The Expositor's Bible: The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude
by Alfred Plummer · English · Gutenberg #47337 · 850,639 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Expositor's Bible: The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Expositor's Bible: The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude
Author: Alfred Plummer
Editor: Sir W. Robertson Nicoll
Release date: November 12, 2014 [eBook #47337]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47337
Credits: Produced by Charlene Taylor, Chris Pinfield and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive).
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE: THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF ST. JAMES AND ST. JUDE ***
Transcriber's Note.
An advertisement for the Expositor's Bible series has been shifted to
the end of the text.
Apparent typographical errors have been corrected; inconsistent
hyphenation has been retained.
Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals while italics are
indicated by _underscores_.
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
_Editor of "The Expositor"_
THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF
ST. JAMES AND ST. JUDE
BY THE REV.
ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM
FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD
_SIXTH EDITION_
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
LONDON MCMVII
_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Vincy, Ld., London and Aylesbury._
CONTENTS.
_INTRODUCTORY._
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 1
_THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._
CHAPTER II.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES 13
CHAPTER III.
THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE: JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD 25
CHAPTER IV.
THE PERSONS ADDRESSED IN THE EPISTLE: THE JEWS OF
THE DISPERSION 42
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 55
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 68
CHAPTER VII.
THE EXALTATION OF THE LOWLY, AND THE FADING AWAY
OF THE RICH.--THE METAPHORS OF ST. JAMES AND THE PARABLES
OF CHRIST 80
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SOURCE OF TEMPTATIONS, AND THE REALITY OF SIN.--THE
DIFFICULTIES OF THE DETERMINIST 89
CHAPTER IX.
THE DELUSION OF HEARING WITHOUT DOING.--THE MIRROR
OF GOD'S WORD 99
CHAPTER X.
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES.--THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF
INVOLVED IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS
IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 111
CHAPTER XI.
THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING
THE POOR.--THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW 124
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 135
CHAPTER XIII.
THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;
AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT 149
CHAPTER XIV.
THE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS.--THE POWERS
AND PROPENSITIES OF THE TONGUE.--THE SELF-DEFILEMENT
OF THE RECKLESS TALKER 165
CHAPTER XV.
THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER 179
CHAPTER XVI.
THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW 191
CHAPTER XVII.
THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE 203
CHAPTER XVIII.
ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES OF STRIFE;
THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER 214
CHAPTER XIX.
THE SEDUCTIONS OF THE WORLD, AND THE JEALOUSY OF
THE DIVINE LOVE 226
CHAPTER XX.
THE POWER OF SATAN AND ITS LIMITS.--HUMILITY THE
FOUNDATION OF PENITENCE AND OF HOLINESS 238
CHAPTER XXI.
SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
INVOLVED IN THE LOVE OF CENSURING OTHERS 250
CHAPTER XXII.
SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES INVOLVED
IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.--THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM 261
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE FOLLIES AND INIQUITIES OF THE RICH; THEIR MISERABLE END 274
CHAPTER XXIV.
PATIENCE IN WAITING.--THE ENDURANCE OF JOB.--THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MENTION OF JOB BY ST. JAMES 289
CHAPTER XXV.
THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING.--THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE
OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST 302
CHAPTER XXVI.
WORSHIP THE BEST OUTLET AND REMEDY FOR EXCITEMENT.--THE
CONNEXION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND CONDUCT 315
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH.--THE ANOINTING OF THE
SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION 323
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONFESSION OF SINS.--THE LAWFULNESS
OF PRAYERS FOR RAIN 335
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE WORK OF CONVERTING SINNERS; ITS CONDITIONS AND REWARDS 350
_THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST JUDE._
CHAPTER XXX.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE 365
CHAPTER XXXI.
THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 377
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.--ITS RELATION
TO 2 PETER 388
CHAPTER XXXIII.
DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION--THREE
PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN 401
CHAPTER XXXIV.
