



Produced by Charlene Taylor, Chris Pinfield and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive).





Transcriber's Note.

An advertisement for the Expositor's Bible series has been shifted to
the end of the text.

Apparent typographical errors have been corrected; inconsistent
hyphenation has been retained.

Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals while italics are
indicated by _underscores_.




THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE

 EDITED BY THE REV.
 W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
 _Editor of "The Expositor"_




 THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF
 ST. JAMES AND ST. JUDE

 BY THE REV.
 ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
 MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM
 FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD

 _SIXTH EDITION_

 HODDER AND STOUGHTON
 LONDON MCMVII

 _Printed by Hazell, Watson & Vincy, Ld., London and Aylesbury._




CONTENTS.


_INTRODUCTORY._
                                                                  PAGE
 CHAPTER I.
 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES                                               1

_THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._

 CHAPTER II.
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES                       13

 CHAPTER III.
 THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE: JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD           25

 CHAPTER IV.
 THE PERSONS ADDRESSED IN THE EPISTLE: THE JEWS OF
   THE DISPERSION                                                   42

 CHAPTER V.
 THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL
   AND OF ST. PETER.--THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE DOCTRINE
   OF JOY IN TEMPTATION                                             55

 CHAPTER VI.
 THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE BOOKS OF ECCLESIASTICUS
   AND OF THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.--THE VALUE OF THE APOCRYPHA,
   AND THE MISCHIEF OF NEGLECTING IT                                68

 CHAPTER VII.
 THE EXALTATION OF THE LOWLY, AND THE FADING AWAY
   OF THE RICH.--THE METAPHORS OF ST. JAMES AND THE PARABLES
   OF CHRIST                                                        80

 CHAPTER VIII.
 THE SOURCE OF TEMPTATIONS, AND THE REALITY OF SIN.--THE
   DIFFICULTIES OF THE DETERMINIST                                  89

 CHAPTER IX.
 THE DELUSION OF HEARING WITHOUT DOING.--THE MIRROR
   OF GOD'S WORD                                                    99

 CHAPTER X.
 THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES.--THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF
   INVOLVED IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS
   IN PUBLIC WORSHIP                                               111

 CHAPTER XI.
 THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING
   THE POOR.--THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW                     124

 CHAPTER XII.
 FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION OF THE TEACHING
   OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL.--THE RELATION
   OF LUTHER TO BOTH                                               135

 CHAPTER XIII.
 THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;
   AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT                               149

 CHAPTER XIV.
 THE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS.--THE POWERS
   AND PROPENSITIES OF THE TONGUE.--THE SELF-DEFILEMENT
   OF THE RECKLESS TALKER                                          165

 CHAPTER XV.
 THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER                   179

 CHAPTER XVI.
 THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW                                     191

 CHAPTER XVII.
 THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE                                     203

 CHAPTER XVIII.
 ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES OF STRIFE;
   THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER                                          214

 CHAPTER XIX.
 THE SEDUCTIONS OF THE WORLD, AND THE JEALOUSY OF
   THE DIVINE LOVE                                                 226

 CHAPTER XX.
 THE POWER OF SATAN AND ITS LIMITS.--HUMILITY THE
   FOUNDATION OF PENITENCE AND OF HOLINESS                         238

 CHAPTER XXI.
 SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
   INVOLVED IN THE LOVE OF CENSURING OTHERS                        250

 CHAPTER XXII.
 SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES INVOLVED
   IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.--THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM      261

 CHAPTER XXIII.
 THE FOLLIES AND INIQUITIES OF THE RICH; THEIR MISERABLE END       274

 CHAPTER XXIV.
 PATIENCE IN WAITING.--THE ENDURANCE OF JOB.--THE
   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MENTION OF JOB BY ST. JAMES                 289

 CHAPTER XXV.
 THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING.--THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE
   OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST                      302

 CHAPTER XXVI.
 WORSHIP THE BEST OUTLET AND REMEDY FOR EXCITEMENT.--THE
   CONNEXION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND CONDUCT                           315

 CHAPTER XXVII.
 THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH.--THE ANOINTING OF THE
   SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION                                        323

 CHAPTER XXVIII.
 THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONFESSION OF SINS.--THE LAWFULNESS
   OF PRAYERS FOR RAIN                                             335

 CHAPTER XXIX.
 THE WORK OF CONVERTING SINNERS; ITS CONDITIONS AND REWARDS        350

_THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST JUDE._

 CHAPTER XXX.
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE                       365

 CHAPTER XXXI.
 THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED
   AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE                       377

 CHAPTER XXXII.
 THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.--ITS RELATION
   TO 2 PETER                                                      388

 CHAPTER XXXIII.
 DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION--THREE
   PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN         401

 CHAPTER XXXIV.
 RAILING AT DIGNITIES.--"THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES."--ST. JUDE'S
   USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE                                    415

 CHAPTER XXXV.
 THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN. THE LIBERTINES
   AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.--THE BOOK OF ENOCH                          426

 CHAPTER XXXVI.
 THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM: THE IMPIOUS
   DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.--THE APOSTOLIC
   WARNING RESPECTING THEM                                         442

 CHAPTER XXXVII.
 THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO KORAH: MAKING
   SEPARATIONS.--EXHORTATIONS TO THE FAITHFUL TO
   BUILD UP THEMSELVES, AND THEN RESCUE OTHERS                     450

 CHAPTER XXXVIII.
 THE FINAL DOXOLOGY: PRAISE TO GOD, THE PROTECTOR OF
   HIS SERVANTS                                                    463


INDEX                                                              471




INTRODUCTORY.




 CHAPTER I.

 _THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES._


This volume is to treat of the General Epistle of St. James and the
General Epistle of St. Jude. According to the most common, but not
invariable arrangement, they form the first and the last letters in
the collection which for fifteen centuries has been known as the
Catholic Epistles. The epithet "General," which appears in the titles
of these Epistles in the English versions, is simply the equivalent of
the epithet "Catholic," the one word being of Latin (_generalis_), the
other of Greek (καθολικός) origin. In Latin, however, _e.g._ in the
Vulgate, these letters are not called _Generales_, but _Catholicæ_.

The meaning of the term Catholic Epistles (καθολικαὶ ἐπιστολαι) has
been disputed, and more than one explanation may be found in
commentaries; but the true signification is not really doubtful. It
certainly does not mean _orthodox_ or _canonical_; although from the
sixth century, and possibly earlier, we find these Epistles sometimes
called the Canonical Epistles (_Epistolæ Canonicæ_), an expression in
which "canonical" is evidently meant to be an equivalent for
"catholic." This use is said to occur first in the _Prologus in
Canonicas Epistolas_ of the Pseudo-Jerome given by Cassiodorus (_De
Justit. Divin. Litt._, viii.); and the expression is used by
Cassiodorus himself, whose writings may be placed between A.D. 540 and
570, the period spent in his monastery at Viviers, after he had
retired from the conduct of public affairs. The term "catholic" is
used in the sense of "orthodox" before this date, but not in connexion
with these letters. There seems to be no earlier evidence of the
opinion, certainly erroneous, that this collection of seven Epistles
was called "Catholic" in order to mark them as Apostolic and
authoritative, in distinction from other letters which were heterodox,
or at any rate of inferior authority. Five out of the seven letters,
viz. all but the First Epistle of St. Peter and the First Epistle of
St. John, belong to that class of New Testament books which from the
time of Eusebius (_H. E._ III. xxv. 4) have been spoken of as
"disputed" (ἀντιλεγόμενα), _i.e._ as being up to the beginning of
the fourth century not _universally_ admitted to be canonical.[1] And
it would have been almost a contradiction in terms if Eusebius had
first called these Epistles "catholic" (_H. E._ II. xxiii. 25; VI.
xiv. 1) in the sense of being universally accepted as authoritative,
and had then classed them among the "disputed" books.

Nor is it accurate to say that these letters are called "catholic"
because they are addressed to both Jewish and Gentile Christians
alike, a statement which is not true of all of them, and least of all
of the Epistle which generally stands first in the series; for the
Epistle of St. James takes no account of Gentile Christians. Moreover,
there are Epistles of St. Paul which are addressed to both Jews and
Gentiles in the Churches to which he writes. So that this explanation
of the term makes it thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose for which
it is used, viz. to mark off these seven Epistles from the Epistles of
St. Paul. Nevertheless, this interpretation is nearer to the truth
than the former one.

The Epistles are called "Catholic" because they are not addressed to
any particular Church, whether of Thessalonica, or Corinth, or Rome,
or Galatia, but to the Church universal, or at any rate to a wide
circle of readers. This is the earliest Christian use of the term
"catholic," which was applied to the Church itself before it was
applied to these or any other writings. "Wheresoever the bishop shall
appear, there let the people be," says Ignatius to the Church of
Smyrna (viii.), "just as where Jesus Christ is, _there is the Catholic
Church_"--the earliest passage in Christian literature in which the
phrase "Catholic Church" occurs. And there can be no doubt as to the
meaning of the epithet in this expression. In later times, when
Christians were oppressed by a consciousness of the slow progress of
the Gospel, and by the knowledge that as yet only a fraction of the
human race had accepted it, it became customary to explain "catholic"
as meaning that which embraces and teaches the whole truth, rather
than as that which spreads everywhere and covers the whole earth. But
in the first two or three centuries the feeling was rather one of
jubilation and triumph at the rapidity with which the "good news" was
spreading, and of confidence that "there is not one single race of
men, whether barbarians or Greeks, or whatever they may be called,
nomads or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers
and giving of thanks are not offered, through the name of the
crucified Jesus, to the Father and Creator of all things" (Justin
Martyr, _Trypho_, cxviii.); and that as "the soul is diffused through
all the members of the body, Christians are scattered through all the
cities of the world" (_Epistle to Diognetus_, vi.).[2] Under the
influence of such exultation as this, which was felt to be in harmony
with Christ's promise and command (Luke xxiv. 47; Matt. xxviii. 10),
it was natural to use "catholic" of the universal extension of
Christendom, rather than of the comprehensiveness of the truths of
Christianity. And this meaning still prevails in the time of
Augustine, who says that "the Church is called 'Catholic' in Greek,
because it is diffused throughout the whole world" (_Epp._ lii. 1);
although the later use, as meaning orthodox, in distinction to
schismatical or heretical, has already begun; _e.g._ in the Muratorian
Fragment, in which the writer speaks of heretical writing "which
cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for wormwood is not
suitable for mixing with honey" (Tregelles, pp. 20, 47; Westcott _On
the Canon_, Appendix C, p. 500);[3] and the chapter in Clement of
Alexandria on the priority of the Catholic Church to all heretical
assemblies (_Strom._ VII. xvii).

The four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul were the Christian
writings best known during the first century after the Ascension, and
universally acknowledged as of binding authority[4]; and it was common
to speak of them as "the Gospel" and "the Apostle," much in the same
way as the Jews spoke of "the Law" and "the Prophets." But when a
third collection of Christian documents became widely known another
collective term was required by which to distinguish it from the
collections already familiar, and the feature in these seven Epistles
which seems to have struck the recipients of them most is the absence
of an address to any local Church. Hence they received the name of
Catholic, or General, or Universal Epistles. The name was all the more
natural because of the number seven, which emphasized the contrast
between these and the Pauline Epistles. St. Paul had written to seven
particular Churches--Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Philippi,
Colossæ, and Ephesus; and here were seven Epistles without any address
to a particular Church; therefore they might fitly be called
"_General_ Epistles." Clement of Alexandria uses this term of the
letter addressed to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and
Cilicia" (Acts xv. 23) by the Apostles, in the so-called Council of
Jerusalem (_Strom._ IV. xv.); and Origen uses it of the Epistle of
Barnabas (_Con. Celsum_ I. lxiii.), which is addressed simply to "sons
and daughters," _i.e._ to Christians generally.

That this meaning was well understood, even after the misleading title
"Canonical Epistles" had become usual in the West, is shown by the
interesting Prologue to these Epistles written by the Venerable Bede,
_c._ A.D. 712.[5] This prologue is headed, "Here begins the Prologue
to the seven _Canonical_ Epistles," and it opens thus: "James, Peter,
John, and Jude published seven Epistles, to which ecclesiastical
custom gives the name of _Catholic_, _i.e._ _universal_."

The name is not strictly accurate, excepting in the cases of 1 John,
2 Peter, and Jude. It is admissible in a qualified sense of 1 Peter
and James; but it is altogether inappropriate to 2 and 3 John, which
are addressed, not to the Church at large, nor to a group of local
Churches, but to individuals. But inasmuch as the common title of
these letters was not the Epistles "to the Elect Lady" and "to Gaius,"
as in the case of the letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy, but
simply the Second and Third of John, they were regarded as without
address, and classed with the Catholic Epistles. And of course it was
natural to put them into the same group with the First Epistle of
St. John, although the name of the group did not suit them. At what
date this arrangement was made is not certain; but there is reason for
believing that these seven Epistles were already regarded as one
collection in the third century, when Pamphilus, the friend of
Eusebius, was making his famous library at Cæsarea. Euthalius (_c._
A.D. 450) published an edition of them, in making which he had
collated "the accurate copies" in this library; and it is probable
that he found the grouping already existing in those copies, and did
not make it for himself. Moreover, it is probable that the copies at
Cæsarea were made by Pamphilus himself; for the summary of the
contents of the Acts published under the name of Euthalius is a mere
copy of the summary given by Pamphilus, and it became the usual
practice to place the Catholic Epistles immediately after the Acts.
If, then, Euthalius got the summary of the Acts from Pamphilus, he
probably got the arrangement from him also, viz. the putting of these
seven Epistles into one group, and placing them next to the Acts.[6]

The order which makes the Catholic Epistles follow immediately after
the Acts is very ancient, and it is a matter for regret that the
influence of Jerome, acting through the Vulgate, has universally
disturbed it in all Western Churches. "The connexion between these two
portions (the Acts and the Catholic Epistles), commended by its
intrinsic appropriateness, is preserved in a large proportion of Greek
MSS. of all ages, and corresponds to marked affinities of textual
history."[7] It is the order followed by Cyril of Jerusalem,
Athanasius, John of Damascus, the Council of Laodicea, and also by
Cassian. It has been restored by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott
and Hort; but it is not to be expected that even their powerful
authority will avail to re-establish the ancient arrangement.

The order of the books in the group of the Catholic Epistles is not
quite constant; but almost always James stands first. In a very few
authorities Peter stands first, an arrangement naturally preferred in
the West, but not adopted even there, because the authority of the
original order was too strong. A scholiast on the Epistle of James
states that this Epistle has been placed before 1 Peter, "because it
is _more catholic_ than that of Peter," by which he seems to mean that
whereas 1 Peter is addressed "to the elect who are sojourners of the
Dispersion" in certain specified districts, the Epistle of James is
addressed "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion," without
any limitation. The Venerable Bede, in the Prologue to the Catholic
Epistles quoted above (p. 6), states that James is placed first,
because he undertook to rule the Church of Jerusalem, which was the
fount and source of that evangelic preaching which has spread
throughout the world; or else because he sent his Epistle to the
twelve tribes of Israel, who were the first to believe. And Bede calls
attention to the fact that St. Paul himself adopts this order when he
speaks of "James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be
pillars" (Gal. ii. 9). It is possible, however, that the order James,
Peter, John was meant to represent a belief as to the chronological
precedence of James to Peter, and Peter to John; Jude being placed
last because of its comparative insignificance, and because it was not
at first universally admitted. The Syriac Version, which admits only
James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, has the three in this order; and if the
arrangement had its origin in reverence for the first Bishop of
Jerusalem, it is strange that most of the Syriac copies should have a
heading to the effect that these three Epistles of James, Peter, and
John are by the three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Those who
made and those who accepted this comment certainly had no idea of
reverencing the first Bishop of Jerusalem, for it implies that the
Epistle of James is by the son of Zebedee and brother of John, who was
put to death by Herod. But it is probable that this heading is a mere
blundering conjecture. If persons who believed the Epistle to be
written by James the brother of John had fixed the order, they would
have fixed it thus--Peter, James, John, as in Matt. xvii. 1; Mark
v. 37; ix. 2; xiii. 3; xiv. 33; comp. Matt. xxvi. 37; or Peter, John,
James, as in Luke viii. 51; ix. 28; Acts i. 13. But the former
arrangement would be more reasonable than the latter, seeing that John
wrote so long after the other two. The traditional order harmonizes
with two facts which were worth marking--(1) that two of the three
were Apostles, and must therefore be placed together; (2) that John
wrote last, and must therefore be placed last; but whether or no the
wish to mark these facts determined the order, we have not sufficient
knowledge to enable us to decide.

How enormous would have been the loss had the Catholic Epistles been
excluded from the canon of the New Testament it is not difficult to
see. Whole phases of Christian thought would have been missing. The
Acts and the Epistles of St. Paul would have told us of their
existence, but would not have shown to us what they were. We should
have known that there were serious differences of opinion even among
the Apostles themselves, but we should have had a very imperfect
knowledge as to their nature and reconciliation. We might have guessed
that those who had been with Jesus of Nazareth throughout His ministry
would not preach Christ in the same way as St. Paul, who had never
seen Him until after the Ascension, but we should not have been sure
of this; still less could we have seen in what the difference would
have consisted; and we should have known very little indeed of the
distinctive marks of the three great teachers who "were reputed to be
pillars" of the Church. Above all, we should have known sadly little
of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and of the teaching of those many
early Christians who, while heartily embracing the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, believed that they were bound to hold fast not only to the
morality, but to the discipline of Moses. Thus in many particulars we
should have been left to conjecture as to how the continuity in the
Divine Revelation was maintained; how the Gospel not merely
superseded, but fulfilled, and glorified, and grew out of the Law.

All this has to a large extent been made plain to us by the providence
of God in giving to us and preserving for us in the Church the seven
Catholic Epistles. We see St. James and St. Jude presenting to us that
Judaic form of Christianity which was really the complement, although
when exaggerated it became the opposite, of the teaching of St. Paul.
We see St. Peter mediating between the two, and preparing the way for
a better comprehension of both. And then St. John lifts us up into a
higher and clearer atmosphere, in which the controversy between Jew
and Gentile has faded away into the dim distance, and the only
opposition which remains worthy of a Christian's consideration is that
between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God
and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death.

[1] "Canonical" (κανονκός), from canon (κανών, connected with κάννα,
"a reed or _cane_," "measuring-rod or ruler"), is used in both a
passive and an active sense. A canonical book is primarily one which
has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a
measure or standard. Just as a cane, cut to the length of a
yard-measure, thenceforth becomes a yard-measure itself, so the
Scriptures were first of all tested as to their authority, and then
became a standard for testing all other teaching; _i.e._ they became
_canonical_.

[2] Comp. Ignatius, _Magn._ X.; Irenæus, _Hær._ I. x. 1, 2; III.
iv. 2; V. xx. 1; Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ VI., _sub-finem_;
Tertullian, _Apol._ i., xxxvii.; _Adv. Judæos_, vii., xii., etc., etc.

[3] It has been remarked that this play upon words (_fel_ and _mel_),
which cannot be reproduced in English, is an argument against the
theory of a Greek original.

[4] In the _Codex Sinaiticus_ and some other authorities the Pauline
Epistles are placed immediately after the Gospels, an arrangement
which probably had its origin in the fact that for many early
Christians these two groups constituted their New Testament. Among
versions the Memphitic and the Thebaic have this order.

[5] It is omitted by Giles and other editors, but is given by Cave, in
his _Historia Literaria_ (I., p. 475), who says that it comes from an
ancient MS. in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

[6] Westcott _On the Canon_, pp. 362, 417, 3rd Ed.

[7] Westcott and Hort, II., p. 321; Scrivener, _Introduction to the
Criticism of the N.T._ pp. 70, 74, 3rd Ed.




_THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._




 CHAPTER II.

 _THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._

 "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
 Christ."--JAS. i. 1.


The question of the authenticity of this Epistle resolves itself into
two parts--Is the Epistle the genuine product of a writer of the
Apostolic age? if so, which of the persons of the Apostolic age who
bore the name of James is the author of it? In answering the former of
these two questions it is important to put it in the proper way. We
have done a good deal towards the solution of a problem when we have
learned to state it correctly; and the way in which we ought to
approach the problem of the genuineness of this and other books of the
New Testament is not, Why should we believe that these writings are
what they profess to be? but, Why should we _refuse_ to believe this?
Have we any sufficient reason for reversing the decision of the fourth
and fifth centuries, which possessed far more evidence on the question
than has come down to us?

It must be remembered that that decision was not given mechanically or
without consideration of doubts and difficulties; nor was it imposed
by authority, until independent Churches and scholars had arrived at
pretty much the same conclusion. And the decision, as soon as it was
pronounced, was unanimously accepted in both East and West--a fact
which was ample guarantee that the decision was universally recognized
as correct; for there was no central authority of sufficient influence
to force a suspected decision upon mistrustful Churches. Eusebius, it
is true, classes most of the Catholic Epistles among the "disputed"
(ἀντιλεγόμενα) books of the New Testament, without, however,
affirming that he shared the doubts which existed in some quarters
respecting them. This fact, which is sometimes rather hastily taken as
telling altogether against the writings which he marks as "disputed,"
really tells _both_ ways. On the one hand, it shows that doubts had
existed respecting some of the canonical books; and these doubts must
have had some reason (whether valid or not) for existing. On the other
hand, the fact that the authority of these books was sometimes
disputed in the third century shows that the verdict formally given
and ratified at the Council of Laodicea (_c._ 364)[8] was given after
due examination of the adverse evidence, and with a conviction that
the doubts which had been raised were not justified; and the universal
welcome which was accorded to the verdict throughout Christendom shows
that the doubts which had been raised had ceased to exist. If, then,
on the one hand we remember that misgivings once existed, and argue
that these misgivings must have had some basis, on the other we must
remember that these misgivings were entirely abandoned, and that there
must have been reason for abandoning them. What reason, then, have we
for disturbing the verdict of the fourth century, and reviving
misgivings long ago put to rest?

Of course those who gave that verdict and those who ratified it were
fallible persons, and no member of the English Church, at any rate,
would argue that the question is closed and may not be reopened. But
the point to be insisted upon is that the _onus probandi_ rests with
those who assail or suspect these books, rather than with those who
accept them. It is not the books that ought, on demand, again and
again to be placed on their trial, but the pleas of those who would
once more bring them into court that ought to be sifted. These
objectors deserve a hearing; but while they receive it, we have full
right to stand by the decision of the fourth century, and refuse to
part with, or even seriously to suspect, any of the precious
inheritance which has been handed down to us. It may be confidently
asserted that thus far no strong case has been made out against any of
the five "disputed" Epistles, excepting 2 Peter; and with regard to
that it is still true to affirm that the Petrine authorship remains,
on the whole, a reasonable "working hypothesis."

Do not let us forget what the epithet "disputed," applied to these and
one or two[9] other books of the New Testament, really means. It does
_not_ mean that at the beginning of the fourth century Eusebius found
that these writings were _universally regarded with suspicion; that is
a gross exaggeration of the import of the term_. Rather it means that
these books were _not universally accepted_; that although they were,
as a rule, regarded as canonical, and as part of the contents of the
New Testament (ἐνδιάθηκοι γραφαί), yet in some quarters their
authority was doubted or denied. And the reasons for these doubts were
naturally not in all cases the same. With regard to 2 Peter, the doubt
must have been as to its genuineness and authenticity. It claimed to
be written by "Simon Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ" and a witness
of the Transfiguration (2 Peter i. 1, 18); but the obscurity of its
origin and other circumstances were against it. With regard to James,
Jude, and 2 and 3 John the doubt was rather as to their Apostolicity.
They did not claim to be written by Apostles. There was no reason for
doubting the antiquity or the genuineness of these four books; but
granting that they were written by the persons whose name they bore,
were these persons Apostles? And if they were not, what was the
authority of their writings? The doubts with regard to the Revelation
and to the Epistle to the Hebrews were in part of the same character.
Were they in the full sense of the term Apostolic, as having been
written by Apostles, or at least under the guidance of Apostles?
Eusebius says expressly that all these "disputed" books were
"nevertheless _well known to most_ people."[10]

And it is manifest that the doubts which Eusebius records were ceasing
to exist. Only in some cases does he indicate, and that without open
statement, that he himself was at all inclined to sympathize with
them. And Athanasius, writing a very short time afterwards (A.D. 326),
makes no distinction between acknowledged and disputed books, but
places all seven of the Catholic Epistles, as of equal authority,
immediately after the Acts of the Apostles.[11] Cyril of Jerusalem, in
his Catechetical Lectures, written before his episcopate, _c._
A.D. 349, does the same (_Lect._ IV. x. 36). Some fifteen years later
we have the Council of Laodicea, and near the end of the century the
Council of Hippo, and the third Council of Carthage, giving formal
ratification to these generally received views; after which all
questioning for many centuries ceased. So that while the
classification into "acknowledged" and "disputed" writings proves that
each book was carefully scrutinized, and in various quarters
independently, before it was admitted to the canon, the cessation of
this distinction proves that the result of all this scrutiny was that
the sporadic doubts and hesitations respecting certain of the books of
the New Testament were finally put to rest.

And it must not be supposed that the process was one of general
amnesty. While some books that had here and there been excluded were
finally accepted, some that had here and there been included in the
canon, such as the Epistles of Clement and of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hermas, were finally rejected. The charge of uncritical or
indiscriminate admission cannot be substantiated. The facts are quite
the other way.

When we confine our attention to the Epistle of James in particular,
we find that if the doubts which were here and there felt respecting
it in the third century are intelligible, the universal acceptance
which it met with in the fourth and following centuries is well
founded. The doubts were provoked by two facts--(1) the Epistle had
remained for some time unknown to a good many Churches; (2) when it
became generally known it remained uncertain what the authority of the
writer was, especially whether he was an Apostle or not. It is
possible also that these misgivings were in some cases emphasized by
the further fact that there is a marked absence of doctrinal teaching.
In this Epistle the articles of the Christian faith are scarcely
touched upon at all. Whether the apparent inconsistency with the
teaching of St. Paul respecting the relation between faith and works,
of which so much has been made since Luther's time, was discovered or
not by those who were inclined to dispute the authority of this
Epistle, may be doubted. But of course, if any inconsistency _was_
believed to exist, that also would tell against the general reception
of the letter as canonical.

That the Epistle should at first remain very little known, especially
in the West and among the Gentile congregations, is exactly what we
should expect from the character of the letter and the circumstances
of its publication. It is addressed by a Jew to Jews, by one who never
moved from the Church over which he presided at Jerusalem to those
humble and obscure Christians outside Palestine who, by their
conscientious retention of the Law side by side with the Gospel, cut
themselves off more and more from free intercourse with other
Christians, whether Gentile converts or more liberally-minded Jews. A
letter which in the first instance was to be read in Christian
_synagogues_ (James ii. 2) might easily remain a long time without
becoming known to Churches which from the outset had adopted the
principles laid down in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. The
constant journeys of the Apostle of the Gentiles caused his letters to
become well known throughout the Churches at a very early date. But
the first Bishop of the Mother Church of Jerusalem had no such
advantages. Great as was his influence in his own sphere, with a rank
equal to that of an Apostle, yet he was not well known outside that
sphere, and he himself seems never to have travelled beyond it, or
even to have left the centre of it. With outsiders, who simply knew
that he was not one of the Twelve, his influence would not be great;
and a letter emanating from him, even if known to exist, would not be
eagerly inquired after or carefully circulated. Gentile prejudice
against Jewish Christians would still further contribute to keep in
the background a letter which was specially addressed to Jewish
Christians, and was also itself distinctly Jewish in tone. Nor would
the exclusive class of believers to whom the letter was sent care to
make it known to those Christians from whom they habitually kept
aloof. Thus the prejudices of both sides contributed to prevent the
Epistle from circulating outside the somewhat narrow circle to which
it was in the first instance addressed; and there is therefore nothing
surprising in its being unknown to Irenæus, Hippolytus, Tertullian,
Cyprian, and the author of the Muratorian Canon. There is no sign that
these writers _rejected_ it; they had never heard of it.[12]

And yet the Epistle did become known at a very early date, at any rate
to some outsiders, even in the West. It was almost certainly known to
Clement of Rome, whose Epistle to the Church of Corinth (written _c._
A.D. 97) contains several passages, which seem to be reminiscences of
St. James. And although not one of them can be relied upon as proving
that Clement knew our Epistle, yet when they are all put together they
make a cumulative argument of very great strength.[13] So cautious and
critical a writer as Bishop Lightfoot does not hesitate to assert, in
a note on Clement, chap. xii., "The instance of Rahab was doubtless
suggested by Heb. xi. 31; James ii. 25; for _both these Epistles were
known to St. Clement, and are quoted elsewhere_." And the Epistle of
St. James was certainly known to Hermas, a younger contemporary of
Clement, and author of the _Shepherd_, which was written in the first
half, and possibly in the first quarter, of the second century.[14]
Origen, in the works of which we have the Greek original, quotes it
once as "the Epistle current as that of James" (τῇ φερομένῃ Ἰακώβου
ἐπιστολῇ--_In Johan._ xix. 6), and once (_In Psal._ xxx.) without any
expression of doubt; and in the inaccurate Latin translations of
others of his works there are several distinct quotations from the
Epistle. So that it would seem to have reached Alexandria just as
Clement, Origen's instructor and predecessor, left the city during the
persecution under Septimius Severus (_c._ A.D. 202).[15]

But the conclusive fact in the external evidence respecting the
Epistle is that it is contained in the Peshitto. This ancient Syriac
Version was made in the second century, in the country in which the
letter of James would be best known; and although the framers of this
translation omitted 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, they admitted
James without scruple. Thus the earliest evidence for this Epistle, as
for that to the Hebrews, is chiefly Eastern; while that for Jude, as
for 2 and 3 John, is chiefly Western.

And the evidence of the Peshitto is not weakened by the fact, if it be
a fact, that there was a still earlier Syrian canon which contained
none of the Catholic Epistles. There is no certain allusion to them or
quotation from them in the Homilies of Aphrahat or Aphraates (_c._
A.D. 335); and in the "Doctrine of Addai" (A.D. 250-300) the clergy of
Edessa are directed to read the Law and the Prophets, the Gospel,
St. Paul's Epistles, and the Acts, no other canonical book being
mentioned. In all Churches the number of Christian writings read
publicly in the liturgy was at first small, and in no case were the
Catholic Epistles the first to be used for this purpose.

The internal evidence, as we shall see when we come to examine it more
closely, is even more strong than the external. The character of the
letter exactly harmonizes with the character of James the first Bishop
of Jerusalem, and with the known circumstances of those to whom the
letter is addressed, and this in a way that no literary forger of that
age could have reached. And there is no sufficient motive for a
forgery, for the letter is singularly wanting in doctrinal statements.
The supposed opposition to St. Paul will not hold; a writer who wished
to oppose St. Paul would have made his opposition much more clear. And
a forger who wished to get the authority of St. James wherewith to
counteract St. Paul's teaching would have made us aware that it was
either an Apostle, the son of Zebedee or the son of Alphæus, or else
the brother of the Lord, who was addressing us, and would not have
left it open for us to suppose that the Epistle was from the pen of
some unknown James, who had no authority at all equal to that of
St. Paul. And let any one compare this Epistle with those of Clement
of Rome, and of Barnabas, and of Ignatius, and mark its enormous
superiority. If it were the work of a forger, what a perplexing fact
this superiority would be! If it be the work either of an Apostle or
of one who had Apostolic rank, everything is explained.

Luther's famous criticism on the Epistle, that it is "a veritable
Epistle of straw," is amazing, and is to be explained by the fact that
it contradicts his caricature of St. Paul's doctrine of justification
by faith. There is no opposition between St. James and St. Paul, and
there is sometimes no real opposition between St. James and Luther
(see p. 147). And when Luther gives as his opinion that our Epistle
was "not the writing of any Apostle" we can agree with him, though not
in the sense in which he means it; for he starts from the erroneous
supposition that the letter bears the name of the son of Zebedee. We
must also bear in mind his own explanation of what is Apostolic and
what is not. It has a purely subjective meaning. It does not mean what
was written or not written by an Apostle or the equal of an Apostle.
"Apostolic" means that which, in Luther's opinion, an Apostle _ought_
to teach, and all that fails to satisfy this condition is not
Apostolic. "Therein all true holy books agree, that they preach and
urge Christ. That too is the right touchstone whereby to test all
books--whether they urge Christ or not; for all Scripture testifies of
Christ (Rom. iii. 21).... That which does not teach Christ is still
short of Apostolic, even if it were the teaching of St. Peter or
St. Paul. Again, that which preaches Christ, that were Apostolic, even
if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod preached it." The Lutheran Church
has not followed him in this principle, which places the authority of
any book of Scripture at the mercy of the likes and dislikes of the
individual reader; and it has restored the Epistles to the Hebrews and
of James and Jude to their proper places in the New Testament, instead
of leaving them in the kind of appendix to which Luther had banished
them and the Revelation. Moreover, the passage containing the
statement about the "veritable Epistle of straw"[16] is now omitted
from the preface to his translation. And with regard to this very
point, his former friend and later opponent Andrew Rudolph Bodenstein,
of Karlstadt, pertinently asked, "If you allow the Jews to stamp books
with authority by receiving them, why do you refuse to grant as much
power to the Churches of Christ, since the Church is not less than the
Synagogue?" We have at least as much reason to trust the Councils of
Laodicea, Hippo, and Carthage, which formally defined the limits of
the New Testament, as we have to trust the unknown Jewish influences
which fixed those of the Old. And when we examine for ourselves the
evidence which is still extant, and which has greatly diminished in
the course of fifteen hundred years, we feel that both on external and
internal grounds the decision of the fourth century respecting the
genuineness of the Epistle of St. James, as a veritable product of the
Apostolic age and as worthy of a place in the canon of the New
Testament, is fully justified.

[8] The date so frequently given, A.D. 363, cannot be substantiated,
and on the whole is not probable. See Hefele, _History of the Church
Councils_, II. vi. 93.

[9] The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse.

[10] γνωρίμων δ' οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς (_H. E._ III. xxv. 3), where
γνώριμος, as usual, indicates _familiar_ knowledge. Eusebius is a
desultory writer, and one has to gather his views from statements
scattered over chaps. iii., xxiv., and xxv., some of which are not
very precise. The following table seems to represent his opinion:--

                                              {  Four Gospels, Acts,
                                              {  fourteen Epistles
                 { _Universally acknowledged_ {  of Paul (Hebrews ?),
                 {  (τὰ ὁμολογούμενα)         {  1 John, 1 Peter,
 CANONICAL BOOKS {                            {  Apocalypse (?).
  (ἐνδιάθηκοι    {
    γραφαί)      {                      { _As to authenticity_--2 Peter.
                 { _Disputed_           {
                 {  (τὰ ἀντιλεγόμενα)   { _As to Apostolicity_--James,
                                        {  Jude, 2 and 3 John.

                                    { _As to authenticity_--Acts of Paul,
                                    {  Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter.
             { _Orthodox_, but      {
             {  of no authority,    { _As to Apostolicity_--Epistle of
             {  because _defective_ {  Barnabas, Doctrines of the
             {                      {  Apostles, Gospel according to
 UNCANONICAL {                      {  Hebrews, Apocalypse (?).
             {
             { _Heretical_   {  Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias,
                             {  Acts of Andrew, John, etc., etc.

[11] _Epist. Fest._ xxxix. The passage is given in full by Westcott
_On the Canon_, Appendix D., xiv. The _Ecclesiastical History_ of
Eusebius cannot have been completed later than A.D. 325, but the
earlier books were probably written about A.D. 313, soon after the
Edict of Milan. See Bishop Lightfoot, _Dict. of Chris. Biog._, I., p.
322.

[12] Harnack, _Das Neue Testament um das Jahr_ 200 (Freiburg I. B.,
1889), p. 79.

[13]
     Compare Clement   x. 1 with James ii. 23.
        "       "     xi. 2  "     "    i. 8; iv. 8.
        "       "    xii. 1  "     "   ii. 25.
        "       "   xvii. 6  "     "   iv. 14.
        "       "    xxx. 2  "     "   iv. 6.
        "       "   xxxi. 2  "     "   ii. 21.
        "       "   xlvi. 5  "     "   iv. 1.
        "       "   xlix. 5  "     "    x. 20.

[14] Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 52, 582-91, 4th Ed.
(Murray, 1889); Zahn, _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons_
(Erlangen, 1889), p. 962.

[15] If Zahn is right in thinking that Clement knew, and perhaps
commented on, the Epistle of James, it may have become known in
Alexandria somewhat earlier. A few passages in Clement have possible
reminiscences of James; _e.g._ in _Strom._ II. v. he says of Abraham
that he is found to have been expressly called the "friend" of God
(James ii. 23); and in _Strom._ VI. xviii., in connexion with loving
one's neighbour (the βασιλικὸς νόμος of James ii. 8), he speaks of
being βασιλικοί (Zahn, _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons_,
I., pp. 322, 323--Erlangen, 1888). The _Hypotyposeis_, in which
Clement perhaps treated of the Catholic Epistles, were written after
he left Alexandria (_Ibid._, p. 29).

[16] Or, more literally, "a right strawy Epistle"--"eine rechte
strohern Epistel.... Denn sie doch keine evangelische Art an sich hat"
(_Luther's Werke_, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt, 1840, p. 1412; see
also pp. 1423, 1424, and Westcott _On the Canon_, 3rd ed., pp. 448-54).




 CHAPTER III.

 _THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE:
 JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD._

 "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
 Christ."--JAS. i. 1


We have still to consider the second half of the question as to the
authenticity of this letter. Granting that it is a genuine Epistle of
James, and a writing of the Apostolic age, to which of the persons in
that age who are known to us as bearing the name of James is it to be
attributed? The consensus of opinion on this point, though not so
great as that respecting the genuineness of the letter, is now very
considerable, and seems to be increasing.

The name James is the English form of the Hebrew name Yacoob (Jacob),
which in Greek became Ἰάκωβος, in Latin Jacōbus, and in English
James, a form which grievously blurs the history of the name. From
having been the name of the patriarch Jacob, the progenitor of the
Jewish race, it became one of the commonest of proper names among the
Jews; and in the New Testament we find several persons bearing this
name among the followers of Jesus Christ. It would be possible to make
as many as six; but these must certainly be reduced to four, and
probably to three.

These six are--

1. James the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and brother of John the
Apostle (Matt. iv. 21; x. 2; xvii. 5; Mark x. 35; xiii. 3; Luke
ix. 54; Acts xii. 2).

2. James the Apostle, the son of Alphæus (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18;
Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13).

3. James the Little, the son of Mary the wife of Clōpas (John
xix. 25), who had one other son, named Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark
xv. 40).

4. James the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19), a relationship which he
shares with Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3) and
some unnamed sisters.

5. James the overseer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17;
xv. 13; xxi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 7; Gal. ii. 9, 12).

6. James the brother of the Jude who wrote the Epistle (Jude i. 1).

Besides which, we have an unknown James, who was father of the Apostle
Judas, not Iscariot (Luke v. 16); but we do not know that this James
ever became a disciple.

Of these six we may safely identify the last three as being one and
the same person; and we may probably identify James the Apostle, the
son of Alphæus, with James the Little, the son of Mary and Clopas; in
which case we may conjecture that the epithet of "the Little" (ὁ
μικρός) was given him to distinguish him from the other Apostle James,
the son of Zebedee. Clopas (not Cleophas, as in the A.V.) may be one
Greek form of the Aramaic name Chalpai, of which Alphæus may be
another Greek form; so that the father of this James may have been
known both as Clopas and as Alphæus. But this is by no means certain.
In the ancient Syriac Version we do not find both Alphæus and Clopas
represented by Chalpai; but we find Alphæus rendered Chalpai, while
Clopas reappears as Kleopha. And the same usage is found in the
Jerusalem Syriac.

We have thus reduced the six to four or three; and it is sometimes
proposed to reduce the three to two, by identifying James the Lord's
brother with James the son of Alphæus. But this identification is
attended by difficulties so serious as to seem to be quite fatal; and
it would probably never have been made but for the wish to show that
"brother of the Lord" does not mean brother in the literal sense, but
may mean _cousin_. For the identification depends upon making Mary the
wife of Clopas (and mother of James the son of Alphæus) identical with
the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, in the much-discussed
passage John xix. 25; so that Jesus and James would be first cousins,
being sons respectively of two sisters, each of whom was called
Mary.[17]

The difficulties under which this theory labours are mainly these:--

1. It depends on an identification of Clopas with Alphæus, which is
uncertain, though not improbable.

2. It depends on a further identification of Christ's "mother's
sister" with "Mary the wife of Clopas" in John xix. 25, which is both
uncertain and highly improbable. In that verse we almost certainly
have four women, and not three, contrasted with the four soldiers just
mentioned (vv. 23, 24), and arranged in two pairs: "His mother, and
His mother's sister; Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

3. It assumes that two sisters were both called Mary.

4. No instance in Greek literature has been found in which "brother"
(ἀδελφός) means "cousin." The Greek language has a word to express
"cousin" (ἀνεψιός), which occurs Col. iv. 10; and it is to be noted
that the ancient tradition preserved by Hegesippus (c. A.D. 170)
distinguishes James the first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem as
the "_brother_ of the Lord" (Eus. _H. E._ II. xxiii. 1), and his
successor Symeon as the "_cousin_ of the Lord" (IV. xxii. 4). Could
Hegesippus have written thus if James were really a cousin? If a vague
term such as "kinsman" (συγγενής) was wanted, that also might have
been used, as in Luke i. 36, 58; ii. 44.

5. In none of the four lists of the Apostles is there any hint that
any of them are the brethren of the Lord; and in Acts i. 13, 14, and
1 Cor. ix. 5, "the brethren of the Lord" are expressly distinguished
from the Apostles. Moreover, the traditions of the age subsequent to
the New Testament sometimes make James the Lord's brother one of the
Seventy, but never one of the Twelve, a fact which can be explained
only on the hypothesis that it was notorious that he was not one of
the Twelve. The reverence for this James and for the title of Apostle
was such that tradition would eagerly have given him the title had
there been any opening for doing so.

6. The "brethren of the Lord" appear in the Gospels almost always with
the mother of the Lord (Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 32; Luke viii. 19;
John ii. 12); never with Mary the wife of Clopas; and popular
knowledge of them connects them with Christ's mother, and not with any
other Mary (Mark vi. 3; Matt. xiii. 55). "My brethren," in Matt.
xxviii. 10, and John xx. 17, does not mean Christ's earthly relations,
but the children of "My Father and your Father."

7. But the strongest objection of all is St. John's express statement
(vii. 5) that "even His brethren did not believe on Him;" a statement
which he could not have made if one of the brethren (James), and
possibly two others (Simon and Judas), were already Apostles.

The identification of James the son of Alphæus with James the Lord's
brother must therefore be abandoned, and we remain with three
disciples bearing the name of James from which to select the writer of
this Epistle--the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphæus, and the brother
of the Lord. The father of Judas, not Iscariot, need not be
considered, for we do not even know that he ever became a believer.

In our ignorance of the life, and thought, and language of the son of
Zebedee and the son of Alphæus, we cannot say that there is anything
in the Epistle itself which forbids us to attribute it to either of
them; but there is nothing in it which leads us to do so. And there
are two considerations which, when combined, are strongly against
Apostolic authorship. The writer does not claim to be an Apostle; and
the hesitation as to the reception of the Epistle in certain parts of
the Christian Church would be extraordinary if the letter were reputed
to be of Apostolic authorship. When we take either of these Apostles
separately we become involved in further difficulties. It is not
probable that any Apostolic literature existed in the lifetime of
James the son of Zebedee, who was martyred, under Herod Agrippa I.,
_i.e._ not later than the spring of A.D. 44, when Herod Agrippa died.
That any Apostle wrote an encyclical letter as early as A.D. 42 or 43
is so improbable that we ought to have strong evidence before adopting
it, and the only evidence worth considering is that furnished by the
Peshitto. The earliest MSS. of this ancient Syriac Version, which date
from the fifth to the eighth century, call it an Epistle of James the
Apostle; but evidence which cannot be traced higher than the fifth
century respecting an improbable occurrence alleged to have taken
place in the first century is not worth very much. Moreover, the
scribes who put this heading and subscription to the Epistle may have
meant no more than that it was by a person of Apostolic rank, or they
may have shared the common Western error of identifying the brother of
the Lord with the son of Alphæus. Editors of the Syriac Version in a
much later age certainly do attribute the Epistle to the son of
Zebedee, for they state that the three Catholic Epistles admitted to
that version--James, 1 Peter, and 1 John--are by the three Apostles
who witnessed the Transfiguration. The statement seems to be a
blundering misinterpretation of the earlier title, which assigned it
to James the Apostle. And if we attribute the letter to the son of
Alphæus we get rid of one difficulty, only to fall into another; we
are no longer compelled to give the Epistle so improbably early a date
as A.D. 43, but we are left absolutely without any evidence to connect
it with the son of Alphæus, _unless_ we identify this Apostle with the
brother of the Lord, an identification which has already been shown to
be untenable.[18]

Therefore, without further hesitation, we may assign the Epistle to
one of the most striking and impressive figures in the Apostolic age,
James the Just, the brother of the Lord, and the first overseer of the
Mother Church of Jerusalem.

Whether James was the brother of the Lord as being the son of Joseph
by a former marriage, or as being the son of Joseph and Mary born
after the birth of Jesus, need not be argued in detail. All that
specially concerns us, for a right understanding of the Epistle, is to
remember that it was written by one who, although for some time not a
believer in the Messiahship of Jesus, was, through his near
relationship, constantly in His society, witnessing His acts and
hearing His words. This much, however, should be noted, that there is
nothing in Scripture to warn us from understanding that Joseph and
Mary had other children, and that "_first_born" in Luke ii. 7, and
"till" in Matt. i. 25, appear to imply that they had; a supposition
confirmed by contemporary belief (Mark vi. 3; Matt. xiii. 55), and by
the constant attendance of these "brethren" on the mother of the Lord
(Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 32; Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12); that, on
the other hand, the theory which gives Joseph children older than
Jesus deprives Him of His rights as the heir of Joseph and of the
house of David; seems to be of apocryphal origin (Gospel according to
Peter, or Book of James); and like Jerome's theory of cousinship,
appears to have been invented in the interests of ascetic views and of
_à priori_ convictions as to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed
Virgin. The immense consensus of belief in the perpetual virginity
does not begin until long after all historical evidence was lost.
Tertullian appears to assume as a matter of course that the Lord's
brethren are the children of Joseph and Mary, as if in his day no one
had any other view (_Adv. Marc._, IV. xix.; _De Carne Christi_,
vii.).[19]

According to either view, James was the son of Joseph, and almost
certainly was brought up with his Divine Brother in the humble home at
Nazareth. His father, as St. Matthew tells us (i. 19) was a _just_ or
_righteous_ man, like the parents of the Baptist (Luke i. 6), and this
was the title by which James was known during his lifetime, and by
which he is still constantly known. He is James "the Just" (ὁ δίκαιος).
The epithet as used in Scripture of his father and others (Matt.
i. 19; xxiii. 35; Luke i. 6; ii. 25; xxiii. 50; Acts x. 20; 2 Peter
ii. 7), and in history of him, must not be understood as implying
precisely what the Athenians meant when they styled Aristeides "the
Just," or what we mean by being "just" now. To a Jew the word implied
not merely being impartial and upright, but also having a studied and
even scrupulous reverence for everything prescribed by the Law. The
Sabbath, the synagogue worship, the feasts and fasts, purification,
tithes, all the moral and ceremonial ordinances of the Law of the
Lord--these were the things on which the just man bestowed a loving
care, and in which he preferred to do more than was required, rather
than the bare minimum insisted on by the Rabbis. It was in a home of
which righteousness of this kind was the characteristic that St. James
was reared, and in which he became imbued with that reverent love for
the Law which makes him, even more than St. Paul, to be the ideal
"Hebrew of Hebrews." For him Christ came "not to destroy, but to
fulfil." Christianity turns the Law of Moses into a "royal law"
(ii. 8), but it does not abrogate it. The Judaism which had been his
moral and spiritual atmosphere during his youth and early manhood
remained with him after he had learned to see that there was no
antagonism between the Law and the Gospel.

It would be part of his strict Jewish training that he should pay the
prescribed visits to Jerusalem at the feasts (John vii. 10); and he
would there become familiar with the magnificent liturgy of the
Temple, and would lay the foundation for that love of public and
private prayer within its precincts which was one of his best-known
characteristics in after-life. A love of prayer, and a profound belief
in its efficacy, appear again and again in the pages of his Epistle
(i. 5; iv. 2, 3, 8; v. 13-18). It was out of a strong personal
experience that the man who knelt in prayer until "his knees became
hard like a camel's" declared that "the supplication of a righteous
man availeth much in its working."

Strict Judaism has ever a tendency to narrowness, and we find this
tendency in the brethren of the Lord, in their attitude both towards
their Brother, and also towards Gentile converts after they had
accepted Him (Gal. ii. 12). Of the long period of silence during which
Jesus was preparing Himself for His ministry we know nothing. But
immediately after His first miracle, which they probably witnessed,
they went down with Him, and His mother, and His disciples to
Capernaum (John ii. 12), and very possibly accompanied Him to
Jerusalem for the Passover. They would be almost certain to go thither
to keep the feast. It was there that "many believed on His Name,
beholding His signs which He did. But Jesus did not trust Himself unto
them, for that He knew all men." He knew that when the immediate
effect of His miracles had passed off the faith of these sudden
converts would not endure. And this seems to have been the case with
His brethren. They were at first attracted by His originality, and
power, and holiness, then perplexed by methods which they could not
understand (John vii. 3, 4), then inclined to regard Him as a dreamer
and a fanatic (Mark iii. 21), and finally decided against Him (John
vii. 5). Like many others among His followers, they were quite unable
to reconcile His position with the traditional views respecting the
Messiah; and instead of revising these views, as being possibly
faulty, they held fast to them, and rejected Him. It was not merely in
reference to the people of Nazareth, who had tried to kill Him (Luke
iv. 29), but to those who were still closer to Him by ties of blood
and home, that He uttered the sad complaint, "A prophet is not without
honour, save in his own country, and among _his own kin_, and in _his
own house_" (Mark vi. 4).

The fact that our Lord committed His mother to the keeping of St. John
harmonizes with the supposition that at the time of the Crucifixion
His brethren were still unbelievers. The Resurrection would be likely
to open their eyes and dispel their doubts (Acts i. 14); and a special
revelation of the risen Lord seems to have been granted to St. James
(1 Cor. xv. 7), as to St. Paul; in both cases because behind the
external opposition to Christ there was earnest faith and devotion,
which at once found its object, as soon as the obstructing darkness
was removed. After his conversion, St. James speedily took the first
place among the believers who constituted the original Church of
Jerusalem. He takes the lead, even when the chief of the Apostles are
present. It is to him that St. Peter reports himself, when he is
miraculously freed from prison (Acts xii. 17). It is he who presides
at the so-called Council of Jerusalem (xv. 13; see esp. ver. 19). And
it is to him that St. Paul specially turns on his last visit to
Jerusalem, to report his success among the Gentiles (xxi. 17).
St. Paul places him before St. Peter and St. John in mentioning those
"who were reputed to be pillars" of the Church (Gal. ii. 9), and
states that on his first visit to Jerusalem after his own conversion
he stayed fifteen days with Peter, but saw no other of the Apostles,
excepting James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 18, 19); a passage of
disputed meaning, but which, if it does not imply that James was in
some sense an Apostle, at least suggests that he was a person of equal
importance. (Comp. Acts ix. 26-30.) Moreover, we find that at Antioch
St. Peter himself allowed his attitude towards the Gentiles to be
changed in deference to the representations of "certain that came from
James," who had possibly misunderstood or misused their commission;
but the narrowness already alluded to may have made St. James himself
unable to move as rapidly as St. Peter and St. Paul in adopting a
generous course with Gentile converts.

Unless there is a reference to St. James in Heb. xiii. 7, as among
those who had once "had the lead over you," but are now no longer
alive to speak the word, we must go outside the New Testament for
further notices of him. They are to be found chiefly in Clement of
Alexandria, Hegesippus, and Josephus. Clement (_Hypotyp._ VI. ap. Eus.
_H. E._ II. i. 3) records a tradition that Peter, James, and John,
after the Ascension of the Saviour, although they had been preferred
by the Lord, did not contend for distinction, but that James the Just
became Bishop of Jerusalem. And again (_Hypotyp._ VII.), "To James the
Just, John, and Peter, the Lord, after the Resurrection, imparted the
gift of knowledge (τὴν γνῶσιν); these imparted it to the rest of the
Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the Seventy, of whom
Barnabas was one. Now, there have been two Jameses--one the Just, who
was thrown from the gable [of the Temple], and beaten to death by a
fuller with a club, and another who was beheaded."[20] The narrative
of Hegesippus is also preserved for us by Eusebius (_H. E._ II.
xxiii. 4-18). It is manifestly legendary, and possibly comes from the
Essene Ebionites, who appear to have been fond of religious romances.
It is sometimes accepted as historical, as by Clement in the passage
just quoted; but its internal improbabilities and its divergencies
from Josephus condemn it. It may, however, contain some historical
touches, especially in the general sketch of St. James; just as the
legends about our own King Alfred, although untrustworthy as to facts,
nevertheless convey a true idea of the saintly and scholarly king. It
runs thus: "There succeeds to the charge of the Church, James, the
brother of the Lord, in conjunction with the Apostles, the one who has
been named Just by all, from the time of our Lord to our own time, for
there were many called James.[21] Now, he was holy from his mother's
womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink; nor did he eat animal
food. No razor ever came upon his head; he anointed not himself with
oil; and he did not indulge in bathing. To him alone was it lawful to
go into the Holy Place[22]; for he wore no wool, but linen. And he
would go into the Temple alone, and would be found there kneeling on
his knees and asking forgiveness for the people, so that his knees
became dry and hard as a camel's, because he was always on his knees
worshipping God and asking forgiveness for the people. On account,
therefore, of his exceeding justness, he was called Just and Oblias,
which is in Greek 'bulwark of the people' and 'justness,' as the
prophets show concerning him. Some, then, of the seven sects among the
people, which have been mentioned before by me in the _Memoirs_, asked
him, What is the Door of Jesus? And he said that He was the Saviour.
From which some believed Jesus is the Christ. But the sects aforesaid
did not believe, either in the Resurrection or in One coming to
recompense to each man according to his works. But as many as believed
did so through James. When many, therefore, even of the rulers were
believing, there was a tumult of the Jews and scribes and Pharisees,
who said, It looks as if all the people would be expecting Jesus as
the Christ. They came together, therefore, and said to James, We pray
thee, restrain the people, for it has been led astray after Jesus, as
though He were the Christ. We pray thee to persuade all that come to
the day of the Passover concerning Jesus; for to thee we all give
heed. For we bear witness to thee, and so do all the people, that thou
art just, and acceptest not the person of any. Do thou, therefore,
persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus; for all
the people and all of us give heed to thee. Stand, therefore, upon the
gable of the Temple, that thou mayest be visible to those below, and
that thy words may be readily heard by all the people. For on account
of the Passover there have come together all the tribes, with the
Gentiles also. Therefore the aforesaid scribes and Pharisees placed
James upon the gable of the Temple, and cried to him and said, O just
one, to whom we ought all to give heed, seeing that the people is
being led astray after Jesus, who was crucified, tell us what is the
Door of Jesus. And he answered with a loud voice, Why ask ye me
concerning Jesus the Son of man? Even He sitteth in heaven, at the
right of the Mighty Power, and He is to come on the clouds of heaven.
And when many were convinced, and gave glory on the witness of James,
and said, Hosannah to the Son of David, then again the same scribes
and Pharisees said unto one another, We have done ill in furnishing
such witness to Jesus. But let us go up, and cast him down, that they
may be terrified, and not believe him. And they cried out, saying, Oh!
oh! even the Just has been led astray. And they fulfilled the
Scripture, which is written in Isaiah, Let us take away the Just One,
for he is troublesome to us; therefore shall they eat the fruit of
their deeds. So they went up, and cast down the Just, and said to one
another, Let us stone James the Just. And they began to stone him,
seeing that he was not dead from the fall, but turning round, knelt,
and said, I pray Thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do. But whilst they were thus stoning him, one of
the priests of the sons of Rechab, son of Rechabim,[23] to whom
Jeremiah the prophet bears testimony, cried, saying, Stop! what are ye
doing? The Just One is praying for you. And one of them, one of the
fullers, took the club with which clothes are pressed, and brought it
down on the head of the Just One. And in this way he bore witness. And
they buried him on the spot by the Temple, and his monument still
remains by the Temple. This man has become a true witness, to both
Jews and Gentiles, that Jesus is the Christ. And straightway Vespasian
lays siege to them." That is, Hegesippus regards the attack of the
Romans as a speedy judgment on the Jews for the murder of James the
Just, and consequently places it A.D. 69. This is probably several
years too late. Josephus places it A.D. 62 or 63. His account is as
follows:--

"Now, the younger Ananus, whom we stated to have succeeded to the
high-priesthood, was precipitate in temper and exceedingly audacious,
and he followed the sect of the Sadducees, who are very harsh in
judging offenders, beyond all other Jews, as we have already shown.
Ananus, therefore, as being a person of this character, and thinking
that he had a suitable opportunity, through Festus being dead, and
Albinus still on his journey (to Judæa), assembles a Sanhedrin of
judges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who was called
Christ (his name was James) and some others, and delivered them to be
stoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law. But as many as
seemed to be most equitable among those in the city, and scrupulous as
to all that concerned the laws, were grievously affected by this; and
they send to the king [Herod Agrippa II.], secretly praying him to
order Ananus to act in such a way no more; for that not even his first
action was lawfully done. And some of them go to meet Albinus on his
journey from Alexandria, and inform him that Ananus had no authority
to assemble a Sanhedrin without his leave. And Albinus, being
convinced by what they said, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening to
punish him for this. And for this reason King Agrippa took away the
high-priesthood from him after he had been in office three months, and
conferred it upon Jesus the son of Damnæus" (_Ant._ XX. ix. 1).

This account by Josephus contains no improbabilities, and should be
preferred to that of Hegesippus. It has been suspected of Christian
interpolation, because of the reference to Jesus Christ, whom Josephus
persistently ignores in his writings. But a Christian who took the
trouble to garble the narrative at all would probably have done so to
more purpose, both as regards Jesus and James. In any case Hegesippus
and Josephus agree in confirming the impression produced by the New
Testament, that James the Just was a person held in the greatest
respect by all in Jerusalem, whether Jews or Christians, and one who
exercised great influence in the East over the whole Jewish race. We
shall find that this fact harmonizes well with the phenomena of the
Epistle, and it leads directly to the next question which calls upon
us for discussion.

[17] The supposed relationship may be exhibited thus:--

                        |
     +------------------+-----+
     |                        |
   Mary == Joseph.          Mary == Clopas or Alphæus.
     |                           |
     |              +------------+-----+-------+-------------+
     |              |                  |       |             |
 JESUS CHRIST. James the Apostle.   Joseph.  Simon         Judas
                                           (Apostle?).   (Apostle?).

[18] It seems to be right to take this opportunity of preventing a
name of great authority from being any longer quoted as favouring the
identification. Dr. Döllinger, in his _Christenthum und Kirche in der
Zeit der Grundlegung_ (1860), translated by H. N. Oxenham as _The
First Age of Christianity and the Church_, advocated the
identification (chap. iii.). The venerable author told the present
writer, in June, 1877, that he was convinced that his earlier opinion
on this subject was entirely erroneous, and that the Apostle James of
Alphæus was a different person from James Bishop of Jerusalem and
brother of the Lord. He added that the Eastern Church had always
distinguished the two, and that their identification in the West was
due to the influence of Jerome.

The evidence of Martyrologies and Calendars is worth noting as
indicating the tradition on the subject. The Hieronymian Martyrology
and other early Roman Martyrologies commemorate James of Alphæus June
22nd, and James the Lord's brother December 27th; the Ambrosian
Liturgy, James of Alphæus December 30th, and the Lord's brother May
1st; the Byzantine Calendar, James of Alphæus October 9th, and the
Lord's brother October 23rd; the Egyptian and Ethiopic Calendars,
James of Alphæus October 2nd, and the Lord's brother October 23rd.

[19] Alford, Farrar, Meyer, Schaff, Stier, Weiss, Wieseler, Winer, and
others support this view. See also McClellan's note on Matt. xiii. 55,
and Plumptre's Introduction to St. James. Bishop Lightfoot contends
for the Epiphanian theory.

[20] Comp. _Strom._ VI. viii., where Clement speaks of James, Peter,
John, Paul (note the order) as possessing the true _gnosis_, and
knowing all things.

[21] Hegesippus evidently distinguishes James the brother of the
Lord from any of the Twelve.

[22] It is incredible that he should be allowed the privileges of the
high priest.

[23] What is the meaning of this tautology? And could a Rechabite,
who was not a Jew, become a priest?




 CHAPTER IV.

 _THE PERSONS ADDRESSED IN THE EPISTLE;
 THE JEWS OF THE DISPERSION._

 "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve
 tribes which are of the Dispersion, greeting."--JAMES i. 1.


These words appear to be both simple and plain. At first sight there
would seem to be not much room for any serious difference of opinion
as to their meaning. The writer of the letter writes as "a servant of
God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," _i.e._ as a Christian, "to the
twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion," _i.e._ to the Jews who are
living away from Palestine. Almost the only point which seems to be
open to doubt is whether he addresses himself to all Jews, believing
and unbelieving, or, as one might presume from his proclaiming
himself at the outset to be a Christian, only to those of his
fellow-countrymen who, like himself, have become "servants of the Lord
Jesus Christ." And this is a question which cannot be determined
without a careful examination of the contents of the Epistle.

And yet there has been very great difference of opinion as to the
persons whom St. James had in his mind when he wrote these words.
There is not only the triplet of opinions which easily grow out of the
question just indicated, viz. that the letter is addressed to
_believing Jews_ only, to _unbelieving Jews_ only, and to _both_:
there are also the views of those who hold that it is addressed to
Jewish and Gentile Christians regarded _separately_, or to the same
regarded _as one body_, or to _Jewish Christians primarily_, with
references to Gentile Christians and unconverted Jews, or finally to
_Gentile Christians primarily_, seeing that they, since the rejection
of Jesus by the Jews, are the true sons of Abraham and the rightful
inheritors of the privileges of the twelve tribes.

In such a Babel of interpretations it will clear the ground somewhat
if we adopt once more[24] as a guiding principle the common-sense
canon of interpretation laid down by Hooker (_Eccles. Pol._ V.
lix. 2), that "where a literal construction will stand, the farthest
from the letter is commonly the worst." A literal construction of the
expression "the twelve tribes of the Dispersion" will not only stand,
but make excellent sense. Had St. James meant to address all
Christians, regarded in their position as exiles from their heavenly
home, he would have found some much plainer way of expressing himself.
There is nothing improbable, but something quite the reverse, in the
supposition that the first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, who,
as we have seen, was "a Hebrew of Hebrews," wrote a letter to those of
his fellow-countrymen who were far removed from personal intercourse
with him. So devoted a Jew, so devout a Christian, as we know him to
have been, could not but take the most intense interest in all who
were of Jewish blood, wherever they might dwell, especially such as
had learned to believe in Christ, above all when he knew that they
were suffering from habitual oppression and ill-treatment. We may
without hesitation decide that when St. James says "the twelve tribes
which are of the Dispersion" he means Jews away from their home in
Palestine, and not Christians away from their home in heaven. For what
possible point would the Dispersion (ἡ διασπορά) have in such a
metaphor? Separation from the heavenly home might be spoken of as
banishment, or exile, or homelessness, but not as "dispersion." Even
if we confined ourselves to the opening words, we might safely adopt
this conclusion, but we shall find that there are numerous features in
the letter itself which abundantly confirm it.

It is quite out of place to quote such passages as the sealing of "the
hundred and forty and four thousand ... out of every tribe of the
children of Israel" (Rev. vii. 4-8), or the city with "twelve gates,
... and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve
tribes of the children of Israel" (Rev. xxi. 12). These occur in a
book which is symbolical from the first chapter to the last, and
therefore we know that the literal construction cannot stand. The
question throughout is not whether a given passage is to be taken
literally or symbolically, but what the passage in question
symbolizes. Nor, again, can St. Peter's declaration that "ye are an
elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own
possession" (1 Pet. ii. 9), be considered as at all parallel. There
the combination of expressions plainly shows that the language is
figurative; and there is no real analogy between an impassioned
exhortation, modelled on the addresses of the Hebrew prophets, and the
matter-of-fact opening words of a letter. The words have the clear
ring of nationality, and there is nothing whatever added to them to
turn the simple note into the complex sound of a doubtful metaphor. As
Davidson justly remarks, "The use of the phrase _twelve tribes_ is
inexplicable if the writer intended all believers without distinction.
The author makes no allusion to Gentile converts, nor to the relation
between Jew and Gentile incorporated into one spiritual body."

Let us look at some of the features which characterize the Epistle
itself, and see whether they bear out the view which is here
advocated, that the persons addressed are Israelites in the national
sense, and not as having been admitted into the spiritual "Israel of
God" (Gal. vi. 16).

(1) The writer speaks of Abraham as "our father," without a hint that
this is to be understood in any but the literal sense. "Was not
Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his
son upon the altar?" (ii. 21). St. Paul, when he speaks of Abraham as
"the father of all them that believe," clearly indicates this (Rom.
iv. 11). (2) The writer speaks of his readers as worshipping in a
"synagogue" (ii. 2), which may possibly mean that, just as St. James
and the Apostles continued to attend the Temple services after the
Ascension, so their readers are supposed to attend the synagogue
services after their conversion. But at least it shows that the
writer, in speaking of the public worship of those whom he addresses,
naturally uses a word (συναγωγή) which had then, and continues to
have, specially Jewish associations, rather than one (ἐκκλησία)
which from the first beginnings of Christianity was promoted from its
old political sphere to indicate the congregations, and even the very
being, of the Christian Church. (3) He assumes that his readers are
familiar not only with the life of Abraham (ii. 21, 23), but of Rahab
(25), the prophets (v. 10), Job (11), and Elijah (17). These frequent
appeals to the details of the Old Testament would be quite out of
place in a letter addressed to Gentile converts. (4) God is spoken of
under the specially Hebrew title of "the Lord of Sabaoth" (v. 4); and
the frequent recurrence of "the Lord" throughout the Epistle (i. 7;
iii. 9; iv. 10, 15; v. 10, 11, 15) looks like the language of one who
wished to recall the name Jehovah to his readers. (5) In
discountenancing swearing (v. 12) Jewish forms of oaths are taken as
illustrations. (6) The vices which are condemned are such as were as
common among the Jews as among the Gentiles--reckless language, rash
swearing, oppression of the poor, covetousness. There is little or
nothing said about the gross immorality which was rare among the Jews,
but was almost a matter of course among the Gentiles. St. James
denounces faults into which Jewish converts would be likely enough to
lapse; he says nothing about the vices respecting which heathen
converts, such as those at Corinth, are constantly warned by St. Paul.
(7) But what is perhaps the most decisive feature of all is that he
assumes throughout that for those whom he addresses the Mosaic Law is
a binding and final authority. "If ye have respect of persons, ye
commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. ... If thou
dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor
of the law" (ii. 9-11). "He that speaketh against a brother, or
judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law"
(iv. 11).

Scarcely any of these seven points, taken singly, would be at all
decisive; but when we sum them up together, remembering in how short a
letter they occur, and when we add them to the very plain and simple
language of the address, we have an argument which will carry
conviction to most persons who have no preconceived theory of their
own to defend. And to this positive evidence derived from the presence
of so much material that indicates Jewish circles as the destined
recipients of the letter, we must add the strongly confirmatory
negative evidence derived from the absence of anything which specially
points either to Gentile converts or unconverted heathen. We may
therefore read the letter as having been written by one who had been
born and educated in a thoroughly Jewish atmosphere, who had accepted
the Gospel, not as cancelling the Law, but as raising it to a higher
power; and we may read it also as addressed to men who, like the
writer, are by birth and education Jews, and, like him, have
acknowledged Jesus as their Lord and the Christ. The difference
between writer and readers lies in this, that he is in Palestine, and
they not; that he appears to be in a position of authority, whereas
they seem for the most part to be a humble and suffering folk. All
which fits in admirably with the hypothesis that we have before us an
Epistle written by the austere and Judaic-minded James the Just,
written from Jerusalem, to comfort and warn those Jewish Christians
who lay remote from his personal influence.

That it is Jewish _Christians_, and not unbelieving Jews, or Jews
whether believing or not, who are addressed, is not open to serious
doubt. There is not only the fact that St. James at the outset
proclaims himself to be a Christian (i. 1), but also the statement
that the wealthy oppressors of his poor readers "blaspheme the
honourable Name by which ye are called," or more literally "which was
called upon you," viz. the Name of Christ. Again, the famous paragraph
about faith and works assumes that the faith of the readers and the
faith of the writer is identical (ii. 7, 14-20). Once more, he
expressly claims them as believers when he writes, "My brethren, hold
not _the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ_, the Lord of glory, with
respect of persons" (ii. 1). And if more be required, we have it in
the concluding exhortations: "Be patient, therefore, brethren, _until
the coming of the Lord_.... Stablish your hearts: for _the coming of
the Lord_ is at hand" (v. 7, 8).

Whether or no there are passages which glance aside at unbelieving
Jews, and perhaps even some which are directly addressed to them,
cannot be decided with so much certainty; but the balance of
probability appears to be on the affirmative side in both cases. There
probably are places in which St. James is thinking of unbelieving
Israelites, and one or more passages in which he turns aside and
sternly rebukes them, much in the same way as the Old Testament
prophets sometimes turn aside to upbraid Tyre and Sidon and the
heathen generally. "Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag
you before the judgment-seats?" (ii. 6), seems to refer to rich
unconverted Jews prosecuting their poor Christian brethren before the
synagogue courts, just as St. Paul did when he was Saul the persecutor
(Acts ix. 2). And "Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by which
_ye_ are called?" can scarcely be said of Christians. If the
blasphemers were Christians they would be said rather to blaspheme the
honourable Name by which _they themselves_ were called. _There_ would
lie the enormity--that the name of Jesus Christ had been "called upon
them," and yet they blasphemed it. And when we come to look at the
matter in detail we shall find reason for believing that the stern
words at the beginning of chapter v. are addressed to unbelieving
Jews. There is not one word of Christian, or even moral, exhortation
in it; it consists entirely of accusation and threatening, and in this
respect is in marked contrast to the equally stern words at the
beginning of chapter iv., which are addressed to worldly and godless
Christians.

To suppose that the rich oppressors so often alluded to in the Epistle
are _heathen_, as Hilgenfeld does, confuses the whole picture, and
brings no compensating advantage. The heathen among whom the Jews of
the Dispersion dwelt in Syria, Egypt, Rome, and elsewhere, were of
course, some of them rich, and some of them poor. But wealthy Pagans
were not more apt to persecute Jews, whether Christians or not, than
the needy Pagan populace. If there was any difference between heathen
rich and poor in this matter, it was the fanatical and plunder-seeking
mob, rather than the contemptuous and easy-going rich, who were likely
to begin a persecution of the Jews, just as in Russia or Germany at
the present time. And St. James would not be likely to talk of "the
Lord of Sabaoth" (v. 4) in addressing wealthy Pagans. But the social
antagonism so often alluded to in the Epistle, when interpreted to
mean an antagonism between Jew and Jew, corresponds to a state of
society which is known to have existed in Palestine and the
neighbouring countries during the half-century which preceded the
Jewish war of A.D. 66-70. (Comp. Matt. xi. 5; xix. 23, 24; Luke i. 53;
vi. 20, 24; xvi. 19, 20.) During that period the wealthy Jews allied
themselves with the Romans, in order more securely to oppress their
poorer fellow-countrymen. And seeing that the Gospel in the first
instance spread chiefly among the poor, this social antagonism between
rich and poor Jews frequently became an antagonism between unbelieving
and believing Jews. St. James, well aware of this state of things,
from personal experience in Judæa, and hearing similar things of the
Jews of the Dispersion in Syria, reasonably supposes that this
unnatural tyranny of Jew over Jew prevails elsewhere also, and
addresses all "the twelve tribes which are of the Diaspora" on the
subject.[25] In any case his opportunities of knowing a very great
deal respecting Jews in various parts of the world were large. Jews
from all regions were constantly visiting Jerusalem. But the knowledge
which he must have had respecting the condition of things in Palestine
and Syria would be quite sufficient to explain what is said in this
Epistle respecting the tyranny of the rich over the poor.

The _Diaspora_,[26] or _Dispersion of the Jews_ throughout the
inhabited world, had been brought about in various ways, and had
continued through many centuries. The two chief causes were _forcible
deportation_ and _voluntary emigration_. It was a common policy of
Oriental conquerors to transport whole populations, in order more
completely to subjugate them; and hence the Assyrian and Babylonian
conquerors of Israel carried away great multitudes of Jews to the
East, sending Eastern populations to take their place. Pompey on a
much smaller scale transported Jewish captives to the West, carrying
hundreds of Jews to Rome. But disturbances in Palestine, and
opportunities of trade elsewhere, induced large multitudes of Jews to
emigrate of their own accord, especially to the neighbouring countries
of Egypt and Syria; and the great commercial centres in Asia Minor,
Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamus, Cyprus, and Rhodes
contained large numbers of Jews. While Palestine was the battle-field
of foreign armies, and while newly founded towns were trying to
attract population by offering privileges to settlers, thousands of
Jews preferred the advantages of a secure home in exile to the risks
which attended residence in their native country.

