Studies in the Epistle of James
by A. T. Robertson · English · Gutenberg #48411 · 390,627 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Studies in the Epistle of James
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: Studies in the Epistle of James
Author: A. T. Robertson
Release date: March 5, 2015 [eBook #48411]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48411
Credits: Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan, Carl Miller
at the Book Shop (Poplar Bluff, Missouri) and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STUDIES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ***
Studies _in the_
Epistle _of_ James
_First published as_
PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS
OF CHRISTIANITY
A. T. ROBERTSON
Late Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky
_Revised and Edited by_
Heber F. Peacock
[Illustration: ]
BROADMAN PRESS
_Nashville, Tennessee_
421-06232
_Library of Congress catalog card number: 59-5861_
Printed in the United States of America
5.AT58K.S.P.
Preface
In August, 1912, it was my privilege to deliver a course of lectures at
the Northfield Bible Conference. There were many requests for the
publication of the addresses. I shall never forget the bright faces of
the hundreds who gathered in beautiful Sage Chapel at 8:30 on those
August mornings. In August, 1913, the lectures were repeated at the New
York Chautauqua and at the Winona Bible Conference. There were renewed
appeals for publication, but it was not possible to put the material
into shape because of my work on _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament
in the Light of Historical Research_.
I have expanded the lectures a good deal and have added some
introductory discussion about James himself. I have in mind ministers,
social workers, students of the Bible, Sunday school teachers, and all
lovers of the Word of God and of rightness of life. Technical matters
are placed in parentheses or in footnotes so that the reader may go on
without these if he cares to do so. There is a freshness in the Greek
text not possible in the English, but those who do not know Greek may
still read this book with entire ease.
I do not claim that these addresses are a detailed commentary on the
Epistle of James. They are expository talks based, I trust, on sober,
up-to-date scholarship and applied to modern life. It is the old gospel
in the new age that we need and must know how to use. There is a
wondrous charm in these words of the long ago from one who walked so
close by the side of the Son of man, who misunderstood him at first but
who came at last to rejoice in his Brother in the flesh as the Lord
Jesus Christ. It is immensely worthwhile to listen to what James has to
say about Christianity and the problems of everyday life. His words
throb with power today and strike a peculiarly modern note in the
emphasis upon social problems and reality in religion. They have the
breath of heaven and the warmth of human sympathy and love. Except for a
few quotations from the King James Version, Scripture quotations follow
the American Standard Version.
Preface to Second Edition
The welcome accorded this interpretation of the Epistle of James makes a
new edition necessary. Opportunity is thus afforded for weeding out
misprints. Prof. S. L. Watson, of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, has kindly
verified all the references in the book. The words of James strike a
peculiarly modern note during these days of war.
A. T. R.
Contents
I. James, a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ 1
II. To the Twelve Tribes Which Are of the Dispersion 28
III. Joy in Trial 33
IV. The Way of Temptation 48
V. The Practice of the Word of God 60
VI. Class Prejudice 75
VII. The Appeal to Life 91
VIII. The Tongues of Teachers 104
IX. The True Wise Man 124
X. The Outer and the Inner Life 140
XI. God and Business 158
XII. Perseverance and Prayer 177
I
James, a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ
The Brother of the Lord
It will be well to put together the bits of information about James, or
Jacob,[1] as he is called in the Greek. They are not very numerous, and
yet it is possible to form a reasonably clear picture of his
personality.
It is here assumed that James the author of the epistle is James the
brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19). It is hardly conceivable that James the
brother of John could have written the epistle, since he was put to
death as early as A.D. 44 by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). The matters
presented in the epistle were hardly acute in the Jewish Christian world
by that date, and there is no evidence that this James had attained a
special position of leadership that justified a general appeal to Jewish
Christians.[2]
The epistle belongs to the five “disputed” epistles (James, Jude, 2 and
3 John, 2 Peter) and it circulated in the East before it did in the
West. It occurs in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Origen (in Johan. xix.
6) knows it as “the Epistle current as that of James” and Eusebius (H.
E. III. xxv. 3) describes it with the other four as “nevertheless
well-known to most people.”
There are many proofs[3] that the epistle was written by the author of
the speech in Acts 15:13-21—delicate similarities of thought and style
too subtle for mere imitation or copying. The same likeness appears
between the Epistle of James and the letter to Antioch, probably written
also by James (Acts 15:23-29). There are, besides, apparent
reminiscences of the Sermon on the Mount, which James may have heard
personally or at least heard the substance of it. There is the same
vividness of imagery in the epistle that is so prominent a
characteristic of the teaching of Jesus.
If it be urged that the author of the epistle, if related to Jesus,
would have said so, one may reply that a delicate sense of propriety may
have had precisely the opposite effect. Jesus had himself laid emphasis
on the fact of his spiritual kinship with all believers as more
important (Matt. 12:48-50). The fact that James during the ministry of
Jesus was not sympathetic with His work would also act as a restraining
force upon him. The brother of Jesus (see also Jude 1) naturally would
wish to make his appeal on the same plane as the other teachers of the
gospel. He rejoices in the title of “servant of God and of the Lord
Jesus Christ,” just as Paul did later (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1)
and as Jude, the brother of James, did (Jude 1).
Paul, however, added the term “apostle” in Romans 1:1 and Titus 1:1
which James and Jude do not employ. None of them were members of the
twelve, although Paul claimed apostleship on a par with the twelve (1
Cor. 9:1 f.; 15:8; 2 Cor. 12:11 f.). And yet Paul implies (Gal. 1:19)
that James also is an apostle[4] in a true sense of that term. Like
Paul, he had seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:7). But James, though one of
the pillars at Jerusalem with Peter and John (Gal. 2:9), is content with
the humbler word “slave.” He is the bondsman of the Lord Jesus Christ as
well as of God and so is a Christian in the full sense of the term.
He places Jesus on a par with God and uses Christ as a part of the name.
He identifies his brother Jesus with the Messiah of the Old Testament
and the fulfilment of the hopes and aspirations of true Judaism. One
must perceive that the term “Christ” in the mouth of James carries its
full content and is used deliberately. He adds also “Lord,” which has
here the Old Testament connotation of worship. It is not a mere polite
term for station or courtesy. The use of “Lord” by the side of “God”
places James unquestionably in the ranks of worshipers of Jesus Christ
as Lord and Saviour. See also James 2:1, “faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ.”
I consider it settled that James was not the cousin of Jesus, the son of
the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. There is no doubt that the Greek
word for brother is used for members of a brotherhood in the current
Greek of the first century A.D., just as we find it so frequently in the
New Testament. This usage does not apply to the brothers of Jesus
referred to in the Gospels (John 2:12; Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55; John 7:3).
In Matthew 12:46, 49 we find both the literal and the figurative use of
“brother” side by side. In this looser sense anyone may be called
“brother.”
In Leviticus 10:4 the first cousins of Aaron are termed “brethren,” but
this instance does not justify the constant use of the word in the
Gospels for a definite group of persons as brothers of Jesus if they
were only cousins. Besides, they appear constantly with Mary, the mother
of Jesus, as members of her family. The use of “sisters” increases the
argument for the common use of the word (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:56). There
are many other difficulties in the way of this position, such as the
fact of two sisters with the name of Mary and the identification of
Alphaeus and Clopas.
The theory that James and the other brothers and sisters were all
children of Joseph by a former marriage (step-brother theory) is free
from the difficulty about the word “brother” and is not inconceivable in
itself. Unfortunately there are critical objections to it, for Jesus is
not called “only begotten” of Mary but “firstborn” in Luke 2:7: “She
brought forth her firstborn son.”
Jesus is “only begotten” of God (John 1:18), as the widow of Nain had an
only son (Luke 7:12) and Jairus an only daughter (Luke 8:42). But
“firstborn” occurs in the true sense all through the Septuagint (cf.
Gen. 27:19, 32; 43:33; Deut. 21:15), where there were other children.
The inscriptions show it in the true sense. The New Testament instances
of “firstborn” are all strictly correct from this standpoint, even
Colossians 1:15 and Romans 8:29. “Firstborn” implies other children.
Besides, the natural meaning of Matthew 1:25 leads to the same
conclusion.
The theory (brother or half-brother theory) that Jesus and James were
sons of the same mother, Mary, may be said to hold the field against the
others. In fact, it is most likely that both of the other theories grew
out of the desire to secure a greater imaginary sanctity for Mary under
the impression that she was more holy if she bore only Jesus and did not
live as wife with Joseph. But this is contrary to all Jewish sentiment,
and certainly there is nothing in the Gospels to countenance this notion
but much to contradict it. We conclude, therefore, that James, the
author of the epistle, is the brother of Jesus.
In the Family Circle at Nazareth
In spite of Origen’s opinion (Origen on Matt. 13:55) that the sons and
daughters of Joseph were children of a former marriage, an opinion more
than offset by the position of Tertullian (_de Monog. 8_, _de Virg. Vel.
6_), we must think of the family circle at Nazareth as composed of five
brothers (Jesus, James, Joses, Judas, Simon, as in Mark 6:3, but Jesus,
James, Joseph, Simon, Judas in Matt. 13:55) and the “sisters.” Every
implication is that they all passed as sons and daughters of Joseph and
Mary in the usual sense. The order implies also that while Jesus was the
eldest, James came next among the brothers. Unfortunately, the names of
the sisters are not given.
We are to think, therefore, of a large home circle in the humble
carpenter’s house in Nazareth. Jesus, the eldest, followed the trade of
Joseph, the father of the family, and came to be known as “the
carpenter” (Mark 6:3). Certainly all the children must have learned to
work with their hands, although we do not know whether James adopted
that trade or some other. He would soon be called upon to help in the
support of the family, as Joseph seems to be dead when Jesus enters upon
his ministry; he is not mentioned with Mary and the children in Matthew
13:55 and Mark 6:3. Joseph was probably older than Mary. The family were
not peasants, and they probably had all the necessary comforts of the
simple primitive life of a workman in a small town in Galilee.
Jewish boys usually started to school when six years old, but before
that the education of James had begun in the home. “James, together with
his brothers and sisters, was brought up in an atmosphere charged with
reverence for God and love for man, with tenderness, freedom, and
joy.”[5] The Jewish parents did not shirk parental responsibility for
the religious training of the children, and a large family was regarded
as a blessing from God. The love of God was the first of all lessons
taught at home, and this was followed by the simple elements of truth,
uprightness, mercy, and beneficence.[6] The Jewish mother rejoiced in
her children, and James was fortunate in having such a mother as Mary
and such a father as Joseph, whose dedication to the things of their God
was sincere.
At school, while religion was the main theme and portions of the Old
Testament the textbook, there was abundant intellectual stimulus. The
quick-witted boy would be all alive to the great problems of faith and
duty. The teacher would probably use the Aramaic dialect of Galilee,
even if he had the Old Testament in Hebrew. But the boy would soon learn
to speak the _Koine_ also, the current Greek of the world, the language
of commerce and of common intercourse everywhere. Simon Peter, the
fisherman, knew and used Greek, as did John, the apostle. It was common
for people to know two languages. Paul probably knew Aramaic and Hebrew,
Greek and Latin. Jesus knew and spoke both Aramaic and Greek and
probably knew Hebrew also.
James came to write Greek with a great deal of ease and skill. He was in
no sense a littérateur. He was no Atticist in his style and did not try
to imitate the classical Greek writers, whom he probably never read.
Deissmann[7] does call the Epistle of James “a little piece of
literature,” but he means a product of popular literature. Certainly
there is nothing artificial in content and style. Is it mere fancy to
think that the same poetic beauty shown in Mary’s Magnificat (Luke
1:46-55) appears in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Epistle of James?
At least the rich acquaintance with the Old Testament exists in all
three.
The author of the epistle is gifted with imagination and shows knowledge
of the apocryphal books, especially the wisdom literature of the Jews.
But he is a thorough Jew in his outlook and literary method,[8] so much
so indeed that it is contended by some that James wrote the epistle
originally in Aramaic,[9] an unlikely supposition. The widespread
diffusion of Greek in Palestine amply accounts for the author’s grasp of
the language.[10] The epigrammatic and picturesque style is due to the
writer’s individuality, his environment, and his reading. His vocabulary
is rich in words about fishing, husbandry, and domestic life, as one
would expect.[11] A man of the force and position of James could easily
broaden his acquaintance with the Greek tongue as the years went by. The
Greek is pure _Koine_, with few Hebraisms, though the tone is distinctly
that of the Old Testament.[12] He speaks like a prophet of old in the
service of Christ. There is no doubt that James came to be a man of
culture in a real sense.
He probably married early, as it was the custom of the Jews for men to
marry at the age of eighteen.[13] Paul expressly states that the
brothers of the Lord were married (1 Cor. 9:5). We do not know, of
course, the age of James when Jesus began his ministry. In all
probability he had already married and had a home of his own in
Nazareth. The sisters probably married and settled in Nazareth also
(Mark 6:3).
We have no mention of the rest of the children going to Jerusalem when
the boy Jesus was taken (Luke 2:41-52). Indeed, it is rather implied
that they were not in the company, but this does not mean that James did
not have his turn to go at the age of twelve and afterward.
There is no reason to believe that James grew up to be a Nazarite, as
Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 23) alleges: “He is
distinguished from others of the same name by the title ‘Just,’ which
has been applied to him from the first. He was holy from his mother’s
womb, drank no wine or strong drink, nor ate animal food; no razor came
on his head, nor did he anoint himself with oil nor use the bath. To him
only was it permitted to enter the Holy of Holies.” The evident
legendary details here deprive the statement of real value except as
witness to his genuine piety and to the esteem in which he was held by
the people generally. Hegesippus adds: “His knees became hard like a
camel’s, because he was always kneeling in the temple, asking
forgiveness for the people,” a description of his life in Jerusalem
after he became a Christian. At any rate, like Joseph his father, he
grew up to be a just man and came to be known as James the Just.
A Scoffer of Jesus
We are left to conjecture what the brothers and sisters of Jesus thought
when he went down to the Jordan to meet the Baptist. We know that “Mary
kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). Mary
had seen the dawning messianic consciousness when Jesus was only twelve
(Luke 2:49). The reply of Jesus to his mother’s hint about the wine at
the wedding of Cana implies that they had talked over his messianic task
(John 2:4). But the brothers accompanied Jesus, his mother, and the
small band of six disciples to Capernaum after the miracle at Cana, and
the group remained together for some days (John 2:12). They may have met
at Nazareth after the wedding at Cana and thence proceeded to Capernaum.
It is possible that the brothers, not being at Cana and not knowing the
secret between Jesus and Mary, may not have grasped the significance of
the events connected with the baptism of Jesus and his entrance upon his
messianic career. The presence of the band of “disciples” (learners at
the feet of the new Rabbi) argues that the brothers must have known
something about the wonderful claims of Jesus, their brother. At any
rate, it is pleasant to see them all here together in Capernaum in
fellowship and friendliness, “a proof of the closeness of the ties
uniting our Lord and them. No shadow of estrangement had as yet fallen
upon their relations.”[14] Godet thinks that Mary and the brothers came
on to Capernaum, eager for more miracles like the one at Cana, and may
have been keenly disappointed because Jesus wrought none. This is
possible but hardly as probable as the idea that it was a friendly group
in frank fellowship in Capernaum.
We are left in the dark as to the real attitude of the brothers of Jesus
when he began his great work. They may have looked upon him as a sort of
irregular rabbi or a mild enthusiast carried away by the new teaching of
John the Baptist. There would be natural pride in his work while it
succeeded, without necessary belief in his claims. Certainly Mary must
have had at first the utmost faith, tremulous with expectation, in the
messiahship of Jesus. Perhaps the brothers were at first only mildly
interested or even skeptical of the qualifications of one out of their
own family circle. The brothers may not have been free from the jealousy
sometimes seen in home life.
It was not long before hostility toward Jesus sprang up in Nazareth
itself, according to the vivid narrative in Luke 4:16-31; it probably
was soon after the return of Jesus from Judea and Samaria to Galilee,
certainly after the miracle at Capernaum (Luke 4:23), as told in John
4:46-54. James may have shared with the rest the first wonder at the
words of grace (Luke 4:22) and the quick flash of wrath as the pride of
the town was pricked (Luke 4:28). Henceforth in Nazareth, despite his
growing fame elsewhere, Jesus was _persona non grata_. His brothers felt
this atmosphere of hostility very keenly.
The curtain falls on the family life in Nazareth till toward the close
of the Galilean ministry, after the second general tour of Galilee by
Jesus (Luke 8:1-3). The tremendous work of Jesus had created a wonderful
impression. The multitudes in amazement asked if Jesus were not the son
of David, the Messiah (Matt. 12:23). The Pharisees in anger and chagrin
replied that he was in league with Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24). The
excitement was intense. Jesus could not eat (Mark 3:20). News of all
this came to “his friends” (Mark 3:21), who are explained in Mark 3:31
as “his mother and his brothers.”
Probably already vague rumors were afloat that Jesus was out of his
head. Once people said of Jesus that he was “a gluttonous man, and a
winebibber” (Luke 7:34), but now he is so queer! In the inner circle at
Nazareth Mary had watched and heard it all. What could it mean? Perhaps,
Mary argued, his reason has been temporarily dethroned by the strain and
the excitement. She will go and bring him home where he can have quiet
and rest. It was easier for the brothers to see it so, since they had
not accepted him as Messiah. Perhaps one may have said, “I told you so.”
At any rate, “they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is
beside himself” (Mark 3:21).
Jesus is in a crowded house in Galilee near the lake when they come
(Mark 3:19) and readily understands why they have come when he is told
that his mother and brothers are standing without and wish to speak with
him (Mark 3:31; Matt. 12:46; Luke 8:19 f.). It is a tragedy of life,
pathetic beyond words. The ecclesiastics have long ago made issue with
him and are now violently assailing him. Many of the people are
following the lead of the Pharisees. And now his own mother and brothers
have come and wish to take him home so as to avoid the scandal and shame
of his further public ministry. The Pharisees say he has a demon and is
in league with the devil. The “charitable” construction, therefore, is
that he is a lunatic. But Jesus does not go out to meet his own mother
and brothers (James among them). He had come to know one of the
bitterest of human sorrows, a pang to the very heart—to be misunderstood
“among his own kin, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4).
It is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus found consolation in the
fact that many did understand him. “And looking round on them that sat
round about him” (Mark 3:34) when the message came, “he stretched forth
his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my
brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven,
he is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. 12:49 f.). Mother and
brothers and even his “sisters” (note “and sister”) had failed in the
crisis to comprehend Jesus. But the Father in heaven had not veiled his
face from Jesus. It is not clear that James heard this pathetic rebuke
from Jesus, as he may have remained standing outside the house. Many
have come into spiritual fellowship with Jesus who thus have the
peculiar privilege of taking the place made empty in his heart for the
time by mother and sister and brother. With Mary it was a temporary
eclipse, and she was loyal at the end as she stood by the cross (John
19:25).
Jesus made another and a last visit to Nazareth (Matt. 13:54-58; Mark
6:1-6). There was a revival of interest in him which crystallized into
hard skepticism, so that Jesus “did not many mighty works there,” and
even “marvelled because of their unbelief.” He was a “prophet without
honor” in Nazareth as he left for the last time the city of his
childhood and early manhood.
The tide at last turned against Jesus in Capernaum (John 6:22-71) and in
Galilee generally. For six months he remained away, save for a brief
visit that met with the united hostility of Pharisee and Sadducee (Matt.
15:39 to 16:4; Mark 8:10-13). The brothers of Jesus meanwhile seemed to
grow in this spirit of dislike toward the elder brother. Six months
before the death of Jesus they ridiculed him for his being a virtual
refugee from Galilee and for his secretive methods, quite inconsistent
with his claims of messiahship (John 7:2-5). James as the oldest of the
brothers was probably the spokesman on this occasion. The “advice” was
of an extremely irritating nature, with the implication that Jesus was
seeking to gain credit “in public” while doing his work “in secret.” It
is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus did precisely the opposite, for
he went up to Jerusalem, “not publicly, but as it were in secret” (John
7:10).
John explains the motive of the brothers (7:4 f.), “for even his
brethren did not believe on him.”[15] They had reached the point when
they were willing to attack Jesus. They belonged to the world and did
not understand Jesus (John 7:6 f.). It is not necessary to say that
James was actually a Pharisee, still less an Essene. The use made of his
name by the Judaizers in the controversy with Paul does not prove this
to be true (Gal. 2:12). But certainly he was now in general sympathy
with the hostile attitude of the ecclesiastics from Jerusalem (both
Pharisee and Sadducee). The cup that Jesus must drink at Jerusalem has
this added bitterness in it.