RAILING AT DIGNITIES.--"THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES."--ST. JUDE'S
USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE 415
CHAPTER XXXV.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN. THE LIBERTINES
AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.--THE BOOK OF ENOCH 426
CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM: THE IMPIOUS
DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.--THE APOSTOLIC
WARNING RESPECTING THEM 442
CHAPTER XXXVII.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO KORAH: MAKING
SEPARATIONS.--EXHORTATIONS TO THE FAITHFUL TO
BUILD UP THEMSELVES, AND THEN RESCUE OTHERS 450
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
THE FINAL DOXOLOGY: PRAISE TO GOD, THE PROTECTOR OF
HIS SERVANTS 463
INDEX 471
INTRODUCTORY.
CHAPTER I.
_THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES._
This volume is to treat of the General Epistle of St. James and the
General Epistle of St. Jude. According to the most common, but not
invariable arrangement, they form the first and the last letters in
the collection which for fifteen centuries has been known as the
Catholic Epistles. The epithet "General," which appears in the titles
of these Epistles in the English versions, is simply the equivalent of
the epithet "Catholic," the one word being of Latin (_generalis_), the
other of Greek (καθολικός) origin. In Latin, however, _e.g._ in the
Vulgate, these letters are not called _Generales_, but _Catholicæ_.
The meaning of the term Catholic Epistles (καθολικαὶ ἐπιστολαι) has
been disputed, and more than one explanation may be found in
commentaries; but the true signification is not really doubtful. It
certainly does not mean _orthodox_ or _canonical_; although from the
sixth century, and possibly earlier, we find these Epistles sometimes
called the Canonical Epistles (_Epistolæ Canonicæ_), an expression in
which "canonical" is evidently meant to be an equivalent for
"catholic." This use is said to occur first in the _Prologus in
Canonicas Epistolas_ of the Pseudo-Jerome given by Cassiodorus (_De
Justit. Divin. Litt._, viii.); and the expression is used by
Cassiodorus himself, whose writings may be placed between A.D. 540 and
570, the period spent in his monastery at Viviers, after he had
retired from the conduct of public affairs. The term "catholic" is
used in the sense of "orthodox" before this date, but not in connexion
with these letters. There seems to be no earlier evidence of the
opinion, certainly erroneous, that this collection of seven Epistles
was called "Catholic" in order to mark them as Apostolic and
authoritative, in distinction from other letters which were heterodox,
or at any rate of inferior authority. Five out of the seven letters,
viz. all but the First Epistle of St. Peter and the First Epistle of
St. John, belong to that class of New Testament books which from the
time of Eusebius (_H. E._ III. xxv. 4) have been spoken of as
"disputed" (ἀντιλεγόμενα), _i.e._ as being up to the beginning of
the fourth century not _universally_ admitted to be canonical.[1] And
it would have been almost a contradiction in terms if Eusebius had
first called these Epistles "catholic" (_H. E._ II. xxiii. 25; VI.
xiv. 1) in the sense of being universally accepted as authoritative,
and had then classed them among the "disputed" books.
Nor is it accurate to say that these letters are called "catholic"
because they are addressed to both Jewish and Gentile Christians
alike, a statement which is not true of all of them, and least of all
of the Epistle which generally stands first in the series; for the
Epistle of St. James takes no account of Gentile Christians. Moreover,
there are Epistles of St. Paul which are addressed to both Jews and
Gentiles in the Churches to which he writes. So that this explanation
of the term makes it thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose for which
it is used, viz. to mark off these seven Epistles from the Epistles of
St. Paul. Nevertheless, this interpretation is nearer to the truth
than the former one.