At the time when this Epistle was written three chief divisions of the
Dispersion were recognized--the Babylonian, which ranked as the first,
the Syrian, and the Egyptian. But the Diaspora was by no means
confined to these three centres. About two hundred years before this
time the composer of one of the so-called Sibylline Oracles could
address the Jewish nation, and say, "But every land is full of
thee,--aye and every ocean."[27] And there is abundance of evidence,
both in the Bible and outside it, especially in Josephus and Philo,
that such language does not go beyond the limits of justifiable
hyperbole. The list of peoples represented at Jerusalem on the Day of
Pentecost, "from every nation under heaven," tells one a great deal
(Acts ii. 5-11. Comp. xv. 21, and 1 Macc. xv. 15-24). Many passages
from Josephus might be quoted (_Ant._ XI. v. 2; XIV. vii. 2; _Bell.
Jud._ II. xvi. 4; VII. iii. 3), as stating in general terms the same
fact. But perhaps no original authority gives us more information than
Philo, in his famous treatise _On the Embassy to the Emperor Caius_,
which went to Rome (_c._ A.D. 40) to obtain the revocation of a decree
requiring the Jews to pay divine homage to the Emperor's statue. In
that treatise we read that "Jerusalem is the metropolis, not of the
single country of Judæa, but of most countries, because of the
colonies which she has sent out, as opportunity offered, into the
neighbouring lands of Egypt, Phœnicia, Syria, and Cœlesyria, and
the more distant lands of Pamphylia and Cilicia, most of Asia, as far
as Bithynia and the utmost corners of Pontus; likewise unto Europe,
Thessaly, Bœotia, Macedonia, Ætolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, with
the most parts and best parts of Greece. And not only are the
continents full of Jewish colonies, but also the most notable of the
islands--Eubœa, Cyprus, Crete--to say nothing of the lands beyond
the Euphrates. For all, excepting a small part of Babylon and those
satrapies which contain the excellent land around it, contain Jewish
inhabitants. So that if my country were to obtain a share in thy
clemency it would not be one city that would be benefited, but ten
thousand others, situated in every part of the inhabited
world--Europe, Asia, Libya, continental and insular, maritime and
inland" (_De Legat. ad Caium_ xxxvi., Gelen., pp. 1031-32). It was
therefore an enormous circle of readers that St. James addressed when
he wrote "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion," although
it seems to have been a long time before his letter became known to
the most important of the divisions of the Diaspora, viz. the Jewish
settlement in Egypt, which had its chief centre in Alexandria. We may
reasonably suppose that it was the Syrian division which he had
chiefly in view in writing, and it was to them, no doubt, that the
letter in the first instance was sent. It is of this division that
Josephus writes that, widely dispersed as the Jewish race is over the
whole of the inhabited world, it is most largely mingled with Syria on
account of its proximity, and especially in Antioch, where the kings
since Antiochus had afforded them undisturbed tranquillity and equal
privileges with the heathen; so that they multiplied exceedingly, and
made many proselytes (_Bell. Jud._ VII. iii. 3).

The enormous significance of the Dispersion as a preparation for
Christianity must not be overlooked. It showed to both Jew and Gentile
alike that the barriers which had hedged in and isolated the hermit
nation had broken down, and that what had ceased to be thus isolated
had changed its character. A _kingdom_ had become a _religion_. What
henceforth distinguished the Jews in the eyes of all the world was not
their country or their government, but their creed, and through this
they exercised upon those among whom they were scattered an influence
which had been impossible under the old conditions of exclusiveness.
They themselves also were forced to understand their own religion
better. When the keeping of the letter of the Law became an
impossibility, they were compelled to penetrate into its spirit; and
what they exhibited to the heathen was not a mere code of burdensome
rites and ceremonies, but a moral life and a worship in spirit and
truth. The universality of the services of the synagogue taught the
Jew that God's worship was not confined to Jerusalem, and their
simplicity attracted proselytes who might have turned away from the
complex and bloody liturgies of the Temple. Even in matters of detail
the services in the synagogue prepared the way for the services of the
Christian Church. The regular lessons--read from two divisions of
Scripture, the antiphonal singing, the turning towards the east, the
general Amen of the whole congregation, the observance of the third,
sixth, and ninth hours as hours of prayer, and of one day in seven as
specially holy--all these things, together with some others which have
since become obsolete, meet us in the synagogue worship, as St. James
knew it, and in the liturgies of the Christian Church, which he and
the Apostles and their successors helped to frame. Thus justice once
more became mercy, and a punishment was turned into a blessing. The
captivity of the Jew became the freedom of both Jew and Gentile, and
the scattering of Israel was the gathering in of all nations unto God.
"He hath scattered abroad; He hath given to the poor: His
righteousness abideth for ever" (Ps. cxii. 9; 2 Cor. ix. 9).

[24] See _The Pastoral Epistles_ in this series, pp. 285-6.

[25] See Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, p. 502, 4th ed. (Murray,
1889); Renan, _L'Antechrist_, p. xii.; Ewald, _History of Israel_,
vol. vii., p. 451, Eng. Tr. (Longmans, 1885); Weiss, _Introduction to
the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 102-3 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).

[26] See the immense amount of information collected in Schürer, _The
Jewish People in the Time of Christ_, <DW37>. ii., vol. ii., pp. 219-327;
also Westcott's article "Dispersion," in Smith's _Dict. of Bible_;
Herzog and Plitt, _Real-Encykl._, vol. vii., pp. 203-8; and esp.
Philo, _Legat. ad Caium_.

[27] Πᾶσα δὲ γαῖα σέθεν πλήρης καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα.




 CHAPTER V.

 _THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL
 AND OF ST. PETER. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
 THE DOCTRINE OF JOY IN TEMPTATION._

 "Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold
 temptations, knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience.
 And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and
 entire, lacking in nothing."--JAMES i. 2-4.


This passage at once raises the question of the relation of this
Epistle to other writings in the New Testament. Did the writer of it
know any of the writings of St. Paul or of St. Peter? It is contended
in some quarters that the similarity of thought and expression in
several passages is so great as to prove such knowledge, and it is
argued that such knowledge tells against the genuineness of the
Epistle. In any case the question of the _date_ of the Epistle is
involved in its relation to these other documents; it was written
after them, if it can be established that the author of it was
acquainted with them.

With Dr. Salmon[28] we may dismiss the coincidences which have been
pointed out by Davidson and others between expressions in this Epistle
and the Epistles to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Philippians.
Some critics seem to forget that a large number of words and phrases
were part of the common language, not merely of Jews and early
Christians, but of those who were in the habit of mixing much with
such persons. We can no more argue from such phrases as "be not
deceived" (1 Cor. vi. 9; xv. 33; Gal. vi. 7, and James i. 16), "but
some one will say" (1 Cor. xv. 35, and James ii. 18), "a transgressor
of the law" (Rom. ii. 25, 27, and James ii. 11), "fruit of
righteousness" (Phil. i. 11, and James iii. 18), or from such words as
"entire" (1 Thess. v. 23, and James i. 4), "transgressor" used
absolutely (Gal. ii. 18, and James ii. 9), and the like, that when
they occur in two writings the author of one must have read the other,
than we can argue from such phrases as "natural selection," "survival
of the fittest," and the like that the writer who uses them has read
the works of Darwin. A certain amount of stereotyped phraseology is
part of the intellectual atmosphere of each generation, and the
writers in each generation make common use of it. In such cases even
striking identity of expressions may prove nothing as to the
dependence of one author upon another. The obligation is not of one
writer to another, but of both to a common and indefinite source. In
other words, both writers quite naturally make use of language which
is current in the circles in which they live.[29]

_Some_ of the coincidences between the Epistle of James and the
Epistle to the _Romans_ are of a character to raise the question
whether they can satisfactorily be explained by considerations of this
kind, and one of these more remarkable coincidences occurs in the
passage before us. St. James writes, "Knowing that the proof of your
faith worketh patience." St. Paul writes, "Knowing that tribulation
worketh patience; and patience, probation" (Rom. v. 3). In this same
chapter we have another instance. St. James says, "Be ye doers of the
word, and not hearers only" (i. 22). St. Paul says, "Not the hearers
of a law are just before God, but the doers of a law shall be
justified" (Rom. 13). There is yet a third such parallel. St. James
asks, "Whence come fightings? Come they not hence, even of your
pleasures which war in your members?" (iv. 1). St. Paul laments, "I
see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind"
(Rom. vii. 23).[30]

The effect of this evidence will be different upon different minds.
But it may reasonably be doubted whether these passages, even when
summed up together, are stronger than many other strange coincidences
in literature, which are known to be accidental. The second instance,
taken by itself, is of little weight; for the contrast between hearers
and doers is one of the most hackneyed commonplaces of rhetoric. But
assuming that a _primâ facie_ case has been established, and that one
of the two writers has seen the Epistle of the other, no difficulty is
created, whichever we assume to have written first. The Epistle to the
Romans was written in A.D. 58, and might easily have become known to
St. James before A.D. 62. On the other hand, the Epistle of St. James
may be placed anywhere between A.D. 45 and 62, and in that case might
easily have become known to St. Paul before A.D. 58. And of the two
alternatives, this latter is perhaps the more probable. We shall find
other reasons for placing the Epistle of St. James earlier than
A.D. 58; and we may reasonably suppose that had he read the Epistle to
the Romans, he would have expressed his meaning respecting
justification somewhat differently. Had he wished (as some erroneously
suppose) to oppose and correct the teaching of St. Paul, he would have
done so much more unmistakably. And as he is really quite in harmony
with St. Paul on the question, he would, if he had read him, have
avoided words which look like a contradiction of St. Paul's words.

It remains to examine the relations between our Epistle and the First
Epistle of St. Peter. Here, again, one of the coincidences occurs in
the passage before us. St. James writes, "Count it all joy, when ye
enter into manifold temptations; knowing that the proof of your faith
worketh patience;" and St. Peter writes, "Ye greatly rejoice, though
now for a little while, if need be, ye have been put to grief in
manifold temptations, that the proof of your faith ... might be found"
(1 Peter i. 6, 7). Here there is the thought of rejoicing in trials
common to both passages, and the expressions for "manifold
temptations" and "proof of your patience" are identical in the two
places. This is remarkable, especially when taken with other
coincidences. On the other hand, the fact that some of the language is
common to all three Epistles (James, Peter, and Romans) suggests the
possibility that we have here one of the "faithful sayings" of
primitive Christianity, rather than one or two writers remembering the
writings of a predecessor.

In three places St. James and St. Peter both quote the same passages
from the Old Testament. In i. 10, 11 St. James has, "_As the flower of
the grass_ he shall pass away. For the sun ariseth with the scorching
wind, and _withereth the grass; and the flower_ thereof _falleth_,"
where the words in italics are from Isaiah xl. 6-8. St. Peter (i. 24)
quotes the words of Isaiah much more completely and consecutively, and
in their original sense; he does not merely make a free use of
portions of them. Again, in iv. 6 St. James quotes from Prov. iii. 34,
"God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." In v. 5
St. Peter quotes exactly the same words. Lastly, in v. 20 St. James
quotes from Prov. x. 12 the expression "covereth sins." In iv. 8
St. Peter quotes a word more of the original, "love covereth sins."
And it will be observed that both St. James and St. Peter change
"covereth _all_ sins" into "covereth _a multitude_ of sins."

Once more we must be content to give a verdict of "Not proven." There
is a certain amount of probability, but nothing that amounts to proof,
that one of these writers had seen the other's Epistle. Let us,
however, assume that echoes of one Epistle are found in the other;
then, whichever letter we put first, we have no chronological
difficulty. The probable dates of death are, for St. James A.D. 62,
for St. Peter A.D. 64-68. Either Epistle may be placed in the six or
seven years immediately preceding A.D. 62, and one of the most recent
critics[31] places 1 Peter in the middle of the year A.D. 50, and the
Epistle of James any time after that date. But there are good reasons
for believing that 1 Peter contains references to the persecution
under Nero, that "fiery trial" (iv. 12) in which the mere being a
Christian would lead to penal consequences (iv. 16), and in which, for
conscience' sake, men would have to "endure griefs, suffering
wrongfully" (ii. 19), thereby being "partakers of Christ's sufferings"
(iv. 13). In which case 1 Peter cannot be placed earlier than A.D. 64,
and the Epistle of James must be the earlier of the two. And it seems
to be chiefly those who would make our Epistle a forgery of the second
century (Brückner, Holtzmann) who consider that it is James that
echoes 1 Peter, rather than 1 Peter that reproduces James. There is a
powerful consensus of opinion[32] that if there is any influence of
one writer upon the other, it is St. James who influences St. Peter,
and not the other way.

We must not place the Epistle of St. James in or close after A.D. 50.
The crisis respecting the treatment of Gentile converts was then at
its height (Acts xv.); and it would be extraordinary if a letter
written in the midst of the crisis, and by the person who took the
leading part in dealing with it, should contain no allusion to it. The
Epistle must be placed either before (A.D. 45-49) or some time after
(A.D. 53-62) the so-called Council of Jerusalem. There is reason for
believing that the controversy about compelling Gentiles to observe
the Mosaic Law, although sharp and critical, was not very lasting. The
_modus vivendi_ decreed by the Apostles was on the whole loyally
accepted, and therefore a letter written a few years after it was
promulgated would not of necessity take any notice of it. Indeed, to
have revived the question again might have been impolitic, as implying
either that there was still some doubt on the point, or that the
Apostolic decision had proved futile.

In deciding between the two periods (A.D. 45-49 and 53-62) for the
date of the Epistle of St. James, we have not much to guide us if we
adopt the view that it is independent of the writings of St. Peter and
of St. Paul. There is plenty in the letter to lead us to suppose that
it was written before the war (A.D. 66-70) which put an end to the
tyranny of the wealthy Sadducees over their poorer brethren, before
controversies between Jewish and Gentile Christians such as we find at
Corinth had arisen or become chronic, and before doctrinal
controversies had sprung up in the Church; also that it was written at
a time when the coming of Christ to judgment was still regarded as
near at hand (v. 8), and by some one who could recollect the words of
Christ independently of the Gospels, and who therefore must have stood
in close relationship to Him. All this points to its having been
written within the lifetime of James the Lord's brother, and by such a
person as he was; but it does not seem to be decisive as to the
difference between _c._ A.D. 49 and _c._ A.D. 59. We must be content
to leave this undecided. But it is worth while pointing out that if we
place it earlier than A.D. 52 we make it the earliest book in the New
Testament. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written late in
A.D. 52 or early in 53; and excepting our Epistle, and _perhaps_
1 Peter, there is no other writing in the New Testament that can
reasonably be placed at so early a date as 52.

       *       *       *       *       *

"Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold
temptations." "My brethren," with or without the epithet "beloved," is
the regular form of address throughout the Epistle (16, 19; ii. 1, 5,
14; iii. 1, 10, 12; v. 12), in one or two places the "my" being
omitted (iv. 11; v. 7, 9, 19). The frequency of this brotherly address
seems to indicate how strongly the writer feels, and wishes his
readers to feel, the ties of race and of faith which bind them
together.

In "Count it all joy," _i.e._ "Consider it as nothing but matter for
rejoicing,"[33] we miss a linguistic touch which is evident in the
Greek, but cannot well be preserved in English. In saying "joy"
(χάραν) St. James is apparently carrying on the idea just started
in the address, "greeting" (χαίρειν), _i.e._ "wishing joy." "I wish
you _joy_; and you must account as pure _joy_ all the troubles into
which you may fall." This carrying on a word or thought from one
sentence into the next is characteristic of St. James, and reminds us
somewhat of the style of St. John. Thus "The proof of your faith
worketh _patience_. And let _patience_ have its perfect work" (i. 3,
4). "_Lacking_ in nothing. But if any of you _lacketh_ wisdom" (4, 5).
"Nothing _doubting_: for he that _doubteth_ is like the surge of the
sea" (6). "The lust, when it hath conceived, beareth _sin_; and the
_sin_, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death" (15). "Slow to
_wrath_: for the _wrath_ of man worketh not the righteousness of God"
(19, 20). "This man's _religion_ is vain. Pure _religion_ and
undefiled before our God and Father is this" (26, 27). "In many things
we all _stumble_. If any man _stumbleth_ not in word" (iii. 2).
"Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a _fire_! And the
tongue is a _fire_" (iii. 5, 6). "Ye have not, because ye _ask_ not.
Ye _ask_, and receive not" (iv. 2, 3). "Your gold and your silver are
_rusted_; and their _rust_ shall be for a testimony against you"
(v. 3). "We call them blessed which _endured_: ye have heard of the
_endurance_ of Job" (v. 11).

It is just possible that "_all_ joy" (πᾶσαν χάραν) is meant exactly
to balance "_manifold_ temptations" (πειρασμοῖς ποικίλοις). Great
_diversity_ of troubles is to be considered as in reality _every kind_
of joy. Nevertheless, the troubles are not to be of our own making or
seeking. It is not when we inflict suffering on ourselves, but when we
"fall into" it, and therefore may regard it as placed in our way by
God, that we are to look upon it as a source of joy rather than of
sorrow. The word for "fall into" (περιπίπτειν) implies not only that
what one falls into is unwelcome, but also that it is unsought and
unexpected. Moreover, it implies that this unforeseen misfortune is
large enough to encircle or overwhelm one. It indicates a _serious_
calamity. The word for "temptations" in this passage is the same as is
used in the sixth petition of the Lord's Prayer; but the word is not
used in the same sense in both places. In the Lord's Prayer all kinds
of temptation are included, and especially the internal solicitations
of the devil, as is shown by the next petition: "Lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from the tempter." In the passage before us
internal temptations, if not actually excluded, are certainly quite in
the background. What St. James has principally in his mind are
_external_ trials, such as poverty of intellect (ver. 5), or of
substance (ver. 9), or persecution (ii. 6, 7), and the like; those
worldly troubles which test our faith, loyalty, and obedience, and
tempt us to abandon our trust in God, and to cease to strive to please
Him. The trials by which Satan was allowed to tempt Job are the kind
of temptations to be understood here.[34] They are material for
spiritual joy, because (1) they are opportunities for practising
virtue, which cannot be learned without practice, nor practised
without opportunities; (2) they teach us that we have here no abiding
city, for a world in which such things are possible cannot be a
lasting home; (3) they make us more Christlike; (4) we have the
assurance of Divine support, and that no more will ever be laid upon
us than we, relying upon that support, can bear; (5) we have the
assurance of abundant compensation here and hereafter.

St. James here is only echoing the teaching of his Brother: "Blessed
are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all
manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be
exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven" (Matt. v. 11, 12).
In the first days after Pentecost he had seen the Apostles acting in
the very spirit which he here enjoins, and he had himself very
probably taken part in doing so, "rejoicing that they were counted
worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name" (Acts v. 41. Comp.
iv. 23-30). And as we have already seen in comparing the parallel
passages, St. Peter (1 Peter 1, 6) and St. Paul (Rom. v. 3) teach the
same doctrine of rejoicing in tribulation.

As St. Augustine long ago pointed out, in his letter to Anastasius
(_Ep._ cxlv. 7, 8), and Hooker also (_Eccl. Pol._ V. xlviii. 13),
there is no inconsistency in teaching such doctrine, and yet praying,
"Lead us not into temptation." Not only is there no sin in shrinking
from both external trials and internal temptations, or in desiring to
be freed from such things; but such is the weakness of the human will,
that it is only reasonable humility to pray to God not to allow us to
be subjected to severe trials. Nevertheless, when God, in His wisdom,
has permitted such things to come upon us, the right course is, not to
be cast down and sorrowful, as though something quite intolerable had
overtaken us, but to rejoice that God has thought us capable of
enduring something for His sake, and has given us the opportunity of
strengthening our patience and our trust in Him.

This doctrine of joy in suffering, which at first sight seems to be
almost superhuman, is shown by experience to be less hard than the
apparently more human doctrine of resignation and fortitude. The
effort to be resigned, and to suffer without complaining, is not a
very inspiriting effort. Its tendency is towards depression. It does
not lift us out of ourselves or above our tribulations. On the
contrary, it leads rather to self-contemplation and a brooding over
miseries. Between mere resignation and thankful joy there is all the
difference that there is between mere obedience and affectionate
trust. The one is submission; the other is love. It is in the long run
easier to rejoice in tribulation, and be thankful for it, than to be
merely resigned and submit patiently. And therefore this "hard saying"
is really a merciful one, for it teaches us to endure trials in the
spirit that will make us feel them least. It is not only "a good thing
to sing praises unto our God;" it is also "a joyful and pleasant thing
to be thankful" (Ps. cxlvii. 1).

And here it may be noticed that St. James is no Cynic or Stoic. He
does not tell us that we are to anticipate misfortune, and cut
ourselves off from all those things the loss of which might involve
suffering; or that we are to trample on our feelings, and act as if we
had none, treating sufferings as if they were non-existent, or as if
they in no way affected us. He does not teach us that as Christians we
live in an atmosphere in which excruciating pain, whether of body or
mind, is a matter of pure indifference, and that such emotions as fear
or grief under the influence of adversity, and hope or joy under the
influence of prosperity, are utterly unworthy and contemptible. There
is not a hint of anything of the kind. He points out to us that
temptations, and especially external trials, are really blessings, if
we use them aright; and he teaches us to meet them in that conviction.
And it is manifest that the spirit in which to welcome a blessing is
the spirit of joy and thankfulness.

St. James does not bid us accept this doctrine of joy in tribulation
upon his personal authority. It is no philosopher's _ipse dixit_. He
appeals to his readers' own experience: "Knowing that the proof of
your faith worketh patience." "Knowing" (περιπίπτειν), _i.e._ "in that
ye are continually finding out and getting to know." The verb and the
tense indicate progressive and continuous knowledge, as by the
experience of daily life; and this teaches us that proving and testing
not only brings to light, but brings into existence, patience. This
patience (ὑπομονή), this abiding firm under attack or pressure, must
be allowed full scope to regulate all our conduct; and then we shall
see why trials are a matter for joy rather than sorrow, when we find
ourselves moving onwards towards, not the barrenness of Stoical
"self-sufficiency" (αὐτάρκεια), but the fulness of Divine perfection.
"That ye may be perfect and entire,[35] lacking in nothing," is
perhaps one of the many reminiscences of Christ's words which we shall
find in this letter of the Lord's brother. "Ye therefore shall be
perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. v. 48).

[28] _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 509-10, 4th Ed.

[29] It is quite possible that both St. Paul and St. James derive the
phrase "a transgressor of the law" from the remarkable addition to the
canonical Gospels which is found in Codex D (Beza) after Luke vi. 4:
"The same day He beheld a certain man working on the Sabbath, and said
to him, Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing, blessed art thou;
but if thou knowest not thou art accursed and _a transgressor of the
law_." Note that in Rom. ii., where the phrase occurs twice (vv. 25,
27), the address "O man" also occurs twice. Comp. Gal. ii. 18, and see
A. Resch, _Agrapha; Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente_ (Leipzig,
1889), pp. 36, 189-92.

[30] In order to do justice to these coincidences one must look at
them in the original Greek; but to those who cannot read Greek the
accuracy of the Revised Version gives a very fair idea of the amount
of similarity.

1. γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν
(James i. 3): εἰδότεσ ὅτι ἡ θλίπσις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, ἡ δὲ ὑπομον
δοκιμήν (Rom. v. 3).

2. γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ μὴ ἀκροαταὶ μόνον (James i. 22): οὐ
γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, ἀλλ' οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμοι
δικαιωθήσονται (Rom. ii. 13).

3. ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν (James
iv. 1): ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μελεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῳ νόμῳ τοῦ
νοός μου (Rom vii. 23).

[31] B. Weiss, _Introduction to the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 106, 150
(Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).

[32] Beyschlag's revision of Meyer's _Brie des Jacobus_ (Göttingen,
1888), p. 22.

[33] This rendering has been questioned; but it is justified by such
expressions as πᾶσαν ἀληθείην μυθήσομαι, "I will tell nothing but
what is true" (Hom. Od. xi. 507). See _Pastoral Epistles_ in this
series, p. 392.

[34] See F. D. Maurice, _Unity of the N.T._ (Parker, 1854), p. 318.

[35] On the strength of the word for "entire" (ὁλόκληρος), which
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, excepting 1 Thess. v. 23, it
has been asserted that the writer of this Epistle must have seen that
passage. The adjective is used in the Septuagint of whole, unhewn
stones, _saxis informibus et impolitis_ (Deut. xxvii. 6), and in
Josephus of entire animals used for sacrifice (_Ant._ III. ix. 2). It
is fairly common in Plato and Aristotle. The substantive ὁλοκληρία
occurs in Acts iii. 16, of the "perfect soundness" given to the
impotent man, and in the Septuagint (Isa. i. 6), of the "soundness"
which was wholly wanting in Israel. If St. James did not get his
knowledge of the word simply from his knowledge of the Greek language,
which is manifestly very complete, he probably derived it from the
Septuagint. It is absurd to base an argument as to acquaintance with
1 Thessalonians on so common a word.




 CHAPTER VI.

 _THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE BOOKS
 OF ECCLESIASTICUS AND OF THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.
 THE VALUE OF THE APOCRYPHA, AND THE MISCHIEF
 OF NEGLECTING IT._

 "But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to
 all liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But
 let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like
 the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that
 man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a double-minded
 man, unstable in all his ways."--ST. JAMES i. 5-8.


The previous section led us to the question as to the relation of this
Epistle to certain Christian writings, and in particular to the
Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and to the First Epistle of
St. Peter. The present section, combined with the preceding one,
raises a similar question--the relation of our Epistle to certain
Jewish writings, and especially the Books of Ecclesiasticus and the
Wisdom of Solomon.

The two sets of questions are not parallel. In the former case, even
if we could determine that the writer of one Epistle had certainly
seen the Epistle of the other, we should still be uncertain as to
which had written first. Here, if the similarity is found to be too
great to be accounted for by common influences acting upon both
writers, and we are compelled to suppose that one has made use of the
writing of the other, there cannot be any doubt as to the side on
which the obligation lies. The Book of Ecclesiasticus certainly, and
the Book of Wisdom possibly, had come into circulation long before
St. James was born. And if, with some of the latest writers[36] on the
subject, we place the Book of Wisdom as late as A.D. 40, it
nevertheless was written in plenty of time for St. James to have
become acquainted with it before he wrote his Epistle. Although some
doubts have been expressed on the subject, the number of similarities,
both of thought and expression, between the Epistle of St. James and
Ecclesiasticus is too great to be reasonably accounted for without the
supposition that St. James was not only acquainted with the book, but
fond of its contents. And it is to be remembered, in forming an
opinion on the subject, that there is nothing intrinsically improbable
in the supposition that St. James had read Ecclesiasticus. Indeed, the
improbability would rather be the other way. Even if there were no
coincidences of ideas and language between our Epistle and
Ecclesiasticus, we know enough about St. James and about the
circulation of Ecclesiasticus to say that he was likely to become
acquainted with it. As Dr. Salmon remarks on the use of the Apocrypha
generally, "The books we know as Apocrypha are nearly all earlier than
the New Testament writers, _who could not well have been ignorant of
them_; and therefore coincidences between the former and the latter
are not likely to have been the result of mere accident."[37]

But it will be worth while to quote a decided expression of opinion,
on each side of the question immediately before us, from the writings
of scholars who are certainly well qualified to give a decided
opinion. On the one hand, Bernhard Weiss says, "It has been
incorrectly held by most that the author adheres very closely to Jesus
Sirach.... But it must be distinctly denied that there is anywhere an
echo of the Book of Wisdom."[38] On the other hand, Dr. Edersheim,
after pointing out the parallel between Ecclus. xii. 10, 11, and James
v. 3, concludes, "In view of all this it _cannot be doubted_ that both
the simile and the expression of it in the Epistle of St. James were
derived from Ecclesiasticus." And then he gives some more coincidences
between the two writings, and sums up thus: "But if the result is to
_prove beyond doubt_ the familiarity of St. James with a book which at
the time was evidently in wide circulation, it exhibits with even
greater clearness the immense spiritual difference between the
standpoint occupied in Ecclesiasticus and that in the Epistle of
St. James."[39] And Archdeacon Farrar quotes with approval an estimate
that St. James "alludes more or less directly to the Book of the
Wisdom of Solomon at least five times, but to the Book of
Ecclesiasticus more than fifteen times.... The fact is the more
striking because in other respects St. James shows no sympathy with
Alexandrian speculations. There is not in him the faintest tinge of
Philonian philosophy; on the contrary, he belongs in a marked degree
to the school of Jerusalem. He is a thorough Hebraiser, a typical
Judaist. All his thoughts and phrases move normally in the Palestinian
sphere. This is a curious and almost unnoticed phenomenon. The
"sapiential literature" of the Old Testament was the _least_
specifically Israelite. It was the direct precursor of Alexandrian
morals. It deals with mankind, and not with the Jew. Yet St. James,
who shows so much partiality for this literature, is of all the
writers of the New Testament the least Alexandrian, and the most
Judaic."[40]

Let us endeavour to form an opinion for ourselves; and the only way in
which to do this with thoroughness is to place side by side, in the
original Greek, the passages in which there seems to be coincidence
between the two writers. Want of space prevents this from being done
here. But some of the most striking coincidences shall be placed in
parallel columns, and where the coincidence is inadequately
represented by the English Version the Greek shall be given also.
Other coincidences, which are not drawn out in full, will be added, to
enable students who care to examine the evidence more in detail to do
so without much trouble. Two Bibles, or, still better, a Septuagint
and a Greek Testament, will serve the purpose of parallel columns.

It will be found that by far the greater number of coincidences occur
in the first chapter, a fact which suggests the conjecture that
St. James had been reading Ecclesiasticus shortly before he began to
write. In the middle of the Epistle there is very little that strongly
recalls the son of Sirach. In the last chapter there are one or two
striking parallels; but by far the larger proportion is in the first
chapter.

 ECCLESIASTICUS.                        ST. JAMES.

 1. A patient man will bear for a       Count it all joy, my brethren,
 time, and afterward joy shall          when ye fall into manifold
 spring up unto him (i. 23).            temptations (πειρασμοῖς), knowing
                                        that the proof (τὸ δοκίμιον)
 My son, if thou come to serve the      of your faith worketh patience.
 Lord, prepare thy soul for             And let patience have her perfect
 temptation (πειρασμόν). Set thy        work, that ye may be perfect
 heart aright, and constantly           and entire, lacking in nothing
 endure.... Whatsoever is brought       (i. 2-4).
 upon thee take cheerfully, and be
 patient when thou art changed to a     Blessed is the man that endureth
 low estate. For gold is tried          temptation (πειρασμόν);
 (δοκιμάζεται) in the fire, and         for when he hath been approved
 acceptable men in the furnace of       (δόκιμος γενόμενος), he shall
 adversity (ii. 1-5).                   receive the crown of life (i. 12).

 2. If thou desire wisdom               But if any of you lacketh
 (σοφίαν), keep the commandments,       wisdom (σοφίαν), let him ask
 and the Lord shall give her unto       of God, who giveth to all men
 thee (i. 26).                          liberally, and upbraideth not
                                        (μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος); and it shall
 I desired wisdom (σοφίαν) openly       be given him (i. 5).
 in my prayer.... The Lord hath
 given me a tongue for my reward
 (li. 13, 22).

 Thy desire for wisdom (σοφίας)
 shall be given thee (vi. 37. Comp.
 xliii. 33). [A fool] will give
 little, and will upbraid
 (ὀνειδίσει) much (xx. 15).

 After thou hast given, upbraid
 (ὀνείδιζε) not (xli. 22. Comp.
 xviii. 18).

 3. Distrust not the fear of the        But let him ask in faith,
 Lord; and come not unto Him with a     nothing doubting: for he that
 double heart (i. 28).                  doubteth is like the surge of
                                        the sea driven by the wind and
 Woe be to fearful hearts, and faint    tossed. For let not that man
 hands, and the sinner that goeth       think that he shall receive
 two ways (ii. 12).                     anything of the Lord; a
                                        double-minded man, unstable in all
 Be not faint-hearted when thou         his ways (i. 6-8. Comp. iv. 8).
 makest thy prayer (vii. 10. Comp.
 xxxiii. 2; xxxv. 16, 17).

 4. Exalt not thyself, lest thou        But let the brother of low
 fall, and bring dishonour upon thy     degree glory in his high estate;
 soul (i. 30).                          and the rich in that he is made
                                        low (i. 9, 10).
 The greater thou art, the more
 humble thyself, and thou shalt find
 favour before the Lord (iii. 18.
 Comp. xxxi. 1-9).

 5. Say not thou, It is through the     Let no man say, when he is
 Lord that I fell away: for thou        tempted, I am tempted of God:
 oughtest not to do the things that     for God cannot be tempted
 He hateth. Say not thou, He hath       with evil, and He Himself
 caused me to err: for He hath no       tempteth no man (i. 13).
 need of the sinful man (xv. 11, 12).

 6. Be swift in thy listening           Let every man be swift to hear
 (ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου); and           (ταχὺς εὶς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι), slow
 with patience give answer (v. 11).     to speak, slow to wrath (i. 19).

 7. Thou shalt be to him as one that    He is like unto a man beholding
 hath wiped a mirror (ἔσοπτρον),        his natural face in a mirror (ἐν
 and shalt know that it is not          ἐσόπτρῳ).... Your gold and your
 rusted (κατίωται) for ever             silver are rusted (κατίωται);
 (xii. 11).                             and their rust (ἰός) shall
                                        be a testimony against you
 Like as bronze rusteth (ἰοῦται),       (i. 23; v. 3).
 so is his wickedness (xii. 10).

 Lose money through a brother and a
 friend, and let it not rust
 (ἰωθήτω) under the stone unto
 loss (xxix. 10).

 8. He that looketh in                  He that looketh into
 (ὁ παρακύπτων) through her             (ὁ παρακύψας) the perfect
 windows, _i.e._ the windows of         law (i. 25).
 wisdom (xiv. 23).

 A fool peepeth in (παρακύπτει)
 at the door (xxi. 23).

 9. A prey of lions are wild asses      But ye have dishonoured the poor
 in the wilderness; so the fodder of    man (τὸν πτωχόν). Do not the
 the rich are the poor (οὕτω νομαὶ      rich (οἱ πλούσιοι) oppress you,
 πλουσίων πτωχοί: xiii. 19. Comp.       and themselves drag you before the
 xiii. 3, 17, 18).                      judgment-seats? (ii. 6).

It will be observed that of these nine examples all come out of the
first two chapters of St. James, and six are from the first two
chapters of Ecclesiasticus. This fact is worth considering in
estimating the probabilities of St. James being under the influence of
this earlier and popular book. Owing to recent reading, or some other
cause, he seems to have been specially familiar with the opening
chapters of Ecclesiasticus. Probably most persons who study these
coincidences will be of the opinion that Bernhard Weiss is needlessly
cautious and sceptical when he refuses to assent to the common opinion
that in some portions of the Epistle St. James closely follows the
Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach. The strongest coincidence is the
seventh in the table. The word for "to rust" (κατιόω) occurs nowhere
else either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament, and the
passages in Ecclesiasticus and St. James "are the only Biblical
passages in which the figure of rust as affecting unused silver and
gold occurs" (Edersheim). The fifth instance is also very striking.

Let us now look at some of the coincidences between the Book of the
Wisdom of Solomon and the Epistle of St. James.

 WISDOM.                                ST. JAMES.

 1. The hope of the ungodly is like     He that doubteth is like the surge
 thistle-down carried away by the       of the sea driven by the wind and
 wind; like a thin froth that is        tossed.... As the flower of the
 driven away by the blast, and like     grass he shall pass away.... So
 smoke is dispersed by the wind         also shall the rich man fade away
 (v. 14. Comp. μαρανθῆναι in            (μαρανθήσεται) in his ways
 ii. 8).                                (i. 6, 10, 11).

 2. In eternity it weareth a crown      When he hath been approved he shall
 and triumpheth (iv. 2).                receive the crown of life, which
                                        the Lord promised to them that love
                                        Him (i. 12).

 3. The alterations of the solstices    With whom can be no variation,
 and the change of seasons (τροπῶν      neither shadow of turning (παρ'
 ἀλλαγὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς καιρῶν:          ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς
 vii. 18).                              ἀποσκίασμα: i. 17).

 4. Let us oppress                      Ye have dishonoured the poor man.
 (καταδυναστεύσωμεν) the poor           Do not the rich oppress
 righteous man.... Let us examine       (καταδυναστεύουσιν) you, and
 him with despitefulness and torture    themselves drag you before the
 (ii. 10, 19).                          judgment-seats? (ii. 6).

 5. For the lowest is pardonable by     For judgment is without mercy to
 mercy; but mighty men shall be         him that hath showed no mercy:
 mightily chastised (vi. 6).            mercy glorieth against judgment
                                        (ii. 13).

 6. What hath pride profited us? or     Go to now, ye that say, To-day or
 what good hath riches with our         to-morrow we will go into this
 vaunting (ἀλαζονείας) brought us?      city, and spend a year there, and
 All those things are passed away       trade and get gain: whereas ye know
 like a shadow, and as a post that      not what shall be on the morrow.
 hasted by, etc. etc.; even so we,      What is your life? For ye are a
 as soon as we were born, came to an    vapour, that appeareth for a little
 end" (v. 8-14).                        time, and then vanisheth away....
                                        But now ye glory in your vauntings
                                        (ἀλαζονίαις): all such glorying
                                        is evil (iv. 13-16).

 7. Let us lie in wait for the          Ye have condemned (κατεδικάσατε),
 righteous (τὸν δίκαιον).... Let        ye have killed the righteous one
 us condemn him (καταδικάσωμεν)         (τὸν δίκαιον); he doth not resist
 with a shameful death (ii. 12, 20).    you (v. 6).

It will at once be perceived that these parallels are neither so
numerous nor so convincing as those which have been pointed out
between Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle of St. James; but they are
sufficient to make a _primâ facie_ case of considerable probability,
whatever date we assign to the Book of Wisdom. This probability is
strengthened by the fact that this book, with the rest of the
Apocrypha or deutero-canonical writings, constituted to a large extent
the _religious literature of the Jews of the Dispersion_; and
therefore in writing to such Jews St. James would be likely to make
conscious allusions to writings with which his hearers would be sure
to be familiar; a consideration which strengthens the case as regards
the coincidences with Ecclesiasticus, as well as regards those with
the Wisdom of Solomon. Even if the probability as to the Alexandrian
origin of Wisdom were a certainty, and if the conjectural date A.D. 40
were established, there would be nothing surprising in its becoming
well known in Jerusalem within twenty years of its production. It is,
therefore, far too strong an assertion when Weiss declares that "it
must be distinctly denied that there is anywhere [in the Epistle of
St. James] an echo of the Book of Wisdom." All that one can safely say
is that the evidence for his acquaintance with the book does not
approach to proof.

But the use of these two books of the Apocrypha by writers in the New
Testament does not depend upon the question whether St. James makes
use of them or not. If this were the place to do it, it might be shown
that other coincidences, both of language and thought, far too
numerous and too strong to be all of them accidental, occur in the
writings of St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John.[41] Such things also
occur outside the New Testament in the Epistles of Clement and of
Barnabas; while Clement of Alexandria frequently quotes Ecclesiasticus
with the introductory formula, "The Scripture saith."

These facts go a long way towards proving that the neglect of the
Apocrypha which is so prevalent among ourselves is a thing which
cannot be defended, either by an appeal to Scripture or by the
practice of the primitive Church; for both the one and the other show
a great respect for these deutero-canonical writings. That the New
Lectionary omits a good deal of what used to be read publicly in
church is not a thing to be lamented. We gladly sacrifice portions of
the Apocrypha in order to obtain more of Ezekiel and Revelation. It is
the neglect of them in private reading that is so much to be deplored.
Passages which are too grotesque and too unspiritual to be edifying
when read to a mixed congregation are nevertheless full of
instruction, and throw most valuable light both on the Old and on the
New Testament. The Apocryphal writings, instead of being a worthless
interpolation between the Old Testament and the New, like a block of
paltry buildings disfiguring two noble edifices, are among our best
means of understanding how the Old Testament led up to the New, and
prepared the way for it. They show us the Jewish mind under the
combined influences of Jewish Scriptures, Gentile culture, and new
phases of political life, and being gradually brought into the
condition in which it either fiercely opposed or ardently accepted the
teaching of Christ and His Apostles. A huge chasm yawns between
Judaism as we leave it at the close of the Old Testament canon, and as
we find it at the beginning of the Gospel history; and we have no
better material with which to bridge the chasm than the writings of
the Apocrypha. This is well brought out, not only in the commentary on
the Apocrypha already quoted more than once, but also in a valuable
review of the commentary from which some of what follows is taken.[42]

The neglect of the Apocrypha has not been by any means entirely
accidental. It is partly the result of a deliberate protest against
the action of the Council of Trent in placing these books on a level
with the books of the Old and New Testament. In the seventeenth
century we find the learned John Lightfoot writing, "Thus sweetly and
nearly should the two Testaments join together, and thus Divinely
should they kiss each other, but that the wretched Apocrypha doth
thrust in between." And the fact that many people are now unable to
recognize or appreciate an allusion to the Apocrypha is by no means
the most serious result of this common neglect of its contents.
Appreciation of the Bible in general, and especially of those books in
which the Old and New Testaments come most in contact, is materially
diminished in consequence. The Apocrypha is not a barrier, but a
bridge; it does not separate, but unite the two Covenants. What
thoughtful reader can pass from the Old to the New Testament without
feeling that he has entered another world? He is still in Palestine,
still among the Jews; but how different from the Palestine and the
Judaism of Ezra, and Nehemiah, and Malachi! He "finds mention of
persons, and sects, and schools of which he can find no trace in the
Old Testament. He comes upon beliefs and opinions for which the
earlier canon does not even furnish a clue. He discovers institutions
long settled, and dominating the religious life of the people, of
which the Old Testament supplies not even the name. He finds popular
ideas, religious terms and phrases in current use wholly unlike those
of ancient psalmists and prophets." And there is no literature that
can explain all these changes to him either so surely or so fully as
the Apocrypha. It supplies instances of the early use of New Testament
words, of old words in new senses. It throws light upon the growth of
the popular conception of the Messiah. It illuminates still more the
development of the doctrine of the Logos. Above all, it helps us to
see something of the evolution of that strange religious system which
became the raw material out of which the special doctrines of
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were formed, and which had a
powerful influence upon Christianity itself.

The neglect of the Apocrypha has been greatly increased by the
widespread practice of publishing Bibles without it, and even of
striking out from the margins of these mutilated Bibles all references
to it. And this mischief has lately been augmented by the fact that
the Revised Version omits it. Yet no portion of the Bible was in
greater need of revision. The original texts used by the translators
of 1611 were very bad; and perhaps in no part of the Authorized
Version are utterly faulty translations more abundant. A comparison of
the quotations given above with the text of the Authorized Version of
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus will show that considerable changes have
been made in order to bring the quotations into harmony with the true
readings of the Greek text, and thus give a fair comparison with the
words of St. James.

Books which the writers of the New Testament found worthy of study,
and from which they derived some of their thoughts and language, ought
not to be lightly disregarded by ourselves. We cannot disregard them
without loss; and it is the duty of every reader of the Bible to see
that his apprehension of the Old and New Testaments is not hindered
through his ignorance of those writings which interpret the process of
transition from the one to the other. Neglect of the helps to
understanding His Word which God has placed easily within our reach
may endanger our possession of that wisdom which St. James here
assures us will be given to every one who asks for it in faith.

A discussion of that heavenly wisdom, and of the efficacy of prayer
offered in faith, will be found in the expositions of later passages
in the Epistle.[43]

[36] Grätz, Noack, Plumptre, F. W. Farrer.

[37] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. i., p. xli. (Murray,
1888).

[38] _Introduction to the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 114, 115 (Hodder and
Stoughton, 1888).

[39] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23
(Murray 1888).

[40] _The Early Days of Christianity_, vol. i., pp. 517-18. Dr. Salmon
leaves the question undecided (_Introduction to N.T._, p. 511).

[41] See Dr. Salmon's _General Introduction_ to the Apocrypha in the
_Speaker's Commentary_, vol. i., pp. xli., xlii.

[42] _Edinburgh Review_, No. 345, January, 1889, pp. 58-95.

[43] See on iii. 13-18, and on v. 13-18. In connexion with this
subject the Inaugural Lecture of Professor Margoliouth, on _The Place
of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature_ (Clarendon Press, 1890), and
his defence of the position there maintained in the pages of the
_Expositor_, should be studied. It is _possible_ that from the
language of Ecclesiasticus we may be able to demonstrate that the late
date assigned by recent critics to certain books in the Old Testament
is quite untenable for the language of them is centuries older than
that of Ecclesiasticus.




 CHAPTER VII.

 _THE EXALTATION OF THE LOWLY, AND THE FADING
 AWAY OF THE RICH. THE METAPHORS OF ST. JAMES
 AND THE PARABLES OF CHRIST._

 "But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the
 rich in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he
 shall pass away. For the sun ariseth, with the scorching wind, and
 withereth the grass; and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace
 of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away
 in his goings."--ST. JAMES i. 9-11.


In this section St. James returns to what is the main thought of the
first chapter, and one of the main thoughts of the whole Epistle, viz.
the blessedness of enduring temptations, and especially such
temptations as are caused by external trials and adversity. He adds
another thought which may help to console and strengthen the oppressed
Christian.

The Revisers have quite rightly restored the "But" (δέ) at the
beginning of this section. There seems to be absolutely no authority
for its omission; and we may conjecture that the earlier English
translators ignored it, because it seemed to them to be superfluous,
or even disturbing. The Rhemish Version, made from the Vulgate
(_Glorietur autem_), is the only English Version which preserves it;
and Luther (_Ein Bruder aber_) preserves it also. The force of the
conjunction is to connect the advice given in this section with the
items of advice already given. They form a connected series. "Count it
all joy, when ye fall into manifold temptations.... But (δέ) let
patience have its perfect work. ... But (δέ) if any lacketh wisdom,
let him ask of God.... But (δέ) let him ask in faith.... But (δέ)
let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich
in that he is made low."

The meaning of this last item in the series is by no means clear.
Various interpretations have been suggested, and it is difficult or
even impossible to arrive at a conclusive decision as to which of them
is the right one. But we may clear the ground by setting aside all
explanations which would make "the brother of low degree" (ὁ ταπεινός)
to mean the Christian who is lowly in heart (Matt. xi. 29), and "the
rich" (ὁ πλούσιος) the Christian who is rich in faith (ii. 5) and in
good works (1 Tim. vi. 18). Both words are to be understood literally.
The lowly man is the man of humble position, oppressed by poverty, and
perhaps by unscrupulous neighbours (ii. 3), and the rich man, here, as
elsewhere in this Epistle, is the man of wealth who very often
oppresses the poorer brethren (i. 11; ii. 6; v. 1).

What, then, is the meaning of the "high estate" (ὕψος) in which the
brother of low degree is to glory, and of the "being made low"
(ταπείνωσις), in which the rich man is to do the same? At first sight
one is disposed to say that the one is the heavenly birthright, and
the other the Divine humiliation, in which every one shares who
becomes a member of Christ; in fact, that they are the same thing
looked at from different points of view; for what to the Christian is
promotion, to the world seems degradation. If this were correct, then
we should have an antithesis analogous to that which is drawn out by
St. Paul, when he says, "He that was called in the Lord, being a
bond-servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise he that was called,
being free, is Christ's bond-servant" (1 Cor. vii. 22). But on further
consideration this attractive explanation is found not to suit the
context. What analogy is there between the humiliation in which every
Christian glories in Christ and the withering of herbage under a
scorching wind? Even if we could allow that this metaphor refers to
the fugitive character of earthly possessions, what has that to do
with Christian humiliation, which does not depend upon either the
presence or the absence of wealth? Moreover, St. James says nothing
about the fugitiveness of riches: it is the rich man _himself_, and
not his wealth, that is said to "pass away," and to "fade away in his
goings." Twice over St. James declares this to be the destiny of the
rich man; and the wording is such as to show that when the writer says
that "the rich man shall fade away in his goings" he means the man,
and not his riches. "His goings," or "journeys," very likely refers to
his "going into this city to spend a year there, and trade, and get
gain" (iv. 13); _i.e._ he wastes himself away in the pursuit of
wealth. But what could be the meaning of _wealth_ "fading away _in its
journeys_"? Evidently, we must not transfer what is said of the rich
man himself to his possessions.

It is a baseless assumption to suppose that the rich man here spoken
of is a Christian at all. "The brother of low degree" is contrasted,
not with the _brother_ who is rich, but with the rich man, whose
miserable destiny shows that he is not "a brother," _i.e._ not a
believer. The latter is the wealthy Jew who rejects Christ. Throughout
this Epistle (ii. 6, 7; v. 1-6) "rich" is a term of reproach. This is
what is meant by the Ebionite tone of the Epistle; for poverty is the
condition which Ebionism delights to honour. In this St. James seems
to be reproducing the thoughts both of Jesus Christ and of Jesus the
son of Sirach. "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your
consolation. Woe unto you, ye that are full now! for ye shall hunger"
(Luke vi. 25, 26. Comp. Matt. xix. 23-25). "The rich man hath done
wrong, and is very wroth besides: the poor man is wronged, and he must
intreat also.... An abomination to the proud is lowliness; so the poor
are abomination to the rich" (Ecclus. xiii. 3, 20).

But when we have arrived at the conclusion that the "being made low"
does not refer to the humiliation of the Christian, and that the rich
man here threatened with a miserable end is not a believer, a new
difficulty arises. What is the meaning of the wealthy unbeliever being
told to _glory_ in the degradation which is to prove so calamitous to
him? In order to avoid this difficulty various expedients have been
suggested. Some propose a rather violent change of _mood_--from the
imperative to the indicative. No verb is expressed, and it is said
that instead of repeating "let him glory" from the previous clause, we
may supply "he glories," as a statement of fact rather than an
exhortation. The sentence will then run, "But let the brother of low
degree glory in his high estate; but (δέ) the rich _glorieth_ in his
being made low;" _i.e._ he glories in what degrades him and ought to
inspire him with shame and grief. Others propose a still more violent
change, viz. of _verb_; they would keep the imperative, but supply a
word of opposite meaning: "so let the rich man _be ashamed_ of his
being made low." Neither of these expedients seems to be necessary, or
indeed to be a fair treatment of the text.[44] It is quite possible to
make good sense of the exhortation, without any violent change either
of mood or of verb. In the exhortation to the rich man St. James
speaks in severe irony: "Let the brother of low degree glory in his
high estate; and the rich man--what is he to glory in?--let him glory
in the only thing upon which he can count with certainty, viz. his
being brought low; because as the flower of the grass he shall pass
away." Such irony is not uncommon in Scripture. Our blessed Lord
Himself makes use of it sometimes, as when He says of the hypocrites
that they have their reward, and have it in full (ἀπέχουσι: Matt.
vi. 2, 5, 16).

Whether or no this interpretation be accepted--and no interpretation
of this passage has as yet been suggested which is free from
difficulty--it must be clearly borne in mind that no explanation can
be correct which does not preserve the connexion between the
humiliation of the rich man and his passing away as the flower of the
grass. This fading away _is_ his humiliation, _is_ the thing in which
he is to glory, if he glories in anything at all. The inexorable
"because" must not be ignored or explained away by making the wealth
of the rich man shrivel up, when St. James twice over says that it is
the rich man himself who fades away.

The metaphor here used of the rich man is common enough in the Old
Testament. Man "cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down" (ὥσπερ
ἄνθος ἀνθῆσαν ἐξέπεσεν LXX.), says Job, in his complaint (xiv. 2);
and, "As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so
he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the
place thereof shall know it no more," says the Psalmist (ciii. 15,
16). But elsewhere, with a closer similarity to the present passage,
we have this transitory character specially attributed to the ungodly,
who "shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green
herb" (Ps. xxxvii. 2). None of these passages, however, are so clearly
in St. James's mind as the words of Isaiah: "All flesh is grass, and
all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: the grass
withereth, the flower fadeth; because the breath of the Lord bloweth
upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower
fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever" (Isa. xl. 6, 7).
Here the words of St. James are almost identical with those of the
Septuagint (ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου· ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν
... ἐξηράνθη χόρτος, ἐξέπεσεν τὸ ἄνθος); and, as has been already
pointed out (p. 59), this is one of the quotations which our Epistle
has in common with that of St. Peter (1 Peter i. 24).

"Grass" throughout is a comprehensive term for herbage, and the
"flower of grass" does not mean the bloom or blossom of grass in the
narrower sense, but the wild flowers, specially abundant and brilliant
in the Holy Land, which grow among the grass. Thus, in the Sermon on
the Mount, what are first called "the lilies (τὰ κρίνα) of the field"
are immediately afterwards called "the grass (τὸν χόρτον) of the
field" (Matt. vi. 28, 30).

"The scorching wind" (ὁ καύσων) is one of the features in the Epistle
which harmonize well with the fact that the writer was an inhabitant
of Palestine. It is the furnace-like blast from the arid wilderness to
the east of the Jordan. "Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper?
shall it not utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it? It shall
wither in the beds where it grew" (Ezek. xvii. 10). "God prepared a
sultry east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he
fainted" (Jonah iv. 8). The fig-tree, olives, and vine (iii. 12) are
the chief fruit-trees of Palestine; and "the early and latter rain"
(v. 7) points still more clearly to the same district.

It has been remarked with justice that whereas St. Paul for the most
part draws his metaphors from the scenes of human activity--building,
husbandry, athletic contests, and warfare--St. James prefers to take
his metaphors from the _scenes of nature_. In this chapter we have
"the surge of the sea" (ver. 6) and "the flower of the grass" (ver.
10). In the third chapter we have the "rough winds" driving the ships,
the "wood kindled by a small fire," "the wheel of nature," "every kind
of beasts and birds, of creeping things, and things in the sea," "the
fountain sending forth sweet water," "the fig-tree and vine" (vv. 4,
5, 6, 7, 11, 12). In the fourth chapter human life is "a vapour, that
appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away" (ver. 14). And
in the last chapter, besides the moth and the rust, we have "the fruit
of the earth," and "the early and latter rain" (vv. 2, 3, 7, 18).

These instances are certainly very numerous, when the brevity of the
Epistle is considered. The love of nature which breathes through them
was no doubt learned and cherished in the village home at Nazareth,
and it forms another link between St. James and his Divine Brother.
Nearly every one of the natural phenomena to which St. James directs
attention in this letter are used by Christ also in His teaching. The
surging of the sea (Luke xxi. 25), the flowers of the field (Matt.
vi. 28), the burning of wood (John xv. 6), the birds of the air (Matt.
vi. 26; viii. 20; xiii. 4, 32), the fountain of sweet water (John
iv. 10-14; vii. 38), the fig-tree (Matt. vii. 16; xxi. 19; xxiv. 32),
the vine (John xv. 1-5), the moth (Matt. vi. 19), the rust (Matt.
vi. 19), and the rain (Matt. v. 45; vii. 25). In some cases the use
made by St. James of these natural objects is very similar to that
made by our Lord, and it may well be that what he writes is a
reminiscence of what he had heard years before from Christ's lips; but
in other cases the use is quite different, and must be assigned to the
love of nature, and the recognition of its fitness for teaching
spiritual truths, which is common to the Lord and His brother. Thus,
when St. James asks, "Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a
vine figs?" we seem to have an echo of the question in the Sermon on
the Mount, "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" And
when St. James tells the rich oppressors that their "garments are
moth-eaten; their gold and their silver are rusted," is he not
remembering Christ's charge, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon
the earth, where moth and rust do consume, and where thieves break
through and steal"? But in most of the other cases there is little or
no resemblance between the similes of Christ and the figurative use of
the same natural phenomena made by St. James. Thus, while Jesus uses
the flowers of the field to illustrate God's care for every object in
the universe, and the superiority of the glory which He bestows over
that with which man adorns himself, St. James teaches thereby the
transitory character of the glory which comes of riches; and while
Christ points to the rain as illustrating God's bounty to good and bad
alike, St. James takes it as an illustration of His goodness in answer
to patient and trusting prayer.

It is manifest that in this matter St. James is partly following a
great example, but partly also following the bent of his own mind. The
first, without the second, would hardly have given us so many examples
of this kind of teaching in so small a space. St. John had equal
opportunities with St. James of learning this method of teaching from
Christ, and yet there are scarcely any examples of it in his Epistles.
Possibly his opportunities were even greater than those of St. James;
for although he was at most the cousin of the Lord, whereas St. James
was His brother, yet he was present during the whole of Christ's
ministry, whereas St. James was not converted until after the
Resurrection. But there is this great difference between Christ's
teaching from nature and that of St. James: St. James recognizes in
the order and beauty of the universe a revelation of Divine truth, and
makes use of the facts of the external world to teach spiritual
lessons; the incarnate Word, in drawing spiritual lessons from the
external world, could expound the meaning of a universe which He
Himself had made. In the one case it is a disciple of nature who
imparts to us the lore which he himself has learned; in the other it
is the Master of nature, who points out to us the meaning of His own
world, and interprets to us the voices of the winds and the waves,
which obey Him.

[44] 1 Tim. iv. 3, where commanding is understood from forbidding, is
not strictly parallel: "forbidding to marry, _and commanding_ to
abstain from meats." The context is such as to prevent any
misunderstanding of the loosely worded sentence. See Moulton's Winer,
p. 777; also Bede, who rightly remarks, "Subauditur a superiore versa,
_glorietur_. Quod per irrisionem quæ Græce ironia vocatur, dictum esse
constat ... ut humiliatus in æternum pereat cum purpurato illo divite
qui Lazarum despexit egentem."




 CHAPTER VIII.

 _THE SOURCE OF TEMPTATIONS AND THE REALITY OF SIN.
 THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE DETERMINIST._

 "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he hath been
 approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord
 promised to them that love Him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I
 am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He
 Himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted when he is drawn
 away by his own lust and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath
 conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth
 forth death. Be not deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift
 and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of
 lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast
 by turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of
 truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of His
 creatures."--ST. JAMES i. 12-18.


After the slight digression respecting the short-lived glory of the
rich man, St. James returns once more to the subject with which the
letter opens--the blessing of trials and temptations as opportunities
of patience, and the blessedness of the man who endures them, and thus
earns "the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them that
love Him." These last words are very interesting as being a record of
_some utterance of Christ's not preserved in the Gospels_, of which we
have perhaps other traces elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Pet. v. 4;
Rev. ii. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 8).[45] They imply a principle which qualifies
what goes before, and leads on to what follows. The mere endurance of
temptations and afflictions will not win the promised crown, unless
temptations are withstood, and afflictions endured in the right
spirit. The proud self-reliance and self-repression of the Stoic has
nothing meritorious about it. These trials must be met in a spirit of
loving trust in the God who sends or allows them. It is only those who
love and trust God who have the right to expect anything from His
bounty. This St. James continually insists on. Let not the
double-minded man, with his affections and loyalty divided between God
and Mammon, "think that he shall receive anything of the Lord" (i. 7).
God has chosen the poor who are "rich in _faith_" to be "heirs of the
kingdom which He promised _to them that love Him_" (ii. 5). And this
love of God is quite incompatible with love of the world. "Whosoever
therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of
God" (iv. 4).

It is the loving withstanding of temptation, then, that wins the crown
of life: the mere being tempted tends rather to death. "Lust, when it
hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown,
bringeth forth death." With these facts before him, the loving
Christian will never say, when temptations come, that they come from
God. It cannot be God's will to seduce him from the path of life to
the path of death. The existence of temptations is no just ground of
complaint against God. Such complaints are an attempt to shift the
blame from himself to his Creator. The temptations proceed, not from
God, but from the man's own evil nature; a nature which God created
stainless, but which man of his own free will has debased. To tempt is
to try to lead astray; and one has only to understand the word in its
true sense to see how impossible it is that God should become a
tempter. By a simple but telling opposition of words St. James
indicates where the blame lies. God "_Himself_ tempteth no man
(πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα); but each man is tempted when by his _own_
lust he is drawn away and enticed" (ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας
ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος). It is his own evil desire which plays
the part of the temptress, drawing him out from his place of safety by
the enticement of sinful pleasure.[46] So that the fault is in a sense
doubly his. The desire which tempts proceeds from his own evil nature,
and the will which consents to the temptress is his own. Throughout
the passage St. James represents the evil desire as playing the part
of Potiphar's wife. The man who withstands such temptation is winning
the promised crown of life; the man who yields has for the offspring
of his error death. The one result is in accordance with God's will,
as is proved by His promising and bestowing the crown; the other is
not, but is the natural and known consequence of the man's own act.

At the present time there is a vehement effort being made in some
quarters to shift the blame of man's wrong-doing, if not on to God
(and He is commonly left out of the account, as unknown or
non-existing), at any rate on to those natural laws which determine
phenomena. We are asked to believe that such ideas as moral freedom
and responsibility are mere chimæras, and that the first thing which a
reasonable person has to do, in raising himself to a higher level, is
to get rid of them. He is to convince himself that character and
conduct are the necessarily evolved result of inherited endowments,
developed in certain circumstances, over neither of which the man has
any control. He did not select the qualities of body and mind which he
received from his parents, and he did not make the circumstances in
which he has had to live since his birth. He could no more help acting
as he did on any given occasion than he could help the size of his
heart or the colour of his brain. He is no more responsible for the
acts which he produces than a tree is responsible for its leaves. And
of all senseless delusions and senseless wastes of power, those which
are involved in the feeling of remorse are the worst. In remorse we
wring our hands over deeds which we could not possibly have avoided
doing, and reproach ourselves for emitting what we could not by any
possibility have done. Ethiopians might as reasonably blame themselves
for their black skins, or be conscience-stricken for not having golden
hair, as any human being feel remorse for what he has done or left
undone in the past. Whatever folly a man may have committed, he
eclipses it all by the folly of self-reproach.

Positivism will indeed have worked marvels when it has driven remorse
out of the world; and until it has succeeded in doing so, it will
remain confronted by an unanswerable proof--as universal as the
humanity which it professes to worship--that its moral system is based
upon a falsehood. Whether or no we admit the belief in a God, the fact
of self-reproach in every human heart remains to be accounted for. And
it is a fact of the most enormous proportions. Think of the years of
mental agony and moral torture which countless numbers of the human
race have endured since man became a living soul, because men have
invariably reproached themselves with the folly and wickedness which
they have committed. Think of the exquisite suffering which remorse
has inflicted on every human being who has reached years of reflexion.
Think of the untold misery which the misdeeds of men have inflicted
upon those who love and would fain respect them. It may be doubted
whether all other forms of human suffering, whether mental or bodily,
are more than as a drop in the ocean, compared with the agonies which
have been endured through the gnawing pangs of remorse for personal
misconduct, and of shame and grief for the misconduct of friends and
relations. And if the Determinist is right, all this mental torture,
with its myriad stabs and stings through centuries of centuries, is
based on a monstrous delusion. These bitter reproachers of themselves
and of those dearest to them might have been spared it all, if only
they had known that not one of the acts thus blamed and lamented in
tears of blood could have been avoided.

Certainly the Positivist, who shuts God out from his consideration,
has a difficult problem to solve, when he is asked how he accounts for
a delusion so vast, so universal, and so horrible in its consequences;
and we do not wonder that he should exhaust all the powers of rhetoric
and invective in the attempt to exorcize it. But his difficulty is as
nothing compared with the difficulties of a thinker who endeavours to
combine Determinism with Theism, and even with Christianity. What sort
of a God can He be who has allowed, who has even ordained, that every
human heart should be wrung with this needless, senseless agony? Has
any savage, any inquisitor, ever devised torture so diabolical? And
what kind of a Saviour and Redeemer can He be who has come from
heaven, and returned thither again, without saying one word to free
men from their blind, self-inflicted agonies; who, on the contrary,
has said many things to confirm them in their delusions? Whence came
moral evil and the pangs of remorse, if there is no such thing as free
will? They must have been fore-ordained and created by God. The Theist
has no escape from that. If God made man free, and man by misusing his
freedom brought sin into the world, and remorse as a punishment for
sin, then we have _some_ explanation of the mystery of evil. God
neither willed it nor created it; it was the offspring of a free and
rebellious will. But if man was never free, and there is no such thing
as sin, then the madman gnawing his own limbs in his frenzy is a
reasonable being and a joyous sight, compared with the man who gnaws
his own heart in remorse for the deeds which the inexorable laws of
his own nature compelled him, and still compel him, to commit.

Is there, or is there not, such a thing as sin? That is the question
which lies at the bottom of the error against which St. James warns
his readers, and of the doctrines which are advocated at the present
time by Positivists and all who deny the reality of human freedom and
responsibility. To say that when we are tempted we are tempted by God,
or that the Power which brought us into existence has given us no
freedom to refuse the evil and to choose the good, is to say that sin
is a figment of the human mind, and that a conscious revolt of the
human mind against the power of holiness is impossible. On such a
question the appeal to human language, of which Aristotle is so fond,
seems to be eminently suitable; and the verdict which it gives is
overwhelming. There is probably no language, there is certainly no
civilized language, which has no word to express the idea of sin. If
sin is an illusion, how came the whole human race to believe in it,
and to frame a word to express it?[47] Can we point to any other word
in universal, or even very general use, which nevertheless represents
a mere chimæra, believed in as real, but actually non-existent? And
let us remember that this is no case in which self-interest, which so
fatally warps our judgment, can have led the whole human race astray.
Self-interest would lead us entirely in the opposite direction. There
is no human being who would not enthusiastically welcome the belief
that what seem to him to be grievous sins are no more a matter of
reproach to him than the beatings of his heart or the winkings of his
eyes. Sometimes the conscience-stricken offender, in his efforts to
excuse his acts before the judgment-seat of his higher self, tries to
believe this. Sometimes the Determinist philosopher endeavours to
prove to him that he ought to believe it. But the stern facts of his
own nature and the bitter outcome of all human experience are too
strong for such attempts. In spite of all specious excuses, and all
plausible statements of philosophic difficulties, his conscience and
his consciousness compel him to confess, "It was my own lust that
enticed me, and my own will that consented."

How serious St. James considers the error of attempting to make God
responsible for our temptations is shown both by the earnest and
affectionate insertion of "Be not deceived,[48] my beloved brethren,"
and also by the pains which he takes to disprove the error. After
having shown the true source of temptation, and explained the way in
which sin and death are generated, he points out how incredible it is
on other grounds that God should become a tempter. How can the Source
of every good gift and every perfect boon[49] be also a source of
temptations to sin? How can the Father of lights be one who would lead
away His creatures into darkness? If what we know of human nature
ought to tell us whence temptations to sin are likely to come, what we
know of God's nature and of His dealings with mankind ought to tell us
whence such things are _not_ likely to come.

And He is far above those heavenly luminaries of which He is the
Author. _They_ are not always bright, and are therefore very imperfect
symbols of His holiness. In their revolutions they are sometimes
overshadowed. The moon is not always at the full, the sun is sometimes
eclipsed, and the stars suffer changes in like manner. In Him there is
no change, no loss of light, no encroachment of shadow. There is never
a time at which one could say that through momentary diminution in
holiness it had become possible for Him to become a tempter.

Nor are the brightness and beneficence which pervade the material
universe the chief proofs of God's goodness and of the impossibility
of temptations to sin proceeding from Him. It was "of His own will"
that He rescued mankind from the state of death into which their
rebellious wills had brought them, and by a new revelation of Himself
in "the Word of truth," _i.e._ the Gospel, brought them forth again,
born anew as Christians, to be, like the first-born under the Law, "a
kind of first-fruits of His creatures."[50]

When, therefore, we sum up all the known facts of the case, there is
only one conclusion at which we can justly arrive. There is the nature
of God, so far as it is known to us, utterly opposed to evil. There is
the nature of man, as it has been debased by himself, constantly
bringing forth evil. There is God's goodness, as manifested in the
creation of the universe and in the regeneration of man. It is a
hopeless case to try to banish remorse by making God responsible for
man's temptations and sin.

There is only one way of getting rid of remorse, and that is to
confess sin--to confess its reality, to confess it to God, and if need
be to man. No man ever yet succeeded in justifying himself by laying
the blame of his sins on God. But he may do so by laying the sins
themselves upon "the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the
world," and by washing his stained robes, "and making them white in
the blood of the Lamb." That done, remorse will have no power over
him; and instead of fruitlessly accusing God, and seeking vain
substitutes for the service of God, he will humbly "give Him glory,"
and "serve Him day and night in His temple" (Joshua vii. 19; Rev.
vii. 15).

NOTE.--The difficult expression (τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα) rendered in the
Authorized Version "shadow of turning," and in the Revised "shadow
that is cast by turning," has received a great variety of translations
and explanations. The Old Latin, _modicum obumbrationis_, like the
Greek commentators, makes ἀποσκίασμα = σκιά = "shade, trace, small
amount." It is doubtful whether the rare compound ἀποσκίασμα ever
acquired this meaning; but the opinion of Greeks on this point is of
great weight, and certainly this meaning makes good sense. The
Vulgate, _vicissitudinis obumbratio_, is as difficult as the Greek;
and Augustine's _momenti obumbratio_ comes from the false reading
ῥοπῆς. "Shadow cast by turning" does not seem to be very helpful,
whether we interpret "turning" to mean the revolutions of the sun or
of the earth, or the changes of nature generally. Perhaps the genitive
is the genitive of quality, "shadow of change" for "changing shadow;"
so Stier and Theil, _wechselnde Beschattung_, and Stolz _abwechselnde
Verdunkelung_. Comp. ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (i. 25), and, see the
_Expositor_, Sept. 1889, pp. 228-30.

[45] In the _Acta Philippi, Apocal. Apocr._, ed. Tischendorf, p. 147,
we have, "Blessed is he who hath his raiment white; for he it is who
receiveth the crown of joy." See A. Resch, _Agrapha; Aussercanonische
Evangelienfragmente_ (Leipzig, 1889), p. 254.

[46] The punctuation and order of words in both A.V. and R.V. seem to
be faulty: "enticed," quite as much as "drawn away," belongs to "by
his own lust." Moreover, the metaphor is not seduction from the right
road, but alluring out of security into danger.

[47] See R. H. Hutton on _The Service of Man_, in the _Contemporary
Review_, April, 1887, p. 492.

[48] Or, "led astray" (πλανᾶσθε). The word implies fundamental
departure from the truth (v. 19; John vii. 47; 1 John i. 8; ii. 26;
iii. 7; Rev. xviii. 23).

[49] The words form an hexameter in the original, which may be either
accidental or a quotation: πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τελειον
("Every gift that is good, and every boon that is perfect").

[50] See F. D. Maurice, _Unity of the N.T._ (Parker, 1854), pp. 320-23.




 CHAPTER IX.

 _THE DELUSION OF HEARING WITHOUT DOING.
 THE MIRROR OF GOD'S WORD._

 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your
 own selves. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer,
 he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he
 beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what
 manner of man he was. But he that looketh into the perfect law, the
 law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that
 forgetteth, but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in
 his doing."--ST. JAMES i. 22-25.


Here we reach what on the whole seems to be the main thought of the
Epistle--_the all-importance of Christian activity and service_. The
essential thing, without which other things, however good in
themselves, become insignificant or worthless, or even mischievous, is
_conduct_. Everything else, if not accompanied by practice, by
avoiding evil and doing good, is vain. In Bishop Butler's words,
religion "does not consist in the knowledge and belief even of
fundamental truth," but rather in our being brought "to a certain
temper and behaviour;" or as St. John puts it still more simply, only
"he who _doeth_ righteousness is righteous." Suffering injuries,
poverty, and temptations, hearing the Word, teaching the Word, faith,
wisdom (i. 2, 9, 12, 19; ii. 14-26; iii. 7-13), are all of them
excellent; but if they are not accompanied by a holy life, a life of
prayer and gentle words and good deeds, they are valueless.

There are two or three other leading thoughts, but they are all of
them subordinated to this main thought of the necessity for Christian
conduct as well as Christian belief and wisdom. One of these secondary
thoughts has already been noticed more than once--the blessedness of
enduring temptations and other trials; it is specially prominent in
the first and last chapters (i. 2-4, 12; v. 7-11). Another of the
secondary topics which have a prominent place in the letter is the
peril of much speaking. It introduces and closes the section which
lies immediately before us (i. 19, 26), and it is dwelt upon at length
in the third chapter. Yet a third topic which cannot fail to attract
the attention of the reader is the preference given to the poor over
the rich as regards their spiritual opportunities, and the stern
warnings addressed to all those whose wealth leads them to become
tyrannical. This subject is specially prominent in the first, second,
and last chapters (i. 10, 11; ii. 1-7; v. 1-6). But all these matters
are looked at from the point of view of Christian conduct and service.
They are not in any one case the idea which binds together the whole
Epistle, but they lead up to it and emphasize it. If we were to single
out one verse as in a special way summing up the teaching of the whole
letter, we could hardly find one more suitable for the purpose than
the first of the four which stand at the head of the present chapter:
"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own
selves." It will be worth while to examine this simple and most
practical exhortation somewhat in detail.

It is one of the many sayings in the Epistle which irresistibly remind
us of the teaching of Jesus Christ; not as being a quotation from any
of His recorded discourses, but as being an independent reproduction
of the substance of His conversation by one who was quite familiar
with it, but was not familiar with the written Gospels. Had the writer
of this letter been well acquainted with any of the four Gospels, he
could hardly have escaped being influenced by them, and the echoes of
Christ's teaching which we find in its pages would have been more
closely in accordance with the reports of His words which they
contain. This feature of the Epistle harmonizes well with its being
written by the Lord's brother, who must have been very familiar with
the Lord's teaching, and who wrote before A.D. 62, _i.e._ at a time
when perhaps not one of our Gospels was written, and when certainly
none of them can have had a very wide circulation. More will be said
upon this point hereafter (p. 308): for the present it suffices to
point out the resemblance between this warning against the delusion of
thinking that hearing without doing is of any avail, and the warning
which closes the Sermon on the Mount: "Every one which heareth these
words of Mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which
built his house upon the rock.... And every one that heareth these
words of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish
man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and
the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it
fell: and great was the fall thereof" (Matt. vii. 24-27).