It is not particularly surprising, when all things are considered, that
at his death Jesus commended his mother to John, the beloved disciple,
rather than to any of his brothers or sisters. They were all completely
out of sympathy with him and with her. At such an hour sympathy counted
far more than blood relationship alone. Besides, the brothers may not
have been in Jerusalem at this time, for they still lived in Nazareth.
It is possible, of course, that James may have been at the Passover,
which was so generally attended by the Jews. Certainly he was at
Pentecost later (Acts 1:14).
We do not know whether Jesus appeared to James in Jerusalem or in
Galilee (1 Cor. 15:7), though Paul mentions it after the appearance to
the more than five hundred, which was in Galilee. Mary needed immediate
attention, and Jesus died upon the cross with James and all his brothers
and sisters utterly out of touch with him. “Doubtless their very
intimacy with our Lord blinded them to his real greatness.”[16]
Seeing the Risen Christ
It is Paul who tells us of this most interesting event (1 Cor.
15:7).[17] As already stated, we do not know where James was when the
risen Jesus manifested himself to him. Broadus[18] locates the event in
Jerusalem after the return from Galilee and before the ascension. As a
matter of fact, it could have been in Galilee perfectly well. James may
have come to Jerusalem (Acts 1:14) because he had been converted in
Galilee. At any rate, “this appearance to James is the only one not made
to a known believer.”[19] But Dale[20] holds that James had already been
converted before his Brother appeared to him as a result of information
from his mother or from the apostles. This is, of course, possible, but
it cannot be insisted on as necessary on the ground that Jesus appeared
to believers only. The case of Saul refutes that position.
It is quite possible that James may have heard of the report of the
resurrection of Jesus and had thus some preparation for the great event
when he saw Jesus risen from the dead. We are told nothing of what
passed between the two brothers, but one may be sure that no harsh
reproof came from Jesus for the indifference and even scoffing of James.
The brothers of Jesus were children of their age, which was a pharisaic
age in Palestine. The current expectation was for a political Messiah,
not a Saviour dying for the sins of the world.
Even the twelve apostles had not risen to the conception of a spiritual
Messiah, and they had given up all hope upon the death of Jesus and had
to be convinced themselves of the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, a
task of much difficulty, particularly in the case of Thomas, though they
all at first scoffed at the stories of Mary Magdalene and the other
women. So, then, the path of James toward faith was not an easy one, but
he took it and came out boldly on the side of the disciples of Christ.
It is more than likely that it was through James that the other three
brothers were led to faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour (Acts 1:14).
_The Gospel of the Hebrews_ as quoted by Jerome (_de Viris Illustribus
2_) gives a story to the effect that James was already a disciple and
present at the last Passover with Jesus and took a vow “that he would
not eat bread from that hour on which he had drunk the cup of the Lord
till he saw him risen from the dead. Again, a little afterward, the Lord
says, Bring a table and bread. Immediately it is added: He took bread,
and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to
him, My brother, eat the bread; for the Son of Man has risen from the
dead.” Mayor[21] is inclined to credit this story in part, but surely it
utterly misunderstands Luke 22:18, makes James one of the twelve, and is
impossible from any point of view, since not even the twelve expected
Jesus to rise from the dead.
There are difficulties enough connected with the proof of the
resurrection of Jesus without burdening the narrative with this story.
But, let me add, modern science has not made faith in the resurrection
of Jesus impossible, nor has modern research disposed of the value of
the Gospel accounts of this tremendous event. Paul, who testifies to
this experience of James, is himself the chief witness to the reality of
the fact. This is not the place to enter upon a discussion of this great
question, but modern men may and do still believe in the risen Christ
with all simplicity and sincerity.[22]
In the Upper Room at Pentecost
The simple statement in Acts 1:14 is: “These all ... continued
stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and
with his brethren.” So then all four are now disciples and are admitted
to the inmost secrets of the circle of believers in Jerusalem, whither
they have now come. Certainly, now that they have all come to believe in
their Brother as in reality the Messiah of Israel risen from the dead,
they must come to Jerusalem to be with their mother in her hour of
triumph and joy. No one but a mother can understand the fulness of
satisfaction in Mary’s heart now. The sword had pierced her own soul
(Luke 2:35), as old Simeon had prophesied when he saw the Babe in the
Temple, but now the wound has been healed and there is a new and richer
Magnificat in her heart. It was worth all that she had endured to wait
with the disciples and her other sons in the upper room for the Promise
of the Father. The breach in her family life had been healed.
It is clear that the heartiest of welcomes greeted the brothers of
Jesus. They were men of importance in themselves, James in particular,
who from every standpoint is one of the first men of his day. It is
possible that the coolness of James and the other brothers had injured
the work of Jesus with a good many, who used this fact against the
claims of Jesus. Now the accession of these brothers was of the utmost
value to the band of believers gathered in the upper room, where Jesus
had manifested himself before his ascension.
The presence of the brothers is mentioned by Luke before the choice of
Matthias to succeed Judas. One may naturally wonder why James was not
suggested by Peter, since he undoubtedly was equal to the eleven in
ability and all other qualities save one. But this one defect was fatal.
He had not been with the twelve during the ministry of Jesus and so
could not be a firsthand witness to his words and teachings (Acts 1:22).
Otherwise, we may infer that James would have been a welcome addition to
the twelve in the place of Judas.[23]
But the significant fact is that James is present during the wonderful
days of this Pentecost and is filled, like the rest, with the Holy
Spirit. He enters upon the new task of world evangelization with the new
insight and the new influx of divine power. He faces the new day with
the light of the sun in his face.
Leadership in the Jerusalem Church
If he was disqualified from being one of the twelve, he was not debarred
from liberty to serve. In fact, he was a practical apostle in Jerusalem
along with the rest. The twelve kept no secrets from James. He gradually
won his way to the love and confidence of all the great church in
Jerusalem. His importance in Jerusalem is recognized by Paul on the
occasion of his visit to Jerusalem on his return from Damascus, for he
says: “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother”
(Gal. 1:19). Here Paul treats him as an apostle and practically calls
him so.
James had probably seen Paul before, when he was the leader of the
persecution against the Christians. He doubtless was glad to see this
powerful addition to the forces of Christianity, but James is probably
included in Luke’s statement of the reception of Paul on this occasion.
“And they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple”
(Acts 9:26). Barnabas alone had faith in Paul and the courage to stand
by him. If James was suspicious of the new convert, so were all the
rest, and not without reason. It is clear from Paul’s reference in
Galatians 1:18 that Peter responded heartily to Paul’s advances after
once opening his heart to him. They had a delightful fifteen days
together. It is not likely, as Farrar[24] argues, that James, being a
legalist, held aloof from Paul throughout. This is wholly gratuitous.
James is not mentioned again in Acts till 12:17, and in a most
significant manner. James, the brother of John, has been killed by Herod
Agrippa I. Peter has been thrown into prison but has been released by
the angel of the Lord in response to the prayers of the church assembled
in the home of Mary, mother of John Mark (12:12). Peter goes to the
house and tells the astonished group: “Tell these things unto James, and
to the brethren.” This is somewhere about A.D. 44. James now clearly
occupies a position of leadership in the church. Peter himself
apparently leaves the city for the time being (12:17). There are already
“elders” (11:30) in the church at Jerusalem. We do not know what the
position of James is, but certainly it is one of great honor and
leadership. The apostles, since James could not be one of the twelve who
were charged with the general work of evangelization, may have been glad
for James to be in charge at Jerusalem. Certainly he proved himself
fully equal to the task.
James maintains the position of leadership in Jerusalem throughout the
narrative in Acts. He is evidently the president of the Jerusalem
Conference (Acts 15:14-21). He is in charge of the church when Paul
visits Jerusalem the last time (Acts 21:18): “Paul went in with us unto
James; and all the elders were present.” He possessed the confidence of
this great Jewish church, the mother church at Jerusalem, and had the
ear of the non-Christian Jewish world in a way hardly true of any other
disciple of Jesus. Jews would listen to James who would not heed Simon
Peter.
The Writing of the Epistle
The Epistle of James probably was written shortly before the Jerusalem
Conference, most likely just before, that is, about A.D. 48 or 49. There
is no room here for an extended discussion of the proof of this
statement. In general I agree with the arguments of Mayor on this
point.[25] Plummer[26] is unable to decide between A.D. 49 and 59.
Writers like von Soden place it at the end of the century, and Bruckner
puts it in the second century. Spitta admits that Paul in Romans alludes
to the Epistle of James, but suggests that the present epistle is a
Christian adaptation of a Jewish book.
On the whole, the weight of the argument is toward the conclusion that
James wrote the epistle before the Conference and without reference to
the Judaizing controversy. Paul in Galatians and Romans may very well
have in mind a misuse of what James in chapter 2 says about faith and
works, which misapprehension he seeks to correct. The epistle must be
placed either between A.D. 40 and 50, before the Judaizing controversy
arose, or in the middle of the second century, after it had died
down.[27] The early date has the best of it, in my opinion.
If this date for the writing of the epistle is correct, we have no
difficulty in seeing how James could have written it so early. Already
about A.D. 44 we saw his leadership in the Jerusalem church (Acts
12:17). No man in the apostolic circles at this period had the ear of
the Jewish Christians as did James. This is seen further in the fact
that he is asked to preside over the Conference in Jerusalem to settle
the issues raised by the Judaizers against the work of Paul and Barnabas
among the Gentiles. The epistle, therefore, seems to come in at this
state of the career of James and is the chief expression left of his
mind and life.
Champion of Paul at the Conference
I cannot enter upon a formal discussion of the many questions in dispute
concerning this great event in the apostolic period. I can only briefly
sketch my own interpretation of the part played by James on this
occasion.[28] In brief, it is here maintained that in Galatians 2:1-10
Paul gives a report of the private interview with the leaders in
Jerusalem after the first public meeting (Acts 15:3 f.; Gal. 2:2) was
adjourned because of the violent opposition of the Judaizers (Acts
15:5). In this private conference Paul, though anxious to win the public
support of James and Cephas and John, “the reputed pillars” (Gal. 2:9),
yet was not willing to compromise the great issue at stake, “our liberty
which we have in Christ Jesus” (2:4) and “the truth of the gospel”
(2:5).
Paul reveals a certain amount of embarrassment in his references to the
three great leaders in Jerusalem, as is manifest in the long and broken
sentence in verses 6-10. He roundly asserts his independence of them and
affirms that they imparted nothing to him (2:6). It seems clear that
some of the more timid brethren were quite disposed to surrender to the
Judaizers for the sake of peace and in particular to agree that Titus, a
full-fledged Greek convert in Paul’s company, should be circumcised. But
Paul gave “the pillars” to understand that he would not have peace on
those terms. It is quite possible that James, here mentioned before
Cephas (Peter) and John as the real leader of the group,[29] had not
till now clearly understood Paul’s true position.
The Judaizers had in all probability counted on James to take their side
against Paul, “but contrariwise, when they saw[30] that I had been
entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the
gospel of the circumcision ... they ... gave to me and Barnabas the
right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they
unto the circumcision” (2:7-9). It is much easier to think of James as
the author of chapter 2 in his epistle before this event than after this
pact with Paul. Note also in verse 9, “and when they perceived the grace
that was given unto me....” Now the coast is clear, and Paul is sure of
victory in the open Conference. The stipulation about the poor (2:10)
was in harmony with Paul’s previous practice (Acts 11:29 f.).
In the second meeting of the general Conference James evidently presides
and sums up the situation in favor of Paul, after Peter (Acts 15:7-12)
has shown how they had already agreed to Gentile liberty in the case of
Cornelius and his household. James, with due deliberation (15:13),
concludes (15:12-21) with a pointed endorsement of Simon Peter’s speech
and acceptance of the work at Caesarea and among the Gentiles generally
as a visitation of God. He clinches the whole matter by showing that the
prophets (as Amos 9:11 f.) agree with this position that the Gentiles
are to be saved. “Wherefore my judgment is,” he says as the president of
the Conference, practically offering a resolution for the vote of the
Conference, “that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn
to God” (Acts 15:19). He has put the matter in a very happy form. Surely
Jewish Christians could but rejoice to see Gentiles “turn to God.”
James proposes the writing of an epistle to the Gentile Christians to
this effect, with the added warning “that they abstain from the
pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled,
and from blood.” It is at least open to question whether “what is
strangled” is genuine here, since it is wanting in D (Codex Bezae),
Irenæus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, as also in 15:28. If so, the
prohibition is against idolatry (idol feasts), murder (blood), and
immorality (fornication), the great vices of heathenism. But with the
text as it stands, “things strangled,” we seem to have a concession to
the Jewish ceremonial law and to Jewish prejudices on that point. James
is not uneasy about Moses, for he is read in the synagogues every
sabbath (Acts 15:21), a reference to the habit of the Christians still
to worship in the Jewish synagogues (cf. James 2:2).
The “wisdom” of James is manifest in this masterly address, which held
conviction to such an extent that the resolution of James was carried
unanimously by the body of “the apostles and the elders, with the whole
church” (Acts 15:22), a remarkable outcome when the bitterness of the
Judaizers is considered and a distinct tribute to the influence of
James. We may assume that the Judaizers were silent, since they saw that
they were hopelessly defeated.
The epistle which was sent to the church at Antioch (15:23-29) embodies
the ideas of James and was probably written by him, since the style is
like that of his speech and the epistle that bears his name. The letter
expressly disclaims responsibility for the conduct of the Judaizers at
Antioch (15:24), pointedly condemns their behavior, commends “our
beloved Barnabas and Paul” (vv. 25 f.), refers to the messengers Judas
and Silas, claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the stand for
Gentile freedom (v. 28), and repeats the stipulations in the speech of
James about the special Gentile sins (v. 29).
There can be no question that James here entered fully into sympathy
with the contention of Paul that the yoke of Jewish ceremonialism should
not be imposed upon the Gentile Christians. James is a champion of the
Pauline doctrine of grace as opposed to works. It is interesting to note
the phrase “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). It is difficult to
see how, after this Conference, James and Paul could misunderstand or
oppose each other. As we shall see, the real explanation of the apparent
conflict between James 2 and Romans 3 is quite other than this
unnecessary hypothesis. James has now given the great weight of his
character and influence among the Jewish Christians to the endorsement
of the work of Paul among the Gentiles. James is a Jewish Christian but
not a Judaizer. He does not wish to impose the burden of the Mosaic
ritual upon the Gentiles, though he still observes it himself, as do the
other Jewish Christians, including Paul.
Misuse of the Name of James
In Galatians 2:11 Paul speaks of a visit of Peter to Antioch, apparently
some time after the events recorded in 2:1-10. If it were before the
Conference, Peter’s conduct at Antioch would be largely relieved of the
charge of cowardice. But on the whole, we must follow the order of time
as given by Paul. We do not, however, know whether this visit of Peter
was before the breach between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (Acts
15:36-41) or after the return of Paul from the second tour (Acts 18:22
f.). If the latter is true, Barnabas had also come back to Antioch (Gal.
2:13). Patrick[31] thinks that this visit was not long after the
Conference, probably before the breach with Barnabas. At any rate, Peter
at Antioch practices social equality with the Gentiles, just as Paul and
Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians there did (Gal. 2:13),
and just as Peter did in the house of Cornelius, though he apologized
for the act then (Acts 10:28), and at Jerusalem when called to account
for it (11:1-18). Evidently the question of social equality was not
raised in the Conference at Jerusalem.
“Certain came from James,” says Paul (Gal. 2:12). Patrick[32] admits
that they had some connection with James and may have borne a commission
from James, though not to Peter. It is possible, of course, that rumors
of Peter’s liberty in the matter of social intercourse may have reached
Jerusalem (cf. Acts 11:1 ff.), where the pharisaic element in the church
was very sensitive on this point. It is difficult, however, to believe
that James would have felt called upon to send a reprimand to Peter on
the subject, even granting that James opposed this conduct of Peter.
The Judaizers at Antioch seem to have claimed the sanction of James and
the rest at Jerusalem in their opposition to Paul and Barnabas (Acts
15:1, 24 f.), and it is entirely possible that on this occasion the
visitors from Jerusalem claimed a connection with James that was not
true. Hort[33] thinks it probable that James merely meant “to send
cautions to Peter,” with no thought of a rebuke, and that the messengers
proceeded to frighten Peter with threats of a report to James about his
conduct at Antioch.
It is undoubtedly true that the horizon of Jerusalem was not that of
Antioch and that Paul would have less sympathy for what Peter did under
fear of consequences at Jerusalem than for James in Jerusalem, who might
not fully comprehend developments at Antioch. But the Epistle of James
and his speech at the Conference make me slow to believe that he had
gone over to the position of the Judaizers, as Peter did at Antioch.
Paul boldly charged Peter, and even Barnabas, not with a change of
conviction but with hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13 f.). Fortunately, it was only a
temporary lapse, and both stepped back to the side of Paul in his
championship of a gospel of equality and freedom for all.
Paul makes no formal charge against James, and under all the
circumstances I prefer to think that James has been misrepresented at
Antioch by the visitors from Jerusalem, who dared to use his powerful
name to whip Peter into line. At any rate, James, not Peter, seems to be
the master spirit at Jerusalem, as Paul is at Antioch.
Befriending Paul on His Last Visit
Paul came to Jerusalem for the last time in the spring (probably 57 or
58) with a heavy heart. He reveals his apprehensions in Romans 15:31-33
and in his address at Miletus (Acts 20:18-35). He has made a brave fight
for liberty in Christ almost all over the Roman Empire, but the
Judaizers have not ceased their attacks upon him. In particular, during
his long absence from Jerusalem he has been grossly misrepresented
there. He has been frequently warned of trouble if he came, but he is
determined to come in the hope of setting matters right in Jerusalem and
so preventing a schism in Christianity. He had won at the Conference at
Jerusalem some seven or eight years before.
Hort[34] thinks that Paul entered the city “with much precaution and
avoidance of observation” under the shelter of Mnason (Acts 21:16). At
any rate, the brethren received him gladly (21:17), and on the next day
Paul made a formal call on “James; and all the elders were present”
(21:18). So here James is still at the head of the work in Jerusalem as
at the Conference. The apostles were present then as they seem to be
absent now. This is not a conference but merely a friendly meeting.
Paul’s rehearsal of his work among the Gentiles meets with the most
cordial expressions of satisfaction (21:20).
Paul is among his friends, who tell him of a gross misrepresentation of
his position that is current among the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem to
the effect that he teaches that Jewish Christians must forsake Moses and
the customs of the law (21:21).[35] They do not believe it themselves
and only wish to help Paul clear up the matter without interfering at
all with the decision of the Conference about the freedom of the
Gentiles (21:22-25). They suggest that Paul join with four men in a
Nazarite vow, pay the charges for their purification and for his own,
and let all the Jewish Christians see him in the act of worship and
ritual observance of the ceremonial law, thus proving “that thou thyself
also walkest orderly, keeping the law” (21:24).
The matter seemed simple enough. Paul had not opposed the observance of
the law on the part of Jewish Christians. Galatians was written in
defense of Gentile liberty. There was no effort to commit Paul to the
necessity of the law for salvation. As a matter of fact, Paul had kept
up his observance of the Jewish customs save as they affected separation
from the Gentiles. So Paul accepted the advice and made the offering,
“purifying himself with them” (21:26). Apparently the plan succeeded in
setting Paul right with the mass of the church in Jerusalem.
The trouble that led to his arrest arose from the attack of some Jews
(not Christians) from Ephesus, who accused Paul of defaming the Temple
while in the very act of doing worship in the Temple. We do not know
whether the plan of the elders was the plan of James. Certainly if he
had disapproved he would have spoken out, as the meeting was at his
house. But it was all meant in the utmost kindness to Paul, and it is
not possible to show that it was unwise. The incident shows the greatest
friendliness between Paul and James and the frankest recognition on
Paul’s part of the great worth and influence of James himself. There is
no other reference to James in the New Testament unless it appears in
Hebrews 13:7, 17, “them that have the rule over you.”
The Story of His Death
Clement of Alexandria[36] says that James the Just “was thrown from the
gable [of the temple], and beaten to death by a fuller with a club.”
