish in tone; and they are almost entirely
practical in their aim, dealing with grave errors in conduct. Those
which are denounced by St. Jude are of a grosser kind than those
denounced by St. James, but they resemble the latter in being
errors of behaviour rather than of creed. They are to a large extent
the outcome of pernicious principles; but it is the vicious
lives of these "ungodly men" that are condemned more than their
erroneous beliefs. St. Jude, therefore, may be appealing not only
to his brother's position and authority as a recommendation for
himself, but also to his brother's Epistle, which many of his readers
would know and respect.
The attempts which have been made to find a locality for
St. Jude's readers altogether fail. Palestine, Asia Minor,
Alexandria have all been suggested; but the letter does not offer
sufficient material for the formation of a reasonable opinion. "To
them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus
Christ," is a formula which embraces all Christians, whether
Jews or Gentiles, and whether inside or outside Palestine. The topics
introduced are such as would chiefly interest Jewish Christians, and
it is probable that the writer has the Jewish Christians of Palestine
and the adjoining countries chiefly in his mind; but we have no right
to limit the natural meaning of the formal address which he himself
has adopted. All Christians, without limitation, are the objects of
St. Jude's solicitude.
CHAPTER XXXI.
THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE.—THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
"Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write
unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you
exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for
all delivered unto the saints."—St. Jude 3.
THE Greek of the opening sentence of this passage,
in which St. Jude explains his reason for writing this Epistle,
is ambiguous. The words "of our common salvation" (περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας) may
go either with what precedes or with what follows. But there is little
doubt that both the Authorized and the Revised Versions are right in
taking them with what precedes. The true connexion is, not, "While I
was giving all diligence to write unto you, I was constrained to write
unto you of our common salvation," but, "While I was giving all
diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained
to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith."
This Epistle can scarcely be called a letter "about our common
salvation." The meaning is that St. Jude had intended to write
such a letter, but the crisis created by the entrance of these ungodly
men into the Church constrained him to write a letter of a different
kind, viz. the one which lies before us. That he had already
begun to write a letter "respecting our common salvation," and
that we have here to lament the loss of another Epistle besides the
lost Epistles of St. Paul and St. John (1 Cor.
v. 9; 3 John 9), is neither stated nor implied.This is an assumption of De Wette, who in this followed Sherlock,
and was followed by Brückner. It is worth noting that the Vulgate
here is as ambiguous as the original Greek: "Omnem solicitudinem
faciens scribendi vobis de communi vestra salute necesse habui scribere
vobis," etc.
St. Jude had been thinking very earnestly about writing a more
general and comprehensive Epistle, when he realized that the presence
of a very serious evil required immediate action, and accordingly he
writes at once to point out the existing peril, and to denounce those
who are the authors of it. It is the duty of all Christians to be on
their guard, and to be unflinching in their defence of the truth which
has been committed to them to preserve and cherish.
"The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." This
does not mean, which was delivered by God to the Apostles, but which
was delivered by the Apostles to the Church. "The saints" here, as so
often in the New Testament (Acts ix. 13, 32, 41; xxvi. 10;
Rom. viii. 27; xiii. 13; xv. 25, 26, 31; etc., etc.),
means all Christians. If the whole nation of the Jews was a
"holy people" (λαὸς ἅγιος), "a
peculiar treasure unto Jehovah from among all peoples" (Exod.
xix. 5), by reason of their special election by Him (Deut.
vii. 6; xiv. 2, 21); if they were "saints of the Most High"
(Dan. vii. 18, 22, 25), much more might this be said of
Christians, who had inherited all the spiritual privileges of the
Jews, and had received others in abundance, far exceeding any that the
Jews had ever possessed. Christians also, in a still higher sense,
were "an elect
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own
possession" (1 Peter ii. 9). The Christians of Corinth,
Ephesus, and Colossæ, in spite of the enormous evils which they
practised or sanctioned, or at least tolerated, are still called
"saints." They are holy, not as being persons of holy life, but as
being devoted to God. Of course such persons ought to be holy
in conduct, but to call them "saints" does not assert that they are
so. The name asserts the fact of being set apart by God for Himself,
and implies what ought to be the result of such separation. "Thus the
main idea of the term is consecration. But though it does not
assert moral qualifications as a fact in the persons so designated, it
implies them as a duty."Lightfoot, Philippians, note on i. 1.
To each individual Christian, therefore, the name is at once an
honour, an exhortation, and a reproach. It tells of his high calling,
it exhorts him to live up to it, and it reminds him of his grievous
shortcomings.
"The faith once for all delivered unto the saints" (τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ
τοῖς ἅγίοις πίστει): both the adverb, "once for all," and the
aorist participle, "delivered," are worthy of special notice. "The
faith" does not mean any set formula of articles of belief, nor the
internal reception of Christian doctrine, but the substance of
it; it is equivalent to what St. Paul and the Evangelists call
"the Gospel," viz. that body of truth which brings salvation to the
soul that receives it. This Faith, or this Gospel, has been once for
all delivered to Christians. No other will be given, for there is no
other. Whatever may be delivered by any one in future cannot be a
gospel at all. The one true Gospel is complete and final, and admits
of no successors and no supplements (Gal. i. 6-9).
"The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." Does
this exclude all possibility of a "development of Christian doctrine"?
That depends upon what one means by "development." The expression has
been interpreted to mean "that the increase and expansion of the
Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the
process in the case of individual writers and Churches, are the
necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes
possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or
extended dominion; that from the nature of the human mind, time is
necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great
ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though
communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not
be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as received and
transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human,
have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full
elucidation."J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
(London, Toovey, 1845), p. 27.
If the ambiguous expression "and perfection" be omitted, one may
readily allow that development of Christian doctrine in this sense has
taken place. To say that time is needed for the full
comprehension of the great truths which were communicated to the
Church once for all by the Apostles is one thing; to say that time is
needed for the perfection of those truths may or may not be
quite another. And the manner in which the subject is treated in the
famous Essay from which the passage just quoted is taken shows that
what is meant by the "perfecting" of the truths is a very different
thing from the full comprehension of their original contents; it means
making additions to the original contents in order to remedy supposed
deficiencies. In this sense it may be confidently asserted, and as
loyal Christians we are bound to assert, that there is no such thing
as development of Christian doctrine. If there be such a thing, then
we cannot stop short with those developments which can in some measure
be called Christian. The author himself reminds us that "no one has
power over the issues of his principles; we cannot manage our
argument, and have as much of it as we please, and no more" (p. 29).
If the faith once for all delivered to the saints was defective, and
needed to be supplemented by subsequent additions, why may not
Christianity itself be, as some have maintained, only a phase in the
development of religion, which in process of time is to be superseded
by something wholly unchristian? The transition is easily made from
the position of the Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine to that of Channing, that "it makes me smile to hear
immortality claimed for Catholicism or Protestantism, or for any past
interpretations of Christianity: as if the human soul had exhausted
itself in its infant efforts; as if the men of one or a few
generations could bind the energy of human thought and affection for
ever;"Letter on Catholicism: Complete Works (Routledge, 1884), p. 346.
and thence to the position of Strauss, who, in his latest and most
dreary work, on The Old and the New Faith, asks the question,
"Are we still Christians?" and answers it emphatically in the
negative. The chief doctrines of Christianity are to him childish or
repulsive beliefs, which thoughtful men have long since left behind.
We may still in some sense be religious; but Christianity has done its
work, and is rightly being dismissed from
the stage.Der alte und der neue Glaube (Leipzig, 1872), pp. 13-91: see
especially pp. 90, 91.
This is the advanced thinking of which St. John writes in his
Second Epistle: "Everyone that goeth onward (πᾶς ὁ προάγων), and abideth not in the doctrine
of Christ, hath not God" (ver. 9). There is an advance which
involves desertion of first principles; and such an advance is not
progress, but apostasy.
But does the development of doctrine, in the sense contended
for by the author of the celebrated Essay, mean making actual
additions to the faith once for all delivered, as distinct from
arriving at a better comprehension of the contents and logical
consequences of the original deposit? This question must be answered
in the affirmative, for various reasons. The whole purpose of the
Essay, and the actual expressions used in it, require this meaning;
and that this is the obvious meaning has been assumed by Roman
Catholic as well as Protestant critics, and (so far as the present
writer is aware) this interpretation has never been resented as
illegitimate by the author. The whole argument is admittedly "an
hypothesis to account for a difficulty," "an expedient to enable us to
solve what has now become a necessary and an anxious problem" (pp. 27,
28), viz. the enormous difference between the sum total of Roman
Catholic doctrines and those which can be found in the Christian
documents of the first two or three centuries. The Essay is believed
by its author to furnish "a solution of such a number of the reputed
corruptions of Rome as might form a fair ground for trusting her where
the investigation had not been pursued" (p. 29). And that the faith
once for all delivered is regarded as in need of supplements and
additions seems to be implied in such language as
the following: "In whatever sense the need and its supply are a proof
of design in the visible creation, in the same do the gaps, if
the word may be used, which occur in the structure of the original
creed of the Church, make it probable that those developments,
which grow out of the truths which lie around them, were intended to
complete it" (pp. 101, 102). It is the business of succeeding ages of
the Church to "keep what was exact, and supply what was
deficient" (p. 354).
The author of the Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine states in another of his works that when he was admitted
to the Church of Rome he embraced volumes containing the writings of
the Christian Fathers, crying out that now they were really his own.
The action and exclamation were thoroughly inconsistent with the
position maintained throughout the Essay, and since then adopted by
numbers of Roman controversialists. He ought rather to have cleared
his shelves of the works of the Fathers, and to have consigned them to
the lumber-room, with the remark, "Now I need never look at you any
more." As Bishop Cornelius Mussus (Musso) said long ago, "For my part,
to speak quite frankly, I would give more credence to a single Pope
than to a thousand Augustines, Jeromes, and Gregorys" (In Epist. ad
Rom. xiv., p. 606, Venet., 1588, quoted in Hardwick's edition of
Archer Butler's Letters on Romanism, p. 394). It is the latest
and most modern works on Roman theology, especially those which
expound the utterances of the most recent Popes, that deserve to be
studied, if the theory of the development be correct. According to
that theory, the teaching of the primitive Church was certainly
immature and defective, and possibly even erroneous. In order to find
out what primitive
writers meant, or ought to have meant, we must look to the
latest developments. They are the criteria by which to test the
teaching of the early Church; it is beginning at the wrong end to test
the developments by Christian antiquity. In former times Romanists
were at great pains to show that traces of their peculiar tenets could
be found in the writers of the first few centuries; and in not a few
cases the works of these primitive writers were interpolated, in order
to make out a fair case. Criticism has exposed these forgeries, and it
has been demonstrated that the early Christian teachers were ignorant
of whole tracts of Roman doctrine and practice. Roman controversy has
therefore entirely shifted its ground. It now freely admits that these
things were unknown to Irenæus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and
Augustine; but for the simple reason that, when they wrote, these
things had not yet been revealed. The Church was still ignorant that
the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin, was taken bodily to
heaven after her death, and ought to be invoked in prayer; it was
still ignorant of the doctrine of purgatory, of indulgences, and of
the necessity of being in communion with the Church of Rome. It will
not do to say that Christ and His Apostles planted the germs of
these things, and that for centuries the germs did not expand and
fructify, and therefore remained unnoticed. For, first, how can there
be a germ of an historical fact, such as the supposed removal
of the Virgin's body to heaven, which is most happily named an
"assumption"? Secondly, now that the fruit has appeared, we
ought to be able to trace it back to the germ which for so long was
ignored. And thirdly, if the germs were really deposited by Christ and
His Apostles, they would have
developed in a somewhat similar manner in all parts of
Christendom. Different surroundings will account for some variety of
development, but not for absolute difference in kind. The germ
respecting communion with the Church of Rome, if there was one,
developed in the East, where all germs were in the first instance
planted, into the doctrine that no such communion was necessary.See Dr. Salmon's admirable work on The Infallibility of the
Church (Murray, 1888), pp. 33-41.
Therefore, from the Roman point of view, it is necessary to maintain
that the development of Christian doctrine involves, not merely the
better comprehension of the contents of doctrines, and the expansion
of seeds and germs of truth, but the admission of actual supplements
and additions, derived from new revelations of fresh items of truth.
As the Jesuit Father Harper said, in his reply to Dr. Pusey's
Eirenicon, "Christ grew in wisdom daily. So does the Church,
not in mere appearance, but of truth. Her creed, therefore, can never
shrink back to the dimensions of the past, but must ever enlarge with
the onward future."
Hence the necessity for the doctrine of Infallibility. For Roman
developments are not the only ones. The Eastern Churches have theirs;
Protestant Churches have theirs; and outside these there are other
developments, both non-Christian and anti-Christian. Unless there is
some authority which can say, "Our developments are Divinely inspired
and necessary, while all others are superfluous or wrong," the
doctrine of Development may be used with as much force against Rome as
for her. Consequently, we find the author of the Essay using the
theory of Development as an argument for that of the Infallibility.
"If the Christian
doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important
developments, ... this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a
provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon
those developments.... If certain large developments of it are true,
they must surely be accredited as true" (pp. 117-19).
This is further proof that what is contemplated in this theory is
not mere logical deductions from revealed truth; for logical
deductions vindicate themselves by an appeal to the reason, and need
no sanction from an infallible authority. Developments are indeed said
to follow by way of "logical sequence," but this term is made to
receive an enlarged meaning. "It will include any progress of the mind
from one judgment to another, as, for instance, by way of moral
fitness, which may not admit of analysis into premiss and
conclusion" (p. 397). Thus the "deification of St. Mary" is a
"logical sequence" of our Lord's Divinity. "The votaries of Mary do
not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son came up
to it. The Church of Rome is not idolatrous, unless Arianism is
orthodoxy" (p. 406). The following criticism, therefore, does not seem
to be unjust: "However the theory may be modified by the subsequent
additional supposition of infallible guidance, it is quite evident
that, considered in itself, its internal spirit and scope (especially
as illustrated by its alleged Roman instances) are nothing short of
this, that everything which certain good men in the
Church, or men assumed to be such, can by reasoning or feeling
collect from a revealed truth is, by the mere fact of its recognition
[i.e. by the supposed infallible guide], admissible and
authoritative."Archer Butler's Letters on Romanism, Revised by Rev. Charles
Hardwick (Macmillan, 1858), p. 91.
This is indeed
a wide door to open for the reception of additions to the faith!
That St. Jude lays much stress on the fact that the sum total
of the Gospel, and not merely the elementary portions of it, have been
once for all committed to the Church, is shown, not only by the
prominence which he gives to the thought here, but by his repetition
of it a few lines later, when he begins the main portion of his
Epistle: "I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all
things once for all" (ver. 5). Any teaching of new doctrines is
not only unnecessary, it is also utterly inadmissible. And every
Christian has his responsibilities in this matter. He is to "contend
earnestly" (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι), with
all the energy and watchfulness of an athlete in the arena, for the
preservation of this sacred deposit, lest it be lost or corrupted. And
the manner in which this earnest contest is to be maintained is not
left doubtful; not with the sword, as Beza rightly remarks, nor with
intemperate denunciation or indiscriminate severity, but with the
mighty influence of a holy life, built upon the foundation of our
"most holy faith" (vv. 20-23). It is in this way that lawful
development of Christian doctrine is secured; not by additions to what
was once for all delivered, but by a deeper and wider comprehension of
its inexhaustible contents. "If any man willeth to do His will, he
shall know of the doctrine."
Note.—In
connexion with the subject treated above, chapter ix. of R. H.
Hutton's sketch of Cardinal Newman (Methuen & Co., 1891)
may be profitably read.
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.
ITS RELATION TO 2 PETER.
"For there are certain men crept in privily, even
they who were of old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men,
turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our
only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."—St. Jude 4.
WE have here the occasion of the letter
stated very plainly. St. Jude was meditating a letter on a more
general subject, when the grave peril created by the anti-Christian
behaviour of the persons condemned in the text constrained him to
write at once on this more urgent topic. An insidious invasion of the
Christian Church has taken place by those who have no right to a place
within it, and who endanger its peace and purity; and he dare not keep
silence. The strong must be exhorted to withstand the evil; the weak
must be rescued from it.
These invaders are in one respect like those who are condemned in
the Epistle to the Galatians, in another respect are very unlike them.