The Epistles are called "Catholic" because they are not addressed to
any particular Church, whether of Thessalonica, or Corinth, or Rome,
or Galatia, but to the Church universal, or at any rate to a wide
circle of readers. This is the earliest Christian use of the term
"catholic," which was applied to the Church itself before it was
applied to these or any other writings. "Wheresoever the bishop shall
appear, there let the people be," says Ignatius to the Church of
Smyrna (viii.), "just as where Jesus Christ is, _there is the Catholic
Church_"--the earliest passage in Christian literature in which the
phrase "Catholic Church" occurs. And there can be no doubt as to the
meaning of the epithet in this expression. In later times, when
Christians were oppressed by a consciousness of the slow progress of
the Gospel, and by the knowledge that as yet only a fraction of the
human race had accepted it, it became customary to explain "catholic"
as meaning that which embraces and teaches the whole truth, rather
than as that which spreads everywhere and covers the whole earth. But
in the first two or three centuries the feeling was rather one of
jubilation and triumph at the rapidity with which the "good news" was
spreading, and of confidence that "there is not one single race of
men, whether barbarians or Greeks, or whatever they may be called,
nomads or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers
and giving of thanks are not offered, through the name of the
crucified Jesus, to the Father and Creator of all things" (Justin
Martyr, _Trypho_, cxviii.); and that as "the soul is diffused through
all the members of the body, Christians are scattered through all the
cities of the world" (_Epistle to Diognetus_, vi.).[2] Under the
influence of such exultation as this, which was felt to be in harmony
with Christ's promise and command (Luke xxiv. 47; Matt. xxviii. 10),
it was natural to use "catholic" of the universal extension of
Christendom, rather than of the comprehensiveness of the truths of
Christianity. And this meaning still prevails in the time of
Augustine, who says that "the Church is called 'Catholic' in Greek,
because it is diffused throughout the whole world" (_Epp._ lii. 1);
although the later use, as meaning orthodox, in distinction to
schismatical or heretical, has already begun; _e.g._ in the Muratorian
Fragment, in which the writer speaks of heretical writing "which
cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for wormwood is not
suitable for mixing with honey" (Tregelles, pp. 20, 47; Westcott _On
the Canon_, Appendix C, p. 500);[3] and the chapter in Clement of
Alexandria on the priority of the Catholic Church to all heretical
assemblies (_Strom._ VII. xvii).
The four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul were the Christian
writings best known during the first century after the Ascension, and
universally acknowledged as of binding authority[4]; and it was common
to speak of them as "the Gospel" and "the Apostle," much in the same
way as the Jews spoke of "the Law" and "the Prophets." But when a
third collection of Christian documents became widely known another
collective term was required by which to distinguish it from the
collections already familiar, and the feature in these seven Epistles
which seems to have struck the recipients of them most is the absence
of an address to any local Church. Hence they received the name of
Catholic, or General, or Universal Epistles. The name was all the more
natural because of the number seven, which emphasized the contrast
between these and the Pauline Epistles. St. Paul had written to seven
particular Churches--Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Philippi,
Colossæ, and Ephesus; and here were seven Epistles without any address
to a particular Church; therefore they might fitly be called
"_General_ Epistles." Clement of Alexandria uses this term of the
letter addressed to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and
Cilicia" (Acts xv. 23) by the Apostles, in the so-called Council of
Jerusalem (_Strom._ IV. xv.); and Origen uses it of the Epistle of
Barnabas (_Con. Celsum_ I. lxiii.), which is addressed simply to "sons
and daughters," _i.e._ to Christians generally.
That this meaning was well understood, even after the misleading title
"Canonical Epistles" had become usual in the West, is shown by the
interesting Prologue to these Epistles written by the Venerable Bede,
_c._ A.D. 712.[5] This prologue is headed, "Here begins the Prologue
to the seven _Canonical_ Epistles," and it opens thus: "James, Peter,
John, and Jude published seven Epistles, to which ecclesiastical
custom gives the name of _Catholic_, _i.e._ _universal_."
The name is not strictly accurate, excepting in the cases of 1 John,
2 Peter, and Jude. It is admissible in a qualified sense of 1 Peter
and James; but it is altogether inappropriate to 2 and 3 John, which
are addressed, not to the Church at large, nor to a group of local
Churches, but to individuals. But inasmuch as the common title of
these letters was not the Epistles "to the Elect Lady" and "to Gaius,"
as in the case of the letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy, but
simply the Second and Third of John, they were regarded as without
address, and classed with the Catholic Epistles. And of course it was
natural to put them into the same group with the First Epistle of
St. John, although the name of the group did not suit them. At what
date this arrangement was made is not certain; but there is reason for
believing that these seven Epistles were already regarded as one
collection in the third century, when Pamphilus, the friend of
Eusebius, was making his famous library at Cæsarea. Euthalius (_c._
A.D. 450) published an edition of them, in making which he had
collated "the accurate copies" in this library; and it is probable
that he found the grouping already existing in those copies, and did
not make it for himself. Moreover, it is probable that the copies at
Cæsarea were made by Pamphilus himself; for the summary of the
contents of the Acts published under the name of Euthalius is a mere
copy of the summary given by Pamphilus, and it became the usual
practice to place the Catholic Epistles immediately after the Acts.