Hegesippus[37] gives a long and legendary account of the death of James
to the effect that the people of Jerusalem who called James “the Just”
were so enraged when he bore witness to Jesus as the Son of man that
they flung him down from the gable of the Temple, stoned him, and a
fuller clubbed him. “And they buried him on the spot by the temple, and
his monument still remains by the temple.”
But Josephus[38] gives an entirely different and much more credible
narrative of the death of James, placing it about A.D. 62 or 63. He
charges the Sadducees through the high priest Ananus with the death of
James and adds: “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 Judaea), assembles a
Sanhedrin of judges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who
is called Christ (his name was James) and some others, and delivered
them to be stoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law.” So he
won a martyr’s crown. He was called “the Just.” He had accused the
wicked rich of killing “the righteous one” (James 5:6).
II
To the Twelve Tribes Which Are of the Dispersion
Simple Address
The writer is wonderfully simple and direct in his greeting as compared
with Paul in Romans 1:1-7, for instance. There is no principal verb, and
the nominative absolute occurs with the infinitive, as is so common in
the letters found in the papyri. Originally a word like “sends” may have
been used also. But this short address is in perfect keeping with the
business-like character of James and the pointed, pungent tone of the
epistle.
The Readers
They are evidently not a local church. “The twelve tribes which are of
the Dispersion” naturally refers to the Jews who are scattered in the
Gentile world outside of Palestine. The technical term _diaspora_ occurs
in only two other places in the New Testament (John 7:35; 1 Peter 1:1).
In John the word has its usual significance. The Jewish leaders scoffed
at Jesus as a failure in Palestine. Perhaps he meant to go and teach the
Jews of the dispersion. The term “twelve tribes” in James merely means
the Jews as a whole in the dispersion, for the tribes were not preserved
in a distinctive way outside of Palestine.
The “lost ten tribes” evidently had no significance for James. As a
matter of fact, they are no more “lost” than Judah and Benjamin. The
Jews of Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans were
once more scattered abroad, as their ancestors had been twice before, to
mingle as “Jews” in various parts of the world. Doubtless, modern Jews
are simply a blend of all the twelve tribes. At the time when James
wrote, the Jews were very numerous in all the great commercial centers
of the world, such as Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, Ephesus, Miletus,
Pergamum, Rome, Thessalonica. But it is more than probable that James
has in mind chiefly the Eastern dispersion in Babylonia and Mesopotamia,
as Peter (1 Peter 1:1) addressed the Western dispersion.
But was James writing to Jews who were not Christians? Was he making an
appeal to the non-Christian Jews of the dispersion to become Christians?
The idea is not without fascination in itself. Dr. J. H. Moulton[39]
contends that this is precisely what James has done, as is shown by the
avoidance of specific reference to Christ and to the cross so as not to
give offense to the Jews whom he wishes to win. Dr. George Milligan[40]
replies that it is not possible to think of “a Christian teacher of
James’s position suppressing his distinctive beliefs under any
circumstances whatsoever.” But the author does _not_ conceal his view of
Jesus. In the very first verse he speaks of “the Lord Jesus Christ,” and
these words give his human name Jesus, his title Christ (Messiah), and
his lordship (deity). Besides, in 2:1 James speaks of Jesus as the
object of faith and so of worship, as Moffatt[41] correctly has it: “As
you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory.” See also 5:7,
“until the coming of the Lord” (cf. 5:8).
There are no doctrinal discussions of the cross and the resurrection,
but all this is distinctly implied. James also announces himself as a
Christian in 1:1 and could not wish to conceal the gospel if he meant to
win Jews to Christ. Moreover, he draws a distinction between the
Christians (“ye”) and their oppressors (“they,” apparently rich Jews) in
2:7: “Do not they blaspheme the honorable name, by which ye are called?”
That “name” is the name of Christ.[42] Compare also 2:6: “Do not the
rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?”
Besides, James claims the readers as believers, “my brethren,” in 2:1
and 5:7 f. There are, doubtless, passages where James pictures
unbelieving Jews, as in 2:6 f. just mentioned and in particular 5:1-6,
that vivid apostrophe to the rich Jews of the time.
In 1 Peter 1:1 we find the other instance of _diaspora_, or dispersion.
Here Peter seems to mean by “the elect who are sojourners of the
Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” not
merely Jews or Jewish Christians but all Christians, whether Jews or
Gentiles, in the spiritual dispersion, “sojourners” from the true
Palestine or promised land (heaven). Is this the idea of James? Zahn[43]
takes this position and finds that the writer is addressing all
Christians in general, whether those persons would be Jews or Gentiles.
But surely the author has in mind simply Christian Jews outside of
Palestine. The use of the word “synagogue” as a place of worship (James
2:2) on a par with “church” (5:14) argues for this interpretation. He is
addressing the Christian Jews, who now have many problems, and he may
have hoped by means of these believing Jews to reach the wider circle of
unbelieving Jews. He speaks of Abraham as “our father” (2:21). He
assumes that for his readers the Mosaic law is still binding (2:9-11;
4:11).[44]
The Occasion
This we do not know. Unlike most of Paul’s epistles, there are no
personal details. We are left to conjecture, as in the case of Jude and
1 John. The picture drawn in the epistle is that of Jewish Christians of
the poorer classes, with a small number of richer brethren (1:10),
struggling for life in the midst of a social and economic environment
that was utterly unsympathetic, not to say hostile. The process of
adjustment was difficult and perilous. There were perils to the
individual and to the church life, and James shows real mastery of the
situation that confronted the Jewish Christians in the middle of the
first century in the scattered regions where they were found. He writes
to them in a firm tone but with manifest understanding and sympathy.
Character of the Epistle
The book, small as it is, is a little gem in conception and expression.
It reminds one of portions of the book of Proverbs, some of the Psalms,
portions of the Prophets, the Twelve Patriarchs, the Wisdom of Jesus the
Son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, and the Sermon on the
Mount. It is quite possible that both Paul and Peter had read the
Epistle of James; at least there are several coincidences between them.
At any rate, there seems to be some literary connection between some of
Paul’s epistles (Rom., 1 Cor., Gal.), 1 Peter and Hebrews, and the
Epistle of James. Some contend that the epistle makes use of these New
Testament books. M. Jones[45] thinks that the author had some knowledge
of the Stoic philosophers, but this could have come through Hellenistic
Judaism, as for instance the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo.
The author, as already shown, writes in the smooth and easy _Koine_ of a
gifted and cultivated Jew of Palestine. One does not have to say with
Patrick[46] that James had a wide knowledge of classical Greek. He may
never have read a line of “classical” Greek, but he knew well the
current Greek of his day and used it with fine skill. It is not a
labored production and is in no sense artificial. The author is full of
the Old Testament and writes like one of the prophets; yet he has a firm
grip upon the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The book forms a fine link between the Old and New Testaments. James,
the brother of the Lord Jesus, understands the Old Testament and loves
Moses still. He seeks to interpret Christianity more fully on its
ethical and social side to the Jewish Christians of his time, who are in
sad need of help, beset as they are by Jew and Gentile, and with an
imperfect grasp of the new gospel. They find in this epistle just what
they need to make practice correspond to profession, to square life with
creed. The lesson is still needed today. There is a peculiar pertinence
about the teaching of James that appeals to modern men who are nothing
if not practical.
III
Joy in Trial
Evidently these early Jewish Christians had their share of trial. Who,
alas, does not have his portion? The problem with us all is to learn how
to find the spring of joy in the midst of sorrow. There are always
perplexities and anxieties. The sea is restless even in its moments of
calm beauty.
Variety in Trials (1:2)
There is the tone of an elder brother in this epistle, and we see it at
the start when James says “my brothers.” It is no perfunctory phrase
with him. It is “trials,” not “temptations,” that James here has in
mind, though the same word probably means temptation in 1:12. The word
in the Greek came to have either sense, though originally it meant only
to try, to attempt, just as our English word “tempt” was at first simply
“try.” But it is a short step from “try” to “make trial of” one when
suspicion exists or evil desire arises. Hence all through the Greek we
find the old Greek word used in both senses. The New Testament usage
varies. There are a half dozen other passages where the word has the
idea of trial (Luke 22:28; Acts 20:19; Gal. 4:14; 1 Peter 1:6; 4:12;
Rev. 3:10). In 1 Peter 1:6 the identical expression “manifold trials”
appears. Oesterley[47] wrongly insists that “temptation” is the meaning
in James 1:2 on the ground that “the writer’s Judaism is stronger than
his Christianity,” and he then uses it as an argument against the
genuineness of the book.
A soldier (Parry) does have “true joy” in victory over temptation, like
Wordsworth’s “happy warrior,” but that is beside the mark here. There is
no conflict here with the avoidance of temptation urged by Jesus (Matt.
6:13; Luke 11:4; Matt. 26:41; Luke 22:40). James refers rather to
external trials into which men fall—trials that are not only unwelcome
but also unsought and unexpected.[48] It is almost the picture of a
stumble in the dark when one finds himself surrounded by hostile forces,
just as the poor man fell among robbers (Luke 10:30).
Besides, one may be surrounded by all sorts of trials at once and not
merely any sort of trial (Moffatt). The word “manifold” is really
many-colored, variegated, spotted, mottled, pied, dappled. “It never
rains but it pours,” we say at such a time. The same word is applied to
the sicknesses and torments of body and mind which Jesus healed (Matt.
4:24). It is used of the evil desires that lead silly women astray (2
Tim. 3:6), of the lusts and pleasures which once the Cretans served
(Titus 3:3), of the variety in the manifestation of God’s power in
connection with the gospel (Heb. 2:4), of the many sorts of strange
teachings then afloat (Heb. 13:9) of which we are now beginning to learn
something (incipient Gnosticism and the early stages of Mithraism, for
example), of the many trials which brought sorrow to the Christians (1
Peter 1:6), and of the many sides to the grace of God (1 Peter 4:10).
God has grace for every trial whatever its color, whether black or blue,
yellow or green, red or crimson.
The way to face them all is with joy in the heart and a smile on the
face. We are not asked to rush into trials and to make mock martyrs of
ourselves. We are not asked to rejoice because of the trials, many or
few. Much depends on how we treat the problem of trial, much of which is
beyond our control, like poverty in wisdom (James 1:5) and in substance
(1:9) and like persecution (2:6 f.).
We are not to be blind to facts nor to submit tamely to what can be
cured and should not be endured. James is not a cynic or a stoic but a
victorious Christian who has learned the lesson that thankful joy is
easier and wiser than mere dull resignation (Plummer, _in loco_). Each
trouble may be met by a special kind of joy as its antidote. The common
idea about “all joy” is that James thereby means pure joy, nothing but
joy. “Greet it as pure joy” (Moffatt). That is possible, though it may
also mean “bring to bear all that joy has to offer.” It does not mean
(Mayor) that all of joy is contained in this view. At any rate, it is
much to know that joy in suffering is possible, as many saints can
testify who have reached the pure air of fellowship with Jesus in
suffering (cf. Phil. 3:10). The Brother of James said: “Blessed are they
that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and
persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my
sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven:
for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you” (Matt.
5:10-12).
This is part of the fellowship of Christ and of the saints, the
“sunshine band” of those who have learned to smile in the midst of
tears, like the sunshine in the rain. Paul was able to say: “But we also
rejoice in our tribulations” (Rom. 5:3). This is not the joy of the
fanatic or of the fakir or of the rhapsodist. It is the joy of the soul
that is at peace with God in Christ and has also more than earth and
hell can take away, the peace that passes all understanding. The
disciples rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for
the Name” (Acts 5:41). Even Marcus Aurelius said: “Say not that that
which hath befallen thee is bad fortune, but that to endure it nobly is
good fortune.”
The Product of Trial (1:3)
The rule of Christian joy thus expounded stands the test of experience.
The word “knowing” is the one used for experimental knowledge as opposed
to mere intellectual apprehension. The tense (present participle)
expresses continuous acquisition of fresh knowledge from experience. It
is the school of life where we learn most of what we really know. The
position of James is thus in thorough harmony with psychology. The
command to rejoice in the midst of manifold trials, paradoxical though
it seems, is one that the Jewish Christians knew to be true from their
experience of grace. Johnstone[49] has a fine word: “Affliction lets
down a blazing torch into his own nature—and he sees many things which
he little expected to see.” One of the marvels of modern science is the
use of electric light by divers at the bottom of the sea to take
pictures of sea life.
It is the biological conception that James has in mind. The law of life
(nature and grace) works through personal experience and not by
mechanical impartation. What do we learn by experience? “That the
proving of your faith worketh patience.” Moffatt has it: “That the
sterling temper of your faith produces endurance.”
The notion is plainly that of testing. See the same phrase in 1 Peter
1:7. Thus James, as Paul, regards faith as “the very foundation of
religion” (Mayor). The verb from which the adjective is derived is
common enough for testing a yoke of oxen (Luke 14:19), the spirits (1
John 4:1), work by fire (1 Cor. 3:13), genuineness of love (2 Cor. 8:8),
all things (1 Thess. 5:21). Peter (1 Peter 1:7) explains the adjective
by the verb (tested by fire). Compare Sirach 2:5: “For gold is tried in
the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity.” One is
reminded of the Sermon on the Mount. “Ye shall know them by their
fruits” (Matt. 7:16).
Patience is _patientia_ (_patior_) and is called by Philo the queen of
the virtues. The Jews (Oesterley, _in loco_) had had ample need of this
virtue in their checkered history. It is just the opposite of the
“superman” of Nietzsche, the triumph of might over right, the will to
get what one wishes, right or wrong. There is inevitable conflict
between selfish militarism and Christianity. It is a pity that
Christians have left it to socialists to make the most vigorous protest
against war. But alas, both Christians and socialists are swept under by
the vortex of war _nolens volens_. And yet by “patience” James does not
mean inertia or lack of ambition. It is not complacent self-satisfaction
but the triumph of regulated consideration of the welfare of others, the
victory of love over greed, the joy of doing without that others may be
happy, the happiness of enduring ill for the sake of Jesus.
It is very hard to remain under misfortune (the literal meaning of the
Greek word for patience) when it cannot be helped. James does not mean
that we are not to try to cure any of the ills of life, not to overcome
ignorance, poverty, disease, crime. There is here no surcease for the
war on the evil conditions of modern life in home or city or state. But
many things cannot be changed. Others will be alleviated by and by.
Meanwhile the Christian can rise to the height of cheerful, joyful
patience. It is the practice of cheerfulness that we so much need. We do
not have to shut our eyes to the facts of life and of the human reason
and deny the existence of sin and sickness. We can conquer the bitter
results of these evils by the joy in Christ that drives away despair.
This patience is the product of trial. We are not born with a supply of
patience. It is not bestowed in fulness upon us at the new birth. Like
the manna, we need a fresh supply each morning. But the habit of mind
termed patience is gradually wrought in us by the discipline of
experience. Bitterness is a possible fruit of sorrow and hard
experiences. Bitterness is written all over some sad faces. That
terrible calamity can be missed, will be missed, if one walks in the way
of him who said: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I
am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For
my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28 f.). It may not be
easy and light at first, but it becomes so in the presence of Jesus.
Nobly does Wordsworth interpret it for us all:
Who, doomed to go in company with pain,
And fear and bloodshed, miserable train!
Turned his necessity to glorious gain;
In face of these doth exercise a power
Which is our human nature’s highest dower;
Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves
Of their bad influence, and their good receives.
Perfection by Patience (1:4)
There is no other way than the slow way of life. The mushroom springs up
in a night and goes as quickly away. The oak grows a few inches a year
and lasts for centuries. The finest product in God’s garden is the soul
of man, ripe with the long years of toil and sorrow. Luther Burbank
learned some of the witchery of nature by watching her ways with plant
life. He showed great patience and has much to show for it. Give
patience a chance to do its work and keep on giving it a fair show. Ole
Bull said that if he missed practicing on his violin one day, he noticed
the difference in his playing. If he missed two days, other musicians
noticed it. If he skipped three days, all the world knew it.
“Only, let your endurance be a finished product” (Moffatt). It comes to
that in all great achievements, for the test is endurance. The goal is
at the end of the race, where Jesus is the author and finisher of the
faith which we possess (Heb. 12:2). “We are become partakers of Christ,
if we hold ... firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:14). “But he that endureth to
the end, the same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13).
Patience calls for courage; discouragement leads to impatience and
failure. There is need of long-suffering (Col. 1:11), if we get the
“finished product.” The word for perfect here occurs also in James 1:17,
25; 3:2. The word, like the substantive, has a double usage (cf. _finis_
and our _end_), either limit or aim. So the perfect man may be regarded
in the absolute sense, the limit, as the perfect Man Christ Jesus (Eph.
4:13), or as on the way to the goal (no longer a child but a developed
man, as in 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15). “The perfect” (1 Cor. 13:10) is
still to come, but there is “perfect love” (1 John 4:18). We are to aim
after the perfection of God himself (Matt. 5:48). Paul’s ambition was to
present each one “perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). Compare also
Colossians 4:12. Here James has his eye on the goal which is at the end
of the long road. He knows full well (3:2) that in many things we all
stumble, but we must persevere. Patience must do its “perfect work,”
that ye may be “perfect.”
But James takes a latitudinal look at the work of patience, not merely
the longitudinal view—the view that ye may be “entire, lacking nothing,”
“complete, with never a defect” (Moffatt). This word for entire (cf.
_integer_) means complete in all its parts, whole, not unsound anywhere.
At the end of the race we are to be fully developed and sound to the
core in heart and limb. The word is used of stones untouched by a tool
(Deut. 27:6), of a body without blemish. Epictetus (bk. III, chap. xxvi,
§ 25) uses the word of a vessel which one finds whole, unbroken, and
useful. It is used of a complete or unbroken household. In the papyri
Philo uses both words together, as James does here.
The substantive is used of the “perfect soundness” of the man just
healed by Peter and John (Acts 3:16). This adjective occurs with
“righteousness” (Wisd. 15:13) and “worship” or “religion” (4 Macc. 17).
The adjective is used by Paul in his prayer for the Thessalonians,
“preserved entire, without blame” (1 Thess. 5:23). This is what Jesus
does for his glorious church, which is to be without “spot or wrinkle or
any such thing” (Eph. 5:27). Jesus, our High Priest, “has perfected for
ever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). Alas, Isaiah (1:6) found
Israel wholly wanting in this soundness. James’s ideal is that we shall
fall short in nothing. Our destiny is to dwell in the family of God and
to be like Jesus, our elder Brother (1 John 3:2). This ultimate divine
fulness is not the self-sufficiency of the stoics.
Shortage in Wisdom (1:5)
“Defective in wisdom,” Moffatt puts it. It is the same word that occurs
at the end of verse 4. James is fond of catching up a preceding word and
going on with it, even if, as here, in a new sense. “If any of you
lacketh wisdom,” James gently hints. Who is it that does not feel his
shortcoming here, at times with painful intensity?
What does James mean by wisdom? It is more than knowledge. It is more
than mere intelligent apprehension of acquired knowledge. Tennyson says:
“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.” James shows familiarity with the
Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Ecclus.)[50] and possibly also the
so-called Wisdom of Solomon. Certainly he knows the book of Proverbs.
But here he does not use wisdom in a philosophical or mystical sense.
With James wisdom is the right use of one’s opportunities in holy
living. It is living like Christ in accord with the will of God. In
3:13-17 he gives a formal discussion of the two sorts of wisdom. Bede
suggests that we need wisdom to know how to look at trial in the true
light. Yes, and we need it to give patience the chance to do its perfect
work. Paul uses wisdom in the special sense of God’s wisdom as shown in
the gospel as infinitely superior to the wisdom of the world which
scouted the cross of Christ. “We speak wisdom among them that are
perfect” (the mature, 1 Cor. 2:6, AV).
In the Old Testament wisdom is sometimes the intelligence of God (Prov.
8:22-30). “Ten measures of wisdom came down from heaven, and nine of
them fell to the lot of the Holy Land” (_Kiddushim_, 49_b_). With James
the source of wisdom is God, not the Jews. So then, when our supply runs
short, ask of God. It is like a bank to which we go to get our money.
God is the banker whose supply of wisdom never gives out. Unlike other
bankers, he asks no security save the name of Jesus.[51] That name gives
us full credit at the bank of heaven.
On that basis God “gives to all men without question or reproach”
(Moffatt). We have it expressed as “liberally” in the standard versions.