They are "false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily"
(ii. 4); but they have come in, not "to spy out our liberty which
we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," but
to "turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness." The troublers of
the Galatian Church were endeavouring to contract
Christian liberty, whereas these ungodly men were straining it
to the uttermost. Both ended in destroying it. The one turned the
"freedom with which Christ set us free" into an intolerable yoke of
Jewish bondage; the other turned it into the polluting anarchy of
heathen, or worse than heathen, licence. How utterly alien these
latter are from Christianity, or even from Judaism, is indicated by
St. Jude's pointed introduction of the pronoun "our" in two
clauses in this verse: "turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus
Christ." Jehovah is "our God," not theirs; they are "without
God in the world." And Christ is "our only Master and Lord,"
but not theirs; they have denied and rejected Him, choosing to "walk
after their own lusts" (ver. 16), rather than to "walk even as He
walked" (1 John ii. 6). They have repudiated His easy yoke,
that they may follow their own bestial desires.
Who are these "ungodly men"? Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
III. ii. sub fin.) thinks that St. Jude is speaking
prophetically of the abominable doctrines of the Gnostic teacher
Carpocrates. Some modern writers adopt this view, with the omission of
the word "prophetically," and thus obtain an argument against the
genuineness of the Epistle. If the writer knew the teaching of
Carpocrates, he cannot have been Jude the brother of James and the
brother of the Lord. The date of Carpocrates is too uncertain to make
this a perfectly conclusive argument, even if we admit the assumption
that the writer of this Epistle is alluding to his teaching;
for he is sometimes placed before Cerinthus, who was contemporary with
St. John. But it may be allowed as probably correct that St. Jude
was dead before Carpocrates was known as a teacher of Antinomian
Gnosticism. There is, however, nothing whatever to show that it is to
his teaching that St. Jude is alluding. He says nothing whatever
about the teaching of these "ungodly men," who perhaps were not
teachers at all; still less does he indicate that they belonged to
those Gnostics who, from the Oriental doctrine of the absolutely evil
character of matter and everything material, drew the practical
conclusion that man's material body may be made to undergo every kind
of experience, no matter how shameless, in order that the soul may
gain knowledge; that the soul is by enlightenment too pure, and the
body by nature too impure, to be capable of pollution; that filth
cannot be defiled; and that pure gold remains pure, however often it
may be plunged in filthiness. No such doctrine is hinted at by
St. Jude. Dorner, therefore, goes beyond what is written when he
says that "the persons whom Jude opposes are not merely such as have
practically swerved from the right way; they are also teachers of
error" (Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Intr., p. 72, Eng.
Tr.: T. and T. Clark, 1861). It is more reasonable, with De Wette,
Brückner, Meyer, Kühl, Reuss, Farrar, Salmon, and others to regard
these "ungodly men" as just what St. Jude describes them, and no
more; libertines, who ought never to have been admitted into the
Church at all; who maintained that Christians were free to live lives
of gross sensuality; and who, when rebuked by the elders or other
officers of the Church for their misconduct, not only refused to
submit, but reviled those who were set over them. They were "teachers
of error," but by their bad example, not by systematic preaching. They
"screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assumptions,"
because they assumed that "having been called for freedom," they might
"use their freedom for an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. v. 13),
not because they assumed that they ought to disobey the commandments
of the Creator of the material universe. And for the same reason they
may be called "libertines" on principle. When St. Jude says that
they "denied our only MasterThe insertion of the word "God" into the authorities followed in
the Authorized Version is one of the few instances in which it is
possible that the Greek text of the N.T. has been corrupted in the
interests of orthodoxy.
and Lord, Jesus Christ," he means that they denied Him by their lives.
It is altogether unreasonable to read into this simple phrase, which
is sufficiently explained by the context, a dogmatic denial of the
Incarnation. That the germs of Antinomian Gnosticism are here
indicated may be true enough; but they have not yet developed into a
body of doctrine. Still less have those who are tainted by these germs
developed into an heretical sect.See the author's Epistles of St. John in the Cambridge Greek
Testament, pp. xx-xxix and 160-162.
It is with the verse before us that the marked resemblance between
the Epistle of St. Jude and the central portion of the Second
Epistle of St. Peter begins; and it continues down to ver. 18. In
this short letter of twenty-five verses, only the first three and last
seven verses, i.e. about a third of the whole, have no intimate
relations with 2 Peter. The last word has not yet been spoken
upon this perplexing subject. The present writer confesses that he
remains still uncertain as to the true relation between the two, and
that he has inclined sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other
of the two rival hypotheses.
Thus much of what he wrote on the subject more than ten years ago may
be repeated now:—
"The similarity, both in substance and wording, is so great that
only two alternatives are possible—either one has borrowed from
the other, or both have borrowed from a common source. The second
alternative is rarely, if ever, advocated; it does not explain the
facts very satisfactorily, and critics are agreed in rejecting it. But
here agreement ends. On the further question, as to which writer is
prior, there is very great diversity of opinion. One thing, therefore,
is certain, that whichever writer has borrowed, he is no ordinary
borrower. He knows how to assimilate foreign material so as to make it
thoroughly his own. He remains original, even while he appropriates
the words and thoughts of another. He controls them, not they him.
Were this not so, there would be little doubt about the matter. In any
ordinary case of appropriation, if both the original and copy are
forthcoming, critics do not doubt long as to which is the original. It
is when the copy itself is a masterpiece, as in the case of Holbein's
Madonna, that criticism is baffled. Such would seem to be the case
here; and the present writer is free to confess his own
uncertainty."N.T. Commentary for English Readers, edited by Bishop
Ellicott (Cassell and Co. 1879), iii., p. 506.
Other persons are able to write with much more confidence. Dean
Mansel says, "Some eminent modern critics have attempted, on the very
precarious evidence of style, to assign the priority in time of
writing to St. Jude; but there are two circumstances which appear
to me to prove most conclusively that St. Jude's Epistle was
written after that of St. Peter,
and with express reference to it. The first is, that the evils which
St. Peter speaks of as partly future St. Jude describes as
now present. The one says, 'There shall be false teachers among
you' (2 Peter ii. 1; the future tense being continued
through the two following verses); the other says, 'There are
certain men crept in unawares.' The other circumstance is still more
to the point. St. Peter, in his Second Epistle, has the
remarkable words, 'Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers
(ἐμπαῖκται) shall come with mockery,
walking after their own lusts' (iii. 3). St. Jude has the
same passage, repeated almost word for word, but expressly introduced
as a citation of Apostolic language: 'But ye, beloved, remember ye the
words which have been spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus
Christ; how that they said to you, In the last time there shall be
mockers (ἐμπαῖκται), walking after
their own ungodly lusts' (vv. 17, 18). The use of the plural
number (τῶν ἀποστόλων) may be
explained by supposing that the writer may also have intended to
allude to passages similar in import, though differently expressed, in
the writings of St. Paul (such as 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2;
2 Tim. iii. 1), but the verbal coincidence can hardly be
satisfactorily explained, unless we suppose that St. Jude had
principally in his thoughts, and was actually citing the language of
St. Peter" (The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second
Centuries, Murray, 1875, pp. 69, 70). Hengstenberg puts forward
the same arguments, and considers the second to be decisive as to the
priority of 2 Peter.
Not less confident is Archdeacon Farrar that exactly the opposite
hypothesis is the right one. "After careful consideration and
comparison of the two documents
it seems to my own mind impossible to doubt [the italics are
Dr. Farrar's] that Jude was the earlier of the two writers.... I must
confess my inability to see how any one who approaches the inquiry
with no ready-made theories can fail to come to the conclusion that
the priority in this instance belongs to St. Jude. It would have
been impossible for such a burning and withering blast of defiance and
invective as his brief letter to have been composed on principles of
modification and addition. All the marks which indicate the reflective
treatment of an existing document are to be seen in the Second Epistle
of St. Peter. In every instance of variation we see the reasons
which influenced the later writer.... The notion that St. Jude
endeavoured to 'improve upon' St. Peter is, I say, a literary
impossibility; and if in some instances the phrases of St. Jude
seem more antithetical and striking, and his description clearer, I
have sufficiently accounted for the inferiority—if it be
inferiority—of St. Peter by the supposition that he was a
man of more restrained temperament; that he wrote under the influence
of reminiscences and impressions; and that he was warning against
forms of evil with which he had not come into so personal a contact"
(The Early Days of Christianity, Cassell and Co., 1882, i., pp.
196-203).
The main arguments in favour of the view that the Second Epistle of
St. Peter was used by St. Jude, besides those stated by Dean
Mansel, are the following:—
(1) If 2 Peter is genuine, it is more probable that
St. Jude should borrow from St. Peter than that the chief of
the Apostles should borrow from one who was not an Apostle at all.
If 2 Peter is not genuine, it is improbable that the
forger would borrow from a writing which from the first was regarded
with suspicion, because it quoted apocryphal literature.
(2) St. Jude tells us (ver. 3) that he wrote under pressure to
meet a grave emergency, and therefore he would be more likely to make
large use of suitable material ready to his hand, than one who was
under no such necessity.
The main arguments on the other side are these:—
(1) It is more probable that the chief portion of a short letter
should be used again with a great deal of additional matter, than that
one section only of a much longer letter should be used again with
very little additional matter.
(2) It is more probable that the writer of 2 Peter should omit
what seemed to be difficult or likely to give offence, than that
St. Jude should insert such things; e.g. "clouds
without water" (Jude 12) is a contradiction in terms, and
therefore is naturally corrected to "wells without water"
(2 Pet. ii. 17); the particular way in which the angels fell
(Jude 6), the allusion to certain Levitical pollutions (ver. 23),
and the citations from apocryphal books (vv. 9, 14, 15) are
either entirely omitted by the writer of 2 Peter, or put in a way
much less likely to seem offensive (ii. 4, 11). And Jude 9
has been so toned down by the writer of 2 Peter that without
St. Jude's statement respecting Michael and the devil we should
scarcely understand 2 Peter ii. 11.
Besides these points, there are two arguments which are used on
both sides of the question:—
(i) There are certain elements in St. Jude's Epistle of which
the writer of 2 Peter would probably have made use, had he seen
them; e.g. the ironical play
upon the word "kept" in "the angels which kept not (μὴ τηρήσαντας) their own principality....
He hath kept (τετήρηκεν) in
everlasting bonds;" the telling antithesis in ver. 10, that what these
sinners do not know, and cannot know, they abuse by gross irreverence;
and what they know, and cannot help knowing, they abuse by gross
licentiousness; and the metaphor of "wandering stars" (ver. 13), which
would fit the false teachers, who lead others astray, in 2 Peter,
much better than the ungodly men, who are not leaders at all, in Jude.
As the writer of 2 Peter makes no use of these points, the
inference is that he had never seen them.
But, on the other hand, there are certain elements in 2 Peter
of which St. Jude would probably have made use, had he seen them;
e.g. the destruction of "the world of the ungodly" by the
Flood; the "eyes full of an adulteress;" and the explanation of the
"great swelling words" as "promising them liberty," which would
exactly have suited St. Jude's purpose in condemning those who
turned liberty into license. As St. Jude makes no use of these
points, the inference is that he had not seen them.
(ii) St. Jude, as will be shown presently, groups nearly
everything in threes. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that
wherever he can make a threefold arrangement he does so. Is this
artificial grouping a mark of originality or not? Some would urge that
it is the writer who is using up another's material who would be
likely to add this fanciful arrangement, and that, therefore,
St. Jude is the borrower. Others would urge that such triplets
would be just the things to be overlooked or disregarded by the
borrower, and that, therefore, St. Jude is the original.
About the existence of the triplets in Jude, and their absence in
2 Peter, there can be no question, whatever view we may hold as
to their significance. They begin in the very first verse of our
Epistle, and continue to the last verse, although those at the close
of the letter are lost in the Authorized Version, owing to the fact
that the translators used a faulty Greek text. It will be worth while
to run through them. (1) Judas, a servant ... and brother. (2) To them
that are called, beloved, ... and kept. (3) Mercy unto you and peace
and love. (4) Ungodly men, turning, ... and denying. (5) Israelites,
angels, cities of the plain. (6) Defile, ... set at nought, ... and
rail. (7) Cain, Balaam, Korah. (8) These are.... These are.... These
are.... (9) They who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit.
(10) Building up yourselves, ... praying, ... looking for the mercy,
(11) On some have mercy; ... and some save; ... and on some have mercy
with fear. (12) Before all time, and now, and for evermore.
Before parting with this verse it will be well to put readers on
their guard against a misinterpretation of the phrase, "They who were
of old set forth unto this condemnation;" a misinterpretation all the
more likely to be made by those who use the Authorized Version, which
has, "Who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
The text is a favourite one with Calvinists; but when rightly
translated and understood, it gives no support to extreme
predestinarian theories. When literally rendered it runs, "Who have
been of old written down beforehand for this sentence;"
or possibly, "Who have been written up beforehand;" for the
metaphor may be borrowed from the custom of posting up the names of
those who had to appear
before the court for trial. Be this as it may, "of old" (πάλαι) cannot refer to the eternal counsel and
decree of Almighty God, but to something in human history, something
remote from St. Jude's own day, but in time, and not in eternity.
Perhaps some of the warnings and denunciations in the prophets of the
Old Testament or in the Book of Enoch are in his mind.
"Condemnation" is a justifiable rendering of the Greek word (κρίμα), because it is manifest from the context
that the sentence or judgment intended is one of condemnation, and not
of acquittal; but this word when coupled with "ordained" is likely to
be grievously misunderstood. "Ordained to condemnation" suggests with
fatal facility "predestined to damnation"—a doctrine which has
perhaps been a more fruitful cause of the rejection of Christianity
than all the doctrines included in the creeds.
Probably in all ages of the Church there have been men such as
St. Jude here describes—nominal members of the Church who
are nothing but a scandal to it, and professing Christians whose whole
life is one flagrant denial of Christ. Such persons certainly trouble
Christendom now. By their luxury and licentiousness they set an evil
example and create a pestilential moral atmosphere. They practise no
self-control, and sneer at self-denial in others. They reject all
Christian discipline, and mock at those who endeavour to maintain it.
And sometimes they are not at once recognized in their true character.
They are plausible and amusing, obviously not strict, but not
obviously scandalous in their manner of life. It is then that such men
become specially dangerous. Such may have been the case in the
Churches which St. Jude has in mind. Therefore he strips off all
this specious disguise, and describes
these profligate scoffers according to their true characters.
Moreover, we must remember that there were some, and perhaps many,
who, like Simon Magus (Acts viii. 13), accepted baptism without
any real appreciation of the meaning of Christianity, and who remained
either Jews or heathen at heart, long after they had enrolled
themselves as Christians. Where dangerous material of this kind
abounded, it was necessary to put the faithful on their guard about
the danger; and hence the strength and vehemence of St. Jude's
language. A sharp, clear statement of the evil was necessary to put
the weak and the unwary on their guard against a peril to which they
might easily succumb, before they were fully aware of its existence.
We all of us need such warnings still, not merely to form a truer
estimate of the nature and tendency of certain forms of evil, and thus
keep on our guard against courting needless temptation, but also to
preserve us from becoming in our own persons, through manifest
self-indulgence and carelessness of life, a snare and a
stumbling-block to our brethren.
Note.—On
the question as to which of the two Epistles is prior, the opinion of
scholars has been greatly divided; but a comparison of the following
lists will show that among more recent critics the decision is
commonly in favour of the priority of our Epistle:—
For the priority of 2 Peter: Bauer,
Beausobre, Benson, Bloomfield, Dahl, Dietlein, Dodwell, Estius,
Fronmüller, Hänlein, Hengstenberg, Heydenreich, Hofmann, Lange,
Lenfant, Lumby, Luthart, Luther, Mansel, Michaelis, Mill, Œcumenius,
Pott, Schaff, Schmid, Schoff, Schulze, Semler, Steinfass, Stier,
Stolz, Storr, Thiersch, Wetstein, Wolf, Wordsworth, Zachariæ, and
others.