"Be ye doers of the Word." Both verb and tense are remarkable
(γίνεσθε): "_Become_ doers of the Word." True Christian practice is a
thing of growth; it is a process, and a process which has already
begun, and is continually going on. We may compare, "_Become_ ye
therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matt. x. 16);
"Therefore _become_ ye also ready" (xxiv. 44); and "_Become_ not
faithless, but believing" (John xx. 27; where see Westcott's note).
"Become doers of the Word" is more expressive than "Be doers of the
Word," and a good deal more expressive than "Do the Word." A "doer of
the Word" (ποιητὴς λόγου) is such by profession and practice; the
phrase expresses a habit. But one who merely incidentally performs
what is prescribed may be said to "do the Word." By the "Word" is
meant what just before has been called the "implanted Word" and the
"Word of truth" (w. 21, 18), and what in this passage is also called
"the perfect law, the law of liberty" (ver. 25), _i.e._ the Gospel.
The parable of the Sower illustrates in detail the meaning of becoming
an habitual doer of the implanted Word.

"And not hearers only." The order of the words in the Greek is a
little doubtful, the authorities being very much divided; but the
balance is in favour of taking "only" closely with "hearers" (μὴ
ἀκροαταὶ μόνον rather than μὴ μόνον ἀκροαταί); "Be not such as are
mere hearers and nothing more." The word for "hearer" occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament, excepting in the singularly similar passage
in the Epistle to the Romans, which is one of the passages that give
support to the theory that either St. Paul had seen this Epistle, or
St. James had seen St. Paul's: "Not the hearers (ἀκροαταί) of a law
are just before God, but the doers of a law shall be justified," (Rom.
ii. 13; see above, p. 57). The verb (ἀκροάομαι) does not occur in the
New Testament; but another cognate substantive (ἀκροατήριον), meaning
"a place of hearing," is found in the Acts (xxv. 23). In classical
Greek this group of words indicates _attentive_ listening, especially
in the case of those who attend the lectures of philosophers and the
addresses of public speakers. It is thus used frequently in Plato,
Aristotle, Thucydides, and Plutarch. It is somewhat too hastily
concluded that there is nothing of this kind included either in this
passage or in Rom. ii. 13. Possibly that is the very thing to which
both St. James and St. Paul allude. St. James, in the address which he
made to the so-called Council of Jerusalem, says, "Moses from
generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read
in the synagogues every Sabbath" (Acts xv. 21). The Jews came with
great punctiliousness to these weekly gatherings, and listened with
much attention to the public reading and exposition of the Law; and
too many of them thought that with that the chief part of their duty
was performed. This habitual public testimony of respect for the
Mosaic Law and the traditional interpretations of it, and this zeal to
acquire a knowledge of its contents and an insight into its meaning,
was the main portion of what was required of them. This, St. James
tells them, is miserably insufficient, whether what they hear be the
Law or the Gospel, the Law with or without the illumination of the
life of Christ. "Being swift to hear" (ver. 19) and to understand is
well, but "apart from works it is barren." It is the habitual practice
in striving to _do_ what is heard and understood that is of value.
"Not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh" is blessed,
and "blessed in his doing." To suppose that mere hearing brings a
blessing is "deluding your own selves." Bede rightly quotes Rev. i. 3
in illustration: "Blessed are they that hear the words of the
prophecy, and _keep_ the things which are written therein."

The word here used for deluding (παραλογιζόμενοι) is found nowhere
else in the New Testament, excepting in one passage in the Epistle to
the Colossians (ii. 4), in which St. Paul warns them against allowing
any one to "delude them with persuasiveness of speech." But the word
is fairly common both in ordinary Greek and in the Septuagint. Its
meaning is to mislead with fallacious reasoning, and the substantive
(παραλογισμός) is the Aristotelian term for a fallacy. The word does
not necessarily imply that the fallacious reasoning is known to be
fallacious by those who employ it. To express that we should rather
have the word which is used in 2 Peter i. 16 to characterize
"cunningly devised fables" (σεσοφισμένοι μῦθοι). Here we are to
understand that the victims of the delusion do not, although they
might, see the worthlessness of the reasons upon which their
self-contentment is based. It is precisely in this that the danger of
their position lies. Self-deceit is the most subtle and fatal deceit.
The mere knowledge of the law derived from their attentive listening
to it does but increase their evil case, if they do not practise it.
"To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin"
(iv. 17).

The Jews have a saying that the man who hears without practising is
like a husbandman who ploughs and sows, but never reaps. Such an
illustration, being taken from natural phenomena, would be quite in
harmony with the manner of St. James; but he enforces his meaning by
employing a far more striking illustration. He who is a hearer and not
a doer "is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror."
Almost all the words in this sentence are worthy of separate attention.

"Is like unto a _man_" (ἔοικεν ἀνδρί). St. James uses the more
definite word, which usually excludes women, and sometimes boys also.
He does not say, "is like unto a _person_" (ἀνθρώπῳ), which would have
included both sexes and all ages. A somewhat quaint explanation has
been suggested by Paes, and adopted as probable elsewhere; viz. that
men, as a rule, give only a passing look to themselves in the glass;
whereas it is a feminine weakness to be fond of attentive
observations. But it is fatal to this suggestion that the word here
used for beholding (κατανοεῖν) means to fix one's mind upon, and
consider attentively. It is the word used in "Consider the ravens,"
and "Consider the lilies" (Luke xii. 24, 27). Moreover, the Greeks
sometimes do what we very frequently do in speaking of the human race;
they employ the male sex as representative of both. This usage is
found in the New Testament; _e.g._ "The queen of the South shall rise
up in the judgment with _the men_ (τῶν ἀνδρῶν) of this generation, and
shall condemn them.... _The men_ (ἄνδρες) of Nineveh shall stand up in
the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it" (Luke xi. 31,
32). Here it is impossible that the women are not included. And this
use of "man" (ἀνήρ) in the sense of human being is specially common in
St. James. We have it four times in this chapter (vv. 8, 12, 20, 23),
and again in the second (ver. 2) and third (ver. 2).

This man, then, attentively studies his natural face in a mirror. The
words for "his natural face" literally mean "the face of his birth"
(τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ), _i.e._ the features with which he
was born; and the mirror would be a piece of polished metal, which,
however excellent, would not reflect the features with the clearness
and fidelity of a modern looking-glass. Hence the necessity for
attentive observation, the result of which is that the man recognizes
his own face beyond all question. But what follows? "He beheld
himself, and he has gone away, and he straightway forgot what manner
of man he was." The perfect tense between two aorists gives a lively
simplicity to the narration (κατενόησεν ... ἀπελήλυθεν ... ἐπελάθετο).
This is represented as a common case, though not an invariable one.
Most of us know our own features sufficiently well to recognize them
in a good representation of them, but do not carry in our minds a very
accurate image of them. But what has all this to do with being
hearers, and not doers, of the Word?

The spoken or written Word of God is the mirror. When we hear it
preached, or study it for ourselves, we can find the reflexion of
ourselves in it, our temptations and weaknesses, our failings and
sins, the influences of God's Spirit upon us, and the impress of His
grace. It is here that we notice one marked difference between the
inspiration of the sacred writers and the inspiration of the poet and
the dramatist. The latter show us _other people_ to the life;
Scripture shows us _ourselves_.

  "Our mirror is a blessed book,
    Where out from each illumined page
  We see one glorious image look,
    All eyes to dazzle and engage,

  The Son of God; and that indeed
    We see Him as He is we know,
  Since in the same bright glass we read
    The very life of things below.

  Eye of God's Word, where'er we turn
    Ever upon us! thy keen gaze
  Can all the depths of sin discern,
    Unravel every bosom's maze.

  Who that has felt thy glance of dread
    Thrill through his heart's remotest cells,
  About his path, about his bed,
    Can doubt what Spirit in thee dwells?"[51]

Keble's metaphor is somewhat more elaborate than St. James's. He
represents the Bible as a mirror, out of which the reflected image of
the Son of God looks upon us and reads our inmost selves. St. James
supposes that in the mirror we see ourselves reflected. But the
thought is the same, that through hearing or reading God's Word our
knowledge of our characters is quickened. But does this quickened
knowledge last? does it lead to action, or influence our conduct? Too
often we leave the church or our study, and the impression produced by
the recognition of the features of our own case is obliterated. "We
straightway forget what manner of men we are," and the insight which
has been granted to us into our own true selves is just one more
wasted experience.

But this need not be so, and in some cases a very different result may
be noticed. Instead of merely looking attentively for a short time, he
may _stoop down and pore over it_. Instead of forthwith going away, he
may _continue_ in the study of it. And instead of straightway
forgetting, he may prove a mindful _doer that worketh_. Thus the three
parts of the two pictures are made exactly to balance. The word for
"looking into" is an interesting one (παρακύπτειν). It indicates
bending forward to examine earnestly. It is used of Peter looking into
the sepulchre (Luke xxiv. 12, a verse of doubtful genuineness); and of
Mary Magdalene doing the same (John xx. 11); and of the angels
desiring to look into heavenly mysteries (1 Peter i. 12). He who does
this recognizes God's Word as being "the perfect law, the law of
liberty." The two things are the same. It is when the law is seen to
be perfect that it is found to be the law of liberty. So long as the
law is not seen in the beauty of its perfection, it is not loved, and
men either disobey it or obey it by constraint and unwillingly. It is
then a law of bondage. But when its perfection is recognized men long
to conform to it; and they obey, not because they must, but because
they choose. To do what one likes is freedom, and they like to obey.
It is in this way that the moral law of the Gospel becomes "the law of
liberty," not by imposing fewer obligations than the moral law of the
Jew or of the Gentile, but by infusing into the hearts of those who
welcome it a disposition and a desire to obey. Christian liberty is
never licence. It is not the relaxation of needful restraints, but the
spontaneous acceptance of them as excellent in themselves and
beneficial to those who observe them. It is the difference between a
code imposed by another, and a constitution voluntarily adopted. To be
made to work for one whom one fears is slavery and misery; to choose
to work for one whom one loves is freedom and happiness. The Gospel
has not abolished the moral law; it has supplied a new and adequate
motive for fulfilling it.

"Being not a hearer that forgetteth." Literally, "having become not a
hearer of forgetfulness" (οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς γενόμενος);
_i.e._ having by practice come to be a hearer, who is characterized,
not by forgetfulness of what he hears, but by attentive performance of
it.[52] The unusual word "forgetfulness" occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament, nor in classical Greek; but it is found in
Ecclesiasticus (xi. 27), "The affliction of an hour causeth
forgetfulness of pleasure;" and this adds a trifle to the evidence
that St. James was acquainted with that book (see above, p. 71). "A
hearer of forgetfulness" exactly balances, both in form and in
thought, "a doer of work;" and this is well brought out by the
Revisers, who turn _both_ genitives by a relative clause: "a hearer
that forgetteth," and "a doer that worketh." The Authorized Version is
much less happy: "a forgetful hearer, but a doer of _the_ work." There
is no article in the Greek, and the translation of one genitive by an
adjective, and of the other by a genitive, is unfortunate. "A doer of
_work_" (ποιητὴς ἔργου), or "a doer that _worketh_," is an expression
that emphasizes just what St. James wishes to emphasize, viz. the
necessity of actively practising what is attentively heard. "A doer"
would have sufficed, but "a doer that worketh" makes the idea of
habitual action still more prominent.

"This man shall be blessed in his doing" (ἐν τῇ ποιήσει). Once more we
have a word which is found nowhere else in the New Testament, but
occurs in Ecclesiasticus (xix. 20), and with much the same meaning as
here: "All wisdom is fear of the Lord; and in all wisdom there is
doing of the law" (ποίησις νόμου). The correspondence between the
meaning of St. James and the meaning of the son of Sirach is very
close. Mere knowledge without performance is of little worth: it is in
the doing that a blessing can be found.

The danger against which St. James warns the Jewish Christians of the
Dispersion is as pressing now as it was when he wrote. Never was there
a time when interest in the Scriptures was more keen or more widely
spread, especially among the educated classes; and never was there a
time when greater facilities for gratifying this interest abounded.
Commentaries, expositions, criticisms, introductions, helps of all
kinds, exegetical, homiletic, historical, and textual, suitable both
for learned and unlearned students, multiply year by year. But it is
much to be feared that with many of us the interest in the sacred
writings which is thus roused and fostered remains to a very large
extent a literary interest. We are much more eager to know all _about_
God's Word than from it to learn His will respecting ourselves, that
we may do it; to prove that a book is genuine than to practise what it
enjoins. We study Lives of Christ, but we do not follow the life of
Christ. We pay Him the empty homage of an intellectual interest in His
words and works, but we do not the things which He says. We throng and
press Him in our curiosity, but we obtain no blessing, because in all
our hearing and learning there is no true wisdom, no fear of the Lord,
and no doing of His Word.

[51] _The Christian Year_, St. Bartholomew's Day.

[52] This "characterizing genitive" is not exactly a Hebraism, like
"children of wrath," "son of perdition," "son of light," and the like;
but the use of the genitive in place of an adjective is more common in
Oriental languages, and therefore in Greek which is under Oriental
influences. See p. 122.




 CHAPTER X.

 _THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES. THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF INVOLVED
 IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP._

 "My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord
 of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your
 synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come
 in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that
 weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place;
 and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my
 footstool; are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges
 with evil thoughts?"--ST. JAMES ii. 1-4.


As has been stated already, in a previous chapter (p. 23), one of
Luther's main objections to this Epistle is that it does not "preach
and urge Christ." "It teaches Christian people, and yet does not once
notice the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ. The writer
names Christ a few times; but he teaches nothing of Him, but speaks of
general faith in God."

This indictment has been more fully drawn out by a modern writer. "The
author's stand-point is Jewish rather than Christian. The ideas are
cast in a Jewish mould. The very name of Christ occurs but twice
(i. 1; ii. 1), and His atonement is scarcely touched. We see little
more than the threshold of the new system. It is the teaching of a
Christian Jew, rather than of one who had reached a true apprehension
of the essence of Christ's religion. The doctrinal development is
imperfect. It is only necessary to read the entire Epistle to perceive
the truth of these remarks. In warning his readers against
transgression of the law by partiality to individuals, the author
adduces Jewish rather than Christian motives (ii. 8-13). The greater
part of the third chapter, respecting the government of the tongue, is
of the same character, in which Christ's example is not once alluded
to, the illustrations being taken from objects in nature. The warning
against uncharitable judgment does not refer to Christ, or to God, who
puts His Spirit in the hearts of believers, but to the law
(iv. 10-12). He who judges his neighbour judges the law. The
exhortation to feel and act under constant remembrance of the
dependence of our life on God belongs to the same category
(iv. 13-17). He that knows good without doing it is earnestly
admonished to practise virtue and to avoid self-security, without
reference to motives connected with redemption. Job and the Prophets
are quoted as examples of patience, not Christ; and the efficacy of
prayer is proved by the instance of Elias, without allusion to the
Redeemer's promise (v. 17). The Epistle is wound up after the same
Jewish fashion, though the opportunity of mentioning Christ, who gave
Himself a Sacrifice for sin, presented itself naturally."[53]

All this may be admitted, without at all consenting to the conclusion
which is drawn from it. Several other considerations must be taken
into account before we can form a satisfactory opinion respecting the
whole case. Few things are more misleading, in the interpretation of
Scripture, than the insisting upon one set of facts and texts, and
passing over all that is to be found on the other side. In this manner
the most opposite views may be equally proved from Scripture.
Universalism and the eschatology of Calvin, Pelagianism and Fatalism,
Papalism and Presbyterianism.

First, both logically and chronologically the teaching of St. James
precedes that of St. Paul and of St. John. To call it "retrograde"
when compared with either of them is to call a child retrograde when
compared with a man. St. Paul had to feed his converts with milk
before he fed them with meat, and the whole of the congregations
addressed by St. James in this letter must have been at a
comparatively early stage of development. In some respects even the
Mother Church of Jerusalem, from which his letter was written, did not
get beyond these early stages. Before it had done so the centre of
Christendom had moved from Jerusalem to Antioch; and to Jerusalem it
never returned. It was useless to build a structure of doctrine before
a foundation of morality had been laid. Advent must come before
Christmas, and Lent before Easter. The manifold significance of the
great truths of the Incarnation and the Resurrection would not be well
appreciated by those who were neglecting some of the plainest
principles of the moral law; and to appeal to the sanctions which
every Jew from his childhood had been accustomed to regard as final
was probably in the long-run more convincing than to remind these
converts of the additional sanctions which they had admitted when they
entered the Christian Church. Moreover, there are passages in the
Epistle which seem to show that St. James at times looks aside to
address Jews who are not Christians at all, and it may be that even
when He addresses Christian converts he deliberately prefers arguments
which would weigh with Jew and Christian alike to those which would
appeal to the latter only. Like St. Paul himself, he was willing to
become to the Jews a Jew, that he might win the Jews. Besides which,
we must allow something for the bias of his own mind. To his death he
remained in many respects, not only a saintly shepherd of the
Christian Church, but also a Hebrew of Hebrews. He is the last Jewish
prophet as well as the first Christian bishop, a Hebrew Rabbi inside
the Church; and even if the condition of his readers had not made it
desirable to lay much stress upon the Law and the Old Testament, the
associations of a lifetime would have led him frequently to those old
sources of truth and morality, all the more so as no authoritative
Christian literature was as yet in existence. It was part of his
mission to help in creating such a literature. He sets one of the
first, it may be the very first, of the mystic stones, which, although
apparently thrown together without order or connexion, form so
harmonious and so complete a whole; and alike in the solidity of its
material and in the simplicity of its form this Epistle is well fitted
to be one of the first stones in such a building.

But it is easy to go away with an exaggerated view of the so-called
deficiencies of this letter as regards distinctly Christian teaching.
The passage before us is a strong piece of evidence, and even if it
stood alone it would carry us a long way. Moreover, the strength of it
is not much affected by the ambiguity of construction which confronts
us in the original. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty
how the genitive "of glory" (τῆς δόξης) ought to be taken; but the
Revisers are possibly right: "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons."[54] Nor does it
much matter whether we take the Greek negative (μὴ ... ἔχετε) as an
imperative, "Do not go on holding;" or as an interrogative which
expects a negative reply, "Do ye hold?" In any case we have the
Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the fact of His being an object of faith
to Christians, placed before us in clear language. No mere Jew, and no
Ebionite who believed that Jesus was a mere man, could have written
thus. And the words with which the Epistle opens are scarcely less
marked: "James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ a bond-servant."
In both passages the title "Lord," which in the Old Testament means
Jehovah, is given to Jesus Christ, and in the opening words God and
the Lord Jesus are placed side by side as equal. Moreover, St. James,
who might have claimed honour as the brother of the Lord, prefers to
style himself His bond-servant. He has "known Christ after the flesh,"
few more closely and intimately, and he knows from experience how
little such knowledge avails: "henceforth knows he Him so no more." He
who does the will of God is the true brother of the Lord, and it is
this kind of relationship to Christ that he wishes to secure for his
readers.

Nor do these two passages, in which Jesus Christ is mentioned by name,
stand alone. There is the question, "Do not they blaspheme the
honourable Name by which ye were called?" The honourable Name, which
had been "called upon" them, is that of Christ, and if it can be
blasphemed it is a Divine Name (ii. 7). The Second Advent of Christ,
"the coming of the Lord," is a thing for which Christians are to wait
patiently and longingly (v. 7-9), and the office which He will then
discharge is that of the Divine Judge of all mankind. "The coming of
the Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that
ye be not judged: behold, the Judge standeth before the doors" (v. 8,
9).

Nor have we yet exhausted the passages which in this singularly
practical and undoctrinal Epistle point clearly to the central
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ and His eternal relation to His
Church. "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the
Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name
of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and
the Lord shall raise him up" (v. 14, 15). As in the case of the man
healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts iii. 6, 16) it is "in
the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom God raised from the
dead, even in this Name," that the sick man is to be restored. And
some interpreters (Dorner and Von Soden) think that Christ is
included, or even exclusively intended, in "One is the Lawgiver and
the Judge" (iv. 12. Comp. v. 9). Thus Liddon: "Especially noteworthy
is his assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of men, is not
the delegated representative of an absent Majesty, but is Himself the
Legislator enforcing His own laws. The Lawgiver, he says, is One Being
with the Judge who can save and can destroy; the Son of man, coming in
the clouds of heaven, has enacted the law which He thus
administers."[55] But without taking into account expressions of which
the interpretation is open to doubt, there is quite enough to show us
that the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His redeeming death, His abiding
power, and His return to judgment are the basis of the moral teaching
of St. James, and are never long absent from his thoughts.
Expressions, some of which no mere Jew or Ebionite could have used,
and others which no such imperfect believer would have been likely to
use, abound in this short Epistle, in spite of its simple and
practical character.[56]

"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of
glory, with respect of persons." These words open a new section of the
letter, as the renewed address indicates; and although the Epistle is
not a set treatise, capable of analysis, but a letter, in which the
subjects to be treated are loosely strung together in the order in
which they occur to the writer, yet the connexion between the two very
different subjects of this section and the preceding one can be
traced. The previous section teaches that much hearing is better than
much talking, and that much hearing is worthless without corresponding
conduct. This section denounces undue respect of persons, and
especially of wealthy persons during public worship. The connecting
thoughts are religious worship and the treatment of the poor. The
conduct which is true devotion is practical benevolence, moral purity,
and unworldliness. This conclusion suggests a new subject, worldly
respect of persons in public worship. That is the very reverse of pure
devotion. To _profess_ one's belief in Jesus Christ, the Lord of
glory, and at the same time _show_ one's belief in the majesty of mere
money, is grievously incongruous. St. James is not making any attack
on differences of rank, or asserting that no man is to be honoured
above another. He is pointing out that reverence for the wealthy is no
part of Christianity, and that such reverence is peculiarly out of
place in the house of God, especially when it brings with it a
corresponding disregard of the poor.

"If there come into your _synagogue_." This is one of several
improvements which the Revisers have introduced into this passage. The
Authorized Version has "assembly," which obscures the fact that the
letter is written in those very early days of the Church in which the
Jewish Christians still attended the worship of the Temple and the
synagogue, or if they had a separate place of worship, spoke of it
under the old familiar name. The latter is probably what is meant
here. St. James, in writing to Christians, would hardly speak of a
Jewish place of worship as "_your_ synagogue," nor would he have
rebuked Christians for the way in which different persons were treated
in a synagogue of the Jews. The supposition that "the article (τὴν
συναγωγὴ ὑμῶν) indicates that the _one_ synagogue of the entire Jewish
Christian Dispersion is meant, _i.e._ their religious community
symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship,"
is quite unfounded, and against the whole context. A typical
incident--perhaps something which had actually been witnessed by
St. James, or had been reported to him--is made the vehicle of a
general principle (comp. i. 11). That the reference is to judicial
courts often held in synagogues is also quite gratuitous, and destroys
the contrast between "pure religion" and worldly respect of persons in
public worship.

Another improvement introduced by the Revisers is a uniform
translation of the word (ἐσθής) capriciously rendered "apparel,"
"raiment," and "clothing." Only one word is used in the Greek, and it
is misleading to use three different words in English. By a quaint
misuse of the very passage before us, the translators of 1611 defend
their want of precision in such matters, and avow that in many cases
precision was deliberately sacrificed to variety and to a wish to
honour as many English words as possible by giving them a place in the
Bible! In ordinary copies of the Authorized Version the Address to
King James is commonly given, the far more instructive Address to the
Reader never. Near the close of it the translators say as follows:--

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that
we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an
identity of words, as some peradventure would wish we had done,
because they observe, that some learned men some where, have been as
exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the
sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified
the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of
the same sense every where) we were especially careful, and made a
conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the
same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we
translate the _Hebrew_ or _Greek_ word once by _Purpose_, never to
call it _Intent_; if one where _Journeying_, never _Travelling_; if
one where _Think_, never _Suppose_; if one where _Pain_, never _Ache_;
if one where _Joy_, never _Gladness_, etc. Thus to mince the matter,
we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it
would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly
Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why
should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely,
when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father
in the primitive time shewed himself greatly moved, that one of
new-fangleness called κράββατοω σκίμπους though the difference be
little or none (Niceph. Call. viii. 42); and another reporteth, that
he was much abused for turning _Cucurbita_ (to which reading the
people had been used) into _Hedera_ (Jerome _in iv. Jonæ_. See S.
Augustine, _Epist._ 71). Now if this happen in better times, and upon
so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we
should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged
(by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good
English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher,
that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images
to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks
behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words,
Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of a
like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed
peradventure with S. James his words, namely, _To be partial in our
selves and judges of evil thoughts_."[57]

In the passage before us the repetition of one and the same word for
"clothing" is possibly not accidental. The repetition accentuates the
fact that such a thing as clothing is allowed to be the measure of a
man's merit. The rich man is neither the better nor the worse for his
fine clothes, the poor man neither the better nor the worse for his
shabby clothes. The error lies in supposing that such distinctions
have anything to do with religion, or ought to be recognized in public
worship; and still more in supposing that any one, whether rich or
poor, may at such a time be treated with contumely.

"Are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges with evil
thoughts?" Here, as in the first verse, there is a doubt whether the
sentence is an interrogation or not. In the former case the meaning is
the same, whichever way we take it; for a question which implies a
negative answer (μή interrogative) is equivalent to a prohibition.
In the present case the meaning will be affected if we consider the
sentence to be a statement of fact, and the number of translations
which have been suggested is very large. In both cases we may safely
follow the Vulgate and _all_ English versions in making the first
verse a prohibition, and the fourth a question. "Are ye not divided in
your own mind?" Or more literally, "Did ye not doubt in yourselves?"
_i.e._ on the typical occasion mentioned. At the outset St. James
says, "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of
persons." But the conduct described respecting the treatment of the
gold-ringed man and the squalidly clothed man shows that they do have
respect of persons in their religion, and that shows that genuine
faith in Christ is wanting. Such behaviour proves that they _doubt_ in
themselves. They are not single-hearted believers in the Lord Jesus,
but double-minded doubters (i. 6, 7), trying to make the best of both
worlds, and to serve God and Mammon.

The word rendered "doubt" (διακρίνεσθαι) _may_ mean "distinguish:"
"Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?" It is so taken by
Renan (_L'Antéchrist_, p. 49) and others. This makes sense, but it is
rather obvious sense; for of course to give a rich man a good place,
and a poor man a bad one, is making distinctions. It seems better to
adhere to the meaning which the word certainly has in the preceding
chapter (i. 6), as well as elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt.
xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23; Acts x. 20; Rom. iv. 20; xiv. 23), and
understand it as referring to the want of faith in Christ and in His
teaching which was displayed in a worldly preference for the rich over
the poor, even in those services in which His words were to be taught
and His person adored.

"Judges _with_ evil thoughts" is an improvement on the more literal
but misleading "judges _of_ evil thoughts" (κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν
ποωηρὼν). The meaning of the genitive case is that the evil thoughts
_characterize_ the judges, as in such common phrases as "men _of_ evil
habits," "judges _of_ remarkable severity" (see above on "hearers of
forgetfulness," p. 108). The word for "thoughts" is one which in
itself suggests evil, even without any epithet. It is the word used of
the reasonings of the Pharisees, when they taxed our Lord with
blasphemy for forgiving sins (Luke v. 22. Comp. xxiv. 38). St. Paul
uses it of those who are "vain in their reasonings" (Rom. i. 21;
1 Cor. iii. 20), and couples with it "murmurings" (Phil. ii. 14) as
congenial company. Those men who, even while engaged in the public
worship of God, set themselves up as judges to honour the rich and
condemn the poor, were not holding the faith of Jesus Christ, but were
full of evil doubts, questionings, and distrust.

[53] Davidson, _Introduction to the Study of the N.T._ vol. i. pp. 327,
328, 2nd ed. (Longmans, 1882).

[54] There is, however, a good deal to be said for Bengel's
suggestion, that τῆς δόξης is in apposition with τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰ.
Χριστοῦ, _i.e._ "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (who is) the
Glory." Comp. Luke ii. 32; Eph. i. 7; 1 Peter iv. 14; 2 Peter i. 17;
Col. i. 27; John i. 14. See J. B. Mayor's note in the _Expositor_,
Sept., 1889, pp. 225-28.

[55] _Bampton Lectures_, Lect. VI, p. 433 (Rivingtons, 1867).

[56] Among these should be included the phrases which St. James uses
to indicate the Gospel revelation: "the Word of truth" (i. 18); "the
implanted Word" (i. 21); "the perfect law, the law of liberty"
(i. 25); "the royal law" (ii. 8).

[57] From the _Exact Reprint Page for Page of the A.V. published in
the Year MDCXI._ (Oxford, 1833). See also Trench _On the A.V. of the
N.T._, pp. 83-101, and Lightfoot _On a Fresh Revision of the N.T._,
pp. 33-59, for some excellent remarks on the harm done by making
differences in the English where there is no difference in the Greek.
In the present passage, besides the threefold translation of ἐσθής,
there is a double translation of λαμπρός ("_goodly_ apparel" and
"gay clothing"), and also of εἰσέλθῃ ("come" and "come in"). In
1 John ii. 24 we have the same word (μένειν) translated in three
different ways ("abide," "remain," "continue") in the same verse,
entirely destroying the effect of St. John's impressive repetition.




 CHAPTER XI.

 _THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING THE POOR.
 THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW._

 "Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor
 as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which
 He promised to them that love Him? But ye have dishonoured the poor
 man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the
 judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by the
 which ye are called? Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to
 the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
 but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by
 the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
 yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of
 all."--ST. JAMES ii. 5-10.


St. James is varied in his style. Sometimes he writes short,
maxim-like sentences, which remind us of the Book of Proverbs;
sometimes, as in the passage before us, he is as argumentative as
St. Paul. Having condemned worldly respect of persons as practical
infidelity, he proceeds to prove the justice of this estimate; and he
does so with regard to both items of the account: these respecters of
persons are utterly wrong, both in their treatment of the poor and in
their treatment of the rich. The former is the worse of the two; for
it is in flat contradiction of the Divine decree, and is an attempt to
reverse it. God has said one thing about the poor man's estate, and
these time-servers, publicly in the house of God, say another.

"Hearken, my beloved brethren." He invites their attention to an
affectionate and conclusive statement of the case. "Did not God choose
them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of
the kingdom? But _ye_ have dishonoured the poor man." By the humble
life which, by Divine decree, God's Son led upon the earth, by the
social position of the men whom He chose as His Apostles and first
disciples, by blessings promised to the poor and to the friends of the
poor, both under the Law and under the Gospel, God has declared His
special approbation of the poor man's estate. "But _ye_" (ὑμεῖς δέ,
with great emphasis on the pronoun) "have dishonoured the poor man."
With Haman-like impiety ye would disgrace "the man whom the King
delights to honour."

Let us not misunderstand St. James. He does not say or imply that the
poor man is promised salvation on account of his poverty, or that his
poverty is in any way meritorious. That is not the case, any more than
that the wealth of the rich is a sin. But so far as God has declared
any preference, it is for the poor, rather than for the rich. The poor
man has fewer temptations, and he is more likely to live according to
God's will, and to win the blessings that are in store for those who
love Him. His dependence upon God for the means of life is perpetually
brought home to him, and he is spared the peril of trusting in riches,
which is so terrible a snare to the wealthy. He has greater
opportunities of the virtues which make man Christlike, and fewer
occasions of falling into those sins which separate him most fatally
from Christ. But opportunities are not virtues, and poverty is not
salvation. Nevertheless, to a Christian a poor man is an object of
reverence, rather than of contempt.

But the error of the worldly Christians whom St. James is here
rebuking does not end with dishonouring the poor whom God has
honoured; they also pay special respect to the rich. Have the rich, as
a class, shown that they deserve anything of the kind? Very much the
reverse, as experience is constantly proving. "Do not the rich oppress
you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they
blaspheme the honourable Name by the which ye are called?" Unless we
consider the "synagogue" mentioned above to be a Jewish one, in which
Christians still worship, as in the Temple at Jerusalem, the
gold-ringed worshipper is to be understood as a Christian; and reasons
have been given above (p. 118) for believing that the "synagogue" is a
Christian place of worship. But in any case the rich oppressors here
spoken of are not to be thought of as exclusively or principally
Christian. They are the wealthy as a class, whether converts to
Christianity or not; and apparently, as in chap. v. 1-6, it is the
wealthy unbelieving Jews who are principally in the writer's mind.
St. James is thinking of the rich Sadducees, who at this period
(A.D. 35-65) were among the worst oppressors of the poorer Jews, and
of course were specially bitter against those who had become adherents
of "the Way," and who seemed to them to be renegades from the faith of
their forefathers. It was precisely to this kind of oppression that
St. Paul devoted himself with fanatical zeal previous to his
conversion (Acts ix. 1, 2; 1 Tim. i. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6).

"The judgment-seats" before which these wealthy Jews drag their poorer
brethren may be either heathen or Jewish courts (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 2,
4), but are probably the Jewish courts frequently held in the
synagogues. The Roman government allowed the Jews very considerable
powers of jurisdiction over their own people, not only in purely
ecclesiastical matters, but in civil matters as well. The Mosaic Law
penetrated into almost all the relations of life, and where it was
concerned it was intolerable to a Jew to be tried by heathen law.
Consequently the Romans found that their control over the Jews was
more secure, and less provocative of rebellion, when the Jews were
permitted to retain a large measure of self-government. This applied
not only to Palestine, but to all places in which there were large
settlements of Jews. Even in the New Testament we find ample evidence
of this. The high priest grants Saul "letters to _Damascus_, unto the
synagogues," to arrest all who had become converts to "the Way" (Acts
ix. 2). And St. Paul before Herod Agrippa II. declares that, in his
fury against converts to Christianity, he "persecuted them even unto
_foreign_ cities" (Acts xxvi. 11). Most, if not all, of the five
occasions on which he himself "received of the Jews forty stripes save
one" (2 Cor. xi. 24) must have been during his travels outside
Palestine. The proconsul Gallio told the Jews of Corinth, not only
that they might, but that they must, take their charges against Paul,
for breaking Jewish law, to a Jewish tribunal; and when they
ostentatiously beat Sosthenes before his own tribunal, for some Jewish
offence, he abstained from interfering. It is likely enough that
provincial governors, partly from policy, partly from indifference,
allowed Jewish officials to exercise more power than they legally
possessed; but they possessed quite enough to enable them to handle
severely those who contravened the letter or the traditional
interpretation of the Mosaic Law. That the dragging before the
judgment-seats refers to bringing Christians before Roman magistrates,
in a time of persecution, is a gratuitous hypothesis which does not
fit the context. It was the mob, rather than the rich, that in the
earlier persecutions acted in this way. The rich were contemptuously
indifferent. There is, therefore, no evidence here that the letter was
written during the persecution under Domitian or under Trajan.
Nevertheless, their Christianity, rather than their debt, was probably
the reason why these poor Jewish Christians were prosecuted in the
synagogue courts by the wealthy Jews.

So far from this passage being evidence that the Epistle was written
at a time long after the death of St. James, it is, as Renan has
carefully shown, almost a proof that it was written during his
lifetime. As regards the relations between rich and poor, "the Epistle
of James is a perfect picture of the Ebionim at Jerusalem in the years
which preceded the revolt." The destruction of Jerusalem "introduced
so complete a change into the situation of Judaism and of
Christianity, that it is easy to distinguish a writing subsequent to
the catastrophe of the year 70 from a writing contemporary with the
third Temple. Pictures evidently referring to the internal contests
between the different classes in Jerusalem society, such as that which
is presented to us in the Epistle of James, are inconceivable after
the revolt of the year 66, which put an end to the reign of the
Sadducees."[58] These were the times when women bought the priesthood
for their husbands from Herod Agrippa II., and went to see them
officiate, over carpets spread from their own door to the Temple; when
wealthy priests were too fastidious to kill the victims for sacrifice
without first putting on silk gloves; when their kitchens were
furnished with every appliance for luxurious living, and their tables
with every delicacy; and when, supported by the Romans, to whom they
truckled, they made war upon the poor priests, who were supported by
the people. Like Hophni and Phinehas, they sent out their servants to
collect what they claimed as offerings, and if payment was refused the
servants took what they claimed by force. Facts like these help us to
understand the strong language used here by St. James, and the still
sterner words at the beginning of the fifth chapter. In such a state
of society the mere possession of wealth certainly established no
claims upon the reverence of a Christian congregation; and the fawning
upon rich people, degrading and unchristian at all times, would seem
to St. James to be specially perilous and distressing then.

"Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by which ye are called?"
The last clause literally means "which was called upon you" (τὸ
ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς); and we need not doubt that the reference is
to the Name of Christ which was invoked upon them at their baptism;
_quod invocatum est super vos_, as the Vulgate has it. The same
expression is found in the Septuagint of those who are called by God's
Name (2 Chron. vii. 14; Jer. xiv. 9; xv. 16; Amos ix. 12). Some have
suggested that the name here indicated is that of "poor," or of
"brethren," or of "Christian;" but none of these is at all probable.
It may be doubted whether the last was already in common use; and
"blaspheme" would be a very strong expression to use of any of them;
whereas both it and "honourable" are quite in keeping if the name be
that of Christ. The word rendered "honourable" (καλόν) cannot be
adequately translated. It is the same as that which is rendered "good"
when we read of "the _Good_ Shepherd" (John x. 11). It suggests what
is beautiful, noble, and good, as opposed to what is foul, mean, and
wicked; and such is the Name of Christ, which is called in a special
sense "_the_ Name" (Acts v. 41; 3 John 7. Comp. Ignatius, _Eph._ iii.,
vii.; _Philad_. x.; Clem. Rom. ii., xiii.). That the blasphemers are
not Christians is shown by the clause "which was called upon _you_."
Had Christians been intended, St. James would have written "Do not
they blaspheme the honourable Name which was called upon _them_?" That
they blasphemed the Name in which they were baptized would have been
such an aggravation of their offence that he would not have failed to
indicate it. These blasphemers were no doubt Jews; and St. James has
in his mind the anathemas against Jesus Christ which were frequent
utterances among the Jews, both in the synagogues and in conversation.
St. Paul alludes to these when he says, "No man speaking in the Spirit
of God saith, Jesus is anathema;" and Justin Martyr writes, "That
which is said in the Law, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,
confirms our hope which is hung upon the crucified Christ, not as if
God were cursing that crucified One, but because God foretold that
which would be done by all of you (Jews) and those like you.... And
you may see with your eyes this very thing coming to pass; for in your
synagogues you curse all those who from Him have become Christians"
(_Trypho_, xcvi.). The text, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree," was a favourite one with the Jews in their controversies with
Christians, as St. James would know well (see Gal. iii. 13); and all
this tends to show that he refers to literal blasphemy by word of
mouth, and not to the virtual blasphemy which is involved in conduct
that dishonours Christ.

His argument, therefore, amounts to this, that the practice of
honouring the rich for their riches is (quite independently of any
dishonour done to the poor) doubly reprehensible. It involves the
meanness of flattering their own oppressors, and the wickedness of
reverencing those who blaspheme Christ. It is a servile surrender of
their own rights, and base disloyalty to their Lord.

But perhaps (the argument continues) some will defend this respect
paid to the rich as being no disloyalty to Christ, but, on the
contrary, simple fulfilment of the royal law, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." Be it so, that the rich as a class are unworthy
of respect and honour, yet nevertheless they are our neighbours, and
no misconduct on their side can cancel the obligation on our side to
treat them as we should wish to be treated ourselves. We ourselves
like to be respected and honoured, and therefore we pay respect and
honour to them. To those who argue thus the reply is easy. Certainly,
if that is your motive, ye do well. But why do you love your neighbour
as yourselves if he chances to be rich, and treat him like a dog if he
chances to be poor? However excellent your reasons for honouring the
wealthy may be, you still do not free yourselves from the blame of
showing an unchristian respect of persons, and therefore of committing
sin, "being convicted by the law as transgressors."

The law of loving one's neighbour as oneself is a "royal law," not as
having emanated from God or from Christ as King, still less as being a
law which binds even kings, or which makes kings of those who observe
it. It is a royal law, as being sovereign over other laws, inasmuch as
it is one of those two on which "hang all the Law and the Prophets"
(Matt. xxii. 40). Indeed, either of the two may be interpreted so as
to cover the whole duty of man. Thus St. Paul says of this royal law,
"The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal. v. 14). And St. John teaches the same
truth in a different way, when he declares that "he that loveth not
his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not seen"
(1 John iv. 20). The expression "royal law" occurs nowhere else,
either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint, but it is found in a
dialogue entitled Minos (p. 317), which is sometimes wrongly
attributed to Plato. It is one which might readily occur to any one as
a name for a supreme moral principle.

"Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he
is become guilty of all."[59] The law is the expression of one and the
same principle--love; and of one and the same will--the will of God.
Therefore he who deliberately offends against any one of its
enactments, however diligently he may keep all the rest, is guilty of
offending against the whole. His guiding principle is not love, but
selfishness--not God's will, but his own. He keeps nine tenths of the
law because he likes to do so, and he breaks one tenth because he
likes to do so. The fact of his wilful disobedience proves that his
obedience is not the fruit of love or loyalty, but of self-seeking. If
we ask what his character is, the answer must be, "He is a
lawbreaker." These respecters of persons claimed to be observers of
the law, because they treated their rich neighbours as they would have
liked to be treated themselves. St. James shows them that, on the
contrary, they are transgressors of the law, because they pick and
choose as to what neighbours shall be treated thus kindly. They keep
the law when it is convenient to keep it, and break it when it is
inconvenient to keep it. Such keeping of the law is in its essence,
not obedience, but disobedience. He who follows honesty only because
honesty is the best policy is not an honest man, and he who obeys the
law only because obedience suits him is not an obedient man. There is
no serving God with reservations. However small the reservation may
be, it vitiates all the rest. In order to "_fulfil_ the law" (a rare
expression, found only here and in Rom. ii. 27), we must keep it all
round, independently of our own likes and dislikes.

St. James is not here countenancing the severity of Draco, that small
crimes deserve death, and that there is no worse punishment for great
crimes; nor yet the paradox of the Stoics, that the theft of a penny
is as bad as parricide, because in either case the path of virtue is
left, and one is drowned as surely in seven feet of water as in
seventy fathoms. He is not contending that all sins are equal, and
that to break one of God's commands is as bad as to break them all.
What he maintains is that no one can claim to be a fulfiller of the
law in virtue of his extensive obedience so long as there is any
portion of the law which he wilfully disobeys. Why does he disobey in
this? Because it pleases him to do so. Then he would disobey in the
rest if it pleased him to do so. The motive of his conduct is not
submission, but self-will. He is in character "a transgressor of the
law."

Both defects are common enough still, and are likely to remain so.
Paying respect to _persons_, _dignities_, and _positions_ is a
frequent form of meanness, especially in the manner here condemned, of
courting the rich and slighting the poor. It is a Christian duty to
respect the rank or the office of those whom God has placed in a
position superior to ourselves, and it is also a Christian duty to
reverence those who by God's grace are leading lives of virtue and
holiness; but it is unchristian partiality to honour a man merely for
his wealth, or to dishonour him merely for his poverty. And secondly,
we are all of us prone to plead, both before the world and our own
consciences, the particulars in which we do _not_ offend as a set-off
against those in which we _do_. To detect ourselves thus balancing a
transgression here, against many observances there, ought at once to
startle us into the conviction that the whole principle of our lives
must be faulty. Our aim is, not to love God, or to obey Him, but to
get to heaven, or at least to escape hell, _on the cheapest terms_.

[58] _L'Antechrist_, pp. xi.-xiii., 49-54.

[59] This text caused St. Augustine much perplexity. He sent a long
discussion of it to Jerome, asking for his opinion. Augustine's solution
is that the whole law hangs on the love of God, and that every
transgression is a breach of love (_Ep._ CLXVII. iv. 16).




 CHAPTER XII.

 _FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION OF THE TEACHING
 OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL. THE RELATION OF
 LUTHER TO BOTH._

 "What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but
 have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be
 naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in
 peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things
 needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have
 not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith,
 and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my
 works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is One; thou
 doest well: the devils also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know,
 O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham
 our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son
 upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by
 works was faith made perfect; and the Scripture was fulfilled which
 saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
 righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by
 works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner
 was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she
 received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the
 body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is
 dead."--ST. JAMES ii. 14-26.


This famous passage has been quoted in full, because one needs to have
the whole of it before one in order to appreciate the value of the
arguments used on this side and on that as to its relation to the
teaching of St. Paul on the connexion between faith and works; for
which purpose mere extracts will not do; and also because considerable
changes, some of them important, have been made throughout the passage
by the Revisers, and these will influence the impression derived from
reading the passage as a whole.

It might be thought that here, at any rate, we have got, in this
singularly practical and undogmatic Epistle, a paragraph which is,
both in intention and in effect, distinctly doctrinal. It seems at
first sight to be a careful exposition of St. James's views as to the
nature and value of faith and its relation to conduct. But a little
attention will prove to us that throughout the passage St. James is as
practical in his aim as in any part of the letter, and that whatever
doctrinal teaching there may be in the passage is there because the
practical purpose of the writer could not be fulfilled without
involving doctrine, and not at all because the writer's object is to
expound or defend an article of the Christian faith. He has _agenda_
rather than _credenda_ in his mind. An orthodox creed is assumed
throughout. What needs to be produced is not right belief, but right
action.

In this affectionate pastoral St. James passes in review the defects
which he knows to exist in his readers. They have their good points,
but these are sadly marred by corresponding deficiencies. They are
swift to hear, but also swift to speak and slow to act. They believe
in Jesus Christ; but they dishonour Him by dishonouring His poor,
while they profess to keep the law of charity by honouring the rich.
They are orthodox in a Monotheistic creed; but they rest content with
that, and their orthodoxy is as barren as a dead tree. It is with this
last defect that St. James is dealing in the passage before us. And as
so often (i. 12, 19; ii. 1; iii. 1, 13; iv. 1, 13; v. 1, 7, 13), he
clearly states his main point first, and then proceeds to enforce and
elucidate it.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but
have not works? Can that faith save him?" "_That_ faith" is literally
"_the_ faith," or "_his_ faith;" viz. such faith as he professes, a
faith that produces nothing. There is no emphasis on "say." St. James
is not insinuating that the man says he has faith, when he really has
none. If that were the case, it would be needless to ask, "Can his
faith save him?" The question then would be, "Can his _profession_ of
faith save him?" But St. James nowhere throws doubt on the truth of
the unprofitable believer's professions, or on the possibility of
believing much and doing nothing. Why, then, does he put in the "say"?
Why not write, "If a man have faith"? Perhaps in order to indicate
that in such cases the man's own statement is all the evidence there
is that he has faith. In the case of other Christians their works
prove them to be believers; but where there are no works you can only
have the man's word for it that he believes. The case is parallel to
that sketched by our blessed Lord, which St. James may have in his
mind. "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that _doeth_ the will of My Father which
is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy by Thy Name, and by Thy Name cast out devils, and by Thy Name
do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. vii. 21-23). In
this case it is manifest that the profession of faith is not mere
empty hypocrisy; it is not a saying of "Lord, Lord," to one who is not
believed to be the Lord. It is a faith that can remove mountains, but
divorced from the love which makes it acceptable. The two, which God
hath joined together, have by man's self-will been put asunder.

The relation, therefore, of the teaching of St. James to that of His
Divine Brother is clear: the two are in perfect harmony. What is its
relation to the teaching of St. Paul? Omitting minor differences,
there are in the main three answers to this question: (1) The writer
of this Epistle is deliberately contradicting and correcting the
teaching of St. Paul. (2) St. James is correcting prevalent
misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable misunderstandings, of
the teaching of St. Paul. (3) St. James writes without reference to,
and possibly without knowledge of, the precise teaching of the Apostle
of the Gentiles respecting the relation between faith and works.

(1) Those who hold the first of these three views naturally maintain
that the Epistle is not genuine, but the production of some one of a
later age than St. James, who wished to have the great authority of
his name to cover an attack upon the teaching of St. Paul. Thus F. C.
Baur maintains that "the doctrine of this Epistle must be considered
as intended to correct that of Paul." This, which is taken from the
second edition of his work on the _Life and Work of St. Paul_,
published after his death in 1860, by his pupil Zeller, may be taken
as his matured opinion. In his history of the _Christian Church of the
First Three Centuries_, published in 1853, he expresses himself a
little less positively: "It is impossible to deny that the Epistle of
James presupposes the Pauline doctrine of justification. And if this
be so, its tendency is distinctly anti-Pauline, though it may not be
aimed directly against the Apostle himself. The Epistle contends
against a one-sided conception of the Pauline doctrine, which was
dangerous to practical Christianity." In both works alike Baur
contends that the Epistle of James cannot be genuine, but is the
product of some unknown writer in the second century. The opinions
that our Epistle is directed against the teaching of St. Paul, and
that it is not genuine, naturally go together. It is against all
probability that St. James, who had supported St. Paul in the crisis
at Jerusalem in A.D. 50 (Acts xv.), and who had given to him and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9), should attack
St. Paul's own teaching. But to deny the authenticity of the Epistle,
and place it in a later age, does not really avoid the difficulty of
the supposed attack on St. Paul, and it brings with it other
difficulties of a no less serious character. In any case the letter is
addressed to _Jewish_ Christians (i. 1); and what need was there to
put _them_ on their guard against the teaching of a man whom they
regarded with profound distrust, and whose claim to be an Apostle they
denied? It would be as reasonable to warn Presbyterians against the
doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Besides all which, as Renan
has shown, the letter sketches a state of things which would be
inconceivable after the outbreak of the war which ended in the
destruction of Jerusalem; _i.e._ it cannot be placed later than
A.D. 66.

Dr. Salmon justly observes, "To a disciple of Baur there is no more
disappointing document than this Epistle of James. Here, if anywhere
in the New Testament, he might expect to find evidence of anti-Pauline
rancour. There is what looks like flat contradiction between this
Epistle and the teaching of St. Paul.... But that opposition to Paul
which, on a superficial glance, we are disposed to ascribe to the
Epistle of James, disappears on a closer examination. I postpone for
the moment the question whether we can suppose that James intended to
contradict Paul; but whether he intended it or not, he has not really
done so; he has denied nothing that Paul has asserted, and asserted
nothing that a disciple of Paul would care to deny. On comparing the
language of James with that of Paul, all the distinctive expressions
of the latter are found to be absent from the former. St. Paul's
thesis is that a man is justified not by works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ. James speaks only of works without any mention
of the law, and of faith without any mention of Jesus Christ, the
example of faith which he considers being merely the belief that there
is one God. In other words, James is writing not in the interests of
Judaism, but of morality. Paul taught that faith in Jesus Christ was
able to justify a man uncircumcised and unobservant of the Mosaic
ordinances.... For this Pauline teaching James not only has no word of
contradiction, but he gives no sign of ever having heard of the
controversy which, according to Baur, formed the most striking feature
in the early history of the Church.... Whatever embarrassment the
apparent disagreement between the Apostles has caused to orthodox
theologians is as nothing in comparison with the embarrassment caused
to a disciple of Baur by their fundamental agreement."[60]

We may, therefore, safely abandon a theory which involves three such
difficulties. It assigns a date to the Epistle utterly incompatible
with its contents. It makes the writer warn Jewish Christians against
teaching which they, of all Christians, were least likely to find
attractive. And after all, the warning is futile; for the writer's own
teaching is fundamentally the same as that which it is supposed to
oppose and correct. Besides all which, we may say with Reuss that this
Tübingen criticism is mere baseless ingenuity. It "overlooks the
unique originality of the Epistle;" and to ascribe to the writer of it
"any ulterior motives at all is simply a useless display of
acuteness."[61]

(2) This last remark will not predispose us to regard with favour the
second hypothesis mentioned above--that in this passage St. James is
correcting prevalent misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable
misunderstandings, of the teaching of St. Paul. There is no trace of
any such intention, or of any anxiety on the subject. The purpose of
the passage is not doctrinal at all, but, like the rest of the
Epistle, eminently practical. The writer's object throughout is to
inculcate the necessity of right conduct. Readiness in hearing the
Word of God is all very well, and correctness of belief in God is all
very well; but without readiness to do what pleases Him it is as
useless as a dead vine. Whether St. James remembered the words, "We
reckon that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the
law" (Rom. iii. 28), must remain doubtful; for, as has been pointed
out in a previous exposition (p. 57), there is some reason for
believing that he had seen the Epistle to the Romans. But there is no
reason for believing that he was acquainted with the parallel
statement in the Epistle to the Galatians, "We being Jews by nature,
and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ,
even we believe on Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith
in Christ, and not by the works of the law; because by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified" (ii. 15, 16). Of one thing,
however, we may feel confident, that, had St. James been intending to
give the true meaning of either or both of these statements by
St. Paul, in order to correct or obviate misunderstanding, he would
not have worded his exposition in such a way that it would be possible
for a hasty reader to suppose that he was contradicting the Apostle of
the Gentiles instead of merely explaining him. He takes no pains to
show that while St. Paul speaks of works _of the law_, _i.e._
ceremonial observances, he himself is speaking of good works
generally, which St. Paul no less than himself regarded as a necessary
accompaniment and outcome of living faith.

Moreover, was there any likelihood that the Jewish Christians would
thus misinterpret St. Paul? Among Gentile Christians there was danger
of this, because they misunderstood the meaning of the Christian
liberty which he so enthusiastically preached. But with Jewish
converts the danger was that they would refuse to listen to St. Paul
in anything, not that they would be in such a hurry to accept his
teaching that they would go away with a wrong impression as to what he
really meant. And precisely that doctrine of St. Paul which was so
liable to be misunderstood St. James proclaims as clearly as St. Paul
does in this very Epistle. He also declares, more than once, that the
Gospel is the "law of _liberty_" (i. 25; ii. 12). Had St. James been
writing to Gentiles, there might have been some reason for his putting
his readers on their guard against misinterpreting St. Paul's manner
of preaching the Gospel: in writing "to the twelve tribes which are of
the Dispersion" there was little or no reason for so doing.

(3) We fall back, therefore, upon the far more probable view that in
this passage St. James is merely following the course of his own
argument, without thinking of St. Paul's teaching respecting the
relation between faith and works. How much of St. Paul's teaching he
knew depends upon the date assigned to this Epistle, whether before
A.D. 50 or after A.D. 60. At the later date St. James must have known
a good deal, both from St. Paul himself, and also from the many Jews
of the Dispersion, who had heard the preaching of the Apostle in his
missionary journeys, had seen some of his letters, and brought both
good and evil reports of his work to the Church at Jerusalem. Each
year, at the Passover and other festivals, James would receive
multitudes of such visitors. But it does not follow that because he
knew a good deal about St. Paul's favourite topics, and his manner of
presenting the faith to his hearers, therefore he has his teaching in
his mind in writing to Jewish converts. The passage before us is
thoroughly intelligible, if it is treated on its own merits without
any reference to Pauline doctrine; and not only so, but we may say
that it becomes more intelligible when so treated.

At the opening of the Epistle St. James insists on the necessity of
_faith_: "knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience" (ver.
3); and "Let him ask in faith, nothing doubting" (ver. 6). Then he
passes on to insist upon the necessity of _practice_: "Be ye doers of
the Word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves" (ver. 22);
and "Being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh"
(ver. 25). At the beginning of the second chapter he does exactly the
same. He first assumes that as a matter of course his hearers have
_faith_ (ver. 1), and then goes on to show how this must be
accompanied by the _practice_ of charity and mercy towards all, and
especially towards the poor (vv. 2-13). The passage before us is
precisely on the same lines.

It is assumed that his readers profess to have _faith_ (vv. 14, 19);
and St. James does not dispute the truth of this profession. But he
maintains that unless this faith is productive of a corresponding
_practice_, its existence is not proved, and its utility is disproved.
It is as barren as a withered tree, and as lifeless as a corpse. Three
times over he asserts, with simple emphasis, that faith apart from
practice is dead (vv. 17, 20, 26). All which tends to show that the
present paragraph comes quite naturally in the course of the
exhortation, without any ulterior motive being assumed to explain it.
It is in close harmony with what precedes, and thoroughly in keeping
with the practical aim of the whole letter. We see how easily it might
have been written by any one who was in earnest about religion and
morality, without having heard a word about St. Paul's teaching
respecting faith in Christ and works of the law.

It has been already pointed out that a letter addressed by a Jewish
Christian to Jewish Christians would not be very likely to take
account of St. Paul's doctrine, whether rightly or wrongly understood.
It has also been shown that St. James, as is natural in such a letter,
makes frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and also has numerous
coincidences with portions of that now much-neglected Jewish
literature which forms a connecting-link between the Old and the New,
especially with the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. It was in the
period in which that literature was produced that discussions as to
the value of faith in God, as distinct from the fear of God, and in
particular as to the faith of Abraham, the friend of God, began to be
common among the Jews, especially in the Rabbinical schools. We find
evidence of this in the Apocrypha itself. "Abraham was a great father
of many people, ... and when he was proved he was found faithful"
(Ecclus. xliv. 19, 20). "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation,
and it was imputed unto him for righteousness?" (1 Macc. ii. 52),
where the interrogative form of sentence may have suggested the
interrogation of St. James. It will be observed that in these passages
we have the adjective "faithful" (πιστός); not yet the substantive
"faith" (πίστις). But in the composite and later work which in our
Bibles bears the name of the Second Book of Esdras we have faith
frequently spoken of. "The way of truth shall be hidden, and the land
shall be barren of faith" (v. 1). "As for faith, it shall flourish,
corruption shall be overcome, and the truth, which hath been so long
without fruit, shall be declared" (vi. 28). "Truth shall stand, and
faith shall wax strong" (vii. 34). And in two remarkable passages
faith is spoken of in connexion with works. "And every one that shall
be saved, and shall be able to escape by his works, and by faith,
whereby ye have believed, shall be preserved from the said perils, and
shall see My salvation" (ix. 7, 8). "These are they that have works
and faith towards the Most Mighty" (xiii. 23). With Philo faith and
the faith of Abraham are common topics. He calls it "the queen of the
virtues," and the possessor of it "will bring a faultless and most
fair sacrifice to God." Abraham's faith is not easy to imitate, so
hard is it to trust in the unseen God rather than in the visible
creation; whereas he without wavering believed that the things which
were not present were already present, because of His most sure faith
in Him who promised.[62]

Other instances might be quoted from Jewish literature; but these
suffice to show that the nature of faith, and the special merit of
Abraham's faith, were subjects often discussed among Jews, and were
likely to be familiar to those whom St. James addresses. This being
so, it becomes probable that what he has in his mind is not Pauline
doctrine, or any perversion of it, but some Pharisaic tenet respecting
these things. The view that faith is formal orthodoxy--the belief in
one God--and that correctness of belief suffices for the salvation of
a son of Abraham, seems to be the kind of error against which
St. James is contending. About faith in Christ or in His Resurrection
there is not a word. It is the cold Monotheism which the
self-satisfied Pharisee has brought with him into the Christian
Church, and which he supposes will render charity and good works
superfluous, that St. James is condemning.[63] So far from this being
a contradiction to St. Paul, it is the very doctrine which he taught,
and almost in the same form of words. "_What doth it profit_ (τί
ὄφελος), my brethren," asks St. James, "if a man say he hath faith,
but have not works?" "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing," says St. Paul. "And if I bestow all
my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but
have not love, _it profiteth me nothing_" (οὐδὲω ὠφελοῦμαι).

St. Paul and St. James are thus found to be agreed. It remains to be
shown that in spite of his own statements to the contrary, Luther was
as fully agreed with the latter as with the former. When he writes
about St. James, Luther's prejudices lead him to disparage a form of
teaching which he has not been at the pains to comprehend. But when he
expounds St. Paul he does so in words which would serve excellently as
an exposition of the teaching of St. James. In his preface to the
Epistle to the Romans he writes thus: "But faith is a Divine work in
us, that changes us and begets us anew of God (John i. 13); and kills
the old man, makes of us quite other men in heart, courage, mind, and
strength, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. Oh, it is a living,
active, energetic, mighty thing, this faith, _so that it is impossible
that it should not work what is good without intermission. It does not
even ask whether good works are to be done, but before one asks it has
done them, and is ever doing._ But he who does not do such works is a
man without faith, is fumbling and looking about him for faith and
good works, and knows neither the one nor the other, yet chatters and
babbles many words about both.

"Faith is a living, deliberate confidence in the grace of God, so sure
that it would die a thousand times for its trust. And such confidence
and experience of Divine grace make a man merry, bold, and joyful
towards God and all creatures; all which the Holy Spirit does in
faith. Hence the man without compulsion becomes willing and joyful to
do good to every one, to serve every one, to endure everything, for
the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. Therefore
_it is impossible to sever works from faith; yea, as impossible as to
sever burning and shining from fire_."[64]

[60] _Introduction to the N.T._, 4th ed. (Murray, 1889), pp. 504, 506,
a work which may be most heartily commended to every student of the
New Testament.

[61] _History of the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T._, translated by E.
L. Houghton (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1884), p. 143.

[62] See the passages quoted by Hatch, _Essays in Biblical Greek_,
pp. 85-87 (Oxford, 1889).

[63] This kind of error is alluded to by Justin Martyr, in his
_Dialogue with the Jew Trypho_: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
will not impute sin; that is, who receives remission of his sins from
God as having repented of his sins; but not as ye deceive yourselves,
and some other (Jews) who resemble you in this, who say that even if
they are sinners, but attain to a knowledge of God, the Lord will not
impute sin to them" (cxli., p. 370, D).

[64] _Werke_, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt am Main, 1840, p. 1415.




 CHAPTER XIII.

 _THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;
 AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT._

 "Thou believest that God is One; thou doest well: the devils also
 believe, and shudder."

 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered
 up Isaac his son upon the altar?"

 "And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by
 works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out
 another way?"--ST. JAMES ii. 19, 21, 25.


In the preceding chapter several points of great interest were passed
over, in order not to obscure the main issue as to the relation of
this passage to the teaching of St. Paul. Some of these may now be
usefully considered.

Throughout this volume, as in the companion volume on the Pastoral
Epistles and other volumes for which the present writer is in no way
responsible, the Revised Version has been taken as the basis of the
expositions. There may be reasonable difference of opinion as to its
superiority to the Authorized Version for public reading in the
services of the Church, but few unprejudiced persons would deny its
superiority for purposes of private study and both private and public
exposition. Its superiority lies not so much in happy treatment of
difficult texts, as in the correction of a great many small errors of
translation, and above all in the substitution of a great many true or
probable readings for others that are false or improbable. And while
there are not a few cases in which there is plenty of room for doubt
whether the change, even if clearly a gain in accuracy, was worth
making, there are also some in which the uninitiated student wonders
why no change was made. The passage before us contains a remarkable
instance. Why has the word "devils" been retained as the rendering of
δαιμόνια, while "demons" is relegated to the margin?

There are two Greek words, very different from one another in origin
and history, which are used both in the Septuagint and in the New
Testament to express the unseen and spiritual powers of evil. These
are διάβολος and δαιμόνιον, or in one place δαίμων (Matt. xlii. 31;
_not_ Mark v. 12, or Luke vii. 29, or Rev. xvi. 14 and xviii. 2). The
Scriptural usage of these two words is quite distinct and very marked.
Excepting where it is used as an adjective (John vi. 70; 1 Tim.
iii. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 3; Titus ii. 3), διάβολος is one of the names of
Satan, the great enemy of God and of men, and the prince of the
spirits of evil. It is so used in the Books of Job and of Zechariah,
as well as in Wisdom ii. 24, and also throughout the New Testament,
viz. in the Gospels and Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and
the Apocalypse. It is, in fact, a proper name, and is applied to one
person only. It commonly, but not invariably (1 Chron. xxi. 1; Ps.
cviii. [cix.] 5) has the definite article. The word δαιμόνιον, on the
other hand, is used of those evil spirits who are the messengers and
ministers of Satan. It is thus used in Isaiah, the Psalms, Tobit,
Baruch, and throughout the New Testament. It is used also of the false
gods of the heathen, which were believed to be evil spirits, or at
least the productions of evil spirits, who are the inspirers of
idolatry; whereas Satan is never identified with any heathen divinity.
Those who worship false gods are said to worship "demons," but never
to worship "the devil." Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New
are the two words ever interchanged. Satan is never spoken of as a
δαίμων or δαιμόνιον, and his ministers are never called διάβολοι. Is
it not a calamity that this very marked distinction should be
obliterated in the English Version by translating both Greek words by
the word "devil," especially when there is another word which, as the
margin admits, might have been used for one of them? The Revisers have
done immense service by distinguishing between _Hades_, the abode of
departed spirits of men, and _Hell_ or _Gehenna_, the place of
punishment (iii. 6). Why did they reject a similar opportunity by
refusing to distinguish _the devil_ from _the demons_ over whom he
reigns? This is one of the suggestions of the American Committee which
might have been followed with great advantage and (so far as one sees)
no loss.

St. James has just been pointing out the advantage which the Christian
who has works to show has over one who has only faith. The one can
prove that he possesses both; the other cannot prove that he possesses
either. The works of the one are evidence that the faith is there
also, just as leaves and fruit are evidence that a tree is alive. But
the other, who possesses only faith, cannot prove that he possesses
even that. He says that he believes, and we may believe his statement;
but if any one doubts or denies the truth of his profession of faith
he is helpless. Just as a leafless and fruitless tree may be alive;
but who is to be sure of this? We must note, however, that in this
case the statement is _not_ doubted. "Thou _hast_ faith, and I have
works;" the possibility of possessing faith without works is not
disputed. And again, "Thou _believest_ that God is One;" the orthodox
character of the man's creed is not called in question. This shows
that there is no emphasis on "say" in the opening verse, "If a man
_say_ he hath faith, but have not works;" as if such a profession were
incredible (see p. 137). And this remains equally true if, with some
of the best editors, we turn the statement of the man's faith into a
question, "Dost thou believe that God is One?" For "Thou doest well"
shows that the man's orthodoxy is not questioned. The object of
St. James is not to prove that the man is a hypocrite, and that his
professions are false; but that, _on his own showing_, he is in a
miserable condition. He may plume himself upon the correctness of his
Theism; but as far as that goes, he is no better than the demons, to
whom this article of faith is a source, not of joy and strength, but
of horror.

It is most improbable that, if he had been alluding to the teaching of
St. Paul, St. James would have selected the Unity of the Godhead as
the article of faith held by the barren Christian. He would have taken
faith in Christ as his example. But in writing to Jewish Christians,
without any such allusion, the selection is very natural. The
Monotheism of his creed, in contrast with the foolish "gods many, and
lords many," of the heathen, was to the Jew a matter of religious and
national pride. He gloried in his intellectual and spiritual
superiority to those who could believe in a plurality of deities. And
there was nothing in Christianity to make him think less highly of
this supreme article of faith. Hence, when St. James desires to give
an example of the faith on which a Jewish Christian, who had sunk into
a dead formalism, would be most likely to rely, he selects this
article, common to both the Jewish and the Christian creed, "I believe
that God is One." "Thou doest well" is the calm reply; and then
follows the sarcastic addition, "The demons also believe--and shudder."

Is St. James here alluding to the belief mentioned above, that the
gods of the heathen are demons? They, of all evil spirits, might be
supposed to know most about the Unity of God, and to have most to fear
in reference to it. "They sacrificed unto demons, which were no God,"
we read in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 17). And again, in the Psalms, "They
sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons" (cvi. 37. Comp.
xcvi. 5). In these passages the Greek word δαιμόνια represents the
Elilim or Shedim, the nonenities who were allowed to usurp the place
of Jehovah.[65] And St. Paul affirms, "That the things which the
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God" (1 Cor.
x. 20). It is quite possible, therefore, that St. James is thinking of
demons as objects of idolatrous worship, or at any rate as seducing
people into such worship, when he speaks of the demons' belief in the
Unity of God.

But a suggestion which Bede makes, and which several modern
commentators have followed, is well worth considering. St. James may
be thinking of the demons which possessed human beings, rather than
those which received or promoted idolatrous worship. Bede reminds us
of the many demons who went out at Christ's command, crying out that
He was the Son of God, and especially of the man with the legion among
the Gadarenes, who expressed not only belief, but horror: "What have I
to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I adjure Thee by
God, that Thou torment me not." Without falling into the error of
supposing that demons can mean demoniacs, we may imagine how readily
one who had witnessed such scenes as those recorded in the Gospels
might attribute to the demons the expressions of horror which he had
heard in the words and seen on the faces of those whom demons
possessed. Such expressions were the usual effect of being confronted
by the Divine presence and power of Christ, and were evidence both of
a belief in God and of a dread of Him. St. James, who was then living
with the Mother of the Lord, and sometimes followed His Divine Brother
in His wanderings, would be almost certain to have been a witness of
some of these healings of demoniacs. And it is worth noting that the
word which in the Authorized Version is rendered "tremble," and in the
Revised "shudder" (φρίσσειν), expresses _physical horror_,
especially as it affects the hair; and in itself it implies a body,
and would be an inappropriate word to use of the fear felt by a purely
spiritual being. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but in
the Septuagint we find it used in the Book of Job: "Then a spirit
passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up" (iv. 15). It is
a stronger word than either "fear" or "tremble," and strictly speaking
can be used only of men and other animals.

This horror, then, expressed by the demons through the bodies of those
whom they possess, is evidence enough of faith. Can faith such as that
save any one? Is it not obvious that a faith which produces, not works
of love, but the strongest expressions of fear, is not a faith on
which any one can rely for his salvation? And yet the faith of those
who refuse to do good works, because they hold that their faith is
sufficient to save them, is no better than the faith of the demons.
Indeed, in some respects it is worse. For the sincerity of the demons'
faith cannot be doubted; their terror is proof of it: whereas the
formal Christian has nothing but cold professions to offer. Moreover,
the demons are under no self-delusion; they know their own terrible
condition. For the formalist who accepts Christian truth and neglects
Christian practice there is a dreadful awakening in store. There will
come a time when "believe and shudder" will be true also of him. "But,
before it is too late, willest thou to get to know, O vain man, that
faith apart from works is barren?"

"Wilt thou know" does not do justice to the full meaning of the Greek
(θέλεισ γνῶναι). The meaning is not, "I would have you know," but,
"Do you wish to have acquired the knowledge?" You profess to know God
and to believe in Him; do you desire to know what faith in Him really
means? "O vain man" is literally, "O empty man," _i.e._ empty-headed,
empty-handed, and empty-hearted. Empty-headed, in being so deluded as
to suppose that a dead faith can save; empty-handed, in being devoid
of true spiritual riches; empty-hearted, in having no real love either
for God or man. The epithet seems to be the equivalent of _Raca_, the
term of contempt quoted by our Lord as the expression of that angry
spirit which is akin to murder (Matt. v. 22). The use of it by
St. James may be taken as an indication that the primitive Church saw
that the commands in the Sermon on the Mount are not rules to be
obeyed literally, but illustrations of principles. The sin lies not so
much in the precise term of reproach which is employed as in the
spirit and temper which are felt and displayed in the employment of
it. The change from "dead" (A.V.) to "barren" (R.V.) is not a change
of translation, but of reading (νεκρά to ἀργή), the latter term
meaning "_workless_, idle, unproductive" (Matt. xx. 3, 6; 1 Tim.
v. 13; Titus i. 12; 2 Peter i. 8). Aristotle (_Nic. Eth._, I. vii. 11)
asks whether it is likely that every member of a man's body should
have a function or work (ἔργον) to perform, and that man as a whole
should be functionless (ἀργός). Would nature have produced such a
vain contradiction? We should reproduce the spirit of St. James's
pointed interrogation if we rendered "that faith without fruits is
fruitless."

In contrast with this barren faith, which makes a man's spiritual
condition no better than that of the demons, St. James places two
conspicuous instances of living and fruitful faith--Abraham and Rahab.
The case of "Abraham our father" would be the first that would occur
to every Jew. As the passages in the Apocrypha (Wisdom x. 5; Ecclus.
xliv. 20; 1 Macc. ii. 52) prove, Abraham's faith was a subject of
frequent discussion among the Jews, and this fact is quite enough to
account for its mention by St. James, St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3; Gal.
iii. 6), and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 17),
without supposing that any one of them had seen the writings of the
others. Certainly there is no proof that the writer of this Epistle is
the borrower, if there is borrowing on either side. It is urged that
between the authors of this Epistle and that to the Hebrews there must
be dependence on one side or the other, because each selects not only
Abraham, but Rahab, as an example of faith; and Rahab is so strange an
example that it is unlikely that two writers would have selected it
independently. There is force in the argument, but less than at first
sight appears. The presence of Rahab's name in the genealogy of the
Christ (Matt. i. 5), in which so few women are mentioned, must have
given thoughtful persons food for reflexion. Why was such a woman
singled out for such distinction? The answer to this question cannot
be given with certainty. But whatever caused her to be mentioned in
the genealogy may also have caused her to be mentioned by St. James
and the writer of Hebrews; or the fact of her being in the genealogy
may have suggested her to the authors of these two Epistles. This
latter alternative does not necessarily imply that these two writers
were acquainted with the written Gospel of St. Matthew, which was
perhaps not in existence when they wrote. The genealogy, at any rate,
was in existence, for St. Matthew no doubt copied it from official or
family registers. Assuming, however, that it is not a mere coincidence
that both writers use Abraham and Rahab as examples of fruitful faith,
it is altogether arbitrary to decide that the writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews wrote first. The probabilities are the other way. Had
St. James known that Epistle, he would have made more use of it.