It is a rather difficult word to translate into English. It means
simple, singlefold, sincere. Compare the “single” eye in Matthew 6:22;
Luke 11:34. In Romans 12:8 it is not clear whether singleness or
liberality is the idea, but “liberality” is obviously correct in 2
Corinthians 8:2, “the riches of their liberality.” So it is in 9:11, 13,
but “singleness of heart” in Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22.
Oesterley finds the notion of James to be “singleness of aim, the aim
being the imparting of benefit without requiring anything in return.”
Likewise, Bengel interprets it by _simpliciter_. Either idea makes good
sense, for surely God gives to us all with singleness of purpose and
also without bargaining on God’s part, for there is no idea of
reciprocity. “Without question” (Moffatt) suggests an understanding with
God, which is true. It is the normal, natural thing for a child of God
to come to God and ask of him, for he “upbraideth not.” A fool upbraids,
the Son of Sirach says (Ecclus. 20:15). Instead of upbraiding us for
asking, rather we are made to wonder why we did not ask sooner.
God does not chide us for our folly but gives us good measure of wisdom
to take its place. This is the literal truth, as many self-confessed
fools of the world are glad to testify. They have left the folly of a
worldly, selfish, sinful life for the rich joy of the service of God in
Christ. The change may come in a moment, for after all, this new view of
life and the power to live it may be had for the asking. “And it shall
be given him.” It will be given on request, with no other identification
than the plea of the sinner who comes in the name of Jesus, the “open
sesame” to the treasures of heaven, himself the wisdom of God (1 Cor.
1:30) in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden (Col.
2:3). God does ask of us that we use this wisdom for his glory and for
the blessing of other lives, the enrichment of other hearts.
Doubting Prayer (1:6-8)
Jesus (Matt. 7:7 f.) had urged the disciples to ask, with the promise
that God would answer.
There is a condition attached to the wide-open invitation in James 1:5.
“But let him ask in faith,” James adds. By faith James means not a body
of doctrine but trust in God, a working confidence in God that leads one
to ask and to expect to receive what he asks. It is certain that God
does not answer some prayers, at least in the way expected. Some
requests ought not to be granted, in fact ought never to be made. Prayer
may be very foolish as well as very wise. God does not offer to grant
every whim of a spoiled and petulant child. But assuming that one is
asking for wisdom, which surely is a proper prayer for anyone to make,
even so he may miss it because he does not exercise wisdom in the
asking. He must not chill the ardor of his desire by hesitation and
doubt. Let him ask, “nothing doubting.”
To doubt is to have a divided mind that draws him two ways, like the
poor donkey that starved because he could not choose between the two
stacks of hay. Such a man is like a wave of the sea (“Like a cork
floating on the wave, now carried towards the shore, now away from it,”
Mayor), one of the most transitory things imaginable, driven by the wind
and tossed into sea foam (whitecaps) as if blown by a fan or bellows, a
veritable “brain storm” of perplexity and indecision.
God does answer prayer, but not the prayer of a man who insults the
Giver of whom he asks a favor. Timid faith is quite another thing. That
Jesus honored, as in the case of the father who first said, “But if thou
canst do any thing” (Mark 9:22). Jesus rebuked him for his “if thou
canst.” Then the anxious father cried out: “Lord, I believe; help thou
mine unbelief.”
There are many difficulties in the way of trust in God today. Science
has left many minds groping in the dark without God, feeling after him
if haply they may find him, not knowing that he is nigh to each of us.
We do not have an absentee God. He can and does hear the cry of his
children for help. If SOS can find a response over the wind and the wave
to the call of the sinking ship, surely it is not strange that the
Father of our spirits will hear our call to him. So it will be, “if ye
have faith and doubt not,” almost the very words used by James.
Jesus had to rebuke his disciples for their lack of faith (Matt. 8:26)
when they thought they were perishing from wind and wave. And Simon
Peter doubted after he began to walk on the water and started at once to
sink. “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” says Jesus
to Peter (Matt. 14:31). Peter had a divided mind. “Let not that man
think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.” He does not expect
anything, and he is not disappointed. What a commentary is this sentence
upon the halfhearted praying, the lack of interest, the worldly-minded
passive worship of many modern Christians. There is no wrestling with
God in prayer for victory.
“Double-minded creature that he is, wavering at every turn” (Moffatt).
The double-minded man is like the two-faced man (Mr. Facing Both Ways).
Sirach (2:13) speaks of the sinner coming to two paths and being unable
to choose. Such a man perishes at the crossroads. Compare James 4:8 for
the only other use of the word in the New Testament, though common
enough elsewhere. Such indecision goes into duplicity, as Jesus shows
about the evil eye and the single eye (Matt. 6:22 f.). It is a miserable
life, as anyone knows who leads a double life. The double heart leads to
the double life, with its pretended double standard of morals. Clement
of Rome says: “Wretched are the double-minded, who doubt in their
heart.” No wonder he becomes “unstable in all his ways,” not able to
stand in all his goings. He wobbles and finally reels like a drunken
man. Such inconstancy winds up in hypocrisy or abandonment to sin.
The Democracy of Faith (1:9-11)
James returns to the keynote of “all joy” (v. 2) and uses the word
“glory.” The positive note of exultation is the mark of the true
Christian against the double-minded man. The pessimist is not a
representative of Christianity. The true optimist is not, however, blind
to the facts of life. He can glory in God in the midst of all sorts of
trials and conditions, whether in high or low estate. His joy is
independent of earthly estate. The “cotter’s Saturday night” may be as
happy as the one in the castle nearby. Class distinctions are no cause
for pride in a spiritual democracy like the church of Jesus Christ. We
need in Christianity no “princes of the church” in the Roman Catholic
sense. Pride of rank among the twelve disciples was a source of grief to
Jesus. The rich and the poor are one in Christ Jesus, and all are poor,
miserable sinners saved by grace.
Johnstone[52] calls this section “Rich Poor and Poor Rich.” That is true
and is the probable interpretation here. The humble[53] brother may,
after all, be the richest man in the church—rich in grace, in love, in
joy, in peace, in righteousness, in fellowship. This is “his high
estate,” which rises sheer above hovel or palace. Thank God that this
infinite wealth of the spirit is still open to the poor all over the
world who find the door of competency closed in their faces. The pious
poor is more than a phrase. It is often literal fact.
The papyri discoveries[54] bear eloquent testimony to the words of Paul
about the membership of the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:26-29). The
papyri letters and other documents are chiefly from the middle and lower
classes and reflect the actual life of the very people from whom the
gospel made most of its converts (fishermen, carpenters, publicans,
tentmakers, etc.). There were already some wealthy members of the early
churches, men like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas of Cyprus.
There were “not many mighty,” but there were some. There soon came to be
large numbers of slaves in the churches when the gospel spread among the
Gentiles. But already social problems of an acute nature were on hand
when James wrote. In fact, we see such problems in the early chapters of
Acts, when Ananias and Sapphira wished to get credit for a generosity
that they were not willing to show and when high feeling arose in the
distribution of the funds for the Aramean (Palestinian) and Hellenistic
widows among the Jewish Christians. At no point are people more
sensitive than about money.
So the rich brother is to be reminded of his humiliation, “in that he is
made low,” placed on a level with the “lowly brother.” They meet on the
level in Christ. Each is as high and as low as the other—no more, no
less. The rich man is not to glory over the poor man, nor is the poor
brother to cringe in the presence of the rich brother. This is the
democracy of faith, the universality of Christ.
The rich brother is in constant peril of pride of possession, and so
James reminds him of the fate of the beautiful flower of the grass which
springs up quickly and withers before the burning heat and falls off. It
is a striking adaptation of the language of Isaiah (40:6-8), using the
imagery for another purpose. 1 Peter 1:24 says: “All flesh is as grass,
and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass.” Christ brings all men
to their true level, the common humanity in us all, the sonship in him
that makes us heirs of heaven. Moffatt changes “his high estate” to
“when he is raised,” and “in that he is made low” to “in being lowered.”
He seems to understand that James refers to the possible ups and downs
of life. It will be easy for the lowly brother in that case to rejoice
when he becomes rich; but how about the rich brother when he becomes
poor?
Plummer (_in loco_) refuses to see a “brother” at all in the rich man,
but only one of the rich Jews who oppressed the early Christians, as in
James 5:1-6. But that gives an Ebionitic tone to the epistle. James does
indulge in irony, but he is apparently sincere in his picture here. The
rich brother will fade away in his goings, as if James has in mind a
salesman whose business dries up like a flower. Riches truly have wings
and fly away. They are sweet like the rose but soon vanish from us
forever.
IV
The Way of Temptation
James powerfully sketches the natural history of temptation if yielded
to and the glory of victory if overcome. The other sense (temptation) of
the word used for trial in 1:2 occurs here. Moffatt indeed takes trial
as the idea in 1:12 also (so does Hort _in loco_), but certainly in
verse 13 we have to say “temptation.” It is most likely that the idea of
temptation is present in 1:12. Here James returns to the discussion of
the other side of the blessing of trials, namely, the blessing of
temptation endured. As a matter of fact, he has not really digressed
from the subject. He merely discusses one aspect.
Standing the Test (1:12)
“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation.” We must never forget that
Jesus warned us against rushing into temptation, not merely in the
Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4) but also in the agony of
Gethsemane, when Satan had come upon him with renewed energy in spite of
repeated defeats by Jesus since the wilderness temptations (Matt. 26:41;
Luke 22:40). Jesus urged the disciples to pray to be spared temptation.
No one knew so well as he the power of the evil one. He had wrestled
with him to the end and had conquered where others failed. Temptation is
not to be courted, not even for the sake of the experience and the
possible victory. Too many go down in the struggle for any to rush into
it lightly. “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
But if temptation is thrust upon one, then he must fight and win as
Jesus did. There is always a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). We must find
the way out. Compare Job 5:17: “Behold, happy is the man whom the Lord
correcteth.” He only is happy (the same word used in the Beatitudes in
Matt. 5:3-11) who endures. That is true patience. It is only “when he
hath been approved” after standing the test that “he shall receive the
crown of life,” the victor’s crown. The word for approved suggests the
furnace that removes the dross and leaves the pure metal. The refiner of
silver watches, we are told, till he sees his own image in the metal.
Then it is pure. The metal is tested and approved.
“The crown of life” (cf. Rev. 2:10) is probably the wreath of victory in
the games (cf. 1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 2:5), for Greek games were common in
Palestine in the days of Herod the Great and were practiced even in
Jerusalem itself (Josephus, _Ant._ 15, 8, 1 f.). It is a crown of kingly
glory, but it is bestowed as reward of merit to those who love the Lord
Jesus. We may have a reference to a Logion of Jesus not preserved in
which he makes this promise: “Blessed is he who hath his raiment white,
for he it is who receiveth the crown of joy upon his head.”[55] In
Proverbs 1:9 we read that the instruction of father and mother “shall be
a chaplet of grace unto thy head.” In Sirach 15:6 we read of “a crown of
gladness,” and in the _Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs_ (Levi iv. 1)
we find “crowns of glory.” Love is the way to win this crown—love and
the proof of it in enduring temptation and leading “the white life.”
Blaming God (1:13)
Whatever doubt exists in verse 12 about trial or temptation vanishes in
verse 13. Here it is clearly temptation to evil. Hort (_in loco_)
suggests “tempted by trial,” and Moffatt puts it “tried by temptation.”
Certainly trial becomes a temptation to some men who use it as the
excuse for doing wrong. “Though trial in itself is ordered by God for
our good, yet the inner solicitation to evil which is aroused by the
outer trial is from ourselves” (Mayor). Any trial wrongly used may
become a temptation, whereas it was meant for our development and
perfection. Temptation is merely one aspect of trial and not a necessary
one. But the word is used of the great tempter (1 Thess. 3:5). So Jesus
was tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Mark 1:13). Satan desired to
sift the apostles as wheat, to ruin them if possible (Luke 22:31). The
Pharisees and the Sadducees sought to tempt Jesus (Matt. 15:1). It is
the devil’s business to seek to lure another into wrong.
When a man is tempted and yields to the temptation, he is eager to blame
someone else for his sin. If he cannot do otherwise, he will blame God
for having made him as he is, with evil possibilities. In particular is
this true of sexual sin, which Oesterley (_in loco_) thinks James has
specifically in mind here. Compare Matthew 5:28; 1 Peter 2:11. Adam
blamed Eve, and Eve the serpent. And even Adam blamed God, for he said:
“The woman whom thou gavest to be with me” (Gen. 3:12).
Some dare to say in so many words: “I am tempted of God.” They hold God
responsible for their appetites and passions and seek to quiet the
conscience thus while they give way to sin. Others hide behind heredity,
environment, or evil companions. Even Agamemnon excused himself for his
wrong to Achilles by holding Zeus and fate responsible. Sirach (15:11
f.) says: “Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away.” The
origin of sin is a dark problem, but it is a lazy philosophy or a blind
one that shirks human responsibility, or tries to do it. It matters not
whether sin is the remnant of the beast in us (surely some men act at
times like the tiger) or the response to evil environment or both, we
are merely cowardly when we blame God for our own wrongdoing.
There is no response to evil in God. He is not “man’s giant shadow
skyward thrown.” The absolute holiness and ethical purity of God should
at least protect him from the charge of leading us into sin. The worst
of men, in their darkest moments of loneliness, sometimes come face to
face with God. Then they do not flippantly blame God but confess their
sins with broken heart. Two things are true about evil and God. One is
that God himself tempts no man to sin. He does send trial but not
temptation. We may not understand all the ways of God’s providence, but
we may rest secure in this: The devil does tempt us. That is his
business. And yet James does not refer to Satan by name here, for after
all, we ourselves are responsible, as he proceeds to show. It does not
help matters with us any more than it did with Eve to lay our sin upon
the devil. The other thing that is true is that God cannot be tempted
with evil. He cannot be tempted to do evil himself or be led to tempt
others with evil. The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the New
Testament or in the Septuagint, but it is a paraphrase of a common
proverb in the early Christian writings.[56] God does chastise us (Heb.
12:4 f.), but he does not tempt us.
All this is in strong contrast to the Greek and Roman notions of duty,
for the heathen gods were credited with all human and even inhuman
vices. The gods upon Olympus revel in lust and cruelty, jealousy and
hate. They furnish fit ideals for the philosophy of Nietzsche but do not
accord with the God of the New Testament, the God of consolation and of
peace, of purity and love.
Snared by One’s Own Bait (1:14)
The man himself is responsible for his sin, and he need not seek to
place the blame elsewhere. The temptation is not a temptation to him if
he refuses to listen to the siren’s voice. The man is not responsible
for the efforts of others to allure him to sin but only in case he
listens and yields. Then he is really tempted “when he is drawn away by
his own lust, and enticed.”
The figure is very bold and impressive. The word for “drawn away” is
used in Oppian for drawing the fish out from its original retreat,
beguiling it from under the rock. Then the fish is ready to be snared by
the bait. The fish bites at the bait and is caught on the hook. So with
a man. He is drawn out by his own lust for the sin placed before him. In
the case of sexual sin the impulse is not in itself sinful any more than
the fish’s hunger for food. The sexual nature is from God and is meant
only for blessing for high and holy ends. But the misuse of this impulse
is very easy and very dreadful in its results. Satan sets many kinds of
bait for unwary boys and girls, men and women, who at first are taken
off their guard and then are drawn away by desire stirred within them
toward evil. The evil suggestion is entertained, and sin is the outcome.
This very word “entice” is used of hunting (trapping with bait), and
then it is used of the harlot who entices to sin. “My son, if sinners
entice thee, consent thou not” (Prov. 1:10). Philo speaks of our being
“driven by passion or enticed by pleasure.” The pitfalls are many in
modern life—in the country, in the village, and in the city. The modern
demons of drink, drug, and the brothel are busy in finding victims. But
the point made by James is that the one who yields does so because of
the sin within his own heart.
A person’s own evil desire plays the part of temptress (Plummer), and he
is drawn away by it and enticed. “If thou doest not well, sin coucheth
at the door” (Gen. 4:7) like a panther ready to spring upon the intended
victim caught for the moment off guard. One is reminded afresh of the
opening chapters of Proverbs, which cannot be excelled by any of the
modern books on sex instruction, some of which stimulate more immorality
than they prevent. Wise warning is needed and plain talk is demanded,
but not pruriency any more than prudery. Alas, that the paw of the
modern Moloch draws into the fire so many thousands of young men and
women from the homes of our land. The best capital of America is the
children, and we lose too much of it in the worst of gambles—the traffic
in souls.
The Abortion (1:15)
The natural history of sin as the result of temptation to which one
yields is given with scientific accuracy and graphic power: “Then the
lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is
fullgrown, bringeth forth death.” Moffatt renders it thus: “Then Desire
conceives and breeds Sin, while Sin matures and gives birth to Death.”
It is a gruesome picture surely. But who can say that it is overdrawn?
The positivist tries to shut God out of the world and so to banish human
responsibility; but alas, he cannot banish human woe and anguish of
heart. The agnostic flings up his hands in despair and says he does not
know and has nothing to say in the presence of nature, “red in tooth and
claw.” The brutal militarist adopts the rule of physical might wrongly
claimed by Nietzsche to be the mark of the superman. Spiritual and moral
prowess should dominate brute force in man, else he becomes only a brute
himself. He drops back to the law of the jungle and rejects the law of
love in the kingdom of heaven. The Christian Scientist blandly shuts his
eyes to such errors of mortal mind as sin and sickness and sorrow and,
ostrich-like, cheerfully denies their reality and seeks to blow them
away with a puff. But sin is not to be brushed aside in this way.
The words of this verse call for particular remark. “Then” is here the
historical order following the temptation to which one yields. His lust
drew him forth to the temptation. He yields, and the result is the
conception; the embryo develops into sin. This is the first birth, and
sin is the child of desire. Desire is not in itself sinful, but it
easily falls into sin. Thus in a true sense desire makes sin where there
was no sin and so gives birth to sin. But this is not all. Sin in its
turn matures and gives birth to death.[57] This second child is like a
child born dead.
When sin is born, death is involved like an embryonic parasite that
feeds on sin. Desire, sin, death form the biological line of pedigree.
The line is short, for “the wages of sin is death,” as Paul puts it
(Rom. 6:23).[58] The picture in James is that of an abnormal birth like
a misshapen animal. I have seen a five-legged cow, the fifth leg on the
top of the back standing up straight. When sin is born, death begins
(conception) and grows in fascinating power till a new birth comes; and
lo, this child is death itself. “The birth of death follows of necessity
when once sin is fully formed, for sin from its first beginnings carried
death within” (Hort, _in loco_).
The law of death in sin applies to other sins besides the so-called
sexual sins which write their history so plainly in the body and the
mind and bring a heritage of woe through all the family history. There
is here no sowing of wild oats to raise a crop of wheat. The fearful
fidelity of modern scientific knowledge throws a lurid light on this
passage in James. The sinner makes his bed and lies down in it and drags
down with him the helpless ones who are thrown in his care.
As I am writing I receive a copy of _Light_, a magazine published by the
World’s Purity Federation. The issue for November, 1914, contains an
article by a woman who has lived “twenty-five years in the underworld.”
Her story reads like a commentary on the words of James. She claims to
have had the best of that sordid life, but she concludes: “No matter
what humiliation a girl has to endure, it is better to endure it than to
get into this life. There is nothing in it for any of them. The very
best of us get it hard before we die. And, at the best, it is Hell.” The
issue of death is seen not merely in the diseases of the body but “also
in the deterioration of mind and character which accompanies every kind
of sin” (Mayor, _in loco_). Death and hell then claim their own.
God, the Source of Good (1:16 f.)
The contrast is sharp. “Be not deceived”; do not wander so in your minds
as to think that temptation and sin and death come from God. He is not
the source of evil. Rabbi Chaninah says: “No evil thing cometh down from
above.” Note Jesus in John 8:23 on “above” and “below.” James is
tenderly affectionate in his appeal on this point—“my beloved brethren.”
On the contrary, only good comes from God. God is good, and he alone is
absolutely good (Mark 10:18).[59] In the Greek the next sentence runs
like a hexameter line if one short syllable is considered long by stress
of the meter.[60] We need not tarry over a fanciful straining after
poetical lines in prose. Oesterley agrees with Ewald in seeing here a
quotation from a Hellenistic poem. It is far more likely just accidental
rhythm common enough in good prose. The scholars differ also as to how
to translate the sentence. Moffatt has it: “All we are given is good,
and all our endowments are faultless.”