For the priority of St. Jude: Alford,
Angus, Arnaud, Bleek, Brückner, Caffin, Credner, Davidson, De Wette,
Eichhorn, Ewald, F. W. Farrar, Guerike, Hatch, Herder, Hilgenfeld,
Hug, Huther, Kühl, Kurz, Mayerhoff, Neander, Plumptre, Reuss, Salmon,
Schenkel, Sieffert, Thorold, Weiss, Wiesinger, and others. Plumptre makes
the remarkable suggestion that St. Jude may have written
both letters. He first wrote his own Epistle, then was sent
with it to St. Peter by St. James, and finally acted as
St. Peter's amanuensis in writing 2 Peter (Cambridge
Bible for Schools, Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude,
1879, pp. 79, 80, 88, 89).
On this point also Dr. Döllinger changed his mind
(see p. 31). In The First Age of the Church (pp. 93, 108, Eng.
Tr., 2nd ed.) he maintained the priority of 2 Peter. June 22nd,
1879, he wrote to me, "Its priority to the Epistle of Jude I
cannot believe" (kann ich gar nicht glauben).
CHAPTER XXXIII.
DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION.
THREE PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN.
"Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things
once for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people out of the
land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not. And
angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper
habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities
about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to
fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an
example, suffering the punishment of eternal
fire."—St. Jude 5-7.
WITH these three verses the main portion of the
Epistle begins, the first three verses being introductory. These put
before us three instances of Divine vengeance upon those who were
guilty of grievous sin—the unbelieving Israelites in the
wilderness, the impure angels, and the inhabitants of the cities of
the plain; and in the three verses which follow (8-10) St. Jude
points out the similarity between the offences of these wicked persons
and the offences of the libertines who are provoking God to execute
similar vengeance upon them. It is quite possible that we have here
the explanation of the words, "Who were of old set forth unto this
condemnation" (ver. 4). The doom of these impious profligates has long
since been written in the doom of those who sinned in a similar
manner.
The Greek text of the opening verse exhibits a great
variety of readings, and one may suspect with Westcott and Hort that
there has been some primitive error, and that none of the existing
readings are correct. Of the points in which they differ from one
another three require notice:—
(1) In the words, "The Lord, having saved a people out of the land
of Egypt," the authorities vary between "the Lord" (with or without
the article), "God," and "Jesus." This last is far the best attested
(AB, the best cursives, the Vulgate, both Egyptian Versions, both
Ethiopic, the margin of the Armenian, and several Fathers); but the
internal evidence against it is immense. Nowhere else in Scripture is
Jesus said to be the Author of anything which took place before the
Incarnation. Had St. Jude written "Christ," we might have
compared "the rock was Christ" (1 Cor. x. 4). But the
general adoption of the reading "Jesus" shows how completely in
Christian thought and language the Man Jesus had become identified
with the Eternal Son. If "Lord" be correct (κύριος, without the article), it should be
understood as meaning Jehovah; and therefore "God," though not likely
to be right as the reading, is right as an interpretation. In the
Latin translation of the Hypotyposeis of Clement of Alexandria
we have these two readings combined, Dominus Deus, and the
Greek of Didymus has "Lord Jesus" combined. Possibly all three
readings are insertions, and should be omitted, the true text being
simply, "He who saved a people out of the land of Egypt" (ὁ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
σώσας).W. & H. point out
| that ΟΤΙΟ |
= |
ὅτι ὁ might easily be corrupted |
| into ΟΤΙΙC |
= |
ὅτι ἰησοῦς, |
| or into ΟΤΙΚC |
= |
ὅτι κύριος. |
(2) In the words, "Though ye know all things once for all," some
authorities, which were followed by the translators of 1611, have
"this" for "all things," while one authority makes "all" to be
masculine instead of neuter (πάντας for
πάντα). This last may be correct,
for the final letter of the masculine might easily be lost (especially
in front of ὅτι); and in that case the
meaning would be, "though ye all know it," i.e., "know what I
am going to point out." There is a similar confusion of reading in
1 John ii. 20, where for "Ye know all things" (οἴδατε πάντα) we should perhaps read, "Ye
all know" (οἴδατε πάντες). But here
the masculine has too little support to be adopted.
(3) The Sinaitic MS. transposes the "once" or "once for all" (ἅπαξ) from "know" to "saved," and makes it answer
to the "afterwards," or "the second time" (τὸ δεύτερον) which follows. In this it is supported
by the Armenian Version and a single cursive of the fourteenth century.The Latin translation of Clement of Alexandria has the same
reading: "Quoniam Dominus Deus semel populum de terra Ægypti
liberans deinceps eos, qui non crediderunt, perdidit."
If it were adopted, the sentence would run thus: "Now I desire to put
you in remembrance, though ye know all things, how that the Lord,
having once saved a people out of the land of Egypt,
afterwards destroyed them that believed not." The
correspondence between "once" and "afterwards"—"having a
single time saved, ... the second time He
destroyed"—is at first sight attractive; but it is precisely
this superficial attractiveness which has caused the corruption of the
text. A recent writer pleads for its adoption, but his reasons are not
convincing.W. S. Wood, Problems in the N.T. (Rivingtons, 1890), pp. 161-164.
The
external evidence against the proposed transposition is enormous; and
there is no strong internal evidence against the best-attested text
(as there is against the reading "Jesus") to turn the scale. "Though
ye know all this once for all" makes excellent sense; and so
also does "He who saved a people out of Egypt, the second time
(viz. in the wilderness) destroyed them that believed not."
This collection of various readings, out of which it is impossible
to select the true text with anything like certainty, is worth
remembering in considering the theory of verbal inspiration. If
every word that St. Jude wrote was supernaturally dictated, why
has not every word been supernaturally preserved? It is manifest that
God has not, either miraculously or in any other way, secured that the
exact words written by St. Jude should come down to us without
alteration. The alterations are so ancient, so widely diffused, and so
numerous, that we are unable to decide what St. Jude's exact
words were. We are not even certain that among the numerous variations
we have got his exact words. This is not a common case. The usual
problem, when various readings occur, is to select the right reading
out of several that have been handed down to us, there being no reason
to doubt that one of them is the original reading of the autograph.
But there are a few passages, and this is one of them, where one may
reasonably doubt whether the original reading has not been altogether
lost (Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32 [comp. Heb. xi. 4];
xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. xv. 32; 1 Cor.
xii. 2; Col. ii. 18, 23; Heb. iv. 2; x. 1;
1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Tim. i. 13; 2 Peter
iii. 10, 12; Jude 22, 23). This result might easily be
produced through an error in the earliest copies made from the original
document, or through a slip made by the amanuensis who wrote the
original document. There are minds to which this supposition is very
repugnant; and there are writers who assure us that in Biblical
criticism "conjectural emendation must never be resorted to,
even in passages of acknowledged difficulty," or that "conjectural
criticism is entirely banished from the field." But if the whole of an
Apostolic Epistle may have been lost (1 Cor. v. 9;
3 John 9), why may not a word or two of an extant Epistle have
been lost? And is it quite natural that there should sometimes be a
doubt as to which of several existing readings is the original,
and yet quite inconceivable that there should ever be a doubt as to
whether any of them is original? In either case we are left in
uncertainty as to the precise words which are inspired; and we are
thus confronted with the perplexing result that the Almighty has
specially guided a writer to use certain words and phrases, to the
exclusion of all others, and yet from very early times has, in not a
few cases, allowed Christians to be in doubt as to what these exact
words and phrases are. Have we any right to assume that there was this
special Divine care to produce a particular wording, when it is quite
manifest that there has not been special Divine care to preserve a
particular wording?
The theory of verbal inspiration imports unnecessary and
insuperable difficulties into the already sufficiently difficult
problem as to the properties of inspired writings. It maintains that
"the line can never rationally be drawn between the thoughts and words
of Scripture;" which means that the only inspired Word of God is the
original Hebrew and Greek wording which was used by the authors of the different
books in the Bible. Consequently all who cannot read these are cut off
from the inspired Word; for the inspired thoughts are, according to
this theory, inseparably bound up with the original form of words. But
if it is the thought, and not the wording, that is inspired, then the
inspired thought may be as adequately expressed in English or German
as in Hebrew or Greek. It is the inspired thought, no matter in what
language expressed, which comes home to the hearts and consciences of
men, and convinces them that what is thus brought to them by a human
instrument is indeed in its origin and in its power Divine. "Never
man thus spake" was said, not of the choice language that was
used, but of the meaning which the language conveyed.
In the passage before us there are several points which call for
attention, most of which are independent of the differences of
reading.
It may be doubted whether the participle (εἰδότας) is rightly rendered "though ye
know all things once for all." It makes good, and perhaps better sense
to understand it in the equally possible signification of
"because ye know all things once for all." Their being already
in full possession of a knowledge of Old Testament history is the
reason why St. Jude need do no more than remind them of one or
two particulars which throw a terrible light upon the position of
those whose conduct is being discussed. That "once" here does not mean
"formerly," as the Authorized Version takes it, "though ye once
knew this," is manifest to every one who knows the meaning of the
participle and adverb here used (εἰδότας
ἅπαξ). Nor is there much doubt that both here and in ver. 3 it
does mean "once for all." This Greek adverb, like its Latin equivalent
semel, is sometimes "used of what is so done as to be of
perpetual validity and never need repetition." It is twice so used in
the Epistle to the Hebrews: "For as touching those who were
once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift" (vi. 4);
i.e. once for all enlightened, so that no second enlightenment
is possible. And again, "Because the worshippers, having been
once cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins"
(x. 2). So also in 1 Peter: "Because Christ also died for
sins once" (iii. 18). The meaning is similar in both the
passages here (vv. 3 and 5). The Gospel was once for all
delivered by the Apostles to the Church; for there can be no second
Gospel. And this Gospel Christians receive and know once for all.
Doubt has been raised as to the event or events to which
St. Jude refers in the words "afterward destroyed them that
believed not." Hofmann, Schott, and others, adopting the best-attested
reading, "Jesus, having saved a people out of the land of
Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not," interpret the
latter clause of the destruction of Jerusalem or of the overthrow of
the Jewish nation. It is felt that this makes a very unnatural
contrast with the deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh by the hand of
Moses, and therefore "saved a people out of the land of Egypt" has to
be interpreted to mean "the redemption from the bondage-house of the
Law and of sin wrought in Israel and for Israel by Christ's act of
salvation" (Schott, Erlangen, 1863, p. 225). This is very forced and
improbable. Let us hold by Hooker's "most infallible rule in
expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction
will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst"(Eccl.
Pol. V. lix. 2). The literal construction of "saved a people
out of the land of Egypt" will certainly stand here, and the words
must be understood of the passage of the Red Sea and all that
accompanied that event. This is the clause of which the meaning is
plain, and it must be the interpreter of the clause of which the
meaning is less plain: to work backwards from the latter is singularly
unreasonable. The "saving" being understood of the deliverance of the
Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, the "destroying" is most
naturally understood of the overthrow of these same Israelites in the
wilderness; not of any one catastrophe, such as followed the matter of
Korah (Num. xvi. 49) or of Baal-peor (xxv.), but of the gradual
destruction, during the forty years of wandering, of the rebellious
and unbelieving, "whose carcases fell in the wilderness. And to whom
sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that
were disobedient? And we see that they were not able to enter in
because of unbelief" (Heb. iii. 17-19). It is quite
unnecessary to add to this, with Fronmüller, the Babylonish captivity,
as if "afterward" or "the second time" (τὸ
δεύτερον) referred to two destructions. It refers to two
Divine acts—one of mercy, and a second of judgment.
"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their
proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds." This is
St. Jude's second instance of God's vengeance upon gross sin, and
this and the next are common to both Epistles. For the destruction of
the unbelieving Israelites 2 Peter has the Deluge. The Revised
Version has several improvements here. It substitutes "principality"
for "first estate," in harmony with other passages, where the same
word occurs (Rom. viii. 38; Eph. iii. 10; vi. 12; Col.
i. 16; ii. 10, 15), and inserts "own"—"their
own principality"
(τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν); thereby
marking the difference between "own" and "proper"—"their
proper habitation" (τὸ ἴδιον
οἰκητήριον). Above all, it preserves St. Jude's irony in
the double use of the word "kept" (τηρεῖν): "angels which kept not their own
principality.... He hath kept in everlasting bonds;" which is
destroyed in the Authorized Version by the substitution of "reserved"
for the second "kept." The alteration of "chains" into "bonds" is of
less moment; but it is worth while marking the difference between two
Greek words (ἅλυσις and δεσμός), both of which are frequent in the New
Testament, and of which the former is always used in a literal sense
(Mark v. 3, 4; Luke viii. 29; Acts xii. 6, 7; etc.),
and the other sometimes literally (Luke viii. 29; Acts
xvi. 26; xxiii. 29; etc.), and sometimes metaphorically
(Mark vii. 35; Luke xiii. 16; Philem. 13). It is the
latter which is used here.
It may be regarded as certain that this passage does not refer to
the original rebellion of the angels, and their fall from being
heavenly powers to being spirits of evil and of darkness. Nor is it a
direct reference to the Rabbinic interpretation of "the sons of
God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them
wives of all that they chose" (Gen. vi. 2, where the best texts
of the Septuagint have "angels of God" for "sons of God"). Much more
probably it is a reference to a topic which is very prominent in the
Book of Enoch, which, however, in this particular is based upon
the common interpretation of the passage in Genesis. A discussion of
this most interesting and perplexing writing is reserved for a later
chapter. At present it suffices to say that the work is a composite
one, written at different times and by different authors,
and that the allusions to it here, and the quotation from it in
vv. 14 and 15, are from the first portion of the Book of
Enoch (chapters i.-xxxvi.), which, together with the last portion
(chapters lxxii.-cv.), may safely be considered as the original
writing, and undoubtedly pre-Christian. Whether any of the book was
composed in the Christian era is doubtful, and that any of it was
written by a Christian is very doubtful indeed. Hofmann, Philippi, and
Weisse have not succeeded in persuading many people that the whole
work is of Christian origin. The portion of which St. Jude makes
use may, with a good deal of probability, be assigned to the latter
part of the second century before Christ. A sketch of the section
respecting the sin of the angels will throw much light on the passage
before us. A portion of it had long been known through two
considerable extracts, which the Byzantine writer Georgius Syncellus
(c. A.D. 800) makes from it in his
Chronographia (pp. 20-23 and 40-42, Dindorf's ed., Bonn, 1829).
The quotation in our Epistle and those made by Syncellus constituted
all that was known of the Book of Enoch in Europe until 1773,
when the English traveller Bruce brought home three MSS. of an
Ethiopic version of the whole which was still extant in the Abyssinian
Church.
The section about the sin of the angels and their punishment
(vii.-xxxvi.) begins very abruptly after a short introduction
(i.-vi.), in which Enoch blesses the righteous, and states that he
received a revelation from the angels in heaven. "And it came to pass,
when the sons of men had multiplied, that daughters were born to them,
very beautiful. And the angels, the sons of heaven, desired them, and
were led astray after them, and said to one another, Let us choose
for ourselves wives of the daughters of the men of the earth." Two
hundred of them then made a conspiracy, and went down to the earth,
and begat an offspring of giants. They imparted a knowledge of sorcery
and many baneful arts; and the corruption thus diffused, and the
voracity and violence of their offspring, produced the evils which
preceded the Deluge. Then the sinful angels are sentenced by the
Almighty, and Enoch is commissioned to make the sentence known to
them. "Then the Lord said to me, Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go
tell the watchers of heaven, who have deserted the lofty sky, and
their holy everlasting station, who have been polluted with women,
... that on earth they shall never obtain peace and remission of sin."
The fallen angels persuade Enoch to intercede for them; but his
intercession is not heard, and he is told to repeat the sentence which
has been pronounced upon them. The following particulars of their
punishment are of interest. Azâzêl (comp. Lev. xvi. 26, R.V.),
one of the ringleaders, is to be bound hand and foot, thrown
into a pit in the wilderness, and covered with darkness; there
he is to remain, with his face covered, till the great day of
judgment, when he is to be cast into the fire. The others, after
they have seen their offspring kill one another in mutual slaughter,
are to be bound for seventy generations underneath the earth, till
the day of their judgment, when they shall be thrown into the
lowest depths of the fire, and be shut up for ever
(x. 6-9, 15, 16). "Judgment has been passed upon you: your prayer
shall not be granted you. From henceforth never shall you ascend to
heaven. He hath said that on the earth He will bind you, as long as
the world endures" (xiv. 2). And Enoch is afterwards shown
their punishment in a vision. "These are those of
the stars which have transgressed the commandment of the most high
God, and are here bound, until the infinite number of the days of
their crimes be completed.... Why art thou alarmed and amazed at
this terrific place, at the sight of this place of suffering? This is
the prison of the angels; and here are they kept for ever"
(xxi. 3, 6).