The two examples are in many respects very different. Their
resemblance consists in this, that in both cases faith found
expression in action, and this action was the source of the believer's
deliverance. The case of Abraham, which St. Paul uses to prove the
worthlessness of "works of the law" in comparison with a living faith,
is used by St. James to prove the worthlessness of a dead faith in
comparison with works of love which are evidence that there is a
living faith behind them. But it should be noticed that a different
episode in Abraham's life is taken in each Epistle, and this is a
further reason for believing that neither writer refers to the other.
St. Paul appeals to Abraham's faith in believing that he should have a
son when he was a hundred, and Sarah ninety years of age (Rom.
iv. 19). St. James appeals to Abraham's faith in offering up Isaac,
when there seemed to be no possibility of the Divine promise being
fulfilled if Isaac was slain. The latter required more faith than the
former, and was much more distinctly an _act_ of faith; a work, or
series of works, that would never have been accomplished if there had
not been a very vigorous faith to inspire and support the doer. The
_result_ (ἐξ ἔργων) was that Abraham was "justified," _i.e._ he was
accounted righteous, and the reward of his faith was with still
greater solemnity and fulness than on the first occasion (Gen.
xv. 4-6) promised to him: "By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord,
_because thou hast done this thing_, and hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying
I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which
is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed; _because thou hast obeyed My voice_" (Gen. xxii. 16-18).

With the expression "was justified _as a result of_ works" (ἐξ ἔργων
ἐδικαιώθη), which is used both of Abraham and of Rahab, should be
compared our Lord's saying, "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and
by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt. xii. 37), which are of
exactly the same form; literally, "_As a result_ of thy words thou
shalt be accounted righteous, and _as a result_ of thy words thou
shalt be condemned" (ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων
σου καταδικασθήσῃ); that is, it is from the consideration of the
words in the one case, and of the works in the other, that the
sentence of approval proceeds; they are the _source_ of the
justification. Of course from the point of view taken by St. James
words are "works;" good words spoken for the love of God are quite as
much fruits of faith and evidence of faith as good deeds. It is not
impossible that his phrase is an echo of expressions which he had
heard used by Christ.

That the words rendered "offered up Isaac his son upon the altar"
really mean this, and not merely "brought Isaac his son as a victim up
to the altar," is clear from other passages where the same phrase
(ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον) occurs. Noah "offering burnt
offerings on the altar" (Gen. viii. 20) and Christ "offering our sins
on the tree" (1 Pet. ii. 24) might be interpreted either way, although
the _bringing up_ to the altar and to the tree does not seem so
natural as the _offering on them_. But a passage in Leviticus about
the offerings of the leper is quite decisive: "Afterward he shall kill
the burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and
the meal offering upon the altar" (xiv. 19, 20). It would be very
unnatural to speak of bringing the victim up to the altar after it had
been slain. (Comp. Baruch i. 10; 1 Macc. iv. 53.) The Vulgate, Luther,
Beza, and all English versions agreed in this translation; and it is
not a matter of small importance, not a mere nicety of rendering. In
all completeness, both of will and deed, Abraham had actually
surrendered and offered up to God his only son, when he laid him bound
upon the altar, and took the knife to slay him--to slay that son of
whom God had promised, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Then "was
the Scripture fulfilled;" _i.e._ what had been spoken and partly
fulfilled before (Gen. xv. 6) received a more complete and a higher
fulfilment. Greater faith hath no man than this, that a man gives back
His own promises unto God. The real but incomplete faith of believing
that aged parents could become the progenitors of countless thousands
had been accepted and rewarded. Much more, therefore, was the perfect
faith of offering to God the one hope of posterity accepted and
rewarded. This last was a _work_ in which his faith co-operated, and
which proved the complete development of his faith; by it "was faith
made perfect."

"He was called the Friend of God." Abraham was so called in Jewish
tradition; and to this day this is his name among his descendants the
Arabs, who much more commonly speak of him as "the Friend" (_El
Khalil_), or "the Friend of God" (_El Khalil Allah_), than by the name
Abraham. Nowhere in the Old Testament does he receive this name,
although our Versions, both Authorized and Revised, would lead us to
suppose that he is so called. The word is found neither in the Hebrew
nor in existing copies of the Septuagint. In 2 Chron. xx. 7, "Abraham
Thy friend" should be "Abraham Thy beloved;" and in Isaiah xli. 8,
"Abraham My friend" should be "Abraham whom I loved." In both
passages, however, the Vulgate has the rendering _amicus_, and some
copies of the Septuagint had the reading "friend" in 2 Chron. xx. 7,
while Symmachus had it in Isa. xli. 8 (See Field's _Hexapla_, I., p.
744; II., p. 513). Clement of Rome (x., xvii.) probably derived this
name for Abraham from St. James. But even if Abraham is nowhere styled
"the Friend of God," he is abundantly described as being such. God
talks with him as a man talks with his friend, and asks, "Shall I hide
from Abraham that which I do?" (Gen. xviii. 17); which is the very
token of friendship pointed out by Christ. "No longer do I call you
servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have
called you friends; for all things that I heard from My Father I have
made known unto you" (John xv. 15). It is worthy of note that
St. James seems to intimate that the word is not in the sacred
writings. The words, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned
unto him for righteousness," are introduced with the formula, "The
Scripture was fulfilled which saith." Of the title "Friend of God" it
is simply said "he was called," without stating by whom.[66]

"_In like manner_ was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works?"
It is because of the similarity of her case to Abraham's, both of them
being a contrast to the formal Christian and the demons, that Rahab is
introduced. In her case also faith led to action, and the action had
its result in the salvation of the agent. If there had been faith
without action, if she had merely believed the spies without doing
anything in consequence of her belief, she would have perished. She
was glorified in Jewish tradition, perhaps as being a typical
forerunner of proselytes from the Gentile world; and it may be that
this accounts for her being mentioned in the genealogy of the Messiah,
and consequently by St. James and the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. The Talmud mentions a quite untrustworthy tradition that she
married Joshua, and became the ancestress of eight persons who were
both priests and prophets, and also of Huldah the prophetess.
St. Matthew gives Salmon the son of Naasson as her husband; he may
have been one of the spies.

But the contrast between Abraham and Rahab is almost as marked as the
similarity. He is the friend of God, and she is of a vile heathen
nation and a harlot. His great act of faith is manifested towards God,
hers towards men. His is the crowning act of his spiritual
development; hers is the first sign of a faith just beginning to
exist. He is the aged saint, while she is barely a catechumen. But
according to her light, which was that of a very faulty moral
standard, "she did what she could," and it was accepted.

These contrasts have their place in the argument, as well as the
similarities. The readers of the Epistle might think, "Heroic acts are
all very suitable for Abraham; but we are not Abrahams, and must be
content with sharing his faith in the true God; we cannot and need not
imitate his acts." "But," St. James replies (and he writes ὁμοίως δέ,
not καὶ ὁμοίως), "there is Rahab, Rahab the heathen, Rahab the
harlot; at least you can imitate her." And for the Jewish Christians
of that day her example was very much in point. She welcomed and
believed the messengers, whom her countrymen persecuted, and would
have slain. She separated herself from her unbelieving and hostile
people, and went over to an unpopular and despised cause. She saved
the preachers of an unwelcome message for the fulfilment of the Divine
mission with which they had been entrusted. Substitute the Apostles
for the spies, and all this is true of the believing Jews of that age.
And as if to suggest this lesson, St. James speaks not of "young men,"
as Joshua vi. 23, nor of "spies," as Hebrews xi. 31, but of
"messengers," a term which is as applicable to those who were sent by
Jesus Christ as to those who were sent by Joshua.

Plutarch, who was a young man at the time when this Epistle was
written, has the following story of Alexander the Great, in his
"Apothegms of Kings and Generals": The young Alexander was not at all
pleased with the successes of his father, Philip of Macedon. "My
father will leave me nothing," he said. The young nobles who were
brought up with him replied, "He is gaining all this for you." Almost
in the words of St. James, though with a very different meaning, he
answered, "_What does it profit_ (τί ὄφελος;), if I possess much
and _do_ nothing?" The future conqueror scorned to have everything
done for him. In quite another spirit the Christian must remember that
if he is to conquer he must not suppose that his heavenly Father, who
has done so much for him, has left him nothing to do. There is the
fate of the barren fig-tree as a perpetual warning to those who are
royal in their professions of faith, and paupers in good works.

[65] Döllinger, _The Gentile and the Jew_, II., pp. 384, 386, Eng. Tr.,
_Heidenthum und Judenthum_, pp. 825, 827.

[66] The following story is given by Mahometan commentators on the
passage, "God took Abraham for His friend," which occurs in the fourth
chapter of the Koran, entitled _Nessa_, or "Women:" Abraham was the
father of the poor, and in a famine he emptied his granaries to feed
them. Then he sent to one of his friends, who was a great lord in
Egypt, for corn. But the friend said, "We also are in danger of
famine. The corn is not wanted for Abraham, but for his poor. I must
keep it for our own poor." And the messengers returned with empty
sacks. As they neared home they feared being mocked for their failure;
so they filled their sacks with sand, and came in well laden. In
private they told Abraham of his friend's refusal, and Abraham at once
retired to pray. Meanwhile Sarah opened one of the sacks, and found
excellent flour in it, and with this began to bake bread for the poor.
When Abraham returned from prayer he asked Sarah whence she obtained
the flour. "From that which your friend in Egypt has sent," she
replied. "Say rather from that which the true Friend has sent, that is
God; for it is He who never fails us in our need." At the moment when
Abraham called God his Friend God took Abraham also to be His friend.
(See the notes in Sale's _Koran_; D'Herbelot's _Bibliothèque
Orientale_, Maestricht, 1776, p. 13; Bishop Thirlwall's _Letters to a
Friend_, Bentley, 1882, pp. 63, 64).

Eusebius (_Præp. Evan._ IX. xix., p. 420) quotes Alexander Polyhistor
(_c._ B.C. 80) as stating that Molon (Josephus, _Contra Apionem_, II.
xiv.) interpreted the name Abraham as meaning the "Father's Friend"
(πατρὸς φίλος), probably through a misspelling of the name. (See
Lightfoot's note on Clem. Rom. x.)




 CHAPTER XIV.

 _THE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS.
 THE POWERS AND PROPENSITIES OF THE TONGUE.
 THE SELF-DEFILEMENT OF THE RECKLESS TALKER._

 "Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive
 heavier judgment. For in many things we all stumble. If any stumble
 not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body
 also. Now if we put the horses' bridles into their mouths, that they
 may obey us, we turn about their whole body also. Behold, the ships
 also, though they are so great, and are driven by rough winds, are
 yet turned about by a very small rudder, whither the impulse of the
 steersman willeth. So the tongue also is a little member, and
 boasteth great things. Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small
 a fire! And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our
 members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on
 fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell. For every kind
 of beasts and birds, of creeping things and things in the sea, is
 tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind: but the tongue can no man
 tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison."--ST. JAMES
 iii. 1-8.


From the "idle faith" (πίστις ἀργή) St. James goes on to speak of
the "idle word" (ῥῆμα ἀργόν). The change from the subject of faith
and works to that of the temptations and sins of speech is not so
abrupt and arbitrary as at first sight appears. The need of warning
his readers against sins of the tongue has been in his mind from the
first. Twice in the first chapter it comes to the surface. "Let every
man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (ver. 19), as if
being slow to hear and swift to speak were much the same as being
swift to wrath. And again, "If any man thinketh himself to be
religious, while he bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his heart,
this man's religion is vain" (ver. 26). And now the subject of barren
faith causes him to return to the warning once more. For it is
precisely those who neglect good works that are given to talk much
about the excellence of their faith, and are always ready to instruct
and lecture others. That _controversies_ about faith and works
suggested to him this section about offences of the tongue, is a
gratuitous hypothesis. St. James shows no knowledge of any such
controversies. As already pointed out, the purpose of the preceding
section (ii. 14-26) is not controversial or doctrinal, but purely
practical, like the rest of the Epistle. The paragraph before us is of
the same character; it is against those who substitute words for works.

St. James is entirely of Carlyle's opinion that in the majority of
cases, if "speech is silvern, silence is golden;" but he does not
write twenty volumes to prove the truth of this doctrine. "In noble
uprightness, he values only the strict practice of concrete duties,
and hates talk" (Reuss); and while quite admitting that teachers are
necessary, and that some are called to undertake this office, he tells
all those who desire to undertake it that what they have to bear in
mind is its perils and responsibilities. And it is obvious that true
teachers must always be a minority. There is something seriously wrong
when the majority in the community, or even a large number, are
pressing forward to teach the rest.

"Be not many teachers, my brethren;" or, if we are to do full justice
to the compact fulness of the original, "Do not many of you become
teachers." St. James is not protesting against a usurpation of the
ministerial office; to suppose this is to give far too specific a
meaning to his simple language. The context points to no such sin as
that of Korah and his company, but simply to the folly of incurring
needless danger and temptation. In the Jewish synagogues any one who
was disposed to do so might come forward to teach, and St. James
writes at a time when the same freedom prevailed in the Christian
congregations. "Each had a psalm, had a teaching, had a revelation,
had a tongue, had an interpretation.... All could prophesy one by one,
that all might learn and all be comforted" (1 Cor. xiv. 26, 31). But
in both cases the freedom led to serious disorders. The desire to be
called of men "Rabbi, Rabbi," told among Jews and Christians alike,
and many were eager to expound who had still the very elements of true
religion to learn. It is against this general desire to be prominent
as instructors both in private and in public that St. James is here
warning his readers. The Christian Church already has its ministers
distinct from the laity, to whom the laity are to apply for spiritual
help (v. 14); but it is not an invasion of their office by the laity
to which St. James refers, when he says, "Do not many of you become
teachers." These Jewish Christians of the Dispersion were like those
at Rome to whom St. Paul writes; each of them was confident that his
knowledge of God and the Law made him competent to become "a guide of
the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, a corrector of the
foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the Law the form of knowledge
and of the truth" (Rom. ii. 17 _ff._). But in teaching others they
forgot to teach themselves; they failed to see that to preach the law
without being a doer of the law was to cause God's name to be
blasphemed among the Gentiles; and that to possess faith and do
nothing but talk was but to increase their own condemnation; for it
was to place themselves among those who are condemned by Christ
because "they say and do not" (Matt. xxiii. 3). The phrase "to receive
judgment" (κρῖμα λαμβάνειν) is in _form_ a neutral one: the judgment
may conceivably be a favourable one, but in _usage_ it implies that
the judgment is adverse (Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47; Rom. xiii. 2).
Even without the verb "receive" this word "judgment" in the New
Testament generally has the meaning of a _condemnatory_ sentence (Rom.
ii. 2, 3; iii. 8; v. 16; 1 Cor. xi. 29; Gal. v. 10; 1 Tim. iii. 6;
v. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 3; Jude 4; Rev. xvii. 1; xviii. 20).
And there is no reason to doubt that such is the meaning here; the
context requires it. The fact that St. James with affectionate
humility and persuasiveness includes himself in the judgment--"_we_
shall receive"--by no means proves that the word is here used in a
neutral sense. In this he is like St. John, who breaks the logical
flow of a sentence in a similar manner, rather than seem not to
include himself: "If any man sin, _we_ have an Advocate" (1 John
ii. 1); _he_ is as much in need of the Advocate as others. So also
here, St. James, as being a teacher, shares in the heavier
condemnation of teachers. It was the conviction that the word is not
neutral, but condemnatory, which produced the rendering in the
Vulgate, "knowing that ye receive greater condemnation" (_scientes
quoniam majus judicium sumitis_), it being thought that St. James
ought not to be included in such a judgment.

But this is to miss the point of the passage. St. James says that "in
many things we stumble--_every one of us_." He uses the strong form of
the adjective (ἅπαντες for πάντες), and places it last with great
emphasis. Every one of us sins, and therefore there is condemnation in
store for every one of us. But those of us who are teachers will
receive a heavier sentence than those of us who are not such; for our
obligations to live up to the law which we know, and profess, and urge
upon others, are far greater. Heaviest of all will be the condemnation
of those who, without being called or qualified, through fanaticism,
or an itch for notoriety, or a craze for controversy, or a love of
fault-finding, push themselves forward to dispense instruction and
censure. They are among the fools who "rush in where angels fear to
tread," and thereby incur responsibilities which they need not, and
ought not, to have incurred, because they do not possess the
qualifications for meeting them and discharging them. The argument is
simple and plain: "Some of us must teach. All of us frequently fall.
Teachers who fall are more severely judged than others. Therefore do
not many of you become teachers."

In what sphere is it that we most frequently fall? Precisely in that
sphere in which the activity of teachers specially lies--in speech.
"If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man." St. James
is not thinking merely of the teacher who never makes a mistake, but
of the man who never sins with the tongue. There is an obvious, but by
no means exclusive, reference to teachers, and that is all. To every
one of us, whatever our sphere in life, the saying comes home that one
who offends not in word is indeed a _perfect_ man. By "perfect"
(τέλειος) he means one who has attained full spiritual and moral
development, who is "perfect and entire, lacking in nothing" (i. 4).
He is no longer a babe, but an adult; no longer a learner, but an
adept. He is a full and complete man, with perfect command of all the
faculties of soul and body. He has the full use of them, and complete
control over them. The man who can bridle the most rebellious part of
his nature, and keep it in faultless subjection, can bridle also the
whole. This use of "perfect," as opposed to what is immature and
incomplete, is the commonest use of the word in the New Testament. But
sometimes it is a religious or philosophical term, borrowed from
heathen mysteries or heathen philosophy. In such cases it signifies
the _initiated_, as distinct from novices. Such a metaphor was very
applicable to the Gospel, and St. Paul sometimes employs it (1 Cor.
ii. 6; Col. i. 28); but it may be doubted whether any such thought is
in St. James's mind here, although such a metaphor would have suited
the subject. He who never stumbles in word can be no novice, but must
be fully initiated in Christian discipline. But the simpler
interpretation is better. He who can school the tongue can school the
hands and the feet, the heart and the brain, in fact "the whole body,"
the whole of his nature, and is therefore a perfect man.

In his characteristic manner, St. James turns to natural objects for
illustrations to enforce his point. "Now if we put the horses' bridles
into their mouths, that they may obey us, we turn about their whole
body." The changes made here by the Revisers are changes caused by a
very necessary correction of the Greek text (εἰ δέ instead of ἴδε,
which St. James nowhere else uses, or ἰδού, which here has very
little evidence in its favour); for the text has been corrupted in
order to simplify a rather difficult and doubtful construction. The
uncorrupted text may be taken in two ways. _Either_, "But if we put
the horses' bridles into their mouths, that they may obey us, and so
turn about their whole body"--(much more ought we to do so to
ourselves); this obvious conclusion being not stated, but left for us
to supply at the end of an unfinished sentence. _Or_, as the Revisers
take it, which is simpler, and leaves nothing to be understood. A man
who can govern his tongue can govern his whole nature, just as a
bridle controls, not merely the horse's mouth, but the whole animal.
This first metaphor is suggested by the writer's own language. He has
just spoken of the perfect man _bridling_ his whole body, as before he
spoke of the impossibility of true religion in one who does not
_bridle_ his tongue (i. 26); and this naturally suggests the
illustration of the horses.

The argument is _à fortiori_ from the horse to the man, and still more
from the ship to the man, so that the whole forms a climax, the point
throughout being the same, viz. the smallness of the part to be
controlled in order to have control over the whole. And in order to
bring out the fact that the ships are a stronger illustration than the
horses, we should translate, "Behold, _even_ the ships, though they
are so great," etc., rather than "Behold, the ships _also_, though
they are so great." First the statement of the case (ver. 2), then the
illustration from the horses (ver. 3), then "_even_ the ships" (ver.
4), and finally the application, "so the tongue _also_" (ver. 5). Thus
all runs smoothly. If, as is certainly the case, we are able to govern
irrational creatures with a small bit, how much more ourselves through
the tongue; for just as he who has lost his hold of the reins has lost
control over the horse, so he who has lost his hold on his tongue has
lost control over himself. The case of the ship is still stronger. It
is not only devoid of reason, but devoid of life. It cannot be taught
obedience. It offers a dead resistance, which is all the greater
because of its much greater size, and because it is driven by rough
winds; yet its whole mass can be turned about by whoever has control
of the little rudder, to lose command of which is to lose command of
all. How much more, therefore, may we keep command over ourselves by
having command over our tongues! There is nothing more in the metaphor
than this. We may, if we please, go on with Bede, and turn the whole
into a parable, and make the sea mean human life, and the winds mean
temptations, and so on; but we must beware of supposing that anything
of that kind was in the mind of St. James, or belongs to the
explanation of the passage. Such symbolism is read into the text, not
extracted from it. It is legitimate as a means of edifying, but it is
not interpretation.

The expression "rough winds" (σκληρῶν ἀνέμων) is peculiar, "rough"
meaning hard or harsh, especially to the touch, and hence of what is
intractable or disagreeable in other ways (1 Sam. xxv. 3; Matt.
xxv. 24; John vi. 60; Acts xxvi. 14; Jude 15). Perhaps in only one
other passage in Greek literature, previous to this Epistle, is it
used as an epithet of wind, viz. in Prov. xxvii. 16, a passage in
which the Septuagint differs widely from the Hebrew and from our
versions. St. James, who seems to have been specially fond of the
sapiential books of Scripture, may have derived this expression from
the Proverbs.

"So the tongue also is a little member, and boasteth great things."
The tongue, like the bit and the rudder, is only a very small part of
the whole, and yet, like them, it can do great things. St. James says,
"boasteth great things," rather than "doeth great things," not in
order to insinuate that the tongue boasts of what it cannot or does
not do, which would spoil the argument, but in order to prepare the
way for the change in the point of the argument. Hitherto the point
has been _the immense influence which the small organ of speech has
over our whole being_, and the consequent need of controlling it when
we want to control ourselves. We must take care to begin the control
in the right place. This point being established, the argument takes a
somewhat different turn, and the necessity of curbing the tongue is
shown, not from its great power, but from its _inherent malignity_. It
can be made to discharge good offices, but its natural bent is towards
evil. If left unchecked, it is certain to do incalculable mischief.
The expression "boasteth great things" marks the transition from the
one point to the other, and in a measure combines them both. There are
great things done; that shows the tongue's power. And it boasts about
them; that shows its bad character.[67]

This second point, like the first, is enforced by two illustrations
taken from the world of nature. The first was illustrated by the power
of bits and rudders; the second is illustrated by the capacity for
mischief in fire and in venomous beasts. "Behold, what a fire kindles
what a wood!" is the literal rendering of the Greek, where "what a
fire" evidently means "how small a fire," while "what a wood" means
"how large a wood." The traveller's camp-fire is enough to set a whole
forest in flames, and the camp-fire was kindled by a few sparks.
"Fire," it is sometimes truly said, "is a good servant, but a bad
master," and precisely the same may with equal truth be said of the
tongue. So long as it is kept under control it does excellent service;
but directly it can run on unchecked, and lead instead of obeying, it
begins to do untold mischief. We sometimes speak of men whose "_pens_
run away with them;" but a far commoner case is that of persons whose
_tongues_ run away with them, whose untamed and unbridled tongues say
things which are neither seriously thought nor (even at the moment)
seriously meant. The habit of saying "great things" and using strong
language is a condition of constant peril, which will inevitably lead
the speaker into evil. It is a reckless handling of highly dangerous
material. It is playing with fire.

Yes, "the tongue is a fire. The world of iniquity among our members is
the tongue, which defileth the whole body." The right punctuation of
this sentence cannot be determined with certainty, and other possible
arrangements will be found in the margin of the Revised Version; but
on the whole this seems to be the best. The one thing that is certain
is that the "so" of the Authorized Version--"_so_ is the tongue among
our members"--is not genuine; if it were, it would settle the
construction and the punctuation in favour of what is at least the
second best arrangement: "The tongue is a fire, that world of
iniquity: the tongue is among our members that which defileth the
whole body." The meaning of "the world of iniquity" has been a good
deal discussed, but is not really doubtful. The ordinary colloquial
signification is the right one. The tongue is a boundless store of
mischief, an inexhaustible source of evil, a universe of iniquity;
_universitas iniquitatis_, as the Vulgate renders it. It contains
within itself the elements of all unrighteousness; it is charged with
endless possibilities of sin. This use of "world" (κόσμος) seems not
to occur in classical Greek; but it is found in the Septuagint of the
Proverbs, and again in a passage where the Greek differs widely from
the Hebrew (see above, p. 172). What is still more remarkable, it
occurs immediately after the mention of sins of speech: "An evil man
listeneth to the tongue of the wicked; but a righteous man giveth no
heed to false lips. The faithful man has the whole _world_ of wealth;
but the faithless not even a penny" (xvii. 4).

"_Is_ the tongue." The word for "is" must be observed (not ἐστι, nor
ὑπάρχει, but καθίσταται). Its literal meaning is "constitutes
itself," and it occurs again in iv. 4, where the Revisers rightly
translate it "maketh himself:" "Whosoever would be a friend of the
world _maketh himself_ an enemy of God." The tongue was not created by
God to be a permanent source of all kinds of evil; like the rest of
creation, it was made "very good," "the best member that we have." It
is by its own undisciplined and lawless career that it _makes itself_
"the world of iniquity," that it _constitutes itself_ among our
members as "that which defileth our whole body." This helps to explain
what St. James means by "_unspotted_" (ἄσπθλον) or "undefiled"
(i. 27). He who does not bridle his tongue is not really religious.
Pure religion consists in keeping in check that "which _defileth_
(ἡ σπιλοῦσα) our whole body." And the tongue defiles us in three
ways;--by suggesting sin to ourselves and others; by committing sin,
as in all cases of lying and blasphemy; and by excusing or defending
sin. It is a palmary instance of the principle that the best when
perverted becomes the worst--_corruptio optimi fit pessima_.

It "setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell."
We must be content to leave the precise meaning of the words rendered
"the wheel of nature" (τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως) undetermined. The
general meaning is evident enough, but we cannot be sure what image
St. James had in his mind when he wrote the words. The one substantive
is obviously a metaphor, and the other is vague in meaning (as the
latter occurs i. 23, the two passages should be compared in
expounding); but what the exact idea to be conveyed by the combination
is, remains a matter for conjecture. And the conjectures are numerous,
of which one must suffice. The tongue is a centre from which mischief
radiates; that is the main thought. A wheel that has caught fire at
the axle is at last wholly consumed, as the fire spreads through the
spokes to the circumference. So also in society. Passions kindled by
unscrupulous language spread through various channels and classes,
till the whole cycle of human life is in flames. Reckless language
first of all "defiles the whole" nature of the man who employs it, and
then works destruction far and wide through the vast machinery of
society. And to this there are no limits; so long as there is
material, the fire will continue to burn.

How did the fire begin? How does the tongue, which was created for far
other purposes, acquire this deadly propensity? St. James leaves us in
no doubt upon that point. It is an inspiration of the evil one. The
enemy, who steals away the good seed, and sows weeds among the wheat,
turns the immense powers of the tongue to destruction. The old serpent
imbues it with his own poison. He imparts to it his own diabolical
agency. He is perpetually setting it on fire (present participle) from
hell.

The second metaphor by which the malignant propensity of the tongue is
illustrated is plain enough. It is an untamable, venomous beast. It
combines the ferocity of the tiger and the mockery of the ape with the
subtlety and venom of the serpent. It can be checked, can be
disciplined, can be taught to do good and useful things; but it can
never be tamed, and must never be trusted. If care and watchfulness
are laid aside, its evil nature will burst out again, and the results
will be calamitous.

There are many other passages in Scripture which contain warnings
about sins of the tongue: see especially Proverbs xvi. 27, 28; Ecclus.
v. 13, 14, and xxviii. 9-23, from which St. James may have drawn some
of his thoughts. But what is peculiar to his statement of the matter
is _this_, that _the reckless tongue defiles the whole nature of the
man who owns it_. Other writers tell us of the mischief which the
foul-mouthed man does to others, and of the punishment which will one
day fall upon himself. St. James does not lose sight of that side of
the matter, but the special point of his stern warning is the
insisting upon the fact that unbridled speech is a _pollution_ to the
man that employs it. Every faculty of mind or body with which he has
been endowed is contaminated by the subtle poison which is allowed to
proceed from his lips. It is a special application of the principle
laid down by Christ, which was at first a perplexity even to the
Twelve, "The things which proceed out of the man are those that defile
the man" (Mark vii. 15, 20, 23). The emphasis with which Christ taught
this ought to be noticed. On purpose to insist upon it, "He called to
Him the multitude _again_, and said unto them, Hear ye _all_ of you,
and _understand_: there is nothing from without the man, that going
into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man
are those that defile the man." And He repeats this principle a second
and a third time to His disciples privately. "Are ye so without
understanding also?... That which proceedeth out of the man, that
defileth the man.... All these things proceed from within, and defile
the man." If even an unspoken thought can defile, when it has not yet
proceeded farther than the heart, much greater will be the pollution
if the evil thing is allowed to come to the birth by passing the
barrier of the lips. This flow of evil from us means nothing less than
this, that we have made ourselves a channel through which infernal
agencies pass into the world. Is it possible for such a channel to
escape defilement?

[67] There is a story that Amasis, King of Egypt, sent a sacrifice to
Bias the sage, asking him to send back the best part and the worst;
and Bias sent back the tongue.




 CHAPTER XV.

 _THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER._

 "Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men,
 which are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth
 cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought
 not so to be. Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening
 sweet water and bitter? Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or
 a vine figs? neither can salt water yield sweet."--ST. JAMES
 iii. 9-12.


In these concluding sentences of the paragraph respecting sins of the
tongue St. James does two things--he shows the moral chaos to which
the Christian who fails to control his tongue is reduced, and he
thereby shows such a man how vain it is for him to hope that the
worship which he offers to Almighty God can be pure and acceptable. He
has made himself the channel of hellish influences. He cannot at
pleasure make himself the channel of heavenly influences, or become
the offerer of holy sacrifices. The fires of Pentecost will not rest
where the fires of Gehenna are working, nor can one who has become the
minister of Satan at the same time be a minister to offer praise to
God.

When those who would have excused themselves for their lack of good
works pleaded the correctness of their faith, St. James told them that
such faith was barren and dead, and incapable of saving them from
condemnation. Similarly, the man who thinks himself to be religious,
and does not bridle his tongue, was told that his religion is vain
(i. 26). And in the passage before us St. James explains how that is.
His religion or religious worship (θρησκεία) is a mockery and a
contradiction. The offering is tainted; it comes from a polluted altar
and a polluted priest. A man who curses his fellow men, and then
blesses God, is like one who professes the profoundest respect for his
sovereign, while he insults the royal family, throws mud at the royal
portraits, and ostentatiously disregards the royal wishes. It is
further proof of the evil character of the tongue that it is capable
of lending itself to such chaotic activity. "Therewith bless we the
Lord and Father," _i.e._ God in His might and in His love; "and
therewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God." The
heathen fable tells us the apparent contradiction of being able to
blow both hot and cold with the same breath; and the son of Sirach
points out that "if thou blow the spark, it shall burn; if thou spit
upon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of thy mouth"
(Ecclus. xxviii. 12). St. James, who may have had this passage in his
mind, shows us that there is a real and a moral contradiction which
goes far beyond either of these: "Out of the same mouth cometh forth
blessing and cursing." Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness,
"My brethren, these things ought not so to be."

Assuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has
been, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think
themselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in
which persons professing to have a desire to serve God are more ready
to invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce those who
differ from themselves, and are supposed to be therefore under the ban
of Heaven. "They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish
their own, they do not subject themselves to the righteousness of God"
(Rom. x. 2, 3). Hence they rashly and intemperately "curse whom the
Lord hath not cursed, and defy whom the Lord hath not defied" (Num.
xxiii. 8). There are still many who believe that not only in the
psalms and hymns in which they bless the Lord, but also in the sermons
and pamphlets in which they fulminate against their fellow-Christians,
they are "offering service to God" (John xvi. 2). There are many
questions which have to be carefully considered and answered before a
Christian mouth, which has been consecrated to the praise of our Lord
and Father, ought to venture to utter denunciations against others who
worship the same God and are also His offspring and His image. Is it
quite certain that the supposed evil is something which God abhors;
that those whom we would denounce are responsible for it; that
denunciation of _them_ will do any good; that this is the proper time
for such denunciation; that _we_ are the proper persons to utter it?
About every one of these questions the most fatal mistakes are
constantly being made. The singing of _Te Deums_ after massacres and
_dragonnades_ is perhaps no longer possible; but alternations between
religious services and religious prosecutions, between writing pious
books and publishing exasperating articles, are by no means extinct.
For one case in which harm has been done because no one has come
forward to denounce a wrongdoer, there are ten cases in which harm has
been done because some one has been indiscreetly, or inopportunely, or
uncharitably, or unjustly denounced. "Praise is not seasonable
(ὡραῖος) in the mouth of a sinner" (Ecclus. xv. 9); and whatever
may have been the writer's meaning in the difficult passage in which
it occurs, we may give it a meaning that will bring it into harmony
with what St. James says here. The praise of God is not seasonable in
the mouth of one who is ever sinning in reviling God's children.

The illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the
touches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with
Palestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of
this Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are
not rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern <DW72> of
the hill-country of Judæa are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and
the olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and St. James,
if he looked out of window as he was writing, would be likely enough
to see all three. It is not improbable that in one or more of the
illustrations he is following some ancient saying or proverb. Thus,
Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a century later,
asks, "How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an olive,
on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It is impossible,
inconceivable." It is possible that our Lord Himself, when He used a
similar illustration in connexion with the worst of all sins of the
tongue, was adapting a proverb already in use. In speaking of "the
blasphemy against the Spirit" He says, "Either make the tree good, and
its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for
the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye,
being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth
forth good things; and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things. And I say unto you, That every idle word that men
shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment"
(Matt. xii. 33-36). And previously, in the Sermon on the Mount, where
He is speaking of deeds rather than of words, "By their fruits ye
shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but the corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matt.
vii. 16-18).

Can it be the case that while physical contradictions are not
permitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral
contradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of
all earthly creatures? The "double-minded man," who prays and doubts,
receives nothing from the Lord, because his petition is only in form a
prayer; it lacks the essential characteristic of prayer, which is
faith. But the double-tongued man, who blesses God and curses men,
what does he receive? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his
doubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is
judged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one
or the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is
prayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no
prayer--no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other case:
if God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no cursing of
His children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot acceptably be
blessed; the very words of praise, coming from such lips, will be an
offence to Him.

But it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of strong
denunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes and
Pharisees; and again, St. Paul cursed Hymenæus and Alexander (1 Tim.
i. 20), the incestuous person at Corinth (1 Cor. v. 5), and Elymas the
sorcerer (Acts xiii. 10). Most true. But firstly, these curses were
uttered by those who could not err in such things. Christ "knew what
was in man," and could read the hearts of all; and the fact that
St. Paul's curses were supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was
acting under Divine guidance in what he said. And secondly, these
stern utterances had their source in love; not, as human curses
commonly have, in hate. It was in order that those on whom they were
pronounced might be warned, and schooled to better things, that they
were uttered; and we know that in the case of the sinner at Corinth
the severe remedy had this effect; the curse was really a blessing.
When _we_ have infallible guidance, and when _we_ are able by
supernatural results to prove that we possess it, it will be time
enough to begin to deal in curses. And let us remember _the
proportion_ which such things bear to the rest of Christ's words and
of St. Paul's words, so far as they have been preserved for us. Christ
wrought numberless miracles of mercy: besides those which are recorded
in detail, we are frequently told that "He healed many that were sick
with divers diseases, and cast out many devils" (Mark i. 34); that "He
had healed many" (iii. 10); that "wheresoever He entered, into
villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in
the market-places, and besought Him that they might touch if it were
but the border of His garment; and as many as touched Him were made
whole" (vi. 56); and so forth (John xxi. 25). But He wrought only one
miracle of judgment, and that was upon a tree, which could teach the
necessary lesson without feeling the punishment (Mark xi. 12-23). All
this applies with much force to those who believe themselves to be
called upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to them to be
enemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force to those
who in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on their
own account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems to
them to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves!
That such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer
acceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral
contradiction of the most startling kind. And are such cases rare? Is
it so uncommon a thing for a man to attend church regularly, and join
with apparent devotion in the services, and yet think little of the
grievous words which he allows himself to utter when his temper is
severely tried? How amazed and offended he would be if he were invited
to eat at a table which had been used for some disgusting purpose, and
had never since been cleansed! And yet he does not hesitate to "defile
his whole body" with his unbridled tongue, and then offer praise to
God from this polluted source!

Nor is this the only contradiction in which such a one is involved.
How strange that the being who is lord and master of all the animal
creation should be unable to govern himself! How strange that man's
chief mark of superiority over the brutes should be the power of
speech, and that he should use this power in such a way as to make it
the instrument of his own degradation, until he becomes lower than the
brutes! They, whether tamed or untamed, unconsciously declare the
glory of God; while he, with his noble powers of consciously and
loyally praising Him, by his untamed tongue reviles those who are made
after the image of God, and thus turns his own praises into
blasphemies. Thus does man's rebellion reverse the order of nature and
frustrate the will of God.

The writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has
been urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty
of that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the
case is over-stated, and that the highly  picture is a
caricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that
can honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief
may be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado;
what confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood;
what suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements;
what careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy
jests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single
utterance in each case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years.
One reckless word may blight a whole life. "Many have fallen by the
edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue"
(Ecclus. xxviii. 18). And there are persons who habitually pour forth
such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or
false, or impure. When we look around us, and see the moral ruin which
in every class of society can be traced to reckless language--lives
embittered, and blighted, and brutalized by words spoken and
heard--can we wonder at the severe words of St. James, whose
experience was not very different from our own? Violent and
uncharitable language had become one of the besetting sins of the
Jews, and no doubt Jewish Christians were by no means free from it.
"Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued," says the son of Sirach,
"for such have destroyed many that were at peace" (Ecclus.
xxviii. 13). To which the Syriac Version adds a clause not given in
the Greek, nor in our Bibles: "Also _the third tongue_, let it be
cursed; for it has laid low many corpses." This expression, "third
tongue," seems to have come into use among the Jews in the period
between the Old and New Testament. It means a slanderous tongue, and
it is called "third" because it is fatal to three sets of people--to
the person who utters the slander, to those who listen to it, and to
those about whom it is uttered. "A third tongue hath tossed many to
and fro, and driven them from nation to nation; and strong cities hath
it pulled down, and houses of great men hath it overthrown" (Ecclus.
xxviii. 14); where not only the Syriac, but the Greek, has the
interesting expression "third tongue," a fact obscured in our version.

The "third tongue" is as common and as destructive now as when the son
of Sirach denounced it, or St. James wrote against it with still
greater authority; and we all of us can do a great deal to check the
mischief, not merely by taking care that we keep our own tongues from
originating evil, but by refusing to repeat, or if possible even to
listen to, what the third tongue says. Our unwillingness to hear may
be a discouragement to the speaker, and our refusal to repeat will at
least lessen the evil of his tale. We shall have saved ourselves from
becoming links in the chain of destruction.

There is one kind of sinful language to which the severe sayings of
St. James specially apply, although the context seems to show that it
was not specially in his mind--impure language. The foul tongue is
indeed a "world of iniquity, which defileth the whole body, and
setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell." In
no other case is the self-pollution of the speaker so manifest, or the
injury to the listener so probable, so all but inevitable. Foul
stories and impure jests and innuendoes, even more clearly than oaths
and curses, befoul the souls of those who utter them, while they lead
the hearers into sin. Such things rob all who are concerned in them,
either as speakers or listeners, of two things which are the chief
safeguards of virtue--the fear of God, and the fear of sin. They
create an atmosphere in which men sin with a light heart, because the
grossest sins are made to look not only attractive and easy, but
amusing. What can be made to seem laughable is supposed to be not very
serious. There is no more devilish act that a human being can perform
than that of inducing others to believe that what is morally hideous
and deadly is "pleasant to the eye and good for food." And this
devil's work is sometimes done merely to raise a laugh, merely for
something to say. Does any one seriously maintain that the language of
St. James is at all too strong for such things as these? We hardly
need his authority for the belief that a filthy tongue pollutes a
man's whole being, and owes its inspiration to the evil one.

It is of angry, ill-tempered, unkind words that we do not believe this
so readily. Words that are not false or calumnious, not running out
into blasphemies and curses, and certainly not tainted with anything
like impurity, do not always strike us as being as harmful as they
really are, not only to others, whom they irritate or sadden, but to
ourselves, who allow our characters to be darkened by them. The
captious word, that makes everything a subject for blame; the
discontented word, that would show that the speaker is always being
ill-treated; the biting word, that is meant to inflict pain; the
sullen word, that throws a gloom over all who hear it; the provoking
word, that seeks to stir up strife--of all these we are most of us apt
to think too lightly, and need the stern warnings of St. James to
remind us of their true nature and of their certain consequences. As
regards _others_, such things wound tender hearts, add needlessly and
enormously to the unhappiness of mankind, turn sweet affections sour,
stifle good impulses, create and foster bad feelings, embitter in its
smallest details the whole round of daily life. As regards
_ourselves_, indulgence in such language weakens and warps our
characters, blunts our sympathies, deadens our love for man, and
therefore our love for God. "In particular it makes prayer either
impossible or half useless. Whether we know it or not, the prayer that
comes from a heart indulging in evil temper is hardly a prayer at all.
We cannot really be face to face with God; we cannot really approach
God as a Father; we cannot really feel like children kneeling at His
feet; we cannot really be simply affectionate and truthful in what we
say to Him, if irritation, discontent, or gloom, or anger, is busy at
our breasts. An undisciplined temper shuts out the face of God from
us. We may see His holy Law, but we cannot see Himself. We may think
of Him as our Creator, our Judge, our Ruler, but we cannot think of
Him as our Father, nor approach Him with love."[68] "Salt water cannot
yield sweet."

It was once pleaded on behalf of a man who had been criticized and
condemned as unsatisfactory, that he was "a good man, all but his
temper." "All but his temper!" was the not unreasonable reply; "as if
temper were not nine tenths of religion." "If any man stumbleth not in
word, the same is a _perfect_ man."

[68] _Sermons preached in Rugby School Chapel_, by the Rev. Frederick
Temple, D.D. (Macmillan, 1867), pp. 324, 325.




 CHAPTER XVI.

 _THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW._

 "Who is wise and understanding among you? let him show by his good
 life his works in meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter jealousy
 and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
 This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is
 earthly, sensual, devilish. For where jealousy and faction are, there
 is confusion and every vile deed."--ST. JAMES iii. 13-16.


This section, which again looks at first sight like an abrupt
transition to another subject, is found, upon closer examination, to
grow quite naturally out of the preceding one. St. James has just been
warning his readers against the lust of teaching and talking. Not many
of them are to become teachers, for the danger of transgressing with
the tongue, which is great in all of us, is in them at a maximum,
because teachers must talk. Moreover, those who teach have greater
responsibilities than those who do not; for by professing to instruct
others they deprive themselves of the plea of ignorance, and they are
bound to instruct by example of good deeds, as well as by precept of
good words. From this subject he quite naturally passes on to speak of
the difference between the wisdom from above and the wisdom from
below; and the connexion is twofold. It is those who possess only the
latter wisdom, and are proud of their miserable possession, who are so
eager to make themselves of importance by giving instruction; and it
is the fatal love of talk, about which he has just been speaking so
severely, that is one of the chief symptoms of the wisdom that is from
below.

This paragraph is, in fact, simply a continuation of the
uncompromising _attack upon sham religion_ which is the main theme
throughout a large portion of the Epistle. St. James first shows how
useless it is to be an eager hearer of the word, without also being a
doer of it. Next he exposes the inconsistency of loving one's
neighbour as oneself if he chances to be rich, and neglecting or even
insulting him if he is poor. From that he passes on to prove the
barrenness of an orthodoxy which is not manifested in good deeds, and
the peril of trying to make words a substitute for works. And thus the
present section is reached. Throughout the different sections it is
the empty religiousness which endeavours to avoid the _practice_ of
Christian virtue, on the plea of possessing zeal, or faith, or
knowledge, that is mercilessly exposed and condemned. "Deed, deeds,
deeds," is the cry of St. James; "these ought ye to have done, and not
to have left the other undone." Without Christian practice, all the
other good things which they possessed or professed were savourless
salt.

"Who is wise and understanding among you?" (τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν
ὑμῖν). The same two words meet us in the questionings of Job
(xxviii. 12): "Where shall wisdom (σοφία) be found? and where is the
place of understanding (ἐπιστήμη)?"[69] Of all the words which signify
some kind of intellectual endowment, _e.g._ "prudence" (φρόνησις),
"knowledge" (γνῶσις or ἐπίγνωσις), and "understanding" (ἐπιστήμη or
σύνεσισ), "wisdom" (σοφία) always ranks as highest. It indicates, as
Clement of Alexandria defines it (_Strom._ I. v.), "the understanding
of things human and Divine, and their causes." It is the word which
expresses the typical wisdom of Solomon (Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31),
the inspiration of St. Stephen (Acts vi. 10), and the Divine wisdom of
Jesus Christ (Matt. xiii. 54; Mark vi. 2; and comp. Luke xi. 49 with
Matt. xxiii. 34). It is also employed in the heavenly doxologies which
ascribe wisdom to the Lamb and to God (Rev. v. 12; vii. 12).
St. James, therefore, quite naturally employs it to denote that
excellent gift for which Christians are to pray with full confidence
that it will be granted to them (i. 5, 6), and which manifests its
heavenly character by a variety of good fruits (iii. 17).

Whether we are to understand any very marked difference between the
two adjectives ("wise" and "understanding") used in the opening
question, is a matter of little moment. The question taken as a whole
amounts to this: Who among you professes to have superior knowledge,
spiritual or practical? The main thing is not the precise scope of the
question, but of the answer. Let every one who claims to have a
superiority which entitles him to teach others _prove_ his superiority
by his good _life_. Once more it is a call for deeds, and not
words--for conduct, and not professions. And St. James expresses this
in a specially strong way. He might have said simply, "Let him by his
conduct show his wisdom," just as he said above, "I by my works will
show thee my faith." But he says, "Let him show by his good life his
works in meekness of wisdom." Thus the necessity for _practice_ and
_conduct_, as distinct from mere knowledge, is enforced twice over;
and besides that, the particular character of the conduct, the
atmosphere in which it is to be exhibited, is also indicated. It is to
be done "in _meekness_ of wisdom." There are two characteristics here
specified which we shall find are given as the infallible signs of the
heavenly wisdom; and their opposites as signs of the other. The
heavenly wisdom is fruitful of good deeds, and inspires those who
possess it with gentleness. The other wisdom is productive of nothing
really valuable, and inspires those who possess it with
contentiousness. The spirit of strife, and the spirit of meekness;
those are the two properties which chiefly distinguish the wisdom that
comes from heaven from the wisdom that comes from hell.

This test is a very practical one, and we can apply it to ourselves as
well as to others. How do we bear ourselves in argument and in
controversy? Are we serene about the result, in full confidence that
truth and right should prevail? Are we desirous that truth should
prevail, even if that should involve _our_ being proved to be in the
wrong? Are we meek and gentle towards those who differ from us? or are
we apt to lose our tempers, and become heated against our opponents?
If the last is the case we have reason to doubt whether our wisdom is
of the best sort. He who loses his temper in argument has begun to
care more about himself, and less about the truth. He has become like
the many would-be teachers rebuked by St. James; slow to hear, and
swift to speak; unwilling to learn, and eager to dogmatize; much less
ready to know the truth than to be able to say something, whether true
or false.

The words "by his good life" (ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς) are a change
made by the Revisers for other reasons than the two which commonly
weighed with them. As already stated (p. 150), their most valuable
corrections are those which have been produced by the correction of
the corrupt Greek text used by previous translators. Many more are
corrections of mistranslations of the correct Greek text. The present
change of "good _conversation_" into "good _life_" comes under neither
of these two heads. It has been necessitated by a change which has
taken place in the English language during the last two or three
centuries. Words are constantly changing their meaning. "Conversation"
is one of many English words which have drifted from their old
signification; and it is one of several which have undergone change
since the Authorized Version was published, and in spite of the
enormous influence exercised by that version. For there can be no
doubt that our Bible has retained words in use which would otherwise
have been dropped, and has kept words to their old meaning which would
otherwise have undergone a change. This latter influence, however,
fails to make itself felt where the changed meaning still makes sense;
and that is the case with the passages in which "conversation" (as a
rendering of ἀναστροφή) occurs in the New Testament. "Conversation"
was formerly a word of much wider meaning, and its gradual restriction
to intercourse by word of mouth is unfortunate. Formerly it covered
the whole of a man's _walk_ in life (_Lebenswandel_), his going out
and coming in, his behaviour or conduct. Wherever he "turned himself
about" and lived, there he had his "conversation" (_conversatio_, from
_conversari_, the exact equivalent of ἀναστροφή, from ἀναστρέφεσθαι).
It was exactly the word that was required by the translators of the
Greek Testament. In the Septuagint it does not occur until the
Apocrypha (Tobit iv. 14). But it causes serious misunderstanding to
restrict the meaning of all the passages in which the word occurs to
"conversation" in the modern sense, as if speaking were the only thing
included; and the Revisers have done very rightly in removing this
source of misunderstanding; but they have been unable to find any one
expression which would serve the purpose, and hence have been
compelled to vary the translation. Sometimes they give "manner of
life" (Gal. i. 13; Eph. iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12; 1 Peter i. 18;
iii. 16); once "manner of living" (1 Peter i. 15); three times
"behaviour" (1 Peter ii. 12; iii. 1, 2); three times "life" (Heb.
xiii. 7; 2 Peter ii. 7; and here); and once "living" (2 Peter
iii. 11). These different translations are worth collecting together,
inasmuch as they give a good idea of the scope of "conversation" in
the old sense,[70] which really represents the word used by St. James.
That "conversation," with the modern associations which inevitably
cling to it now, should be used in the passage before us, is
singularly unfortunate. It not only misrepresents, but it almost
reverses the meaning of the writer. So far from telling a man to show
his wisdom by what he _says_ in his intercourse with others, St. James
rather exhorts him to show it by saying as little as possible, and
doing a great deal. Let him show out of a noble life the conduct of a
wise man in the gentle spirit which befits such. In modern language,
let him in the fullest sense be a Christian gentleman.

"In _meekness_ of wisdom." On this St. James lays great stress. He has
already told his readers to "receive with meekness the implanted word"
(i. 21), and what implies the same thing, although the word is not
used, to "be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (i. 19). And
in the passage before us he insists with urgent repetition upon the
peaceable and gentle disposition of those who possess the wisdom from
above (vv. 17, 18). The Christian grace of meekness is a good deal
more than the rather second-rate virtue which Aristotle makes to be
the mean between passionateness and impassionateness, and to consist
in a due regulation of one's angry feelings (_Eth. Nic._ IV. v.). It
includes submissiveness towards God, as well as gentleness towards
men; and it exhibits itself in a special way in giving and receiving
instruction, and in administering and accepting rebuke. It was,
therefore, just the grace which the many would-be teachers, with their
loud professions of correct faith and superior knowledge, specially
needed to acquire. The Jew, with his national contempt for all who
were not of the stock of Israel, was always prone to self-assertion,
and these Christian Jews of the Dispersion had still to learn the
spirit of their own psalms. "The meek will He guide in judgment; and
the meek will He teach His way" (xxv. 9). "The meek shall inherit the
land, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace"
(xxxvii. 11). "The Lord upholdeth the meek" (cxlvii. 6). "He shall
beautify the meek with salvation" (cxlix. 4). In all these passages
the Septuagint has the adjective (πραεῖς) of the substantive used by
St. James (πραΰτης). "But if," instead of this meekness, "ye have
bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not
against the truth." With a gentle severity St. James states as a mere
supposition what he probably knew to be a fact. There was plenty of
bitter zealousness and party spirit among them; and from this fact
they could draw their own conclusions. It was an evil from which the
Jews greatly suffered; and a few years later it hastened, if it did
not cause, the overthrow of Jerusalem. This "jealousy" or zeal
(ζῆλος) itself became a party name in the fanatical sect of the
Zealots. It was an evil from which the primitive Church greatly
suffered, as passages in the New Testament and in the sub-Apostolic
writers prove; and can we say that it has ever become extinct? The
same conclusion must be drawn now as then.

Jealousy or zeal may be a good or a bad thing according to the motive
which inspires it. God Himself is called "a jealous God," and is said
to be "clad with zeal as a cloak" (Isa. lix. 17), and to "take to Him
jealousy for complete armour" (Wisdom v. 17). To Christ His disciples
applied the words, "The zeal of Thine house shall eat me up" (John
ii. 17). But more often the word has a bad signification. It indicates
"zeal not according to knowledge" (Rom. x. 2), as when the high priest
and Sadducees arrested the Apostles (Acts v. 17), or when Saul
persecuted the Church (Phil. iii. 6). It is coupled with strife (Rom.
xiii. 13), and is counted among the works of the flesh (Gal. v. 20).
To make it quite plain that it is to be understood in a bad sense
here, St. James adds the epithet "bitter" to it, and perhaps thereby
recalls what he has just said about a mouth that utters both curses
and blessings being as monstrous as a fountain spouting forth both
bitter water and sweet. Moreover, he couples it with "faction"
(ἐριθεία), a word which originally meant "working for hire," and
especially "weaving for hire" (Isa. xxxviii. 12), and thence any
ignoble pursuit, especially political canvassing, intrigue, or
factiousness (Arist. _Pol._ V. ii. 6; iii. 9; Rom. ii. 8; Phil. i. 16;
ii. 3). This also St. Paul classes among the works of the flesh (Gal.
v. 20). What St. James seems to refer to in these two words is bitter
religious animosity; a hatred of error (or what is supposed to be
such), manifesting itself, not in loving attempts to win over those
who are at fault, but in bitter thoughts, and words, and party
combinations.

"Glory not, and lie not against the truth." To glory with their
tongues of their superior wisdom, while they cherished jealousy and
faction in their hearts, was a manifest lie, a contradiction of what
they must know to be the truth. In their fanatical zeal for the truth
they were really lying against the truth, and ruining the cause which
they professed to serve. Of how many a controversialist would that be
true; and not only of those who have entered the lists against heresy
and infidelity, but of those who are preaching a crusade against vice!
"The whole Christianity of many a devotee consists only, we may say,
in a bitter contempt for the sins of sinners, in a proud and loveless
contention with what it calls the wicked world" (Stier).

"This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is
earthly, sensual, devilish." The wisdom which is exhibited in such a
thoroughly unchristian disposition is of no heavenly origin. It may be
a proof of intellectual advantages of some kind, but it is not such as
those who lack it need pray for (i. 5), nor such as God bestows
liberally on all who ask in faith. And then, having stated what it is
not, St. James tells in three words, which form a climax, what the
wisdom on which they plume themselves, in its nature, and sphere, and
origin, really is. _It belongs to this world_, and has no connexion
with heavenly things. _Its activity is in the lower part of man's
nature_, his passions and his human intelligence, but it never touches
his spirit. And in its origin and manner of working _it is
demoniacal_. Not the gentleness of God's Holy Spirit, but the fierce
recklessness of Satan's emissaries, inspires it. Just as there is a
faith which a man may share with demons (ii. 19), and a tongue which
is set on fire by hell (iii. 6), so there is a wisdom which is
demoniacal in its source and in its activity.

The second of the three terms of condemnation used by St. James
(ψυχικός) cannot be adequately rendered in English, for "psychic"
or "psychical" would convey either no meaning or a wrong one. It does
not occur in the Septuagint, but is found six times in the New
Testament--four times in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ii. 14;
xv. 44, 46), where most English versions have "natural;" once in Jude
(19), where Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan have "fleshly," the
Rhemish, the Authorized, and the Revised "sensual;" and once here,
where Genevan, Rhemish, Authorized, and Revised all give "sensual,"
the last placing "natural or animal" in the margin.[71] When man's
nature is divided into body and soul, or flesh and spirit, every one
understands that the body or flesh indicates the lower and material
part, the soul or spirit the higher and immaterial part. But when a
threefold division is made, into body, soul, and spirit, we are apt to
allow the more simple and more familiar division to disturb our ideas.
"Soul" is allowed to keep its old meaning, and to be understood as
much more allied with "spirit" than with "body" or "flesh." This
causes serious misunderstanding. When the soul is distinguished, not
only from the flesh, but from the spirit, it represents a part of our
nature which is much more closely connected with the former than with
the latter. The "natural" or "sensual" man, though higher than the
carnal man, who is the slave of his animal passions, is far below the
spiritual man, who is ruled by the highest portion of his nature,
which is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The natural man does
not soar above the things of this world. His inspirations are not
heavenly. "Of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh." The
wisdom from above is heavenly, spiritual, Divine; the wisdom from
below is earthly, sensual, devilish.

Does this seem to be an exaggeration? St. James is ready to justify
his strong language. "For where jealousy and faction are, there is
confusion and every vile deed." And who are the authors of confusion
and vile deeds? Are they to be found in heaven, or in hell? Is
confusion, or order, the mark of God's work? If one wished to sum up
succinctly the manner in which the activity of demons specially
exhibits itself, could one do so better than by saying "confusion and
every vile deed"? "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace," says
St. Paul, using the very word that we have here (1 Cor. xiv. 33); and
every one heartily assents to the doctrine. The reason and conscience
of every man tell him that disorder cannot in origin be Divine; it is
part of that ruin which Satanic influences have been allowed to make
in a universe which was created "very good." Jealousy and faction mean
anarchy; and anarchy means a moral chaos in which every vile deed
finds an opportunity. We know, therefore, what to think of the
superior wisdom which is claimed by those in whose hearts jealousy and
faction reign supreme. It may have a right to the name of wisdom, just
as a correct belief about the nature of God may have a right to the
name of faith, even when it remains barren, and therefore powerless to
save. But an inspiration which prompts men to envy and intrigue,
because, when many are rushing to occupy the post of teacher, others
find a hearing more readily than themselves, is the inspiration of
Cain and of Korah, rather than of Moses or of Daniel. The professed
desire to offer service to God is really only a craving to obtain
advancement for self. Self-seeking of this kind is always ruinous. It
both betrays and aggravates the rottenness that lurks within. It was
immediately after there had been a contention among the Apostles,
"which of them was accounted to be greatest" (Luke xxii. 24), that
they "all forsook Him and fled."

NOTE.--A portion of Dr. Newman's description of a gentleman will serve
to illustrate what has been said above. It occurs in his _Discourses
addressed to the Catholics of Dublin_. "It is almost a definition of a
gentleman to say that he is one who _never inflicts pain_. He is
mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free
and unembarrassed action of those about him, and he concurs with their
movements rather than takes the initiative himself. He carefully
avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with
whom he is cast--all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all
restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern
being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on
all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the
distant, and merciful towards the absurd. He guards against
unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate. He has no ears
for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who
interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best."

[69] Comp. also Deut. i. 13, and iv. 6, where we have the same
combination.

[70] That "conversation" should also have been used as a rendering of
πολίτευμα (Phil. iii. 20; comp. i. 27) and τρόπος (Heb. xiii. 5) is
very unfortunate.

[71] Purvey has "beastly" in all six places, which is a translation of
the _animalis_ of the Vulgate: "earthly, beastly, fiendly" is his
triplet. See p. 453.




 CHAPTER XVII.

 _THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE._

 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable,
 gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without
 variance, without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown
 in peace for them that make peace."--ST. JAMES iii. 17, 18.


At the beginning of his Epistle St. James exhorts those of his readers
who feel their lack of wisdom to pray for it. It is one of those good
and perfect gifts from above, which come down from the Father of
lights, who "giveth to all liberally, and upbraideth not" (i. 5, 17).
He now, after having sketched its opposite, states, in a few clear,
pregnant words, what the characteristics of this heavenly gift of
wisdom are. In both passages he probably had in his mind, and wished
to suggest to the minds of his readers, well-known utterances on the
same subject in the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom.

"My son, if thou cry after discernment, and lift up thy voice for
understanding; if thou seek her as silver, and search for her as for
hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and
find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom; out of His
mouth cometh knowledge and understanding" (Prov. ii. 3-6).

Again, the magnificent "Praise of Wisdom" in the twenty-fourth chapter
of Ecclesiasticus, in which Wisdom is made to tell her own glories,
opens thus: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered
the earth like a cloud;" and it continues, "Then the Creator of all
things gave me a commandment, and He that created me caused my
tabernacle to rest, and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, and thine
inheritance in Israel. Before time was, from the beginning, He created
me, and until times cease I shall in nowise fail" (vv. 3, 8, 9).

And in the similar passage in the Book of Wisdom, in which the praise
of Wisdom is put into the mouth of Solomon, he says, "Wisdom, which is
the worker of all things, taught me.... She is the breath of the power
of God, and a pure emanation from the glory of the Almighty: therefore
doth no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the effulgence
(ἀπαύγασμα: Heb. i. 3) of the everlasting light, the unspotted
mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness. And being
one, she can do all things; and remaining in herself, she maketh all
things new; and in all generations entering into holy souls, she
maketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth nothing but
him that dwelleth with wisdom" (vii. 22, 25-28).

Three thoughts are conspicuous in these passages. Wisdom originates
with God. It is consequently pure and glorious. God bestows it upon
His people. These thoughts reappear in St. James, and to them he adds
another, which scarcely appears in the earlier writers. Wisdom is
"peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy, and good
fruits." In Proverbs we do indeed read that "all her paths are peace"
(iii. 17); but the thought is not followed up. It does not seem to
occur to the son of Sirach; and not one of the twenty-one epithets
which the writer of Wisdom piles up in praise of this heavenly gift
(vii. 22, 23) touches upon its peaceable and placable nature. It was
left to the Gospel to teach, both by the example of Christ and by the
words of His Apostles, how inevitably the Divine wisdom produces, in
those who possess it, gentleness, self-repression, and peace.

"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable,
gentle, easy to be entreated." The "first" and the "then" may be
seriously misunderstood. St. James does _not_ mean that the heavenly
wisdom cannot be peaceable and gentle until all its surroundings have
been made pure from everything that would oppose or contradict it; in
other words, that the wise and understanding Christian will first free
himself from the society of all whom he believes to be in error, and
then, but not till then, will he be peaceable and gentle. That is, so
long as folly and falsehood remain, they must be denounced, and made
either to recant or to retire; for only when they have disappeared
will wisdom show itself easy to be entreated. Purity, i.e. freedom
from all that would dim the brightness of truth, must precede peace,
and there can be no peace until it is obtained.

This interpretation contradicts the context, and makes St. James teach
the opposite of what he says very plainly in the sentences which
precede, and in those which follow, the words which we are
considering. It tries to enlist him on the side of partisanship and
persecution, at the very moment when he is pleading most earnestly
against them. He is stating a logical, and not a chronological order,
when he declares that true wisdom is "first pure, then peaceable." In
its inmost being it is pure; among its very various external
manifestations are the six or seven beneficent qualities which follow
the "then." If there were no one to be gentle to, no one coming to
entreat, no one needing mercy, the wisdom from above would still be
pure; therefore this quality comes first.

When the author of the Book of Wisdom says that wisdom is "a pure
emanation from the glory of God: therefore can no defiled thing fall
into her" (vii. 25), he is thinking of a pure stream, into which no
foul ditch is able to empty its polluting contents, or of a pure ray
of light, which does not admit of mixture with anything that would
colour or darken it. He does not use the word for pure which we have
here (ἁγνός), but one which signifies "unmixed," and hence "unsullied"
(εἰλικρινής), and which occurs Phil. i. 10 and 2 Pet. iii. 1. The word
used here by St. James is akin to "holy" (ἅγιος), and primarily
signifies what is associated with religious awe (ἅγος), and hence
"hallowed," especially by sacrifice. From this it became narrowed in
meaning to what is free from the pollution of unchastity or bloodshed.
As a Biblical word it sometimes has this narrow meaning; but generally
it implies freedom from all stain of sin, and therefore is not far
removed in meaning from "holy." But it is worth noting that whereas
Christ and good men are spoken of as both pure and holy, yet God is
called holy, but never pure. Divine holiness cannot be assailed by any
polluting influence. Human holiness, even that of Christ, can be so
assailed, and in resisting the assault it remains "pure."

In the passage before us "pure" must certainly not be limited to mean
simply "chaste." The word "sensual," applied to the wisdom from below,
does not mean unchaste, but living wholly in the world of sense; and
the purity of the heavenly wisdom does not consist merely in victory
over temptations of the flesh, but in freedom from worldly and low
motives. Its aim is that truth should become known and prevail, and it
condescends to no ignoble arts in prosecuting this aim. Contradiction
does not ruffle it, and hostility does not provoke it to retaliate,
because its motives are thoroughly disinterested and pure. Thus, its
peaceable and placable qualities flow out of its purity. It is
"_first_ pure, _then_ peaceable." It is because the man who is
inspired with it has no ulterior selfish ends to serve that he is
gentle, sympathetic, and considerate towards those who oppose him. He
strives, not for victory over his opponents, but for truth both for
himself and for them; and he knows what it costs to arrive at truth.
We have a noble illustration of this temper in some of the opening
passages of St. Augustine's treatise against the so-called
_Fundamental Letter_ of Manichæus. He begins thus:--

"My prayer to the one true God Almighty, of whom, and through whom,
and in whom are all things, has been and is, that in refuting and
disproving the heresy of you Manichæans, to which you adhere perchance
more through thoughtlessness than evil intent, He would give me a mind
composed and tranquil, and aiming rather at your amendment than your
discomfiture.... It has been our business, therefore, to prefer and
choose the better part, that we might have an opportunity for your
amendment, not in contention, and strife, and persecutions, but in
gentle consolation, affectionate exhortation, and quiet discussion; as
it is written, The Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle
towards all, teachable, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that
oppose themselves....

"Let those rage against you who know not with what toil truth is
found, and how difficult it is to avoid errors.... Let those rage
against you who know not with how great difficulty the eye of the
inner man is made whole, so that it can behold its Sun.... Let those
rage against you who know not with what sighs and groans it is made
possible, in however small a degree, to comprehend God. Finally, let
those rage against you who have never been deceived by such an error
as that whereby they see you deceived....

"Let neither of us say that he has already found the truth. Let us
seek it as if it were unknown to us both. For it can be sought for
with zeal and unanimity only if there be no rash assumption that it
has been found and is known."

And to the same effect, although in a different key, a critical writer
of our own day has remarked that "by an intellect which is habitually
filled with the wisdom which is from heaven, in all its length and
breadth, 'objections' against religion are perceived at once to
proceed from imperfect apprehension. Such an intellect cannot rage
against those who give words to such objections. It sees that the
objectors do but intimate the partial character of their own
knowledge."[72]

It will be observed that while the writer just quoted speaks about the
_intellect_, St. James speaks about the _heart_. The difference is not
accidental, and it is significant of a difference in the point of
view. The modern view of wisdom is that it is a matter which mainly
consists in the strengthening and enrichment of the intellectual
powers. Increase of capacity for acquiring and retaining knowledge;
increase in the possession of knowledge: this is what is meant by
growth in wisdom. And by knowledge is meant acquaintance with the
nature and history of man, and with the nature and history of the
universe. All this is the sphere of the intellect rather than of the
heart. The purification and development of the moral powers, if not
absolutely excluded from the scope of wisdom, is commonly left in the
background and almost out of sight. What St. James says here is fully
admitted: the highest wisdom keeps a man from the bitterness of party
spirit. But why? Because his superior intelligence and information
tell him that the opposition of those who dissent from him is the
result of ignorance, which requires, not insult and abuse, but
instruction. St. James does not dissent from this view, but he adds to
it. There are further and higher reasons why the truly wise man does
not rail at others, or try to browbeat and silence them. Because,
while he abhors folly, he loves the fool, and would win him over from
his foolish ways; because he desires not only to impart knowledge, but
to increase virtue; and because he knows that strife means confusion,
and that gentleness is the parent of peace. Christians are charged to
be "wise as serpents, but _harmless as doves_."

The Scriptural view of wisdom does not contradict the modern one, but
it is taken from the other side. In it the education of the moral and
spiritual powers is the main thing, while intellectual advancement is
in the background or out of sight. There is nothing in the teaching of
Christ or his Apostles that is hostile to intellectual progress; but
neither by His example, nor by the directions which His disciples
received or delivered, do we find that culture was regarded as part
of, or necessary to, or even a very desirable companion for, the
Gospel. Neither Christ nor any one of His immediate followers came
forward as a great promoter of intellectual pursuits. Why is this? It
would perhaps be a sound and sufficient answer to say, that valuable
as such work would have been, there was much more serious and
important work to be done. To convert men from sin to righteousness
was far more urgent than to improve their minds. But there is more to
be said than this. That perverse generation had to "turn, and become
as little children," before it could enter into the kingdom of heaven.
To develop a man's intellectual powers is not always the best way to
make him "humble himself as a little child." Increase of knowledge may
make a Newton feel like a child picking up pebbles on the shore of
truth, but it is apt to make "the natural man" less childlike. But for
no one, whether catechumen, or convert, or mature Christian, can the
cultivation of his intellect be as pressing a duty as the cultivation
of his heart. "To speak with the tongues of men and of angels," and to
"know all mysteries and all knowledge," is as nothing in comparison
with love. And it is in some measure possible to see why this is so.
Man's moral nature certainly suffered, and ruinously suffered, at the
Fall. It is not so certain that his intellectual nature suffered also.
If it did suffer, it suffered _through_ the moral nature, because
depravation of the heart depraved the brain. In neither case would
there be any necessity for the Gospel to pay special attention to the
regeneration of the intellect. If man's intellect was unscathed by his
fall from innocence, it could continue its natural development, and go
on from strength to strength towards perfection. If, however, the loss
of innocence has entailed a loss of mental capacity, then the wound
inflicted on the intellectual nature through the moral nature must be
healed in the same way. First purify the heart and regenerate the
will, and then the recovery of the intellect will follow in due
course.[73] It is easy to reach the intellect through the heart, and
this is what the wisdom that is from above aims at doing. If we begin
with the intellect, we shall very likely end there; and in that case
the man is not raised from his degradation, but equipped with
additional powers of mischief. "Into a soul that deviseth evil, wisdom
will not enter, nor yet dwell in a body that is sunk in sin" (Wisdom
i. 4).

"Full of mercy and good fruits." The wisdom from above is not only
peaceable, reasonable, and conciliatory, when under provocation or
criticism, it is also eager to take the initiative in doing all the
good in its power to those whom it can reach or influence. Thus it
goes hand in hand with that pure and undefiled religion which visits
"the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (i. 27). Just as
St. James has no sympathy with a faith which does not clothe the naked
and feed the hungry, and offer of its best to God (ii. 15, 16, 21),
nor with a tongue which blesses God and curses men (ii. 9), so he has
no belief in the heavenly character of a wisdom which holds itself
aloof in calm superiority to all cavil and complaint, with a
condescending air of passionless impartiality. The intellectual miser,
who gloats over the treasures of his own accumulated knowledge, and
smiles with lofty indifference upon the criticisms and squabbles of
the imperfectly instructed, has no share in the wisdom that is from
above. He is peaceful and moderate, not out of love and sympathy, but
because his time is too precious to be wasted in barren controversy,
and because he is too proud to place himself on a level with those who
would dispute with him. No selfish arrogance of this kind has any
place in the character of the truly wise. His wisdom not only
enlightens his intellect, but warms his heart and strengthens his
will. He believes that "the wise man alone is king," and that "the
wise man alone is happy," yet not because he has the crown of
knowledge and abundance of intellectual enjoyment, but because he
"fulfils the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"
(ii. 8), and because happiness is to be found in promoting the
happiness of others.

"Without variance, without hypocrisy." These are the last two of the
goodly qualities which St. James gives as marks of the heavenly
wisdom. Similarity in sound, which cannot well be preserved in
English, has evidently had something to do with their selection
(ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος). The first of the two has perplexed
translators, and the English versions give us considerable choice:
"without variance," "without wrangling," "without partiality,"
"without doubtfulness," "without judging." Purvey has for the two
epithets "deeming without feigning," following the Sixtine edition of
the Vulgate, which has _judicans sine simulatione_, instead of _non
judicans, sine simulatione_. The word occurs nowhere else either in
the Old or in the New Testament; but it is cognate with a word which
St. James uses twice at the beginning of this Epistle (διακρινόμενος:
i. 6), and which is there rendered "doubting" or "wavering." Of the
various possible meanings of the word before us we may therefore
prefer "without doubtfulness." The wisdom from above is unwavering,
steadfast, single-minded. Thus Ignatius charges the Magnesians (xv.)
to "possess an unventuring spirit" (ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα), and tells the
Trallians (i.) that he has "learned that they have a mind unblameable
and unwavering in patience" (ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ). And Clement of
Alexandria (_Pæd._ II. iii., p. 190) speaks of "unwavering faith"
(ἀδιακρίτῳ πίστει), and a few lines farther on he reminds his readers,
in words that suit our present subject, that "wisdom is not bought
with earthly coin, nor is sold in the market, but in heaven." If he
had said that wisdom is not sold in the market, but _given_ from
heaven, he would have made the contrast both more pointed and more
true.

"The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make
peace." The Greek may mean either "_for_ them that make peace," or
"_by_ them that make peace;" and we need not attempt to decide. In
either case it is the peacemakers who sow the seed whose fruit is
righteousness, and the peacemakers who reap this fruit. The whole
process begins, progresses, and ends in peace.

It is evident that the heavenly wisdom is pre-eminently a _practical_
wisdom. It is not purely or mainly intellectual; it is not
speculative; it is not lost in contemplation. Its object is to
increase holiness rather than knowledge, and happiness rather than
information. Its atmosphere is not controversy and debate, but
gentleness and peace. It is full, not of sublime theories or daring
hypotheses, but of mercy and good fruits. It can be confident without
wrangling, and reserved without hypocrisy. It is the twin sister of
that heavenly love which "envieth not, vaunteth not itself, seeketh
not its own, is not provoked, taketh no account of evil."

[72] Mark Pattison, _Essays: Life of Bishop Warburton_, vol. ii., pp.
163, 164 (Oxford: 1889).