“The Father of lights” sets God over against the worship of the sun so
common among the ancients. Plato (Repub. vi. 505 ff.) compares the sun
to the idea of the good. Modern science powerfully illustrates this
comparison of James in bringing out what we owe to the sun in the way of
light, heat, and life itself. Philo calls God “the Father of the all,”
the lights (the moon and the stars) and all else in the universe. “When
I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars,
which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and
the son of man, that thou visitest him?” (Psalm 8:3 f.). Compare
Philippians 2:15. God is not only light (1 John 1:5), but all true light
comes from him—all the light that lights every man coming into the world
(John 1:9).
But the sun appears to move rapidly. Watch the sun drop like a ball of
fire at sunset and thus cast a deepening shadow over the earth. The
sundial is one of the oldest ways to mark “the shadow that is cast by
turning.” Mayor quotes Plutarch (Percl. 7) for the use of this figure
for shadows cast on the dial. James is here, of course, using popular
language, as we still do when we say that the sun rises and sets. But
with our Father of lights there is “no change of rising and setting”
(Moffatt). He “casts no shadow on the earth.” Even the polestar, we now
know, whirls on in space, carrying the worlds along with it. But our God
is not changeable or whimsical. He does not send now good, now ill. He
knows how to give good gifts to those that ask him, yea, the best of all
gifts, the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13). What seems ill is really good if it
comes from God. If one takes his stand by God’s side and looks at his
life, he sees God’s plan as a whole for his own life and for God’s
glory.
The New Birth (1:18)
“So far from God tempting us to evil, his will is the cause of our
regeneration” (Mayor). He is our Father in a double sense. We owe our
original birth to God, in whose image we are made (Gen. 2:7). We owe our
spiritual birth likewise to God, who begat us again to a living hope (1
Peter 1:3). The Mishnah (_Surenh._, iv. 116) says: “A man’s father only
brought him forth into this world: his teacher, who taught him wisdom,
brings him into the life of the world to come.” Happy is the father who
leads his child also to Christ. But while the word of truth is the
instrument used in the instruction (a pointed lesson for parents,
teachers, preachers), the actual work of regeneration is due to God as
Father, yes, and as Mother also, for the word “brought forth” is the one
used of the mother (see by contrast v. 15).
The doctrine of grace here set forth is of a piece with that in Paul’s
writings (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 1:5), those of Peter (1 Peter 1:3), and of
John (1:13). Indeed, Jesus himself is quoted as saying: “Ye did not
choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). As the seed of sin produces
death, so the seed of God produces life (1 John 3:9). It is interesting
to note this piece of fundamental theology in so practical a writer as
James, who lays special emphasis on works as proof of life. But James
has no such idea as some careless and shallow theologians who think that
a man can galvanize himself into spiritual life by imitative ethics. The
man must be born again, as Jesus said so impressively to Nicodemus (John
3:3). The miracle of birth must precede growth and development.
We are not to puzzle ourselves too much over the mysteries of spiritual
biology. We know that the impulse and purpose[61] come from God (John
1:13). What we do know is that God honors and uses the word of truth,
both spoken and written. If this is true, what a responsibility belongs
to us for diligence and urgency in the use of the word of truth.
By the truth we are set free from sin and error (John 8:31 f.). The word
of truth is the gospel of salvation (Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5), the word of
life (1 John 1:1). God’s word is truth (John 17:17), and the words of
Jesus are spirit and life (John 6:63). The word of truth, when combined
with the power of God (2 Cor. 6:7), quickens into life. So James
emphasizes the importance of the human element in the new birth, while
rightly making God supreme in the act of regeneration. We must reach men
with the word of God. We must pass it on to the thirsty, the hungry, the
dying. Every church is, or ought to be, a lifesaving station, a rescue
mission, a teaching center, a powerhouse, a lighthouse radiating
knowledge of God in Christ.
The purpose of God in renewing us by the word of truth is that we in
turn should win others. We are not an end in ourselves, though God does
save us. He saves us that we may serve. We are to be a sort of first
fruits,[62] not the full harvest. There are fields upon fields beyond us
ready for the reaper. We are just a beginning, just a foretaste. We whet
the appetite for larger, richer blessings. “The trees that are a
fortnight to the fore are the talk and delight of the town.”[63] One
spring my baby boy noticed a tree without leaves when all the rest were
in leaf. “What is the matter with this tree?” he asked.
Christ has introduced a new order into the world. He himself is the real
first fruits (1 Cor. 15:20). But there are others through all the
ages—those that ripen first and fast, show the way, give promise of the
future. So Epaenetus was a first fruits of Asia for Christ (Rom. 16:5);
the household of Stephanas was in Corinth (1 Cor. 16:15). Blessings rest
on the first fruits for salvation in any church, any town, any family.
They are the chosen of God, like the 144,000 in the book of Revelation
(14:3), the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). The Jews consecrated
their first fruits to God as his in a special sense. All Christians are
meant to be first fruits, the promise and earnest of better work (Rom.
8:23). God has in store great things for his people. The least that we
can do is to bring our first and our best, our all, and lay it at the
feet of Jesus. The new heaven and the new earth may not come while we
live on earth, but we may help heaven to come upon earth by living the
life of God.
V
The Practice of the Word of God
Nowhere is James richer than in this wonderful paragraph in verses 19-27
of the first chapter. He has in mind “the word of truth” of verse 18 and
follows that idea with pungent and powerful words that remind one of the
Sermon on the Mount. It is not clear whether the first part of verse 19
belongs in idea to what goes before or what follows. “Ye know this, my
beloved brethren.” It makes perfectly good sense either way. It is also
uncertain whether we have a statement or a command, for the form may be
either indicative or imperative. If you know it, act on your knowledge.
Let us listen to what the Word has to say, since we are renewed by the
use of it, and be less captious in our criticism of its teachings
(Mayor). Moffatt puts it, “Be sure of that, my beloved brothers,” and
connects it with verse 18.
Brilliant Listening (1:19a)
By “swift to hear” James brings a vivid picture before us. Moffatt has
it “quick to listen.” Sirach (5:11) has a like command: “Be swift in thy
listening.” One thinks of fleet of foot, yes, and of ear. The Vulgate
has _velox_ here. The wild animals (and the Indians) of necessity have
keen ears and can hear the slightest rustle of a leaf or crackling of a
twig. The rabbit, so often hunted by man and dog, pricks up his ears at
the sound of a pin dropping. The use of the telephone and radio have
given added importance to the value of the ear. The ancients relied very
much on the ear, for the reader of books had a wide-awake audience who
depended on the ear rather than the eye for information.
The mechanism of listening is very wonderful, the contact between brain
and brain through the sound waves of speech and the reception of the
spoken words by the ear. Jesus often said: “He that hath ears to hear,
let him hear.” The ear with many was, and is, the sole avenue of
acquiring knowledge. It is no disparagement of books to say that the art
of conversation is one of the greatest refinements. But the very essence
of a good conversationalist is that he be also a good listener; else he
is a consummate bore. Sydney Smith said of Macaulay that his occasional
flashes of silence made his conversation delightful. In _Qoheleth Rabba_
we read: “Speech for a shekel, silence for two, it is like a precious
stone.” Broadus had a great lecture on “The Art of Listening.” It is a
really rare art and one of the most useful.
Poor listening will make poor preaching of a really good sermon. Good
listening will come near to making a good sermon out of a poor one. The
writer of Hebrews complains that his readers have become dull of
hearing. The word “dull” means no push. They had no push in their ears,
no energy in listening, were already half asleep. In particular do we
need to listen when God speaks to us in his Word of truth, to have “a
quick and attentive ear to catch what God has spoken” (Hort).
Inattention is irritating and may be deadly. Sirach says: “The mind of a
sagacious person will meditate on a proverb; and an attentive ear is the
desire of a wise man” (3:29). God is constantly speaking to those with
ears to hear. It is good for the young to learn the habit of attention,
a help in meeting temptation.
Eloquent Silence (1:19b)
Another life rule of James (Windisch) is “slow to speak.” One must not
forget Homer’s “winged words,” for words can be laden with messages of
joy and life and peace and love. Eloquence has its place, real eloquence
of the soul—words on fire that blaze and burn, words that thrill and
electrify, words that make life and death noble and high, words like
those of Jesus that are spirit and life (John 6:63). But when all is
said, there is something deeper than mere speech, higher than just
words, nobler than talk. If speech is silvern, silence is often golden.
Sorrow may be too unutterable for words. Joy may pass beyond all speech.
The proverb also has it that “many a man has had to repent of speaking,
but never one of holding his peace,” unless silence is guilty or
cowardly. But it is easy to be voluble with the tongue and slack in
life. Sirach says: “Be not violent with thy tongue, and in thy deeds
slack and remiss.” Volubility is certainly not a sign of power. The
silent man, like Moses, is more likely to be a man of power and
performance. The parrot and the owl form good examples of the weakness
of chatter and the wisdom of silence. Zeno calls attention to the
obvious fact that we have two ears and one mouth and should therefore
listen twice as much as we talk.
James does not, of course, mean that men should be slow and dull talkers
after they begin to talk. He means slow to talk, not slow in talking.
Often the least interesting men are the very ones who talk most
frequently and at the greatest length. We are to think twice before we
speak. Sometimes, if we do that, we shall not speak at all. At any rate,
we shall be more likely to have sense in our speech. We shall speak to
more purpose if we speak after silence and out of the reflection from
silence.
McLaren has a good phrase, “Spread out our souls to the truth.” “Be
still, and know that I am God.” Mary “kept all these sayings, pondering
them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). She could only listen to God. The
Quakers have some ground for their plea for meditation in the Christian
life. Introspection can, of course, be overdone, but the present age is
not given to reflection and contemplation. Practical mysticism is the
best type of Christianity. Indeed, Christianity without mysticism is
empty and formal.
It is quite possible (Johnstone) that the free conversational style
employed in the early Christian meetings was taken advantage of by
contentious persons, with the result of serious wranglings, as in the
church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 14). “In the multitude of words there
wanteth not transgression; but he that refraineth his lips doeth wisely”
(Prov. 10:19). Such violent talkers break up the spiritual life of a
church. The less they know, the more they talk. They have positive
opinions on every subject of politics or religion. They know how their
neighbors should act in the smallest details and criticize everybody and
everything. They are happiest when all is agog with talk of some sort;
and the more gossipy it is, the better they like it. “They cannot think,
and it is a relief to them to hear their own voices” (Dale). Epictetus
(Ench. xxxiii, §5) has the same idea as James: “Let there be silence for
the most part or let that which is necessary be said in few words.”
Dull Anger (1:19c f.)
The third life rule of James is “slow to wrath.” There is a clear
connection between speech and anger. Anger inflames one to hasty and
unguarded talk. In turn, the words act as fuel to the flames. The talk
inflames the anger, and the anger inflames the talk. The more one talks,
the angrier he becomes—like a spitfire. If one stops talking, his anger
will cool down for lack of fuel. Men who are dull enough in listening,
who will sleep through any sermon, are quick to resent a personal
reflection or an imagined wrong. Often one’s manhood is gauged by his
quickness to avenge a personal affront, with murder as the outcome. This
is a fine place to be dull, when one is tempted to be angry.
Anger is sometimes justifiable, even necessary. There is such a thing as
righteous indignation against wrong. Jesus “looked round about on them
with anger” (Mark 3:5), but it was compassionate anger. It is possible
to be angry and sin not (Eph. 4:26), but we must not let the sun go down
upon our wrath. Unlike God, we do not know all the circumstances in the
case. Getting mad is not promoting the kingdom of God. “The wrath of man
worketh not the righteousness of God.” (Compare Matthew 5:21 f.) The
euphemistic phrase of James is emphatic by its very mildness. Man’s
wrath is set over against God’s righteousness. The growth of religion
and of civilization is marked by the self-restraint of the individual
and of the state. Vengeance is a boomerang in most instances. The taking
of vengeance into one’s own hands brings down the house on one’s head.
Not only is unhappiness brought to others; immeasurable harm is done in
one’s own life.
At any rate, it pays every man and every nation to be slow to anger.
Boys, flying kites, haul in their white-winged birds;
You can’t do that way, when you’re flying words.
Thoughts, unexpressed, may sometimes fall back dead,
But God himself can’t kill them once they’re said.
Sometimes unpalatable truth has to be spoken, hard words have to be
said. “Am I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16).
But the preacher needs to temper rebuke with love and anguish of soul.
The Rooted Word (1:21)
“The implanted word” is probably a mistranslation. The common idea of
the word is “inborn” or “innate” (cf. Wisd. 12:10, “their wickedness is
inborn”). The word is occasionally used for second nature or secondary
ingrowth (Hort). The word is sown, not grafted, and so “rooted” seems to
be the meaning here (Mayor). See also Romans 6:5, “united with him in
the likeness of his death.” The figure is that of the seed sown in the
heart and taking root and growing there. So Jesus spoke of the man who
had no root in himself (Matt. 13:21).
Receive the rooted word; but before doing so, one must cleanse the heart
like a garden of all noxious weeds. The imagery is doubtless a mixed
metaphor, but never mind that, for the thought is clear. The “putting
away” suggests the laying aside of a garment, as in Hebrews 12:1 one
strips for the race. In Ephesians 4:21 Paul contrasts putting off the
old man with putting on the new (cf. also Col. 3:8 ff.). Mayor notes the
comparison between dress and character in the wedding garment (Matt.
22:11), the white robe of purity (Rev. 3:4, 18). In 1 Peter 2:1 we have
language similar to that of James, “putting away therefore all
wickedness.” But probably James means to carry the figure of the garden
all through the verse, as Moffatt has it: “So clear away all the foul
rank growth,” the weeds of “filthiness” and “overflowing of wickedness.”
The “filthiness” may mean impurity. Compare Paul’s phrase “corrupt
speech,” literally “rotten speech” in Ephesians 4:29. But in Revelation
22:11, “And he that is filthy let him be made filthy still,” the notion
is more general.
Another noxious weed that must be gotten out of the way is “wickedness,”
which here may have the narrower sense of malice. “What was called holy
anger was nothing better than spite” (Hort). It is even suggested that
the “overflowing” is a sort of overgrowth or excrescence (Hort), but
with no idea of admitting that a small amount of wickedness or malice is
not evil. The precise figure is an ebullition or effervescence of
malice. Surely one too often sees this picture in actual life. Malice
bubbles up and runs over into word and deed. “The evil man out of the
evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil” (Luke 6:45). He speaks
out of the abundance of his heart. Surely evil runs riot unless it is
checked and taken out, root and branch. Per contra one loves to think of
the abundance of grace (Rom. 5:17, 21) and the abundance of joy (2 Cor.
8:2).
When once the weeds are out of the way, “make a soil of modesty for the
Word which roots itself inwardly” (Moffatt). Surely the repentant sinner
can only “receive with meekness.” Hort notes that the temper full of
harshness and pride destroys the faculty of perceiving the voice of God.
Jesus urged men to come to school to him, because he is meek and lowly
in heart (Matt. 11:29). Meekness is not a virtue that ranks high with
all men. Many of the ancients counted it a vice, as Nietzsche has taught
in our generation. But the spirit of Nietzsche’s superman is not the
spirit of Jesus or of the true gentleman. There can be no true culture
without gentleness and the grace of meekness.
If the seed of the Word gets root and is allowed to grow (compare the
wayside, stony-ground, thorny-ground hearers in Christ’s parable in
Matt. 13), the tree of life will flourish in the garden of the soul.
This word is “able to save your souls.” It brings a present salvation
here and now (John 5:34), a new life of purity. It helps in the
progressive salvation of the whole man in his battle with sin and growth
in grace (2 Tim. 3:15). It leads to final salvation in heaven with
Christ in God (1 Peter 1:9). The gospel is the power of God unto
salvation (Rom. 1:16); the very power of God pulses in it. See Hebrews
4:12 f. for a wonderful picture of the vital force of the Word of God,
quick and powerful, all electric with the energy of the Spirit of God.
Men may scoff at and scout the message of God, but it saves men’s souls.
What else does that?
Hearers Only (1:22-24)
James keeps the balance well. He has shown the wisdom of good listening.
Now he proves the futility of mere listening with no effort to put into
practice what one hears. There is life in the Word of God if it is
lived. It is quick with life-giving energy for those who put it to the
test of life. One may hear and not heed. The Greek used the same word
for both ideas. One is reminded of the parable of the sower again, for
only one of the four classes of hearers brought forth fruit. That is the
test. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The reception of the Word
will only bring final salvation in case the fruit is borne.
James knew only too well the empty ceremonialism of the Jews who said
and did not. Jesus (see Matt. 23) arraigned the hypocrisy of the
Pharisees in the most scathing denunciation of all time. “But be ye
doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves.” Show
yourselves “word-doers” (Hort). By “word” it is not clear whether is
meant the Torah (Oesterley) or any word of authority (Hort), or the
rooted word just mentioned (Plummer). The latter is most likely, though
the partial personification of “word” here reminds one of the opening
verses of the Fourth Gospel and of Philo and the Targums.
The “hearers only” did nothing else but listen. They were true “sermon
tasters” who fed upon the ministry of the Word or the written word, only
to fatten into sloth and spiritual inertia. They got the hookworm
disease in religion and belonged to the shirkers, not the workers. Rabbi
Chananiah used to say: “Whosesoever works are in excess of his wisdom,
his wisdom stands; and whosesoever wisdom is in excess of his works, his
wisdom stands not.”[64] The rabbis said there were two crowns, one for
doing and one for hearing, based on Exodus 24:7: “we will do, and we
will be obedient” (“hear”). The word for hearers appears nowhere else in
the New Testament and was used for attendants at the lectures of
philosophers and other public speakers rather than learners or
disciples. One thinks of the public reading of the Word in the
synagogues. But even so, “Act on the Word,” Moffatt has it. Else it is
like pouring water into a sieve. It is in one ear and out of the other.
Some people have a sort of religious dissipation in attending revival
services and imagine that they have accomplished a great deal if they
simply go. People easily acquire itching ears that love to be tickled
with some sensation. The word takes no root in the hearts of such men.
They run from church to church to get a new word, a sort of soda-water
habit. They deceive themselves but nobody else. These spiritual
“gadabouts” are shallow and skim the surface only. They make a sort of
motion picture but accomplish nothing substantial in their own lives or
in the work of the kingdom. They are guilty of a logical fallacy and are
the victims of their own delusions (cf. Col. 2:4). One has thus a case
of autointoxication. He has inoculated himself with the virus of his own
error.
And now James draws a wonderfully vivid picture of the idle hearers, the
hangers-on in revival meetings, like the scum that comes first to the
surface, lighthearted, impulsive, nonchalant, without depth of purpose
or seriousness in life. Such a frivolous listener glances at his face in
a mirror, taking note to see that he looks natural and proper. A quick
look suffices for that, for “his natural face,” the face of his birth,
the only one that he has. If nothing is awry about his appearance
reflected in the mirror, he is satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the
momentary glance. The mirror was probably of metal, and the word is
often used by the poets (Mayor). Here the mirror is the Word of God
(spoken or written) by which one takes a look at himself, and the quick
and superficial view brings satisfaction or a passing pang. See 1
Corinthians 13:12 for the use of “mirror” for the imperfect knowledge of
Christ through reflection in the Word of God and in life contrasted with
the blessed reality when face to face with him (Mayor). But here in
James the man tarries by the mirror for a moment and soon moves off.
All that he saw in the Word of God is now out of sight and out of mind,
like the wayside hearers in Christ’s parable. If it was a sermon that he
heard, the impulses for good quickly die away. He is back at his
business, at his club, or in his home. He straightway forgets what he
was like, what sort of man he was in the mirror. In particular, any
unpleasant features are forgotten. The momentary trembling of the
conscience no longer bothers him. Alas, how easily the burning heat of
the day withers the tender shoots in the stony ground; the weeds and
thorns choke to death the pious aspirations of the better hours.
Real Students of the Word (1:25)
The image of the mirror is carried on into the picture of the doer of
the word, the “doer that worketh,” a doer of work, “an active agent”
(Moffatt). The phrase is tautological but very emphatic. He is not only
a doer of word but a doer of deeds. He has put the word into practice
and has brought practical results. He has transmuted word into deed.