It is specially worthy of remark that it is in these older portions
of the Book of Enoch that we meet for the first time in Jewish
literature with the distinct conception of a general judgment. The
idea is very frequent, and is expressed in a great variety of ways.
Thus, what St. Jude calls "the Judgment of the Great Day" (κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας), a phrase
which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, is called in the
Book of Enoch "the Great Day of Judgment" (x. 9), "the Day
of the Great Judgment" (xciii. 8; xcvii. 15; civ. 3),
"the Day of the Great Trouble" (xcix. 5), "the Great Day"
(xvi. 2); "the Great Judgment" (xxii. 5), "the General
Judgment" (xxii. 9).Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (T. and T. Clark,
1886), pp. 139, 140. He seems, however, to be mistaken in saying
that "the Judge is not the Messiah," but Jehovah. As in Scripture,
both are represented as judging. "Then the Lord of the spirits made
to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect One, who shall judge all
the works of the holy.... And when He shall lift up His countenance
to judge their secret way in the word of the Name of the Lord
of spirits," etc. (lx. 10-11. Comp. John v. 22).
St. Jude of course need not have derived this idea from the
Book of Enoch; but the fact that it is so very frequent there,
especially in connexion with the sin of the impure angels, may have
influenced him in writing the passage before us. At any rate all these
numerous details will not leave us in much doubt as to the origin of
St. Jude's statement, "angels which
kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he
hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the
great day." It comes either directly from the Book of Enoch, or
from a source of which both the writer of the book and St. Jude
make use.
It was "in like manner with these" angels that the inhabitants of
Sodom and Gomorrah sinned, going astray after unlawful and unnatural
indulgences; and "in like manner with these" angels, they also "are
set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire."
The meaning is not quite clear, but apparently it is this, that the
sinful angels are in prison awaiting the day of judgment, when they
will be cast into the lake of fire; and that the destruction of the
cities of the plain by fire, and their perpetual submersion, are an
example of the eternal fire in which the angels will be submerged.
Perhaps there is also the idea that under the Dead Sea volcanic fires
are burning. It is quite possible to take "of eternal fire" after
"example" instead of after "punishment;" and this rendering makes the
statement more in accordance with the actual facts: "are set forth as
an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment." But the two last
words come in rather awkwardly at the end of the sentence, and most
commentators decide against this construction (comp. 3 Macc.
ii. 5).
The three cases exhibit, not a climax, but great diversity, as
regards persons, sin, and punishment. We have both Jews and Gentiles,
and between them beings superior to both. The Israelites by unbelief
rejected their promised home, and perished slowly in the wilderness.
The angels left their proper home, sinned grossly, and are in
banishment and in prison,
awaiting still worse punishment. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah sinned
grossly in their home, and both they and it were suddenly, horribly,
and irrevocably destroyed. This great diversity gives point to the
moral. No matter who may be the sinners, or what the circumstances of
the sin, outrageous offences, such as impurity and rebellion, are
certain of Divine chastisement.
If fallen angels are evil spirits actively compassing the ruin of
souls, how can fallen angels be "kept in everlasting bonds unto the
judgment of the great day"? More than one answer might be given to
this question, but the reserve of Scripture on the subject seems to
warn us from unprofitable speculation. Even without Scripture the
reality of spiritual powers of evil may be inferred from their
effects. Scripture seems to tell us that some of these powers are
personal, and some not, that some are more free than others, and that
all shall be defeated at last. That is enough for our comfort,
warning, and assurance. It consoles us to know that much of the evil
within us is no part of ourselves, but comes from without. It makes us
wary to know that such powers are contending against us. It gives us
confidence to know that even Satan and his hosts can be overcome by
those who resist steadfast in the faith.On the fall of the angels see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. I. iv. 3,
and V. Appendix i. 28. For a modern and poetical rendering of
what is stated in Gen. vi. 1, 2, see Byron, Heaven and Earth:
a Mystery.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
RAILING AT DIGNITIES. "THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES."
ST. JUDE'S USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE.
"Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh,
and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities. But Michael the
archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body
of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment,Dr. Field, in his most valuable Otium Novicense (iii., pp. 154,
155), argues strongly in favour of translating κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας, "bring
against him an accusation of blasphemy;" and he quotes various
passages to show that κρίσιν
ἐπιφέρειν may mean "to bring an accusation against." But none
of them have a genitive after the κρίσιν,
and the question still remains whether the genitive is descriptive and
may be treated as an adjective, or expresses the subject-matter of the
κρίσις. That the former is right seems to
be shown by the context (βλασφημῦσιν
in vv. 8 and 10); the libertines do to higher beings what an
archangel did not dare to do to Satan; and also by the parallel in
2 Peter ii. 11 (βλασφημον
κρίσιν). And on what grounds would Michael not dare to charge
Satan with blasphemy? That he did not dare to rail at him is
intelligible.
but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these rail at whatsoever things they
know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures
without reason, in these things are they destroyed. Woe unto them!
for they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of
Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah."—
St. Jude 8-12.
ST. JUDE having given three terrible examples
of the punishment of gross sin in Jews, Gentiles, and angels, proceeds
to apply these instances to the libertines who in his own day, by
their scandalous conduct
as Christians, were provoking God to punish them in like manner; and
the threefold description of their conduct here given seems to refer
to the three instances just given, which are now taken in reverse
order. Like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, these ungodly libertines
"defile the flesh;" like the "angels which kept not their own
principality," they "set at nought dominion;" and like the unbelieving
and rebellious Israelites in the wilderness, they "rail at dignities."
In all three particulars they show themselves as "dreamers" (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι). They are like men who
say and do monstrous things in their sleep. They are deadened to all
sense of decency and duty, "dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber"
(Isa. lvi. 10, where the same word that we have here is used in
the LXX.). They are sunk in the torpor of sin (Rom. xiii. 11).
The Revisers have done rightly in omitting the epithet "filthy," in
adding the word "also," and in substituting "in their dreamings" for
"dreamers." The participle represented by "in their dreamings" does
not belong to "defile the flesh" exclusively, but to the other two
clauses as well; so that "filthy" is not even correct as an
interpretation: it is quite unjustifiable as a rendering. There is no
reason for suspecting that certain Levitical pollutions are indicated.
Seeing that "in their dreamings" they "set at nought dominion, and
rail at dignities," dreaming must not be understood of actual sleep.
Moreover, St. Jude does not say "defile their flesh," but
"defile the flesh" (σάρκα
μιαίνουσι), which includes more than their own bodies. He
perhaps means that they pollute human nature, or even the whole animal
world.
Like the men of Sodom, these profligates "defile the
flesh." Like the angels who sold their birthright for
base indulgences, they "set at nought dominion." But it is by no means
easy to determine what this "dominion" or "lordship" (κυριότητα) signifies. Calvin and others
interpret this and "dignities" or "glories" (δόξας) of the civil power: "There is a contrast
to be noticed, when he says that they defiled or polluted the flesh,
that is, that they degraded what was less excellent, and that yet they
despised as disgraceful what is deemed especially excellent among
mankind. It appears from the second clause that they were seditious
men, who sought anarchy, that, being loosed from the fear of the laws,
they might sin more freely. But these two things are nearly always
connected, that they who abandon themselves to iniquity do also wish
to abolish all order. Though, indeed, their chief object is to be free
from every yoke, it yet appears from the words of Jude that they were
wont to speak insolently and reproachfully of magistrates, like the
fanatics of the present day, who not only grumble because they are
restrained by the authority of magistrates, but furiously declaim
against all government, and say that the power of the sword is profane
and opposed to godliness; in short, they superciliously reject from
the Church of God all kings and all magistrates. 'Dignities,' or
'glories,' are orders or ranks eminent in power or honour" (Calvin's
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Eng. Tr., Edinburgh,
1855, p. 438). But if earthly rulers of any kind are meant by
"dominion" and "dignities," it is more probable that St. Jude is
thinking of ecclesiastical officers; in which case the meaning would
be that these libertines set Church discipline at defiance, and
reviled the presbyters or bishops who rebuked them for their evil
conduct.
It is, however, more probable that at least "dominion," if not
"dignities," refers to unseen and supernatural powers. We must look
backwards to ver. 4, and forwards to ver. 10, for a key to the
interpretation. These profligates "turn the grace of God into
lasciviousness," and thus "defile the flesh;" and they "deny our only
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," and thus "set at nought lordship."
Again, "what they understand naturally, like the creatures without
reason, in these things are they destroyed," i.e. they ruin
themselves, body and soul, by their carnal indulgences; while "they
rail at whatsoever things they know not," i.e. they speak with
flippant irreverence respecting the invisible world, reviling angels,
and perhaps mocking at Satan. We may, therefore, with some hesitation,
but with a fair amount of reason, interpret "dominion," or "lordship,"
of Christ or of God, and "dignities," or "glories," of angels,
remembering that either or both of these may include Christ's
ministers and messengers on earth. One of the ways in which these
ungodly men denied Christ in their lives was by their contemptuous
disregard of the teaching of His Apostles.The variety of interpretation as regards these two expressions is
remarkable. Some, as Beza, Calvin, Erasmus, and Grotius, interpret
both "dominion" and "dignities" of civil magistrates; others, as
Hammond, include ecclesiastical rulers; others, as Lumby, interpret
both of Apostles and elders, and through them Christ; others, as
Ritsch, apply "dominion" to God or Christ, and "dignities" to good
angels. Wiesinger and Huther apply "dominion" to God or Christ,
and "dignities" to bad angels. Alford, Bengel, Brückner, and De
Wette explain both of good angels; while Schott apparently explains
both of bad angels. Œcumenius is not quite alone in suggesting that
"dignities" may mean the Old and New Testament; Plumptre would
make the word include both good and bad angels.
It is quite possible that in this particular also St. Jude
is under the influence of the Book of Enoch. In it we
read, "Ye fulfil not the commandments of the Lord; but ye transgress
and calumniate greatness" (vi. 4); and again, "All who
utter with their mouths unbecoming language against God, and
speak harsh things of His glory, here they shall be collected"
(xxvi. 2); and again, "My eyes beheld all the sinners, who
denied the Lord of glory" (xli. 1). And with this last
expression should be compared, "The splendour of the Godhead
shall illuminate them" (i. 8). But of course it does not follow
that because St. Jude partly reproduces the language of this
writer, therefore he uses it with precisely the same meaning.
"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he
disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a
railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." The meaning of this
illustration is obvious. The profane libertines allow themselves to
speak of "dignities" in a way which even an archangel did not venture
to adopt in rebuking Satan. It is a very strong argument à
fortiori. Consequently, the fact that it was an evil angel against
whom Michael did not dare to rail by no means proves that it was evil
angels against which the libertines did dare to rail. Rather the
contrary may be inferred. They use language of good angels which
Michael would not use of a bad one. That "dignities," or "glories,"
may include the fallen angels or evil spirits is perhaps possible;
that it refers to them exclusively is very improbable. The word itself
is against this; for "glories" is certainly a strange name to give to
devils.
But a more interesting question lies before us as to the source
from which St. Jude derived the story about Michael the archangel
contending with the devil about the body of Moses. It is as
unreasonable to suppose
that he received a special revelation on the subject as to suppose
that St. Paul received a special revelation respecting the names
of the Egyptian magicians (see on 2 Tim. iii. 8 in this
series, Pastoral Epistles, pp. 379-83). St. Jude refers to
the incident as something quite familiar to his readers; and this
could hardly have been the case if it had been specially revealed to
himself. Lardner supposes that the reference is to Zech. ii. 1,
2. But, excepting that the words, "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan,"
occur there, the difference between the two incidents is immense.
Neither Michael nor the body of Moses is mentioned in Zechariah. The
cause of Satan's hostility is the consecration of Joshua the high
priest. And it is the Lord, and not the angel, who rebukes the evil
one. These differences are conclusive; they leave just the features
which need explanation still unexplained. We may safely decide that
St. Jude is not alluding to anything contained in the Bible. More
probably he is referring to some well-known Jewish story respecting
the death and burial of Moses—in other words, to apocryphal
literature.
"So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab,
according to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in the valley in
the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his
sepulchre unto this day" (Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6). These words excited
the curiosity of the Jews; and as history told them nothing beyond the
statement in Deuteronomy, they fell back upon imagination as a
substitute, and the mysterious words of Scripture became a centre
round which a series of legends in process of time clustered. The
Targum of Jonathan on the passage says that the grave of Moses
was entrusted to the care of Michael the archangel. The Midrash
on the same states that
Sammael, chief of the evil spirits, was impatient for the death of
Moses. "And he said, When will the longed-for moment come when Michael
shall weep and I shall laugh? And at last the time came when Michael
came to Sammael and said: Ah! cursed one! shall I weep while thou
laughest? and he made answer in the words of Micah (vii. 8),
Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when
I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me." The
Midrash also contains another legend, in which the sin of the
impure angels is mentioned in connexion with the death of Moses. The
soul of Moses prays that it may not be taken from the body: "Lord of
the world, the angels Asa and Asael lusted after daughters of men; but
Moses, from the day that Thou appearedst unto him in the bush, led a
life of perpetual continence;" the plea being that from so pure a body
the soul need not depart. Both Gabriel and Michael shrink from
bringing the soul, and Sammael failed to obtain it. "And Moses prayed,
Lord of the world, give not my soul over to the angel of death. And
there came a voice from heaven, Fear not, Moses; I will provide for
thy burial. And Moses stood up and sanctified himself as do the
Seraphim, and the Most High came down from heaven, and the three chief
angels with Him. Michael prepared the bier, and Gabriel spread out the
winding-sheet.... And the Most High kissed him, and through that kiss
took his soul to Himself" (Plumptre in loco).
These legends bring us a little nearer to the illustration used by
St. Jude, for they bring Michael and the evil spirit into
connexion with what is related respecting the death and burial of
Moses. But the contest between Michael and Satan respecting the body
is not there. Origen tells us that this comes from an apocryphal book
called The Assumption or The Ascension (ἀνάληψις or ἀνάβασις) of Moses: "In Genesis the
serpent is described as having seduced Eve, regarding whom, in The
Assumption of Moses (a little treatise of which the Apostle Jude
makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing
with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent,
being inspired by the devil, was the cause of the transgression of
Adam and Eve" (De Princip. III. ii. sub init.). The book
was fairly well known in the early Church. Clement of Alexandria
quotes it (Strom. VI. xv. sub fin.); and in the Latin
translation of the Hypotyposeis his note on Jude 9 is
"Hic confirmat Assumptionem Moysis." Didymus of Alexandria says
the same as Origen about St. Jude's use of it, and censures those
who made this an objection to the Epistle of Jude (In Epist. Judæ
enarratio in Gallandi Biblioth. Patr. VI. 307). Evodius, Bishop of
Uzala, one of Augustine's early friends (Confess. IX.
viii. 17; xii. 31), in writing to him, speaks of it as the
Mysteries (Secreta) of Moses, and calls it a writing devoid of
authority (Aug. Ep. clviii. 6). It was known in the second
half of the fifth century to Gelasius of Cyzicus, and in the second
half of the eighth to Nicephorus of Constantinople, who, in his
Stichometria Sacrorum Librorum, tells us that it was about as
long as the Apocalypse of St. John. But from that time we hear no
more of it until 1861, when Ceriani published about a third of it from
a palimpsest in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Monumenta Sacra et
Prof. I. i., p. 55). This fragment contains the passage quoted by
Gelasius, but most tantalizingly comes to an end before the death of
Moses, so that we are still without the passage about the contest
between Michael and the devil respecting his body. Nevertheless, we
have no reason for doubting
the statements of Origen and of Didymus that the book contained this
incident, and that this is the source of the illustration used by
St. Jude. Such evidence as we have confirms the statements, and
there is no evidence on the other side. We know that there were
legends connecting Michael and the evil one with the death of Moses.
We know that The Assumption of Moses contained similar
material. Above all, we know that the incident mentioned by
St. Jude is not in the canonical Scriptures, and therefore must
have come from some apocryphal source, and that elsewhere in his
Epistle St. Jude makes use of apocryphal literature. We are not,
therefore, creating a difficulty by adopting the all but certain
conclusion that this apocryphal work is the source from which
St. Jude draws. Even if we reject this highly probable
conclusion, the difficulty, such as it is, will still remain.