[73] See Jellett's _Thoughts on the Christian Life_, p. 49 (Dublin:
1884).




 CHAPTER XVIII.

 _ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES
 OF STRIFE; THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER._

 "Whence come wars, and whence come fightings among you? come they not
 hence, even of your pleasures which war in your members? Ye lust, and
 have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war; ye
 have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask
 amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures."--ST. JAMES
 iv. 1-13.


The change from the close of the third chapter to the beginning of the
fourth is startling. St. James has just been sketching with much
beauty the excellences of the heavenly wisdom, and especially its
marked characteristic of always tending to produce an atmosphere of
peace, in which the seed that produces the fruit of righteousness will
grow and flourish. Gentleness, good-will, mercy, righteousness,
peace--these form the main features of his sketch. And then he
abruptly turns upon his readers with the question, "Whence come wars,
and whence come sightings among you?"

The sudden transition from the subject of peace to the opposite is
deliberate. Its object is to startle and awaken the consciences of
those who are addressed. The wisdom from below produces bitter
jealousy and faction; the wisdom from above produces gentleness and
peace. Then how is to be explained the origin of the wars and
fightings which prevail among the twelve tribes of the Dispersion?
That ought to set them thinking. These things must be traced to causes
which are earthly or demoniacal rather than heavenly; and if so, those
who are guilty of them, instead of contending for the office of
teaching others, ought to be seriously considering how to correct
themselves. Here, again, there is the strangest contradiction between
their professions and their practice. Clement of Rome seems to have
this passage in his mind when he writes (_c_. A.D. 97) to the Church
of Corinth, "Wherefore are there strifes and wraths, and factions and
divisions, and war among you?" (xlvi.).

"Wars" (πόλομοι) and "fightings" (μάχαι) are not to be understood
literally. When the text is applied to international warfare between
Christian states in modern times, or to any case of civil war, it may
be so interpreted without doing violence to its spirit; but that is
not the original meaning of the words. There was no civil war among
the Jews at this time, still less among the Jewish Christians.
St. James is referring to private quarrels and law-suits, social
rivalries and factions, and religious controversies. The
subject-matter of these disputes and contentions is not indicated,
because that is not what is denounced. It is not for having
differences about this or that, whether rights of property, or posts
of honour, or ecclesiastical questions, that St. James rebukes them,
but for the rancorous, greedy, and worldly spirit in which their
disputes are conducted. Evidently the lust of possession is among the
things which produce the contentions. Jewish appetite for wealth is at
work among them.

It was stated in a former chapter (p. 48) that, there are places in
this Epistle in which St. James seems to go beyond the precise circle
of readers addressed in the opening words, and to glance at the whole
Jewish nation, whether outside Palestine or not, and whether Christian
or not. These more comprehensive addresses are more frequent in the
second half of the Epistle than in the first, and one is inclined to
believe that the passage before us is one of them. In that case we may
believe that the bitter contentions which divided Pharisees,
Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots, and Samaritans from one
another are included in the wars and fightings, as well as the
quarrels which disgraced Christian Jews. In any case we see that the
Jews who had entered the Christian Church had brought with them that
contentious spirit which was one of their national characteristics.
Just as St. Paul has to contend with Greek love of faction in his
converts at Corinth, so St. James has to contend with a similar Jewish
failing among the converts from Judaism. And it would seem as if he
hoped through these converts to reach many of those who were not yet
converted. What he wrote to Christian synagogues would possibly be
heard of and noted in synagogues which were not Christian. At any rate
this Epistle contains ample evidence that the grievous scandals which
amaze us in the early history of the Apostolic Churches of Corinth,
Galatia, and Ephesus were not peculiar to converts from heathenism:
among the Christians of the circumcision, who had had the advantage of
life-long knowledge of God and of His law, there were evils as
serious, and sometimes very similar in kind. The notion that the
Church of the Apostolic age was in a condition of ideal perfection is
a beautiful but baseless dream.[74]

"Whence wars, and whence fightings among you? come they not hence,
even of your pleasures which war in your members?" By a common
transposition, St. James, in answering his own question, puts the
pleasures which excite and gratify the lusts instead of the lusts
themselves, in much the same way as we use "drink" for intemperance,
and "gold" for avarice. These lusts for pleasures have their quarters
or camp in the members of the body, _i.e._ in the sensual part of
man's nature. But they are there, not to rest, but to make war, to go
after, and seize, and take for a prey that which has roused them from
their quietude and set them in motion. There the picture, as drawn by
St. James, ends. St. Paul carries it a stage farther, and speaks of
the "different law in my members, warring _against the law of my
mind_" (Rom. vii. 23). St. Peter does the same, when he beseeches his
readers, "as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts,
which war _against the soul_" (1 Peter ii. 11); and some commentators
would supply either "against the mind" or "against the soul" here. But
there is no need to supply anything, and if one did supply anything
the "wars and sightings _among you_" would rather lead us to
understand that the lusts in each one's members make war against
everything which interferes with their gratification, and such would
be the possessions and desires of other people. This completion of
St. James's picture agrees well also with what follows: "Ye lust, and
have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain." But it is best to
leave the metaphor just where he leaves it, without adding anything.
And the fact that he does not add "against the mind" or "against the
soul" is some slight indication that he had not seen either the
passage in Romans or in the Epistle of St. Peter. (See above, p. 57.)

In the _Phædo_ of Plato (66, 67) there is a beautiful passage, which
presents some striking coincidences with the words of St. James.
"Wars, and factions, and sightings have no other source than the body
and its lusts. For it is for the getting of wealth that all our wars
arise, and we are compelled to get wealth because of our body, to
whose service we are slaves; and in consequence we have no leisure for
philosophy, because of all these things. And the worst of all is that
if we get any leisure from it, and turn to some question, in the midst
of our inquiries the body is everywhere coming in, introducing turmoil
and confusion, and bewildering us, so that by it we are prevented from
seeing the truth. But indeed it has been proved to us that if we are
ever to have pure knowledge of anything we must get rid of the body,
and with the soul by itself must behold things by themselves. _Then_,
it would seem, we shall obtain the wisdom which we desire, and of
which we say that we are lovers; when we are dead, as the argument
shows, but in this life not. For if it be impossible while we are in
the body to have pure knowledge of anything, then of two things
one--either knowledge is not to be obtained at all, or after we are
dead; for then the soul will be by itself, apart from the body, but
before that not. And in this life, it would seem, we shall make the
nearest approach to knowledge if we have no communication or
fellowship whatever with the body, beyond what necessity compels, and
are not filled with its nature, but remain pure from its taint, until
God Himself shall set us free. And in this way shall we be pure, being
delivered from the foolishness of the body, and shall be with other
like souls, and shall know of ourselves all that is clear and
cloudless, and that is perhaps all one with the truth."

Plato and St. James are entirely agreed in holding that wars and
fightings are caused by the lusts that have their seat in the body,
and that this condition of fightings without, and lusts within, is
quite incompatible with the possession of heavenly wisdom. But there
the agreement between them ceases. The conclusion which Plato arrives
at is that the philosopher must, so far as is possible, neglect and
excommunicate his body, as an intolerable source of corruption,
yearning for the time when death shall set him free from the burden of
waiting upon this obstacle between his soul and the truth. Plato has
no idea that the body may be sanctified here and glorified hereafter;
he regards it simply as a necessary evil, which may be minimized by
watchfulness, but which can in no way be turned into a blessing. The
blessing will come when the body is annihilated by death. St. James,
on the contrary, exhorts us to cut ourselves off, not from the body,
but from friendship with the world. If we resist the evil one, who
tempts us through our ferocious lusts, he will flee from us. God will
give us the grace we need, if we pray for that rather than for
pleasures. He will draw nigh to us if we draw nigh to Him; and if we
purify our hearts He will make His Spirit to dwell in them. Even in
this life the wisdom that is from above is attainable, and where that
has found a home factions and fightings cease. When the passions cease
to war, those who have hitherto been swayed by their passions will
cease to war also. But those whom St. James addresses are as yet very
far from this blessed condition.

"Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight
and war." In short, sharp, telling sentences he puts forth the items
of his indictment; but it is not easy to punctuate them
satisfactorily, nor to decide whether "ye kill" is to be understood
literally or not. In none of the English versions does the punctuation
seem to bring out a logical sequence of clauses. The following
arrangement is suggested for consideration: "Ye lust, and have not; ye
kill. And ye covet, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war." In this way
we obtain two sentences of similar meaning, which exactly balance one
another. "Ye lust, and have not," corresponds with, "Ye covet, and
cannot obtain," and "ye kill" with "ye fight and war;" and in each
sentence the last clause is the consequence of what precedes. "Ye
lust, and have not; _therefore_ ye kill." "Ye covet, and cannot
obtain; _therefore_ ye fight and war." This grouping of the clauses
yields good sense, and does no violence to the Greek.

"Ye lust, and have not; therefore ye kill." Is "kill" to be understood
literally? That murder, prompted by avarice and passion, was common
among the Christian Jews of the Dispersion, is quite incredible. That
monstrous scandals occurred in the Apostolic age, especially among
Gentile converts, who supposed that the freedom of the Gospel meant
lax morality, is unquestionable; but that these scandals ever took the
form of indifference to human life we have no evidence. And it is
specially improbable that murder would be frequent among those who,
before they became Christians, had been obedient to the Mosaic Law.
St. James may have a single case in his mind, like that of the
incestuous marriage at Corinth; but in that case he would probably
have expressed himself differently. Or again, as was suggested above,
he may in this section be addressing the whole Jewish race, and not
merely those who had become converts to Christianity; and in that case
he may be referring to the brigandage and assassination which a
combination of causes, social, political, and religious, had rendered
common among the Jews, especially in Palestine, at this time. Of this
evil we have plenty of evidence both in the New Testament and in
Josephus. Barabbas and the two robbers who were crucified with Christ
are instances in the Gospels. And with them we may put the parable of
the man "who fell among robbers," and was left half-dead between
Jerusalem and Jericho; for no doubt the parable, like all Christ's
parables, is founded on fact, and is no mere imaginary picture. In the
Acts we have Theudas with his four hundred followers (B.C. 4), Judas
of Galilee (A.D. 6), and the Egyptian with his four thousand
"Assassins," or _Sicarii_ (A.D. 58); to whom we may add the forty who
conspired to assassinate St. Paul (v. 36, 37; xxi. 38; xxiii. 12-21).
And Josephus tells us of another Theudas, who was captured and put to
death with many of his followers by the Roman Procurator Cuspius Fadus
(c. A.D. 45); and he also states that about fifty years earlier, under
Varus, there were endless disorders in Judæa, sedition and robbery
being almost chronic. The brigands inflicted a certain amount of
damage on the Romans, but the murders which they committed were on
their fellow-countrymen the Jews (_Ant._ XVII. x. 4, 8; XX. v. i).[75]

In either of these ways, therefore, the literal interpretation of a
"kill" makes good sense; and we are not justified in saying, with
Calvin, that "kill in no way suits the context." Calvin, with Erasmus,
Beza, Hornejus, and others, adopts the violent expedient of correcting
the Greek from "kill" (φονεύετε) to "envy" (φθονεῖτε), a reading for
which not a single MS., version, or Father can be quoted. It is
accepted, however, by Tyndale and Cranmer and in the Genevan Bible,
all of which have, "Ye _envy_ and have indignation, and cannot
obtain." Wiclif and the Rhemish of course hold to the _occiditis_ of
the Vulgate, the one with "slay," and the other with "kill."

But although the literal interpretation yields good sense, it is
perhaps not the best interpretation. It was pointed out above that "ye
kill" balances "ye fight and war," and that "wars and fightings"
evidently are _not_ to be understood literally, as the context shows.
If then, "ye fight and war" means "ye quarrel, and dispute, and
intrigue, and go to law with one another," ought not "ye kill" to be
explained in a similar way? Christ had said, "Ye have heard that it
was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall
kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That
every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the
judgment" (Matt. v. 21, 22). And St. John tells us that "every one who
hateth his brother is a murderer" (1 John iii. 15). "Every one who
hateth" (πᾶς ὁ μισῶν) is an uncompromising expression, and it
covers all that St. James says here. Just as the cherished lustful
thought is adultery in the heart (Matt. v. 28), so cherished hatred is
murder in the heart.

But there is an explanation, half literal and half metaphorical, which
is well worth considering. It has been pointed out how frequently
St. James seems to have portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in his
mind. We read there that "the bread of the needy is the life of the
poor: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood. He that taketh
away his neighbour's living slayeth him (φονεύων); and he that
defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a blood-shedder" (xxxiv. 21,
22). If St. James was familiar with these words, and still more if he
could count on his readers also being familiar with them, might he not
mean, "Ye lust, and have not; and then, to gratify your desire, you
deprive the poor of his living"? Even Deut. xxiv. 6 might suffice to
give rise to such a strong method of expression: "No man shall take
the mill or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man's life
to pledge." Throughout this section the language used is strong, as if
the writer felt very strongly about the evils which he condemns.

While "ye lust, and have not, and thereupon take a man's livelihood
from him," would refer specially to _possessions_, "Ye covet (or envy)
and cannot obtain, and thereupon fight and war," might refer specially
to _honours_, _posts_, and _party advantages_. The word rendered
"covet" (ζηλοῦτε) is that which describes the thing which love never
does: "Love _envieth_ not" (1 Cor. xiii. 4). When St. James was
speaking of the wisdom from below (iii. 14-16) the kind of quarrels
which he had chiefly in view were party controversies, as was natural
after treating just before of sins of the tongue. Here the wars and
fightings are not so much about matters of controversy as those things
which minister to a man's "pleasures," his avarice, his sensuality,
and his ambition.

How is it that they have not all that they want? How is that there is
any need to despoil others, or to contend fiercely with them for
possession? "Ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not,
because ye ask amiss." _That_ is the secret of these gnawing wants and
lawless cravings. They do not try to supply their needs in a way that
would cause loss to no one, viz. by prayer to God; they prefer to
employ violence and craft against one another. Or if they do pray for
the supply of their earthly needs, they obtain nothing, because they
pray with evil intent. To pray without the spirit of prayer is to
court failure. That God's will may be done, and His Name glorified, is
the proper end of all prayer. To pray simply that our wishes may be
satisfied is not a prayer to which fulfilment has been promised; still
less can this be the case when our wishes are for the glorification of
our lusts. Prayer for advance in holiness we may be sure is in
accordance with God's will. About prayer for earthly advantages we
cannot be sure; but we may pray for things so far as they are to His
glory and for our own spiritual welfare. Prayer for earthly goods,
which are to be used as instruments, not of His pleasure, but of ours,
we may be sure is not in accordance with His will. To such a prayer we
need expect no answer, or an answer which at the same time is a
judgment; for the fulfilment of an unrighteous prayer is sometimes its
most fitting punishment.

St. James is not blaming his readers for asking God to give them
worldly prosperity. About the lawfulness of praying for temporal
blessings, whether for ourselves or for others, there is no question.
St. John prays that Gaius "in all things may prosper and be in health,
even as his soul prospereth" (3 John 2), and St. James plainly implies
that when one has temporal needs one _ought_ to bring them before God
in prayer, only with a right purpose and in a right spirit. In the
next chapter he specially recommends prayer for the recovery of the
sick. The asking amiss consists not in asking for temporal things, but
in seeking them for a wrong purpose, viz. that they may be squandered
in a life of self-indulgence. The right purpose is to enable us to
serve God better. Temporal necessities are often a hindrance to good
service, and then it is right to ask God to relieve them. But in all
such things the rule laid down by Christ is the safe one, "Seek ye
_first_ the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these
things shall be added unto you." A life consecrated to the service of
God is the best prayer for temporal blessings. Prayer that is offered
in a grasping spirit is like that of the bandit for the success of his
raids.

[74] See the volume on the _Pastoral Epistles_ in this series, pp.
264, 265.

[75] If φονεύετε is taken with what follows, it is best to render
φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε "Ye act as Assassins and Zealots," referring both
words to the fanatics who a little later killed James himself, and
were the hasteners of the downfall of Jerusalem.




 CHAPTER XIX.

 _THE SEDUCTIONS OF THE WORLD, AND THE JEALOUSY
 OF THE DIVINE LOVE._

 "Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is
 enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, would be a friend of the world
 maketh himself an enemy of God. Or think ye that the Scripture
 speaketh in vain? Doth the Spirit which He made to dwell in us long
 unto envying? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore the Scripture
 saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
 humble."--ST. JAMES iv. 4-6.


The Revisers are certainly right in rejecting, without even mention in
the margin, the reading, "Ye _adulterers and_ adulteresses." The
difficulty of the revised reading pleads strongly in its favour, and
the evidence of MSS. and versions is absolutely decisive. The
interpolation of the masculine was doubtless made by those who
supposed that the term of reproach was to be understood literally, and
who thought it inexplicable that St. James should confine his rebuke
to female offenders.

But the context shows that the term is not to be understood literally.
It is not a special kind of sensuality, but greed and worldliness
generally, that the writer is condemning. It is one of the
characteristics of the letter that being addressed to Jewish, and not
Gentile converts, and occasionally to Jews whether Christians or not,
it says very little about the sins of the flesh; and "adulteresses"
here is no exception. The word is used in its common Old Testament
sense of spiritual adultery--unfaithfulness to Jehovah regarded as the
Husband of His people. "They that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou
hast destroyed all them that go a-whoring from Thee" (Ps. lxxiii. 27).
"Thus will I make thy lewdness to cease from thee, and thy whoredom
brought from the land of Egypt" (Ezek. xxiii. 27). "Plead with your
mother, plead; for she is not My wife, neither am I her Husband" (Hos.
ii. 2). The fifty-seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a terrible
working out of this simile; and indeed the Old Testament is full of
it. Our Lord is probably reproducing it when he speaks of the Jews of
His own time as an "adulterous and sinful generation" (Matt. xii. 39;
xvi. 4; Mark viii. 38). And we find it again in the Apocalypse
(ii. 22).

But why does St. James use the feminine? Had he accused his readers of
adultery, or called them an adulterous generation, the meaning would
have been clear enough. What is the exact meaning of "Ye adulteresses"?

St. James wishes to bring home to those whom he is addressing that not
only the Christian Church as a whole, or the chosen people as a whole,
is espoused to God, but that each individual soul stands to Him in the
relation of a wife to her husband. It is not merely the case that they
belong to a generation which in the main has been guilty of
unfaithfulness, and that in this guilt they share; but each of them,
taken one by one, has in his or her own person committed this sin
against the Divine Spouse. The sex of the person does not affect the
relationship: any soul that has been wedded to God, and has then
transferred its affection and allegiance to other beings, is an
unfaithful wife. St. James, with characteristic simplicity,
directness, and force, indicates this fact by the stern address, "Ye
adulteresses."

"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" He
implies that they might know this, and that they can scarcely help
doing so; it is so obvious that to love His opponent is to be
unfaithful and hostile to Him. At the beginning of the section
St. James had asked whence came the miserable condition in which his
readers were found; and he replied that it came from their own
desires, which they tried to gratify by intrigue and violence, instead
of resorting to prayer; or else from the carnal aims by which they
turned their prayers into sin. Here he puts the same fact in a
somewhat different way. This vehement pursuit of their own pleasures,
in word, and deed, and even in prayer--what is it but a desertion of
God for Mammon, a sacrifice of the love of God to the friendship (such
as it is) of the world? It is a base yielding to seductions which
ought to have no attractiveness, for they involve the unfaithfulness
of a wife and the treason of a subject. There can be no true and loyal
affection for God while some other than God is loved, and not loved
for His sake. If a woman "shall put away her husband, and marry
another, she committeth adultery" (Mark xi. 12); and if a soul shall
put away its God, and marry another, it committeth adultery. A wife
who cultivates friendship with one who is trying to seduce her becomes
the enemy of her husband; and every Christian and Jew ought to know
"that the friendship of the world is enmity with God."

St. John tells us (and the words are probably not his, but Christ's)
that "God loved the world" (John iii. 16). He also charges us _not_ to
love the world (1 John ii. 15). And here St. James tells us that to be
friends with the world is to be the enemy of God. It is obvious that
"the world" which God loves is not identical with "the world" which we
are told not to love. "World" (κόσμος) is a term which has various
meanings in Scripture, and we shall go seriously astray if we do not
carefully distinguish them. Sometimes it means the whole universe in
its order and beauty; as when St. Paul says, "For the invisible things
of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
perceived through the things that are made" (Rom. i. 20). Sometimes it
means this planet, the earth; as when the evil one showed to Jesus
"all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matt. iv. 8).
Again, it means the inhabitants of the earth; as when Christ is said
to "take away the sin of the world" (John i. 2; 1 John iv. 14).
Lastly, it means those who are alienated from God--unbelievers,
faithless Jews and Christians, and especially the great heathen
organization of Rome (John viii. 23; xii. 31). Thus a word which
originally signified the natural order and beauty of creation comes to
signify the unnatural disorder and hideousness of creatures who have
rebelled against their Creator. The world which the Father loves is
the whole race of mankind, His creatures and His children. The world
which we are not to love is that which prevents us from loving Him in
return, His rival and His enemy. It is from this world that the truly
religious man keeps himself unspotted (i. 25). Sinful men, with their
sinful lusts, keeping up a settled attitude of disloyalty and
hostility to God, and handing this on as a living tradition, is what
St. Paul, and St. James, and St. John mean by "the world."

This world has the devil for its ruler (John xiv. 30). It lies wholly
in the power of the evil one (1 John v. 19). It cannot hate Christ's
enemies, for the very reason that it hates Him (John vii. 7). And for
the same reason it hates all those whom He has chosen out of its midst
(xv. 18, 19). Just as there is a Spirit of God, which leads us into
all the truth, so there is a "spirit of the world," which leads to
just the opposite (1 Cor. ii. 12). This world, with its lusts, is
passing away (1 John ii. 17), and its very sorrow worketh death
(2 Cor. vii. 10). "The world is human nature, sacrificing the
spiritual to the material, the future to the present, the unseen and
the eternal to that which touches the senses and which perishes with
time. The world is a mighty flood of thoughts, feelings, principles of
action, conventional prejudices, dislikes, attachments, which have
been gathering around human life for ages, impregnating it, impelling
it, moulding it, degrading it. Of the millions of millions of human
beings who have lived, nearly every one probably has contributed
something, his own little addition, to the great tradition of
materialized life which St. [James] calls the world. Every one, too,
must have received something from it. According to his circumstances
the same man acts upon the world, or in turn is acted on by it. And
the world at different times wears different forms. Sometimes it is a
solid compact mass, an organization of pronounced ungodliness.
Sometimes it is a subtle, thin, hardly suspected influence, a power
altogether airy and impalpable, which yet does most powerfully
penetrate, inform, and shape human life."[76]

There is no sin in a passionate love of the ordered beauty and harmony
of the universe, as exhibited either in this planet or in the
countless bodies which people the immensity of space; no sin in
devoting the energies of a lifetime to finding out all that can be
known about the laws and conditions of nature in all its complex
manifestations. Science is no forbidden ground to God's servants, for
all truth is God's truth, and to learn it is a revelation of Himself.
If only it be studied as His creature, it may be admired and loved
without any disloyalty to Him.

Still less is there any sin in "the enthusiasm of humanity," in a
passionate zeal for the amelioration of the whole human race. A
consuming love for one's fellow-men is so far from involving enmity to
God that it is impossible to have any genuine love of God without it.
"He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom
he hath not seen" (1 John iv. 20). The love of the world which
St. James condemns is a passion which more than anything else renders
a love of mankind impossible. Its temper is selfishness, and the
principle of its action is the conviction that every human being is
actuated by purely selfish motives. It has no belief in motives of
which it has no experience either in itself or in those among whom it
habitually moves. Next to a cultivation of the love of God, a
cultivation of the love of man is the best remedy for the deadly
paralysis of the heart which is the inevitable consequence of
_choosing_ to be a friend of the world.

This choice is a very important element in the matter. It is lost in
the Authorized Version, but is rightly restored by the Revisers.
"Whosoever, therefore, _would be_ (βουλληθῇ εἶναι) a friend of the
world _maketh himself_ (καθίσταται) an enemy of God." It is useless
for him to plead that he has no wish to be hostile to God. He has of
his own free will adopted a condition of life which of necessity
involves hostility to Him. And he has full opportunity of knowing
this; for although the world may try to deceive him by confusing the
issue, God does not. The world may assure him that there is no need of
any choice: he has no need to abandon God; it is quite easy to serve
God, and yet remain on excellent terms with the world. But God
declares that the choice must be made, and that it is absolute and
exclusive. "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of
thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to
love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with _all_ thy heart and with
_all_ thy soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord, and His
statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?" (Deut. x. 12,
13; comp. vi. 5 and xxx. 6).

The next two verses are a passage of known difficulty, the most
difficult in this Epistle, and one of the most difficult in the whole
of the New Testament. In the intensity of his detestation of the evil
against which he is inveighing, St. James has used condensed
expressions which can be understood in a variety of ways, and it is
scarcely possible to decide which of the three or four possible
meanings is the one intended. But the question has been obscured by
the suggestion of explanations which are not tenable. The choice lies
between those which are given in the margin of the Revised Version and
the one before us in the text; for we may safely discard all those
which depend upon the reading "_dwelleth_ in us" (κατῴκησεν), and we
must stand by the reading "_made to dwell_ in us" (κατῴκισεν).

The questions which cannot be answered with certainty are these: 1.
Are two Scriptures quoted, or only one? and if two are quoted, where
is the first of them to be found? 2. Who is it that "longeth" or
"lusteth?" is it God, or the Holy Spirit, or our own human spirit? 3.
What is it that is longed for by God or the Spirit? Let us take these
three questions in order.

1. The words which follow "Think ye that the Scripture speaketh in
vain?" do not occur in the Old Testament, although the sense of them
may be found piecemeal in a variety of passages. Therefore, either the
words are not a quotation at all, or they are from some book no longer
extant, or they are a condensation of several utterances in the Old
Testament.[77] The first of these suppositions seems to be the best,
but neither of the others can be set aside as improbable. We may
paraphrase, therefore, the first part of the passage thus:--

"Ye unfaithful spouses of Jehovah! know ye not that to be friendly
with the world is to be at enmity with Him? Or do ye think that what
the Scripture says about faithlessness to God is idly spoken?" But as
regards this first question we must be content to remain in great
uncertainty.

2. Who is it that "longeth" or "lusteth" (ἐπιποθεῖ)? To decide
whether "longeth" or "lusteth" is the right translation will help us
to decide this second point, and it will also help us to decide
whether the sentence is interrogative or not. Is this word of desiring
used here in the good sense of longing or yearning, or in the bad
sense of lusting? The word occurs frequently in the New Testament, and
in every one of these passages it is used in a good sense (Rom. i. 11;
2 Cor. v. 2; ix. 14; Phil. i. 8; ii. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 10; 2 Tim.
i. 4; 1 Peter ii. 2). Nor is this the whole case. Substantives and
adjectives which are closely cognate with it are fairly common, and
these are all used in a good sense (Rom. xv. 23; 2 Cor. vii. 7;
vii. 11; Phil. iv. 1). We may therefore set aside the interpretations
of the sentence which require the rendering "lusteth," whether the
statement that man's spirit lusteth enviously, or the question, Doth
the Divine Spirit in us lust enviously? The word here expresses the
mighty and affectionate longing of the Divine love. And it is the
_Spirit_ which God made to dwell in us which longeth over us with a
jealous longing. If we make the sentence mean that _God_ longeth, then
we are compelled to take the Spirit which He made to dwell in us as
that for which He longs; God has a jealous longing for His own Spirit
implanted in us. But this does not yield very good sense; we decide,
therefore, for the rendering, "Even unto jealousy doth the Spirit
which He made to dwell in us yearn over us." "Even unto jealousy;"
these words stand first, with great emphasis. No friendship with the
world or any alien object can be tolerated.

3. The third question has been solved by the answer to the second.
That which is yearned for by the Spirit implanted in us is ourselves.
The meaning is not that God longs for man's spirit (the human spirit
would hardly be spoken of as that which God "made to dwell in us"), or
that He longs for the Holy Spirit in us (a meaning which would be very
hard to explain), but that His Holy Spirit yearns for us with a
jealous yearning. God is a jealous God, and the Divine love is a
jealous love; it brooks no rival. And when His Spirit takes up its
abode in us it cannot rest until it possesses us wholly, to the
exclusion of all alien affections.

At one of the conferences between the Northern and the Southern States
of America during the war of 1861-1866 the representatives of the
Southern States stated what cession of territory they were prepared to
make, provided that the independence of the portion that was not ceded
to the Federal Government was secured. More and more attractive offers
were made, the portions to be ceded being increased, and those to be
retained in a state of independence being proportionately diminished.
All the offers were met by a steadfast refusal. At last President
Lincoln placed his hand on the map so as to cover all the Southern
States, and in these emphatic words delivered his ultimatum:
"Gentlemen, this Government _must have the whole_." The constitution
of the United States was at an end if any part, however small, was
allowed to become independent of the rest. It was a vital principle,
which did not admit of exceptions or degrees. It must be kept in its
entirety, or it was not kept at all.

Just such is the claim which God, by the working of His Spirit, makes
upon ourselves. He cannot share us with the world, however much we may
offer to Him, and however little to His rival. If a rival is admitted
at all, our relation to Him is violated and we have become unfaithful.
His government _must have the whole_.

Do these terms seem to be harsh? They are not really so, for the more
we surrender, the more He bestows. We give up the world, and that
appears to us to be a great sacrifice. "But He giveth more grace."
Even in this world He gives far more than we give up, and adds a crown
of life in the world to come (i. 12). "Verily I say unto you, There is
no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or
father, or children, or lands, for My sake, and for the Gospel's sake,
but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and
brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with
persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life" (Mark x. 29, 30).
"God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." Those who
persist in making friends with the world, in seeking its advantages,
in adopting its standards, in accepting its praise, God resists. By
choosing to throw in their lot with His enemy they have made
themselves His enemies, and He cannot but withstand them. But to those
who humbly submit their wills to His, who give up the world, with its
gifts and its promises, and are willing to be despised by it in order
to keep themselves unspotted from it, He gives grace--grace to cling
closer to Him, in spite of the attractions of the world; a gift which,
unlike the gifts of the world, never loses its savour.

       *       *       *       *       *

Was St. James acquainted with the _Magnificat_? May not he, the Lord's
brother, have sometimes heard the Mother of the Lord recite it? The
passage before us is almost like an echo of some of its words: "His
mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him. He
hath showed strength with His arm; He hath scattered the proud in the
imagination of their heart. He hath put down princes from their
thrones, and hath exalted them of low degree. The hungry He hath
filled with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty away." At any
rate the _Magnificat_ and St. James teach the same lesson as the Book
of Proverbs and St. Peter, who, like St. James, quotes it (1 Peter
v. 5), that God resists and puts down those who choose to unite
themselves with the world in preference to Him, and gives more and
more graces and blessings to all who by faith in Him and His Christ
have overcome the world. It is only by faith that we _can_ overcome. A
conviction that the things which are seen are the most important and
pressing, if not the only realities, is sure to betray us into a state
of captivity in which the power to work for God, and even the desire
to serve Him, will become less and less. We have willed to place
ourselves under the world's spell, and such influence as we possess
tells not for God, but against Him. But a belief that the chief and
noblest realities are unseen enables a man to preserve an attitude of
independence and indifference towards things which, even if they are
substantial advantages, belong to this world only. He knows how
insignificant all that this life has to offer is, compared with the
immeasurable joys and woes of the life to come, and he cannot be
guilty of the folly of sacrificing a certain and eternal future to a
brief and uncertain present. The God in whom he believes is far more
to him than the world which he sees and feels. "This is the victory
which hath overcome the world, even his faith."

[76] Liddon, _Easter Sermons_, vol. ii., pp. 56, 57 (Rivingtons, 1885).

[77] Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9; ix. 10; Eph. v. 14, in all which places we
have quotations the source of which cannot be determined. Similar
phenomena are frequent in patristic literature. See A. Resch's
_Agrapha; Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente_ in _Texte und
Untersuchungen z. Gesch. d. Altchr. Lit._ (Leipzig, 1889), p. 256.




 CHAPTER XX.

 _THE POWER OF SATAN AND ITS LIMITS. HUMILITY THE FOUNDATION
 OF PENITENCE AND OF HOLINESS._

 "Be subject therefore unto God; but resist the devil, and he will
 flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you.
 Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye
 double-minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter
 be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves
 in the sight of the Lord, and He shall exalt
 you."--ST. JAMES iv. 7-10.


Submission to God is the beginning, middle, and end of the prodigal's
return from disastrous familiarity with the world to the security of
the Father's home. A readiness to submit to whatever He may impose is
the first step in the conversion, just as unwillingness to surrender
one's own will is the first step towards revolt and desertion. "I am
no more worthy to be called Thy son: make me as one of Thy hired
servants." As soon as the resolve to make this act of submission is
formed, the turning-point between friendship with the world and
fidelity to God has been passed. The homeward path is not an easy one,
but it is certain, and those who unflinchingly take it are sure of a
welcome at the end of it. The prodigal was tenderly received back by
his offended father, and these adulterous souls will be admitted to
their old privileges again, if they will but return. God has given
them no bill of divorcement to put them away for ever (Isa. l. 1). "If
a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man's,
shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly
polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return
again to Me, saith the Lord" (Jer. iii. 1). An amount of mercy and
forgiveness which cannot be shown by an earthly husband to his
unfaithful wife is readily promised by God.

But the return must be a complete one. There must be every guarantee
that the penitent is in earnest and has utterly broken with the past.
And St. James with affectionate sternness points out the necessary
steps towards reconciliation. He will not be guilty of the crime of
those who "have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people lightly,
saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jer. viii. 11). The
results of intimacy with the world cannot be undone in a day, and
there is painful work to be done before the old relationship can be
restored between the soul and its God.

Among the most grievous consequences of yielding to the world and its
ways are the weakening of the will and the lowering of the moral tone.
They come gradually, but surely; and they act and react upon one
another. The habitual shirking of the sterner duties of life, and the
living in an atmosphere of self-indulgence, enervate the will; and the
conscious adoption of a standard of life which is not approved by
conscience is in itself a lowering of tone. And this is one of the
essential elements of worldliness. The pleas that "I can't help it,"
and that "everybody does it," are among the most common excuses urged
by those whose citizenship is not in heaven (Phil. iii. 20) but in
that commonwealth of which Satan is the presiding power. They like to
believe that temptations are irresistible, and that there is no
obligation to rise above the standard of morality which those about
them profess to accept. Such men deliberately surrender to what they
know to be evil, and place what they think to be expedient above what
they know to be right, forgetting that even the worldlings who set
them this low standard, and openly defend it, very often do not really
approve it, but despise while they applaud the man that conforms to it.

St. James enters an earnest and simple protest against the weak plea
that temptations are irresistible. To maintain _that_ is to assert
that the evil one has more will and power to destroy mankind than God
has to save them. The truth is exactly the other way. God not only
allows to Satan no power to coerce a man into sin, but He Himself is
ever ready to aid when He is faithfully prayed to do so. Every
Christian is endowed with sufficient power to withstand Satan, if only
the will to withstand is present, because he has the power to summon
God to his assistance. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you;"
that is one side of the blessed truth; and the other is its
correlative: "Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you."

It will be observed that St. James, quite as much as St. Peter, or
St. Paul, or St. John, speaks of the chief power of evil as a
_person_. The passage is not intelligible on any other interpretation;
for there is a manifest and telling antithesis between the devil who
yields to opposition, and the God who responds to invitation. It is a
contrast between two personal agencies. Whether St. James was aware of
the teaching of the Apostles on this point is not of great moment; his
own teaching is clear enough. As a Jew he had been brought up in the
belief that there are evil spiritual beings of whom Satan is the
chief, and since he became a Christian he had never been required to
revise this belief. He was probably well aware of the teaching of
Jesus Christ as to the real source of temptations. He may have heard
Christ's own interpretation of the birds in the parable of the Sower:
"And when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away
the word which hath been sown in them" (Mark iv. 15). He probably had
heard of Christ's declaration to St. Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold,
Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made
supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii. 31), where
we have a contrast similar to this, an infernal person on one side,
and a Divine Person on the other, of the man assailed by temptation.
How easy to have interpreted the birds in the parable as the
impersonal solicitations of a depraved nature, the hearers' own evil
tendencies; and perhaps if we had not possessed Christ's own
explanation we should so have explained the birds by the wayside. But
Christ seems to have made use of this, the queen of all the parables
(Mark iv. 13), in order to teach that a personal enemy there is, who
is ever on the watch to deprive us of what will save our souls. And
the warning to St. Peter might easily have been given in a form that
would not have implied a personal tempter. Nor do these two striking
passages stand alone in our Lord's teaching. How unnecessary to speak
of the woman who "was bowed together, and could in nowise lift up
herself," as one "whom Satan had bound," unless He desired to sanction
and enforce this belief (Luke xiv. 11, 16). And why speak of having
"beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven" (Luke x. 18), unless He
had this desire? When the Jews said that He cast out devils by the aid
of the prince of the devils, it would have been a much more complete
contradiction to have replied that no such person existed, than to
argue that Satan was not likely to fight against his own interests. If
the belief in personal powers of evil is a superstition, Jesus Christ
had ample opportunities of correcting it; and He not only steadfastly
abstained from doing so, but in very marked ways, both by His acts and
by His teaching, He did a great deal to encourage and inculcate the
belief. He showed no sympathy with the scepticism of the Sadducees
about such things. He argued convincingly against them as regards the
doctrine of the resurrection and a future life, and He gave full
sanction to the belief in angels and spirits, both good and bad. There
is no need to lay much stress upon the disputed meaning of the last
petition in the Lord's Prayer; the evidence is quite ample without
that. Yet those who are convinced that "Lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil," must mean, "Lead us not into
temptation, _but_ deliver us from _the tempter_," have a very
important piece of evidence to add to all the rest. Is a gross
superstition embodied in the very wording of the model prayer?

In the volume in this series which treats of the Pastoral Epistles is
a passage on this subject respecting which a very friendly critic has
said that he cannot quite see the force of it.[78] As the argument is
of value, it may be worth while to state it here more clearly. The
statement criticized is the concluding sentence of the following
passage: "It has been said that if there were no God we should have to
invent one; and with almost equal truth we might say that if there
were no devil we should have to invent one. Without a belief in God
bad men would have little to induce them to conquer their evil
passions; _without a belief in a devil good men would have little hope
of ever being able to do so_."[79] The meaning of the last statement
is this, that if good men were compelled to believe that all the
devilish suggestions which rise up in their minds come _from
themselves alone_, they might well be in despair of ever getting the
better of themselves or of curing a nature capable of producing such
offspring. But when they know that "a power, _not_ themselves, which
makes for" wickedness is the source of these diabolical temptations,
then they can have confidence that their own nature is not so
hopelessly corrupt but that, with the help of "the Power, not
themselves, that makes for _righteousness_" they will be able to gain
the victory.

The plea that the devil is irresistible, and that therefore to yield
to temptation is inevitable, is only another form of the fallacy,
against which St. James has already protested, of trying to shift the
responsibility of temptation from oneself to God (i. 13-15). It is the
old fallacy carried a stage farther. The former plea has reference to
the temptation; the present one has reference to the fall. As regards
both the facts are conclusive. We often provoke our own temptations;
we always can resist them if we in faith draw nigh to God for
protection. "To this end the Son of man was manifested, that He might
destroy the works of the devil" (1 John iii. 8). And the Son of God
preserveth every child of God, "and the evil one toucheth him not"
(1 John v. 18). But the man himself must consent and co-operate, for
God saves no man against his will. "Return unto Me, and I will return
unto you," is the principle of the Old Covenant (Zech. i. 3); and
"Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you," is the principle of
the New.

The converse of this is true also, and it is a fact of equal solemnity
and of great awfulness. Resist _God_, and He will depart from you.
Draw nigh to the _devil_, and he will draw nigh to you. If we persist
in withstanding God's grace, He will at last leave us to ourselves.
His Spirit will not always strive with us; but at last He Himself
hardens the heart which we have closed against him, for He allows
things to take their course, and the heart which refuses to be
softened by the dew of His grace must become harder and harder. And
the more we place ourselves in the devil's way, by exposing ourselves
to needless temptations, the more diligently he will seek us and abide
with us. Those who voluntarily take up their abode in the tents of
ungodliness have surrendered all claim to be kept unspotted from the
world. They have lost their right to join in the cry, "Why standest
Thou afar off, O Lord? why hidest Thou Thyself in times of trouble?"

But the hands which one raises in prayer to God must be cleansed by
withholding them from all evil practices, and from all grasping after
the contaminating gifts of the world; and the heart must be purified
by the quenching of unholy desires and the cultivation of a godly
spirit. In this St. James is but repeating the principles laid down by
the Psalmist: "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? and who
shall stand in His holy place? He that hath _clean hands_ and a _pure
heart_" (Ps. xxiv. 3, 4). And in similar language we find Clement of
Rome exhorting the Corinthians, "Let us therefore approach Him in
_holiness of soul_, lifting up _pure and undefiled hands_ unto Him"
(xxix.). In all these instances the external instruments of human
conduct are mentioned along with the internal source of it.

St. James is not addressing two classes of people when he says,
"Cleanse your hands, ye _sinners_; and purify your hearts, ye
_double-minded_." Every one whose hands have wrought unrighteousness
is a sinner who needs this cleansing; and every one who attempts to
draw nigh to God, without at the same time surrendering all unholy
desires, is a double-minded man who needs this purification. The
"halting between two opinions," between God and Mammon, and between
Christ and the world, is fatal to true conversion and efficacious
prayer. What is necessary, therefore, for these sinners of double
mind, is outward amendment of life and inward purification of the
desires. "The sinner that goeth two ways" must with "a single eye"
direct his path along the narrow way. "Whoso walketh uprightly shall
be delivered; but he that walketh perversely in two ways shall fall at
once" (Prov. xxviii. 18). The whole exhortation is in spirit very
similar to the second half of the second chapter of Ecclesiasticus.
Note especially the concluding verses: "They that fear the Lord will
prepare their hearts and humble their souls in His sight, saying, We
will fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men;
for as His majesty is, so is His mercy."

There must be no "light healing," or treatment of the grievous sins of
the past as of no moment. There must be genuine sorrow for the
unfaithfulness which has separated them so long from their God, and
for the pride which has betrayed them into rebellion against Him. "Be
afflicted, and mourn, and weep." The first verb refers to the inward
feeling of wretchedness, the other two to the outward expression of
it. These two are found in combination in several passages, both in
the Old Testament and in the New (2 Sam. xix. 2; Neh. viii. 9; Mark
xvi. 10; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 15, 19). The feelings of
satisfaction and self-sufficiency in which these friends of the world
have hitherto indulged, and the glowing complacency which has been
manifest in their demeanour, have been quite out of place, and must be
exchanged for feelings and manifestations of grief. Their worldly
merriment also must be abandoned; those who have cut themselves off
from God have no true spring of joy. "Let your laughter be turned to
mourning, and your joy to heaviness." The last word (κατήφεια), which
occurs nowhere else in Scripture, refers primarily to the dejected
look which accompanies heaviness of heart. The writer of the Book of
Wisdom uses the adjective (κατηφής) to express the "_gloomy_ phantoms
with unsmiling faces" which he supposes to have appeared to the
Egyptians during the plague of darkness (xvii. 4). The term admirably
expresses the opposite of boisterous lightheartedness.

St. James ends as he began, with submission to the Almighty. He began
his exhortation as to the right method of conversion with "Be subject
unto God." He ends with "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord,
and He will exalt you." The root of their worldliness and their
grasping at wealth and honour is pride and self-will, and the cure for
that is self-abasement and self-surrender. If it is God's will that
they should occupy a lowly place in society, let them humbly accept
their lot, and not try to change it by violence or fraud. If they will
but remember their own transgressions against the Lord, they will
admit that the humblest place is not too humble for their merits; and
it is the humble whom God delights to honour. Here, again, St. James
is reproducing the teaching of his Divine Brother: "Every one that
exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall
be exalted" (Luke xiv. 11; Matt. xxiii. 12). And the Old Testament
teaches the same lesson. "The humble person He shall save," says
Eliphaz the Temanite (Job xxii. 29); and the Psalmist gives us both
sides of the Divine law of compensation: "Thou wilt save the afflicted
people; but the haughty eyes Thou wilt bring down" (xviii. 27).

"Humble _yourselves_;" "He that humbleth _himself_." Everything
depends on that. It must be _self_-abasement. There is nothing
meritorious in chancing to be in a humble position, still less in
being _forced_ to descend to one. It is the voluntary acceptance, or
the choice, of a lowly place that is pleasing to God. We must choose
it as knowing that we deserve nothing better, and as wishing that
others should be promoted rather than ourselves. And this must be done
"_in the sight of the Lord_;" not in self-consciousness, to "to be
seen of men," which is "the pride that apes humility," but in the
consciousness of the ineffable presence of God. That is the source of
all true self-abasement and humility. To realize that we are in the
presence of the All-holy and All-pure, in whose sight the stars are
not clean, and who charges even the angels with folly, is to feel that
all differences of merit between man and man have faded away in the
immeasurable abyss which separates our own insignificance and
pollution from the majesty of His holiness. "Now mine eye seeth Thee.
Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes," is the
language of Job (xlii. 5, 6). And it was the same feeling which wrung
from St. Peter, as he fell down at Jesus' knees, the agonizing cry,
"Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Luke v. 8). Hence it
is that the most saintly persons are always the most humble; for they
realize most perfectly the holiness of God and the ceaselessness of
His presence, and are therefore best able to appreciate the contrast
between their own miserable imperfections and His unapproachable
purity. The language which they at times use about themselves is
sometimes suspected of unreality and exaggeration, if not of downright
hypocrisy; but it is the natural expression of the feelings of one who
knows a great deal about the difference between a creature who is
habitually falling into sin and One who, in holiness, as in wisdom and
power, is absolute and infinite perfection. Humility is thus the
beginning and end of all true religion. The sinner who turns to God
must be humble; and this is the humility which St. James is urging.
And the saint, as he approaches nearer to God, will be humble; for he
knows what the approach has cost him, and how very far off he still
remains.

"And He will exalt you." This is the result, not the motive. To strive
to be humble _in order_ to be exalted would be to poison the virtue at
its source. Just as the conscious pursuit of happiness is fatal to its
attainment, so also the conscious aim at Divine promotion. The way to
be happy is not to think about one's own happiness, but to sacrifice
it to that of others; and the way to be exalted by God is not to think
of one's own advancement, but to devote oneself to the advancement of
others. The exaltation is sure to come, if only humility is attained;
an exaltation of which there is a foretaste even in this life, but the
full fruition of which lies in those unknown glories which await the
humble Christian in the world to come.

NOTE.--It may be that in the phrase "Resist the devil" we have an echo
of another unrecorded utterance of Christ, of which we have possible
traces also in St. Paul's "Stand against the wiles of the devil" (Eph.
vi. 11), and St. Peter's "Whom withstand, steadfast in your faith"
(1 Peter v. 9). Comp. Shepherd of Hermas, _Mand._ XII. v. 2; iv. 7;
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, _Neph._ viii., where James iv. 7
(or its source) would seem to be quoted.

[78] _Sunday School Chronicle_, March 15th, 1889; also the _Durham
Chronicle_, Jan. 31st, 1890.

[79] _Expositor's Bible: Pastoral Epistles_ (Hodder and Stoughton,
1888), p. 80.




 CHAPTER XXI.

 _SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
 INVOLVED IN THE LOVE OF CENSURING OTHERS._

 "Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a
 brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and
 judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of
 the law, but a judge. One only is the Lawgiver and Judge, even He who
 is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy
 neighbour?"--ST. JAMES iv. 11, 12.


From sins which are the result of a want of love to God St. James
passes on, and abruptly, to some which are the result of a want of
love for one's neighbour. But in thus passing on he is really
returning to his main subject, for the central portion of the Epistle
is chiefly taken up with one's duty towards one's neighbour. And of
this duty he again singles out for special notice the necessity for
putting a bridle on one's tongue (i. 26; iii. 1-12). Some have
supposed that he is addressing a new class of readers; but the much
gentler address, "brethren," as compared with "ye adulteresses" (ver.
4), "ye sinners," "ye double-minded" (ver. 8), does not at all compel
us to suppose that. After a paragraph of exceptional sternness, he
returns to his usual manner of addressing his readers (i. 2, 16, 19;
ii. 1, 5, 14; iii. 1, 10, 12; v. 7, 9, 10, 12, 19), and with all the
more fitness because the address "brethren" is in itself an indirect
reproof for unbrotherly conduct. It implies what Moses expressed when
he said, "Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?"
(Acts vii. 26).

"Speak not against one another, brethren." The context shows what kind
of adverse speaking is meant. It is not so much abusive or calumnious
language that is condemned, as the _love of finding fault_. The
censorious temper is utterly unchristian. It means that we have been
paying an amount of attention to the conduct of others which would
have been better bestowed upon our own. It means also that we have
been paying this attention, not in order to help, but in order to
criticize, and criticize unfavourably. It shows, moreover, that we
have a very inadequate estimate of our own frailty and shortcomings.
If we knew how worthy of blame we ourselves are, we should be much
less ready to deal out blame to others. But over and above all this,
censoriousness is an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. It is not
merely a transgression of the royal law of love, but a setting oneself
above the law, as if it were a mistake, or did not apply to oneself.
It is a climbing up on to that judgment-seat on which God alone has
the right to sit, and a publishing of judgments upon others which He
alone has the right to pronounce. This is the aspect of it on which
St. James lays most stress.

"He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth a brother, speaketh
against the law and judgeth the law." St. James is probably not
referring to Christ's command in the Sermon on the Mount, "Judge not,
that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged" (Matt. vii. 1, 2). It is a law of far wider scope that is in
his mind, the same as that of which he has already spoken, "the
perfect law, the law of liberty" (i. 25); "the royal law, according to
the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (ii. 8). No
one who knows this law, and has at all grasped its meaning and scope,
can suppose that observance of it is compatible with habitual
criticism of the conduct of others, and frequent utterance of
unfavourable judgments respecting them. No man, however _willing_ he
may be to have his conduct laid open to criticism, is _fond_ of being
constantly subjected to it. Still less can any one be fond of being
made the object of slighting and condemnatory remarks. Every man's
personal experience has taught him that; and if he loves his neighbour
as himself, he will take care to inflict on him as little pain of this
kind as possible. If, with full knowledge of the royal law of charity,
and with full experience of the vexation which adverse criticism
causes, he still persists in framing and expressing unfriendly
opinions respecting other people, then he is setting himself up as
superior, not only to those whom he presumes to judge, but to the law
itself. He is, by his conduct, condemning the law of love as a bad
law, or at least as so defective that a superior person like himself
may without scruple disregard it. In judging and condemning his
brother he is judging and condemning the law; and he who condemns a
law assumes that he is in possession of some higher principle by which
he tests it and finds it wanting. What is the higher principle by
which the censorious person justifies his contempt for the law of
love? He has nothing to show us but his own arrogance and
self-confidence. _He_ knows what the duty of other persons is, and how
signally they fall short of it. To talk of "hoping all things, and
enduring all things," and of "taking not account of evil," may be all
very well theoretically of an ideal state of society; but in the very
far from ideal world in which we have to live it is necessary to keep
one's eye open to the conduct of other people, and to keep them up to
the mark by letting them and their acquaintances know what we think of
them. It is no use mincing matters or being mealy-mouthed; wherever
abuses are found, or even suspected, they must be denounced. And if
other persons neglect their duty in this particular, the censorious
man is not going to share such responsibility. This is the kind of
reasoning by which flagrant violations of the law of love are
frequently justified. And such reasoning, as St. James plainly shows,
amounts really to this, that those who employ it know better than the
Divine Lawgiver the principles by which human society ought to be
governed. He has clearly promulgated a law; and they ascend His
judgment-seat, and intimate that very serious exceptions and
modifications are necessary; indeed, that in some cases the law must
be entirely superseded. _They_, at any rate, are not bound by it.

This proneness to judge and condemn others is further proof of that
want of humility about which so much was said in the previous section.
Pride, the most subtle of sins, has very many forms, and one of them
is the love of finding fault; that is, the love of assuming an
attitude of superiority, not only towards other persons, but towards
the law of charity and Him who is the Author of it. To a truly humble
man this is impossible. He is accustomed to contrast the outcome of
his own life with the requirements of God's law, and to know how awful
is the gulf which separates the one from the other. He knows too much
against himself to take delight in censuring the faults of others.
Censoriousness is a sure sign that he who is addicted to it is
ignorant of the immensity of his own shortcomings. No man who
habitually considers his own transgressions will be eager to be severe
upon the transgressions of others, or to usurp functions which require
full authority and perfect knowledge for their equitable and adequate
performance.

Censoriousness brings yet another evil in its train. Indulgence in the
habit of prying into the acts and motives of others leaves us little
time and less liking for searching carefully into our own acts and
motives. The two things act and react upon one another by a natural
law. The more seriously and frequently we examine ourselves, the less
prone we shall be to criticize others; and the more pertinaciously we
busy ourselves about the supposed shortcomings and delinquencies of
our neighbours, the less we are likely to investigate and realize our
own grievous sins. All the more will this be the case if we are in the
habit of _giving utterance_ to the uncharitable judgments which we
love to frame. He who constantly expresses his detestation of evil by
denouncing the evil doings of his brethren is not the man most likely
to express his detestation of it by the holiness of his own life; and
the man whose whole life is a protest against sin is not the man most
given to protesting against sinners. To be constantly speculating, to
be frequently deciding, to be ready to make known our decisions, as to
whether this man is "awakened" or not, whether he is "converted" or
not, whether he is a "Catholic" or not, whether he is a "sound
Churchman" or not--what is this but to climb up into the White Throne,
and with human ignorance and prejudice anticipate the judgments of
Divine Omniscience and Justice, as to who are on the right hand, and
who on the left?

"One only is Lawgiver and Judge, even He who is able to save and to
destroy." There is one and only one Source of all law and authority,
and that Source is God Himself. Jesus Christ affirmed the same
doctrine when He consented to plead, as a prisoner charged with many
crimes, before the judgment-seat of His own creature, Pontius Pilate.
"Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee
from above" (John xix. 11). It was Christ's last word to the Roman
Procurator, a declaration of the supremacy of God in the government of
the world, and a protest against the claim insinuated in "I have power
to release Thee, and I have power to crucify Thee," to be possessed of
an authority that was irresponsible. Jesus declared that Pilate's
power over Himself was the result of a Divine commission; for the
possession and exercise of all authority is the gift of God, and can
have no other origin. And this sole Fount of authority, this one only
Lawgiver and Judge, has no need of assessors. While He delegates some
portions of His power to human representatives, He requires no man, He
allows no man, to share his judgment-seat, or to cancel or modify His
laws. It is one of those cases in which the possession of power is
proof of the possession of right. "He who is _able_ to save and to
destroy," who has the power to execute sentences respecting the weal
and woe of immortal souls, has the right to pronounce such sentences.
Man has no right to frame and utter such judgments, because he has no
power to put them into execution; and the practice of uttering them is
a perpetual usurpation of Divine prerogatives. It is an approach to
that sin which brought about the fall of the angels.

Is not the sin of a censorious temper in a very real sense diabolical?
It is Satan's special delight to be "the accuser of the brethren"
(Rev. xii. 10). His names, Satan ("adversary") and devil (διάβολος =
malicious accuser"), bear witness to this characteristic, which is
brought prominently forward in the opening chapters of the Book of
Job.[80] It is of the essence of censoriousness that its activity is
displayed with a sinister motive. The charges are commonly uttered,
not to the person who is blamed, but to others, who will thereby be
prejudiced against him; or if they are made to the man's own face, it
is with the object of inflicting pain, rather than with the hope of
thereby inducing him to amend. It is no "speaking truth in love" (Eph.
iv. 15), but reckless or malevolent speaking evil, without much caring
whether it be true or false. It is a poisoning of the wells out of
which respect and affection for our fellow-men flow. Thus the
presumption which grasps at functions that belong to God alone leads
to a fall and a course of action which is indeed Satanical.

"One only is the Lawgiver and the Judge, even He who is able to save
and to destroy." St. Peter and St. Paul teach the same doctrine in
those Epistles which (as has been already pointed out) it is
_possible_ that the writer of this Epistle may have seen. "Be subject
to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the
king, as supreme (_i.e._ to the Roman Emperor); or unto governors, as
sent by him" (1 Peter ii. 13). However much of human origination
(κτίσις ἀνθρωπίνη) there may be about civil government, yet its
sanctions are Divine. And St. Paul affirms that its real origin is
Divine also: "There is no power but of God; and the powers that be are
ordained of God" (Rom. xiii. 1). The ultimate sanction of even
Pilate's misused jurisdiction was "from above;" and it was to
inhabitants of Rome, appalled by the frantic atrocities of Nero, that
St. Paul declared that the authority of their Emperor existed by "the
ordinance of God." If to resist this delegated authority be a serious
matter, how much more to attempt to anticipate or to contradict the
judgments of Him from whom it springs!

"But who art thou, that judgest thy neighbour?" St. James concludes
this brief section against the sin of censoriousness by a telling
_argumentum ad hominem_. Granted that there are grave evils in some of
the brethren among whom and with whom you live; granted that it is
quite necessary that these evils should be noticed and condemned; are
you precisely the persons that are best qualified to do it? Putting
aside the question of authority, what are your personal qualifications
for the office of a censor and a judge? Is there that blamelessness of
life, that gravity of behaviour, that purity of motive, that severe
control of tongue, that freedom from contamination from the world,
that overflowing charity which marks the man of pure religion? To such
a man finding fault with his brethren is real pain; and therefore to
be _fond_ of finding fault is strong evidence that these necessary
qualities are not possessed. Least of all is such a one fond of
disclosing to others the sins which he has discovered in an erring
brother. Indeed, there is scarcely a better way of detecting our own
"secret faults" than that of noticing what blemishes we are most prone
to suspect and denounce in the lives of our neighbours. It is often
our own personal acquaintance with iniquity that makes us suppose that
others must be like ourselves. It is our own meanness, dishonesty,
pride, or impurity that we see reflected on what is perhaps only the
surface of a life whose secret springs and motives lie in a sphere
quite beyond our grovelling comprehension. Here, again, St. James is
quite in harmony with St. Paul, who asks the same question: "Who art
thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth
or falleth.... But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou
again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand
before the judgment-seat of God?" (Rom. xiv. 4, 10).

       *       *       *       *       *

But are not St. James and St. Paul requiring of us what is impossible?
Is it not beyond our power to avoid forming judgments about our
brethren? Certainly this is beyond our power, and we are not required
to do anything so unreasonable as to attempt to avoid such inevitable
judgments. Whenever the conduct of others comes under our notice we
necessarily form some kind of an opinion of it, and it is out of these
opinions and judgments, of which we form many in the course of a day,
that our own characters are to a large extent slowly built up; for the
way in which we regard the conduct of others has a great influence
upon our own conduct. But it is not this necessary judging that is
condemned. What is condemned is the inquisitorial examination of our
neighbours' views and actions, undertaken without authority and
without love. Such judging is sinister in its purpose, and is
disappointed if it can find nothing to blame. It is eager, rather than
unwilling, to think evil, its prejudices being against, rather than in
favour of, those whom it criticizes. To discover some grievous form of
wrong-doing is not a sorrow, but a delight.

But what both St. James and St. Paul condemn, even more than the habit
of forming these unfavourable judgments about our neighbours, is the
giving effect to them. "_Speak_ not one against another." "Why dost
thou _set at nought_ thy brother?" This at any rate we all can avoid.
However difficult, or impossible, it may be to avoid forming
unfavourable opinions of other people, we can at any rate abstain from
publishing such opinions to the world. The temper which delights in
communicating suspicions and criticisms is even more fatal than the
habit of forming and cherishing them; it is the difference between a
disease which is infectious, and one which is not. The bitterness and
misery which are caused by the love of evil speaking is incalculable.
It is one enormous item in that tragic sum of human suffering which is
entirely preventable. Much of human suffering is inevitable and
incurable; it may be compensated or consoled, but it can be neither
escaped nor remedied. There is much, however, that need never be
incurred at all, that is utterly wanton and gratuitous. And this
pathetic burden of utterly needless misery in great measure consists
of that which we heedlessly or maliciously inflict upon one another by
making known, with quite inadequate reason, our knowledge or suspicion
of the misconduct of other people. Experience seems to do little
towards curing us of this fault. Over and over again we have
discovered, after having communicated suspicions, that they are
baseless. Over and over again we have found out that to disclose what
we know to the discredit of a neighbour does more harm than good. And
not infrequently we have ourselves had abundant reason to wish that we
had never spoken; for curses are not the only kind of evil speaking
that is wont to "come home to roost." And yet, each time that the
temptation occurs again, we persuade ourselves that it is our duty to
speak out, to put others on their guard, to denounce an unquestionable
abuse, and so forth. And forthwith we set the whisper in motion, or we
write a letter to the papers, and the supposed delinquent is "shown
up." An honest answer to the questions, "Should I say this of him if
he were present? Why do I not speak to him about it, instead of to
others? Am I sorry or glad to make this known?" would at once make us
pause, and perhaps abstain. They would lead us to see that we are not
undertaking a painful duty, but needlessly indulging an unchristian
censoriousness, and thereby inflicting needless pain. It is not given
to many of us to do a great deal towards making other persons holier;
but it is within the power of all of us to do a very great deal
towards making others happier; and one of the simplest methods of
diminishing the miseries and increasing the joys of society is to
maintain a firm control over our tempers and our tongues, and to
observe to the utmost St. James's pregnant rule, "Speak not one
against another, brethren."

[80] Dr. Hatch thinks that in both the Septuagint and the New
Testament διάβολος, when used as a proper name, has "the general
connotation of enmity, and without implying accusation, whether true
or false." As an adjective it has its usual meaning of "slanderous"
(1 Tim. iii. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 3; Titus ii. 3) (_Biblical Greek_ pp. 46,
47).




 CHAPTER XXII.

 _SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
 INVOLVED IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.
 THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM._

 "Go to now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this
 city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain: whereas ye
 know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a
 vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and
 do this or that. But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such
 glorying is evil. To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth
 it not, to him it is sin."--ST. JAMES iv. 13-17.


Worldliness and want of humility are the two kindred subjects which
form the groundwork of this portion of the Epistle. This fourth
chapter falls into three main divisions, of which the third and last
is before us; and these two subjects underlie all three. In the first
the arrogant grasping after the pleasures, honours, and riches of the
world, in preference to the love of God, is condemned. In the second
the arrogant judging of others in defiance of the Divine law of
charity is forbidden. In the third arrogant trust in the security of
human undertakings, without consideration of God's will, is denounced.
The transition from the false confidence which leads men to judge
others with a light heart, to the false confidence which leads men to
account the future as their own, is easily made; and thus once more,
while we seem to be abruptly passing to a fresh topic, we are really
moving quite naturally from one branch of the main subject to another.
The assurance which finds plenty of time for censuring others, but
little or none for censuring self, is closely akin to the assurance
which counts on having plenty of time for all its schemes, without
thought of death or of the Divine decrees. This, then, is the subject
before us--presumptuous security as to future undertakings. The future
is God's, not ours, just as to judge mankind belongs to Him, and not
to us. Therefore to think and speak of the future as if we had the
power to control it is as presumptuous as to think and speak of our
fellow-men as if we had the power to judge them. In both cases we
assume a knowledge and an authority which we do not possess.

"Go to now" (ἄγε νῦω) is a vigorous form of address, which occurs
nowhere in the New Testament, excepting here and at the beginning of
the next section. Although originally an imperative singular, it has
become so completely an adverb that it can be used, as here, when a
number of persons are addressed. It serves to attract attention. Those
who think that they can acquit themselves of the charge of
censoriousness have yet another form of presumptuous confidence to
consider. The parable of the Rich Fool, who said to his soul, "Soul,
thou hast much good laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat,
drink, and be merry" (Luke xii. 19), should be compared with this
exhortation. And it is remarkable that it was just after our Lord had
refused to be made a judge over two contending brothers that He spoke
the parable of the Rich Fool.

There is no special emphasis on "ye that _say_," as if the meaning
were, "ye who not only have these presumptuous thoughts, but dare to
utter them." In the previous section giving utterance to unfavourable
judgments about one's neighbours is evidently worse than merely
thinking them, and is a great aggravation of the sin; but here
thinking and saying are much the same. The presumptuous people look
far ahead, think every step in the plan quite secure, and speak
accordingly. To-day and to-morrow are quite safe. The journey to the
proposed city is quite safe. That they will spend a year there is
regarded as certain, and that they will be able to spend it as they
please, viz. in trading. Lastly, they have no doubts as to the success
of the whole enterprise; they will "get gain." All this is thought of
and spoken of as being entirely within their own control. They have
only to decide on doing it, and the whole will be done. That there is
a Providence which needs to be considered is entirely left out of
sight. That not even their own lives can be counted on for a single
day is a fact that is equally ignored.

It was long ago remarked that "All men are mortal" is a proposition
which each man believes to be true of every one excepting himself. Not
that any one seriously believes that he himself will be exempt from
death; but each one of us habitually thinks and acts as if in his case
death were such an indefinite distance off that practically there is
no need to take account of it--at any rate at present. The young and
the strong rarely think of death as a subject that calls for serious
attention. Those who are past the prime of life still think that they
have many years of life in store. And even those who have received the
solemn warning which is involved in reaching man's allotted threescore
and ten years remember with satisfaction that many persons have
reached fourscore and ten or more, and that therefore there is good
reason for believing that they themselves have a considerable portion
of life still in front of them. Perhaps the man of ninety finds
himself sometimes thinking, if not talking to others, of what he means
to do, not only to-morrow, but next year.

Such habits of thought and language are very common, and a man has to
be carefully on the watch against himself, in order to avoid them.
They are entirely opposed to the spirit of both the Old and the New
Testament, and in the most literal sense of the term may be
stigmatized as _godless_. The security which ignores the will of God
in its calculations, and thinks and acts as an independent power, is
godless. Dependence upon God is the centre both of Judaism and of
Christianity. A story of the Rabbinists brings this out as clearly on
the Jewish side as the parable of the Rich Fool does on the Christian.
At his son's circumcision a Jewish father set wine that was seven
years old before his guests, with the remark that with this wine he
would continue for a long time to celebrate the birth of his son. The
same night the Angel of Death meets the Rabbi Simeon, who accosts him
and asks him, "Why art thou thus wandering about?" "Because," said the
angel, "I slay those who say, We will do this or that, and think not
how soon death may come upon them. The man who said that he would
continue for a long time to drink that wine shall die in thirty days."
It is in this way that "the _careless ease_ of fools shall destroy
them" (Prov. i. 32). And hence the warning, "Boast not thyself of
to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth" (Prov.
xxvii. 1). The man who makes plans for the future without taking
account of Providence is not far removed from "the fool, who says in
his heart, There is no God" (Ps. xiv. 1; liii. 1). "Set not thy heart
upon thy goods; and say not, I have enough for my life. Follow not
thine own mind and thy strength, to walk in the ways of thy heart; and
say not, Who shall control me? for the Lord will surely avenge thy
pride" (Ecclus. v. 1-3). "There is that waxeth rich by his wariness
and pinching, and this is the portion of his reward. Whereas he saith,
I have found rest, and now will eat continually of my good; and yet he
knoweth not what time shall come upon him, and that he must leave
those things to others, and die" (Ecclus. xi. 18, 19).

The Cyrenaics and their more refined followers the Epicureans started
from the same premises, viz. the utter uncertainty of the future, and
the inability of man to control it, but drew from them a very
different conclusion. Dependence upon God was one of the last
doctrines likely to be inculcated by those who contended that there is
no such thing as Providence, for the gods do not concern themselves
with the affairs of men. True wisdom, they said, will consist in the
skilful, calm, and deliberate appropriation of such pleasure as our
circumstances afford moment by moment, unruffled by passion,
prejudice, or superstition. The present alone is ours, and we must
resolutely make the most of it, without remorse for a past which we
can never alter, and without disquietude about a future which we
cannot determine, and may never possess. This is not very profound as
philosophy, for in the wear and tear of life it can neither fortify
nor console; and as a substitute for religion it is still less
satisfying. The whole difference which separates Paganism from
Christianity lies between two such stanzas as these;--

  "Quid sit futurum cras, fuge quærere; et
  Quem Fors dierum cunque dabit, lucro
    Appone, nec dulces amores
    Sperne puer neque tu choreas;"

and--

  "Lead, kindly Light, amid th' encircling gloom,
        Lead Thou me on:
  The night is dark, and I am far from home;
        Lead Thou me on.
  Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
  The distant scene; one step enough for me."[81]

"We will go into this city, _and_ spend a year there, _and_ trade,
_and_ get gain." The frequent conjunctions separate the different
items of the plan, which are rehearsed thus one by one with manifest
satisfaction. The speakers gloat over the different steps of the
programme which they have arranged for themselves. St. James selects
trading and getting gain as the end of the supposed scheme, partly in
order to show that the aims of these presumptuous schemers are utterly
worldly, and partly because a restless activity in commercial
enterprise was a common feature among the Jews of the Dispersion. Such
pursuits are not condemned; but they are liable to become too
absorbing, especially when not pursued in a God-fearing way; and it is
this which St. James denounces.

"Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life?
For ye are a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then
vanisheth away." It is not easy to determine the original Greek text
with certainty, but about the general sense there is no doubt. It is
possible, however, that we ought to read, "Whereas ye know not as to
the morrow of what kind your life will be: for ye are a vapour," etc.
In any case "Whereas ye know not" represents words which literally
mean, "Since ye are people _of such nature_ as not to know" (οἵτινες
οὐκ ἐπίστασθε). As human beings, whose life is so full of changes
and surprises, it is impossible for them to know what vicissitudes the
next day will bring. The real uncertainty of life is in marked
contrast to their unreal security.

"What is your life?" Of what kind is it? What is its nature (ποῖα)?
Bede remarks that St. James does not ask, "What is _our_ life?" He
says, "What is _your_ life?" It is the value of the life of the
godless that is in question, not that of the godly. Those who, by
their forgetfulness of the Unseen, their desire for material
advantages, and their friendliness with the world, have made
themselves enemies of God--what is their life worth? Such persons "are
a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away."
But it may be doubted whether St. James is here speaking of the
emptiness of an _ungodly_ life. He is addressing godless persons, and
in rebuking them reminds them how unstable and fleeting life is, not
merely to them, but to all men. It is the same thought as we find in
Job's complaint, "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he
that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more" (vii. 9); and we
shall see that in the next two sections (v. 1-6, 7-11) there are
coincidences with the Book of Job (see pp. 281, 291). But it is
perhaps the Book of Wisdom that is specially in the writer's mind:
"Our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be
dispersed as a mist, that is driven away with the beams of the sun,
and overcome with the heat thereof" (ii. 4). "For the hope of the
ungodly is like dust that is blown away with the wind; like a thin
froth that is driven away with the storm; like as the smoke which is
dispersed here and there with a tempest, and passeth away as the
remembrance of a guest that tarrieth but a day" (v. 14). And if these
passages _are_ the source of St. James's metaphor, Bede's
interpretation becomes more probable; for in both of them it is the
life of the ungodly that is likened to everything that is
unsubstantial and transitory.[82]

"For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and
do this or that." We must beware of understanding these words in such
a way as to lose the spirit of them. It is one of many passages of
Scripture which are often taken according to the letter, when the
letter is of little or no importance. As in so much of the teaching in
the Sermon on the Mount, we have a _principle_ given in the form of a
_rule_. Rules are given that they may be observed literally.
Principles are given that they may be applied intelligently and
observed according to their spirit. We do not obey Christ when we
allow the thief who has taken our upper garment to have our under one
also; nor do we obey St. James when we say, "If the Lord will," or
"Please God," of every future event, and make a plentiful use of
"D.V." in all our correspondence. Nor is it enough to say that
everything depends upon the _spirit_ in which the second garment is
surrendered, and in which the "Please God" is uttered, or the "D.V."
written. It is quite possible to keep Christ's precept without ever
surrendering the second garment at all; and indeed we ought not to
surrender it. And it is quite possible to keep His brother's precept
without ever writing "D.V." or saying "Please God," the habitual use
of which would be almost certain to generate formalism and cant in
ourselves, and would be quite certain to provoke needless criticism
and irreverent ridicule. St. James means that we should habitually
feel that moment by moment we are absolutely dependent upon God, not
only for the way in which our lives are henceforth to be spent, but
for their being prolonged at all. At any instant we may be called upon
to surrender, not only all the materials of enjoyment which He has
bestowed upon us, but life itself, which is equally His gift; and
whenever He does so call upon us we shall have neither the right nor
the power to resist. "Shall He not do what He will with His own?" "The
Lord gave; and the Lord may take away. Blessed be the name of the
Lord."

The man who is thoroughly impressed with the fact of his utter
dependence upon God for life and all things is sure to express this in
his bearing, his tone, and his manner of speaking about the future,
even although such phrases as "Please God" and "If the Lord will"
never come from his lips or his pen. Indeed, the more complete his
realization of this truth is, the less likely will he be to be
constantly expressing it in a formula. It is the habitual setting of
his thoughts, and does not need to be stated any more than the
conditions of time and space. On rare occasions it may be well to
remind others of this truth by giving expression to it in words; but
in most cases it will be wisest to retain it as an unforgotten but
unexpressed premise in the mind. But it is for each one of us to take
care that it is _not_ forgotten. Only those who have it constantly in
their hearts can safely absolve themselves from the obligation of
obeying the words of St. James literally.