This is what counts, the practice of the Word of God, not mere glancing
at the mirror nor chatter about what one saw or picked up, not a hearer
of forgetfulness. It is astonishing what poor memories men have for what
God says. The _Doctrine of Addai_ gives as an uncanonical saying of
Jesus: “That which we preach before the people by word we should
practise by deed in the sight of all.”
The sincere listener pauses long enough to become interested in the real
meaning of the Word of God, which is now law to him, for he wishes to
obey this Word of the Master. These listeners are the joy of the
preacher’s heart, those who turn to the Scriptures, like the Bereans, to
see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). The word in James suggests
curiosity and eagerness, as in Sirach 14:23, of the one who looks
through the door of wisdom, and in 1 Peter 1:12, the desire of the
angels to peer into the problems of the mission of Christ to earth. The
law of God is attractive and perfect to the doer of work, as the
psalmist has it: “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). But it
is not a law of compulsion but of freedom. One is free to accept or to
reject it. Certainly James does not have the view of the Judaizers, who
made the law a yoke of bondage even for Gentiles, but rather that of
Paul, who accented the freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1). Jesus held out
freedom as the great blessing of truth (John 8:32)—freedom to exercise
one’s highest functions and faculties held in bondage by sin and mere
legalism.
Perhaps the chief emphasis in this verse lies in the word “continueth.”
The man remains by the side of the roll of the law spread out before him
and unrolls page after page with the keenest interest and zest until he
rightly grasps the meaning of God. Thus he puts the Word into practice.
He has it stamped on his mind and heart. He is a Christian pragmatist.
He, like Brother Lawrence, practices the presence of God. He translates
the word of truth into his own life and becomes a living epistle. This
is the Bible that the twentieth century loves to read. The man who does
this is “happy in his doing,” “blessed in his activity” (Moffatt). He is
happy in the doing, even if it falls far short of the ideal in the word
of truth. He has tried, and he will keep on trying. He can sing the song
of the shirt, the song of the plow, the song of the desk.
Complacent Religiosity (1:26)
Mere listening may be idle. Mere work may be perfunctory. One may be a
worker only as well as a hearer only. The hearer only deceives himself
by an error of reason (1:22). The worker only deceives his own heart by
an error of conduct. He leads himself astray, out of the path, by the
delusion that religion consists in the performance of religious duties,
not in the attitude toward God in the heart or the ethical conduct. Paul
uses the term for Pharisaism (Acts 26:5) and in Colossians 2:18 for the
worship of the angels. It is the external aspect of public worship.
Originally it had the meaning of reverence for the gods (Hort), but it
soon came to be used for the ceremonial rites of worship. In 4 Maccabees
5:6 the word is used for the refusal of the Jews to eat pork.
In a word, it is applied to one who does faithfully the religious
chores. The Pharisees form a striking illustration of this emphasis on
the ceremonial side of public worship. The regular attendance at the
hours of prayer, faithful observance of the rules of ritual
purification, payment of the tithes—these things constituted worship.
Finally, these _alone_ constituted worship. Religion came to consist in
the ceremony alone, the letter and not the spirit, the hull and not the
kernel.
Most of the things done were good enough. It is good to have the outside
of the cup clean but not so important as the inside or as clean water in
the cup. Jesus exposed this failing of the Pharisees with great
incisiveness and power. It is easy to mistake form for reality. So men
have come to count their beads as prayer, to pray with prayer wheels. A
person may attend church regularly, contribute liberally, come to prayer
meeting, have family prayers, be a member of the church, and yet not be
religious. He may have religiosity and not religion. One may mistake
performance of religious functions for the possession of the spirit of
religion. In the very act of working out the religious impulse men often
fall into traps. So here the man considers that he is a religious man.
He is content with his religious status, and yet he does not control his
tongue. “He bridleth not his tongue”; this is the earliest known use of
this striking figure, though Aristophanes speaks of an unbridled mouth.
The tongue is regarded as an unruly horse that needs bit and bridle held
fast by the master to control it. The tongue is allowed to say whatever
a spiteful heart prompts. The bitterest words are not felt to be
inconsistent with personal piety. Such a man considers himself a pillar
of the church in spite of his loose tongue and loose living. He performs
religious duties on Sunday and is a shyster on Monday. He deceives
himself, but no one else is deceived. Such a man’s religious service is
empty of any value with God or man. It is vain and hollow mockery. His
own complacency makes the matter worse. He is a stumbling block to those
who judge religion by him, for he has divorced religion from life.
Unspotted from the World (1:27)
James does not give a definition of religion in this verse but an
illustration of the right sort of religious exercise in contrast with
the futile religiosity already noted. The absence of the article shows
that he does not mean an inclusive description. “A religious exercise
pure and undefiled” is here given quite the opposite meaning of the
professional performances of the pharisaic pietists. There is pure
religion, and the counterfeit is a tribute to it. This religion is free
from pollution. There is in it no alloy of selfishness nor other sin.
Moffatt renders it “unsoiled,” but it may have the notion of genuine
metal.
This standard of purity and piety seems impossible, but God knows how to
estimate the relation between listening and doing, between doing and
loving, between loving and purity of life. The life must pass muster
with God. At first sight one is perhaps depressed by the reflection that
God’s standard of piety is so much higher than ours. What some men
consider holy worship is to God hollow mockery. But then God is our
Father. He planted the word of truth in our hearts. He has watched it
grow. He knows the limitations of environment in which the tree of life
has grown.
James gives two very practical tests of genuine religion. One is mercy
toward the suffering. The widow and the orphan appeal to the hardest
hearts. And yet men have been known to spend thousands of dollars upon
palaces of worship while the poor perished in the alley behind the
church. The social side of practical religion is receiving more
attention these days than it once did. The very hospitals and asylums
are an expression of that love for our common humanity taught by Jesus.
James has no sympathy with that cold orthodoxy that is satisfied with
singing psalms to Jehovah while the widow and the orphan suffer, with no
help from the blind worshipers nearby.
Christianity is inward and spiritual, not mere perfunctory ritual. But
it is not mere mystical brooding or abstract contemplation. The cry of
the child and the cry of the mother for the child were heard by Jesus.
Today the children cry aloud in our streets and in our factories for
school and play, for love and sympathy, for better homes and better
food, for care of the body and of the soul. Jesus still loves the
children. Christ discovered the child. The modern world at last has
begun to find out the child that Jesus has placed in the midst of us.
There are many other forms of social service which the true Christian
may find right by his door. The neighbor in need may even lie at his
gate.
The other test of pure religion offered by James is more distinctly
personal and more difficult, though the first test is met none too well.
It is “to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” Moffatt has it “from
the stain of the world.” It is a high calling surely if one is to walk
in a world like this free from the stain of sin, with no spot upon
garments, body, or soul. The Lamb of God was offered as a sacrifice
without spot. Christ will present his church at last without spot. James
had just spoken of the use of the tongue. That also can leave a spot or
stain (cf. 3:6).
There is much dirt of all kinds about us. The germs of sin infest and
infect us all. And yet it is not hopeless to make a fight for purity in
life. We do not give up the battle for cleanliness of body, for
healthfulness of body, for victory over the germs of disease about us
and in us. It is worthwhile to lead the clean, white life of purity. One
has his reward in his own life—in fresh power, in new joy, in richer
fruitage. He has his reward also in the inspiration given to others, who
are cheered to strive likewise against sin, to fight for personal and
social purity, for better homes and better cities, for a better world in
which to serve God, for a bit of heaven here on earth, for the reign of
God in human hearts, for likeness to Jesus the Son of God.
VI
Class Prejudice
In the second chapter James recurs to the discussion of the democracy of
faith found in 1:9-11. In fact, it had never been very far in the
background. The use of “my brethren” is eminently appropriate here,
since he is urging the readers to brotherly kindness (Mayor).
Face Value in Religion (2:1)
This is a very hard verse to translate at once, for we must decide three
disputed questions. One is whether the verb is imperative or
interrogative. It is taken as imperative in most versions, and so most
interpreters hold, but Hort urges that it is a tame conception compared
with the indignant query expecting the answer no. There is force in this
point, as thus James would be expressing vehement surprise that such
partiality could exist among the Jewish Christians. Still, the
prohibition against such partiality makes good sense.
There is little doubt that “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” should
be rendered “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is objective, not
subjective, genitive. For a similar use of the objective genitive with
faith one may note Mark 11:22 and Acts 3:16. It is not the faith of
Jesus that is under discussion but the faith of the readers in Jesus
Christ our Lord. This interpretation commits James to the worship of
Jesus as Lord and Messiah, but that is surely what would be expected in
one who claimed to be a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”
(1:1). It is true that the standpoint of James is nearer to that of the
Old Testament than is true of Peter, John, and Paul, but after the great
Pentecost there seems to be no wavering on the great fundamentals of
Christianity, though there is rich development and enlargement.
The essence of the Christology of James is precisely that of Paul,
though James does not amplify his implications as Paul does. James,
though very Jewish in background, is thoroughly Christian. The heart of
Christianity, the worship of Jesus as Lord and Saviour, is here, though
chronologically the Epistle of James precedes the teaching of Paul and
John in their writings. It is like the child and the man (Plummer), not
a retrograde movement. It is the outlook of Jerusalem, not that of
Antioch. What James is discussing is not the personal religion of Jesus
but the reader’s faith in Jesus.
The third disputed point in the verse is the word “glory.” The English
versions generally insert the words “the Lord” and make it “the Lord of
glory,” but Bengel makes “the glory” _ipse Christus_. In this he is
followed by Mayor, Hort, and Oesterley; and it is almost certainly true
that by “glory” James has in mind the Shekinah. In the Septuagint for
Leviticus 26:11 the word for Shekinah is just that used in Revelation
21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men.” In John 1:14 we read:
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father).” Add to this Hebrews
1:3, “who, being the effulgence of his glory,” and the case seems made
out. In _Pirke Aboth_ iii. 3 we note: “Two that sit together and are
occupied in words of Thorah have the Shekinah among them.”
Jesus claimed, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am
I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). Jesus is thus not only the Way,
the Truth, the Life, and the Resurrection but also the Glory. James may
have in mind the resurrection glory of Jesus as he appeared to him. In
Luke 2:32 Simeon says: “The glory of thy people Israel.”
But all this is by way of emphasis for the main point. One who has faith
in such a Lord as Jesus should not be guilty of “acts of partiality”
(Hort). The meaning of the phrase is clear, though the origin is
obscure.[65] The Greek use of the word for mask is illustrated by the
word for hypocrite. In Leviticus 19:15 we see the full force of the
idiom: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the
person of the mighty.” See Acts 10:34, where Peter learns that God is no
respecter of persons.
God does not accept the outside appearance for the inner reality—nor
should we. God is the God of reality. (Compare Heb. 4:12 f.) A just
judge must not be influenced by the bias of personal preference,
prejudice, rank, power, money (Mayor). He must decide the case on its
merits. There is no room for class prejudice or for the caste system in
Christianity, as there is none in the heart of God. Christianity is
democratic to the core, that is, real Christianity. Organized
Christianity has sometimes been the very thing that James here condemns.
Even in the single church little rifts and cliques easily develop.
Partiality in Church (2:2-4)
Already the Jewish Christians were in peril from this evil. It is, in
particular, a sin of ushers who show respect of persons in seating
strangers. But pastors are in constant danger of the same sin in general
church relations. The word here for synagogue may mean place of worship
or the assembly itself, as in Hebrews 10:25, “the assembling of
yourselves together.” The word for church does not occur in the
apostolic period (Hort) for place of meeting, but synagogue was already
in common use in both senses. But it is not necessary to suppose that
James has in mind simply a Jewish synagogue, though it is quite possible
that the Jewish Christians still attended worship and heard Moses read
in the synagogue (Acts 15:21), as Christians belonged to the synagogue
of the Libertines (Acts 6:9) and the early Christians worshiped still in
the Temple.
The use of “your” seems to mean that it is at least a Christian
gathering that James refers to, whether meeting in the Jewish synagogue
or elsewhere. “The growth of the Gentile element in the church excited
the active hostility of the Jews against the whole body of Christians,
as it troubled the Jewish converts themselves” (Westcott on Hebrews, p.
xxxviii). Finally the Christians had to set up for themselves, as in
Corinth (Acts 18:7) and in Ephesus (Acts 19:8 f.). We do not know the
precise stage reached by the Jewish Christians here. James may mean some
particular instance of trouble in the dispersion that came to his
notice, or he may have in mind any Christian gathering in the
dispersion. The Gentiles often attended the worship of the Jews in the
synagogues (Acts 13:16, 43). The use of “synagogue” for Christian
worship occurs rarely, as in Hermas, _Mand._ xi. 9. The time came when
synagogue was used only for Jews or heretics. Epiphanius (_Haer._ xxx.
18) says that the Ebionites call their meeting “synagogue,” not
“church.” One may note also John’s use of the term “synagogue of Satan”
(Rev. 2:9; 3:9).
The picture of the two strangers at church is drawn with bold lines and
in few words by James; yet it is remarkably clear and picturesque. The
man with a gold ring probably makes a display of his ring. If he
preached, he would make most of his gestures with that hand. The word
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Mayor quotes Epictetus
(_Diss._ 1. 22) as speaking of an “old man with gold fingers.” The “fine
clothing” is literally “brilliant clothing,” “new glossy clothes”
(Hort), “the fine white garment worn by wealthy Jews” (Oesterley), like
that in which Herod Antipas clad Jesus when he sent him back to Pilate.
One can easily see the distinguished-looking stranger as he steps in at
the same time as “a poor man in vile clothing,” “in dirty clothes”
(Moffatt), “old shabby clothes” (Hort). See Revelation 22:11 for the
same adjective for “filthy.” In James 1:21 we had “filthiness.”
We have no means of knowing whether these two men who suddenly enter
church are Christians or simply Jews. Both seem to be strangers. The
courtesies extended are based purely on the appearance of these two as
to dress, not on race or ecclesiastical standing.
The poor man may be one reduced to beggary—a tramp or hobo. He may be a
poor working man. He stands in marked contrast with the rich man, as in
1:9-11. Probably the poor man had on the best clothes that he had.
Should a man like that come to our churches? Would he be welcome in our
pews? To be sure, cases occur when a bath would help matters and when
plain, but clean, clothes could be provided by Christian people so as to
make attendance at church free from embarrassment. But there are people,
especially children, who stay away from both Sunday school and church
because they do not possess decent clothes in which to come. They fear
the critical eyes and comments of the people at church.
It is easy to say that people should rise above such unfavorable
circumstances and come on to church to worship God, who reads the heart
and does not judge men by their clothes. Yes, but a man may conclude
that he can worship God just as acceptably and more comfortably in some
other church where the usher does not seem so ashamed of his coming or
embarrassed by his presence that, in spite of plenty of empty pews in
the grand temple of worship, he finds a back seat for him under the
gallery or in the gallery on a footstool (literally, “under my
footstool,” probably “on the floor by my footstool”), in a corner, or a
place to stand against the wall. Meanwhile, the poor man has seen the
attentions paid the man in fine clothes; he is ushered to a good seat
with the air of a prince.
The soul of the poor man is all the more embittered, since he came
perhaps in a sort of desperation from the hardness of the world outside,
a world that has economic and social laws that make the battle a
difficult one. And now in the temple of God the worshipers of Jesus show
the same pride of wealth and station as at a social function. The
preacher talks of forgiveness of sins and the comfort of the Holy
Spirit; but he and the ushers keep a sharp eye upon the man who wears
the fine clothes, pompous and self-conscious as that man probably feels.
The soul of the poor man is made more bitter still as he leaves the
church of the rich and the proud to see if he can find God at home or
the devil in the saloon or other den of iniquity.
One pity of it all is that so many churches have fine, empty, cushioned
seats, while the strangers who could fill them are not sought for or not
properly welcomed if they come. It is a pathetic picture that James here
gives us—that of the stranger at the door of the church. Most strangers
pass the door of the church by with indifference or disgust. The church
must win the strangers outside unless it is to degenerate into a social
club of a few select families. A church that only holds its own will
soon lose that standing. The task of the church is to win the world to
Christ. And then when the poor of earth enter, it is worse than folly to
push them to one side and out of doors, back into the street.
This touch of life is one of many modern notes in the Epistle of James.
The embarrassment of the usher in the presence of two such incongruous
strangers at once is probably due to the fact that he knows full well
the atmosphere or tone of the church. It is aristocratic or select;
evangelical and orthodox, not evangelistic or missionary; a haven of
rest for the stately pious, not a rescue station for the lost. The
officers of the church thus make distinctions between the attendants at
church and sort out the congregation according to worldly standards.
They are “judges of evil thoughts” and act with partiality in bestowing
courtesies on strangers in the house of God. All this is in such marked
contrast to the spirit and conduct of Jesus that one can hardly credit
his eyes when he sees it happen in church. It is increasingly difficult
to get the poor to come to some of the churches. The churches themselves
may sometimes become suspicious that the very poor come to church to
receive financial help. So the breach widens.
Prejudice Against the Poor (2:5-7)
James now has fewer maxims and a more argumentative style, like that of
Paul. He makes a passionate appeal for attention: “Hearken, my beloved
brethren.” He writes as an impassioned speaker speaks (cf. 1:16; 4:13).
God’s choice of the people of Israel seems to be in the background
(Deut. 14:1 f.). The Jews had come in many cases to look on earthly
prosperity as a mark of divine favor and poverty as a sign of God’s
disfavor (cf. Psalm 73).
The Pharisees were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). But the troubles of the
Jews, in spite of many wealthy Pharisees and Sadducees, had led many of
them to see a blessing in poverty. See Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Gad. vii. 6: “For the poor man, if, free from envy, he
pleaseth the Lord in all things, is blessed beyond all men.” Oesterley
(_in loco_) quotes _Chag._ 9_b_ as saying that poverty is the quality
that above all befits Israel as the Chosen People. Epictetus (bk. IV,
chap. i, 43) says: “Another (thinks the cause of his evils to be) that
he is poor.” Epictetus (Stob. 10) says further: “Riches are not among
the things that are good.” Luke 6:20 has: “Blessed are ye poor,” where
Matthew 5:3 has “poor in spirit.”
It is certain that the gospel made a powerful appeal to the poorer
classes of society among Jews and Gentiles. Jesus claimed it as part of
his messianic mission “to preach good tidings to the poor” (Luke 4:18),
as Isaiah (60:1 f.) had foretold. He asked the messengers of John the
Baptist to take back to Macherus the news that “the poor have the good
tidings preached to them” (Luke 7:22) as one proof of his messiahship.
Paul enlarges on the choice (1 Cor. 1:27 f.) by God of the foolish, the
weak, the despised classes to add to his own glory. The early churches
were gathered largely from the proletariat. Slaves and masters, rich and
poor, mingled together in fellowship and brotherly love.
The papyri discoveries have shown us the world of Jesus and of Paul “in
the workaday clothes of their calling.”[66] Deissmann adds: “We should
be sorry indeed not to have been told that Jesus came from an artisan’s
home in country surroundings.”[67] The fact that Jesus was a carpenter,
a workingman in the modern sense of that term, should enlist the
sympathy and the interest of all workingmen. They should heed the call
of the Carpenter.
Here James boldly champions the cause of the poor as against certain
rich Jews, probably not members of the church, who have oppressed the
Christians and dragged them before courts of justice. With their own
hand these rich Jews had dragged Christians before tribunals. Rich
Sadducees had done this with Peter and John (Acts 4:1). As one of these
potentates, yea, as a tyrant, Paul had once dragged men and women before
the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:3; 22:4). He had even tried to make them blaspheme
(Acts 26:11). It was not necessary to have special laws against the
Christians. As objects of dislike it was easy enough, as Paul found out,
to hale them into court. Paul came to know only too well how the tables
could be turned on him when he became a Christian. He had to take his
own medicine (Acts 13:50; 16:19). Jesus indeed had foretold that just
this fate would befall his disciples before the courts of Jews and
Gentiles (Matt. 10:17 f.; John 16:2).
The anger of these rich Jews against Jesus and Christians leads them
actually to blaspheme the name of Christ. The Sadducees will not even
call the name of Jesus when they discuss the case of Peter and John.
They refer with contempt to “this name” (Acts 4:17), though in the
threat they have to name Jesus (v. 18). The disciples rejoiced “that
they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (Acts 5:41).