That The Assumption of Moses was written before our Epistle
is almost universally admitted. Philippi is almost alone in thinking
that its author was a Christian, and that he borrowed from
St. Jude. Ewald, Dillmann, Drummond, Schürer, and Wiesler place
it between B.C. 4 (the year of the war of
Quintilius Varus, to which it almost certainly refers) and
A.D. 6. Hilgenfeld, Merx, Fritzsche, and Lucius
place it at different points between A.D. 44 and
70. But the earlier date is the more probable. The large fragment in
Latin which we now possess was evidently made from a Greek document,
and Hilgenfeld has attempted to restore the Greek from the Latin. But
this Greek document may itself have been a translation from the
Aramaic. In either case St. Jude would be able to read it.The Latin fragment has been several times published since Ceriani made
it known in 1861; by Hilgenfeld in 1866 and 1876; by Volkmar in 1867;
Schmidt and Merx in 1868; and by Fritzsche in 1871. A very full
summary of literature on the subject is given in Schürer, The
Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (T. and T. Clark, 1886),
Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 80-83. See also Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck
(Real-Encykl., vol. xii. pp. 352, 353).
That any true tradition on the subject should have been handed down
orally through fifteen centuries, "without leaving the slightest
trace in a single passage in the Old Testament," is utterly
improbable. This hypothesis, and the still more violent supposition of
a special revelation made to St. Jude, are devices prompted by a
reverent spirit, but thoroughly uncritical and untenable, to avoid the
unwelcome conclusion that an inspired writer has quoted legendary
material. Have we any right to assume that inspiration raises a writer
to the intellectual position of a critical historian, with power to
discriminate between legend and fact? St. Jude probably believed
the story about the dispute between Michael and Satan to be true; but
even if he knew it to be a myth, he might nevertheless readily use it
as an illustrative argument, seeing that it was so familiar to his
readers. If an inspired writer were living now, would it be quite
incredible that he should make use of Dante's Purgatory, or
Shakespeare's King Lear? Inspiration certainly does not
preserve those who possess it from imperfect grammar, and we cannot be
certain that it preserves them from other imperfections which have
nothing to do with the truth that saves souls. Besides which, it may
be merely our prejudices which lead us to regard the use of legendary
material as an imperfection. Let us reverently examine the features
which inspired writings actually present to us, not hastily determine
beforehand what properties they ought to possess. We not
unnaturally fancy that
when the Holy Spirit inspires a person to write for the spiritual
instruction of men throughout all ages, He also preserves him from
making mistakes as to the authenticity of writings of which he makes
use, or at least would preserve him from misleading others on such
points; but it does not follow that this natural expectation of ours
corresponds with the actual manner of the Spirit's working. "We follow
a very unsafe method if we begin by deciding in what way it seems to
us most fitting that God should guide His Church, and then try to
wrest facts into conformity with our preconceptions."Salmon, Introduction to the N.T., 4th ed., Murray (1889), p. 528.
CHAPTER XXXV.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN:
THE LIBERTINES AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.
THE BOOK OF ENOCH.
"These are they who are [hidden] rocks in your
Love-feasts when they feast with you, [shepherds] that without fear
feed themselves, clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn
trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; wild waves
of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom
the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever.
"But to these also Enoch, the seventh from
Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of
His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the
ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly
wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken
against Him."—St. Jude
12-15.
ST. JUDE leaves off comparing the libertines
with other sinners—Cain and the Sodomites, Balaam and the impure
angels, Korah and the unbelieving Israelites—and begins an
independent description of them. Nevertheless, there is reason for
believing that he has Cain, Balaam, and Korah in his mind in framing
this new account of them. The description falls into three parts, of
which this is the first. Each of the three parts begins in the same
way: "These are" (οὗτοί εἰσιν). And
each is balanced by something said on the other side, which is
introduced with a "But" (δέ). In the case
before us the "But" introduces a warning
given prophetically to these libertines by Enoch (vv. 14, 15). In the
second case St. Jude quotes a warning given prophetically to his
readers by the Apostles (vv. 17, 18). In the third he exhorts his
readers himself (vv. 20-23). This threefold division has been
rather generally ignored. It is quite obliterated in the Revised
Version by the division of the paragraphs, and also by the
substitution of an "And" for the first "But:" "And to these
also Enoch prophesied." The Vulgate is right with autem in all
three places, followed by Wiclif with "Forsothe" in all three places.
Luther is not only right in his rendering of the conjunction with
aber in all three places, but also in his division of the
paragraphs. But since Wiclif all English versions have obscured this
threefold description of the ungodly with the three corresponding
warnings or exhortations.Purvey has "But.... And.... But...." Tyndale, Coverdale, Crammer, and
the Genevan Version (following the reading of A) omit the conjunction
altogether in the first place. It is the Rhemish Version which first
introduces "And" into the first place; yet one might have expected
that it, being made direct from the Vulgate, would have been correct
in this particular.
"These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they
feast with you." The difference between this and the parallel passage
in 2 Peter is of special interest here; for it looks as if
whichever writer used the work of the other remembered the sound
rather than the sense. We have here ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ... σπιλάδες; but in 2 Peter
ii. 13 σπίλοι ... ἐν
ταῖς ἀπάταις (with ἀγάπαις as a
various reading, probably taken from this passage). It is possible
that there may be no difference of meaning between σπιλάδες and σπίλοι.
The former, which is St. Jude's word, almost invariably means
"rocks," but in an Orphic poem of the fourth century means "spots."
The latter, which
is used in 2 Peter ii. 13 and Eph. v. 27, generally
means "spots," but sometimes means "rocks." So that "spots" may be the
right rendering in both Epistles, and "rocks" may be right in both.
More probably, however, we should understand "spots" in 2 Peter,
and "rocks" here. The Revised Version inserts "hidden" as an
epithet—"hidden rocks in your love-feasts"—which is
hardly justifiable, because the word seems to mean reefs over which
the sea dashes, as distinct from rocks which are wholly covered (so in
the Anthologia Palatina, ii. 390; and in a fragment of
Sophocles the word has the epithet "lofty," ἐφ' ὑψηλαῖς σπιλάδεσσι, and "lofty hidden
rocks" would be almost a contradiction in terms). Moreover, "hidden"
does not seem to be right even as an interpretation; for these
profligates were not at all hidden; they were utterly notorious and
scandalous. They made no secret of their misconduct, but gloried in it
and defended it. Yet this fact does not make the name "rocks," or
"reefs," inappropriate. A reef may be a very dangerous thing, although
it is always visible. It may be impossible to avoid going near it; and
proximity to such things is always perilous. So also with these
ungodly men: St. Jude's readers could not wholly avoid them,
either in society or in the public services of the Church, but their
presence disturbed and polluted both. The whole purpose of the
love-feasts was wrecked by these men. Like Cain, they turned the
ordinances of religion into selfishness and sin.
We cannot doubt that when St. Jude wrote the eucharist was
still part of the agape or love-feast, as when St. Paul wrote to
the Corinthians (A.D. 57, 58). It was still "the
Lord's Supper" not merely in name, but in fact (1 Cor.
xi. 17-34; Acts xx. 7-11). It is
almost certain that when Ignatius wrote his Epistles (c.
A.D. 112) the eucharist was still united with the
love-feast. He writes to the Church of Smyrna, "It is not lawful
without the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast" (viii.).
This must refer to the two sacraments, the administration of which are
the chief functions of the priestly office. Ignatius cannot have meant
that a love-feast apart from the eucharist might not be held without
the bishop. When Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology (c.
A.D. 140) it is evident that the two had been
separated; his description of the eucharist (lxv.-lxvii.) implies that
no love-feast accompanied it (see Lightfoot, St. Ignatius and
St. Polycarp, I., pp. 52, 387; II., p. 312: Macmillan, 1885).
We may regard it, therefore, as certain that even if this Epistle be
placed late in the first century, St. Jude is here referring to a
state of things very similar to that which St. Paul rebukes in
the Church of Corinth; the love-feast accompanied by the eucharist was
profaned by the shameless indulgence of these libertines.
The love-feast symbolized the brotherhood of Christians. It was a
simple meal, in which all met as equals, and the rich supplied the
necessities of the poor. Anything like excess was peculiarly out of
place, and it was the duty of the rich to see that the poorer members
of the congregation were satisfied. But it would seem as if these
profligates (1) brought with them luxurious food, thus destroying the
Christian simplicity of the meal; and (2) brought this, not for the
benefit of all, but for their own private enjoyment, thus destroying
the idea of Christian brotherhood and equality. There is nothing in
the word used for "feasting with you" (συνευωχούμενοι) which necessarily
implies revelry or excess, but in this connexion
it implies censure. To turn the love-feast into a banquet was wrong,
however innocent a banquet might be in itself. We might translate the
word "when they feast together," instead of "when they feast
with you;" and this would imply that at the love-feast they
kept to themselves, and did not mix with their poorer brethren. This
makes good sense; but if this translation is adopted, we must beware
of interpreting it to mean that these libertines had become
schismatics, and had set up a love-feast of their own. They could not
be "rocks in your love-feasts" if they did not attend the
love-feasts.
There are two other uncertainties in these opening
clauses—one of construction, and one of translation. (1) Ought
we to take "without fear" with what precedes, or with what
follows—"when they feast with you without fear," or "that feed
themselves without fear"? As in ver. 7, with regard to "of eternal
fire," we are unable to decide with certainty. Both constructions make
excellent sense, and nothing can be urged as being strongly in favour
of either. English versions are divided. The Rhemish has "feasting
together without fear." Purvey, the Authorized, and the Revised take
"without fear" with "feeding themselves." Tyndale, Cranmer, and the
Genevan aim at being as ambiguous as the Greek; they place "with out
feare" between the two clauses with a comma on each side of it. (2)
Does "feeding themselves" mean that they fed themselves instead of
feeding the flock? (Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 8; Isa. lvi. 11). If
so, the Revisers give the right interpretation with "shepherds that
without fear feed themselves;" but this is interpretation rather than
translation. Or does it mean that they fed themselves, instead of
waiting to be fed by the shepherds? If so, it
is quite misleading to call them shepherds. As we have seen already
(p. 390), there is no reason for thinking that these profligates set
up as teachers or pastors. We shall be safer if we render the Greek
participle (ἑαυτοὺς
ποιμαίνοντες) by a participle: "pasturing themselves," or
"shepherding themselves." Lucifer, as Dr. Salmon points out, renders
it semetipsos regentes, which shows that he understood it in
the latter sense. Yet this second view does not imply anything
schismatical in their conduct, but merely that they were selfish and
disorderly. They kept their own good food, and consumed it among
themselves at the love-feast, instead of throwing it into the common
store, and allowing it to be distributed to all by the elders. With
full recognition of the fact that there is much to be said for other
views, the following rendering may be accepted as on the whole
preferable: "These are they who are rocks in your love-feasts,
feasting together without fear, pasturing their own selves."
In what follows St. Jude piles metaphor on metaphor and
epithet on epithet, in the effort to express his indignation and
abhorrence. But we cannot say that "no doubt also in the comparisons
which he employs he has an eye to the original intention of the
love-feast." It is somewhat forced to say that the love-feast "was to
have the blessing of the rain from heaven; it was meant to be a cause
of much fruit in the whole Christian community." But assuming that
"waterless clouds" and "fruitless trees" may be made to refer to the
love-feasts, what are we to make of "wild waves" and "wandering stars"
in that connexion? It is better to regard the subject of the
love-feasts as ended, and to take the similes which follow as quite
independent. These men are ostentatious, but they do
no good. It was perhaps expected that their admission to the Church
would be a great gain to Christendom; but they are as disappointing as
clouds that are carried past (παραφερόμεναι) by winds without giving
any rain; and in the East that is one of the most grievous among
common disappointments.
How the framers of the Authorized Version came to perpetrate such a
contradiction in terms as "trees whose fruit withereth, without
fruit," it is not easy to see. No earlier English version is guilty of
it; nor the Vulgate (arbores autumnales, infructuosæ); nor
Beza, with whom Calvin agrees (arbores emarcidæ, infrugiferæ);
nor Luther (kahle unfruchtbare Bäume). The Greek (δένδρα φθινοπωρινά) means
literally "autumn-withering trees;" i.e. just at the time when
fruit is expected they wither and are without fruit. The parable of
the barren fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9) is perhaps in
St. Jude's mind. The epithets form a natural
climax—withering in autumn, fruitless, twice dead, rooted up.
These profligates were twice dead, because they had returned after
baptism to the death of sin: the end of such men is that they shall be
rooted out at the last (Ps. xxx. 28; lii. 5; Prov.
ii. 22). When he calls them "wild waves of the sea, foaming out
their own shames," St. Jude is perhaps thinking of the words of
Isaiah: "The wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and
its waters cast up mire and dirt" (lvii. 20). But the wording of
the Septuagint is utterly different from that which we have here; it
is the thought that is similar.
What are we to understand by "wandering stars"? Not planets, nor
comets, neither of which either seem to wander while one looks
at them, or do wander, in St. Jude's sense, as a matter of
fact. Both have their
orbits, to which they keep with such regularity that their movements
can be accurately predicted; so that they are symbols rather of
Christian lives than of the course of the ungodly. Much more probably
St. Jude means "falling stars," or "shooting stars," which seem
to leave their place in the heavens, where they are beautiful and
useful, and to wander away into the darkness, to the confusion and
dismay of those who observe them. Thus understood, the simile forms a
natural transition to the prophecy of Enoch which follows.
St. Jude's thoughts have once more gone back to the fallen angels
in the Book of Enoch. Angels, like stars, have a path to keep,
and those who keep it not are punished. "I saw the winds which cause
the orb of the sun and of all the stars to set.... I saw the path of
the angels.... I perceived a place which had neither the firmament of
heaven above it, nor the solid ground underneath it; neither was there
water above it, nor anything on wing; but the spot was desolate. And
there I saw seven stars, like great blazing mountains, and like
spirits entreating me. Then the angel [Enoch's guide] said, This
place, until the consummation of heaven and earth, will be the prison
of the stars and the host of heaven. The stars which roll over fire
are those which transgressed the commandment of God" (xviii. 6,
7, 13-16). In another terrible place he sees stars bound together, and
is told that these are "the stars which have transgressed," and that
"this is the prison of the angels," in which "they are kept for ever"
(xxi. 2, 3, 5, 6). These extracts make it highly probable that
when St. Jude compares the ungodly to "wandering stars, for whom
the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever," he is thinking
once more of the "angels which left
their proper habitation," who are "kept in everlasting bonds under
darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (ver. 6). After this
return to the ideas contained in the Book of Enoch, the
quotation of the prophecy comes quite naturally; and all the more so
because, as Irenæus indicates, Enoch forms a splendid contrast to the
fallen angels: they lost their heavenly habitation by displeasing God,
whereas he was taken up to heaven for pleasing Him. His words show
that he was acquainted with the Book of Enoch, and accepted it
as trustworthy: "But Enoch also without circumcision, by pleasing God,
although he was a man, discharged the office of ambassador to angels,
and was translated, and is preserved even until now as a witness of
the just judgment of God: while angels by transgression fell to earth
for judgment; but a man by pleasing Him was translated for salvation"
(Hær. IV. xvi. 2). Having compared the profligates to the
stars, or angels, who fell from heaven to earth, St. Jude passes
on readily to quote the warning of one who was taken up from earth to
heaven.
And the way in which the prophecy is introduced makes us still more
clear as to the source from which St. Jude derived it: "Enoch,
the seventh from Adam, prophesied." Nowhere in the Old
Testament, and nowhere else in the New, is Enoch said to be "the
seventh from Adam." But he is called "the seventh" in the Book of
Enoch, where he is made to say, "I have been born the seventh in
the first week" (xcii. 4), although in order to make seven both
Adam and Enoch have to be counted (xxxvii. 1). The number seven
is possibly symbolical, indicating perfection. Thus Dr. Westcott takes
Enoch to be "a type of perfected humanity" (Dict. of the
Bible). Yet it is also possible that he is called
"the seventh" in the Book of Enoch, and consequently by
St. Jude, in order to mark the extreme antiquity of the prophecy,
or to distinguish him from other persons of the same name (Gen.
xxv. 4; xlvi. 9).