If, then, Euthalius got the summary of the Acts from Pamphilus, he
probably got the arrangement from him also, viz. the putting of these
seven Epistles into one group, and placing them next to the Acts.[6]
The order which makes the Catholic Epistles follow immediately after
the Acts is very ancient, and it is a matter for regret that the
influence of Jerome, acting through the Vulgate, has universally
disturbed it in all Western Churches. "The connexion between these two
portions (the Acts and the Catholic Epistles), commended by its
intrinsic appropriateness, is preserved in a large proportion of Greek
MSS. of all ages, and corresponds to marked affinities of textual
history."[7] It is the order followed by Cyril of Jerusalem,
Athanasius, John of Damascus, the Council of Laodicea, and also by
Cassian. It has been restored by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott
and Hort; but it is not to be expected that even their powerful
authority will avail to re-establish the ancient arrangement.
The order of the books in the group of the Catholic Epistles is not
quite constant; but almost always James stands first. In a very few
authorities Peter stands first, an arrangement naturally preferred in
the West, but not adopted even there, because the authority of the
original order was too strong. A scholiast on the Epistle of James
states that this Epistle has been placed before 1 Peter, "because it
is _more catholic_ than that of Peter," by which he seems to mean that
whereas 1 Peter is addressed "to the elect who are sojourners of the
Dispersion" in certain specified districts, the Epistle of James is
addressed "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion," without
any limitation. The Venerable Bede, in the Prologue to the Catholic
Epistles quoted above (p. 6), states that James is placed first,
because he undertook to rule the Church of Jerusalem, which was the
fount and source of that evangelic preaching which has spread
throughout the world; or else because he sent his Epistle to the
twelve tribes of Israel, who were the first to believe. And Bede calls
attention to the fact that St. Paul himself adopts this order when he
speaks of "James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be
pillars" (Gal. ii. 9). It is possible, however, that the order James,
Peter, John was meant to represent a belief as to the chronological
precedence of James to Peter, and Peter to John; Jude being placed
last because of its comparative insignificance, and because it was not
at first universally admitted. The Syriac Version, which admits only
James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, has the three in this order; and if the
arrangement had its origin in reverence for the first Bishop of
Jerusalem, it is strange that most of the Syriac copies should have a
heading to the effect that these three Epistles of James, Peter, and
John are by the three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Those who
made and those who accepted this comment certainly had no idea of
reverencing the first Bishop of Jerusalem, for it implies that the
Epistle of James is by the son of Zebedee and brother of John, who was
put to death by Herod. But it is probable that this heading is a mere
blundering conjecture. If persons who believed the Epistle to be
written by James the brother of John had fixed the order, they would
have fixed it thus--Peter, James, John, as in Matt. xvii. 1; Mark
v. 37; ix. 2; xiii. 3; xiv. 33; comp. Matt. xxvi. 37; or Peter, John,
James, as in Luke viii. 51; ix. 28; Acts i. 13. But the former
arrangement would be more reasonable than the latter, seeing that John
wrote so long after the other two. The traditional order harmonizes
with two facts which were worth marking--(1) that two of the three
were Apostles, and must therefore be placed together; (2) that John
wrote last, and must therefore be placed last; but whether or no the
wish to mark these facts determined the order, we have not sufficient
knowledge to enable us to decide.
How enormous would have been the loss had the Catholic Epistles been
excluded from the canon of the New Testament it is not difficult to
see. Whole phases of Christian thought would have been missing. The
Acts and the Epistles of St. Paul would have told us of their
existence, but would not have shown to us what they were. We should
have known that there were serious differences of opinion even among
the Apostles themselves, but we should have had a very imperfect
knowledge as to their nature and reconciliation. We might have guessed
that those who had been with Jesus of Nazareth throughout His ministry
would not preach Christ in the same way as St. Paul, who had never
seen Him until after the Ascension, but we should not have been sure
of this; still less could we have seen in what the difference would
have consisted; and we should have known very little indeed of the
distinctive marks of the three great teachers who "were reputed to be
pillars" of the Church. Above all, we should have known sadly little
of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and of the teaching of those many
early Christians who, while heartily embracing the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, believed that they were bound to hold fast not only to the
morality, but to the discipline of Moses. Thus in many particulars we
should have been left to conjecture as to how the continuity in the
Divine Revelation was maintained; how the Gospel not merely
superseded, but fulfilled, and glorified, and grew out of the Law.