So “the honorable name,” “the beautiful name,” “the noble Name”
(Moffatt) came to be the shibboleth of the believers in Jesus. His name
was to be “the name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9 f.). It was
already the only name with power to save (Acts 4:12), as Peter boldly
informed the Sanhedrin. That was the meaning of the name Jesus (Matt.
1:21).
Here one sees afresh the Christology of James. The honorable name is the
name of Jesus, with a possible reference to the use of it in the
baptismal formula—“by which ye are called,” “which is called upon you.”
At any rate, they bear the name of Christian, given probably as a
reproach (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:14, 16). This name is now their
badge of honor and glory. When called upon to say, “Anathema be Jesus,”
they reply, “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3). Certainly the early Jewish
Christians had everything to make them fear the powerful rich who had
frowned upon Jesus and his cause.
And yet James dares to say to the Jewish Christians: “But ye have
dishonored the poor man,” “now you insult the poor” (Moffatt). They had
done it out of cringing fear of the rich Jews with all their power, or
out of anxiety to please the rich so as to win them with fawning
flattery. We are not to think that all the Jewish Christians had shown
such narrowness or such cowardice, but some instances had come to the
notice of James. Per contra note the case of Ananias and Sapphira, who
wished to gain credit for great liberality to the poor by the use of
part of the wealth, keeping back half though pretending to give all. All
the early Christians were not poor. The cases of Barnabas, Joseph of
Arimathea, and Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary occur to one at
once. Jesus did not denounce rich men per se, though he did point out
with great power the peril of wealth.
James is not to be understood as denouncing the rich in a wholesale
fashion. Consecration is what sanctifies riches—the use of money for the
glory of God and the blessing of mankind. A man is not a child of the
devil just because he is rich or poor. God deals with men in the raw
manhood. “A man’s a man for a’ that.” The distinction between the upper
and the lower classes is partly fictitious and is not a stable
condition. The slums are a dreadful fact and a disgrace to modern
civilization. People should have decent homes, good food, fresh air, and
clean clothes. Extreme poverty is a peril to a man’s soul, as is great
wealth. It is not a sin to be rich, but dangerous, though most of us are
willing to take the risk. Epictetus (Stob. 10) says: “It is difficult
for a rich person to be right-minded or a right-minded person rich.”
Riches and poverty are not essential criteria of character. Over against
the slums in our cities one may place the pious poor of Scotland, as
seen in “The Cotter’s Saturday Night.” Over against the wild and
reckless _nouveaux riches_ one may note the generous givers of millions
to missions and to education.
One must learn to be just to all classes and to do justice to all. A
person needs full knowledge of the social conditions about him and the
courage to apply the gospel of Christ to these conditions. But let no
one imagine that sociology can take the place of the gospel of Jesus.
Christianity is sociological, but sociology is not necessarily
Christian. We need intelligent sympathy, but most of all we need the
love and grace of God in the heart. But minister and man must be
independent of bondage to either rich or poor and stand in the freedom
of Christ.
Prof. H. C. Vedder makes a very serious charge against modern ministers:
“This attitude of the clergy can be explained only on the ground of
their economic dependence upon the privileged classes. They are the
hirelings of capitalism, and, to do them justice, they earn their
wages.”[68] This is a bitter attack upon the ministry for always
championing the cause of capital whenever labor and capital clash. The
charge is not always true, as anyone who observes should know. Organized
labor is sometimes in the wrong. Corporations that are unjust to labor
are often denounced in the pulpit. Let every case be met on its merits.
Certainly the minister of Christ should be on the side of manhood
against mere money. A man’s life is more than money.
James reminds his readers that God is not ashamed of the poor. In fact,
he often calls the poor, as the world regards them, to be rich in faith.
After all, the riches of the spirit and of fellowship with God are the
true riches. So often a turn in the wheel of life leaves a man poor
today who was rich yesterday. And death will separate one from all his
wealth, save what he has given away. The wicked rich man may scout the
poor saint here, but Lazarus will rest in Abraham’s bosom while the
wicked rich man is in torment in hades.
But even here the pious poor stand high with God, while the wicked rich
are despised. The poor may be heirs of the kingdom. Think of that—heirs
of the kingdom of God, the glorious messianic kingdom promised of old
and now begun, the fulness of which is in the future with God, the
heavenly kingdom. But even here and now the poor saint is a child of the
King and has riches untold. He has love and joy in his heart, a
superiority to adversity, an elevation of spirit, the peace of God that
passes all understanding; and that is worth more than all the gold of
Ophir.
It is not mere pious platitude on the part of James when he writes thus.
He is but interpreting the soul of mystic Christianity, real
Christianity, as set forth by Jesus in the Beatitudes, where those only
are felicitated who have the joy of the spirit independent of outward
condition or circumstance. After all, the piety of the poor is a
nation’s best asset. The poor will someday, many of them, be rich. May
they still be pious! The upper classes run down and run out, alas, and
have to be recruited constantly from the lower classes. It is the law of
life. If we save the masses, we may save the classes. At any rate, it is
a pitiful business to see a church of Jesus Christ ashamed of the poor,
as the world regards them, for Jesus our Lord was himself poor for our
sakes, voluntarily poor. “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he
became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor.
8:9)—rich in God’s mercy and grace, rich in character, in likeness to
Jesus.
The Royal Law (2:8 f.)
The poise of James appears again. He has no wish to stir the passions
and prejudices of the poor against the rich. Surely it is not a sin to
love rich people. They are entitled to the same love as other people,
many far more because of the noble use made of their wealth. If you
really fulfil the royal law—a law fit for kings or such as a king will
be sure to follow (cf. Psalm 72; Zech. 9:9) and supreme over other laws
(Matt. 22:40)—you do well. We should love both rich and poor alike. This
royal law was in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18) and is here quoted. It
was sanctioned by Jesus (Matt. 19:18 f.) as one of the two chief
commandments on which hang the whole law and the prophets (Matt.
22:38-40). Love of God and man covers all else. One may compare also the
Golden Rule as given by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, which is just another way
of stating the royal law of loving one’s neighbor (one near in need,
whether in proximity or not) as oneself, a very high standard for most
people.
The royal law forbids the partiality in church of which James has been
speaking, this respect of persons. It is more than an error of judgment
or a breach of etiquette. It is an act of sin, a slip in ethics, a
missing of the mark that is fraught with grave consequences. It is bad
enough to be convicted by the law as transgressors by this servile
regard for the rich. It is worse to note the evil effect on the church
and the community. A church of a clique is doomed. A church is only of
use when it is open to the people who need the help of the gospel. The
church opens its doors to let people in, does not put up bars to keep
them out.
Stumbling in One Point (2:10 f.)
At first blush it seems that James has Draconian severity in these
verses, but it is not the severe punishment of small crimes or venial
offenses. The long list of capital crimes in ancient England shows how
slowly men have learned to temper justice with mercy. Some of the Stoics
said that the theft of a penny was as bad as parricide. The “blue laws”
of Connecticut come to mind also. James does not say that all sins are
equal, that one sin is as bad as another. As a matter of fact, each man
discounts his own sins. The rake looks with scorn on the grafter. The
man guilty of spiritual pride scouts the drunkard. It is a hard task to
convince a man that he is guilty of his own sin.
The burden of the law was very heavy. The curse of the law (Gal. 3:13)
was more than violation of particular precepts, though that was true to
the last detail (Deut. 11:26, 28, 32; 27:26), as Jesus explained (Matt.
5:18 f.). The Jewish fathers put a hedge or fence about the law (_Pirke
Aboth_ i. 1) and made it very difficult to keep all of it (the law as a
whole, hard enough as it was), plus the traditions of the elders, which
often contradicted and set at naught the commandment of God (Mark 7:8
f.). Compare Sirach 27:12. Rabbi Hunnah, in a midrash on Numbers 5:14,
taught that he who committed adultery broke all commandments, and some
of the rabbis placed the sabbath above all else and held that if one
profaned it, he had broken all the commandments. Mayor, per contra,
quotes some of the rabbis as saying that to keep the law about fringes
and phylacteries was to keep the whole law. There was a constant
tendency to make the ceremonial cover up moral and spiritual lapses.
Augustine (Epistle to Jerome, 167) compares this teaching of James with
the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices as mentioned.
But certainly James has a higher view than these hair-splitting
punctilios. Paul saw that the essence of sin lies in the motive (Rom.
14:23) and that desire to glorify God should pervade all our acts (1
Cor. 10:31). It seems hard to hold someone who makes one slip to strict
account and hold him guilty of all. That is true only in the sense that
James proceeds to explain that any violation of law makes one a
lawbreaker.[69]
One does not have to break all the laws to become a lawbreaker. One
offense places him in that category. The matter is put with this sharp
emphasis because of the complacent self-satisfaction of the perfunctory
ceremonialist (James 1:26), who may yet commit the sin of partiality in
church. James is seeking to convict such “pious” sinners of their guilt,
to rouse them out of their smug self-satisfaction.
It is quite possible that those who were guilty of spiritual pride and
other sins of the spirit boasted of their freedom from adultery and
murder (Hort). At any rate, we must not forget that out of the heart are
the issues of life, that murder springs out of hate and that all of
God’s laws come from the same will (Mayor). It is disobedience to the
will of God that constitutes the essence of sin. It is not a light
matter to be guilty of any sin. Our only hope is in the grace and
forgiveness of God. There is no room for pride on the part of sinners,
setting up one sin against another sin.
A Law of Liberty (2:12 f.)
But James is not a pharisaic legalist nor a Judaizer. He adds these
verses to make it plain that he does not have in mind the painful
observance of separate rules and details. The spirit is greater than the
letter. Our words and deeds are to be judged by “a law of liberty” (cf.
1:25), not of bondage. We are under grace, not the old law. We live in
an atmosphere of love and liberty, not of repression and slavery. God
watches the real motive in our conduct toward the rich and the poor as
in all things. “Mercy glorieth against judgment”; mercy triumphs over
judgment. God shows mercy to us in spite of our shortcomings, for Jesus
is the pledge of our fidelity and our hope.
We make so many mistakes that we should have no heart to go on if we had
to be held to strict account every time we stumbled in one point. Still,
we must not overlook the fact that we did stumble. It is our duty not to
stumble at that point again. So we go on our stumbling way toward that
goal of perfection which is ever before us. It was Jesus who said,
“Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). James seems to know this
saying, as he lays emphasis on the spirit and motive in holy living.
VII
The Appeal to Life
We now come to the famous passage that is supposed by some scholars to
be an attack on Paul’s doctrine of salvation by faith instead of works.
James is interpreted by many to be a champion of works as against Paul’s
theory of grace. It is an old controversy and is the occasion of Martin
Luther’s slighting allusion to the Epistle of James as “a veritable
epistle of straw.” He thought it contradicted the Epistle of Galatians,
which he loved dearly as his “wife.” It is necessary, therefore, to
clear the atmosphere a bit before proceeding to the exposition.
The Standpoint of James
This depends on the date of the epistle. (For the discussion of this
question, see chapter I.) It is here assumed that James wrote before the
Jerusalem Conference, before A.D. 50.
Paul wrote Galatians and Romans, as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians, in the
heat of the Judaizing controversy, to answer the contention that
circumcision was essential to the salvation of the Gentiles, that
Christianity alone was not sufficient but must be supplemented by
Judaism. No issue ever stirred Paul’s nature like this. It is possible
that Paul may have had in mind a misuse of James 2:14-26 by the
Judaizers when he wrote, knowing that James in reality agreed with him
in the matter (Acts 15:14-21; Gal. 2:1-10). But James clearly is not
attacking Paul or Paul’s theory of grace. He rather has in view a
perversion of the Christian emphasis on the spiritual side as opposed to
the ceremonial ritualism of the Pharisees.
The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other. The Jews had laid too
much emphasis on religious duties (cf. James 1:26), and some of the
Christians went to the extreme of thinking that no works at all were
needed in the Christian life. Some of the Jews, on the other hand, had
already gone so far as to consider creed alone essential. “As soon as a
man has mastered the thirteen heads of the faith, firmly believing
therein ... though he may have sinned in every possible way ... still he
inherits eternal life.”[70] This Jewish unconcern for real piety in life
is reflected in the lives of some of the Jewish Christians and is the
occasion of the remarks of James.
James’s use of righteousness or justification is in the sense of actual
goodness as Jesus uses it in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:1) and of
sanctification as Paul has it in Romans 6 to 8. It is not the “imputed
righteousness” of Paul in Romans 3 and 4. James has a practical purpose,
not a theological one. He is not discussing the question as to how
Abraham was set right with God, how faith was reckoned as righteousness,
the point seized on by Paul in the verse. James quotes the whole verse
(Gen. 15:6), as Paul does, but he is concerned with it as proof that
when put to the test, Abraham lived up to his faith in that he actually
“offered up Isaac his son upon the altar” (James 2:21). It is the deed
as proof of faith that James emphasizes, though both points are in the
narrative.
James looks upon works as proof of faith, not as means of salvation.
John the Baptist had demanded “fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8).
Jesus had said, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). Paul
will discuss death to sin on the part of the believer (Rom. 6:1-11).
Peter will show how the life will make the calling and election sure (2
Peter 1:10). The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is a clarion call to hold
fast the confession of faith to the end. John will insist that those who
say they are in the light do not walk in darkness (1 John 1:6; 2:9).
Certainly then, James is in harmony with the full drift of the gospel
message in his insistence on works as proof of the new life.
Paul, in his contrast between faith and works, has in mind the Jewish
doctrine of works as means of salvation. See 2 Esdras 9:7 f.: “Whoever
shall be able to escape either by his works or by his faith shall see my
salvation.” And even here “by faith” does not mean what Paul has in
mind, saving trust, but rather creed. The Pharisees taught the value of
works of supererogation, the “merit” of the fathers, in particular, the
merit of Abraham, whose faith and works were a storehouse for the Jews.
“We have Abraham to our father.” That was enough. So the Roman Catholics
hold that the saints may help us out of purgatory if we pay enough for
their intercession. Prayer itself becomes an _opus operatum_, a credit
in the balance sheet with God. Most Jews held works alone to be the
means of salvation. The point was keenly discussed in the Jewish schools
in Jerusalem and Alexandria.
As to faith, in this passage he is thinking of mere intellectual assent
to the unity of God or other theological tenets. This was the use of
“faith” by many of the Jews. After some of them became Christians, they
got no further. It is this idle and empty faith that James is
condemning. James does have the other sense of trust for the word, as in
2:1, “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” the sense in which Paul uses the
term when he contrasts it with works (Rom. 3:20-30). It is quite
important to note this distinction.
The antithesis in James is not, in reality, between faith and works but
between live faith and dead faith, the two uses of the term just
mentioned. In verse 18 the point is made absolutely clear. It is not
personal trust in Christ that James ridicules but an empty theological
tenet that does not stand the test of actual life. So then, James and
Paul go off at tangents when the same words occur, for they are talking
about different things.
Not Pious Pretense (2:14-17)
Once more James corrects a possible misapprehension. He properly places
mercy above justice, but no one need think for a moment that good deeds
do not matter. God is full of mercy, but there is a limit even with God.
He demands some performance, not mere profession. “What doth it profit?”
James pointedly asks. _Cui bono?_ What is the use? What good is it for a
man to say he has faith who has no works to prove his faith? How can men
know that he has any faith? The mere assertion is all that men have at
first. In the beginning the claim to faith is accepted, but the life
must confirm the claim if men are to continue to believe it. God can
read the heart, but even God demands that the life show the change of
heart. The life must give expression to what the heart has felt.
James asks again: “Can that faith[71] save him?” He does not scoff at
faith but at such hollow “faith” as this. James here speaks for the
practical man of the present day who wishes to see some real difference
in the life of a man who becomes a Christian. It is an old demand, as we
see in 1 John 1 and 2. There is no escape from this appeal to life, nor
ought there to be. Men are judged by their conduct in business during
the week as much as by their attendance at church on Sunday. James does
not say that a Christian has no faults and never sins or is a hypocrite
if he sins once. He does say that he should have some faith.
His illustration in verses 15 and 16 is very forcible and shows that he
was probably a striking and popular preacher (Oesterley). It is a
problem that is constantly presented to our modern Christians and
churches. A brother or sister is in need of food and clothing. They are
out of work because of the economic conditions beyond their control.
They are not professional beggars. One may pause to admit the serious
difficulty of knowing how to render real assistance to those who come to
our doors for help. The modern social workers tell us not to give money
and clothing but to investigate the case or to have the charity
organization or some of the rescue workers to do it for us. The great
number of tramps and professional beggars with false stories tends to
harden our hearts to the many cases of real need all about us. Some of
these are too proud to make their real condition known and actually
starve to death or perish from disease and cold.
James here assumes that the case is one of real need that deserves
sympathy and help. The man who prides himself upon the correctness of
his professional creed and pious standing bestows kind words of sympathy
and nothing else, sending the suffering brother or sister, “ill-clad and
short of daily food” (Moffatt), out into the bitter cold and shutting
the door with a sense of satisfaction after such pious platitudes as,
“Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled.” He calls his cheap words
Christian sympathy. It is enough to make demons laugh. The irony of
James is keen. “The things needful to the body,” the ordinary
necessities of life, now become rare luxuries to the poor brother or
sister. So James repeats his query: “What doth it profit?”
It is pertinent per contra to quote Paul on the necessity of love even
in beneficence: “And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I
give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing”
(1 Cor. 13:3). What, indeed! One recalls the compassion of Jesus for the
hungry multitudes whom he fed. His heart was not hardened. He did not
ask them to be satisfied with honeyed words and the aroma of dinner. The
pious pretenders actually think that the needy should be grateful for
kind advice when sent away without a mouthful to eat. James applies his
illustration to the point discussed (v. 17). Mere professional faith
that talks and does not “is dead in itself.” There is no life in it, no
reality. It is dead on the inside and is a mere empty shell of pious
pretense. There are people who today turn to our churches for help in
the hour of need and get only empty words. It will be in vain then to
speak about the grace of God.
Not Mere Intellectual Assent (2:18-19)
It is extremely difficult to follow the thought of James in verse 18. He
is usually wonderfully perspicuous, but here we are in doubt as to the
punctuation and the reference in “a man.” Some scholars think that it is
a delicate way that James has of referring to himself, but then James is
emphasizing works, not mere faith.
Is the sentence a question or an assertion? Shall we say “but” or “yea”?
Hort has shown a way out that is partly followed by Moffatt. Take the
“man” as an objector, but let his objection cover only the first
sentence, the point being to challenge the faith of James, since he has
put such accent on works. “Thou, James, hast thou faith? I also (as well
as thou) have works.” The objector thus claims to have both faith and
works but implies that James has only works and no faith.
The rest of the verse is then the reply of James to the objector.[72]
James bursts in with the answer to the challenge and rests his claim to
faith on works as proof. “Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I
by my works will show thee my faith.” Here James pits over against each
other the two sorts of faith—the true faith which James claims to
possess and which is proved by works and the false faith which is mere
profession and entirely apart from works. The antithesis is complete.
The dispute turns on how one knows that he has faith. James rests his
case on his works and in turn challenges the objector to prove his faith
apart from works.
Now James is ready to drive the point home. He proceeds to show that
such an empty faith as his objector has is mere intellectual assent to
propositions and is not saving trust that bears fruit in the life. “Thou
believest that God is one.” This is one of the statements of the unity
of God. The usual formula occurs in Deuteronomy 6:4 and in Mark 12:29
(“The Lord our God, the Lord is one”). The recitation of this phrase was
not merely the orthodox creed but was supposed to have saving efficacy
(cf. the Moslem repetition of “Allah”). From the time of the exile the
repetition of the _Shema_ (Deut. 6:4 ff.) each morning and evening was
the duty of every pious Israelite. “Whoever reads the _Shema_ upon his
couch is as one that defends himself with a two-edged sword” (Meg.
3_a_). “They cool the flames of Gehinnom for him who reads the _Shema_”
(Ber. 15_b_). Oesterley (_in loco_) adds that “the very parchment on
which the _Shema_ is written is efficacious in keeping demons at a
distance.”
These statements will help us to understand the atmosphere from which
James draws his illustration. And yet James does not ridicule this
mental assent to the oneness of God. “Thou doest well.” Orthodoxy is
better than heresy. Orthodoxy is “thinking straight,” and that is what
we all need to do. Every man is right in his own eyes, and the rest are
a bit “off.” But good as monotheism is, it is not enough (cf.
Mohammedanism again).