But a careful comparison of the passage in question, as quoted by
St. Jude, and as it stands in the translation of the Book of
Enoch, is the chief means of determining the source of the
quotation. This, however, cannot be made satisfactorily until we can
place the Greek, of which the Ethiopic version of the Book of
Enoch is a translation, side by side with St. Jude's
Greek.
| ENOCH. |
ST. JUDE. |
| Behold, He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones, to execute
judgment upon them, and to destroy the ungodly and reprove all the
carnal [or, and will destroy and convict the ungodly with all flesh],
for everything which the sinners and the ungodly have done and
committed against Him (chap. ii.). |
Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones to
execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of their
works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the
hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (vv. 14,
15). |
It will be observed that there is nothing in the Book of
Enoch to correspond with the saying about "the hard things which
sinners have spoken against God." This in itself is almost conclusive
against the hypothesis, which on other grounds is not very probable,
that some later writer copied the prophecy as given by St. Jude,
and inserted it into the Book of Enoch. If so, why did he not
copy it exactly? Why did he not only slightly vary the wording, but
omit a rather important clause? The passage is very short, and a
writer who was anxious to make St. Jude agree with the reputed
prophecy would be likely to make the agreement exact. On the other
hand, if St. Jude is quoting loosely from
memory, or from a Greek or Aramaic original, of which the text varied
somewhat from the Ethiopic translation which has come down to us,
everything is explained. He would be tenacious of the clause about
"hard things spoken against God," as a warning to those who "set at
nought dominion and rail at dignities." It is of course possible that
both the author of this book and St. Jude independently make use
of a traditional saying attributed to Enoch. But seeing that the work
was in existence when St. Jude wrote, was probably well known to
his readers, and contains most of the passage which he quotes; and
seeing that elsewhere in his Epistle he seems to refer to other parts
of the book, far the more reasonable view is that he quotes directly
from it. The case therefore is parallel to that of the reference to
The Assumption of Moses in ver. 9. St. Jude probably
believed the prophecy to be a genuine prophecy of Enoch, and the
writing in which it occurs to be a genuine revelation respecting the
visible and invisible world; but even if he knew its apocryphal
character, its appositeness to the subject of which he is so full
might easily lead him to quote it to persons who would be familiar
with it. We have no right to prejudge the question of fitness, and say
that inspiration would certainly preserve its instruments from
wittingly or unwittingly making use of a fictitious apocalypse. Our
business, as reverent and therefore honest students, is to ascertain
whether this writer does derive some of his material from the document
which, after the lapse of so many centuries, was given back to us
about a hundred and twenty years ago. If on critical grounds we find
ourselves compelled to believe that this document is the source from
which St. Jude draws, then let us beware of setting our own preconceptions
above the wisdom of God, who in this case, as in many more, has been
pleased to employ an unexpected instrument, and has made a human
fiction the means of proclaiming a Divine truth.
It remains to give some further account of the intensely
interesting writing which St. Jude appears to have used. The
Books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah gave to the Jews a love of
visions, revelations, and prophecies which at times was almost
insatiable; and, when the gift of prophecy came to an end, the three
centuries between Malachi and the Baptist, during which it seemed as
if Jehovah had departed from His people, and "answered no more,
neither by dreams nor by prophets," appeared dreary and intolerable.
What had been written by Moses and the Prophets did not satisfy. Fresh
revelations were desired; and the reality being absent, fiction
attempted to stop the gap. Such writings as the Book of Enoch,
Assumption of Moses, Testament of Moses, Eldad and
Modad, Apocalypse of Elijah, etc., etc., were the result.
This desire for prophecies and revelations passed over from Judaism
into the Christian Church, and was quickened rather than satisfied by
the Revelation of St. John. During the first two centuries of the
Christian era such literature continued to be produced by Jews and
Christians alike; and specimens of it still survive in the
Apocalypse of Baruch and the Fourth Book of Ezra on the
Jewish side, and the Shepherd of Hermas on the Christian; the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs being apparently a Jewish
original with Christian interpolations. But in most cases only the
titles survive, and where the revelation or prophecy is attributed to
an Old Testament character we are unable to decide whether the fiction
was of Jewish or of Christian origin.
It is strange that such a writing as the Book of Enoch should
have been allowed to disappear entirely from the West after the fourth
century, and from the East after the eighth. The quotations in the
Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus, some portions of which are
not found in the recovered Ethiopic Version, are the last traces that
we have of it until early in the seventeenth century, when it was
rumoured that it was extant in Abyssinia, and late in the eighteenth,
when it was found there. The revelations which it professes to make
respecting judgment, heaven, and hell might have been expected to make
it a special favourite with Christians from the fourth to the tenth
century, during which period one of the commonest topics of
speculation was the end of the world. Moreover, there was the passage
in Jude, with the notices in Barnabas, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, and others, to keep the book from being
forgotten. But it was generally believed that the end of the world
would be heralded by two great signs—the downfall of Rome, and
the coming of Antichrist. About these the Book of Enoch
contains no hint, and the absence of such material may have caused it
to pass out of knowledge. Englishmen have the honour of giving it back
to Europe. James Bruce brought the Ethiopic translation from Abyssinia
in 1773, and Archbishop Laurence published an English translation of
it in 1821, and an Ethiopic text in 1838. Since then the scholars who
have edited it or commented on it have been almost exclusively Germans.Hofmann, Gfrörer, Lützelberger, Lücke, Ewald, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld,
Weisse, Volkmar, Geiger, Langen, Sieffert, Philippi, Gebhardt,
Wieseler, and others, especially Hoffmann and Dillmann, who have
published complete translations with notes and explanations.
Dillmann's work (Leipzig, 1853) is still the standard work on the
subject, but is out of print. Schodde published an English translation
with notes at Andover, 1882; and the English reader will find much
information in the articles by Westcott in the Dict. of the
Bible and by Lipsius in the Dict. of Chr. Biography; also
in Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 73, 99-109, 7th
ed.; in Schürer's The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus
Christ, Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 54-73; in Stanton's The Jewish
and the Christian Messiah (T. and T. Clark, 1886), pp. 44-64,
88-95, 139, 140, 170-75, 311-15, 332-35, 347; and in Drummond's The
Jewish Messiah, 1877, pp. 17-73. Murray's Enoch Restitutus
(Rivington, 1836) does not seem to be of much value.
It is generally acknowledged that the book is a composite one.
Probably the original writer incorporated older materials, and his
work has probably been interpolated by later hands. Whether any of
these supposed interpolations are Christian is still debated; and the
question scarcely admits of a decided answer. On the one hand, there
are expressions which would come much more naturally from a Christian
than from a Jew; on the other, it is difficult to see why a Christian
should insert anything at all, if he did not insert what might teach
others Christian truth. Messianic passages abound; and in them the
Messiah is called, again and again, "the Son of man" and "the Elect
One;" twice He is called "the Anointed" (xlvii. 11; li. 4),
twice "the Righteous One" (xxxviii. 2; lii. 6; where
Laurence translates otherwise); once He is "the Son of the offspring
of the mother of the living," i.e. Son of the son of Eve
(lxi. 10); and once the Lord speaks of Him as "My Son"
(civ. 2). This Messiah is the Judge of men and angels, by the
appointment of Jehovah. "In those days will the earth give back that
which has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back that which
has been entrusted to it, which it has received, and destruction
(Abaddon) will give
back what it owes.... And in those days will the Elect One sit upon
His throne, and all secrets of wisdom will come forth from the
thoughts of His mouth; for the Lord of spirits hath given it to Him,
and hath glorified Him" (l. 1, 3). "Then the Lord of spirits made
to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect One, who will judge all
the works of the holy" (lx. 10, 11; lxviii. 39). But this
Messiah is not much more than a highly exalted angel. He is not the
Word; he is not God. That this Son of man has already lived upon the
earth is not indicated. Of the name Jesus, the Crucifixion, the
Resurrection, or the Ascension, there is not a trace. There is no hint
of baptism, or of the eucharist, or of the doctrine of the Trinity. In
a word, everything distinctly Christian is absent, even from that
section (xxxvii.-lxxi.) which makes the nearest approaches to
Christian language, and which is probably a later insertion. It is
difficult to see what object a Christian could have in writing just
this and no more. The fact that so many of the angels have Hebrew
names favours the view that the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, of
which the Greek, from which the Ethiopic version is taken, was only a
translation. If so, this also is in favour of Jewish, rather than of
Christian origin.
Those who can should read the whole book in Laurence's translation,
or still better in Dillmann's. But the more accurately translated
portions given in Westcott and in Stanton will give some idea of the
whole. The latter have been used in this chapter. The book is
manifestly the work of a man of the most earnest convictions, one who
believes in God, and fears Him, and is appalled at the practical
infidelity and utter godlessness which he finds around him. On two
things he is ever insisting: (1) that God's rule extends everywhere,
over angels and men, no less than over winds and stars; (2) that this
rule is a moral one, for He abundantly rewards righteousness, and
fearfully punishes sin. Nothing, therefore, could well be more in
harmony with the spirit and purpose of St. Jude, and it ought not
to perplex us that he makes use of such a book.
But in any case it may reassure us to remember that, in spite of
its being quoted in Scripture, the Church has never been
allowed to admit it as Scripture. The mind of Christendom has
never wavered as to the real character of the Book of Enoch. It
is one of the many eccentricities of Tertullian that he upholds its
authority; but his special pleading has misled no one else (De
Cultu Fem. I. iii.). Justin Martyr apparently knew it
(Apol. II. v.), but there is nothing to show that he accepted
it as a genuine revelation. Origen (Contra Cels. V. liv.: comp.
In Numer. Homil. xxviii. 2; In Joannem, tom. vi.,
cap. xxv.: De la Rue, ii. 384; iv. 142) distinctly marks it
as uncanonical and of doubtful value; Augustine (De Civ. Dei,
XV. xxiii. 4) and Jerome (De Vir. Illustr. iv.) reject it
as apocryphal; and soon after their time it seems to have disappeared
from Western Christendom. As already stated, it is uncertain whether
St. Jude was mistaken as to the true nature of the book: it is
quite certain that the Church has been preserved from being so.
Note.—For
a collection of parallels between the Book of Enoch and
2 Peter and Jude see the New Testament Commentary for English
Readers, edited by Bishop Ellicott, vol. iii., pp. 518, 519
(Cassells, 1879).
CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM:
IMPIOUS DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.
THE APOSTOLIC WARNING RESPECTING THEM.
"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after
their lusts (and their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing
respect of persons for the sake of advantage.
"But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have
been spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that
they said to you, In the last time there shall be mockers, walking
after their own ungodly lusts."—St. Jude 16-18.
THESE words form the second part of the threefold
description of the libertines; and just as the first part was balanced
by a prophetic warning quoted from the Book of Enoch, so this
part is balanced by a quotation of the prophetic warning given by the
Apostles, to the effect that persons like these ungodly men would
certainly arise. This second division more clearly corresponds to the
case of Balaam mentioned in ver. 11 than the first division of the
description corresponds to the case of Cain. This will appear when we
come to examine the details.
"These are murmurers." For the second time St. Jude points to
the intruders who are disturbing the Church, and shows his readers
another group of characteristics by which these dangerous persons, who
disgrace the name of Christian, may be known. This second group
hangs on closely to what immediately precedes. It seems to have been
suggested by the last words of the prophecy quoted from Enoch, "the
hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." The way in
which the libertines spoke hard things against God was by murmuring
against His decrees and complaining of the dispensations of His
Providence. This is the exact meaning of the word which is rendered
"complainers" (μεμψίμοιροι), and
which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; "finding fault with
their lot," i.e. discontented with the condition of life which
God had assigned to them, and not only blaming Him for this, but for
the moral restrictions which He had imposed upon them and upon all
mankind. Men who "walk after their lusts," and shape their course in
accordance with these (κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι), cannot be
contented, for the means of gratifying the lusts are not always
present, and the lusts themselves are insatiable: even when
gratification is possible, it is only temporary; the unruly desires
are certain to revive and clamour once more for satisfaction. This was
notably the case with Balaam, whose grasping cupidity chafed against
the restraints which prevented it from being gratified. As Bishop
Butler says of him, "He wanted to do what he knew to be very wicked,
and contrary to the express command of God; he had inward checks and
restraints, which he could not entirely get over; he therefore casts
about for ways to reconcile this wickedness with his duty,"
(Sermon vii.). From a somewhat different point of view J. H.
Newman says much the same thing of him: Balaam "would have given the
world to have got rid of his duties; and the question was, how to do
so without violence" (Plain Sermons, Rivingtons, 1868, vol.
iv., p. 28). Isaac Williams, who has a sermon on the same subject,
puts the matter in yet another way. Balaam "knew what was holy and
good, and it may be that he loved it also, but he loved riches more:
his knowledge was with God; his will was with Satan.... He wished to
proceed together with God and Mammon—God on his lips, and Mammon
in his heart" (The Characters of the Old Testament, Rivingtons,
1869, pp. 128, 130). The way in which the libertines seem to have set
about the impossible task of getting rid of their duties and
reconciling the service of God with the service of Satan appears to
have been that of roundly declaring that Christian liberty included
freedom to gratify one's desires: if it did not do so, it was an empty
delusion. In this way they "turned the grace of God into
lasciviousness" (ver. 4), and "their mouth spoke great swelling
words." In the parallel passage in 2 Peter an explanation of this
kind is given of the "great swelling words." By means of them these
evil men "enticed others in the lusts of the flesh by lasciviousness,
... promising them liberty" (2 Peter ii. 18, 19).
According to them, it was the magnificent privilege of Christians to
be freed from righteousness and become the slaves of sin. Irenæus
attributes doctrine of this kind to Simon Magus and his followers,
who, "as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through
His grace, and not through their own righteous acts. For righteous
actions are not such in the nature of things, but accidentally"
(Hær. I. xxiii. 3).
"Showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage." This,
again, is exactly what Balaam did. He had regard to Balak and the
princes whom he sent as ambassadors; and he did this because he hoped to
gain the large reward which they were told to promise him if he would
but exercise his prophetic power in solemnly cursing Israel. In like
manner these blatant profligates, who were loud in their complaints
against the treatment which they received from Providence, and equally
loud in protesting that the Gospel allowed them and others the licence
which they desired, nevertheless became mean flatterers and parasites
when there was any chance of getting anything from persons of wealth
and distinction. This apparently incongruous combination of arrogant
self-assertion with grovelling sycophancy is common enough in men
without principle, as Calvin remarks. "When there is no one to check
their insolence, or when there is nothing which stands in their way,
their pride is intolerable, so that they imperiously arrogate
everything to themselves; but they meanly flatter those whom they
fear, and from whom they expect some advantage." While they refuse
submission where it is due, they give it where it is not due. They
rebelliously reject the plain commands of God, and yet servilely
cringe to the humours and caprices of their fellow-men.
"But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken
before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Revisers have
done well to restore the "ye"—"But ye,
beloved"—which was in all English versions previous to that of
1611, just as in ver. 20. In both cases the pronoun is emphatic, and
places the persons addressed in marked contrast to the ungodly men
against whom they are being warned. "Whatever they may do, do not you
be deceived by their arrogant language and time-serving conduct, for
these are the scoffing sensualists against whom
you have already been warned beforehand by the Apostles. Their
behaviour is amazing, but it ought not to take you by surprise."
St. Jude evidently takes for granted that the Apostolic warning
which he quotes is well known to his readers. Such an appeal to the
authority of the Apostles would certainly be more natural in one who
was himself not an Apostle, but it must not be regarded as quite
decisive, as if St. Jude had written "how that they said to
us." Other reasons, however, support the impression which this
passage conveys, that the writer is not an Apostle (see pp. 372, 373).
On the other hand, there is nothing in these words to warrant the
conclusion that the writer regards the Apostles as persons who lived
long ago, or who gave this warning long ago. All that is implied is
that before these ungodly men "crept in privily" into the Church,
Apostles had foretold that such persons would arise. "In the last
time" is not St. Jude's expression, but theirs; and by it the
Apostles certainly did not mean an age remote from their own: the
"last time" had already begun when they wrote (see on 2 Tim.
iii. 1, 2, in The Pastoral Epistles, in this series, pp.