"But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is evil." The
carnal self-confidence with which people serenely talk about what they
mean to do next year, or many years hence, is only part of a general
spirit of arrogance and worldliness which pervades their whole life
and conduct; it is one of the results of the thoroughly vitiated moral
atmosphere which they have chosen for themselves, and to the
noxiousness of which they are constantly contributing. The word here
rendered "vaunting," and in 1 John ii. 16 "vainglory," (ἀλαζονεία),
indicates insolent and empty assurance; and here the assurance lies in
presumptuous trust in the stability of oneself and one's surroundings.
Pretentious ostentation is the radical signification of the word, and
in Classical Greek it is the pretentiousness which is most prominent,
in Hellenistic Greek the ostentation. There is manifest ostentation in
speaking confidently about one's future; and seeing how transitory
everything human is, the ostentation is empty and pretentious. To be
guilty of such vaunting is serious enough; but these fellow-countrymen
of St. James, with their minds absorbed in material interests, gloried
in their godless view of life. The simple character of his comment
makes its severity all the more impressive: "all such glorying is
evil." He uses the very word which is commonly used to express "the
evil one" (ὁ πονηρός), and thereby indicates the character and source
of such glorying.

In concluding this section of his letter, St. James brings the conduct
which he has been condemning within the sweep of a very comprehensive
principle: "To him, therefore, that knoweth to do good, and doeth it
not, to him it is sin." No Jew, whether Christian or not, could plead
ignorance as an excuse for his transgressions in this matter. Every
human being has experienced the uncertainty of the future and the
transitoriness of human life; and every Jew was well instructed in the
truth that man and all his surroundings are absolutely dependent upon
the Divine will. Moreover, those whom St. James is addressing prided
themselves on their spiritual knowledge (i. 19); they were professed
hearers of God's Word (i. 22, 23), and were anxious to become teachers
of others (iii. 1). Theirs is the case of servants who knew their
master's will, and neglected to do it (Luke xii. 47). They themselves
declared, "We see;" and the rejoinder is, "Your sin remaineth" (John
ix. 41). They knew, long before St. James instructed them on the
subject, what was seemly for human beings living as creatures in
dependence upon their Creator; and they neglected to do what is
seemly. To them this neglect is sin.

The passage is very commonly understood as applying to all sins of
omission; and no doubt it is very capable of such application, but it
does not follow that St. James was thinking of more than the
particular case before him. The words may be interpreted in three
different degrees of comprehensiveness, and St. James may have meant
one, or two, or all three of them.

1. The relation in which a creature ought to stand to the Creator is
one of humility and entire dependence; and he who knows that he is a
creature, and adopts an attitude of self-confidence and independence,
sins.

2. In all cases of transgression knowledge of what is right aggravates
the sin, which is then a sin against light. "If I had not come and
spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse
for their sin" (John xv. 22).

3. This applies not only to transgressions, but to omissions.
Knowledge of what is evil creates an obligation to avoid it, and
knowledge of what is good constitutes an obligation to perform it. The
latter truth is not so readily admitted as the former. Everyone
recognizes that an opportunity of doing _evil_ is not a thing about
which any choice is allowable. We are not permitted to use the
opportunity or not, just as we please; we must on no account make use
of it. But not a few persons imagine that an opportunity of doing
_good_ is a thing about which they have full right of choice; that
they may avail themselves of the opportunity or not, just as they
please; whereas there is no more freedom in the one case than in the
other. We are bound to make use of the opportunity of doing good. "To
him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Some of those who think that St. James knew the Epistle to the Romans
see here an allusion to the principle which St. Paul there lies down:
"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (xiv. 23). For reasons already
stated (p. 57), it must remain doubtful whether St. James had
knowledge of that Epistle; and even if he had, we could not by any
means be sure that he had it in his mind when he wrote the words
before us. But his words and St. Paul's, when combined, give us a
complete statement of a great moral principle respecting the
possession or non-possession of knowledge as to what is right and
wrong in any given case. So long as we have _no_ knowledge that a
given act is right, _i.e._ so long as we are in doubt as to whether it
is allowable or not, it is sin to do it. As soon as we _have_
knowledge that a given act is right it is sin to leave it undone.

This principle cuts at the root of that unwholesome growth which in
moral theology is known as the doctrine of _Probabilism_, and which
has worked untold mischief, especially in the Roman Church, in which
its chief supporters are to be found. This doctrine teaches that in
all cases in which there is doubt as to whether a given act is
allowable or not the less safe course may be followed, even when the
balance of probability is against its being allowable, if only there
are grounds for believing that it _is_ allowable. And some supporters
of this doctrine go so far as to maintain that the amount of
probability need not be very great. So long as it is not certain that
the act in question is forbidden it may be permitted. The object of
which teaching is not that which ought to be the object of all moral
teaching, viz. to save beings with immortal souls from making serious
mistakes of conduct, but to enable beings with strong desires and
passions to gratify them without scruple. The moral law is not so much
explained as explained away. The very titles of some of the treatises
in which the doctrine of Probabilism is advocated indicate their
tendency, _e.g._ "The Art of Perpetual Enjoyment."[83] To all such
special pleading, and making the Word of God of none effect by human
glosses, the simple principles laid down by St. Paul and St. James are
the best antidote: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin;" and "To him
that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

[81] Horace, _Odes_ I. ix. 13. J. H. Newman, _Verses on Various Occasions_,
"The Pillar of the Cloud," June 16th, 1833.

[82] In commenting on Wisdom ii. 4, Farrar quotes Gregory Nazianzen:
"We are a flitting dream, a phantom that cannot be grasped,
the scud of a passing breeze, a ship that leaves no trace on the sea,
dust, vapour, morning dew, a flower that now blossoms, and now is
done away" (_Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, I., p. 431).

[83] _Ars Semper Gaudendi_, by Alphonso de Sarasa, a Flemish theologian
of Spanish extraction, 1741. For the fullest account of the
history of Probabilism see the great work by Döllinger and Reusch,
_Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der Römisch-katholischen Kirche_
(Nördlingen, 1889).




 CHAPTER XXIII.

 _THE FOLLIES AND INIQUITIES OF THE RICH;
 THEIR MISERABLE END._

 "Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming
 upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are
 moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are rusted; and their rust
 shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh as
 fire. Ye have laid up your treasure in the last days. Behold, the
 hire of the labourers who mowed your fields, which is of you kept
 back by fraud, crieth out: and the cries of them that reaped have
 entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Ye have lived
 delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure; ye have nourished
 your hearts in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned, ye have killed
 the righteous one; he doth not resist you."--ST. JAMES v. 1-6.


Here, if anywhere in the Epistle, the writer glances aside from the
believing Jews of the Dispersion, to whom the letter as a whole is
addressed, and in a burst of righteous indignation which reminds us of
passages in the old Hebrew Prophets, denounces members of the twelve
tribes who not even in name are Christians. In the preceding section
such a transition is in preparation. When he is condemning the godless
presumption of those seekers after wealth who dared, without thought
of their own frailty and of God's absolute control over their lives
and fortunes, to think and speak confidently of their schemes for
future gains, he seems to be thinking almost as much of unbelieving
Jews as of those who have accepted the Gospel. Here he appears for the
moment to have left the latter entirely out of sight, and to be
addressing those wealthy Jews who not only continued the policy and
shared the guilt of the opponents and murderers of Christ, but by
scandalous tyranny and injustice oppressed their poor brethren, many
of whom were probably Christians. The severity of the condemnation is
not the only or the main reason for thinking that the paragraph is
addressed to unconverted Jews. The first ten verses of chapter iv. are
very severe; and there also, as here, the affectionate form of
address, "brethren," so frequent elsewhere in the Epistle, is wanting;
but there is no doubt that those ten verses, like the paragraphs which
immediately precede and follow them, are addressed to Christians. What
is so exceptional in the passage now under consideration is _the
entire absence of any exhortation to repentance_, or of any indication
that there is still hope of being reconciled to the offended Jehovah.
They are to "weep and howl," not in penitence, but in despair. The end
is at hand; the day of reckoning is approaching; and it is a fearful
account which awaits them. In this respect there is a very marked
difference between this paragraph and the one which follows it. In
both the nearness of the Day of Judgment is the motive; but this
nearness is to "the rich" a terror, to "the brethren" a comfort. This
difference would be very difficult to explain if both paragraphs were
addressed to believing Jews.

Throughout the Epistle there are strains which sound like echoes from
the Prophets of the Old Testament, with whom St. James has much in
common; but the passage before us is specially in their spirit. It
would not surprise us to meet with it in Isaiah or Jeremiah. One or
two similar passages are worth comparing: "Woe to thee that spoilest,
and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt
not treacherously with thee! When thou hast ceased to spoil, thou
shalt be spoiled; and when thou hast made an end to deal
treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee" (Isa.
xxxiii. 1). "Woe to him that getteth an evil gain for his house, that
he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the hand of
evil! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house, by cutting off many
peoples, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall cry out
of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it" (Hab.
ii. 9). In the New Testament the passage which most resembles it is
our Lord's denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt.
xxiii. 13-36).

"Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming
upon you." We have the same combination of words in Isaiah: "In their
streets they gird themselves with sackcloth: on their housetops, and
in their broad places, every one _howleth, weeping_ abundantly"
(xv. 3). And in an earlier chapter we have a still closer parallel to
the spirit of this verse: "_Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at
hand_" (xiii. 6). The miseries to which St. James alludes are those
which shall befall them at "the coming of the Lord" (ver. 8). It is
the impending judgment of the tyrannous rich that is primarily in his
mind. He may also have foreseen something of the horrors of the Jewish
war and the destruction of Jerusalem, and in accordance with Christ's
prophecy may have considered these calamities typical of the judgment,
or part and parcel of it. In the Jewish war the wealthy classes
suffered terribly. Against them, as having been friendly to the
Romans, and having employed Roman influence in oppressing their own
countrymen, the fury of the fanatical party of the Zealots was
specially directed; and although the blow fell first and heaviest upon
the Jews in Jerusalem and Judæa, yet it was felt by all Jews
throughout the world.

They imagined themselves to be rich; they were really most poor and
most miserable. So sure is the doom that is coming upon them, that in
prophetical style St. James begins to speak of it as already here;
like a seer, he has it all before his eyes. "Your riches are
corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver
are rusted." We have here three kinds of possessions indicated. First,
stores of various kinds of goods. These are "corrupted;" they have
become rotten and worthless. Secondly, rich garments, which in the
East are often a very considerable portion of a wealthy man's
possessions. They have been stored up so jealously and selfishly that
insects have preyed upon them and ruined them. And thirdly, precious
metals. These have become tarnished and rusted, through not having
been put to any rational use. Everywhere their avarice has been not
only sin, but folly. It has failed of its sinful object. The
unrighteous hoarding has tended not to wealth, but to ruin. And thus
the rust of their treasures becomes "a testimony against them." In the
ruin of their property their own ruin is portrayed; and just as
corruption, and the moths, and the rust consume their goods, so shall
the fire of God's judgment consume the owners and abusers of them.
They have reserved all this store for their selfish enjoyment, but God
has reserved them for His righteous anger.

"Ye laid up your treasure in the last days." _There_ was the monstrous
folly of it. The end of all things was close at hand; "the last days"
had already begun; and these besotted graspers after wealth were still
heaping up treasures which they would never have any opportunity of
using. The Authorized Version spoils this by a small, but rather
serious, mistranslation. It has, "Ye have heaped up treasure together
_for_ the last days," instead of "_in_ the last days" (ἐν ἐσχάταις
ὑμέραις). The case is precisely that which Christ foretold: "As were
the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For as in
those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into
the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all
away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man" (Matt. xxiv. 37-39).
"Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they
drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the
day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from
heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in
the day that the Son of man is revealed" (Luke xvii. 28-30).

That the "last days" mean the days immediately preceding the Second
Advent can scarcely be doubted. The context renders this very
probable, and the exhortation in the next section renders it
practically certain. "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for
_the coming of the Lord is at hand_. Murmur not, brethren, one against
another, that ye be not judged: behold, _the Judge standeth before the
doors_." That the first Christians believed that Jesus Christ would
return in glory during the lifetime of many who were then living, will
hardly be disputed by any one who is acquainted with the literature of
the Apostolic age and of the period immediately following. Nor,
perhaps, will many at the present time care to dispute that this
erroneous opinion was shared, for a time at any rate, even by
Apostles. "Ye are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be
revealed in the last time," says St. Peter (1 Peter i. 5). "We that
are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in nowise
precede them that are fallen asleep" (1 Thess. iv. 15; _cf._ 1 Cor.
xv. 51); and again, writing some years later, "In the last days
grievous times shall come," about which Timothy is to be on his guard,
says St. Paul (2 Tim. iii. 1). And much nearer to the close of the
Apostolic age we have St. John telling his little children that "it is
the last hour" (1 John ii. 18). Some twenty or thirty years later
St. Ignatius writes to the Ephesians, "These are the last times.
Henceforth let us be reverent; let us fear the longsuffering of God,
lest it turn into a judgment against us. For either let us fear the
wrath which is to come, or let us love the grace which now is" (xi.).

Only very gradually did the Christian Church attain to something like
a true perspective as to the duration of Christ's kingdom upon earth.
Only very gradually did even the Apostles obtain a clear vision as to
the nature of the kingdom which their Lord had founded and left in
their charge, for them to occupy until He came. Pentecost did not at
once give them perfect insight into the import of their own
commission. Much still remained to be learned, slowly, by experience.
And if this was the case with Apostles, we need not wonder that it was
so with James, the Lord's brother. It is remarkable that Christ's
solemn warning against speculating as to the time of His return seems
to have made only partial impression upon the disciples. "Of that day
or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither
the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not
when the time is" (Mark xiii. 32, 33). But it is our gain that they
were allowed for a time to hold a belief that the Lord would return
very speedily. The Epistles and Gospels were written by men under the
influence of that belief, and such influence is a very considerable
guarantee for the honesty of the writers. It was because the rich whom
St. James here denounces had no such belief in a speedy judgment,
indeed had very little thought of a judgment at all, that they were
guilty of such folly and iniquity.

Having indicated their folly in amassing wealth which was no blessing
to themselves or others, but simply deteriorated by being hoarded,
St. James passes on to point out their iniquity. And first of all he
mentions the gross injustice which is frequently inflicted by these
wealthy employers of labour upon those who work for them. The payment
of the wages which have been earned is either unfairly delayed or not
paid at all. "Behold, the hire of the labourers who mowed your fields,
which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth out." Several passages in
the Old Testament appear to be in the writer's mind. "Thou shalt not
oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy
brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
_in his day thou shalt give him his hire_, neither shall the sun go
down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he
_cry_ against thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee" (Deut.
xxiv. 14, 15; cf. 17, and Lev. xix. 13). "And I will come near you to
judgment; and I will be a swift witness against ... those that
_oppress the hireling in his wages_, the widow and the fatherless, and
that turn away the stranger from his right, and fear not Me, saith the
Lord" (Mal. iii. 5; _cf._ Jer. xxii. 13). Perhaps also, "Their cry
came up unto God by reason of the bondage" (Exod. ii. 23); and "The
voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground" (Gen.
iv. 10). The frequency with which the subject is mentioned[84] seems
to show that the evil which St. James here denounces had long been a
common sin among the Jews. Tobit, in his charge to his son, says,
"What is hateful to thee do not thou to others. Let not the wages of
any man, which hath wrought for thee, tarry with thee (abide with thee
all night), but give him it out of hand" (Tobit iv. 14). And in
Ecclesiasticus, which St. James seems so often to have in his
thoughts, we read, "The bread of the needy is the life of the poor: he
that defraudeth him thereof (ὁ ἀποστερῶν αὐτήν) is a man of blood. He
that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that
defraudeth the labourer of his hire (ὁ ἀποστερῶν μισθόν μισθίου)[85]
is a blood-shedder" (Ecclus. xxxiv. 21, 22).

But none of these passages determine for us a point of some interest
in the construction used by St. James. The words translated "_of_
you," in "of you kept back by fraud," literally mean "_from_ you" (ἀφ'
ὑμῶν, not ὑφ' ὑμῶν). Two explanations are suggested: 1. The fraudulent
action proceeds _from_ them, and hence "from" becomes nearly
equivalent to "by;" and the use of "from" (ἀπό), rather than "by"
(ὑπό), is all the more natural because the word for "kept back by
fraud" has the former preposition compounded with it. 2. "From you,"
being placed between "kept back by fraud" and "crieth out" (ὁ
ἀπεστερημένος ἀφ' ὑμῶν κράζει), may go with either, and it will be
better to take it with "crieth out:" "The hire kept back by fraud
_crieth out from you_." The wrongfully detained wages are with the
rich employers, and therefore it is from the place where they are
detained that their cry goes up to heaven. The passage quoted above
from Exodus ii. 23 slightly favours this view, for there the
Septuagint has, "Their cry came up unto God _from their labours_" (ἀπὸ
τῶν ἔργων); but the passages are not really parallel.

The word used for "fields" (χώρας) is worth noting. It implies
extensive lands, and therefore adds point to the reproach. The men who
own such large properties are not under the temptations to fraud which
beset the needy, and it is scandalous that those who can so well
afford to pay what is due should refuse. Moreover, the labour of
mowing and reaping such fields must be great, and therefore the
labourers have well earned their wage. The words "into the ears of the
Lord of Sabaoth" probably come from Isaiah (v. 9), and perhaps
St. James was led to them by the thought that these extensive fields
are the result of fraud or violence; for the verse which precedes the
words in Isaiah runs thus: "Woe unto them that join house to house,
that lay field to field, till there be no room, and ye be made to
dwell alone in the midst of the land!" No other New Testament writer
uses the expression "the Lord of Sabaoth," although St. Paul once
quotes it from Isaiah (Rom. ix. 29). Bede may be right in thinking
that its point here is that the rich fancy that the poor have no
protector; whereas the Lord of hosts hears their cry. And there is
possibly another point in mowers and reapers being selected as the
representatives of all hired labourers. Calvin suggests that it is
specially iniquitous that those whose toil supplies us with food
should themselves be reduced to starvation; and to this it has been
added that the hard-heartedness of the grasping employers is indeed
conspicuous when not even the joy of the harvest moves them to pay the
poor who work for them their hardly earned wage.

The second feature in the iniquity of the rich is the voluptuous and
prodigal life which they lead themselves, at the very time that they
inflict such hardships upon the poor. "Ye lived delicately on the
earth, and took your pleasure; ye nourished your hearts in a day of
slaughter." The aorists should perhaps be translated as aorists
throughout these verses: "Ye laid up your treasure, ... ye lived
delicately," etc. rather than, "Ye _have_ laid up, ye _have_ lived,"
etc. The point of view is that of the Day of Judgment, when these
wealthy sinners are confronted by the enormities which they committed
during their lives. But it is a case in which it is quite permissible
to render the Greek aorist by the English perfect. "On the earth" may
either mean "during your lifetime," or may be in contrast to "entered
into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." All the while that the cry
against their iniquity was ascending to _heaven_, as an accumulating
charge that would at last overwhelm them, they were living in luxury
_on earth_, thinking nothing of the wrath to come. It was the converse
of the old Epicurean doctrine, so graphically described by the
Laureate in "The Lotus-eaters." There it is the gods who "lie beside
their nectar" in ceaseless enjoyment, "careless of mankind," who send
up useless lamentations, which provoke no more than a smile among the
neglectful deities. Here it is the men who revel in boundless luxury,
careless of the righteous God, whose vengeance they provoke by
persistent neglect of His commands.

The meaning of "in a day of slaughter" is not easily determined. The
"as"--"_as_ in a day of slaughter"--must certainly be omitted. It was
inserted to make more evident one of the possible interpretations of
"day of slaughter." "Ye fattened your heart with perpetual banqueting,
as if life were made up of killing and eating." "And in that day did
the Lord, the Lord of hosts, call to weeping and to mourning, and
baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: and behold, joy and gladness,
slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine: let us
eat and drink, for to-morrow we die" (Isaiah xxii. 12, 13). If this be
the idea which is expressed by the words in question, then the meaning
would be, "Ye fared sumptuously every day." But it is possible that
"in a day of slaughter" here balances "in the last days" just above.
As the folly of heaping up treasure was augmented by the fact that it
was done when the end of all things was at hand, so the iniquity of
voluptuous living was augmented by the fact that their own destruction
was at hand. In this case the wealthy owners, like stalled oxen, were
unconsciously fattening themselves for the slaughter. Instead of
sacrificing themselves to God's love and mercy, they had sacrificed
and devoured their poor brethren. They had fed themselves, and not the
flock; and unwittingly they were preparing themselves as a sacrifice
to God's wrath. _For a sacrifice, either willingly or unwillingly,
every one must be._

Did any of those whom St. James here condemns remember his words when,
a few years later, thousands of the Jews of the Dispersion were once
more gathered together at Jerusalem for the sacrifice of the Passover,
and there became unwilling sacrifices to God's slow but sure
vengeance? As already pointed out, it was the wealthy among them who
specially suffered. Their prosperity and their friendship with the
Romans provoked the envy and enmity of the fanatical Zealots, and they
perished in a day of slaughter. Josephus tells us that it was all one
whether the richer Jews stayed in the city during the siege or tried
to escape to the Romans; for they were equally destroyed in either
case. Every such person was put to death, on the pretext that he was
preparing to desert, but in reality that the plunderers might get his
possessions. People who were evidently half-starved were left
unmolested, when they declared that they had nothing; but those whose
bodies showed no signs of privation were tortured to make them reveal
the treasures which they were supposed to have concealed (_Bell. Jud._
V. x. 2).

"Ye condemned, ye killed the righteous one; he doth not resist you."
Does this refer to the condemnation and death of Jesus Christ? This
interpretation has found advocates in all ages--Cassiodorus, Bede,
Œcumenius, Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and other modern commentators;
and it is certainly attractive. St. Peter, addressing the Jews in
Solomon's Porch, says, "But ye denied the Holy and _Righteous One_,
and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince
of Life" (Acts iii. 14, 15). St. Stephen, in his speech before the
Sanhedrin, asks, "Which of the prophets did not your fathers
persecute? and they killed them which showed before of the coming of
_the Righteous One_; of whom ye have now become betrayers and
murderers" (Acts vii. 52; _cf._ xxii. 14, and 1 Pet. iii. 18). It is
certainly no objection to this interpretation that St. James uses the
aorist--"ye condemned, ye killed." That tense might fittingly be used
either of a course of action in the past, as in the aorists
immediately preceding, or of a single action, as of Abraham's offering
Isaac (ii. 21). Nor is it any objection that in "He doth not resist
you" St. James changes to the present tense. In any case the change
from past to present has to be explained, and it is as easy to explain
it of the present long-suffering of Christ, or of His abandoning them
to their wickedness, as of the habitual meekness of the righteous man.
Nor, again, is it any objection that the Jews addressed in this
Epistle could not rightly be charged with the condemnation and death
of Christ, for twenty or thirty years had elapsed since that event. It
is by no means improbable that among the Jews then living there were
many who had cried "Crucify Him" on Good Friday; and even if there
were not, the words of St. James are quite justifiable. The
Crucifixion was in a very real sense the act of the whole nation, far
more so than was the murder of Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, and yet
Jesus says to the Jews respecting Zacharias, "whom ye slew between the
sanctuary and the altar." If at the present day the English might be
told that they condemned and killed Charles I., and the French be told
that they condemned and killed Louis XVI., much more might the Jews in
the middle of the first century be said to have condemned and killed
Jesus Christ.

But nevertheless, this attractive and tenable interpretation is
probably not the right one; the context is against it. It is the evil
that is inherent in class tyrannizing over _class_ that is condemned,
the rich oppressing the poor, and the godless persecuting the godly.
"The righteous one" is here not an individual, but the representative
of a class. The iniquitous violence which slew Jesus Christ and His
martyrs, James the son of Zebedee and Stephen, _illustrates_ what
St. James says here, just as his own martyrdom does; but it does not
follow from this that he is alluding to any one of these events in
particular. The Book of Wisdom seems once more to be in the writer's
mind: "Let us oppress the poor righteous man; let us not spare the
widow, nor reverence the ancient grey hairs of the aged.... Let us lie
in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is
clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the
law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our
education.... He is grievous to us even to behold: for his life is not
like other men's; his ways are of another fashion.... Let us examine
him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness,
and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death; for
by his own saying he shall be respected" (ii. 10-20).

       *       *       *       *       *

Julius Cæsar on one occasion stated his financial position by
confessing that he needed half a million of money in order to be worth
nothing. The spiritual condition of many prosperous men might be
expressed in a similar way. Cæsar never allowed lack of funds to stand
between him and his political aims; when he had nothing he borrowed at
enormous interest. So also with us. In pursuing our worldly aims we
sink deeper and deeper in spiritual ruin, and accumulate debts for an
eternal bankruptcy. Riches are not a whit less perilous to the soul
now than they were in the first century, and yet how few among the
wealthy really believe that they are perilous at all. The wisdom of
our forefathers has placed in the Litany a petition which every
well-to-do person should say with his whole heart: "In all time of our
_wealth, Good Lord, deliver us_."

[84] In addition to the passages quoted in the text see Job vii. 1, 2;
ix. 24; xii. 5, 6; xxiv. 1-12; xxxi. 38, 39.

[85] It is uncertain whether the word which St. James uses is
ἀπεστερημένος or ἀφυστερημένος.




 CHAPTER XXIV.

 _PATIENCE IN WAITING. THE ENDURANCE OF JOB.
 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MENTION OF JOB BY ST. JAMES._

 "Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
 Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth,
 being patient over it, until it receive the early and latter rain. Be
 ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is
 at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not
 judged; behold, the Judge standeth before the doors. Take, brethren,
 for an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spake
 in the Name of the Lord. Behold, we call them blessed which endured:
 ye have heard of the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of the
 Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and
 merciful."--ST. JAMES v. 7-11.


"Be patient, therefore, brethren." The storm of indignation is past,
and from this point to the end of the Epistle St. James writes in
tones of tenderness and affection. In the paragraph before us he, as
it were, rounds off his letter, bringing it back to the point from
which he started; so that what follows (vv. 12-20) is of the nature of
a postscript or appendix. He began his letter with the exhortation,
"Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold trials;
knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience. And let
patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire,
lacking in nothing" (i. 2-4). He draws to a close with the charge, "Be
patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord".

The "therefore" shows that this sympathetic exhortation of the
brethren is closely connected with the stern denunciation of the rich
in the preceding paragraph. The connexion is obvious. These brethren
are in the main identical with the righteous poor who are so cruelly
oppressed by the rich; and St. James offers them consolation mainly on
two grounds: First, their sufferings will not last for ever; on the
contrary, the end of them is near at hand. Secondly, the end of them
will bring not only relief, but reward.

As has been already pointed out (p. 279), St. James evidently shared
the belief, which prevailed in the Apostolic age, that Jesus Christ
would very speedily return in glory to punish the wicked and reward
the righteous. This belief, as Neander observes, was very natural:
"Christ Himself had not chosen to give any information respecting the
time of his coming. Nay, He had expressly said that the Father had
reserved the decision to Himself alone (Mark xiii. 32); that even the
Son could determine nothing respecting it. But still, the longing
desire of the Apostolic Church was directed with eager haste to the
appearing of the Lord. The whole Christian period seemed only as the
transition-point to the eternal, and thus as something that must soon
be passed. As the traveller, beholding from afar the object of all his
wanderings, overlooks the windings of the intervening way, and
believes himself already near his goal, so it seemed to them, as their
eye was fixed on that consummation of the whole course of events on
earth."

Thus, by a strange but unperceived incongruity, St. James makes the
unconscious impatience of primitive Christianity a basis for his
exhortation to conscious patience. Early Christians, in their
eagerness for the return of their Lord, impatiently believed that His
return was imminent; and St. James uses this belief as an argument for
patient waiting and patient endurance. It is only for a short time
that they will have to wait and endure, and then the rich reward will
be reaped. Ploughing and harrowing are toilsome and painful, but they
have to be gone through, and then, after no intolerable waiting, the
harvest comes.

Above, when St. James was rebuking his readers for their presumptuous
confidence respecting their future plans, he reminded them of the
shortness of life. "What is your life? For ye are a vapour, that
appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away" (iv. 14). Here
the shortness of the interval between the present moment and the end
of all things is urged as a reason both for circumspection and for
patience. In both cases, with his characteristic fondness for
illustrations drawn from nature, he employs physical phenomena to
enforce his lesson. In the one case life is a vapour, not substantial
at any time, and soon dispersed;[86] in the other case life is the
work and the waiting which must precede the harvest.

The key-note of the whole passage is _patience_, which in one form or
another occurs six times in five verses In the original two different
words are used--one (μακροθμεῖν and μακροθμία) four times in the first
four verses; and the other (ὑπομένειν and ὑπομενή) twice in the last
verse, where we certainly need "the _endurance_ of Job" rather than
"the _patience_ of Job," in order to preserve the transition from the
one word to the other. "Take, brethren, for an example of suffering
and of _patience_ (μακροθυμίας) the prophets who spake in the Name of
the Lord. Behold, we call them blessed which _endured_ (τοὺς
ὑπομείναντας): ye have heard of the _endurance_ (ὑπομενήν) of Job." It
was perhaps because "the _patience_ of Job" has become a proverbial
formula that the Revisers banished "endurance" to the margin, instead
of placing it in the text.[87] The two words are not infrequently
found together (2 Cor. vi. 4-6; Col. i. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 10; Clement of
Rome, lviii.; Ignatius, _Ephes._ iii.). The difference between the two
is, on the whole, this, that the first is the long-suffering which
does not retaliate upon oppressive persons, the second the endurance
which does not succumb under oppressive things. The persecuted
prophets exhibited the one; the afflicted Job exhibited the other. The
oppressed and poor Christians whom St. James addresses are able to
practise both these forms of patience, which Chrysostom extols as the
"queen of the virtues."

There is a remarkable diversity of readings in the illustration about
the husbandman's waiting. Some authorities make him wait for the early
and latter _rain_, others for the early and latter _fruit_. The best
witnesses leave the substantive to be understood, and this is
doubtless the original reading; it accounts for the other two. Some
copyists thought that rain was to be understood, and therefore
inserted it; while others for a similar reason inserted fruit. No
doubt it is rain that is intended, in accordance with several passages
in the Old Testament (Deut. xi. 14; Jer. v. 24; Joel ii. 23; Zech.
x. 1). The rains of autumn and of spring are meant, not "morning rain
and evening rain" as Luther renders it in his version; and no moral or
spiritual facts are symbolized by these natural phenomena, such as the
penitential tears of youth and of old age, which would not fit the
context. The point of the simile lies in the patient waiting, not in
that which is waited for.

"Murmur not, brethren, one against another." The literal meaning of
the Greek is "_Groan_ not;" that is, "Grumble not." Earlier English
versions have "Grudge not;" and "grudge" once had the meaning of
"murmur," as in "They will run here and there for meat, and _grudge_
if they be not satisfied" (Ps. lix. 15). It is altogether a mistake to
suppose that "one against another" includes the wealthy oppressors
spoken of in the preceding section. It is the common experience of
every one that men who are irritated and exasperated by trying persons
or circumstances are liable to vent their vexation on those who are in
no way responsible for what tries them. St. James is well aware of
this danger, and puts his readers on their guard against it. "Be
long-suffering," he says, "and do not retaliate on those who maltreat
you; and do not let the smart of your troubles betray you into
impatience towards one another. He who is to judge your oppressors
will judge you also, and He is close at hand." We can hardly doubt
that Christ's saying, "Judge not, _that ye be not judged_" (Matt.
vii. 1), is in his mind. The way to lighten one's burden is not to
groan over it, still less to murmur against those who are in the same
case, but to try to console and help them. "Bear ye one another's
burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." It is a good thing to take
as an example of patience the prophets and others among God's
suffering saints; but it is a still better thing to give such an
example ourselves.

By the prophets St. James no doubt means the prophets of the Old
Testament--Elijah, Jeremiah, and others. It is not likely that he
includes any of the persecuted disciples of the New Testament, such as
James the son of Zebedee, and Stephen. Here again we seem to have an
echo of Christ's words: "_Blessed_ are ye when men shall reproach you,
and persecute you" (comp. "We call them _blessed_ which endured"):
"for so persecuted they the _prophets_ which were before you" (Matt.
v. 11, 12). It is the ceaseless reproach against the Jews that they
boasted that theirs were the prophets, and yet were the persecutors of
the prophets. "The children of Israel ... have slain Thy prophets with
the sword," says Elijah (1 Kings xix. 10, 14). "That I may avenge the
blood of My servants the prophets," says God to Elisha (2 Kings
ix. 7). They "slew Thy prophets which testified against them to turn
them again to Thee," says Nehemiah, in his prayer (Neh. ix. 26). "Your
own sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion," is the
accusation of Jeremiah (ii. 30). "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which
killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her!" is the
lamentation of Christ (Matt. xxiii. 37). And Stephen, just before he
was himself added to the number of the slain, asks, "Which of the
prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them which
showed before of the coming of the Righteous One" (Acts vii. 52).
Certainly those who try to do God's work in the world have no lack of
examples of patient suffering for such work. The reasonable question
would seem to be, not, "Why should I be made to suffer for
endeavouring to do good?" but, "Why should I _not_ be made to suffer?
Seeing what others have had to endure, why should I be spared?"

"Ye have heard of the endurance of Job." It is possible that this
refers specially to the reading of the Book of Job in public service;
but there is no need to restrict the hearing to such occasions. We
need not doubt that the endurance of Job was a familiar topic among
the Jews long before this Epistle was written, and independently of
the book being read in the synagogues. Yet, in spite of this
familiarity, the passage before us is the only reference in the whole
of the New Testament to the story of Job, and there is only one
quotation from the Book: "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"
(Job v. 13) is quoted by St. Paul (1 Cor. iii. 19). There are several
loose quotations from it in the Epistle of Clement of Rome (xvii.,
xx., xxvi., xxxix., lvi.); and the remarkable insertion in the Vulgate
Version of Tobit ii. 12-15 is worthy of quotation: "This trial the
Lord _therefore_ permitted to happen to him, that an example might be
given to posterity of his patience, as also of holy Job. For whereas
he had always feared God from his infancy, and kept His commandments,
he repined not against God because the evil of blindness had befallen
him, but continued immovable in the fear of God, giving thanks to God
all the days of his life. For as the kings[88] insulted over holy Job,
so his relations and kinsmen mocked at his life, saying, Where is thy
hope, for which thou gavest alms, and buriedest the dead? But Tobias
rebuked them, saying, Speak not so; for we are the children of saints,
and look for that life which God will give to them that never change
their faith from Him."

"Ye have heard of the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of the
Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful." A
well-supported, but, on the whole, less probable reading, gives us the
imperative, "_see_ the end of the Lord," instead of the indicative,
"ye have seen" (ἴδετε, instead of εἴδετε). If it be correct, it may be
taken either with what precedes or with what follows: either, "Ye have
heard of the endurance of Job: see also the end of the Lord, how that
the Lord is full of pity, and merciful;" or, "Ye have heard of the
endurance of Job and the end of the Lord: see that the Lord is full of
pity, and merciful."

But a more important question than either the reading or the division
of the clauses is the meaning of the expression "the end of the Lord."
Bede follows Augustine in understanding it of the death of Christ, which
no doubt many of the readers of the Epistle had witnessed--"_Exitum
quoque Domini in cruce quem longanimiter suscepit, adstantes ipsi
vidistis_": and in this interpretation Bede is followed by Wetstein,
Lange, and some other modern writers. It cannot be considered as
probable. St. James would hardly couple the endurance of Job with the
death of Christ in this abrupt way; and the words which follow--"that
the Lord is full of pity, and merciful"--do not fit on to this
interpretation. "The end of the Lord" much more probably means the end
to which the Lord brought the sufferings of Job. It may have special
reference to the concluding portion of the Book of Job, in which
Jehovah is represented as bringing the argument to a close: "Then the
Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that
darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" etc., etc.
(xxxviii.-xlii.). This appearance of Jehovah to end the trials of Job
would then be analogous to the appearance of Christ to end the trials
of the persecuted Christians; and it is possible that the combination
"ye have heard ... and have seen" was suggested by the last words of
Job: "_I have heard of_ Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine
eye _seeth_ Thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and
ashes" (xlii. 5, 6).

Stier remarks that the mention of Job in Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 16, 20),
and here by St. James, shows us "that the man Job actually lived, like
Noah, Daniel, and all the prophets; that the narrative of his life is
not a didactic poem, but a real history." But is that a necessary
conclusion? Let us leave on one side the question whether or no there
really was such a person as Job, who experienced what is recorded in
the book which bears his name, and let us consider whether the mention
of him by Ezekiel and by St. James proves that there was such a
person. It proves nothing of the sort. It shows no more than this,
that the story of Job was well known, and was employed for moral and
spiritual instruction. Let us suppose that the Book of Job is a
parable, like that of Dives and Lazarus. Would the fact that its
contents are not historical prevent Ezekiel or St. James from speaking
of Job as a well-known person of exemplary life? There would be
nothing unnatural in coupling together Dives, who is probably an
imaginary person, and the rich young man, who is certainly a real
person, as examples of men to whom great wealth has proved disastrous,
nor, again, in speaking of Lazarus and the penitent thief as instances
of souls that had passed from great earthly suffering to the rest of
Paradise. Such combinations would not commit the writer or speaker who
made use of them to the belief that Dives and Lazarus were historical
persons. Why, then, should the fact that an inspired writer couples
Job with Noah and Daniel commit _us_ to the belief that Job is a real
person? He may have been so, just as Lazarus may have been so, but the
mention of him by Ezekiel and by St. James does not prove that he was.
We know too little about the effects of inspiration to be justified in
saying dogmatically that an inspired writer would never speak of an
unhistorical person as an example to be imitated. Is the merchant who
sold all that he had in order to buy one pearl of great price an
historical person? and is he not put before us as an example to be
imitated? It is quite possible that the story of Job is in the main a
narrative of facts, and not an inspired fiction; but the mention of
him by Ezekiel and by St. James is no proof of it. It is neither fair
nor prudent to cite either of them as witnesses to the historical
character of the Book of Job. It is not fair, because we are ignorant
of their opinion on the subject, and are also ignorant as to whether
their opinion on the subject would be under the direct inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. And it is not prudent, because it may be demonstrated
hereafter that the story of Job is not historical; and then we shall
have pledged the testimony of inspired persons to the truth of a
narrative which is, after all, fictitious. If St. Paul may cite Jannes
and Jambres as instances of malignant opposition to the truth, without
compelling us to believe that those names are historical,[89]
St. James may quote Job as an example of patient endurance, without
obliging us to believe that Job is an historical personage. In each
case the historical character of the illustrations must be decided on
other grounds than the fact that they are employed by writers who were
inspired.[90]

Questions of this kind are among the many spheres in which we need
that virtue on which St. James here insists with such simple
earnestness--patience. When certainty has not been attained, and
perhaps is not attainable, let us learn to wait patiently in
uncertainty. Was there ever such a person as Job? Who wrote the Book
of Job? What is its date? Does inspiration produce infallibility? and
if so, what are the limits to such infallibility? There are men to
whom uncertainty on such questions as these seems intolerable. They
cannot "learn to labour and to wait;" they cannot work patiently, and
wait patiently, until a complete solution is found. And hence they
hurry to a definite conclusion, support it by evidence that is not
relevant, and affirm that it is demonstrated by what is perhaps
relevant, but is far short of proof. Intellectual probation is part of
our moral probation in this life, and it is a discipline much needed
in an age of great mental activity. Impatience of the intellect is a
common blemish, and it is disastrous both to him who allows himself to
be conquered by it and to the cause of truth. He does good service
both to himself and to others, who cultivates a dread of jumping to
unproved conclusions, and who in speaking and writing watchfully
distinguishes what is certain from what is only probable, and what is
probable from what is only not known to be untrue.

_The_ great example of patience is not given by St. James, although we
can read it into his words. In a sense not meant by him there is the
Husbandman, who waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, until it
receive the early and the latter rain. There is that precious harvest
of human souls which must receive and welcome the dew of God's grace
before it is ready for His garner. On some it has never yet fallen; on
some it has fallen, but as yet in vain; and meanwhile the Husbandman
waiteth, "being patient over it," until it receive the one thing
needful. Through long, long centuries He has been waiting, and He
continues so doing. St. Augustine tells us why. God is "patient,
because He is eternal" (_patiens quia æternus_). He who is "from
everlasting to everlasting" can afford to wait. He waits patiently for
us, generation after generation. Can we not wait for Him one hour? Let
us patiently abide until "the end of the Lord" comes, the end which He
has prepared for us, and towards which all things under His guiding
hand are working. When we have seen it we shall once more see "that
the Lord is full of pity, and merciful."[91]

[86] As already pointed out, this metaphor is perhaps a reminiscence
of the Book of Job, to which St. James alludes in the passage before
us. He was evidently fond of the sapiential writings, to which Job
is akin. "My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and are spent
without hope. As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he
that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more" (Job vii. 6, 9).
See [footnote 84].

[87] The Rhemish Version distinguishes the words--"be patient" and
"patience" for the one, "suffer" and "sufferance" for the other, the
Vulgate having _patientia_ and _sufferentia_.

[88] _Reges._ "So Job's friends are here called, because they were
princes in their respective territories." Note in the Douay Version,
from which the translation of the passage is taken.

[89] See _The Pastoral Epistles_, in this series, pp. 379-84 (Hodder and
Stoughton, 1888).

[90] That the Book of Job is not pure history is plain from (1) the
dialogue between Jehovah and Satan, and the addresses ascribed to the
Almighty in the body of the poem; (2) the dramatic character of Job's
calamities, man and nature alternately inflicting blows at him, and in
each case just one messenger escaping; (3) the dramatic character of
his compensation, his goods being exactly doubled, and his family
being made exactly what it was before; (4) the elaboration of the
dialogue between Job and his friends. On the other hand, it is not
likely that it is pure invention. We have no evidence of literary
power equal to such invention at the early date to which the Book of
Job must be assigned, viz. before the Return from the Captivity; and
the writer's object would be better attained if he took an historical
person, than if he invented one, as his centre.

[91] The word for "full of pity" (πολύσπλανχνος) was possibly coined
by St. James himself; it occurs nowhere else. It might be rendered
"large-hearted." A few inferior MSS. have πολυεύσπλανχνος, a word
which is found in ecclesiastical and Byzantine writers. The simpler
εὔσπλανχνος occurs 1 Pet. iii. 8; Eph. iv. 32; and in the Prayer of
Manasses; ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριοσ ὕψιστος, εὔσπλανχνος, μακρόθυμος, καὶ
πολυέλεος. The unique πολύσπλανχνος looks like a combination of
πολυέλεοσ and εὔσπλανχνος. Comp. Joel ii. 13; Jonah iv. 2. The word
for "merciful" occurs Luke vi. 36 (comp. Col. iii. 12) and frequently
in the Septuagint; _e.g._ Ecclus. ii. 11; οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων ὁ
κύριος.




 CHAPTER XXV.

 _THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING. THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE
 OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST._

 "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven,
 nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and
 your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment."--ST. JAMES v. 12.


The main portion of the Epistle is already concluded. St. James has
worked through his chief topics back to the point from which he
started, viz. the blessedness of steadfast and patient endurance of
trials and temptations. But one or two other subjects occur to him,
and he reopens his letter to add them by way of a farewell word of
counsel.

One of the leading thoughts in the letter has been warning against
sins of the tongue (i. 19, 26; iii. 1-12; iv. 11, 13; v. 9). He has
spoken against talkativeness, unrestrained speaking, love of
correcting others, railing, cursing, boasting, murmuring. One grievous
form of sinful speech he has not mentioned particularly; and about
this he adds a strong word of warning in this postscript to the
Epistle: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not."

Two questions are raised by this remarkable prohibition--first, the
exact meaning of it, especially whether it forbids swearing for any
purpose whatever; and secondly, its relation to the almost identical
prohibition uttered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 35,
36). It will be obvious that whatever this relation may be, the
meaning of our Lord's injunction determines the meaning of St. James
in his injunction. It is hardly worth arguing that he did not mean
either more or less than Christ meant.

I. The immediate context of the prohibition is worth noting in each
case; it seems to throw light upon the scope of the prohibition. Jesus
Christ, after saying "Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, ... nor
by the earth.... But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay," goes on
to forbid retaliation of injuries, and to enjoin love towards enemies.
St. James enjoins long-suffering towards enemies, thence goes on to
forbid swearing, and then again returns to the subject of how to
behave under affliction and ill-treatment: "Is any among you
suffering? let him pray." Prayer, not cursing and swearing, is the
right method of finding relief. There is, therefore, some reason for
thinking that both in the Sermon on the Mount and here the prohibition
of swearing has special reference to giving vent to one's feelings in
oaths when one is exasperated by injury or adversity. No kind of oath
is allowable for any such purpose.

But it is quite clear that this is not the whole meaning of the
injunction in either place. "But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay,
nay;" and, "But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay," manifestly
refers to strengthening affirmations and negations by adding to them
the sanction of an oath. There was an old saying, now unhappily quite
grotesque in its incongruity with facts, that "an Englishman's word is
as good as his bond." What Christ and St. James say is that a
Christian's word should be as good as his oath. There ought to be no
need of oaths. Anything over and above simple affirming or denying
"cometh of the evil one." It is because Satan, the father of lies, has
introduced falsehood into the world that oaths have come into use.
Among Christians there should be no untruthfulness, and therefore no
oaths. The use of oaths is an index of the presence of evil; it is a
symptom of the prevalence of falsehood.

But the use of oaths is not only a sign of the existence of mischief,
it is also apt to be productive of mischief. It is apt to produce a
belief that there are two kinds of truth, one of which it is a serious
thing to violate, viz. when you are on your oath; but the other of
which it is a harmless, or at least a venial thing to violate, viz.
when falsehood is only falsehood, and not perjury. And this, both
among Jews and among Christians, produces the further mischievous
refinement that some oaths are more binding than others, and that only
when the most stringent form of oath is employed is there any real
obligation to speak the truth. How disastrous all such distinctions
are to the interests of truth, abundant experience has testified: for
a common result is this;--that people believe that they are free to
lie as much as they please, so long as the lie is not supported by the
particular kind of oath which they consider to be binding.

Thus much, then, is evident, that both our Lord and St. James forbid
the use of oaths (1) as an expression of feeling, (2) as a
confirmation of ordinary statements; for the prohibitions plainly mean
as much as this, and we know from other sources that these two abuses
were disastrously common among both Jews and Gentiles at that time.
That converts to Christianity were exempt from such vices is most
improbable; and hence the need that St. James should write as he does
on the subject.

But the main question is whether the prohibition is _absolute_;
whether our Lord and St. James forbid the use of oaths _for any
purpose whatever_; and it must be admitted that the first impression
which we derive from their words is that they do. This view is upheld
by not a few Christians as the right interpretation of both passages.
Christ says, "Swear not _at all_ (μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως).... But let your
speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." St. James says, "Swear not, neither by
the heaven, nor by the earth, _nor by any other oath_ (μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ
ὅρκον): but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay." In both cases we
have an unqualified prohibition of what is to be avoided, followed by
a plain command as to what is to be done.

But further investigation does not confirm the view which is derived
from a first impression as to the meaning of the words. Against it we
have, first, the fact that the Mosaic Law not only allowed, but
enjoined the taking of an oath in certain circumstances; and Christ
would hardly have abrogated the law, and St. James would hardly have
contradicted it, without giving some explanation of so unusual a
course; secondly, the indisputable practice of the early Church, of
St. Paul, and of our Lord Himself.

In Deuteronomy we read, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; and Him
shalt thou serve, and _shalt swear by His Name_" (vi. 13); and, "to
Him shalt thou cleave, and _by His Name shalt thou swear_" (x. 20).
The Psalmist says, "The king shall rejoice in God; every one that
sweareth by Him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies
shall be stopped" (lxiii. 11). Isaiah says, "He that sweareth in the
earth shall swear by the God of truth" (lxv. 16); and still more
strongly Jeremiah: "Thou shalt swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in
judgment, and in righteousness" (iv. 2); and, "If they will diligently
learn the ways of My people, to swear by My Name, As the Lord liveth;
even as they taught My people to swear by Baal; then shall they be
built up in the midst of My people" (xii. 16. Comp. xxiii. 7, 8). An
absolute prohibition of all swearing would have been so surprisingly
at variance with these passages of Scripture that it is difficult to
believe that it would have been made without any allusion to them.
Even the Essenes, who were very strict about swearing, and considered
it to be worse than perjury (for a man is condemned already who cannot
be believed except upon his oath), imposed "terrific oaths" (ὅρκους
φρικώδεις) upon those who wished to enter their community, before
admitting them (Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ II. viii. 6, 7; _Ant._ XV.
x. 4); and we can hardly suppose that St. James means to take up a
more extreme position than that of the Essenes.

But even if we suppose that he does mean this we have still to explain
the _practice_ of those who were well aware of Christ's command
respecting swearing, and certainly had no intention of deliberately
violating it. If the first Christians were willing on certain
occasions to take certain oaths, it must have been because they were
fully persuaded that Jesus Christ had not forbidden them to do so.
When called upon by heathen magistrates to take an oath, the
distinction which they drew was not between swearing and not swearing,
but between taking oaths that committed them to idolatry and oaths
which did nothing of the kind. The latter oaths they were willing to
take. Thus Tertullian says that they would not swear by the _genii_ of
the emperors, because these were supposed to be demons; but by the
safety of the emperors they were willing to swear (_Apol._ xxxii.).
Origen writes to much the same effect (_Con. Celsum_, viii., lxv.).
The oath by the _genius_, or _numen_, or "fortune" (τύχη) of the
emperor was recognized as a formula for abjuring Christianity. Thus
the proconsul presses Polycarp again and again: "Swear by the genius
of Cæsar; swear the oath, and I will release thee" (_Mart. Pol._ ix.,
x.); and the fear of being betrayed into an act of idolatry was one of
the main reasons why the early Christians disliked taking oaths. But
there was also the feeling that for Christians oaths ought to be quite
unnecessary. Thus Clement of Alexandria says that the true Christian
ought to maintain a life calculated to inspire such confidence in
those without that an oath would not even be demanded of him. And of
course, when he swears, he swears truly; but he is not apt to swear,
and rarely has recourse to an oath. And his speaking the truth on oath
arises from his harmony with the truth (_Strom._ vii., viii.).
Pelagius maintained that all swearing was forbidden; but Augustine
contends, on the authority of Scripture, that oaths are not unlawful,
although he would have them avoided as much as possible (_Ep._ clvii.
Comp. _Epp._ cxxv., cxxvi.).

But there is not only the evidence as to how the primitive Church
understood the words of Christ and of St. James; there is also the
practice of St. Paul, who frequently calls God to witness that he is
speaking the truth (2 Cor. i. 23; xi. 31; xii. 19; Gal. i. 20; Phil.
i. 8), or uses other strong asseverations which are certainly more
than plain Yea and Nay (Rom. ix. i.; 1 Cor. xv. 31; 2 Cor. i. 18;
xi. 10). Augustine quotes St. Paul in defence of swearing, but adds
that St. Paul's swearing, when there was weighty reason for it, is no
proof that we may swear whenever we think proper to do so. And in the
Epistle to the Hebrews the fact that men swear in order to settle
disputes is mentioned without any intimation that the practice is
utterly wrong. On the contrary, we are told that God has condescended
to do the same, in order to give us all the assurance in His power
(vi. 16-18).

Lastly, we have the convincing fact that Jesus Christ allowed Himself
to be put upon His oath. After having kept silence for a long time, He
was _adjured_ by the High Priest to answer; and then He answered at
once. The full meaning of the High Priest's words are, "I exact an
oath of Thee (ἐξορκίζω σε) by the Living God" (Matt. xxvi. 63, 64).
Had this been an unlawful thing for the High Priest to do, our Lord
would have kept silence all the more, or would have answered under
protest.

II. It remains to consider the relation of the prohibition of swearing
in this Epistle to the almost identical prohibition in the Sermon on
the Mount. Is St. James quoting Christ's words? and if so, whence did
he derive his knowledge of them?

No one who compares the two passages will believe that the similarity
between them is accidental. Even if such an hypothesis could
reasonably be entertained, it would be shattered by the number of
other coincidences which exist between passages in this Epistle and
the recorded words of Christ. In this instance we have the largest
amount of coincidence; and therefore the discussion of this point has
been reserved until this passage was reached, although numerous other
cases of coincidence have already occurred.

The remark is sometimes made that there are more quotations of
Christ's words in the Epistle of St. James than in all the Epistles of
St. Paul, or than in all the other books of the New Testament other
than the Gospels. It would be better to word the remark somewhat
differently, and say that there are more coincidences which cannot be
fortuitous between this Epistle and the recorded words of Christ than
in all the Epistles of St. Paul; or that there is far more evidence of
the influence of Christ's discourses upon the language of St. James
than there is of any such influence upon the language of St. Paul.
St. Paul tells us much about Christ and His work, but he very rarely
reproduces any of His sayings. With St. James it is exactly the
opposite; he says very little indeed about Christ, but, without
quoting them as such, he frequently reproduces His words. It will be
found that the largest number of these coincidences are between
St. James and sayings that are recorded by St. Matthew, especially in
the Sermon on the Mount. But this does not warrant us in asserting
that St. James must have seen St. Matthew's Gospel or any other
written Gospels. The coincidences, as will be seen, are not of a
character to show this. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether any
of the Gospels were written so early as A.D. 62, the latest date which
can be given to our Epistle; and if any earlier date be assigned to
it, the improbability of the writer's having seen a written Gospel
becomes all the greater. The resemblances between the words of
St. James and the recorded words of Christ are such as would naturally
arise if he had himself heard Christ's teaching, and was consciously
or unconsciously reproducing what he remembered of it, rather than
such as would be found if he had had a written document to quote from.
If this be so, we have a strong confirmation of the view adopted at
the outset, that this Epistle is the work of the Lord's brother, who
had personal experience of Christ's conversation, and was independent
of both the oral and the written tradition of His teaching. It will be
worth while to tabulate the principal coincidences, so that the reader
may be able to judge for himself as to their significance. They
suffice to show how full the mind of St. James must have been of the
teaching of Jesus Christ, and they lead to the highly probable
conjecture that in other parts of the Epistle we have reminiscences of
Christ's words of which we have no record in the Gospels.[92] It is
not likely that St. James has remembered and reproduced only those
sayings of which there is something recorded by the Evangelists.

 ST. MATTHEW.                           ST. JAMES.

 1. Blessed are they that have          Count it all joy, my brethren,
 been persecuted for righteousness'     when ye fall into manifold
 sake: for theirs is the                temptations; knowing that the
 kingdom of heaven. Blessed             proof of your faith worketh
 are ye when men shall reproach         patience (i. 2, 3).
 you, and persecute you, and say
 all manner of evil against you         Take, brethren, for an example
 falsely, for My sake. Rejoice          of suffering and of patience,
 and be exceeding glad: for             the prophets who spake in the
 great is your reward in heaven:        name of the Lord. Behold, we
 for so persecuted they the prophets    call them blessed which endured
 which were before you                  (v. 10, 11).
 (v. 10-12).

 2. Ye therefore shall be perfect,      And let patience have its
 as your heavenly Father is             perfect work, that ye may be
 perfect (v. 48).                       perfect and entire, lacking in
                                        nothing (i. 4).

 3. Ask, and it shall be given          But if any of you lacketh
 you; seek, and ye shall find;          wisdom, let him ask of God,
 knock, and it shall be opened          who giveth to all liberally and
 unto you: for every one that           upbraideth not; and it shall be
 asketh receiveth (vii. 7, 8).          given him (i. 5).

 4. Blessed are the poor in             Let the brother of low degree
 spirit: for theirs is the kingdom      glory in his high estate (i. 9).
 of heaven (v. 3. Comp. Luke
 vi. 20).                               Did not God choose them
                                        that are poor as to the world
                                        to be rich in faith, and heirs of
                                        the kingdom? (ii. 5).

 5. Not every one that saith            Be ye doers of the word, and
 unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall             not hearers only, deluding your
 enter into the kingdom of              own selves. For if any one is
 heaven; but he that doeth the          a hearer of the word, and not
 will of My Father which is in          a doer, he is like unto a man
 heaven.... And every one               beholding his natural face in a
 that heareth these words of            mirror (i. 22, 23).
 Mine, and doeth them not,
 shall be likened unto a foolish
 man, which built his house
 upon the sand (vii. 21, 26).

 6. Blessed are the merciful:           So speak ye, and so do, as
 for they shall obtain mercy (v. 7).    men that are to be judged by a
                                        law of liberty. For judgment
 If ye forgive not men their            is without mercy to him that
 trespasses, neither will your          hath showed no mercy: mercy
 Father forgive your trespasses         glorieth against judgment (ii.
 (vi. 15).                              12, 13).

 With what judgment ye
 judge, ye shall be judged
 (vii. 2).

 7. Do men gather grapes of             Can a fig-tree, my brethren,
 thorns, or figs of thistles?           yield olives, or a vine figs?
 (vii. 16).                             (iii. 12).

 8. No man can serve two                Know ye not that the friendship
 masters: for either he will hate       of the world is enmity
 the one, and love the other; or        with God? Whosoever, therefore
 else he will hold to one, and          would be a friend of the
 despise the other. Ye cannot           world maketh himself an enemy
 serve God and Mammon (vi. 24).         of God (iv. 4).

 9. Whosoever shall humble              Humble yourselves in the
 himself shall be exalted (xxiii.       sight of the Lord, and He shall
 12).                                   exalt you (iv. 10).

 10. Be not therefore anxious           Whereas ye know not what
 for the morrow (vi. 34).               shall be on the morrow (iv. 14).

 11. Lay not up for yourselves          Your riches are corrupted,
 treasures upon the earth, where        and your garments are moth-eaten.
 moth and rust doth consume             Your gold and your
 (vi. 19).                              silver are rusted (v. 2, 3).

 12. Swear not at all; neither          But above all things, my
 by the heaven, for it is the throne    brethren, swear not, neither by
 of God; nor by the earth, for          the heaven, nor by the earth,
 it is the footstool of His feet;       nor by any other oath.
 nor by Jerusalem, for it is the
 city of the great King. Neither
 shalt thou swear by thy head,
 for thou canst not make one
 hair white or black. But let           But let your yea be yea, and
 your speech, be Yea, yea; Nay,         your nay, nay; that ye fall not
 nay: and whatsoever is more            under judgment (v. 12).
 than these is of the evil one
 (v. 34-37).

These twelve parallels are by no means exhaustive, but they are among
the most striking. The following are worthy of consideration, although
those which have been quoted above are more than sufficient for our
purpose:--

 St. Matthew i. 19         St. James v. 19
  "   "      i. 20            "      v. 22
  "   "     ii.  8            "    vii. 12
  "   "     ii. 10, 11        "      v. 27
  "   "    iii. 17, 18        "      v.  9
  "   "     iv.  3            "    vii.  8

Let us now consider some coincidences between the language of
St. James and our Lord's words as recorded by the other three
Evangelists.

 ST. MARK.                              ST. JAMES.

 13. Whosoever shall say unto           If any of you lacketh wisdom,
 this mountain, Be thou taken           let him ask of God, who giveth
 up and cast into the sea; and          to all liberally and upbraideth
 shall not doubt (διακριθῇ) in          not. But let him ask in faith,
 his heart, but shall believe that      nothing doubting (διακρινόμενος):
 what he saith cometh to pass;          for he that doubteth etc. (i.
 he shall have it (xi. 23).             5, 6).

 14. They shall deliver you up          Do not the rich oppress you,
 to councils; and in synagogues         and themselves drag you before
 shall ye be beaten (xiii. 9).          the judgment-seats? (ii. 6).

 15. Know ye that he is nigh,           Behold, the Judge standeth
 even at the doors (xiii. 29;           before the doors (v. 9).
 Matt. xxiv. 33).

 ST. LUKE.                              ST. JAMES.

 16. Woe unto you, ye that              Let your laughter be turned
 laugh now! for ye shall mourn          to mourning, and your joy to
 and weep (vi. 25).                     heaviness (iv. 9).

 17. Woe unto you that are              Go to now, ye rich, weep
 rich for ye have received your         and howl for your miseries that
 consolation (vi. 24).                  are coming upon you (v. 1).

 ST. JOHN.                              ST. JAMES.

 18. If ye know these things,           Being not a hearer that forgetteth,
 blessed are ye if ye do them           but a doer that worketh,
 (xiii. 17).                            this man shall be blessed in
                                        his doing (i. 25).

 19. If ye were of the world,           Know ye not that the friendship
 the world would love its own:          of the world is enmity
 but because ye are not of the          with God? Whosoever therefore
 world, ... therefore the world         would be a friend of the
 hateth you (xv. 19. Comp.              world maketh himself an enemy
 xvii. 14).                             of God (iv. 4).

It will be observed that these reminiscences of the teaching of Christ
are all of one kind. They are all of them concerned with the morality
of the Gospel, with Christian conduct and Christian life. Not one of
them is doctrinal, or gives instruction as to the Christian creed.
This, again, is what we might expect if the brother of the Lord is the
writer of the Epistle. At the time when he listened to his Divine
Brother's teaching he did not believe on Him. The doctrinal part of
His discourses was precisely that part which did not impress him; it
seemed to him as the wild fancies of an enthusiast (Mark iii. 21). But
the moral teaching of Jesus impressed many of those who rejected His
claims to be the Messiah, and it is this element which St. James
remembers.

Before concluding, let us return to the moral precept contained in the
verse which we have been considering: "Above all things, my brethren,
swear not." The prohibition has not ceased to be necessary, as our
daily experience proves. The vice of profane swearing (and all
swearing about ordinary matters is profane) is a strange one. Where is
the pleasure of it? Where, before it becomes a fashion or a habit, is
the temptation to it? Where, in any case, is the sense of it? There is
pleasure in gluttony, in drunkenness, in lust, in pride, in avarice,
in revenge. But where is the pleasure in an oath? The sensualist, the
hypocrite, the miser, and the murderer can at least plead strong
temptation, can at least urge that they get something, however
pitiful, in exchange for eternal loss. But what can the blasphemer
plead? what does he get in exchange for his soul? In times of strong
excitement it is no doubt a relief to the feelings to use strong
language; but what is gained by making the strong language trebly
culpable by adding blasphemy to it? Besides which, there is the sadly
common case of those who use blasphemous words when there is no
temptation to give vent to strong feeling in strong language, who
habitually swear in cold blood. Let no one deceive himself with the
paltry excuse that he cannot help it, or that there is no harm in it.
A resolution to do something disagreeable every time an oath escaped
one's lips would soon bring about a cure. And let those who profess to
think that there is no harm in idle swearing ask themselves whether
they expect to repeat that plea when they give an account for every
idle word at the day of judgment (Matt. xii. 36).

[92] See Salmon's _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 221, 500, 4th ed., 1889.




 CHAPTER XXVI.

 _WORSHIP THE BEST OUTLET AND REMEDY FOR EXCITEMENT.
 THE CONNEXION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND CONDUCT._

 "Is any among you suffering? let him pray. Is any cheerful? let him
 sing praise."--ST. JAMES v. 13.


The subject of this verse was probably suggested by that of the
preceding one. Oaths are not a right way of expressing one's feelings,
however strong they may be, and of whatever kind they may be. There
is, however, no need to stifle such feelings, or to pretend to the
world that we have no emotions. In this respect, as in many others,
Christianity has no sympathy with the precepts of Stoicism or
Cynicism. It is not only innocent, but prudent, to seek an outlet for
excited feelings; the right and wrong of the matter lie in the _kind_
of outlet which we allow ourselves. Language of some kind, and in most
cases articulate language, is the natural instrument for expressing
and giving vent to our feelings. But we need some strong safeguard, or
the consequences of freely giving expression to our emotions in speech
will be calamitous. This safeguard is clearly indicated by the rules
here laid down by St. James. Let the expression of strongly excited
feelings be an act of _worship_; then we shall have an outlet for them
which is not likely to involve us in harmful results. By the very act
in which we exhibit our emotions we protect ourselves from the evil
which they might produce. The very mode of expressing them moderates
them, and serves as an antidote to their capacity for evil. Prayer and
praise, or (in one word) worship, according to St. James, is the
Christian remedy for "allaying or carrying off the fever of the mind."
In all cases in which the mind is greatly agitated, whether painfully
or pleasantly, whether by sorrow, anger, regret, or by joy, pleasure,
hope,--the wise thing to do is to take refuge in an act of worship.

Mental excitement is neither right nor wrong, any more than physical
hunger or thirst. Everything depends on the method of expressing the
one or gratifying the other. It will be easy in both cases to indulge
a legitimate craving in such a way as to turn a natural and healthy
symptom into a disease. Neither a heated mind nor a heated body can
without danger be kept heated, or treated as if they were at their
normal temperature. The advice of St. James is that in all cases in
which our minds are agitated by strong emotion we should turn to Him
who gave us minds capable of feeling such emotion; we should cease to
make ourselves our own centre, and turn our thoughts from the causes
of our excitement to Him who is the unmoved Cause of all movement and
rest.

We need not tie ourselves to the distribution of prayer and praise
expressed in the text. It is the most natural and most generally
useful distribution; but it is not the only one, and perhaps it is not
the highest. The precept will hold good with equal truth if we
transpose the two conclusions: "Is any among you suffering? let him
sing praise. Is any cheerful? let him pray." "In _everything_ give
thanks," says St. Paul; which involves our frequently giving thanks in
suffering. This was what Job, to whom St. James has just directed his
readers, did in his trouble. He "fell upon the ground and worshipped:
and he said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I
return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed
be the name of the Lord" (i. 20, 21). And the Psalmist teaches much
the same lesson as St. Paul: "I will bless the Lord _at all times_;
His praise shall continually be in my mouth" (xxxiv. 1). But if praise
is as suitable as prayer for suffering, prayer is as suitable as
praise for cheerfulness. He who is cheerful has indeed great reason to
bless and praise God. He has a priceless gift, which is a blessing to
himself and to all around him, a gift which makes life brighter to the
whole circle in which he moves. We most of us take far too little
pains to cultivate it, to retain it when it has been granted to us, to
regain it when we have lost it or thrown it away. Yet cheerfulness has
its dangers. The light-hearted are apt to be light-headed, and to be
free from care leads to being free from carefulness. The cheerful may
easily lose sobriety, and be found off their guard. The remedy is
prayer. Prayer steadies without dimming the bright flame of
cheerfulness; and just as thanksgiving sweetens sorrow, so
supplication sanctifies joy. "Is any suffering? let him sing praise.
Is any cheerful? let him pray."

But there is another advantage in making religious worship, whether
public or private, the outlet for our emotions. It secures a real
connexion between worship and life. Missionaries tell us that this is
a frequent difficulty in their work. It is a hard enough thing to win
converts from heathenism; but it is perhaps still harder to teach the
newly converted that the worship of God has any bearing whatever upon
their conduct. This idea is quite strange to them, and utterly alien
to their whole mode of thought. They have never been taught anything
of the kind before. They have been accustomed to regard the worship of
the gods as a series of acts which must be religiously performed in
order to win the favour of the deities, or at least to avert their
wrath. But it has never occurred to them, nor have their priests
impressed upon them, that their lives must be in accordance with their
worship, or that the one has any connexion with the other, any more
than the colour of their clothes with the amount that they eat and
drink. From this it follows that when the idolater has been induced to
substitute the worship of God for the worship of idols, there still
remains an immense amount to be done. The convert has still to be
taught that there can no longer be this divorce of religion from
conduct, but that prayer and praise must go hand in hand with work and
life.

Converts from heathenism are by no means the only persons who are in
need of this lesson. We all of us require to be reminded of it. All of
us are apt to draw far too strong a line of distinction between Church
and home, between Sunday and week-day, between the time that we spend
on our knees and that which we spend in work and recreation. Not,
alas! that we are too scrupulous about allowing worldly thoughts to
invade sacred times and places, but that we are very jealous about
allowing thoughts of God and of His service to mingle with our
business and our pleasures, or at least take no pains to bring about
and keep up any such mingling. Our worship is often profaned by being
shared with the world; our work is rarely consecrated by being shared
with God.

What St. James recommends here is a remedy for this. There can be no
wall of partition between conduct and religion if our feelings of joy
and sorrow, of elation and despondency, of hope and fear, of love and
dislike, are daily and hourly finding expression in praise and prayer.
Our emotions will thus become instruments for moving us towards God.
So much of life is filled with either vexation or pleasure, that one
who has learned to carry out the directions here given of turning
suffering into prayer, and cheerfulness into praise, will have gone a
long way towards realizing the Apostolic command, "Pray without
ceasing." As Calvin well observes, St. James "means that there is no
time in which God does not invite us to Himself. For afflictions ought
to stimulate us to pray; prosperity supplies us with an occasion to
praise God. But such is the perverseness of men, that they cannot
rejoice without forgetting God, and when afflicted they are
disheartened and driven to despair. We ought, then, to keep within due
bounds, so that the joy which usually makes us forget God may induce
us to set forth the goodness of God, and that our sorrow may teach us
to pray."

The word used by St. James for "to sing praise" (ψάλλειν) is worthy
of notice. It is the source of the word "psalm." Originally it meant
simply to _touch_, especially to _make to vibrate_ by touching; whence
it came to be used of playing on stringed instruments. Next it came to
mean to _sing to the harp_; and finally to sing, whether with or
without a stringed accompaniment. This is its signification in the New
Testament (Rom. xv. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Eph. v. 19);--to sing praise to
God. St. James, therefore, regards music as a natural and reasonable
mode of expressing joyous feelings; and few will care to dispute that
it is so; and it is evident that he is thinking chiefly, if not
exclusively, of the joyous Christian singing by himself, rather than
of his joining in psalms and hymns in the public worship of the
congregation. A portion of Hooker's noble vindication of music as a
part of religious worship may here with advantage be quoted.

"Touching musical harmony, whether by instrument or by voice, it being
but of high and low in sounds a due proportionable disposition, such,
notwithstanding, is the force thereof, and so pleasing effects it hath
in that very part of man which is most divine, that some have been
thereby induced to think that the soul itself, by nature, is or hath
in it harmony. A thing which delighteth all ages and beseemeth all
states; a thing as seasonable in grief as in joy; as decent being
added unto actions of greatest weight and solemnity, as being used
when men most sequester themselves from action. The reason hereof is
an admirable facility which music hath to express and represent to the
mind, more inwardly than any other sensible mean, the very standing,
rising, and falling, the very steps and inflexions every way, the
turns and varieties of all passions whereunto the mind is subject;
yea, so to imitate them that whether it resemble unto us the same
state wherein our minds already are, or a clean contrary, we are not
more contentedly by the one confirmed, than changed and led away by
the other.... So that although we lay altogether aside the
consideration of ditty or matter, the very harmony of sounds being
framed in due sort, and carried from the ear to the spiritual
faculties of our souls, is by a native puissance and efficacy greatly
available to bring to a perfect temper whatsoever is there troubled,
apt as well to quicken the spirits as to allay that which is too
eager, sovereign against melancholy and despair, forcible to draw
forth tears of devotion if the mind be such as can yield them, able
both to move and to moderate all affections.

"The Prophet David having therefore singular knowledge, not in poetry
alone, but in music also, judged them both to be things most necessary
for the house of God, left behind him to that purpose a number of
Divinely indited poems, and was farther the author of adding unto
poetry melody both vocal and instrumental, for the raising up of men's
hearts, and the sweetening of their affections towards God. In which
considerations the Church of Christ doth likewise at this present day
retain it as an ornament to God's service, and an help to our own
devotion. They which, under pretence of the Law ceremonial abrogated,
require the abrogation of instrumental music, approving nevertheless
the use of vocal melody to remain, must show some reason wherefore the
one should be thought a legal ceremony, and not the other" (_Eccles.
Pol._, V. xxxviii. 1, 2).

It hardly needs to be stated that it is not necessary to be able to
sing in order to observe this precept of St. James. The "singing and
making melody with our hearts to the Lord" of which St. Paul writes to
the Ephesians (v. 19) is all that is necessary; "giving thanks always
for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the
Father." The lifting up of the heart is enough, without the lifting up
of the voice; and if the voice be lifted up also, it is of little
account, either to the soul or to God, whether its tones be musical,
always provided that he who thus offers praise is alone, and not in
the congregation. Those who have no music in their voices, and yet
persist in joining aloud in the singing of public service, are wanting
in charity. In order to gratify themselves, they disturb the devotions
of others. And that principle applies to many other things in public
worship, especially to details of ritual other than those which are
generally observed. There would be much less difficulty about such
things if each member of the congregation were to ask, "By doing this,
or by refusing to do it, am I likely to distract my neighbours in
their worship?" Ought not the answer to that question to be conclusive
as regards turning or not turning to the East at the creed, bowing or
not bowing the head at the _Gloria Patri_, and the like? We come to
church to be calmed, sobered, soothed, not to be fretted and vexed.
Let us take care that our own behaviour is such as not to irritate
others. By our self-will we may be creating or augmenting mental
excitement, which, as St. James tells us, worship, whether public or
private, ought to cure.




 CHAPTER XXVII.

 _THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH. THE ANOINTING OF
 THE SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION._

 "Is any among you sick? let him call for the elders of the Church;
 and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
 Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the
 Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be
 forgiven him."--ST. JAMES v. 14-15.


Two subjects stand out prominently in this interesting passage--the
elders of the Church, and the anointing of the sick. The connexion of
the passage with what immediately precedes is close and obvious. After
charging his readers in general terms to resort to prayer when they
are in trouble, St. James takes a particular and very common instance
of trouble, viz. bodily sickness, and gives more detailed directions
as to the way in which the man in trouble is to make use of the relief
and remedy of prayer. He is not to be content with giving expression
to his need in private prayer to God; he is to "call for _the elders
of the Church_."