What James criticizes is mere intellectual assent with no vital union
with God. “The demons also believe,” as well as you. The demons know
only too well that God is and that he is one. They are monotheists, not
polytheists. They recognized Jesus: “What have we to do with thee, Jesus
of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the
Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). Compare Matthew 8:29 and Luke 4:41. The
demons are thoroughly orthodox on this point, have intellectual assent
(“faith”), but they are still demons. They even shudder at the fact and
the power of God as they feared Jesus (Mark 1:24; Luke 8:29). The word
means to “bristle,” like the Latin _horreo_, with the hair standing on
end. “Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood
up” (Job 4:15). So Daniel (7:15) says, “My spirit was grieved.” The
argument is as complete as it can be.
The Obedient Trust of Abraham (2:20-24)
But James applies his illustration again. He hammers the objector while
he has him. “But wilt thou know, O vain man?” (“you senseless fellow,”
Moffatt). The word is used like the Latin _vanus_ of boasters or
impostors, men whose word cannot be depended upon. You can know, if you
wish to know,[73] “that faith apart from works is barren,” “faith
without deeds is dead” (Moffatt), according to some manuscripts. One may
note 2 Peter 1:8, “not idle nor unfruitful.” Faith without works is like
a barren woman, without children to comfort her. “Children” and “works”
are sometimes used as parallel. “Wisdom is justified by her works”
(Matt. 11:19); “wisdom is justified of all her children” (Luke 7:35).
James thus shows irritation at the dulness of his objector, but he hopes
to make even such a man see the point by appealing to the axiomatic case
of Abraham. The faith of Abraham was one of the commonplaces of
theological discussion in the rabbinical schools (Oesterley). See Sirach
44:20 ff.; Wisdom 10:5. It is no wonder that Paul (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:7)
makes use of the case of Abraham. He considers it so important that in
Romans he devotes a whole chapter to the subject. Paul lays chief
emphasis (Rom. 4:17-21) on Abraham’s faith in the promise of a son. Paul
also proves that Abraham had the justifying faith before he was
circumcised. James shows that Abraham lived up to his faith when put to
the test. Both points are true.
There was abuse of the faith of Abraham. Thus Rabbi Nehemiah (_Mechilta_
on Ex. 14:31) says: “So Abraham, solely for the merit of his faith,
whereby he believed in the Lord, inherited this world and the other.”
The Jews came to rely so much on the “merit” of Abraham’s faith that
they felt that all they had to do was to say, “We have Abraham to our
father” (Matt. 3:9). They leaned[74] on “Father Abraham.” In 1 Maccabees
2:52 the same use is made of the case of Abraham that we have in James:
“Was not Abraham found faithful in trial, and it was reckoned to him for
righteousness?” In Hebrews 11 the same exposition of faith is set forth
by the glorious list of heroes who exemplified faith. Among these heroes
is Abraham, who obeyed to go out (11:8) to a distant land and who
offered up his only begotten son (11:17).
James appeals confidently, therefore, to the example of Abraham in
offering up Isaac upon the altar (cf. Gen. 22:9). He had shown that he
served God from love and not merely from fear. His faith had stood the
severest of all tests—believing that God would go with him down into the
darkness of death and make plain his command that was so hard to obey.
James interprets the case of Abraham with his usual pungency. “Thou
seest,” or at least, “thou oughtest to see.” The deduction is
inevitable. “Faith wrought with his works,” “faith cooperated with
deeds” (Moffatt), just the opposite of “apart from works.” It is thus
clear that James did not mean to say that Abraham had only works and not
faith. It is faith and works with Abraham, as he had contended in verse
18. It is like Paul’s “faith working through love,” energetic faith. So
James adds: “by works was faith made perfect,” “completed by deeds”
(Moffatt).
Thus with Abraham faith was shown to be alive, not dead; fruitful, not
barren; brought to a good result or end, not cut short with mere
profession or promise. So the Scripture was fulfilled (made full or
complete) in the case of Abraham: “And Abraham believed God, and it [the
faith] was reckoned [set down to his credit] unto him for
righteousness.” Paul in Romans 4 lays emphasis on the verb “believed,”
and James stresses the obedience which proves the reality of the trust.
Both points are justly made. In each instance faith precedes the works.
We are set right with God by trust, but the life must correspond to the
new relation with God. It was so with Abraham. He was called “the friend
of God.” Compare 2 Chronicles 20:7. “Shall I hide from Abraham that
which I do?” (Gen. 18:17). With the Arabs the term “Khalil Allah”
(Friend of God) is the current name for Abraham. Epictetus (bk. II,
chap, xvii, § 29) speaks of looking “up into heaven as the friend of
God.” Plato calls the righteous man “on terms of friendship with God.”
Jesus calls his disciples “friends,” no longer “servants,” in John 15:14
f. There cannot be such friendship without trust of the most absolute
kind, a trust that means loyalty to the end.
One must not think that James discredits faith. He does not. He assumes
the need of it. In verse 24 James uses “justified” more in the sense of
final approval (set right at last) than of the initial restoration of
peace with God. And even so “the faith as a ground of justification is
assumed as a starting point” (Hort).
“Ye see,” says James, leaving his imaginary opponent and turning again
to his readers. They can see the point, whether the empty-headed
disputant does or not. It is hard for a controversialist to see anything
but his own side of the question. It is “not only by faith” that a man
is justified. The case of Abraham shows that works must follow faith in
the natural order of grace. James has administered a severe rebuke to
the antinomians who deny any responsibility for holy living and disclaim
the force of the moral law. There has always been a curious type of
pietism that runs easily into immorality with no compunctions of
conscience, a sort of emotionalism without ethical tone or flavor.
Abraham was not simply the father of the Jewish people but the father of
all the spiritual Israel—the believing children of God in all the ages
since, who form the elect of God and of the earth.
The Case of Rahab (2:25)
One wonders why James selects a case like this after speaking of
Abraham, the father of the fruitful and God’s friend. Oesterley doubts
how this verse could come from the pen of a Christian. But James may
have wished to select another example at the furthest possible point
from Abraham, a heathen and a proselyte, “the first of all the
proselytes” in the land of Canaan (Hort). Certainly if a woman like
Rahab could be saved, no one else need despair. She expressed her faith
in God: “I know that the Lord hath given you the land ... the Lord your
God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath” (Josh. 2:9, 11,
AV). Besides, she showed her courage by avowing the cause of Jehovah and
of Israel, by protecting the messengers (spies, in reality), and by a
life of uprightness thereafter.
It was a crisis in the history of Israel as they came to Jericho, and
Rahab took her stand for God at the start; hence the high honor accorded
her. She is mentioned in Hebrews 11:31 in the famous list of heroes of
faith. In Matthew 1:5 she appears in the genealogy of Christ. She was
counted one of the four chief beauties of Israel along with Sarah,
Abigail, and Esther (Mayor). “Eight prophets who were also priests are
descended from the harlot Rahab” (_Megilla_ 14_b_). Certainly there is
no desire in James nor in Hebrews to dignify her infamous trade, which
she renounced, but only to single her out as a brand snatched from the
burning by the power of God.
The Union of Faith and Works (2:26)
This is what James pleads for, not the divorce between creed and
conduct, which is alas only too prevalent even today. There should be an
indissoluble marriage between faith and works, a union as close as that
between spirit and body. “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead,
even so faith apart from works is dead.” By “spirit” here James means
simply the breath of life, without which the body is dead. “False faith
is virtually a corpse” (Hort).
By this striking paradox James attacks the root of the whole matter and
has his last word on the subject. Hort remarks that James by the use of
the phrase “justified by works” seems to be answering Paul in Romans 4:2
or a misuse of Paul’s “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1), though he does
not see how James could have seen Paul. I have already expressed my own
conviction that James and Paul are not really answering one another.
They are discussing different aspects of the subject and touch only at
points and go off along other lines. In all probability each would agree
to the statements of the other if the language of each were put in the
proper perspective. Certainly they agreed when they were together in
Jerusalem (Acts 15; Gal. 2:1-10). But it is important for us that our
faith shall be real and vital, not hollow and dead.
VIII
The Tongues of Teachers
James carries on the discussion of “slow to speak” (1:19). He has just
been writing about idle faith in 2:14-26, and now he proceeds (Plummer)
to expound the peril of the idle word, “wrong speech after wrong action”
(Hort). Indeed, in 1:26 he has already mentioned the failure to bridle
the tongue as a sure sign of vain religion. Now he expands the matter in
a remarkable paragraph.
The transition is thus not so abrupt as at first seems to be the case,
and apparently from the first he planned this discussion of the tongue.
Probably it comes here (Plummer) because controversies about faith and
works were already rife. Here James speaks “against those who substitute
words for works” (Plummer), a rather large class. “In noble uprightness,
he values only the strict practice of concrete duties, and hates talk”
(Reuss), if it is _only_ talk. James has the gift of condensation. He
can write on talk without taking twenty volumes, like Carlyle, to prove
that if speech is silvern, silence is golden (Plummer). The
“overvaluation of theory as compared with practice” (Mayor) condemned in
chapter II is still present with James as he discusses the tongue.
An Oversupply of Teachers (3:1a)
We are not here to think simply of official teachers like Paul’s
apostles, prophets, teachers (1 Cor. 12:28 f.; Eph. 4:11). In the
Didache (xiii. 2, xv. 1, 2) teachers are placed on a par with prophets
and higher than bishops and deacons. There is no doubt that teaching
received tremendous emphasis in the work of the early Christians. Jesus
is the great Teacher of the ages and is usually presented as teaching.
In the Jewish “houses of learning” (synagogues) teaching was as
prominent an element as worship. The official teachers passed away, and
the modern Sunday school movement is an effort to restore the teaching
function in the churches.
The true preacher should be a teacher also, but many preachers are more
evangelistic and hortatory than didactic. The best preachers combine all
these elements and build up the saints in the faith to which they have
been won. The mission work of modern Christianity also has had to lay
new emphasis on the educational side of Christian effort. There is no
reason why the morning service in public worship should not be a
teaching service and the evening service more evangelistic. Teachers are
necessary. People “having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers
after their own lusts” (2 Tim. 4:3).[75] Epictetus (bk. III, chap,
xxiii, § 29) says: Rufus “used to speak in such a way that each of us as
we sat thought that someone had accused us to him.”
But James here is thinking of the unofficial teachers in the churches.
In the Jewish synagogues there was wide latitude allowed for strangers
and others to speak. Jesus took advantage of this opportunity and taught
freely in the synagogues (Matt. 12:9 ff.; Mark 1:39; Luke 6:6 ff.).
There would be interruption and violent opposition at times (cf. John
6:59-66). Paul used the courtesy to strangers to speak in the Jewish
synagogues and met with open opposition at times (cf. Acts 13:15, 45;
18:6).
In Corinth we have a striking instance of the evil of promiscuous
teaching, unrestrained and unregulated (1 Cor. 14). It became necessary
for Paul to rebuke the church for unseemly disorder. There were many who
were only too ready to be carried away by any newfangled doctrine. There
is safety in free discussion, which acts as a safety valve and also
leaves a deposit of truth. But the acrimonious spirit had a fine
opportunity to display itself. Men of arrogant convictions and little
knowledge felt that they “had no need to learn anything from their
brethren, but were fully equipped as teachers” (Johnstone), “desiring to
be teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say,
nor whereof they confidently affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7).
Some men with a certain fluency of speech really had no message and only
spoke out of vanity and really “thought more of the admiration which
they might excite by a display of their powers than of the light and
strength which through Gods grace they might give their brethren”
(Dale). Evidently James is here concerned with these promiscuous,
officious, irresponsible, self-appointed teachers, men with a cocksure
explanation of all difficulties, not afraid to rush in where angels fear
to tread.
The world was full of roving teachers with every sort of patent ism to
dispense to the public. Both Jews and Athenians were eager for something
newer than the last stale theory (the very latest fad). The synagogues
of the Jews and the churches of the Christians offered a fine platform
for these cranks to air their notions. Besides, some of the best of men,
earnest Christians, have a “lust for talk” (W. Robertson Nicoll) that
leads them into all sorts of excesses.
James, therefore, is pleading for restraint and moderation when he says,
“Be not many of you teachers,” “do not swell the ranks of the teachers”
(Moffatt). Teachers are absolutely necessary, but the thing can be
overdone. Some learners (disciples) are needed. Liberty within
reasonable limits must be allowed, but not rank license. Men must not be
too eager to teach what they do not know.
There is no danger of an oversupply of well-equipped teachers, who are
masters of the message of Christ. There are still too many who are
incompetent, and therefore the accent on teacher-training in the Sunday
schools is most timely. The caution of James is pertinent today, but we
must not discourage timid souls who can learn to teach and who ought to
undertake it. The greatness of the teacher’s task must not be
overlooked. James warns us against its abuse. There is a mental sloth
that is as bad as this eagerness to be teachers, a lazy satisfaction
with the elements of Christianity and failure to grow into the position
of teachers of the doctrines of grace, continuing as babes unable to
digest solid food (Heb. 5:12).
The Peril of Teachers (3:1b)
Teaching has to be done. There is no escape from that, but those who
teach must understand their responsibility. They are doctors (from
_doceo_, to teach) of the mind and heart. They cannot escape their
responsibility as spiritual surgeons, for they deal with the issues of
life and death, “knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.” In
seasons of religious excitement it is particularly desirable that men
shall bear this fact in mind. There is danger for the teacher and for
those that hear and are led astray by foolish talk.
Feeling was probably running high in some of the churches, and there was
occasion for the sobering words of James. “The penalty of untruth is
untruth, to imbibe which is death” (Taylor). One has only to recall the
words of Jesus: “And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall
speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by
thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be
condemned” (Matt. 12:36 f.). It is easy to be overconfident, like the
complacency of the Jews of whom Paul said that each was confident that
he was “a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes” (Rom. 2:20).
“Blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. 15:14) are they. It is bad enough to
break one of the least commandments, but whoever does “and shall teach
men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).
There is no escaping the fact that a heavier penalty rests on preachers
and teachers who leave a trail of error behind them. This point of view
explains Paul’s anxiety in the pastoral epistles for the future of
Christianity, as it had to confront Pharisaism, Gnosticism, Mithraism,
the emperor cult, and the hundred and one vagaries of the age. Certainly
a teacher must speak his mind. He must be intellectually honest and tell
what he sees, but he is not called upon to give his guesses at truth as
truth. He ought to be interesting if he can, but not at the expense of
truth. Freedom of teaching is quite consonant with fidelity to truth.
One does not have to be a mere traditionalist in order to escape wild
speculation. He must bring forth things new and old if they are true.
The severest words that fell from the lips of Jesus are against the
Pharisees who filled the place of teachers for the Jews but who “say,
and do not,” who “sit on Moses’ seat” as authoritative teachers and yet
“strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel” (Matt. 23:2-3, 24). “Woe
unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not
in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered” (Luke 11:52).
The child was kept in the dark while at school because the teacher did
not let in the light. “The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.”
The Test of Perfection (3:2a)
Others besides teachers have pitfalls, for teachers are not the only
errant men. “For in many things we all stumble.” James includes himself
in this category. The Vulgate reads “ye” in verse 1 (_sumitis_), not
willing to admit that James ran any risk about the heavier judgment; but
that is not the correct text. James shows no disposition to exempt
himself. One and all we make many slips, stumble over something in the
path. Our falls are only too frequent. Who is the perfect man? Seneca
(Clem. 1:6) says, “We all sin” (_peccamus omnes_). But Epictetus (bk.
IV, chap. iv, § 7) uses the word for sin for merely “commit a fault.” He
has a weak conception of sin. Epictetus also (bk. I, chap. xxviii, § 23)
says, “No man stumbles on account of another’s action.” But surely he is
in error here.
Teachers are particularly liable to stumble in speech, for precisely in
that sphere their activity lies (Plummer). This point is common to all.
Most assuredly, all men are guilty of sins of speech. Each one is sure
to stumble there sooner or later. This is a very easy test of one’s
perfection. He can be prodded by the tongue. “The scribes and the
Pharisees began to press upon him vehemently, and to provoke him to
speak of many things; laying wait [ambush] for him, to catch [as if wild
game] something out of his mouth” (Luke 11: 53 f.). Yes, but they were
all the more angry when the one perfect Man kept control of his tongue.
Smart lawyers often try to trip a witness in his talk. It is hard to be
consistent in talk, true in talk, clean in speech. “If any stumbleth not
in word, the same is a perfect man,” “whoever avoids slips of speech is
a perfect man” (Moffatt). “Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth”
(Prov. 6:2). Compare Sirach 28:12-26 for pungent remarks on speech.
“That which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man” (Matt.
15:11). The chemical reaction to talk is a test that we cannot refuse.
Teachers cannot escape this inevitable test. The rest of this discussion
consists of a series of remarkable illustrations of the power of the
tongue.
The Bridle and the Horse (3:2b-3)
The man who does control his tongue is able to bridle the whole body
also (cf. 1:26), for the body goes with the tongue. In fact, nothing is
commoner than for one to make a rash statement and then feel compelled
to stand by it for the sake of imaginary consistency. Hort keenly
observes that the force of “also” after “the whole body” is that a man
who can bridle his tongue can bridle his whole body. The tongue is a
real Bucephalus, and it takes an Alexander to master him. It is really
wonderful how a spirited, impetuous horse can be subdued by bit and
bridle. The spirit does not go out of the horse, but his restless energy
is under control and guidance.
James does not mean that a man should be dumb and lifeless, without
ambition and power, but simply that his tongue, like all the rest of the
body, should be kept in control. This figure of bridling the tongue, as
already noted (1:26), is one of the most vivid figures in all languages.
David said: “I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue:
I will keep my mouth with a bridle” (Psalm 39:1).
It is not merely that the tongue is so hard to put a bridle on but also
that the tongue has such an influence on the whole body, able thus to
lead the body by the bridle.[76] The horse has to follow his mouth, in
which the bridle is placed. The purpose of the bridle is that the horses
may obey us, and it is thoroughly successful, as a rule. “We turn about
their whole body also” along with the mouth. So we should place bridles
in our mouths for the deliberate purpose of controlling the tongue. It
will not happen by accident.
We are to repress the impulsive and petulant word. Thus we train our own
tongues and make it easier to subdue the other members of the body. One
member cannot be allowed to lead the whole body into sin. Pluck it out,
if it be the right eye or the right hand (Matt. 5:29). The members of
the body are all so related as to be affected by what the others
experience. “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee” (1
Cor. 12:21). Without this bridle on the tongue there is no true
self-control. A tongue loose at both ends means a man whom everyone
shuns as a nuisance. If the bridle is good for the horse, it is far more
so for the man. The difference is that the man has to put the bridle
into his own mouth and in dual capacity as rider and horse master
himself, the most unmanageable of steeds.
A garrulous man is a bore at best, while a woman with a sharp tongue is
a terror to the community. Tell no secrets to a talkative man, and few
to anyone save your wife. A man who talks to hear himself talk will be
sure to tell what he ought not to say. The writer of Hebrews refuses to
go on with too many details about his heroes of faith, “for the time
will fail me if I tell” (Heb. 11:32), “time will leave me telling.” If
the audience held the bridle, the preacher might stop sooner. The
phonograph can be turned off at will, permitting only so much “canned”
talk at a time. And yet talk is one of the most delightful things in all
the world. But there can be too much of a good thing, if, forsooth, it
is good. There are few greater nuisances than the interrupter, who
breaks into a conversation with no regard for the courtesies of the
occasion. He is as bad as the man who monopolizes the conversation and
allows no one else to talk at all. He needs a stopper, not a bridle, in
his mouth.
The Rudder and the Ship (3:4)
With great wealth of imagination James proceeds to illustrate still
further the power of the tongue over the rest of the body. The point is
clear from the illustration of the bridle and the horse, but it is made
still clearer by the other figures. The importance of the subject
justifies this piling up of metaphors. “This combination of the horse’s
bridle and the ship’s rudder as illustrative of the tongue is found”
(Hort) in Philo and Plutarch. “The argument is _à fortiori_ from the
horse to the man, and still more from the ship to the man, so that the
whole forms a climax, the point being throughout the same, namely, the
smallness of the part to be controlled in order to have control over the
whole” (Plummer).
The horse is an irrational creature and yet can be managed by the
bridle. The ship has no mind at all and yet is moved “by a very small
rudder,” “turned about,” “whither the impulse of the steersman willeth.”
The “impulse” may be like “the rush of water” in
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48411