377, 378; and comp. 1 John ii. 18; Heb. i. 2;
1 Peter i. 20).
"How that they said to you" may mean "how that they used to
say to you" (ἔλεγον ὑμῖν), and may
refer to oral teaching; but we cannot be at all certain of this. Still
less can we be certain that, if written warnings are included or
specially meant, the reference is to 2 Peter iii. 3:
"knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with
mockery, walking after their own lusts." Both passages may have a
common source, or that in 2 Peter may be modelled upon this one.
The word for "mockers" is the same
in both (ἐμπαῖκται), and it is a very
unusual word, not used by profane writers, nor anywhere else in the
New Testament; in the Septuagint it occurs only once (Isa.
iii. 4), and there apparently in the sense of "childish persons."
The Authorized Version unfortunately obscures this close connexion
between the wording of 2 Peter iii. 3, and that of this
passage, by having "scoffers" in the one, and "mockers" in the other.
The particular in which the two passages really differ must not pass
without notice. St. Jude writes, "walking after their own
ungodly lusts," or, more literally, "their own lusts of
ungodlinesses" (τῶν ἀσεβειῶν).
Most probably the genitive here is descriptive, as in James i. 24
and ii. 4; and therefore the substitution of the adjective
"ungodly" for it in the English versions is justifiable. But it is
possible that "lusts of ungodlinesses" means that they lusted after
impieties, and therefore the rendering given in the margin of the
Revised Version should not be left unheeded. Wiclif, Purvey, and the
Rhemish here differ from other English versions, being made from later
texts of the Vulgate, which read, "secundum desideria sua
ambulantes in impietatibus or in impietate," whereas the
better text has impietatum. However we translate the genitive
case, we may regard the word as an echo of the prophecy quoted from
the Book of Enoch, in which "ungodly" or "ungodliness" occurs
with persistent iteration (ver. 15).
The fact that this expression (τῶν
ἀσεβειῶν) occurs here, but not in the parallel verse in
2 Peter, is an indication of a much more important difference
between the two passages. In spite of the great similarity of wording,
the meaning is very different. The mockers in each case mock at
totally different things. In 2 Peter
we are expressly told that they scoffed at the belief that Christ was
coming to judge the world. "What has become of the promise of His
coming? Everything goes on just as it has done for generations." There
is not a hint of any such notion here; on the contrary, it is implied
that these libertines mocked at God's dealings with themselves, and at
the belief that the Gospel did not give them full liberty to gratify
their sensual desires. They were among those of whom it is written
that "fools make a mock at sin" (Prov. xiv. 9). By scoffing at
things sacred, and ridiculing the notion that there is any harm in
licentiousness, or anything estimable in holiness, they created a
moral atmosphere in which men sinned with a light heart, because sin
was made to look as if it were a matter of no moment, a thing to be
indulged in without anxiety or remorse. It would be more reasonable
and less reprehensible to make a mock at carnage or pestilence, and
teach men to go with a light heart into a desolating war or
plague-stricken neighbourhood. In such cases experience of the
manifest horrors would soon cure the light-heartedness. But the
horrible nature of sin is not so manifest, and with regard to
that experience teaches its lesson more slowly. It is like a
poisoning of the blood rather than a wound in the flesh, and may have
done incalculable mischief before any serious pain is felt, or any
grave alarm excited. Hence it is quite easy for many to "walk after
their own ungodly lusts," and at the same time "mock at sin" and its
consequences. And then the converse of the proverb becomes true, and
"sin mocks at the fools" that mocked at it—a meaning which the
Hebrew may very well have. In the margin of the Revised Version we
read, "Guilt mocketh at the foolish." As Delilah mocked at Samson, so
does sin
mock at those who have been taken captive by it. There is no folly
equal to the foolhardiness of those who make light, either to
themselves or to others, of the deadly character of any form of sin.
They thereby save the tempter all trouble, and do his work themselves.
"His own iniquities shall take the wicked, and he shall be holden with
the cords of his sin. He shall die for lack of instruction; and in the
greatness of his folly he shall go astray" (Prov. v. 22, 23).
CHAPTER XXXVII.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO KORAH:
MAKING SEPARATIONS. EXHORTATION TO THE FAITHFUL TO BUILD UP THEMSELVES,
AND THEN RESCUE OTHERS.
"These are they who make separations sensual, having
not the Spirit.
"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your
most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the
love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto
eternal life. And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some
save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with
fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."—St. Jude 19-23.
FOR the third and last time St. Jude points
his finger at the ungodly intruders who are working such mischief in
the Church, and gives another triplet of characteristics by which they
may be recognized.
"These are they who make separations." This is the first point;
like Korah and his company, these men are separatists (οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες). They do not
actually make a schism from the Church, for they frequent the
love-feasts and profess membership; but they create a faction
within it. Even in the public services of the Church they keep
aloof from the poorer members of the congregation. At the love-feasts
they feed themselves on the good things which they bring with them,
instead of handing them over to the ministers to be distributed among
all. And in society they care only
for persons of rank and wealth, out of whom they hope to gain
something. Worst of all, they claim to be specially enlightened
members of the Church, having a more comprehensive knowledge of the
nature of Christian liberty, while they are turning the fundamental
principles of Christian life upside down. Hence, although they are not
actual schismatics, who have gone out of the Church and set up a
communion of their own, their tendencies are in that direction. They
are, in short, much the same kind of people as those against whom
St. Paul warns his readers in the Epistle to the Romans: "Now I
beseech you, brethren, mark them which are causing the
divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine
which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such
serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their
smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent"
(xvi. 17, 18). And again in the Epistle to the Philippians: "For
many walk of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping,
that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is
perdition, whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their
shame, who mind earthly things" (iii. 18, 19). A parallel to
nearly every clause in these two descriptions might be found in the
account of the libertines given by St. Jude. Indeed, the words in
which Bishop Lightfoot sums up St. Paul's description might be
adopted verbatim as a summary of the description in our Epistle: "They
are described as creating divisions and offences, as holding plausible
language, as professing to be wise beyond others, and yet not innocent
in their wisdom." They are "Antinomians, who refuse to conform to the
Cross, and live a life of self-indulgence." "The unfettered liberty of
which they boast,
thus perverted, becomes their deepest degradation"
(Philippians, Notes on iii. 18, 19).
Hooker, in his sermons on this passage, although he adopts the
translation of Tyndale, continued by Cranmer and the Genevan Version,
"These are makers of sects," yet in his exposition follows the corrupt
reading which misled the translators of 1611, "These be they who
separate themselves" (οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἑαυτούς), "themselves" being absent
from almost all the ancient MSS. and versions. He says,
"St. Jude, to express the manner of their departure which by
apostasy fell away from the faith of Christ, saith, 'They separated
themselves;' noting thereby that it was not constraint of others which
forced them to depart; it was not infirmity and weakness in
themselves, it was not fear of persecution to come upon them, whereat
their hearts did fail; it was not grief of torments, whereof they had
tasted, and were not able any longer to endure them. No, they
voluntarily did separate themselves, with a fully settled and
altogether determined purpose never to name the Lord Jesus any more,
nor to have any fellowship with His saints, but to bend all their
counsel and all their strength to raze out their memorial from amongst
them" (Serm. v. 11). Here there is a double error in the
quotation from St. Jude, and therefore considerable error in the
exposition of his meaning. St. Jude does not say that these
libertines "separated," but that they are "those who are
separating," i.e. are habitually making separations or
differences. He uses the present participle, not the aorist or
perfect. And, as already noticed, he says nothing about separating
themselves. So far from implying that they had "a settled and
determined purpose never to name the Lord Jesus any more, nor
to have any fellowship with His saints," He shows that these men had
crept into the Church, and evidently intended to remain there,
attending the love-feasts and polluting them, while they put forward
the "freedom wherewith Christ had made them free" as a plea for their
own licentiousness; thus "turning the grace of God into
lasciviousness," and by their conduct denying the Christ in whom they
professed to believe. Thus, though they did not formally leave the
Church as heretics, schismatics, or apostates, yet they had the
heretical and schismatical temper, and were apostates in their manner
of life. As Hooker says elsewhere, "Many things exclude from the
kingdom of God, although from the Church they separate not" (Eccl.
Pol. V. lxviii. 6). These men had left the way of salvation
to "walk after their own lusts," but they had not separated from the
Church, into which they had surreptitiously obtained admission.
"Sensual" (ψυχικοί). This word has
been already discussed in a previous chapter, in the exposition of the
passage where it occurs in the Epistle of St. James
(iii. 15: see pp. 200, 201). "Sensual" persons are those who live
in the world of sense, and are ruled by human feeling and human
reason. They stand not very much above the carnal, and with them are
opposed to the spiritual. In the triplet, carnalis, animalis,
spiritalis, the second term is far more closely allied with the
first than with the third. It is possible that the libertines, in
their travesty of the freedom conferred by the Gospel, made a special
claim to be "spiritual" persons, who were above the restraints of the
moral law. They may have held that to their exalted natures the things
of sense were morally indifferent, and might be indulged in without
fear of loss or contamination; while they
scoffed at those Christians who were on their guard against such
things, and called such Christians psychical or sensuous,
because they were careful about the things of sense. St. Jude
tells them that it is they who are sensuous, and not spiritual at
all.
"Not having the Spirit." The Revisers maintain this rendering,
which does not appear in English versions until the influence of Beza
and the Genevan Version made itself felt. Calvin seems to adopt it;
but Luther certainly does not ("die da keinen Geist haben"). It
must be supposed that the arguments in favour of it are very strong,
seeing that the alternative translation is not allowed a place in the
margin of either Authorized or Revised Version, nor is recommended by
the American Committee. Nevertheless, the points in its favour are
well worth considering. This alternative translation is, "Having no
spirit" (Tyndale, Cranmer), i.e. no spiritual nature. "Not
having spirit" is Wiclif's rendering. This agrees very well with the
context. St. Jude has just stigmatized the libertines as
"sensuous," or "psychical." Of the three elements in man's nature,
body, soul, and spirit, they are ruled by the two lower, while the
third, which ought to be supreme, is persistently ignored. They had
allowed the spiritual part of their being to become so bemired with
self-indulgence and self-sufficiency, to be so much under the dominion
of human emotion and reason, that it was utterly inoperative and
practically non-existent. Their power of spiritual insight into things
heavenly, of laying hold of the invisible world, and of entering into
communion with God, was gone. The Holy Spirit was not only absent, but
His seat was overturned and destroyed. The facts that "spirit" has
neither article nor epithet in the Greek, and that the
negative is subjective, and not objective (πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες), are in favour of man's spirit
being meant, and of this clause being an explanation of what precedes.
These men are sensuous because they have lost all spiritual
power. It must not, however, be understood that the absence of article
and epithet is any barrier to the rendering, "Having not the Spirit."
Phil. ii. 1 is proof of that (comp. Eph. ii. 22;
vi. 18; Col. i. 8). Nevertheless, such cases are
comparatively rare. The usual expression for the Third Person of the
Holy Trinity is either "the Spirit," or "Holy Spirit," or "the Holy
Spirit," or "the Spirit of God," or "of the Lord," or "of Jesus
Christ," or "of truth," or "of life," etc. Therefore, when we find
"spirit" without either article, epithet, or distinguishing genitive,
the probabilities are that the spirit of man, and not the Spirit of
God, is intended.
It will be observed that the three independent descriptions of the
libertines, beginning with the words, "These are," become shorter as
they go on. The first is two long verses (12, 13); the second is one
long verse (16); the third is one very short verse. It is as if the
writer were disgusted with the unpalatable subject which necessity had
compelled him to take in hand (ver. 3), and were hurrying through it
to the more pleasing duty of exhorting those faithful Christians for
whose sake he has undertaken this painful task.
"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God,
looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." As
in ver. 17, the "But ye, beloved" (ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί) makes an emphatic contrast
between those whom St. Jude addresses and the sensuous and
unspiritual men of whom he has been
speaking. He exhorts his readers to endeavour to keep themselves in
favour with God by cultivating faith, prayer, and hope; and in this
exhortation the main purpose of the letter, as set forth in ver. 3, is
fulfilled. The triplet of participles (ἐποικοδομοῦντες—προσευχόμενοι—προσδεχόμενοι) must not be lost sight
of, although the fact that the main verb (τηρήσατε) comes in the middle of them, instead
of at the end, somewhat obscures the triple construction.
The expression "building up" (ἐποικοδομεῖν) is in the New Testament
never used of actual building, but always in the metaphorical sense of
believers being united together so as to form a temple. In this temple
Christ is sometimes regarded as the foundation (1 Cor.
iii. 11), sometimes as that which binds the structure together
(Eph. ii. 20; Col. ii. 7). The notion of building up comes
from the preposition (ἐπί), one stone being
placed upon another, so that upward progress is made. "The faith" here
is probably the foundation on which the structure is to rest; but it
would be possible to translate "with your most holy faith,"
instead of "on your most holy faith;" and in that case the
dative would, as in Col. ii. 7, express the cement rather than
the foundation. In any case "the faith" is not the internal grace or
virtue of faith, but, as both the participle and the adjective show,
"the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (ver. 3).
It is "your faith," because it has been thus delivered to you;
and it is "most holy," in marked contrast to the vile and shifty
doctrines which the libertines profess and uphold.
"Praying in the Holy Ghost." This is the best arrangement of the
words, although the Greek allows us to take "in the Holy Ghost" with
the previous clause, a rather clumsy division of the words, which is
sanctioned by Luther, Beza, and the Rhemish Version: "building
yourselves upon our (sic) most holy faith, in the Holy Ghost,
praying." The expression "praying in the Holy Ghost" occurs nowhere
else; but that is no reason why St. Jude should not have used it
here. It means that we are to pray in the power and wisdom of the
Spirit. In order that we may pray, and pray aright, He must move our
hearts and direct our petitions.
"Keep yourselves in the love of God." Not our love of God is meant,
but His love of us. This is rendered probable both by what immediately
follows—for "the love of God" should have a meaning similar to
that of "the mercy of Jesus Christ"—and also by the opening
address, "beloved in God" (ver. 1), which St. Jude perhaps has in
his mind; for the whole of the verse before us is closely connected
with the first verse of the Epistle. God's love is the region in which
all Christians should strive to abide, and it is by faith and prayer
that this abode is secured. To be conscious of being beloved by God is
one of the greatest protections that the believer can possess.
"Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."
That mercy which He will show to all faithful Christians when He
returns as Judge at the last day. We may compare "looking for and
earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter
iii. 12). Both in this life and in eternity it is mercy that we
need and crave. The Psalms are full of this thought, as a reference to
the numerous passages in which the word mercy occurs will reveal: see
especially Ps. cxxx. And in connexion with this the concise statement
respecting the relations of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity to
believers must not be overlooked. By prayer in the
power of the Holy Spirit we are kept in the love of the Father through
the mercy of the Son. "Unto eternal life." It is not a matter of much
moment whether we take these words with "keep yourselves," or with
"looking," or with "mercy." The first seems to be the best
arrangement, "keep yourselves ... unto eternal life;" but in any case
the eternal life is reached through the mercy of the Lord Jesus
Christ. With a similar thought the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (ix. 28) writes of Christ's Second Advent as an advent
"unto salvation" (εἰς σωτηρίαν). The
Divine purpose of both Advents is mercy, and not judgment; but seeing
that both Advents are met by some who refuse to believe and repent,
judgment is inevitable.
"And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching
out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear." In hardly any
other passage, perhaps, does the Revised Version differ in so many
particulars from the Authorized. The main changes are the result of
changes in the Greek text, which here is in so corrupt a state that
the original cannot be restored with certainty. The readings adopted
by the Revisers have the advantage of giving us another triple
division, which St. Jude is very likely to have made. This triple
division is preserved in the Vulgate, and therefore in Wiclif and the
Rhemish Version. Our other translators, with Luther and Beza, not
finding it in the inferior Greek MSS. which they used, of course do
not give it.Nevertheless, Westcott and Hort reject the triple division, and adopt
the text of B, "which involves the incongruity that the first οὕς must be taken as a relative, and the first
ἐλεᾶτε as indicative. Some primitive error
evidently affects the passage" (ii., p. 107). It is difficult to
believe that their text is right.