I. The first thing to be noted in connexion with this sending for the
elders of the congregation by the sick man is, that in this Epistle,
which is one of the very earliest among the Christian writings which
have come down to us, we already find a _distinction made between
clergy and laity_. This distinction runs through the whole of the New
Testament. We find it in the earliest writing of all, the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which the Christians of Thessalonica
are exhorted "to know them that labour among you, and are over you in
the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in
love for their work's sake" (v. 12, 13). And here St. James assumes as
a matter of course, that every congregation has elders, that is a
constituted ecclesiastical government. Compare with these the precept
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Obey them that have the rule over you,
and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they
that shall give account" (xiii. 17); and the frequent directions in
the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. iii. 1-13; iv. 6, 13, 14; v. 17, 19, 22;
Tit. i. 5-9; ii. 15; 2 Tim. i. 6, 14; ii. 2; iv. 5). What the precise
functions of the clergy were is not told us with much detail or
precision; but it is quite clear, from the passage before us, and
those which have been quoted above, that whatever the functions were,
they were spiritual rather than secular, and were duties which a
select minority had to exercise in reference to the rest; they were
not such as any one might exercise towards any one. In the present
case the sick person is not to send for any members of the
congregation, but for certain who hold a definite, and apparently an
official position. If _any_ Christians could discharge the function in
question, St. James would not have given the sick person the trouble
of summoning the elders rather than those people who chanced to be
near at hand. And it is quite clear that not all Christians are over
all other Christians in the Lord; that not all are to rule, and all to
obey and submit; therefore not all have the same authority to
"admonish" others, or to "watch in behalf of their souls, as they that
shall give account."[93]

The reason why the elders are to be summoned is stated in different
ways by different writers, but with a large amount of substantial
agreement. "As being those in whom the power and grace of the Holy
Spirit more particularly appeared," says Calvin. "Because when they
pray it is not much less than if the whole Church prayed," says
Bengel. St. James, says Neander, "regards the presbyters in the light
of organs of the Church, acting in its name;" and, "As the presbyters
acted in the name of the whole Church, and each one as a member of the
body felt that he needed its sympathy and intercession, and might
count upon it; individuals should therefore, in cases of sickness,
send for the presbyters of the Church. These were to offer prayer on
their behalf." The intercession which St. James recommends, says
Stier, is "intercession for the sick on the part of the
representatives of the Church, ... not merely the intercession of
friends or brethren as such, but in the name of the whole community,
one of whose members is suffering." It is altogether beside the mark
to suggest that the elders were summoned as people of the greatest
experience, who perhaps also were specially _skilled in medicine_. Of
that there is not only no hint, but the context excludes the idea. If
that were in the writer's mind, why does he not say at once, "Let him
call for the physicians"? If the healing art is to be thought of at
all in connexion with the passage, the case is one in which medicine
has already done all that it can, or in which it can do nothing at
all. St. James would doubtless approve the advice given by the son of
Sirach: "My son, in thy sickness be not negligent; but pray unto the
Lord, and He will make thee whole" (Ecclus. xxxviii. 9). This exactly
agrees with the precept, "Is any among you suffering? let him pray."
"Then give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let
him not go from thee, for thou hast need of him. There is a time when
in their hands there is good success" (12, 13). To this there is no
equivalent in St. James; but he says nothing that is inconsistent with
it. Then, after the physician has done his part, and perhaps in vain,
would come the summoning of the elders to offer prayer. But it is
simpler to suppose that the physician's part is left out of the
account altogether.

II. The second point of interest is the anointing of the sick person
by the elders. That what is said here affords no Scriptural authority
for the Roman rite of Extreme Unction, is one of the commonplaces of
criticism. One single fact is quite conclusive. The object of the
unction prescribed by St. James is the recovery of the sick person;
whereas Extreme Unction, as its name implies, is never administered
until the sick person's recovery is considered to be almost or quite
hopeless, and death imminent; the possibility of bodily healing is not
entirely excluded, but it is not the main purpose of the rite. The
only other passage in the New Testament in which the unction of the
sick is mentioned is equally at variance with the Roman rite. We are
told by St. Mark that the Twelve, when sent out by Christ two and two,
"anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them" (vi. 13).
Here also recovery, and not preparation for death, was the purpose of
the anointing, which the Apostles seem to have practised on their own
responsibility, for it is not mentioned in the charge which Christ
gave them when He sent them out (7-11).

But there is this amount of connexion between these two passages of
Scripture and the Roman sacrament of Extreme Unction, viz. that the
latter _grew out of ecclesiastical practices which were based upon
these passages_. As in not a few other instances, development has
brought about a state of things which is inconsistent with the
original starting-point. But in order to understand the development we
must understand the starting-point, and that requires us to find an
answer to the question, What purpose was the oil intended to serve?
Was it purely symbolical? and if so, of what? Was it merely for the
refreshment of the sick person, giving relief to parched skin and
stiffened limbs? Was it medicinal, with a view to a permanent cure by
natural means? Was it the channel or instrument of a supernatural
cure? Was it an aid to the sick person's faith? One or both of the
last two suggestions may be accepted as the most probable solution.
And the reason why oil was selected as a channel of Divine power and
an aid to faith was, that it was believed to have healing properties.
It is easier to believe when visible means are used than when nothing
is visible, and it is still easier to believe when the visible means
appear to be likely to contribute to the desired effect. Christ twice
used spittle in curing blindness, probably because spittle was
believed to be beneficial to the eyesight. And that oil was supposed
to be efficacious as medicine is plain from numerous passages both in
and outside of Holy Scripture. "From the sole of the foot even unto
the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and
festering sores: they have not been closed, nor bound up, neither
mollified with oil" (Isa. i. 6). The Good Samaritan poured wine and
oil into the wounds of the man who fell among robbers (Luke x. 34). A
mixture of oil and wine was used for the malady which attacked the
army of Ælius Gallus, and was applied both externally and internally
(Dion Cass. LIII. 29; Strabo XVI., p. 780). His physicians caused
Herod the Great to be bathed in a vessel full of oil when he was
supposed to be at death's door (Josephus, _Ant._ XVII. vi. 5). Celsus
recommends rubbing with oil in the case of fevers and some other
ailments (_De Med._ II. 14, 17; III. 6, 9, 19, 22; IV. 2).[94] But it
is obvious that St. James does not recommend the oil merely as
medicine, for he does not say that the oil shall cure the sick person,
nor yet that the oil with prayer shall do so; but that "the prayer of
faith shall save him that is sick," without mentioning the oil at all.
On the other hand, he says that the anointing is to be done by the
elders "in the name of the Lord." If the anointing were merely
medicinal, it might have been performed by any one, without waiting
for the elders. And it can hardly be supposed that oil was believed to
be a remedy for all diseases.

On the other hand, it seems to be too much to say that the anointing
had nothing to do with bodily healing at all, and was simply a means
of grace for the sick. Thus Döllinger says, "This is no gift of
healing, for that was not confined to the presbyters; and for that
Christ prescribed not unction, but laying on of hands. Had he meant
that, St. James would have bidden or advised the sick to send for one
who possessed this gift, whether presbyter or layman.... What was to
be conveyed by this medium was, therefore, only sometimes recovery or
relief, always consolation, revival of confidence and forgiveness of
sins, on condition, of course, of faith and repentance" (_First Age of
the Church_, p. 235, Oxenham's translation, 2nd ed.: Allen, 1867). But
although the gift of healing was not confined to the elders, yet in
certain cases they may have exercised it; and although Christ
prescribed the laying on of hands (Mark xvi. 18), yet the Apostles
sometimes healed by anointing with oil (Mark vi. 13). And that "shall
_save_ him that is sick" (σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα) means "shall _cure_
him," is clear both from the context, and also from the use of the
same word elsewhere. "Daughter, be of good cheer; thy faith hath
_saved_ thee," to the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 22).
Jairus prays, "Come and lay Thy hands on her, that she may be _saved_"
(Mark v. 23). The disciples say of Lazarus, "Lord, if he is fallen
asleep, he will be _saved_" (John xi. 12). And "the Lord shall raise
him up" makes this interpretation still more certain. The same
expression is used of Simon's wife's mother (Mark i. 31). "The Lord"
is Christ, not the Father, both here and "in the Name of _the Lord_."
Thus St. Peter says to Æneas, "_Jesus Christ_ healeth thee" (Acts
ix. 34. Comp. iii. 6, 16; v. 10).

That St. James makes the promise of recovery without any restriction
may at first sight appear to be surprising; but in this he is only
following the example of our Lord, who makes similar promises, and
leaves it to the thought and experience of Christians to find out the
limitations to them. St. James is only applying to a particular case
what Christ promised in general terms. "All things, whatsoever ye pray
and ask for, believe that ye have received them, and ye shall have
them" (Mark xi. 24. Comp. Matt. xvii. 20). "If ye shall ask [Me]
anything in My Name, I will do it" (John xiv. 14). "If ye shall ask
anything of the Father, He will give it you in My Name" (John
xvi. 23). The words "in My Name" point to the limitation; they do not,
of course, refer to the use of the formula "through Jesus Christ our
Lord," but to the exercise of the spirit of Christ: "Not My will, but
Thine be done." The union of our will with the will of God is the very
first condition of successful prayer. The Apostles themselves had no
indiscriminate power of healing. St. Paul did not heal Epaphroditus,
much as he yearned for his recovery (Phil. ii. 27). He left Trophimus
at Miletus sick (2 Tim. iv. 20). He did not cure his own thorn in the
flesh (2 Cor. xii. 7-9). How, then, can we suppose that St. James
credited the elders of every congregation with an unrestricted power
of healing? He leaves it to the common sense and Christian submission
of his readers to understand that the elders have no power to cancel
the sentence of death pronounced on the whole human race. To pray that
any one should be exempt from this sentence would be not faith, but
presumption.

Of the employment of the rite here prescribed by St. James we have
very little evidence in the early ages of the Church. Tertullian
mentions a cure by anointing, but it is not quite a case in point. The
Emperor Septimius Severus believed that he had been cured from an
illness through oil administered by a Christian named Proculus
Torpacion, steward of Evodias, and in gratitude for it he maintained
him in the palace for the rest of his life (_Ad. Scap._ iv.). Origen,
in the second Homily on Leviticus (iv.), quotes the passage from
St. James, and seems to understand the sickness to be that of sin. He
interpolates thus: "Let him call for the elders of the Church, and
_let them lay their hands on him_, anointing him with oil," etc. This
perhaps tells us how the rite was administered in Alexandria in his
time; or it may mean that Origen understood the "pray _over_ him"
(ἐπ' αὐτόν) of St. James to signify imposition of hands. With him,
then, the forgiveness of sins is the healing. A century and a half
later Chrysostom takes a further step, and employs the passage to show
that priests have the power of absolution. "For not only at the time
when they regenerate us, but afterwards also, they have authority to
forgive sins." And then he quotes James v. 14, 15 (_De Sacerd_. III.
6). It is evident that this is quite alien to the passage. The
sickness and the sins are plainly distinguished by St. James, and
nothing is said about absolution by the elders, who pray for his
recovery, and (no doubt) for his forgiveness.

When we reach the sixth century the evidence for the custom of
anointing the sick with holy oil becomes abundant. At first any one
with a reputation for sanctity might bless the oil--not only laymen,
but women. But in the West the rule gradually spread from Rome that
the sacred oil for the sick must be "made" by the bishop. In the East
this has never been observed. Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of
Canterbury, says that according to the Greeks it is lawful for
presbyters to make the chrism for the sick. And this rule continues to
this day. One priest suffices; but it is desirable to get seven, if
possible.

But the chief step in the development is taken when not only the
blessing of the oil, but the administering of it to the sick, is
reserved to the clergy. In Bede's time this restriction was not yet
made, as is clear from his comments on the passage, although even then
it was customary for priests to administer the unction. But by the
tenth century this restriction had probably become general. It became
connected with the communion of the sick, which of course required a
priest, and then with the _Viaticum_, or communion of the dying; but
even then the unction seems to have preceded the last communion. The
name "Extreme Unction" (_unctio extrema_), as a technical
ecclesiastical term, is not older than the twelfth century. Other
terms are "Last Oil" (_ultimum oleum_) and "Sacrament of the
Departing" (_sacramentum exeuntium_). But when we have reached these
phrases we are very far indeed from the ordinance prescribed by
St. James, and from that which was practised by the Apostles. Jeremy
Taylor, in the dedication of the _Holy Dying_, says fairly enough,
"The fathers of the Council of Trent first disputed, and after their
manner at last agreed, that Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ;
but afterwards being admonished by one of their theologues that the
Apostles ministered unction to infirm people before they were priests,
for fear that it should be thought that this unction might be
administered by him that was no priest, they blotted out the word
'instituted,' and put in its stead 'insinuated' this sacrament, and
that it was published by St. James. So it is in their doctrine; and
yet in their anathematisms they curse all them that shall deny it to
have been instituted by Christ. I shall lay no prejudice against it,
but add this only, that there being but two places of Scripture
pretended for this ceremony, some chief men of their own side have
proclaimed these two invalid as to the institution of it;" and he
mentions in particular Suarez and Cajetan. But he states more than he
can know when he declares of Extreme Unction that "since it is used
when the man is above half dead, when he can exercise no act of
understanding, it must needs be nothing." Those who receive the rite
are not always unconscious; and is it certain that an unconscious
person "can exercise no act of the understanding," or that prayer for
one who can exercise no act of the understanding "must needs be
nothing"? With similar want of caution Stier speaks of "the
_superstition_ which sends for the minister to 'pray over the sick,'
when these have scarce any consciousness left." Whether or no Extreme
Unction is an edifying ceremony is a question worthy of argument, and
nothing is here urged on either side; but we are going beyond our
knowledge if we assert that it _can_ have no effect on the dying man;
and we are unduly limiting the power of prayer if we affirm that to
pray for one who has lost consciousness is a useless superstition. All
that is contended for here is, that the Roman rite is something very
different from that which is ordered by St. James.[95]

"And if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him." We ought
perhaps rather to translate, "Even if he have committed sins, it shall
be forgiven him." (The Greek is not καὶ ἐάν or ἐὰν δέ, but κἄν,
for which comp. John viii. 14; x. 38; xi. 25). The meaning would seem
to be, "even if his sickness has been produced by his sins, his sin
shall be forgiven, and his sickness cured." It is possible, but
unnatural, to join the first clause of this sentence with the
preceding one: "the Lord shall raise him up, even if he have committed
sins." In that case "It shall be forgiven him" forms a very awkward
independent sentence, without conjunction. The ordinary arrangement of
the clauses is much better: even if the malady is the effect of the
man's own wrong-doing, the prayer offered by faith--his faith, and
that of the elders--shall still prevail. St. Paul tells the
Corinthians that their misconduct respecting the Lord's Supper had
caused much sickness among them, and not a few deaths (1 Cor. xi. 30);
and such direct punishments of sin were not confined to the Corinthian
Church nor to the Apostolic age. They still occur in abundance, and
those who experience them have the assurance of Scripture that if they
repent and pray in faith their sins will certainly be forgiven, and
their punishment possibly removed.

[93] The question of the Origin of the Christian Ministry has been
discussed in another volume of this series. See the _Pastoral
Epistles_, pp. 104-117 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).

[94] For additional evidence see J. C. Wolf, _Curæ Philol. et Crit._
V., pp. 79-81; Lightfoot, _Horæ Hebr._ II., pp. 304, 444, on Matt.
vi. 17 and Mark vi. 13; Launoi, _De Sacramento Unctionis Infirmorum_,
I., p. 444.

[95] See letters in the _Guardian_ of Mar. 12, 19, Apr. 9, 16, 23, May
7, 1890; pp. 447, 481, 594, 633, 682, 763.

In the Visitation of the Sick in the First Prayer Book of Edward
VI. there is provision for the older rite: "If the sicke person desyre
to be annoynted, then shall the priest annoynte him upon the forehead
or breast only, making the signe of the crosse, saying thus,
As with this visible oyle thy body outwardly is annoynted: so our
heavenly father almyghtye God graunt of his infinite goodnesse, that
thy soule inwardly may be annoynted with the holy gost, who is the
spirite of al strength, comforte, reliefe, and gladnesse. And vouchsafe
for his great mercy (yf it be his blessed will) to restore unto thee thy
bodely helth and strength, to serve him," etc.

Readers of the _Confessions_ will remember how St. Augustine on
one occasion asked his friends to pray that he might be freed from great
pain, and forthwith found relief. "I have neither forgotten nor will
be silent about the severity of Thy scourge, and the marvellous speed
of Thy mercy. Thou didst then torture me with toothache (he says
elsewhere that this was so grievous that he could learn nothing fresh,
but could only think of what he already knew), and when the pain
became so severe that I was unable to speak the thought rose in my
heart to urge all my friends who were present to pray for me to Thee,
the God of all health. And I wrote this on a waxen tablet, and gave
it to them to read. Presently, as with suppliant desire we bowed our
knees, that great pain fled away. But what pain? and how did it
flee? I confess, my Lord and my God, that it frightened me; for
from my earliest days I had experienced nothing like it" (IX. iv. 12).




 CHAPTER XXVIII.

 _THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONFESSION OF SINS.
 THE LAWFULNESS OF PRAYERS FOR RAIN._

 "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for
 another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man
 availeth much in its working. Elijah was a man of like passions with
 us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not
 on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again; and
 the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her
 fruit."--ST. JAMES v. 16-18.


The connexion of this passage with the preceding one is very close.
This is evident even in the Authorized Version; but it is made still
more manifest by the Revisers, who have restored the connecting
"therefore" to the text upon overwhelming authority. St. James is
passing from the particular case of the sick person to something more
general, viz. mutual confession of sins. If we draw out his thought in
full, it will be something of this kind: "Even if the sick person be
suffering the consequences of his sins, nevertheless the faith and
prayers of the elders, combined with his own, shall prevail for his
forgiveness and healing. Of course he must confess and bewail his
sins: if he does not admit them and repent of them, he can hope for
nothing. _Therefore_ you ought all of you habitually to confess your
sins to one another, and to intercede for one another, in order that
when sickness comes upon you, you may the more readily be healed." It
is not quite certain that the word rendered "ye may be healed"
(ἰαθῇτε) ought to be limited to bodily healing; but the context
seems to imply that the cure of bodily disorders is still in the mind
of St. James. If, however, with various commentators, we take it to
mean "that your _souls_ may be healed," then there is no need to
supply any such thought as "when sickness comes upon you."

It might surprise us to find that the practice of auricular confession
to a priest is deduced from the precept, "Confess your sins one to
another," if we had not the previous experience of finding the rite of
Extreme Unction deduced from the precept respecting the anointing of
the sick. But here also Cajetan has the credit of admitting that no
Scriptural authority for the Roman practice can be found in the words
of St. James. The all-important "to one another" (ἀλλήλοις) is quite
fatal to the interpretation of confession to a priest. If the
confession of a layman to a priest is meant, then the confession of a
priest to a layman is _equally meant_: the words, whether in the Greek
or in the English, cannot be otherwise understood. But the injunction
is evidently quite general, and the distinction between clergy and
laity does not enter into it at all: each Christian, whether elder or
layman, is to confess to other Christians, whether elders or laymen,
either to one or to many, as the case may be. When the sick person
just spoken of confessed his sins, he confessed them to the elders of
the Church, because they were present; they did not come to receive
his confession, but to pray for him and to anoint him. He sent for
them, not because he wished to confess to them, but because he was
sick. Even if he had had nothing to confess to them--a case evidently
contemplated by St. James as not only possible, but common--he would
still have sent for them. So far from its being among their functions
as elders to hear the sick man's confession, St. James seems rather to
imply that he ought to have made it previously to others. If
Christians habitually confess their sins to one another, there will be
no special confession required when any of them falls ill. But
granting that this interpretation of his brief directions is not quite
certain, it is quite certain that what he commends is the confession
of any Christian to any Christian, and not the confession of laity to
presbyters. About that he says nothing, either one way or the other,
for it is not in his mind. He neither sanctions nor forbids it, but he
gives a direction which shows that as regards the duty of confession
to man, the normal condition of things is for any Christian to confess
to any Christian. The important point is that the sinner should not
keep his guilty secret locked up in his own bosom; to whom he should
tell it is left to his own discretion. As Tertullian says, in his
treatise _On Penance_, "Confession of sins lightens as much as
concealment (_dissimulatio_) aggravates them. For confession is
prompted by the desire to make amends; concealment is prompted by
contumacy" (viii.). Similarly Origen, on Psalm xxxvii.: "See,
therefore, what the Divine Scripture teaches us, that we must not
conceal sin within us. For just as, it may be, people who have
undigested food detained inside them, or are otherwise grievously
oppressed internally, if they vomit, obtain relief, so they also who
have sinned, if they conceal and retain the sin, are oppressed
inwardly. But if the sinner becomes his own accuser, accuses himself
and confesses, he at the same time vomits out both the sin and the
whole cause of his malady" (_Homil._ II. 6). In much the same strain
Chrysostom writes, "Sin, if it is confessed, becomes less; but if it
is not confessed, worse; for if the sinner adds shamelessness and
obstinacy to his sin, he will never stop. How, indeed, will such a one
be at all able to guard himself from falling again into the same sins,
if in the earlier case he was not conscious that he sinned.... Let us
not merely call ourselves sinners, but let us make a reckoning of our
sins, counting them according to their kind, one by one.... If thou
art of the persuasion that thou art a sinner, this is not able so much
to humble thy soul as the very catalogue of thy sins examined into
according to their kind" (_Homil._ xxx. _in Ep. ad Hebr._)

All these writers have this main point in common, that a sinner who
does not confess what he has done amiss is likely to become careless
and hardened. And the principle is at least as old as the Book of
Proverbs: "He that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper: but
whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain mercy" (xxviii. 13).
But, as the context clearly shows in each case, they are each of them
writing of a different kind of confession. The confession
(_exomologesis_) which Tertullian so urgently recommends is public
confession before the congregation; that which Origen advises is
private confession to an individual, particularly with a view to
deciding whether public confession is expedient. What Chrysostom
prefers, both here and elsewhere in his writings, is secret confession
to God: "I say not to thee, Make a parade of thyself; nor yet, Accuse
thyself in the presence of the others.... Before God confess these
things; before the Judge ever confess thy sins, praying, if not with
the tongue, at any rate with the heart, and in this way ask for
mercy." All which is in accordance with the principle laid down by
St. John, "If we confess our sins"--our sins in detail, not the mere
fact that we have sinned--"He is faithful and righteous to forgive us
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John i. 9).
Bellarmine has the courage to claim not only St. James, but St. John,
as teaching confession to a priest (_De Pœnit._ III. iv.); but it
is manifest that St. John is speaking of confession to God, without
either approving or condemning confession to man, and that St. James
is speaking of the latter, without saying anything about the former.
But just as St. James leaves to the penitent's discretion the question
to whom he shall confess, whether to clergy or laity, so also he
leaves it to his discretion whether he shall confess to one or to
many, and whether in private or in public.[96] In the second, third,
and fourth centuries public confession was commonly part of public
penance. And the object of it is well stated by Hooker: "Offenders in
secret" were "persuaded that if the Church did direct them in the
offices of their penitency, and assist them with public prayer, they
should more easily obtain that they sought than by trusting wholly to
their own endeavours." The primitive view, he holds, was this: "Public
confession they thought necessary by way of _discipline_, not private
confession as in the nature of a _sacrament_" (_Eccl. Pol._, VI.
iv. 2, 6). But experience soon showed that indiscriminate public
confession of grievous sins was very mischievous. Therefore in the
East, and (if Sozomen is correct) at Rome also, penitentiary
presbyters were appointed to decide for penitents whether their sins
must be confessed to the congregation or not. Thus, what Origen
advises each penitent to do for himself, viz. seek a wise adviser
respecting the expediency of public confession and penance, was
formally done for every one. But in A.D. 391, Nectarius, the
predecessor of Chrysostom in the see of Constantinople, was persuaded
to abolish the office, _apparently_ because a penitentiary presbyter
had sanctioned public confession in a case which caused great scandal;
but neither Socrates (V. xix.) nor Sozomen (VII. xvi.) makes this
point very clear. The consequence of the abolition was that each
person was left to his own discretion, and public penance fell into
disuse.

But public confession had other disadvantages. Private enmity made use
of these confessions to annoy, and even to prosecute the penitent.
Moreover, the clergy sometimes proclaimed to the congregation what had
been told them in confidence; that is, they made public confession on
behalf of the sinner without his consent. Whereupon Leo the Great, in
a letter to the Bishops of Apulia and Campania, March 6th, A.D. 459,
sanctioned the practice of private confession (_Ep._ clxviii.
[cxxxvi.]). Thus, in the West, as previously in the East, a severe
blow was given to the practice of public confession and penance.

But it is probable that the origin, or at least the chief
encouragement, of the practice of auricular confession is rather to be
looked for in _monasticism_. Offences against the rule of the Order
had to be confessed before the whole community; and it was assumed
that the only other grave offences likely to happen in the monastic
life would be those of thought. These had to be confessed in private
to the abbat. The influences of monasticism were by no means bounded
by the monastery walls; and it is probable that the rule of private
confession by the brethren to the abbat had much to do with the custom
of private confession by the laity to the priest. But it is carefully
to be noted that for a considerable period the chief considerations
are the penitent's admission of his sins and the fixing of the
penance. Only gradually does the further idea of the absolution of the
penitent by the body or the individual that hears the confession come
in; and at last it becomes the main idea. Confession once a year to a
priest was made compulsory by the Lateran Council in 1215; but various
local synods had made similar regulations at earlier periods; _e.g._
the Council of Toulouse in 1129, and of Liège in 710.[97] But when we
have reached these regulations we have once more advanced very far
indeed beyond what is prescribed by St. James in this Epistle.

There cannot be much doubt what is the main idea with St. James:
"Confess therefore your sins one to another, and _pray_ one for
another, that ye may be healed. The _supplication_ of a righteous man
availeth much in its working. Elijah ... _prayed fervently_.... And he
_prayed again_," etc. It is in order that we may _induce others to
pray for us_ that we are to confess our sins to them; and this is the
great motive which underlies the public confession of the primitive
Church. As Hooker well expresses it, "The greatest thing which made
men forward and willing upon their knees to confess whatever they had
committed against God ... was their fervent desire to be helped and
assisted with the prayers of God's saints." And the meaning of these
prayers is strikingly expressed by Tertullian, who thus addresses the
penitent in need of such intercession: "Where one and two meet, there
is a Church; and a Church is Christ. Therefore, when thou dost stretch
forth thy hands to the knees of thy brethren, it is Christ that thou
touchest, Christ on whom thou prevailest. Just so, when _they_ shed
tears over _thee_, it is Christ who feels compassion, Christ who is
entreating the Father. Readily doth He ever grant that which the Son
requests" (_De Pœnit._ x.). To unburden his own heart was one
benefit of the penitent's confession; to obtain the intercession of
others for his forgiveness and recovery was another; and the latter
was the chief reason for confessing to man; confession to God might
effect the other. The primitive forms of absolution, when confession
was made to a priest, were precatory rather than declaratory. "May the
Lord absolve thee" (_Dominus absolvat_) was changed in the West to "I
absolve thee," in the twelfth century. From the Sarum Office the
latter formula passed into the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., in the
Visitation of the Sick, and has remained there unchanged; but in 1552
the concluding words of the preceding rubric, "and the same forme of
absolucion shalbe used in all pryvate confessions," were omitted.[98]
In the Greek Church the form of absolution after private confession is
precatory:--

"O my spiritual child, who dost confess to my humility, _I, a humble
sinner, have no power on earth to remit sins_. _This God alone can
do._ Yet by reason of that Divine charge which was committed to the
Apostles after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the
words, Whose soever sins ye forgive, etc., and by that encouraged,
_we_ say, Whatsoever thou hast confessed to my most lowly humility,
and whatsoever thou hast omitted to confess, either through ignorance
or any forgetfulness, _may God forgive thee_, both in this world and
in that which is to come." And this is followed by a prayer very
similar to the absolution: "God ... forgive thee, by the ministry of
me a sinner, all thy sins, both in this world and in that which is to
come, and present thee blameless at His dread tribunal. Go in peace,
and think no more of the faults which thou hast confessed." The "_we_
say" holds fast to the doctrine that it is to the Church as a whole,
and not to Peter or any individual minister, that the words, "Whose
soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them" (John xx. 23),
were spoken.

"The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working."
"The effectual earnest prayer" of the Authorized Version cannot be
justified: either "effectual" or "earnest" must be struck out, as
there is only one word (ἐνεργουμένη) in the original; moreover, the
word for "prayer" is not the same as before (δέησις, not εὐχή).
But it may be doubted whether "earnest" is not better than "in its
working." Perhaps "in its earnestness" would be better than either:
"Great is the strength of a righteous man's supplication, in its
earnestness."

The example by which St. James proves the efficacy of a righteous
man's prayer is interesting and important in two respects:--

1. It is the only evidence that we have that the great drought in the
time of Ahab was prayed for by Elijah, and it is the only direct
evidence that he prayed for the rain which put an end to it. We are
told that Elijah _prophesied_ the drought (1 Kings xvii. 1) and the
rain (1 Kings xviii. 41); and that before the rain he put himself in
an attitude of prayer, with his face between his knees (ver. 42); but
that he prayed, and for the rain which he had foretold, is not stated.
Whether the statement made by St. James is an inference from these
statements, or based on independent tradition, must remain uncertain.
We read in Ecclesiasticus of Elijah that by "the word of the Lord he
shut up (held back) the heaven" (xlviii. 3); but that seems to refer
to prophecy rather than to prayer. The difference, if there be any,
between the duration of the drought as stated here and by St. Luke
(iv. 25), and as stated in the Book of the Kings, will not be a
stumbling-block to any who recognize that inspiration does not
necessarily make a man infallible in chronology. Three and a half
years (= 42 months = 1,260 days) was the traditional duration of times
of great calamity (Dan. vii. 25; xii. 7; Rev. xi. 2, 3; xii. 6, 14;
xiii. 5).

2. This passage supplies us with _Biblical authority for prayers for
changes of weather_, and the like; for the conduct of Elijah is
evidently put before us for our imitation. St. James carefully guards
against the objection that Elijah was a man gifted with miraculous
powers, and therefore no guide for ordinary people, by asserting that
he was a man of like nature (ὁμοιοπαθής) with ourselves. And let
us concede, for the sake of argument, that St. James may have been
mistaken in believing that Elijah prayed for the drought and for the
rain; yet still the fact remains that an inspired New Testament writer
puts before us, for our encouragement in prayer, a case in which
prayers for changes of weather were made and answered. And he
certainly exhorts us to pray for the recovery of the sick, which is an
analogous case. This kind of prayer seems to require special
consideration.

"Is it, then, according to the Divine will that when we are
individually suffering from the regularity of the course of
nature--suffering, for instance, from the want of rain, or the
superabundance of it--we should ask God to interfere with that
regularity? That in such circumstances we should pray for submission
to the Divine will, and for such wisdom as shall lead to compliance
with it in the future, is a matter of course, and results inevitably
from the relation between the spiritual Father and the spiritual
child. But ought we to go farther than this? Ought we to pray,
expecting that our prayer will be effectual, that God may interfere
with the fixed sequences of nature? Let us try to realize what would
follow if we offered such prayer and prevailed. In a world-wide Church
each believer would constitute himself a judge of what was best for
himself and his neighbour, and thus the order of the world would be at
the mercy everywhere of individual caprice and ignorance. Irregularity
would accordingly take the place of invariableness. No man could
possibly foretell what would be on the morrow. The scientist would
find all his researches for rule and law baffled; the agriculturist
would find all his calculations upset; nature, again, as in the days
of ignorance, would become the master of man; like an eagle transfixed
by an arrow winged by one of its own feathers, man would have shackled
himself with the chains of his ancient servitude by the licentious
employment of his own freedom, and would have reduced the cosmos of
which God made him the master to a chaos which overwhelmed him by its
unexpected blows" (the Bishop of Manchester, September 4th, 1887, in
Manchester Cathedral, during a meeting of the British Association).

The picture which is here drawn sketches for us the consequences of
allowing each individual to have control over the forces of nature. It
is incredible that God could be induced to allow such control to
individuals; but does it follow from this that He never listens to
prayers respecting _His_ direction of the forces of nature, and that
consequently all such prayers are presumptuous? The conclusion does
not seem to follow from the premises. The valid conclusion would
rather be this: No one ought to pray to God to give him absolute
control of the forces of nature. The prayer, "Lord, in _Thy_ control
of the forces of nature have mercy upon me and my fellow men," is a
prayer of a very different character.

The objection to prayers for rain, or for the cessation of rain, and
the like, is based on the supposition that we thereby "ask God to
interfere with the regularity of the course of nature." Yet it is
admitted that to "pray for submission to the Divine will, and for such
wisdom as shall lead to compliance with it in the future, is a matter
of _course_, and results _inevitably_ from the relation between the
spiritual Father and the spiritual child." But is there no regularity
about the things thus admitted to be fit objects of prayer? Are human
character and human intellect not subject to law? When we pray for a
submissive spirit and for wisdom, are we not asking God to "interfere
with that regularity" which governs the development of character and
of intelligence? Either the prayer is to obtain more submission and
more wisdom than we should otherwise get, or it is not. If it is to
obtain it, then the regularity which would otherwise have prevailed is
interrupted. If our prayer is not to obtain for us more submission and
more wisdom than we should have obtained if we had not prayed, then
the prayer is futile.

It will perhaps be urged that the two cases are not strictly parallel.
They are not; but for the purposes of this argument they are
sufficiently parallel. It is maintained that we have no right to pray
for rain, because we thereby propose to interfere with the regularity
of natural processes; yet it is allowed that we may pray for wisdom.
To get wisdom by prayer is quite as much an interference with the
regularity of natural processes as to get rain by prayer. Therefore,
either we ought to pray for neither, or we have the right to pray for
both. And so far as the two cases are not parallel, it seems to be
more reasonable to pray for rain than to pray for submissiveness and
wisdom. God has given our wills the awful power of being able to
resist His will. Are we to suppose that He exercises less control over
matter, which cannot resist Him, than over human wills, which He
allows to do so; or that He will help us or not help us to become
better and wiser, according as we ask Him or do not ask Him for such
help, and yet will never make any change as to giving or withholding
material blessings, however much, or however little, we may ask Him to
do this?

The objection is sometimes stated in a slightly different form. God
has arranged the material universe according to His infinite wisdom;
it is presumptuous to pray that He will make any change in it. The
answer to which is, that if that argument is valid against praying for
rain, it is valid against all prayer whatever. If I impugn infinite
wisdom when I pray for a change in the weather, do I not equally
impugn it, when I pray for a change in the life or character of myself
or of my friends? God knows without our asking what weather is best
for us; and He knows equally without our asking what spiritual graces
are best for us.

Does not the parallel difficulty point to a parallel solution? What
right have we to assume that in either case effectual prayer
interferes with the regularity which seems to characterize Divine
action? May it not be God's will that the prayer of faith should be a
force that can influence other forces, whether material or spiritual,
and that its influence should be according to _law_ (whether natural
or supernatural) quite as much as the influence of other forces? A man
who puts up a lightning-conductor brings down the electric current
when it might otherwise have remained above, and brings it down in one
place rather than another; yet no one would say that he interferes
with the regularity of the course of nature. Is there anything in
religion or science to forbid us from thinking of prayer as working in
an analogous manner--according to a law too subtle for us to
comprehend and analyse, but according to a law none the less? In the
vast network of forces in which an all-wise God has constructed the
universe a Christian will believe that one force which "availeth
much," both in the material and in the spiritual world, is the earnest
prayer of the righteous. It is better for us that we should be able to
influence by our prayers God's direction of events than that we should
be unable to do so; therefore a merciful Father has placed this power
within our reach.[99]

[96] In the _Dict. of Chr. Biogr._, I., p. 615, Tertullian's account
of public confession is given at some length, and then the question is
asked, "Is not this, clearly, the _exomologesis_ which St. James
enjoins?" To this one replies that St. James enjoins confession, but
says nothing about publicity.

[97] The Council of Trent anathematizes any one "who denies that
sacramental confession was instituted of Divine right, or that it is
necessary to salvation, or who says that the manner of confessing
secretly to a priest alone, _which the Church has ever observed from
the beginning_, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and
command of Christ, and is a human invention" (Canon VI. ii. 165).

[98] Moreover, "shall absolve hym after this _forme_" was changed to
"shall absolve hym after thys _sorte_," as if allowing another form in
the Visitation of the Sick.

[99] Dean Plumptre has pointed out an "interesting coincidence"
between this mention of Elijah and the account given by Josephus of
Caligula's mad attempt to set up his statue in the Temple.
P. Petronius Turpilianus had been appointed Governor of Syria in the
room of Vitellius, and was commissioned to erect the statue; but he
was much impressed by the earnestness of the Jews in opposing the
proposed outrage, and promised large multitudes of them at Tiberias
that he would do all in his power to induce Caligula to desist. It was
a year of great drought, no rain falling even when the sky was
overcast; but on this day, although there had been no previous signs
of it, abundance of rain fell directly Petronius had finished his
speech to the Jews. Josephus speaks of this as God showing His
presence (παρουσία) to Petronius, and says that Petronius recognized
it as a Divine manifestation (ἐπιφάνεια) of God's care of the Jews.
Dr. Plumptre says that the people--"Christians, we may believe, as
well as Jews"--had been praying for rain, and that Petronius regarded
the rain "partly as an answer to the prayers of the people;" which may
have been so, but _it is not so stated by Josephus_. "According to the
date which, on independent grounds, has here been assigned to
St. James's Epistle, the event referred to must have happened but a
_few months_ before, or but a _few months_ after it. If before, he may
well have had it in his thoughts; if after, it may well have been in
part the effect of his teaching." Dr. Plumptre thinks that the Epistle
was written between A.D. 44 and 51. The events recorded by Josephus
took place A.D. 39. Caligula was assassinated January 24th, A.D. 41.
The coincidence, therefore, breaks down upon examination. (1) The
unexpected rain is represented, not as an answer to prayer, but as a
sign of God's approval of the decision of Petronius. (2) Even if we
place the Epistle as early as A.D. 45, it was written _six years_
after the sudden rain at Tiberias; and St. James did not need that
occurrence (of which he had possibly never heard) in order to be
reminded of the drought and the rain prophesied by Elijah.




 CHAPTER XXIX.

 _THE WORK OF CONVERTING SINNERS; ITS CONDITIONS AND REWARDS._

 "My brethren, if any among you do err from the truth, and one convert
 him, let him know, that he which converteth a sinner from the error
 of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude
 of sins."--ST. JAMES v. 19, 20.


St. James has just been speaking of the case of a man who is sick, and
needs the prayers of others for his healing, both in body and soul;
for it may be that the sick man has sins to be repented of as well as
ailments to be cured. This leads naturally enough to the common case
of those who, whether sick in body or not, feel their consciences
burdened by sin. They are to make known their trouble to one or more
of the brethren, in order that efficacious prayers may be offered to
God on their behalf. But these cases do not by any means cover the
whole ground. Besides those who feel and make known their bodily
sickness, and those who feel and make known their spiritual sickness,
in order that their fellow Christians may pray to God for their
healing, there is the common case of those who either do not feel, or
if they feel do not confess, that their souls are sick unto death.
There are many who have left the path of life, and are going steadily,
and perhaps rapidly, to destruction, who are ignorant of their piteous
condition; and there are others who are aware of their peril, but are
either too hardened to desire any serious change, or too proud to own
their condition to others and ask their help towards recovery. Are
such unhappy persons to be left to themselves, and allowed to go on
their way to perdition, for want of the aid which they are too
insensate or to haughty to ask?

Certainly not, says the writer of this Epistle. The reclaiming of such
sinners is one of the noblest tasks which a Christian can undertake;
and the successful accomplishment of it is fraught with incalculable
blessings, the thought of which ought to move us to undertake such
work. To save one immortal soul from eternal death is worth the labour
of a lifetime. If to lead one soul astray is to share the devil's work
and incur guilt to which a violent death would be preferable (Matt.
xviii. 6; Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2), to lead one soul back from death
is to share Christ's work (2 Cor. vi. 1) by blotting out from God's
sight the sins which cry for punishment.

We shall obtain a clearer view of the meaning of St. James in these
concluding verses of his Epistle if we begin with the last words of
the passage, and from them work back to what precedes.

"Shall cover a multitude of sins." Whose sins? Not the sins of him who
converts the erring brother. This view, which is perhaps the one which
most readily occurs to those who merely listen to the passage as it is
read in church, but have never studied it, may safely be rejected,
although it has the sanction of Erasmus and to some extent also of the
Venerable Bede. There are two reasons, each of which would suffice to
condemn this explanation, and which taken together are almost
unanswerable. (1) Nowhere else in Scripture do we find any such
doctrine, that a man may cover his own sins by inducing another sinner
to repent. On the contrary, it is one of the terrible possibilities
which attend the work of the ministry that a man may preach
successfully to others, and yet himself be a castaway (1 Cor. ix. 27),
and may move many hearts, while his own remains as hard as the nether
millstone. It is altogether misleading to quote Matt. vi. 14 in
connexion with this passage. There Christ says, "If ye forgive men
their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." What
has that to do with converting sinners from their sins? Is "Forgive,
that ye may be forgiven," even parallel to "_Convert_, that ye may be
forgiven"? It is very far indeed from being equivalent to it. The
exact parallel would be, "Convert, that ye may be converted;" and
where in either the Old or the New Testament do we find any such
teaching as that? What we _do_ find is the converse of it: "Be
converted, that ye may convert. Cast out first the beam out of thine
own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of
thy brother's eye" (Matt. vii. 5). And this brings us to the other
reason why this interpretation ought to be set aside. (2) We cannot
suppose that St. James would contemplate, not merely as a possible
case, but as the normal condition of things, that a Christian would
undertake the task of converting others while his own conscience was
burdened with a multitude of sins. He no doubt assumed, and meant his
readers to assume, that before taking this very glorious, but also
very difficult work upon themselves, Christians would at least have
repented of their own sins, and thus have won the assurance that they
were covered and forgiven. As we have seen, St. James shows an
intimate personal knowledge of the teaching of Christ, and especially
of that portion of it which is contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
It is difficult to believe that any one who was acquainted with the
fundamental principle involved in the saying just quoted, about the
mote and the beam, would end his exhortations to the Church with a
declaration which, according to the view of Erasmus and others, would
mean that it is precisely those who have a beam in their own eye who
should endeavour to convert sinners from the error of their ways, for
in this way they may get the beam removed, or at least overlooked.

It is the sins of the converted sinner that are covered when a brother
has had the happiness of converting him. The saying "cover sins" is a
proverbial one, and seems to have been common among the Jews.
St. Peter also makes use of it (1 Peter iv. 8); and this is one of the
points which make some persons think that the writer of this Epistle
had seen that of St. Peter, and others that St. Peter had seen this
one (see above, p. 59). The source of the saying appears to be Prov.
x. 12, "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but _love covereth all
transgressions_." It is, however, by no means certain that St. James
is consciously quoting this saying, although his evident fondness for
the sapiential books of Scripture would incline us to think that he is
doing so. But the Septuagint of the passage in Proverbs has a
different reading: "Friendship shall cover those who love not strife."
A similar expression to the one before us occurs twice in the Psalms:
"Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people; Thou hast covered all
their sin" (lxxxv. 2): "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered" (xxxii. 1). The fact that the phrase occurs so
frequently renders it impossible for us to determine the precise
passage which suggested the use of the words in this place. (See note
at the end of this chapter.)

The statement that the converted sinner had "a multitude of sins"
which are covered by his returning from "the error of his way" shows
us plainly what is meant by "the error of his way" and by his "erring"
or "being led astray[100] from the truth." St. James is evidently not
thinking of purely dogmatic error, about which his Epistle is almost,
if not entirely, silent. It is conviction as expressed in _conduct_
with which he deals throughout. As we have seen again and again, the
evils which he denounces are those of a sinful life: with the evils of
erratic speculation he does not deal at all. Quite in harmony,
therefore, with the practical character of the Epistle, we find that
with him to "err from the truth" means the apostasy that is involved
in a life of sin. "Of His own will God brought us forth by _the word
of truth_, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures"
(i. 18); and those who allow themselves to be seduced into sinful
courses dishonour their Divine parentage and desert their Father's
home. To recover such from the path of destruction is the blessed work
to which St. James wishes to incite and encourage his readers.

It is important to recognize the fact that it is the _lives_ of
notorious _sinners_, and not the _views_ of those who _differ from
us_, that we are urged to correct. The latter interpretation is not an
uncommon one. The expression "err from the truth" seems at first sight
to countenance it; and to many of us the work of winning over others
to accept our religious opinions is much more congenial employment
than that of endeavouring to reclaim the profligate. But the duty to
which St. James here exhorts us is one of universal obligation. It is
one which every Christian must recognize, and according to his
opportunities perform; and it is one which every one, however
ignorant, simple, and insignificant he may be, is able in some measure
to fulfil. But comparatively few of us are qualified to deal with the
erroneous opinions of others. Not infrequently those which we think to
be erroneous are nearer the truth than those which we hold ourselves.
Even where this is not the case, the errors may be much less hurtful
than we suppose, because, with happy inconsistency, men allow the
goodness of their hearts to direct their conduct, rather than the
erratic convictions of their heads. And again, our efforts to change
the erroneous opinions of others may do more harm than good, for it is
much more easy to unsettle than to establish. We may take away a
plank, without being able to supply an ark; and an inadequate or even
faulty principle is better than no principle at all. The man who
endeavours to act up to erroneous convictions is in a much healthier
state than the man who has lost all convictions whatever. And this is
the danger which always lies before us when we attempt to win others
over from sincere and steadfast beliefs which seem to us to be untrue.
We may succeed in shaking these beliefs; but it by no means follows
that we shall be equally successful in giving them better beliefs in
exchange for them. We may accomplish no more than the miserable result
of having convinced them that in religion everything is uncertain.

Of course there are times when it is our duty to do what we can to
bring others over to opinions which we are persuaded are much sounder
and safer than those which they at present hold; but such times are
very much less frequent than many of us are inclined to believe. It is
obviously our duty to undertake this difficult task when other people
consult us as to their religious convictions; but the mere fact that
we know what their convictions are, and that we hold them to be
perilously unsound, does not establish a right on our part to attempt
to change them. And as regards the passage before us, it is quite
clear, both from the context and from the tenour of the whole Epistle,
that the rare occasions on which we are under the obligation of
endeavouring to convert others to our own ways of thinking are not the
occasions to which St. James refers in these concluding sentences of
his letter.

The duty of reclaiming the lost grows out of the condition of
brotherhood which is assumed all through the Epistle as being the
relation which exists between those who are addressed. This is
manifestly the case here. "My _brethren_, if any among _you_ do err
from the truth." If it be right to clothe and feed the naked and
hungry brother, to pray for the sick brother, and for those who
confess their faults to us, much more must it be right to do all that
is possible to bring back from the way of death those who are walking
in it, to convert them, turn them right round, and induce them to go
in the opposite direction. To believe in God, to believe that we are
His children, and yet to act as if the bodies and souls of others, who
are equally His children, are in no degree in our keeping, and that
their condition is no concern of ours--this is indeed to have that
faith which, being apart from works, is dead.

How is the conversion of the erring brother to be effected? St. James
gives no explicit directions, but leaves all matters of detail to the
discretion of the worker. Yet he does not leave us altogether without
guidance as to what are the best methods. One of these is intimated by
what immediately precedes, and the other by the general import of the
letter. These two efficacious means for the conversion of sinners are,
not rebuke or remonstrance, not exhortation or advice, not anger or
contempt, but--_prayer_ and _good example_. It is by prayer that the
sick may be restored to health; it is by prayer that sinners who
confess their sins may be healed; and it is by prayer that sinners,
who as yet will not confess and repent, may be won over to do so. And
here the appropriateness of the example of Elijah becomes evident.
Elijah was a prophet, and he knew that when he prayed for drought and
for rain he was praying for what was in accordance with the will of
God; and it is such prayers that are sure of fulfilment. We are not
prophets, and when we pray for changes of weather we cannot be sure
that what we ask is in accordance with God's will. All that we can do
is to submit humbly to His will, and to beg that, so far as they are
in harmony with it, our desires may be granted. But when we pray for
the conversion of sinners we are in the same position as Elijah. We
know from the outset that we are praying for something which it is His
will to grant, if only the rebellious wills of impenitent sinners do
not prove insuperable: for He forces no one to be converted; He will
have voluntary service, or none at all. When, therefore, we ask Him
for the assistance of His Holy Spirit in bringing back sinners from
the error of their ways, we may have the greatest confidence that we
are desiring that which He would have us desire, and are uniting our
wills to His. This, then, is one great instrument for the conversion
of our erring brethren--the _prayer of faith_, which can remove
mountains of sin out of God's sight, by bringing the sinner, who has
piled them up during years of sinning, to confess, and repent, and be
forgiven.

The case of St. Monica, praying for the conversion of her sinful and
heretical son Augustine, will occur to many as a beautiful
illustration of the principle here indicated. He himself tells us of
it in his immortal _Confessions_ (III. xi., xii. 20, 21); how that for
years, especially from his nineteenth to his twenty-eighth year, he
went on seduced and seducing, deceived and deceiving, in various
lusts; and how his mother continued to pray for him. "And her prayers
entered into Thy presence; and yet Thou didst leave me to wallow
deeper and deeper in that darkness." Then she went to a certain
bishop, and entreated him to reason with her son; but he declined,
saying that the time for that had not yet come. "Leave him alone for a
time; only pray to God for him." But she was not satisfied, and
continued to implore him with tears that he would go and see
Augustine, and try to move him. At which he somewhat lost patience,
and sent her away, saying, "Go, leave me, and a blessing go with thee:
it is impossible that the son of such tears should perish." Which
answer, as she often told her son afterwards, she accepted as if it
were a voice from heaven; and all Christendom knows how her prayer was
heard. He himself attributed all that was good in him to his mother's
tears and prayers.

The other great instrument in accomplishing this blessed work is a
_good example_. A holy life is the best sermon, the most effectual
remonstrance, the strongest incentive, the most powerful plea. Without
it words are of little avail; with it words are scarcely necessary.
This is the instrument which St. James throughout this Epistle
commends. Not words, but works; not professions, but deeds; not fair
speeches, but kind acts (i. 19, 22, 27; ii. 1, 15, 16, 26; iii. 13;
iv. 17). Nothing that we can say will ever make such impression upon
others as what we _do_ and what we _are_. Eloquence, reasoning,
incisiveness, pathos, persuasiveness, all have their uses, and may be
of real service in the work of winning back sinners from the error of
their ways, but they are as nothing compared with holiness. It is when
deep calls to deep, when life calls to life, when the life of manifest
devotion at once shames and attracts the life of flagrant sin, that
spirits are moved, that the loathing for vice and the longing for
virtue are excited. The man whose own habitual conduct most often
makes other men ashamed of themselves is the man who not only has the
best of all qualifications for winning souls to God, but is actually
accomplishing this work, even when he is not consciously attempting
it. And such a one, when he does attempt it, will have a large measure
of the requisite wisdom. The earnestness of his own life will have
given him a knowledge of his own heart, and that is the best of all
keys to a knowledge of the hearts of others.

There is something fatally wrong about us if we have no strong desire
to bring back sinners to God. We cannot be Christ's disciples without
having it. The man who would go to heaven _alone_ is already off the
road thither. The man whose one consuming thought is to save his _own_
soul has not yet found out the best means of saving it. The surest
road to personal happiness is to devote oneself to promoting the
happiness of others, and the best way to secure one's own salvation is
to devote oneself to the Divine work of helping forward the salvation
of others. Let the fear of giving scandal to others keep us from sin;
let the hope of being a help to others encourage us in well-doing; and
let our prayers be more for others than for ourselves. As Calvin says,
on this passage, "We must take heed lest souls perish through our
sloth whose salvation God puts in a manner in our hands. Not that we
can bestow salvation on them, but that God by our ministry delivers
and saves those who seem otherwise to be nigh destruction."

What is the reward which St. James holds out to us to induce us to
undertake the work of converting a sinner? He offers nothing; he
promises nothing. The work itself is its own reward. To win back an
erring brother is a thing so blessed, so glorious, so rich in
incalculable results, that to have been enabled to accomplish it is
reward enough--is a prize sufficient to induce any true hearted
Christian to work for it. It is no less than the "saving of a soul
from death;" and who can estimate what that means? It is the "covering
of a multitude of sins."

There is no need to make this last phrase include the sins which the
man would otherwise have committed had he not been converted. Sins not
committed cannot be covered. It is quite true that by conversion a man
is saved from sins into which he would certainly have fallen; and this
is a very happy result, but it is not the result pointed out by
St. James. The sins which have been committed during the daily walk
towards destruction are what he has in his mind; and they are not one
or two here and there, but a _multitude_. To aid a brother to get rid
of these by confession and repentance is an end that amply repays all
the trouble that we can take in attaining to it.

"But the number of renegades is so enormous; the multitude of
impenitent sinners is so overwhelming: how is it possible to convert
them?" St. James says nothing about converting multitudes; he speaks
only of converting _one_. "If any (ἐάν τις) among you do err from
the truth, and one convert _him_." To bring over _one_ soul from
eternal death to eternal life may be within the power of any one
earnest Christian. Is each one of us making the attempt? Are we making
our lives as beneficent, as sympathetic, as unselfish as our
opportunities admit of? Do we give a generous, or even a moderate
share of encouragement to the numerous agencies which are at work to
lessen the temptations and increase the means of grace for those who
are living in sin, and to help and encourage those who, in however
feeble a way, are making a fight against it?

"Know ye,[101] that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his
way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of
sins." With these words St. James abruptly takes leave of those whom
he addresses. The letter has no formal conclusion; not because it is
unfinished, or because the conclusion has been lost, but because
St. James wishes by means of a sudden close to leave his last words
ringing in the hearts of his readers. In this respect the Epistle
reminds us of the First Epistle of St. John. "Guard yourselves from
the idols" is the only farewell which the last of the Apostles has for
his "little children;" and a very summary statement of what the
conversion of one sinner means is the farewell of St. James to his
"brethren." In both cases it is the abruptness of emphasis, as if the
writer said, "If all else that I have written be forgotten, at least
remember this."

How beautiful to find one noble soul, and enter into frequent
communion with it! how happy to be the means of preserving it from
defilement! but most blessed of all to be instrumental in rescuing it
from degradation and destruction! "I say unto you, That there shall be
joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety
and nine righteous persons, which need no repentance."

NOTE.--It is by no means impossible that in the phrase "cover a
multitude of sins" neither St. James is quoting St. Peter, nor
St. Peter St. James, nor either of them quoting Psalms or Proverbs,
but that each of them is reproducing a saying of Christ's which is not
recorded in the Gospels. The phrase occurs in both Clement of Rome
(XLV.) and Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ I. xxvii.; II. xv.; IV.
xviii.; _Quis <DW37>. Salv._ xxxviii.), in all which places it may be a
quotation from 1 Peter iv. 8. But in one place (_Pædag._ III. xii.) he
seems to give it as a saying of our Lord's, for he couples it with a
saying which is certainly His (Luke xx. 25). Clement's wording is as
follows: "Love, He saith, covereth a multitude of sins; and respecting
citizenship, Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God
the things that are God's;" where one and the same "He saith"
(φησί) covers both sayings. In the _Didascalia_ (II. iii.) the
saying is explicitly attributed to Christ: "Because the Lord saith,
Love covereth a multitude of sins." See Resch, _Agrapha;
Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente_ (Leipzig, 1889), pp. 248, 249.

[100] πλανηθῇ. This aorist passive _may_ have a middle signification,
but it is simpler to allow it to be passive: the man has been led
astray by evil influences, and he is led back by good influences. It
matters not whether we regard him as led astray by sin (Bengel), or
Satan, or wicked companions.

[101] This is probably the true reading.




_THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE._




 CHAPTER XXX.

 _THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE._

 "Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that
 are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:
 mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied."--ST. JUDE 1, 2.


Precisely as in the case of the Epistle of St. James, the question as
to the authenticity of this letter resolves itself into two parts: Is
the Epistle the veritable product of a writer of the Apostolic age? If
it is, which of the persons of that age who bore the name of Judas is
the author of it? Both of these questions can be answered with a very
considerable amount of certainty.

Let us remember the right way of putting the first of these two
questions. Not, Why should we believe that this Epistle was written by
an Apostle or a contemporary of the Apostles? but, Why should we
refuse to believe this? What reason have we for rejecting the verdict
of ecclesiastics and theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries,
who were well aware of the doubts which had been raised respecting the
authority of the Epistle, and after full and prolonged consideration
decided that it possessed full canonical authority. Not only were they
in possession of evidence which is no longer available, and which
rendered it probable that their decision would be correct; but the
universal acceptance of their decision in all the Churches proves that
their decision was admitted to be correct by those who had ample means
of testing its soundness.

The Epistle of St. Jude, like that of St. James, is reckoned by
Eusebius as one of the six or seven "disputed" (ἀντιλεγόμενα) books
of the New Testament, which fact, while it proves that misgivings had
existed in some quarters respecting the authority of the letter, at
the same time proves that it was not admitted into the canon by an
oversight. The difficulties respecting it were well known, and were
considered to be by no means fatal to its otherwise strong claim to be
accepted (see above, pp. 15-18). And the difficulties respecting the
two Epistles were similar in kind. 1. Many Churches remained for a
considerable time without any knowledge of one or other of the two
Epistles; but whereas it was in the West that the Epistle of St. James
was least known, it was Eastern Churches that remained longest without
knowledge of that of St. Jude. 2. Even when the Epistle did become
known it remained doubtful whether the writer was a person of
authority. He was possibly not an Apostle, and if he was not such,
what were his claims to be heard? 3. To these two difficulties, which
were common to both Epistles, must be added another which was peculiar
to that of St. Jude. It may be stated in Jerome's words. "Because in
it Jude derives a testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is
apocryphal, it is rejected by some"[102] (_Catal. Scr. Eccl._ iv.). As
we shall see hereafter, it probably makes use of yet another
apocryphal book; and it was not unreasonably doubted whether an
Apostolic writer would compromise himself by the use of such
literature. If he were inspired, he would know it to be apocryphal,
and would abstain from quoting it; and if he did not know its
apocryphal character, how could he be inspired, or his words be of any
authority?

That so brief a letter should remain for a considerable time quite
unknown to some Churches, is not at all surprising. Its evident Jewish
tone would render it less attractive to Gentile Christians. Its making
no claim to Apostolic authority raised a doubt whether it had any
authority whatever, and this doubt was increased by the fact that it
quotes apocryphal writings. Consequently those Christians who knew the
Epistle would not always be ready to promote its circulation. Even if
we were compelled to infer that silence respecting it implies
ignorance of its existence, such ignorance would in most cases be very
intelligible: but this perilous inference from silence in some cases
can be shown to be incorrect. Hippolytus may _possibly_ have remained
ignorant of it; but if, as Bishop Lightfoot suggests,[103] he is the
author of the supposed Greek original of the Muratorian Canon, he
testifies strongly (note the _sane_) to the general reception of the
Epistle. This holds good, however we may deal with the ambiguous _in
catholica_, which may possibly mean "in the Catholic Church," or be a
mistake for _in catholicis_, "among the Catholic Epistles." Cyprian,
who never quotes the Epistle of St. Jude, must have known of it from
the celebrated passage in "the master" Tertullian, whose works he was
always reading. And it is quite incredible that Chrysostom, who in all
his voluminous writings does not chance to quote it even once, was not
familiar with its contents. The brevity of the Epistle is sufficient
to explain a great deal of the silence respecting it.

The most serious item in the external evidence against the Epistle is
its absence from the Peshitto, or ancient Syriac Version. The
considerations already mentioned go a long way towards explaining this
absence, and it is a great deal more than counterbalanced by the
strong external evidence in its favour. This is surprisingly strong,
especially when compared with that in favour of the Epistle of
St. James. In both cases the troubles which overwhelmed the Church of
Jerusalem and Jewish Christianity in the reign of Hadrian interfered
with the circulation of the letters; but it is the shorter letter and
the letter of the less-known writer which (so far as extant testimony
goes) seems in the first instance to have obtained the wider
circulation and recognition. The Muratorian Canon, as we have seen,
contains it; so also does the old Latin Version. Tertullian (_De Cult.
Fem._ I. iii.) vehemently contends that the Book of Enoch ought to be
accepted as canonical, and he clenches his argument with the fact that
it is quoted by "the Apostle Jude." This appeal would have seemed
dangerous rather than conclusive, if in North Africa there had been
any serious misgivings about the authority of Jude's Epistle.
Tertullian evidently entertained nothing of the kind. In a similar
spirit Augustine asks, "What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not
the canonical Epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied?"
(_De Civ. Dei_, xviii. 38). Clement of Alexandria quotes it as
Scripture (_Pæd._ III. viii., and _Strom._ III. ii.), and commented
upon it in his _Hypotyposeis_ (Eus. H. E. VI. xiv. 1), of which we
probably still possess some translations into Latin made under the
direction of Cassiodorus. Origen, although he was aware that it was
not universally received, for in one place he uses the cautious
expression, "If any receive the Epistle of Jude," yet accepted it
thoroughly himself, as the frequent citations of it in his works show.
In one passage he speaks of it as "an Epistle of but few lines, yet
full of the strong words of heavenly grace" (_Comm._ on Matt.
xiii. 55). Athanasius places it in his list of the canonical
Scriptures without any mark of doubt. And Didymus, head of the
Catechetical School at Alexandria, and instructor of Jerome and
Rufinus, condemns the opposition which some offered to the Epistle on
account of the statement respecting the body of Moses (ver. 9), just
as Jerome virtually condemns those who opposed it because of the
quotation from the Book of Enoch.

This evidence, it will be observed, is mostly Western. The blank as
regards the East is to some extent filled by the letter of the Synod
at Antioch against Paul of Samasota, A.D. 269. Portions of this letter
have been preserved by Eusebius, and Malchion, the presbyter who
chiefly composed it, seems to have had the Epistle of Jude in his mind
when he wrote. This is chiefly evident in the tone of the letter; but
here and there the wording approaches that of St. Jude; _e.g._
"denying his God [and Lord]" reminds us of "denying our only Master
and Lord" (Jude 4); and "not guarding the faith which he once held"
may be suggested by "contend earnestly for the faith which was once
for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). The quotations from Jude
in Ephrem Syrus (_c._ A.D. 308-73) are somewhat discredited, for they
occur only in the Greek translations of his works, some of which,
however, were made in his lifetime; but the quotations may be
insertions made by translators.

That so short a letter should have so much testimony in its favour is
remarkable; and although it may be a slight exaggeration to say, with
Zahn, that about A.D. 200 it was accepted "in the Church of all lands
round the Mediterranean Sea" (_Gesch. d. Neutest. Kanons_, I., p.
321), yet even Harnack admits that this is not much in excess of the
truth. The only abatement which he suggests is that the misgivings to
which Origen on one single occasion bears witness, show that the
Epistle was not _everywhere_ in the East part of the New Testament
Scriptures (_Das N.T. um d. Jahr 200_, p. 79). We may take it,
therefore, as sufficiently proved that this letter was written by one
who belonged to the Apostolic age. Had it been a forgery of the second
century, it would not have found this general acceptance. Moreover, a
forger would have chosen some person of greater fame and greater
authority as the supposed writer of the Epistle, or would at least
have made Jude an Apostle; and above all, he would have betrayed some
_motive_ for the forgery. There is nothing in the letter to indicate
any such motive. Renan accepts the Epistle as a genuine relic of the
Apostolic age, and indeed places it as early as A.D. 54; yet his view
of it would lead other people to regard it as a forgery, for it
supplies a strong motive. Renan considers it to be an attack on
St. Paul. The Clementine literature shows us how a heretic of the
second century can make a covert attack on the Apostle of the
Gentiles; and if we could believe that the writer of this Epistle had
St. Paul in his mind when he denounced those who "in their dreamings
defile the flesh, and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities,"
we should be ready enough to believe that he was not really "Judas,
brother of James," but one who did not dare to say openly in the
Church the accusations which he tried to insinuate. But no critic has
accepted this strange theory of Renan's, and it is hardly worth while
asking, Why was not St. Peter or St. John taken as the authority
wherewith to counteract the influence of St. Paul? Of what weight
would the words of the unknown Jude be in comparison with his? Renan's
literary acuteness recognizes in this Epistle a veritable product of
the first century: his prejudices respecting anti-Pauline tendencies
among the Apostolic writers lead him amazingly astray as to the
meaning of its contents.

It remains to consider the second part of the question respecting the
authenticity of this Epistle. We are justified in believing that it is
a writing of the Apostolic age, by a person bearing the name of Judas
or Jude. But to which of the persons who bore that name in the first
age of the Church is the letter to be assigned? Only two persons have
to be considered--(1) "Judas not Iscariot," who seems also to have
been called Lebbæus or Thaddæus, for in the lists of the Apostles
Thaddæus or Lebbæus (the readings are confused) stands in Matthew x.
and Mark iii. as the equivalent of "Judas [the son] of James" in Luke
vi. and Acts i.; and (2) Judas one of the four brethren of the Lord;
the names of the other three being James, Joseph or Joses, and Simon
(Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). These two are sometimes identified, but
the identification is highly questionable, although the Authorized
Version encourages us to make it by giving to "Judas of James" the
improbable meaning, "Judas the _brother_ of James," instead of the
usual meaning, "Judas the _son_ of James."[104] In other words, the
Authorized Version assumes that the writer of this Epistle is the
Apostle "Judas not Iscariot;" the writer calls himself "brother of
James," and the Authorized Version makes this Apostle to be "the
brother of James."

We have seen already that both Tertullian and Augustine speak of the
writer of this Epistle as an Apostle. So also does Origen, but only in
two passages, of which the Greek original is wanting (_De Principiis_,
III. ii. 1; _Comm. on Romans_ v. 13, vol. iv., 549). In no passage of
the Greek works, and in no other passage of the Latin translations,
does he call Jude an Apostle; so that the addition of Apostle in these
two places may be an insertion of his not very accurate translator
Rufinus. But even if the authority of Origen is to be added to that of
Tertullian and Augustine, the opinion that the author of this letter
was an Apostle is not probable. Had he been such, it would have been
natural to mention the fact as a claim on the attention of his
readers, instead of merely contenting himself with naming his
relationship to his much more distinguished brother James. It is not
to the point to urge that St. Paul does not always call himself an
Apostle in his Epistles. He was a well-known person, especially after
his four great Epistles had been published, in all of which he styles
himself an Apostle. In the two to the Thessalonians he does not,
probably because he there associates Silvanus and Timothy with himself
(but see 1 Thess. ii. 6). St. Jude was comparatively unknown, having
written nothing else, and having probably travelled little. The
charge, "Remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the
Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" (ver. 17), although it does not
necessarily imply that the writer himself is not one of these
Apostles, yet would be more suitable to one who did not possess
Apostolic rank. And when we ask what _James_ is meant, when he styles
himself "brother of James," the answer cannot be doubtful; it is James
the brother of the Lord, one of the three "Pillars" of the Jewish
Christian Church, first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, and
author of the Epistle which bears his name. The Epistle of Jude is
evidently by a Jewish Christian, who, while writing to all that have
been called to the faith, evidently has Jewish Christians chiefly in
his mind. To such a writer it was well worth while to mention that he
was brother of that James who was so revered by all his fellow
countrymen. Reasons have been given already for believing that this
James was not an Apostle (pp. 27-29), and these will confirm us in the
opinion that his brother Jude was not such. The question of their
relationship to Jesus Christ has also been discussed (pp. 31, 32), and
need not be reopened here. If it be argued that, had St. Jude been the
brother of the Lord, he would have mentioned the fact, we may securely
answer that he would not have done so. "As the author of the
_Adumbrationes_ centuries ago remarked, religious feeling would deter
him, as it did his brother James, in his Epistle, from mentioning
this. The Ascension had altered all Christ's human relationships, and
His brethren would shrink from claiming kinship after the flesh with
His glorified body. This conjecture is supported by facts. Nowhere in
primitive Christian literature is any authority claimed on the basis
of nearness of kin to the Redeemer. He Himself had taught Christians
that the lowliest among them might rise above the closest of such
earthly ties (Luke xi. 27, 28); to be spiritually the "servant of
Jesus Christ" was much more than being His actual brother."[105]

We may suppose that Jude, like the rest of his brethren (John vii. 5),
did not at first believe in the Messiahship of Jesus, but was
converted by the convincing event of the Resurrection (Acts i. 14). We
know that he was married, not merely from the general statement made
by St. Paul respecting the brethren of the Lord (1 Cor. ix. 5), but
from the interesting story told by Hegesippus, and preserved by
Eusebius (_H. E._ III. xx. 1-8), that two grandsons of Jude were taken
before Domitian as being of the royal family of David, and therefore
dangerous to his rule. "For," says Hegesippus, "he was afraid of the
appearance of the Christ, as Herod was." In answer to his questions,
they stated that they were indeed of the family of David, but were
poor and humble persons, who supported themselves by their own labour;
in proof of which they showed their horny hands. When further
questioned respecting the Christ and His kingdom, they said that it
was not earthly, but heavenly, and would arise at the end of the
world, when He came to judge the living and the dead. Whereupon
Domitian contemptuously dismissed them as too simple to be dangerous,
and ordered that the persecution of the descendants of David should
cease. These two men were afterwards honoured in the Churches, both as
confessors and as being near of kin to the Lord. A fragment of Philip
of Side (_c._ A.D. 425) lately discovered says that Hegesippus gave
the names of these two men as Zocer and James (_Texte und
Untersuchungen_, V. 2, p. 169).

This narrative implies that both St. Jude and the father of these
grandsons were already dead, and this gives us a terminus respecting
the date of the Epistle. St. Jude was almost certainly dead when
Domitian came to the throne, in A.D. 81, and therefore this letter was
written before that date. Whether, as Hilgenfeld and others would have
us believe, the Epistle is aimed at Gnostic errors which did not arise
until the second century, will be considered hereafter, when the
nature of the evils denounced by St. Jude is discussed; but the
evidence which has been examined thus far entirely agrees with the
supposition that the letter was written during the Apostolic age.

It is not impossible that in calling himself "brother of James"
St. Jude is thinking of his brother's _Epistle_, and wishes his
readers to consider that the present letter is to be taken in
conjunction with that of St. James. Both letters are Palestinian in
origin and Jewish in tone; and they are almost entirely practical in
their aim, dealing with grave errors in conduct. Those which are
denounced by St. Jude are of a grosser kind than those denounced by
St. James, but they resemble the latter in being errors of behaviour
rather than of creed. They are to a large extent the _outcome_ of
pernicious principles; but it is the vicious lives of these "ungodly
men" that are condemned more than their erroneous beliefs. St. Jude,
therefore, may be appealing not only to his brother's position and
authority as a recommendation for himself, but also to his brother's
Epistle, which many of his readers would know and respect.

The attempts which have been made to find a locality for St. Jude's
readers altogether fail. Palestine, Asia Minor, Alexandria have all
been suggested; but the letter does not offer sufficient material for
the formation of a reasonable opinion. "To them that are called,
beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ," is a formula
which embraces _all_ Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, and whether
inside or outside Palestine. The topics introduced are such as would
chiefly interest Jewish Christians, and it is probable that the writer
has the Jewish Christians of Palestine and the adjoining countries
chiefly in his mind; but we have no right to limit the natural meaning
of the formal address which he himself has adopted. All Christians,
without limitation, are the objects of St. Jude's solicitude.

[102] _A plerisque rejicitur._ Possibly this means "is rejected by
_very many_;" it certainly ought not to be rendered "is rejected by
_most_." "Most" is the classical meaning of _plerique_; but in Tacitus
it means no more than "very many" (_Hist._ iv. 84, etc.), and in
Jerome and his contemporaries it need mean no more than "some." Thus
in Jerome's letter to Dardamus (_Ep._ cxxix.) we have _licet plerique
eam vel Barnabæ vel Clementis arbitrentur_ (of the Epistle to the
Hebrews), where _plerique_ = the τινές of Eusebius and Origen (_H. E._
VI. xx. 3; xxv. 14).

[103] See the _Academy_ of September 21st, 1889, where he shows how
much of the Fragment can be turned quite literally into Greek verse,
and suggests that the εἰς πάσας τὰς γράφας, "Odes referring to all
the Scriptures," mentioned among the works of Hippolytus whose titles
are inscribed on his chair (see Kraus, _Real. Encykl. der Chris.
Alterthümer_, I., pp. 661-64), refers to metrical compositions on the
contents of the Old and New Testaments. The Fragment says respecting
this Epistle, "Epistola sane Iude et superscrictio (_sic_) Iohannis
duas in catholica habentur", where _superscrictio_ is a clerical error
for _superscripti_, "the John mentioned above."

[104] The Genevan Version introduced this rendering. Previous versions
either leave the meaning doubtful, "Judas of James," as Wiclif, or
translate "James' _sonne_," as Tyndale and Cranmer. Luther also is for
"son."

[105] These words are quoted from a commentary which the writer of
this volume wrote in 1879 for Messrs. Cassell, in the _New Testament
Commentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott (p. 505),
of which, through the courtesy of the publishers, he is allowed to
make use for the present work.




 CHAPTER XXXI.

 _THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL
 DELIVERED AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE_

 "Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our
 common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you
 to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered
 unto the saints."--ST. JUDE 3.


The Greek of the opening sentence of this passage, in which St. Jude
explains his reason for writing this Epistle, is ambiguous. The words
"of our common salvation" (περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας) may go
either with what precedes or with what follows. But there is little
doubt that both the Authorized and the Revised Versions are right in
taking them with what precedes. The true connexion is, not, "While I
was giving all diligence to write unto you, I was constrained to write
unto you of our common salvation," but, "While I was giving all
diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained
to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith."
This Epistle can scarcely be called a letter "about our common
salvation." The meaning is that St. Jude had intended to write such a
letter, but the crisis created by the entrance of these ungodly men
into the Church constrained him to write a letter of a different kind,
viz. the one which lies before us. That he had already _begun_ to
write a letter "respecting our common salvation," and that we have
here to lament the loss of another Epistle besides the lost Epistles
of St. Paul and St. John (1 Cor. v. 9; 3 John 9), is neither stated
nor implied.[106] St. Jude had been thinking very earnestly about
writing a more general and comprehensive Epistle, when he realized
that the presence of a very serious evil required immediate action,
and accordingly he writes at once to point out the existing peril, and
to denounce those who are the authors of it. It is the duty of all
Christians to be on their guard, and to be unflinching in their
defence of the truth which has been committed to them to preserve and
cherish.