All this has to a large extent been made plain to us by the providence
of God in giving to us and preserving for us in the Church the seven
Catholic Epistles. We see St. James and St. Jude presenting to us that
Judaic form of Christianity which was really the complement, although
when exaggerated it became the opposite, of the teaching of St. Paul.
We see St. Peter mediating between the two, and preparing the way for
a better comprehension of both. And then St. John lifts us up into a
higher and clearer atmosphere, in which the controversy between Jew
and Gentile has faded away into the dim distance, and the only
opposition which remains worthy of a Christian's consideration is that
between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God
and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death.
[1] "Canonical" (κανονκός), from canon (κανών, connected with κάννα,
"a reed or _cane_," "measuring-rod or ruler"), is used in both a
passive and an active sense. A canonical book is primarily one which
has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a
measure or standard. Just as a cane, cut to the length of a
yard-measure, thenceforth becomes a yard-measure itself, so the
Scriptures were first of all tested as to their authority, and then
became a standard for testing all other teaching; _i.e._ they became
_canonical_.
[2] Comp. Ignatius, _Magn._ X.; Irenæus, _Hær._ I. x. 1, 2; III.
iv. 2; V. xx. 1; Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ VI., _sub-finem_;
Tertullian, _Apol._ i., xxxvii.; _Adv. Judæos_, vii., xii., etc., etc.
[3] It has been remarked that this play upon words (_fel_ and _mel_),
which cannot be reproduced in English, is an argument against the
theory of a Greek original.
[4] In the _Codex Sinaiticus_ and some other authorities the Pauline
Epistles are placed immediately after the Gospels, an arrangement
which probably had its origin in the fact that for many early
Christians these two groups constituted their New Testament. Among
versions the Memphitic and the Thebaic have this order.
[5] It is omitted by Giles and other editors, but is given by Cave, in
his _Historia Literaria_ (I., p. 475), who says that it comes from an
ancient MS. in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
[6] Westcott _On the Canon_, pp. 362, 417, 3rd Ed.
[7] Westcott and Hort, II., p. 321; Scrivener, _Introduction to the
Criticism of the N.T._ pp. 70, 74, 3rd Ed.
_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)[8] 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 two[9] 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."[10]
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.[11] 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.[12]
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.[13] 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.[14]
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).[15]
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"[16] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse.
[10] 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:--
{ Four Gospels, Acts,
{ fourteen Epistles
{ _Universally acknowledged_ { of Paul (Hebrews ?),
{ (τὰ ὁμολογούμενα) { 1 John, 1 Peter,
CANONICAL BOOKS { { Apocalypse (?).
(ἐνδιάθηκοι {
γραφαί) { { _As to authenticity_--2 Peter.
{ _Disputed_ {
{ (τὰ ἀντιλεγόμενα) { _As to Apostolicity_--James,
{ Jude, 2 and 3 John.
{ _As to authenticity_--Acts of Paul,
{ Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter.
{ _Orthodox_, but {
{ of no authority, { _As to Apostolicity_--Epistle of
{ because _defective_ { Barnabas, Doctrines of the
{ { Apostles, Gospel according to
UNCANONICAL { { Hebrews, Apocalypse (?).
{
{ _Heretical_ { Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias,
{ Acts of Andrew, John, etc., etc.
[11] _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.
[12] Harnack, _Das Neue Testament um das Jahr_ 200 (Freiburg I. B.,
1889), p. 79.
[13]
Compare Clement x. 1 with James 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.
[14] Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 52, 582-91, 4th Ed.
(Murray, 1889); Zahn, _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons_
(Erlangen, 1889), p. 962.
[15] 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).
[16] 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).
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.[17]
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.[18]
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 "_first_born" 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.).[19]
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."[20] 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.[21] 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 Place[22]; 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,[23] 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.
[17] The supposed relationship may be exhibited thus:--
|
+------------------+-----+
| |
Mary == Joseph. Mary == Clopas or Alphæus.
| |
| +------------+-----+-------+-------------+
| | | | |
JESUS CHRIST. James the Apostle. Joseph. Simon Judas
(Apostle?). (Apostle?).