With one possible exception, the text adopted by the
Revisers seems to be the best that can be framed with our present
evidence. It is doubtful whether we ought not to substitute "convict"
(ἐλέγχετε) for the first "have mercy"
(ἐλεᾶτε). This reading has very powerful
support (AC, the best cursives, Vulgate, Memphitic, Armenian, and
Ethiopic), and is adopted by many critics. But it may possibly be an
early correction of a still earlier corruption, and not a restoration
of the original reading. This is one of those passages about which we
must be content to remain in doubt as to what the author actually
wrote (see above on ver. 5, p. 404).
In any case the writer is giving directions as to how to deal with
two or three different classes of persons, who are in danger of being
seduced by the libertines; and possibly the libertines themselves are
included. We will assume that three classes are named. In the first we
are confronted with an uncertainty of translation. The participle
rendered "who are in doubt" (διακρινομένους) may also mean "while
they contend" with you. Which meaning we prefer will depend partly
upon the reading which we adopt for the imperative which governs the
accusative. "On some have mercy, when they are in
doubt," makes very harmonious sense; for earnest doubters, who
are unable to make up their minds for or against the truth, are to be
treated with great tenderness. Again, "And some convict, when
they contend with you," makes very harmonious sense; for it is
those who are disposed to be contentious that need to be refuted and
convinced of their error. It is in favour of the latter version of the
command that the verbs rendered "convict" and "contend" occur, and
in the same sense, in the earlier part of the Epistle (vv. 9,
15). In either case that
which is doubted or contended about is "the faith once for all
delivered unto the saints," on which believers are to "build
themselves up."
The second class are such as can still be rescued, but by strong
measures. No hint, however, is given as to their characteristics; we
are merely told that there are some who require to be taken with
decision, and perhaps even with violence, out of their perilous
surroundings, in order that they may be saved from destruction. We may
perhaps think of those who, without being in doubt or inclined to
dispute about the faith, are being carried away into licentiousness by
intercourse with the libertines. The fire out of which they are to be
snatched is not the penal fire of the judgment to come, but the state
of perdition in which they are now living. We seem to have here, as in
ver. 9, a reminiscence of Zechariah iii. 1, where we read, "Is
not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" In Amos iv. 11 we have
the same figure, and the context there agrees with the suggestion just
made as to the kind of person indicated by St. Jude: "I have
overthrown some among you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,
and ye were as a brand plucked out of the burning." There are some who
need to be rescued in the way that the angels rescued Lot, with
urgency and constraint (Gen. xix. 16, 17); and it is specially in
reference to temptations such as Lot had gone into that such urgency
is needed.
The third class is one which must be treated with great
circumspection: "and on some have mercy with fear; hating even
the garment spotted by the flesh." This does not mean, as Luther
supposes, that we must "let them severely alone, and have nothing to
do with them," but that in dealing with evil so insidious and
so infectious, we must take care that we are not contaminated
ourselves. It is quite possible to approach evil with good intentions,
and then, through want of proper humility and caution, end in finding
it fatally attractive. We must carefully preserve abhorrence for all
that is associated with pollution. In the defiled garment
(comp. James iii. 6, where the same word is used) St. Jude
appears once more to have Zechariah iii. 1-3 in his mind; but the
Greek of the LXX. is there quite different (ἱμάτια ῥυπαρά, instead of ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα). The garment here mentioned is the
chiton, or shirt, which came in contact with the body, and
would itself be rendered unclean if the body were unclean. It
therefore serves well as a symbol for that which has become perilous
through being closely connected with evil. But while the evil and that
which has been contaminated by it are to be hated, compassion is to be
shown to those who have fallen victims to it. To be shown, not
merely felt, as is manifest from the word which St. Jude
uses (ἐλεᾷν, not οἰκτείρειν). The passages in which this verb
(or its more common form ἐλεεῖν) elsewhere
occurs in the New Testament prove that it means "to have mercy
on, to succour and bring help to," and not merely "to feel pity
for" without doing anything to relieve the person pitied (Matt.
ix. 27; xv. 22; xvii. 15; xviii. 33; xx. 30;
Mark x. 47; Luke xvi. 24; xvii. 13; xviii. 38;
Phil. ii. 27). It is specially used of God's showing mercy to
those who do not deserve it (Rom. ix. 15, 16, 18; xi. 32;
1 Cor. vii. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 1; 1 Tim.
i. 13, 16; 1 Peter ii. 10), and therefore fitly
expresses the sympathy which ought to be manifested by the faithful
towards the fallen. But in some cases this sympathy must be manifested
in fear. It is by acting in the spirit of godly fear that love of the
sinner can be combined with hatred of the sin. Without it sympathy
with the sinner is too likely to turn into sympathy with the sin. To
put it otherwise: All our efforts for the reformation of others must
be begun and continued with self-reformation; and therefore
St. Jude insists on the necessity for spiritual progress and
prayer, before advising as to the treatment of the fallen. It is while
we are earnestly detesting and contending against a particular sin in
ourselves that we can most safely and effectually deal with that sin
in others.
Finally, it must be noted as specially remarkable that
St. Jude, after all the strong language which he has used in
describing the wickedness of those who are corrupting the Christian
community, does not, in this advice as to the different methods
which are to be used in dealing with those who are going or have gone
astray, recommend denunciation. Not that denunciation is always wrong;
in some cases it may be necessary. But denunciation by itself commonly
does more harm than good; while other methods, which must be added in
order to make denunciation effectual, are often quite as efficacious
when no denunciation has been employed. It is quite possible to
manifest one's abhorrence of "the garment spotted with the flesh,"
without public or private abuse of those who are the authors of the
defilement.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
THE FINAL DOXOLOGY: PRAISE TO GOD,
THE PROTECTOR OF HIS SERVANTS.
"Now unto Him that is able to guard you from
stumbling, and to set you before the presence of His glory without
blemish in exceeding joy, to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus
Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all
time, and now, and for evermore." Amen.—St. Jude 24, 25.
FROM his severe and sombre warnings and
exhortations St. Jude turns in joyous and exulting confidence to
Him who alone can make them effectual. He has spoken with sternness
and horror of great wickedness which has been manifested both in the
past and in the present, and of God's terrible judgments upon it. He
has exhorted his readers to beware of it, and not to let their
abhorrence of it grow less when they are engaged in the merciful work
of rescuing others from it. Now, in conclusion, he offers a fervent
tribute of praise to Him who is a God of love as well as of justice,
and who is as able and ready to protect those who cling to Him and
serve Him as to punish those who murmur and rebel against Him.
The doxologies at the end of the Epistle to the Romans and at the
beginning of the First Epistle to Timothy should be compared with this
one. The former is nearest to it in form; and it is from the doxology
in Romans that the epithet "wise," which the Authorized Version
wrongly inserts both here and in 1 Tim. i. 17, probably
comes. Doxologies, modelled on those in the New Testament, became
elastic in some respects, and stereotyped in others. The formula "to
the only wise God" was a common one, and hence scribes inserted the
epithet, perhaps almost mechanically, in places where it was not found
in the original. It is quite possible that St. Jude knew the
Epistle to the Romans, and his doxology, especially in its opening
words, may be a conscious or unconscious imitation of it; for the
Epistle to the Romans was written some years before the earliest date
that can with any probability be assigned to this Epistle.
"To guard you from stumbling;" which in two respects is more than
"to keep you from falling." Firstly, "guard" preserves the idea of
protection against perils, both manifest and secret, more
decidedly than "keep;" and secondly, one may have many stumbles
without any falls, and therefore to be preserved from even stumbling
implies a larger measure of care on the part of the protector. But
even "to guard you from stumbling" does not quite do justice to the
Greek (φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς
ἀπταίστους), nor is it easy to do so. "Guard you so that you
are exempt from stumbling and never trip or make a false step" is the
full meaning of the expression. The verb which is here negatived is
used by St. James (ii. 10): "Whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet stumble (πταίσῃ) in one
point, he is become guilty of all." The Vulgate lets go the metaphor
of stumbling, and translates simply "to preserve you without sin"
(conservare sine peccato). That which is impossible with men is
possible with God, and the Divine grace can protect Christians against
their own frailty. Christ says of His sheep that they shall
assuredly never perish, and that no one, whether powers of evil or
human seducers, can snatch them out of His hand (John x. 28).
Their wills are free, and they may will to leave Him; but if they
determine to abide with Him they will be safe.
"And to set you before the presence of His glory without blemish."
This is the blessed result of His protecting them from stumbling. The
revised translation, "without blemish" (ἀμώμους), at first sight looks like a needless
and vexatious change from the "faultless" of the Authorized Version,
and a clumsy one, because it gives two English words for one Greek
word. But the change is a real improvement, for the Greek word is a
sacrificial term, which "faultless" is not. It is frequently
used of victims, which must be "without blemish," in order to be
suitable for offerings. It is not common in classical Greek, but
frequent in the LXX. (Exod. xxix. 1; Lev. i. 3, 10;
xxii. 21-24; Num. vi. 14; xix. 2). In 1 Macc.
iv. 42 it is used of the priests, and so also in Philo (De
Merc. Mer. i.; De Agric. xxix.: see Lightfoot on μωμοσκοπθέν: Clem. Rom. xli.). In the New
Testament it is used sometimes of the sinlessness of Christ (Heb.
ix. 14; 1 Peter i. 19), sometimes of the ideal
perfection of Christians (Eph. i. 4; v. 27; Phil.
ii. 15). In the Epistle to the Colossians St. Paul has
almost the same idea as St. Jude—"to present you
holy and without blemish and unreprovable before Him"
(i. 22); and again in the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians—"to the end He may stablish your hearts
unblameable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of
our Lord Jesus with all His saints" (iii. 13). "Before the
presence of His glory" refers to the glory of God which shall be
revealed at the last day.
"In exceeding joy" is a further consequence from the second point, as
the second from the first. To be protected against stumbling leads to
being presented without blemish before the judgment-seat, and this is
an occasion of intense delight. As St. Peter puts it, "Inasmuch
as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings, rejoice; that at the
revelation of His glory also ye may rejoice with exceeding joy"
(1 Peter iv. 13).
"To the only God our Saviour." St. Paul, like St. Jude,
speaks of God the Father as our Saviour. He is "an Apostle of Christ
Jesus according to the commandment of God our Saviour" (1 Tim.
i. 1), and he says that intercession and thanksgiving for others
"is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour" (ii. 3).
Still more fully he says that "God our Saviour ... saved us ...
through Jesus Christ our Saviour (Titus iii. 4-6: comp.
i. 3; ii. 10). The work of the Son is the work of the
Father; and so in the Old Testament we have Jehovah spoken of as the
Saviour and Redeemer of His people (Ps. cvi. 21; Isa.
xli. 15, 21; xlix. 26; lx. 16). And this is the meaning
of the clause which textual criticism has restored to us in this
passage. God is our Saviour "through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Some take these words with what follows. "To the only God be glory,
majesty, dominion and power, through Jesus Christ our Lord;" which
makes excellent sense, and is in harmony with the doxology in
1 Peter iv. 11, "that in all things God may be glorified
through Jesus Christ." It is no strong objection to this to urge that
in that case St. Jude would have reversed the order of the
clauses (δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία διὰ
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν). In the doxology at the end of
the Epistle to the Romans (which St. Jude
may have in his mind) "through Jesus Christ" precedes "be the
glory," and yet cannot easily be taken with anything else (omitting
ᾧ as a probable corruption). The combination
"glory and dominion" occurs in other doxologies (1 Peter
iv. 11; Rev. i. 6; v. 13); "majesty" and "power" do not
occur in any. "Majesty" in the New Testament is found in Hebrews
i. 3 and viii. 1 only; but it occurs in the LXX. and in
Clement of Rome (xvi. 1). The doxology in 1 Chron.
xxix. 11 is specially worthy of notice. The word seems to have
been used almost exclusively of the majesty of God, and the four words
together sum up the Divine glory and omnipotence. It is a little
remarkable that in this case St. Jude abandons his favourite
triplets, and gives four attributes rather than three. But he returns
in a still more remarkable way to his favourite arrangement in the
concluding words.
"Before all time, and now, and for evermore." Thus, in a very
comprehensive phrase, eternity is described. Throughout all time, and
throughout the ages which precede and follow it, these attributes
belong to God. Evil men in their dreamings may "set at nought dominion
and rail at glories," and their mouth may "speak great swelling words"
about their own superior knowledge and greater liberty, and may mock
and scoff at those who will not follow them in "walking after their
own ungodly lusts." Nevertheless, ages before they were born, and ages
after they shall have vanished from the world which they are troubling
by their presence, glory, majesty, dominion, and power belong to Him
who saves us, and would save even them, through Jesus Christ our
Lord.
They belong to Him. This seems to be the meaning
rather than that they are ascribed to Him. No verb is given in
the Greek; neither "is," as in 1 Peter iv. 11 (ᾧ ἐστὶν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ
κράτος), nor "be" (ἔστω), which in
most doxologies may be understood. "To Him be glory before
all time" is scarcely sense, for our wishes cannot influence the
past. "To Him belongs glory before all time" is the statement of a
simple fact.
It is those who know their own frailty and liability to sin; who
know the manifold temptations which surround them, and the terrible
attractiveness which many of them can present; who know from past
experience what frequent and grievous falls are possible; that can
best understand the statement of fact which this doxology contains,
and the significance of it. He who can guard such creatures as we are
from stumbling, in such a world as this, must be the only God; must be
He who was, and is, and is to come; must possess throughout all time
and all eternity the highest powers and glories which the heart of man
can conceive. The wonders of the material universe impress us in our
more solemn moments with feelings of awe, and reverence, and love for
Him who is the Author of them all. How much more should the wonders of
the kingdom of heaven do so! Out of sinful man to make a saint is more
than to make a world out of nothing; and to keep sinful men from
stumbling is more than to keep the stars in their courses. There is a
free and rebellious will to be won and retained in the one case,
whereas there is nothing but absolute and unresisting obedience in the
other. The difference is that which is so beautifully expressed in the
103rd and 104th Psalms. In the latter of these two exquisite songs of
praise and
thanksgiving Jehovah is praised as the Creator and Regulator of the
world, in the former as the Pardoner and Preserver of His servants. In
the one case blessing and praise is offered to the Lord—
"Who laid the foundations of the earth,
That it should not be moved for ever.
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a vesture;
The waters stood above the mountains.
They went up by the mountains,
They went down by the valleys,
Unto the place which Thou hadst founded for them.
Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;
That they turn not again to cover the earth.
O Lord, how manifold are Thy works!
In wisdom hast Thou made them all:
The earth is full of Thy riches.
Let the glory of the Lord endure for ever;
Let the Lord rejoice in His works:
Who looketh on the earth, and it trembleth;
He toucheth the mountains, and they smoke."
Ps. civ. 5, 6, 8, 9, 24, 31, 32.
But in the other song the Lord is praised, not so much in relation
to the glorious universe which He creates and controls, but in
relation to the spirits of men, whom He restores, and of angels, whom
He retains, to willing obedience and service.
"Bless the Lord, O my soul,
And forget not all His benefits:
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities;
Who healeth all thy diseases;
Who redeemeth thy life from destruction;
Who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies.
He hath not dealt with us after our sins,
Nor rewarded us after our iniquities.
For as the heaven is high above the earth,
So great is His mercy toward them that fear Him.
As far as the east is from the west,
So far hath He removed our transgressions from us.
Bless the Lord, ye angels of His;
Ye mighty in strength, that fulfil His word,
Hearkening unto the voice of His word,
Bless the Lord, all ye His hosts;
Ye ministers of His, that do His pleasure."
Ps. ciii. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21.
It is quite in harmony with such a strain as this that the joyous
doxology with which St. Jude's stern letter suddenly ends is
written. Its clauses lend themselves to that parallelism which
distinguishes Hebrew poetry, and they have not only the spirit, but
the form, of a concluding strophe of praise.
"Now unto Him that is able to guard you from stumbling,
And to set you before the presence of His glory without blemish in exceeding joy,
To the only God our Saviour,
Through Jesus Christ our Lord,
Glory, majesty, dominion and power,
Before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen."
Note.—The
"Amen" at the end of this Epistle, as at the end of Romans and
2 Peter, which like this close with a doxology, seems to be
genuine (comp. 1 Peter iv. II; v. II); but that at the end of
2 Peter is somewhat doubtful. In all other books of the New
Testament, excepting Galatians, the final "Amen" is probably
spurious.