[18] 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.
[19] 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.
[20] Comp. _Strom._ VI. viii., where Clement speaks of James, Peter,
John, Paul (note the order) as possessing the true _gnosis_, and
knowing all things.
[21] Hegesippus evidently distinguishes James the brother of the
Lord from any of the Twelve.
[22] It is incredible that he should be allowed the privileges of the
high priest.
[23] What is the meaning of this tautology? And could a Rechabite,
who was not a Jew, become a priest?
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 more[24] 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.[25] 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_,[26] 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."[27] 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).
[24] See _The Pastoral Epistles_ in this series, pp. 285-6.
[25] 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).
[26] 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_.
[27] Πᾶσα δὲ γαῖα σέθεν πλήρης καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα.
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. Salmon[28] 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.[29]
_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).[30]
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
critics[31] 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 opinion[32] 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,"[33] 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.[34] 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" (περιπίπτειν), _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,[35] 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).
[28] _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 509-10, 4th Ed.
[29] 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.
[30] 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).
[31] B. Weiss, _Introduction to the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 106, 150
(Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).
[32] Beyschlag's revision of Meyer's _Brie des Jacobus_ (Göttingen,
1888), p. 22.
[33] 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.
[34] See F. D. Maurice, _Unity of the N.T._ (Parker, 1854), p. 318.
[35] 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.
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 writers[36] 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."[37]
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."[38] 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."[39] 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."[40]
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 Count it all joy, my brethren,
time, and afterward joy shall when ye fall into manifold
spring up unto him (i. 23). temptations (πειρασμοῖς), knowing
that the proof (τὸ δοκίμιον)
My son, if thou come to serve the of your faith worketh patience.
Lord, prepare thy soul for And let patience have her perfect
temptation (πειρασμόν). Set thy work, that ye may be perfect
heart aright, and constantly and entire, lacking in nothing
endure.... Whatsoever is brought (i. 2-4).
upon thee take cheerfully, and be
patient when thou art changed to a Blessed is the man that endureth
low estate. For gold is tried temptation (πειρασμόν);
(δοκιμάζεται) in the fire, and for when he hath been approved
acceptable men in the furnace of (δόκιμος γενόμενος), he shall
adversity (ii. 1-5). receive the crown of life (i. 12).
2. If thou desire wisdom But if any of you lacketh
(σοφίαν), keep the commandments, wisdom (σοφίαν), let him ask
and the Lord shall give her unto of God, who giveth to all men
thee (i. 26). liberally, and upbraideth not
(μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος); and it shall
I desired wisdom (σοφίαν) openly be given him (i. 5).
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).
3. Distrust not the fear of the But let him ask in faith,
Lord; and come not unto Him with a nothing doubting: for he that
double heart (i. 28). doubteth is like the surge of
the sea driven by the wind and
Woe be to fearful hearts, and faint tossed. For let not that man
hands, and the sinner that goeth think that he shall receive
two ways (ii. 12). anything of the Lord; a
double-minded man, unstable in all
Be not faint-hearted when thou his ways (i. 6-8. Comp. iv. 8).
makest thy prayer (vii. 10. Comp.
xxxiii. 2; xxxv. 16, 17).
4. Exalt not thyself, lest thou But let the brother of low
fall, and bring dishonour upon thy degree glory in his high estate;
soul (i. 30). and the rich in that he is made
low (i. 9, 10).
The greater thou art, the more
humble thyself, and thou shalt find
favour before the Lord (iii. 18.
Comp. xxxi. 1-9).
5. Say not thou, It is through the Let no man say, when he is
Lord that I fell away: for thou tempted, I am tempted of God:
oughtest not to do the things that for God cannot be tempted
He hateth. Say not thou, He hath with evil, and He Himself
caused me to err: for He hath no tempteth no man (i. 13).
need of the sinful man (xv. 11, 12).
6. Be swift in thy listening Let every man be swift to hear
(ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου); and (ταχὺς εὶς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι), slow
with patience give answer (v. 11). to speak, slow to wrath (i. 19).
7. Thou shalt be to him as one that He is like unto a man beholding
hath wiped a mirror (ἔσοπτρον), his natural face in a mirror (ἐν
and shalt know that it is not ἐσόπτρῳ).... Your gold and your
rusted (κατίωται) for ever silver are rusted (κατίωται);
(xii. 11). and their rust (ἰός) shall
be a testimony against you
Like as bronze rusteth (ἰοῦται), (i. 23; v. 3).
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).
8. He that looketh in He that looketh into
(ὁ παρακύπτων) through her (ὁ παρακύψας) the perfect
windows, _i.e._ the windows of law (i. 25).
wisdom (xiv. 23).
A fool peepeth in (παρακύπτει)
at the door (xxi. 23).
9. A prey of lions are wild asses But ye have dishonoured the poor
in the wilderness; so the fodder of man (τὸν πτωχόν). Do not the
the rich are the poor (οὕτω νομαὶ rich (οἱ πλούσιοι) oppress you,
πλουσίων πτωχοί: xiii. 19. Comp. and themselves drag you before the
xiii. 3, 17, 18). 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 He that doubteth is like the surge
thistle-down carried away by the of the sea driven by the wind and
wind; like a thin froth that is tossed.... As the flower of the
driven away by the blast, and like grass he shall pass away.... So
smoke is dispersed by the wind also shall the rich man fade away
(v. 14. Comp. μαρανθῆναι in (μαρανθήσεται) in his ways
ii. 8). (i. 6, 10, 11).
2. In eternity it weareth a crown When he hath been approved he shall
and triumpheth (iv. 2). receive the crown of life, which
the Lord promised to them that love
Him (i. 12).
3. The alterations of the solstices With whom can be no variation,
and the change of seasons (τροπῶν neither shadow of turning (παρ'
ἀλλαγὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς καιρῶν: ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς
vii. 18). ἀποσκίασμα: i. 17).
4. Let us oppress Ye have dishonoured the poor man.
(καταδυναστεύσωμεν) the poor Do not the rich oppress
righteous man.... Let us examine (καταδυναστεύουσιν) you, and
him with despitefulness and torture themselves drag you before the
(ii. 10, 19). judgment-seats? (ii. 6).
5. For the lowest is pardonable by For judgment is without mercy to
mercy; but mighty men shall be him that hath showed no mercy:
mightily chastised (vi. 6). mercy glorieth against judgment
(ii. 13).
6. What hath pride profited us? or Go to now, ye that say, To-day or
what good hath riches with our to-morrow we will go into this
vaunting (ἀλαζονείας) brought us? city, and spend a year there, and
All those things are passed away trade and get gain: whereas ye know
like a shadow, and as a post that not what shall be on the morrow.
hasted by, etc. etc.; even so we, What is your life? For ye are a
as soon as we were born, came to an vapour, that appeareth for a little
end" (v. 8-14). 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 Ye have condemned (κατεδικάσατε),
righteous (τὸν δίκαιον).... Let ye have killed the righteous one
us condemn him (καταδικάσωμεν) (τὸν δίκαιον); he doth not resist
with a shameful death (ii. 12, 20). 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.[41] 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.[42]
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.[43]
[36] Grätz, Noack, Plumptre, F. W. Farrer.
[37] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. i., p. xli. (Murray,
1888).
[38] _Introduction to the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 114, 115 (Hodder and
Stoughton, 1888).
[39] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23
(Murray 1888).
[40] _The Early Days of Christianity_, vol. i., pp. 517-18. Dr. Salmon
leaves the question undecided (_Introduction to N.T._, p. 511).
[41] See Dr. Salmon's _General Introduction_ to the Apocrypha in the
_Speaker's Commentary_, vol. i., pp. xli., xlii.
[42] _Edinburgh Review_, No. 345, January, 1889, pp. 58-95.
[43] 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.[44] 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.
[44] 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."
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).[45] 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.[46] 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?[47] 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,[48] 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 boon[49] 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."[50]
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.
[45] 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.
[46] 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.
[47] See R. H. Hutton on _The Service of Man_, in the _Contemporary
Review_, April, 1887, p. 492.
[48] 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).
[49] The 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").
[50] See F. D. Maurice, _Unity of the N.T._ (Parker, 1854), pp. 320-23.
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?"[51]
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.[52] 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.
[51] _The Christian Year_, St. Bartholomew's Day.
[52] 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.
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."[53]
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 w
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/47337