"The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." This
does not mean, which was delivered by God to the Apostles, but which
was delivered by the Apostles to the Church. "The saints" here, as so
often in the New Testament (Acts ix. 13, 32, 41; xxvi. 10; Rom.
viii. 27; xiii. 13; xv. 25, 26, 31; etc., etc.), means _all_
Christians. If the whole nation of the Jews was a "holy people" (λαὸς
ἅγιος), "a peculiar treasure unto Jehovah from among all peoples"
(Exod. xix. 5), by reason of their special election by Him (Deut.
vii. 6; xiv. 2, 21); if they were "saints of the Most High" (Dan.
vii. 18, 22, 25), much more might this be said of Christians, who had
inherited all the spiritual privileges of the Jews, and had received
others in abundance, far exceeding any that the Jews had ever
possessed. Christians also, in a still higher sense, were "an elect
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own
possession" (1 Peter ii. 9). The Christians of Corinth, Ephesus, and
Colossæ, in spite of the enormous evils which they practised or
sanctioned, or at least tolerated, are still called "saints." They are
holy, not as being persons of holy life, but as being devoted to God.
Of course such persons _ought_ to be holy in conduct, but to call them
"saints" does not assert that they are so. The name asserts the fact
of being set apart by God for Himself, and implies what ought to be
the result of such separation. "Thus the main idea of the term is
_consecration_. But though it does not assert moral qualifications as
a fact in the persons so designated, it implies them as a duty."[107]
To each individual Christian, therefore, the name is at once an
honour, an exhortation, and a reproach. It tells of his high calling,
it exhorts him to live up to it, and it reminds him of his grievous
shortcomings.

"The faith _once for all delivered_ unto the saints" (τῇ ἅπαξ
παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἅγίοις πίστει): both the adverb, "once for all,"
and the aorist participle, "delivered," are worthy of special notice.
"The faith" does not mean any set formula of articles of belief, nor
the internal reception of Christian doctrine, but the _substance_ of
it; it is equivalent to what St. Paul and the Evangelists call "the
Gospel," viz. that body of truth which brings salvation to the soul
that receives it. This Faith, or this Gospel, has been once for all
delivered to Christians. No other will be given, for there is no
other. Whatever may be delivered by any one in future cannot be a
gospel at all. The one true Gospel is complete and final, and admits
of no successors and no supplements (Gal. i. 6-9).

"The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." Does
this exclude all possibility of a "development of Christian doctrine"?
That depends upon what one means by "development." The expression has
been interpreted to mean "that the increase and expansion of the
Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the
process in the case of individual writers and Churches, are the
necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes
possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or
extended dominion; that from the nature of the human mind, time is
necessary for the full comprehension _and perfection_ of great ideas;
and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to
the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended
all at once by the recipients, but, as received and transmitted by
minds not inspired and through media which were human, have
required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full
elucidation."[108] If the ambiguous expression "and perfection" be
omitted, one may readily allow that development of Christian doctrine
in this sense has taken place. To say that time is needed for the
_full comprehension_ of the great truths which were communicated to
the Church once for all by the Apostles is one thing; to say that time
is needed for the _perfection_ of those truths may or may not be quite
another. And the manner in which the subject is treated in the famous
Essay from which the passage just quoted is taken shows that what is
meant by the "perfecting" of the truths is a very different thing from
the full comprehension of their original contents; it means making
additions to the original contents in order to remedy supposed
deficiencies. In this sense it may be confidently asserted, and as
loyal Christians we are bound to assert, that there is no such thing
as development of Christian doctrine. If there be such a thing, then
we cannot stop short with those developments which can in some measure
be called Christian. The author himself reminds us that "no one has
power over the issues of his principles; we cannot manage our
argument, and have as much of it as we please, and no more" (p. 29).
If the faith once for all delivered to the saints was defective, and
needed to be supplemented by subsequent additions, why may not
Christianity itself be, as some have maintained, only a phase in the
development of religion, which in process of time is to be superseded
by something wholly unchristian? The transition is easily made from
the position of the _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_
to that of Channing, that "it makes me smile to hear immortality
claimed for Catholicism or Protestantism, or for any past
interpretations of Christianity: as if the human soul had exhausted
itself in its infant efforts; as if the men of one or a few
generations could bind the energy of human thought and affection for
ever;"[109] and thence to the position of Strauss, who, in his latest
and most dreary work, on _The Old and the New Faith_, asks the
question, "Are we still Christians?" and answers it emphatically in
the negative. The chief doctrines of Christianity are to him childish
or repulsive beliefs, which thoughtful men have long since left
behind. We may still in some sense be religious; but Christianity has
done its work, and is rightly being dismissed from the stage.[110]
This is the advanced thinking of which St. John writes in his Second
Epistle: "Everyone that _goeth onward_ (πᾶς ὁ προάγων), and
_abideth not in the doctrine of Christ_, hath not God" (ver. 9). There
is an advance which involves desertion of first principles; and such
an advance is not progress, but apostasy.

But _does_ the development of doctrine, in the sense contended for by
the author of the celebrated Essay, mean making actual additions to
the faith once for all delivered, as distinct from arriving at a
better comprehension of the contents and logical consequences of the
original deposit? This question must be answered in the affirmative,
for various reasons. The whole purpose of the Essay, and the actual
expressions used in it, require this meaning; and that this is the
obvious meaning has been assumed by Roman Catholic as well as
Protestant critics, and (so far as the present writer is aware) this
interpretation has never been resented as illegitimate by the author.
The whole argument is admittedly "an hypothesis to account for a
difficulty," "an expedient to enable us to solve what has now become a
necessary and an anxious problem" (pp. 27, 28), viz. the enormous
difference between the sum total of Roman Catholic doctrines and those
which can be found in the Christian documents of the first two or
three centuries. The Essay is believed by its author to furnish "a
solution of such a number of the reputed corruptions of Rome as might
form a fair ground for trusting her where the investigation had not
been pursued" (p. 29). And that the faith once for all delivered is
regarded as in need of supplements and additions seems to be implied
in such language as the following: "In whatever sense the need and its
supply are a proof of design in the visible creation, in the same do
_the gaps_, if the word may be used, _which occur in the structure of
the original creed of the Church_, make it probable that those
developments, which grow out of the truths which lie around them, were
intended to complete it" (pp. 101, 102). It is the business of
succeeding ages of the Church to "keep what was exact, and _supply
what was deficient_" (p. 354).

The author of the _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_
states in another of his works that when he was admitted to the Church
of Rome he embraced volumes containing the writings of the Christian
Fathers, crying out that now they were really his own. The action and
exclamation were thoroughly inconsistent with the position maintained
throughout the Essay, and since then adopted by numbers of Roman
controversialists. He ought rather to have cleared his shelves of the
works of the Fathers, and to have consigned them to the lumber-room,
with the remark, "Now I need never look at you any more." As Bishop
Cornelius Mussus (Musso) said long ago, "For my part, to speak quite
frankly, I would give more credence to a single Pope than to a
thousand Augustines, Jeromes, and Gregorys" (_In Epist. ad Rom._ xiv.,
p. 606, Venet., 1588, quoted in Hardwick's edition of Archer Butler's
_Letters on Romanism_, p. 394). It is the latest and most modern works
on Roman theology, especially those which expound the utterances of
the most recent Popes, that deserve to be studied, if the theory of
the development be correct. According to that theory, the teaching of
the primitive Church was certainly immature and defective, and
possibly even erroneous. In order to find out what primitive writers
meant, or _ought to have meant_, we must look to the latest
developments. _They_ are the criteria by which to test the teaching of
the early Church; it is beginning at the wrong end to test the
developments by Christian antiquity. In former times Romanists were at
great pains to show that traces of their peculiar tenets could be
found in the writers of the first few centuries; and in not a few
cases the works of these primitive writers were interpolated, in order
to make out a fair case. Criticism has exposed these forgeries, and it
has been demonstrated that the early Christian teachers were ignorant
of whole tracts of Roman doctrine and practice. Roman controversy has
therefore entirely shifted its ground. It now freely admits that these
things were unknown to Irenæus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and
Augustine; but for the simple reason that, when they wrote, these
things had not yet been revealed. The Church was still ignorant that
the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin, was taken bodily to
heaven after her death, and ought to be invoked in prayer; it was
still ignorant of the doctrine of purgatory, of indulgences, and of
the necessity of being in communion with the Church of Rome. It will
not do to say that Christ and His Apostles planted the _germs_ of
these things, and that for centuries the germs did not expand and
fructify, and therefore remained unnoticed. For, first, how can there
be _a germ of an historical fact_, such as the supposed removal of the
Virgin's body to heaven, which is most happily named an "assumption"?
Secondly, now that the fruit _has_ appeared, we ought to be able to
trace it back to the germ which for so long was ignored. And thirdly,
if the germs were really deposited by Christ and His Apostles, they
would have developed in a _somewhat_ similar manner in all parts of
Christendom. Different surroundings will account for some variety of
development, but not for absolute difference in kind. The germ
respecting communion with the Church of Rome, if there was one,
developed in the East, where all germs were in the first instance
planted, into the doctrine that no such communion was necessary.[111]
Therefore, from the Roman point of view, it is necessary to maintain
that the development of Christian doctrine involves, not merely the
better comprehension of the contents of doctrines, and the expansion
of seeds and germs of truth, but the admission of actual supplements
and additions, derived from new revelations of fresh items of truth.
As the Jesuit Father Harper said, in his reply to Dr. Pusey's
_Eirenicon_, "Christ grew in wisdom daily. So does the Church, not in
mere appearance, but of truth. Her creed, therefore, can never shrink
back to the dimensions of the past, but must ever enlarge with the
onward future."

Hence the necessity for the doctrine of Infallibility. For Roman
developments are not the only ones. The Eastern Churches have theirs;
Protestant Churches have theirs; and outside these there are other
developments, both non-Christian and anti-Christian. Unless there is
some authority which can say, "Our developments are Divinely inspired
and necessary, while all others are superfluous or wrong," the
doctrine of Development may be used with as much force against Rome as
for her. Consequently, we find the author of the Essay using the
theory of Development as an argument for that of the Infallibility.
"If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and
important developments, ... this is a strong antecedent argument in
favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of
authority upon those developments.... If certain large developments of
it are true, they must surely be accredited as true" (pp. 117-19).

This is further proof that what is contemplated in this theory is not
mere logical deductions from revealed truth; for logical deductions
vindicate themselves by an appeal to the reason, and need no sanction
from an infallible authority. Developments are indeed said to follow
by way of "logical sequence," but this term is made to receive an
enlarged meaning. "It will include any progress of the mind from one
judgment to another, as, for instance, _by way of moral fitness_,
which may not admit of analysis into premiss and conclusion" (p. 397).
Thus the "deification of St. Mary" is a "logical sequence" of our
Lord's Divinity. "The votaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith,
unless the blasphemers of her Son came up to it. The Church of Rome is
not idolatrous, unless Arianism is orthodoxy" (p. 406). The following
criticism, therefore, does not seem to be unjust: "However the theory
may be modified by the subsequent additional supposition of infallible
guidance, it is quite evident that, considered in itself, its internal
spirit and scope (especially as illustrated by its alleged Roman
instances) are nothing short of this, that _everything_ which
_certain_ good men in the Church, or men assumed to be such, can by
reasoning _or feeling_ collect from a revealed truth is, by the mere
fact of its recognition [_i.e._ by the supposed infallible guide],
admissible and authoritative."[112] This is indeed a wide door to open
for the reception of additions to the faith!

That St. Jude lays much stress on the fact that the sum total of the
Gospel, and not merely the elementary portions of it, have been once
for all committed to the Church, is shown, not only by the prominence
which he gives to the thought here, but by his repetition of it a few
lines later, when he begins the main portion of his Epistle: "I desire
to put you in remembrance, though ye know _all things once for all_"
(ver. 5). Any teaching of new doctrines is not only unnecessary, it is
also utterly inadmissible. And every Christian has his responsibilities
in this matter. He is to "contend earnestly" (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι), with
all the energy and watchfulness of an athlete in the arena, for the
preservation of this sacred deposit, lest it be lost or corrupted. And
the manner in which this earnest contest is to be maintained is not
left doubtful; not with the sword, as Beza rightly remarks, nor with
intemperate denunciation or indiscriminate severity, but with the
mighty influence of a holy life, built upon the foundation of our
"most holy faith" (vv. 20-23). It is in this way that lawful
development of Christian doctrine is secured; not by additions to what
was once for all delivered, but by a deeper and wider comprehension of
its inexhaustible contents. "If any man willeth to do His will, he
shall know of the doctrine."

NOTE.--In connexion with the subject treated above, chapter ix. of R.
H. Hutton's sketch of _Cardinal Newman_ (Methuen & Co., 1891) may be
profitably read.

[106] This is an assumption of De Wette, who in this followed
Sherlock, and was followed by Brückner. It is worth noting that the
Vulgate here is as ambiguous as the original Greek: "_Omnem
solicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis de communi vestra salute necesse
habui scribere vobis_," etc.

[107] Lightfoot, _Philippians_, note on i. 1.

[108] J. H. Newman, _An Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine_ (London, Toovey, 1845), p. 27.

[109] _Letter on Catholicism: Complete Works_ (Routledge, 1884), p. 346.

[110] _Der alte und der neue Glaube_ (Leipzig, 1872), pp. 13-91: see
especially pp. 90, 91.

[111] See Dr. Salmon's admirable work on _The Infallibility of the
Church_ (Murray, 1888), pp. 33-41.

[112] Archer Butler's _Letters on Romanism_, Revised by Rev. Charles
Hardwick (Macmillan, 1858), p. 91.




 CHAPTER XXXII.

 _THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.
 ITS RELATION TO 2 PETER._

 "For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of
 old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace
 of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord,
 Jesus Christ."--ST. JUDE 4.


We have here the _occasion_ of the letter stated very plainly.
St. Jude was meditating a letter on a more general subject, when the
grave peril created by the anti-Christian behaviour of the persons
condemned in the text constrained him to write at once on this more
urgent topic. An insidious invasion of the Christian Church has taken
place by those who have no right to a place within it, and who
endanger its peace and purity; and he dare not keep silence. The
strong must be exhorted to withstand the evil; the weak must be
rescued from it.

These invaders are in one respect like those who are condemned in the
Epistle to the Galatians, in another respect are very unlike them.
They are "false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily"
(ii. 4); but they have come in, not "to spy out our liberty which we
have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," but to
"turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness." The troublers of the
Galatian Church were endeavouring to _contract_ Christian liberty,
whereas these ungodly men were _straining_ it to the uttermost. Both
ended in destroying it. The one turned the "freedom with which Christ
set us free" into an intolerable yoke of Jewish bondage; the other
turned it into the polluting anarchy of heathen, or worse than
heathen, licence. How utterly alien these latter are from
Christianity, or even from Judaism, is indicated by St. Jude's pointed
introduction of the pronoun "our" in two clauses in this verse:
"turning the grace of _our_ God into lasciviousness, and denying _our_
only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jehovah is "_our_ God," not
theirs; they are "without God in the world." And Christ is "_our_ only
Master and Lord," but not theirs; they have denied and rejected Him,
choosing to "walk after their own lusts" (ver. 16), rather than to
"walk even as He walked" (1 John ii. 6). They have repudiated His easy
yoke, that they may follow their own bestial desires.

Who are these "ungodly men"? Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ III. ii.
_sub fin._) thinks that St. Jude is speaking prophetically of the
abominable doctrines of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates. Some modern
writers adopt this view, with the omission of the word "prophetically,"
and thus obtain an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. If
the writer knew the teaching of Carpocrates, he cannot have been Jude
the brother of James and the brother of the Lord. The date of
Carpocrates is too uncertain to make this a perfectly conclusive
argument, even if we admit the assumption that the writer of this
Epistle _is_ alluding to his teaching; for he is sometimes placed
before Cerinthus, who was contemporary with St. John. But it may be
allowed as probably correct that St. Jude was dead before Carpocrates
was known as a teacher of Antinomian Gnosticism. There is, however,
nothing whatever to show that it is to his teaching that St. Jude is
alluding. He says nothing whatever about the _teaching_ of these
"ungodly men," who perhaps were not teachers at all; still less does
he indicate that they belonged to those Gnostics who, from the
Oriental doctrine of the absolutely evil character of matter and
everything material, drew the practical conclusion that man's material
body may be made to undergo every kind of experience, no matter how
shameless, in order that the soul may gain knowledge; that the soul is
by enlightenment too pure, and the body by nature too impure, to be
capable of pollution; that filth cannot be defiled; and that pure gold
remains pure, however often it may be plunged in filthiness. No such
doctrine is hinted at by St. Jude. Dorner, therefore, goes beyond what
is written when he says that "the persons whom Jude opposes are not
merely such as have practically swerved from the right way; they are
also teachers of error" (_Doctrine of the Person of Christ_, Intr., p.
72, Eng. Tr.: T. and T. Clark, 1861). It is more reasonable, with De
Wette, Brückner, Meyer, Kühl, Reuss, Farrar, Salmon, and others to
regard these "ungodly men" as just what St. Jude describes them, and
no more; libertines, who ought never to have been admitted into the
Church at all; who maintained that Christians were free to live lives
of gross sensuality; and who, when rebuked by the elders or other
officers of the Church for their misconduct, not only refused to
submit, but reviled those who were set over them. They were "teachers
of error," but by their bad example, not by systematic preaching. They
"screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assumptions," because
they assumed that "having been called for freedom," they might "use
their freedom for an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. v. 13), not because
they assumed that they ought to disobey the commandments of the
Creator of the material universe. And for the same reason they may be
called "libertines" on principle. When St. Jude says that they "denied
our only Master[113] and Lord, Jesus Christ," he means that they
denied Him by their lives. It is altogether unreasonable to read into
this simple phrase, which is sufficiently explained by the context, a
dogmatic denial of the Incarnation. That the germs of Antinomian
Gnosticism are here indicated may be true enough; but they have not
yet developed into a body of doctrine. Still less have those who are
tainted by these germs developed into an heretical sect.[114]

It is with the verse before us that the marked resemblance between the
Epistle of St. Jude and the central portion of the Second Epistle of
St. Peter begins; and it continues down to ver. 18. In this short
letter of twenty-five verses, only the first three and last seven
verses, _i.e._ about a third of the whole, have no intimate relations
with 2 Peter. The last word has not yet been spoken upon this
perplexing subject. The present writer confesses that he remains still
uncertain as to the true relation between the two, and that he has
inclined sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other of the two
rival hypotheses. Thus much of what he wrote on the subject more than
ten years ago may be repeated now:--

"The similarity, both in substance and wording, is so great that only
two alternatives are possible--either one has borrowed from the other,
or both have borrowed from a common source. The second alternative is
rarely, if ever, advocated; it does not explain the facts very
satisfactorily, and critics are agreed in rejecting it. But here
agreement ends. On the further question, as to which writer is prior,
there is very great diversity of opinion. One thing, therefore, is
certain, that whichever writer has borrowed, he is no ordinary
borrower. He knows how to assimilate foreign material so as to make it
thoroughly his own. He remains original, even while he appropriates
the words and thoughts of another. He controls them, not they him.
Were this not so, there would be little doubt about the matter. In any
ordinary case of appropriation, if both the original and copy are
forthcoming, critics do not doubt long as to which is the original. It
is when the copy itself is a masterpiece, as in the case of Holbein's
Madonna, that criticism is baffled. Such would seem to be the case
here; and the present writer is free to confess his own
uncertainty."[115]

Other persons are able to write with much more confidence. Dean Mansel
says, "Some eminent modern critics have attempted, on the very
precarious evidence of style, to assign the priority in time of
writing to St. Jude; but there are two circumstances which appear to
me to prove most conclusively that St. Jude's Epistle was written
after that of St. Peter, and with express reference to it. The first
is, that the evils which St. Peter speaks of as partly future St. Jude
describes as now present. The one says, 'There _shall_ be false
teachers among you' (2 Peter ii. 1; the future tense being continued
through the two following verses); the other says, 'There _are_
certain men crept in unawares.' The other circumstance is still more
to the point. St. Peter, in his Second Epistle, has the remarkable
words, 'Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers
(ἐμπαῖκται) shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts'
(iii. 3). St. Jude has the same passage, repeated almost word for
word, but expressly introduced as a citation of Apostolic language:
'But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before
by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you,
In the last time there shall be mockers (ἐμπαῖκται), walking after
their own ungodly lusts' (vv. 17, 18). The use of the plural number
(τῶν ἀποστόλων) may be explained by supposing that the writer may
also have intended to allude to passages similar in import, though
differently expressed, in the writings of St. Paul (such as 1 Tim.
iv. 1, 2; 2 Tim. iii. 1), but the verbal coincidence can hardly be
satisfactorily explained, unless we suppose that St. Jude had
principally in his thoughts, and was actually citing the language of
St. Peter" (_The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries_,
Murray, 1875, pp. 69, 70). Hengstenberg puts forward the same
arguments, and considers the second to be decisive as to the priority
of 2 Peter.

Not less confident is Archdeacon Farrar that exactly the opposite
hypothesis is the right one. "After careful consideration and
comparison of the two documents it seems to my own mind _impossible to
doubt_ [the italics are Dr. Farrar's] that Jude was the earlier of the
two writers.... I must confess my inability to see how any one who
approaches the inquiry with no ready-made theories can fail to come to
the conclusion that the priority in this instance belongs to St. Jude.
It would have been impossible for such a burning and withering blast
of defiance and invective as his brief letter to have been composed on
principles of modification and addition. All the marks which indicate
the reflective treatment of an existing document are to be seen in the
Second Epistle of St. Peter. In every instance of variation we see the
reasons which influenced the later writer.... The notion that St. Jude
endeavoured to 'improve upon' St. Peter is, I say, a literary
impossibility; and if in some instances the phrases of St. Jude seem
more antithetical and striking, and his description clearer, I have
sufficiently accounted for the inferiority--if it be inferiority--of
St. Peter by the supposition that he was a man of more restrained
temperament; that he wrote under the influence of reminiscences and
impressions; and that he was warning against forms of evil with which
he had not come into so personal a contact" (_The Early Days of
Christianity_, Cassell and Co., 1882, i., pp. 196-203).

The main arguments in favour of the view that the Second Epistle of
St. Peter was used by St. Jude, besides those stated by Dean Mansel,
are the following:--

(1) If 2 Peter is genuine, it is more probable that St. Jude should
borrow from St. Peter than that the chief of the Apostles should
borrow from one who was not an Apostle at all.

If 2 Peter is not genuine, it is improbable that the forger would
borrow from a writing which from the first was regarded with
suspicion, because it quoted apocryphal literature.

(2) St. Jude tells us (ver. 3) that he wrote under pressure to meet a
grave emergency, and therefore he would be more likely to make large
use of suitable material ready to his hand, than one who was under no
such necessity.

The main arguments on the other side are these:--

(1) It is more probable that the chief portion of a short letter
should be used again with a great deal of additional matter, than that
one section only of a much longer letter should be used again with
very little additional matter.

(2) It is more probable that the writer of 2 Peter should omit what
seemed to be difficult or likely to give offence, than that St. Jude
should insert such things; _e.g._ "_clouds_ without water" (Jude 12)
is a contradiction in terms, and therefore is naturally corrected to
"_wells_ without water" (2 Pet. ii. 17); the particular way in which
the angels fell (Jude 6), the allusion to certain Levitical pollutions
(ver. 23), and the citations from apocryphal books (vv. 9, 14, 15) are
either entirely omitted by the writer of 2 Peter, or put in a way much
less likely to seem offensive (ii. 4, 11). And Jude 9 has been so
toned down by the writer of 2 Peter that without St. Jude's statement
respecting Michael and the devil we should scarcely understand 2 Peter
ii. 11.

Besides these points, there are two arguments which are used on _both_
sides of the question:--

(i) There are certain elements in St. Jude's Epistle of which the
writer of 2 Peter would probably have made use, had he seen them;
_e.g._ the ironical play upon the word "kept" in "the angels which
_kept_ not (μὴ τηρήσαντας) their own principality.... He hath _kept_
(τετήρηκεν) in everlasting bonds;" the telling antithesis in ver.
10, that what these sinners do not know, and cannot know, they abuse
by gross irreverence; and what they know, and cannot help knowing,
they abuse by gross licentiousness; and the metaphor of "wandering
stars" (ver. 13), which would fit the false teachers, who lead others
astray, in 2 Peter, much better than the ungodly men, who are not
leaders at all, in Jude. As the writer of 2 Peter makes no use of
these points, the inference is that he had never seen them.

But, on the other hand, there are certain elements in 2 Peter of which
St. Jude would probably have made use, had he seen them; _e.g._ the
destruction of "the world of the ungodly" by the Flood; the "eyes full
of an adulteress;" and the explanation of the "great swelling words"
as "promising them liberty," which would exactly have suited
St. Jude's purpose in condemning those who turned liberty into
license. As St. Jude makes no use of these points, the inference is
that he had not seen them.

(ii) St. Jude, as will be shown presently, groups nearly everything in
threes. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that wherever he can
make a threefold arrangement he does so. Is this artificial grouping a
mark of originality or not? Some would urge that it is the writer who
is using up another's material who would be likely to add this
fanciful arrangement, and that, therefore, St. Jude is the borrower.
Others would urge that such triplets would be just the things to be
overlooked or disregarded by the borrower, and that, therefore,
St. Jude is the original.

About the existence of the triplets in Jude, and their absence in
2 Peter, there can be no question, whatever view we may hold as to
their significance. They begin in the very first verse of our Epistle,
and continue to the last verse, although those at the close of the
letter are lost in the Authorized Version, owing to the fact that the
translators used a faulty Greek text. It will be worth while to run
through them. (1) Judas, a servant ... and brother. (2) To them that
are called, beloved, ... and kept. (3) Mercy unto you and peace and
love. (4) Ungodly men, turning, ... and denying. (5) Israelites,
angels, cities of the plain. (6) Defile, ... set at nought, ... and
rail. (7) Cain, Balaam, Korah. (8) These are.... These are.... These
are.... (9) They who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit.
(10) Building up yourselves, ... praying, ... looking for the mercy,
(11) On some have mercy; ... and some save; ... and on some have mercy
with fear. (12) Before all time, and now, and for evermore.

Before parting with this verse it will be well to put readers on their
guard against a misinterpretation of the phrase, "They who were of old
set forth unto this condemnation;" a misinterpretation all the more
likely to be made by those who use the Authorized Version, which has,
"Who were before of old _ordained_ to this condemnation." The text is
a favourite one with Calvinists; but when rightly translated and
understood, it gives no support to extreme predestinarian theories.
When literally rendered it runs, "Who have been of old _written down
beforehand_ for this _sentence_;" or possibly, "Who have been written
_up_ beforehand;" for the metaphor may be borrowed from the custom of
posting up the names of those who had to appear before the court for
trial. Be this as it may, "of old" (πάλαι) cannot refer to the
eternal counsel and decree of Almighty God, but to something in human
history, something remote from St. Jude's own day, but in time, and
not in eternity. Perhaps some of the warnings and denunciations in the
prophets of the Old Testament or in the _Book of Enoch_ are in his
mind. "Condemnation" is a justifiable rendering of the Greek word
(κρίμα), because it is manifest from the context that the sentence
or judgment intended is one of condemnation, and not of acquittal; but
this word when coupled with "ordained" is likely to be grievously
misunderstood. "Ordained to condemnation" suggests with fatal facility
"predestined to damnation"--a doctrine which has perhaps been a more
fruitful cause of the rejection of Christianity than all the doctrines
included in the creeds.

Probably in all ages of the Church there have been men such as
St. Jude here describes--nominal members of the Church who are nothing
but a scandal to it, and professing Christians whose whole life is one
flagrant denial of Christ. Such persons certainly trouble Christendom
now. By their luxury and licentiousness they set an evil example and
create a pestilential moral atmosphere. They practise no self-control,
and sneer at self-denial in others. They reject all Christian
discipline, and mock at those who endeavour to maintain it. And
sometimes they are not at once recognized in their true character.
They are plausible and amusing, obviously not strict, but not
obviously scandalous in their manner of life. It is then that such men
become specially dangerous. Such may have been the case in the
Churches which St. Jude has in mind. Therefore he strips off all this
specious disguise, and describes these profligate scoffers according
to their true characters. Moreover, we must remember that there were
some, and perhaps many, who, like Simon Magus (Acts viii. 13),
accepted baptism without any real appreciation of the meaning of
Christianity, and who remained either Jews or heathen at heart, long
after they had enrolled themselves as Christians. Where dangerous
material of this kind abounded, it was necessary to put the faithful
on their guard about the danger; and hence the strength and vehemence
of St. Jude's language. A sharp, clear statement of the evil was
necessary to put the weak and the unwary on their guard against a
peril to which they might easily succumb, before they were fully aware
of its existence. We all of us need such warnings still, not merely to
form a truer estimate of the nature and tendency of certain forms of
evil, and thus keep on our guard against courting needless temptation,
but also to preserve us from becoming in our own persons, through
manifest self-indulgence and carelessness of life, a snare and a
stumbling-block to our brethren.

NOTE.--On the question as to which of the two Epistles is prior, the
opinion of scholars has been greatly divided; but a comparison of the
following lists will show that among more recent critics the decision
is commonly in favour of the priority of our Epistle:--

_For the priority of 2 Peter_: Bauer, Beausobre, Benson, Bloomfield,
Dahl, Dietlein, Dodwell, Estius, Fronmüller, Hänlein, Hengstenberg,
Heydenreich, Hofmann, Lange, Lenfant, Lumby, Luthart, Luther, Mansel,
Michaelis, Mill, Œcumenius, Pott, Schaff, Schmid, Schoff, Schulze,
Semler, Steinfass, Stier, Stolz, Storr, Thiersch, Wetstein, Wolf,
Wordsworth, Zachariæ, and others.

_For the priority of St. Jude_: Alford, Angus, Arnaud, Bleek,
Brückner, Caffin, Credner, Davidson, De Wette, Eichhorn, Ewald, F. W.
Farrar, Guerike, Hatch, Herder, Hilgenfeld, Hug, Huther, Kühl, Kurz,
Mayerhoff, Neander, Plumptre, Reuss, Salmon, Schenkel, Sieffert,
Thorold, Weiss, Wiesinger, and others. Plumptre makes the remarkable
suggestion that St. Jude may have written _both_ letters. He first
wrote his own Epistle, then was sent with it to St. Peter by
St. James, and finally acted as St. Peter's amanuensis in writing
2 Peter (_Cambridge Bible for Schools, Epistle of St. Peter and
St. Jude_, 1879, pp. 79, 80, 88, 89).

On this point also Dr. Döllinger changed his mind (see p. 31). In _The
First Age of the Church_ (pp. 93, 108, Eng. Tr., 2nd ed.) he
maintained the priority of 2 Peter. June 22nd, 1879, he wrote to me,
"Its priority to the Epistle of Jude I _cannot_ believe" (_kann ich
gar nicht glauben_).

[113] The insertion of the word "God" into the authorities followed in
the Authorized Version is one of the few instances in which it is
possible that the Greek text of the N.T. has been corrupted in the
interests of orthodoxy.

[114] See the author's _Epistles of St. John_ in the _Cambridge Greek
Testament_, pp. xx-xxix and 160-162.

[115] _N.T. Commentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott
(Cassell and Co. 1879), iii., p. 506.




 CHAPTER XXXIII.

 _DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION.
 THREE PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN._

 "Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things
 once for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people out of the
 land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not. And
 angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper
 habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the
 judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities
 about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to
 fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an
 example, suffering the punishment of eternal
 fire."--ST. JUDE 5-7.


With these three verses the main portion of the Epistle begins, the
first three verses being introductory. These put before us three
instances of Divine vengeance upon those who were guilty of grievous
sin--the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness, the impure angels,
and the inhabitants of the cities of the plain; and in the three
verses which follow (8-10) St. Jude points out the similarity between
the offences of these wicked persons and the offences of the
libertines who are provoking God to execute similar vengeance upon
them. It is quite possible that we have here the explanation of the
words, "Who were of old set forth unto this condemnation" (ver. 4).
The doom of these impious profligates has long since been written in
the doom of those who sinned in a similar manner.

The Greek text of the opening verse exhibits a great variety of
readings, and one may suspect with Westcott and Hort that there has
been some primitive error, and that none of the existing readings are
correct. Of the points in which they differ from one another three
require notice:--

(1) In the words, "The Lord, having saved a people out of the land of
Egypt," the authorities vary between "the Lord" (with or without the
article), "God," and "Jesus." This last is far the best attested (AB,
the best cursives, the Vulgate, both Egyptian Versions, both Ethiopic,
the margin of the Armenian, and several Fathers); but the internal
evidence against it is immense. Nowhere else in Scripture is Jesus
said to be the Author of anything which took place before the
Incarnation. Had St. Jude written "Christ," we might have compared
"the rock was Christ" (1 Cor. x. 4). But the general adoption of the
reading "Jesus" shows how completely in Christian thought and language
the Man Jesus had become identified with the Eternal Son. If "Lord" be
correct (κύριος, without the article), it should be understood as
meaning Jehovah; and therefore "God," though not likely to be right as
the reading, is right as an interpretation. In the Latin translation
of the _Hypotyposeis_ of Clement of Alexandria we have these two
readings combined, _Dominus Deus_, and the Greek of Didymus has "Lord
Jesus" combined. Possibly all three readings are insertions, and
should be omitted, the true text being simply, "He who saved a people
out of the land of Egypt" (ὁ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας).[116]

(2) In the words, "Though ye know all things once for all," some
authorities, which were followed by the translators of 1611, have
"this" for "all things," while one authority makes "all" to be
masculine instead of neuter (πάντας for πάντα). This last _may_ be
correct, for the final letter of the masculine might easily be lost
(especially in front of ὅτι); and in that case the meaning would be,
"though ye all know it," _i.e._, "know what I am going to point out."
There is a similar confusion of reading in 1 John ii. 20, where for
"Ye know all things" (οἴδατε πάντα) we should perhaps read, "Ye all
know" (οἴδατε πάντες). But here the masculine has too little support
to be adopted.

(3) The Sinaitic MS. transposes the "once" or "once for all" (ἅπαξ)
from "know" to "saved," and makes it answer to the "afterwards," or
"the second time" (τὸ δεύτερον) which follows. In this it is supported
by the Armenian Version and a single cursive of the fourteenth
century.[117] If it were adopted, the sentence would run thus: "Now I
desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things, how that
the Lord, having _once_ saved a people out of the land of Egypt,
_afterwards_ destroyed them that believed not." The correspondence
between "once" and "afterwards"--"having _a single time_ saved, ...
_the second time_ He destroyed"--is at first sight attractive; but it
is precisely this superficial attractiveness which has caused the
corruption of the text. A recent writer pleads for its adoption, but
his reasons are not convincing.[118] The external evidence against the
proposed transposition is enormous; and there is no strong internal
evidence against the best-attested text (as there is against the
reading "Jesus") to turn the scale. "Though ye know all this _once for
all_" makes excellent sense; and so also does "He who saved a people
out of Egypt, _the second time_ (viz. in the wilderness) destroyed
them that believed not."

This collection of various readings, out of which it is impossible to
select the true text with anything like certainty, is worth
remembering in considering the theory of _verbal_ inspiration. If
every word that St. Jude wrote was supernaturally dictated, why has
not every word been supernaturally preserved? It is manifest that God
has not, either miraculously or in any other way, secured that the
exact words written by St. Jude should come down to us without
alteration. The alterations are so ancient, so widely diffused, and so
numerous, that we are unable to decide what St. Jude's exact words
were. We are not even certain that among the numerous variations we
have got his exact words. This is not a common case. The usual
problem, when various readings occur, is to select the right reading
out of several that have been handed down to us, there being no reason
to doubt that one of them is the original reading of the autograph.
But there are a few passages, and this is one of them, where one may
reasonably doubt whether the original reading has not been altogether
lost (Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32 [comp. Heb. xi. 4]; xix. 40; xxvi. 28;
Rom. xv. 32; 1 Cor. xii. 2; Col. ii. 18, 23; Heb. iv. 2; x. 1; 1 Tim.
vi. 7; 2 Tim. i. 13; 2 Peter iii. 10, 12; Jude 22, 23). This result
might easily be produced through an error in the earliest copies made
from the original document, or through a slip made by the amanuensis
who wrote the original document. There are minds to which this
supposition is very repugnant; and there are writers who assure us
that in Biblical criticism "_conjectural emendation_ must never be
resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty," or that
"conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field." But if
the whole of an Apostolic Epistle may have been lost (1 Cor. v. 9;
3 John 9), why may not a word or two of an extant Epistle have been
lost? And is it quite natural that there should sometimes be a doubt
as to _which_ of several existing readings is the original, and yet
quite inconceivable that there should ever be a doubt as to whether
_any_ of them is original? In either case we are left in uncertainty
as to the precise words which are inspired; and we are thus confronted
with the perplexing result that the Almighty has specially guided a
writer to use certain words and phrases, to the exclusion of all
others, and yet from very early times has, in not a few cases, allowed
Christians to be in doubt as to what these exact words and phrases
are. Have we any right to assume that there was this special Divine
care to produce a particular wording, when it is quite manifest that
there has not been special Divine care to preserve a particular
wording?

The theory of verbal inspiration imports unnecessary and insuperable
difficulties into the already sufficiently difficult problem as to the
properties of inspired writings. It maintains that "the line can never
rationally be drawn between the thoughts and words of Scripture;"
which means that the only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew
and Greek wording which was used by the authors of the different books
in the Bible. Consequently all who cannot read these are cut off from
the inspired Word; for the inspired thoughts are, according to this
theory, inseparably bound up with the original form of words. But if
it is the thought, and not the wording, that is inspired, then the
inspired thought may be as adequately expressed in English or German
as in Hebrew or Greek. It is the inspired thought, no matter in what
language expressed, which comes home to the hearts and consciences of
men, and convinces them that what is thus brought to them by a human
instrument is indeed in its origin and in its power Divine. "Never
_man_ thus spake" was said, not of the choice language that was used,
but of the meaning which the language conveyed.

In the passage before us there are several points which call for
attention, most of which are independent of the differences of reading.

It may be doubted whether the participle (εἰδότας) is rightly rendered
"_though_ ye know all things once for all." It makes good, and perhaps
better sense to understand it in the equally possible signification of
"_because_ ye know all things once for all." Their being already in
full possession of a knowledge of Old Testament history is the
reason why St. Jude need do no more than remind them of one or two
particulars which throw a terrible light upon the position of those
whose conduct is being discussed. That "once" here does not mean
"formerly," as the Authorized Version takes it, "though ye _once knew_
this," is manifest to every one who knows the meaning of the participle
and adverb here used (εἰδότας ἅπαξ). Nor is there much doubt that both
here and in ver. 3 it does mean "once for all." This Greek adverb,
like its Latin equivalent _semel_, is sometimes "used of what is so
done as to be of perpetual validity and never need repetition." It is
twice so used in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "For as touching those
who were _once_ enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift" (vi. 4);
_i.e._ once for all enlightened, so that no second enlightenment is
possible. And again, "Because the worshippers, having been _once_
cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins" (x. 2). So also
in 1 Peter: "Because Christ also died for sins _once_" (iii. 18). The
meaning is similar in both the passages here (vv. 3 and 5). The Gospel
was once for all delivered by the Apostles to the Church; for there
can be no second Gospel. And this Gospel Christians receive and know
once for all.

Doubt has been raised as to the event or events to which St. Jude
refers in the words "afterward destroyed them that believed not."
Hofmann, Schott, and others, adopting the best-attested reading,
"_Jesus_, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward
destroyed them that believed not," interpret the latter clause of the
destruction of Jerusalem or of the overthrow of the Jewish nation. It
is felt that this makes a very unnatural contrast with the deliverance
of Israel from Pharaoh by the hand of Moses, and therefore "saved a
people out of the land of Egypt" has to be interpreted to mean "the
redemption from the bondage-house of the Law and of sin wrought in
Israel and for Israel by Christ's act of salvation" (Schott, Erlangen,
1863, p. 225). This is very forced and improbable. Let us hold by
Hooker's "most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture,
that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the
letter is commonly the worst" (_Eccl. Pol._ V. lix. 2). The literal
construction of "saved a people out of the land of Egypt" will
certainly stand here, and the words must be understood of the passage
of the Red Sea and all that accompanied that event. This is the clause
of which the meaning is plain, and it must be the interpreter of the
clause of which the meaning is less plain: to work backwards from the
latter is singularly unreasonable. The "saving" being understood of
the deliverance of the Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, the
"destroying" is most naturally understood of the overthrow of these
same Israelites in the wilderness; not of any one catastrophe, such as
followed the matter of Korah (Num. xvi. 49) or of Baal-peor (xxv.),
but of the gradual destruction, during the forty years of wandering,
of the rebellious and unbelieving, "whose carcases fell in the
wilderness. And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His
rest, but to them that were disobedient? And we see that they were not
able to enter in _because of unbelief_" (Heb. iii. 17-19). It is quite
unnecessary to add to this, with Fronmüller, the Babylonish captivity,
as if "afterward" or "the second time" (τὸ δεύτερον) referred to _two
destructions_. It refers to two Divine acts--one of mercy, and a
second of judgment.

"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their
proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds." This is
St. Jude's second instance of God's vengeance upon gross sin, and this
and the next are common to both Epistles. For the destruction of the
unbelieving Israelites 2 Peter has the Deluge. The Revised Version has
several improvements here. It substitutes "principality" for "first
estate," in harmony with other passages, where the same word occurs
(Rom. viii. 38; Eph. iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16; ii. 10, 15), and
inserts "own"--"their _own_ principality" (τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν); thereby
marking the difference between "own" and "proper"--"their _proper_
habitation" (τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον). Above all, it preserves St. Jude's
irony in the double use of the word "kept" (τηρεῖν): "angels which
_kept_ not their own principality.... He hath _kept_ in everlasting
bonds;" which is destroyed in the Authorized Version by the
substitution of "reserved" for the second "kept." The alteration of
"chains" into "bonds" is of less moment; but it is worth while marking
the difference between two Greek words (ἅλυσις and δεσμός), both of
which are frequent in the New Testament, and of which the former is
always used in a literal sense (Mark v. 3, 4; Luke viii. 29; Acts
xii. 6, 7; etc.), and the other sometimes literally (Luke viii. 29;
Acts xvi. 26; xxiii. 29; etc.), and sometimes metaphorically (Mark
vii. 35; Luke xiii. 16; Philem. 13). It is the latter which is used
here.

It may be regarded as certain that this passage does not refer to the
original rebellion of the angels, and their fall from being heavenly
powers to being spirits of evil and of darkness. Nor is it a _direct_
reference to the Rabbinic interpretation of "the sons of God saw the
daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all
that they chose" (Gen. vi. 2, where the best texts of the Septuagint
have "angels of God" for "sons of God"). Much more probably it is a
reference to a topic which is very prominent in the _Book of Enoch_,
which, however, in this particular is based upon the common
interpretation of the passage in Genesis. A discussion of this most
interesting and perplexing writing is reserved for a later chapter. At
present it suffices to say that the work is a composite one, written
at different times and by different authors, and that the allusions to
it here, and the quotation from it in vv. 14 and 15, are from the
first portion of the _Book of Enoch_ (chapters i.-xxxvi.), which,
together with the last portion (chapters lxxii.-cv.), may safely be
considered as the original writing, and undoubtedly pre-Christian.
Whether any of the book was composed in the Christian era is doubtful,
and that any of it was written by a Christian is very doubtful indeed.
Hofmann, Philippi, and Weisse have not succeeded in persuading many
people that the whole work is of Christian origin. The portion of
which St. Jude makes use may, with a good deal of probability, be
assigned to the latter part of the second century before Christ. A
sketch of the section respecting the sin of the angels will throw much
light on the passage before us. A portion of it had long been known
through two considerable extracts, which the Byzantine writer Georgius
Syncellus (_c._ A.D. 800) makes from it in his _Chronographia_ (pp.
20-23 and 40-42, Dindorf's ed., Bonn, 1829). The quotation in our
Epistle and those made by Syncellus constituted all that was known of
the _Book of Enoch_ in Europe until 1773, when the English traveller
Bruce brought home three MSS. of an Ethiopic version of the whole
which was still extant in the Abyssinian Church.

The section about the sin of the angels and their punishment
(vii.-xxxvi.) begins very abruptly after a short introduction
(i.-vi.), in which Enoch blesses the righteous, and states that he
received a revelation from the angels in heaven. "And it came to pass,
when the sons of men had multiplied, that daughters were born to them,
very beautiful. And the angels, the sons of heaven, desired them, and
were led astray after them, and said to one another, Let us choose for
ourselves wives of the daughters of the men of the earth." Two hundred
of them then made a conspiracy, and went down to the earth, and begat
an offspring of giants. They imparted a knowledge of sorcery and many
baneful arts; and the corruption thus diffused, and the voracity and
violence of their offspring, produced the evils which preceded the
Deluge. Then the sinful angels are sentenced by the Almighty, and
Enoch is commissioned to make the sentence known to them. "Then the
Lord said to me, Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go tell the watchers
of heaven, _who have deserted the lofty sky, and their holy
everlasting station_, who have been polluted with women, ... that on
earth they shall never obtain peace and remission of sin." The fallen
angels persuade Enoch to intercede for them; but his intercession is
not heard, and he is told to repeat the sentence which has been
pronounced upon them. The following particulars of their punishment
are of interest. Azâzêl (comp. Lev. xvi. 26, R.V.), one of the
ringleaders, is to be _bound hand and foot_, thrown into a pit in the
wilderness, and _covered with darkness_; there he is to remain, with
his face covered, _till the great day of judgment_, when he is to be
cast into the fire. The others, after they have seen their offspring
kill one another in mutual slaughter, are to be _bound for seventy
generations underneath the earth, till the day of their judgment_,
when they shall be thrown into the lowest depths of the fire, and be
_shut up for ever_ (x. 6-9, 15, 16). "Judgment has been passed upon
you: your prayer shall not be granted you. From henceforth never shall
you ascend to heaven. He hath said that on the earth _He will bind
you, as long as the world endures_" (xiv. 2). And Enoch is afterwards
shown their punishment in a vision. "These are those of the stars
which have transgressed the commandment of the most high God, and _are
here bound, until the infinite number of the days of their crimes be
completed_.... Why art thou alarmed and amazed at this terrific place,
at the sight of this place of suffering? This is _the prison of the
angels; and here are they kept for ever_" (xxi. 3, 6).

It is specially worthy of remark that it is in these older portions of
the _Book of Enoch_ that we meet for the first time in Jewish
literature with the distinct conception of a general judgment. The
idea is very frequent, and is expressed in a great variety of ways.
Thus, what St. Jude calls "the Judgment of the Great Day" (κρίσιν
μεγάλης ἡμέρας), a phrase which occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament, is called in the _Book of Enoch_ "the Great Day of
Judgment" (x. 9), "the Day of the Great Judgment" (xciii. 8;
xcvii. 15; civ. 3), "the Day of the Great Trouble" (xcix. 5), "the
Great Day" (xvi. 2); "the Great Judgment" (xxii. 5), "the General
Judgment" (xxii. 9).[119] St. Jude of course need not have derived
this idea from the _Book of Enoch_; but the fact that it is so very
frequent there, especially in connexion with the sin of the impure
angels, may have influenced him in writing the passage before us. At
any rate all these numerous details will not leave us in much doubt as
to the origin of St. Jude's statement, "angels which kept not their
own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in
everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
It comes either directly from the _Book of Enoch_, or from a source of
which both the writer of the book and St. Jude make use.

It was "in like manner with these" angels that the inhabitants of
Sodom and Gomorrah sinned, going astray after unlawful and unnatural
indulgences; and "in like manner with these" angels, they also "are
set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire."
The meaning is not quite clear, but apparently it is this, that the
sinful angels are in prison awaiting the day of judgment, when they
will be cast into the lake of fire; and that the destruction of the
cities of the plain by fire, and their perpetual submersion, are an
example of the eternal fire in which the angels will be submerged.
Perhaps there is also the idea that under the Dead Sea volcanic fires
are burning. It is quite possible to take "of eternal fire" after
"example" instead of after "punishment;" and this rendering makes the
statement more in accordance with the actual facts: "are set forth as
an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment." But the two last
words come in rather awkwardly at the end of the sentence, and most
commentators decide against this construction (comp. 3 Macc. ii. 5).

The three cases exhibit, not a climax, but great diversity, as regards
persons, sin, and punishment. We have both Jews and Gentiles, and
between them beings superior to both. The Israelites by unbelief
rejected their promised home, and perished slowly in the wilderness.
The angels left their proper home, sinned grossly, and are in
banishment and in prison, awaiting still worse punishment. The men of
Sodom and Gomorrah sinned grossly in their home, and both they and it
were suddenly, horribly, and irrevocably destroyed. This great
diversity gives point to the moral. No matter who may be the sinners,
or what the circumstances of the sin, outrageous offences, such as
impurity and rebellion, are certain of Divine chastisement.

If fallen angels are evil spirits actively compassing the ruin of
souls, how can fallen angels be "kept in everlasting bonds unto the
judgment of the great day"? More than one answer might be given to
this question, but the reserve of Scripture on the subject seems to
warn us from unprofitable speculation. Even without Scripture the
reality of spiritual powers of evil may be inferred from their
effects. Scripture seems to tell us that some of these powers are
personal, and some not, that some are more free than others, and that
all shall be defeated at last. That is enough for our comfort,
warning, and assurance. It consoles us to know that much of the evil
within us is no part of ourselves, but comes from without. It makes us
wary to know that such powers are contending against us. It gives us
confidence to know that even Satan and his hosts can be overcome by
those who resist steadfast in the faith.[120]

[116] W. & H. point out

        that ΟΤΙΟ  = ὅτι ὁ might easily be corrupted
        into ΟΙΤΙ̅Ϲ̅ = ὅτι ἰησοῦς,
     or into ΟΤΙΚ̅Ϲ̅ = ὅτι κύριος.

(vol. ii., p. 106. See also Scrivener, 3rd ed., p. 656).

[117] The Latin translation of Clement of Alexandria has the same
reading: "_Quoniam Dominus Deus semel populum de terra Ægypti liberans
deinceps eos, qui non crediderunt, perdidit_."

[118] W. S. Wood, _Problems in the N.T._ (Rivingtons, 1890), pp.
161-164.

[119] Stanton, _The Jewish and the Christian Messiah_ (T. and T.
Clark, 1886), pp. 139, 140. He seems, however, to be mistaken in
saying that "the Judge is not the Messiah," but Jehovah. As in
Scripture, _both_ are represented as judging. "Then the Lord of the
spirits made to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect One, who
shall judge all the works of the holy.... And when He shall lift up
His countenance to judge their secret way in the word of the Name of
the Lord of spirits," etc. (lx. 10-11. Comp. John v. 22).

[120] On the fall of the angels see Hooker, _Eccl. Pol._ I. iv. 3, and
V. Appendix i. 28. For a modern and poetical rendering of what is
stated in Gen. vi. 1, 2, see Byron, _Heaven and Earth: a Mystery_.




 CHAPTER XXXIV.

 _RAILING AT DIGNITIES. "THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES."
 ST. JUDE'S USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE._

 "Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh,
 and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities. But Michael the
 archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body
 of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment,[121] but
 said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these rail at whatsoever things they
 know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures
 without reason, in these things are they destroyed. Woe unto them!
 for they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of
 Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah."--ST. JUDE
 8-12.


St. Jude having given three terrible examples of the punishment of
gross sin in Jews, Gentiles, and angels, proceeds to apply these
instances to the libertines who in his own day, by their scandalous
conduct as Christians, were provoking God to punish them in like
manner; and the threefold description of their conduct here given
seems to refer to the three instances just given, which are now taken
in reverse order. Like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, these ungodly
libertines "defile the flesh;" like the "angels which kept not their
own principality," they "set at nought dominion;" and like the
unbelieving and rebellious Israelites in the wilderness, they "rail at
dignities." In all three particulars they show themselves as
"dreamers" (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι). They are like men who say and do
monstrous things in their sleep. They are deadened to all sense of
decency and duty, "dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber" (Isa.
lvi. 10, where the same word that we have here is used in the LXX.).
They are sunk in the torpor of sin (Rom. xiii. 11). The Revisers have
done rightly in omitting the epithet "filthy," in adding the word
"also," and in substituting "in their dreamings" for "dreamers." The
participle represented by "in their dreamings" does not belong to
"defile the flesh" exclusively, but to the other two clauses as well;
so that "filthy" is not even correct as an interpretation: it is quite
unjustifiable as a rendering. There is no reason for suspecting that
certain Levitical pollutions are indicated. Seeing that "in their
dreamings" they "set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities,"
dreaming must not be understood of actual sleep. Moreover, St. Jude
does not say "defile _their_ flesh," but "defile the flesh" (σάρκα
μιαίνουσι), which includes more than their own bodies. He perhaps
means that they pollute human nature, or even the whole animal world.

Like the men of Sodom, these profligates "defile the flesh." Like the
angels who sold their birthright for base indulgences, they "set at
nought dominion." But it is by no means easy to determine what this
"dominion" or "lordship" (κυριότητα) signifies. Calvin and others
interpret this and "dignities" or "glories" (δόξας) of the civil
power: "There is a contrast to be noticed, when he says that they
defiled or polluted the flesh, that is, that they degraded what was
less excellent, and that yet they despised as disgraceful what is
deemed especially excellent among mankind. It appears from the second
clause that they were seditious men, who sought anarchy, that, being
loosed from the fear of the laws, they might sin more freely. But
these two things are nearly always connected, that they who abandon
themselves to iniquity do also wish to abolish all order. Though,
indeed, their chief object is to be free from every yoke, it yet
appears from the words of Jude that they were wont to speak insolently
and reproachfully of magistrates, like the fanatics of the present
day, who not only grumble because they are restrained by the authority
of magistrates, but furiously declaim against all government, and say
that the power of the sword is profane and opposed to godliness; in
short, they superciliously reject from the Church of God all kings and
all magistrates. 'Dignities,' or 'glories,' are orders or ranks
eminent in power or honour" (Calvin's _Commentaries on the Catholic
Epistles_, Eng. Tr., Edinburgh, 1855, p. 438). But if earthly rulers
of any kind are meant by "dominion" and "dignities," it is more
probable that St. Jude is thinking of ecclesiastical officers; in
which case the meaning would be that these libertines set Church
discipline at defiance, and reviled the presbyters or bishops who
rebuked them for their evil conduct.

It is, however, more probable that at least "dominion," if not
"dignities," refers to unseen and supernatural powers. We must look
backwards to ver. 4, and forwards to ver. 10, for a key to the
interpretation. These profligates "turn the grace of God into
lasciviousness," and thus "defile the flesh;" and they "deny our only
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," and thus "set at nought lordship."
Again, "what they understand naturally, like the creatures without
reason, in these things are they destroyed," _i.e._ they ruin
themselves, body and soul, by their carnal indulgences; while "they
rail at whatsoever things they know not," _i.e._ they speak with
flippant irreverence respecting the invisible world, reviling angels,
and perhaps mocking at Satan. We may, therefore, with some hesitation,
but with a fair amount of reason, interpret "dominion," or "lordship,"
of Christ or of God, and "dignities," or "glories," of angels,
remembering that either or both of these may include Christ's
ministers and messengers on earth. One of the ways in which these
ungodly men denied Christ in their lives was by their contemptuous
disregard of the teaching of His Apostles.[122]

It is quite possible that in this particular also St. Jude is under
the influence of the _Book of Enoch_. In it we read, "Ye fulfil not
the commandments of the Lord; but ye transgress and _calumniate
greatness_" (vi. 4); and again, "All who _utter with their mouths
unbecoming language against God_, and _speak harsh things of His
glory_, here they shall be collected" (xxvi. 2); and again, "My eyes
beheld all the sinners, who _denied the Lord of glory_" (xli. 1). And
with this last expression should be compared, "_The splendour of the
Godhead_ shall illuminate them" (i. 8). But of course it does not
follow that because St. Jude partly reproduces the language of this
writer, therefore he uses it with precisely the same meaning.

"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed
about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing
judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." The meaning of this
illustration is obvious. The profane libertines allow themselves to
speak of "dignities" in a way which even an archangel did not venture
to adopt in rebuking Satan. It is a very strong argument _à fortiori_.
Consequently, the fact that it was an evil angel against whom Michael
did not dare to rail by no means proves that it was evil angels
against which the libertines did dare to rail. Rather the contrary may
be inferred. They use language of good angels which Michael would not
use of a bad one. That "dignities," or "glories," may include the
fallen angels or evil spirits is perhaps possible; that it refers to
them exclusively is very improbable. The word itself is against this;
for "glories" is certainly a strange name to give to devils.

But a more interesting question lies before us as to the source from
which St. Jude derived the story about Michael the archangel
contending with the devil about the body of Moses. It is as
unreasonable to suppose that he received a special revelation on the
subject as to suppose that St. Paul received a special revelation
respecting the names of the Egyptian magicians (see on 2 Tim. iii. 8
in this series, _Pastoral Epistles_, pp. 379-83). St. Jude refers to
the incident as something quite familiar to his readers; and this
could hardly have been the case if it had been specially revealed to
himself. Lardner supposes that the reference is to Zech. ii. 1, 2.
But, excepting that the words, "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan," occur
there, the difference between the two incidents is immense. Neither
Michael nor the body of Moses is mentioned in Zechariah. The cause of
Satan's hostility is the consecration of Joshua the high priest. And
it is the Lord, and not the angel, who rebukes the evil one. These
differences are conclusive; they leave just the features which need
explanation still unexplained. We may safely decide that St. Jude is
not alluding to anything contained in the Bible. More probably he is
referring to some well-known Jewish story respecting the death and
burial of Moses--in other words, to apocryphal literature.

"So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab,
according to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in the valley in
the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his
sepulchre unto this day" (Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6). These words excited the
curiosity of the Jews; and as history told them nothing beyond the
statement in Deuteronomy, they fell back upon imagination as a
substitute, and the mysterious words of Scripture became a centre
round which a series of legends in process of time clustered. The
_Targum of Jonathan_ on the passage says that the grave of Moses was
entrusted to the care of Michael the archangel. The _Midrash_ on the
same states that Sammael, chief of the evil spirits, was impatient for
the death of Moses. "And he said, When will the longed-for moment come
when Michael shall weep and I shall laugh? And at last the time came
when Michael came to Sammael and said: Ah! cursed one! shall I weep
while thou laughest? and he made answer in the words of Micah
(vii. 8), Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall
arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me." The
_Midrash_ also contains another legend, in which the sin of the impure
angels is mentioned in connexion with the death of Moses. The soul of
Moses prays that it may not be taken from the body: "Lord of the
world, the angels Asa and Asael lusted after daughters of men; but
Moses, from the day that Thou appearedst unto him in the bush, led a
life of perpetual continence;" the plea being that from so pure a body
the soul need not depart. Both Gabriel and Michael shrink from
bringing the soul, and Sammael failed to obtain it. "And Moses prayed,
Lord of the world, give not my soul over to the angel of death. And
there came a voice from heaven, Fear not, Moses; I will provide for
thy burial. And Moses stood up and sanctified himself as do the
Seraphim, and the Most High came down from heaven, and the three chief
angels with Him. Michael prepared the bier, and Gabriel spread out the
winding-sheet.... And the Most High kissed him, and through that kiss
took his soul to Himself" (Plumptre _in loco_).

These legends bring us a little nearer to the illustration used by
St. Jude, for they bring Michael and the evil spirit into connexion
with what is related respecting the death and burial of Moses. But the
contest between Michael and Satan respecting the body is not there.
Origen tells us that this comes from an apocryphal book called _The
Assumption_ or _The Ascension_ (ἀνάληψις or ἀνάβασις) _of Moses_:
"In Genesis the serpent is described as having seduced Eve, regarding
whom, in _The Assumption of Moses_ (a little treatise of which the
Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael,
when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that
the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of the
transgression of Adam and Eve" (_De Princip._ III. ii. _sub init._).
The book was fairly well known in the early Church. Clement of
Alexandria quotes it (_Strom._ VI. xv. _sub fin._); and in the Latin
translation of the _Hypotyposeis_ his note on Jude 9 is "_Hic
confirmat Assumptionem Moysis_." Didymus of Alexandria says the same
as Origen about St. Jude's use of it, and censures those who made this
an objection to the Epistle of Jude (_In Epist. Judæ enarratio in
Gallandi Biblioth. Patr._ VI. 307). Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, one of
Augustine's early friends (_Confess._ IX. viii. 17; xii. 31), in
writing to him, speaks of it as the _Mysteries (Secreta) of Moses_,
and calls it a writing devoid of authority (Aug. _Ep._ clviii. 6). It
was known in the second half of the fifth century to Gelasius of
Cyzicus, and in the second half of the eighth to Nicephorus of
Constantinople, who, in his _Stichometria Sacrorum Librorum_, tells us
that it was about as long as the Apocalypse of St. John. But from that
time we hear no more of it until 1861, when Ceriani published about a
third of it from a palimpsest in the Ambrosian Library at Milan
(_Monumenta Sacra et Prof._ I. i., p. 55). This fragment contains the
passage quoted by Gelasius, but most tantalizingly comes to an end
before the death of Moses, so that we are still without the passage
about the contest between Michael and the devil respecting his body.
Nevertheless, we have no reason for doubting the statements of Origen
and of Didymus that the book contained this incident, and that this is
the source of the illustration used by St. Jude. Such evidence as we
have confirms the statements, and there is no evidence on the other
side. We know that there were legends connecting Michael and the evil
one with the death of Moses. We know that _The Assumption of Moses_
contained similar material. Above all, we know that the incident
mentioned by St. Jude is not in the canonical Scriptures, and
therefore must have come from some apocryphal source, and that
elsewhere in his Epistle St. Jude makes use of apocryphal literature.
We are not, therefore, creating a difficulty by adopting the all but
certain conclusion that this apocryphal work is the source from which
St. Jude draws. Even if we reject this highly probable conclusion, the
difficulty, such as it is, will still remain.

That _The Assumption of Moses_ was written before our Epistle is
almost universally admitted. Philippi is almost alone in thinking that
its author was a Christian, and that he borrowed from St. Jude. Ewald,
Dillmann, Drummond, Schürer, and Wiesler place it between B.C. 4 (the
year of the war of Quintilius Varus, to which it almost certainly
refers) and A.D. 6. Hilgenfeld, Merx, Fritzsche, and Lucius place it
at different points between A.D. 44 and 70. But the earlier date is
the more probable. The large fragment in Latin which we now possess
was evidently made from a Greek document, and Hilgenfeld has attempted
to restore the Greek from the Latin. But this Greek document may
itself have been a translation from the Aramaic. In either case
St. Jude would be able to read it.[123]

That any true tradition on the subject should have been handed down
orally through fifteen centuries, "_without leaving the slightest
trace in a single passage in the Old Testament_," is utterly
improbable. This hypothesis, and the still more violent supposition of
a special revelation made to St. Jude, are devices prompted by a
reverent spirit, but thoroughly uncritical and untenable, to avoid the
unwelcome conclusion that an inspired writer has quoted legendary
material. Have we any right to assume that inspiration raises a writer
to the intellectual position of a critical historian, with power to
discriminate between legend and fact? St. Jude probably believed the
story about the dispute between Michael and Satan to be true; but even
if he knew it to be a myth, he might nevertheless readily use it as an
illustrative argument, seeing that it was so familiar to his readers.
If an inspired writer were living now, would it be quite incredible
that he should make use of Dante's _Purgatory_, or Shakespeare's _King
Lear_? Inspiration certainly does not preserve those who possess it
from imperfect grammar, and we cannot be certain that it preserves
them from other imperfections which have nothing to do with the truth
that saves souls. Besides which, it may be merely our prejudices which
lead us to regard the use of legendary material as an imperfection.
Let us reverently examine the features which inspired writings
actually present to us, not hastily determine beforehand what
properties they _ought_ to possess. We not unnaturally fancy that when
the Holy Spirit inspires a person to write for the spiritual
instruction of men throughout all ages, He also preserves him from
making mistakes as to the authenticity of writings of which he makes
use, or at least would preserve him from misleading others on such
points; but it does not follow that this natural expectation of ours
corresponds with the actual manner of the Spirit's working. "We follow
a very unsafe method if we begin by deciding in what way it seems to
us most fitting that God should guide His Church, and then try to
wrest facts into conformity with our preconceptions."[124]

[121] Dr. Field, in his most valuable _Otium Novicense_ (iii., pp.
154, 155), argues strongly in favour of translating κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν
βλασφημίας, "bring against him an accusation of blasphemy;" and he
quotes various passages to show that κρίσιν ἐπιφέρειν may mean "to
bring an accusation against." But none of them have a genitive after
the κρίσιν, and the question still remains whether the genitive is
descriptive and may be treated as an adjective, or expresses the
subject-matter of the κρίσις. That the former is right seems to be
shown by the context (βλασφημῦσιν in vv. 8 and 10); the libertines do
to higher beings what an archangel did not dare to do to Satan; and
also by the parallel in 2 Peter ii. 11 (βλασφημον κρίσιν). And on what
grounds would Michael not dare to charge Satan with blasphemy? That he
did not dare to rail at him is intelligible.

[122] The variety of interpretation as regards these two expressions
is remarkable. Some, as Beza, Calvin, Erasmus, and Grotius, interpret
both "dominion" and "dignities" of civil magistrates; others, as
Hammond, include ecclesiastical rulers; others, as Lumby, interpret
both of Apostles and elders, and through them Christ; others, as
Ritsch, apply "dominion" to God or Christ, and "dignities" to good
angels. Wiesinger and Huther apply "dominion" to God or Christ, and
"dignities" to bad angels. Alford, Bengel, Brückner, and De Wette
explain both of good angels; while Schott apparently explains both of
bad angels. Œcumenius is not quite alone in suggesting that
"dignities" may mean the Old and New Testament; Plumptre would make
the word include both good and bad angels.

[123] The Latin fragment has been several times published since
Ceriani made it known in 1861; by Hilgenfeld in 1866 and 1876; by
Volkmar in 1867; Schmidt and Merx in 1868; and by Fritzsche in 1871. A
very full summary of literature on the subject is given in Schürer,
_The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ (T. and T. Clark,
1886), <DW37>. II., vol. iii., pp. 80-83. See also Herzog, Plitt, and
Hauck (_Real-Encykl._, vol. xii. pp. 352, 353).

[124] Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, 4th ed., Murray (1889), p. 528.




 CHAPTER XXXV.

 _THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN:
 THE LIBERTINES AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.
 THE BOOK OF ENOCH._

 "These are they who are [hidden] rocks in your Love-feasts when they
 feast with you, [shepherds] that without fear feed themselves, clouds
 without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit,
 twice dead, plucked up by the roots; wild waves of the sea, foaming
 out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackness of
 darkness hath been reserved for ever.

 "_But_ to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied,
 saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of His holy ones, to
 execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all
 their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of
 all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against
 Him."--ST. JUDE 12-15.


St. Jude leaves off comparing the libertines with other sinners--Cain
and the Sodomites, Balaam and the impure angels, Korah and the
unbelieving Israelites--and begins an independent description of them.
Nevertheless, there is reason for believing that he has Cain, Balaam,
and Korah in his mind in framing this new account of them. The
description falls into three parts, of which this is the first. Each
of the three parts begins in the same way: "These are" (οὗτοί
εἰσιν). And each is balanced by something said on the other side,
which is introduced with a "But" (δέ). In the case before us the
"But" introduces a warning given prophetically to these libertines by
Enoch (vv. 14, 15). In the second case St. Jude quotes a warning given
prophetically to his readers by the Apostles (vv. 17, 18). In the
third he exhorts his readers himself (vv. 20-23). This threefold
division has been rather generally ignored. It is quite obliterated in
the Revised Version by the division of the paragraphs, and also by the
substitution of an "And" for the first "But:" "_And_ to these also
Enoch prophesied." The Vulgate is right with _autem_ in all three
places, followed by Wiclif with "Forsothe" in all three places. Luther
is not only right in his rendering of the conjunction with _aber_ in
all three places, but also in his division of the paragraphs. But
since Wiclif all English versions have obscured this threefold
description of the ungodly with the three corresponding warnings or
exhortations.[125]

"These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they
feast with you." The difference between this and the parallel passage
in 2 Peter is of special interest here; for it looks as if whichever
writer used the work of the other remembered the sound rather than the
sense. We have here ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ... σπιλάδες; but in 2 Peter
ii. 13 σπίλοι ... ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις (with ἀγάπαις as a various reading,
probably taken from this passage). It is possible that there may be no
difference of meaning between σπιλάδες and σπίλοι. The former, which
is St. Jude's word, almost invariably means "rocks," but in an Orphic
poem of the fourth century means "spots." The latter, which is used in
2 Peter ii. 13 and Eph. v. 27, generally means "spots," but sometimes
means "rocks." So that "spots" may be the right rendering in both
Epistles, and "rocks" may be right in both. More probably, however, we
should understand "spots" in 2 Peter, and "rocks" here. The Revised
Version inserts "hidden" as an epithet--"_hidden_ rocks in your
love-feasts"--which is hardly justifiable, because the word seems to
mean reefs over which the sea dashes, as distinct from rocks which are
wholly covered (so in the _Anthologia Palatina_, ii. 390; and in a
fragment of Sophocles the word has the epithet "lofty," ἐφ' ὑψηλαῖς
σπιλάδεσσι, and "lofty hidden rocks" would be almost a contradiction
in terms). Moreover, "hidden" does not seem to be right even as an
interpretation; for these profligates were not at all hidden; they
were utterly notorious and scandalous. They made no secret of their
misconduct, but gloried in it and defended it. Yet this fact does not
make the name "rocks," or "reefs," inappropriate. A reef may be a very
dangerous thing, although it is always visible. It may be impossible
to avoid going near it; and proximity to such things is always
perilous. So also with these ungodly men: St. Jude's readers could not
wholly avoid them, either in society or in the public services of the
Church, but their presence disturbed and polluted both. The whole
purpose of the love-feasts was wrecked by these men. Like Cain, they
turned the ordinances of religion into selfishness and sin.

We cannot doubt that when St. Jude wrote the eucharist was still part
of the agape or love-feast, as when St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians
(A.D. 57, 58). It was still "the Lord's _Supper_" not merely in name,
but in fact (1 Cor. xi. 17-34; Acts xx. 7-11). It is almost certain
that when Ignatius wrote his Epistles (_c._ A.D. 112) the eucharist
was still united with the love-feast. He writes to the Church of
Smyrna, "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to
hold a love-feast" (viii.). This must refer to the two sacraments, the
administration of which are the chief functions of the priestly
office. Ignatius cannot have meant that a love-feast apart from the
eucharist might not be held without the bishop. When Justin Martyr
wrote his First Apology (_c._ A.D. 140) it is evident that the two had
been separated; his description of the eucharist (lxv.-lxvii.) implies
that no love-feast accompanied it (see Lightfoot, _St. Ignatius and
St. Polycarp_, I., pp. 52, 387; II., p. 312: Macmillan, 1885). We may
regard it, therefore, as certain that even if this Epistle be placed
late in the first century, St. Jude is here referring to a state of
things very similar to that which St. Paul rebukes in the Church of
Corinth; the love-feast accompanied by the eucharist was profaned by
the shameless indulgence of these libertines.

The love-feast symbolized the brotherhood of Christians. It was a
simple meal, in which all met as equals, and the rich supplied the
necessities of the poor. Anything like excess was peculiarly out of
place, and it was the duty of the rich to see that the poorer members
of the congregation were satisfied. But it would seem as if these
profligates (1) brought with them luxurious food, thus destroying the
Christian simplicity of the meal; and (2) brought this, not for the
benefit of all, but for their own private enjoyment, thus destroying
the idea of Christian brotherhood and equality. There is nothing in
the word used for "feasting with you" (συνευωχούμενοι) which
necessarily implies revelry or excess, but in this connexion it
implies censure. To turn the love-feast into a banquet was wrong,
however innocent a banquet might be in itself. We might translate the
word "when they feast _together_," instead of "when they feast _with
you_;" and this would imply that at the love-feast they kept to
themselves, and did not mix with their poorer brethren. This makes
good sense; but if this translation is adopted, we must beware of
interpreting it to mean that these libertines had become schismatics,
and had set up a love-feast of their own. They could not be "rocks in
your love-feasts" if they did not attend the love-feasts.

There are two other uncertainties in these opening clauses--one of
construction, and one of translation. (1) Ought we to take "without
fear" with what precedes, or with what follows--"when they feast with
you without fear," or "that feed themselves without fear"? As in ver.
7, with regard to "of eternal fire," we are unable to decide with
certainty. Both constructions make excellent sense, and nothing can be
urged as being strongly in favour of either. English versions are
divided. The Rhemish has "feasting together without fear." Purvey, the
Authorized, and the Revised take "without fear" with "feeding
themselves." Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan aim at being as
ambiguous as the Greek; they place "with out feare" between the two
clauses with a comma on each side of it. (2) Does "feeding themselves"
mean that they fed themselves _instead of feeding the flock_? (Ezek.
xxxiv. 2, 8; Isa. lvi. 11). If so, the Revisers give the right
interpretation with "shepherds that without fear feed themselves;" but
this is interpretation rather than translation. Or does it mean that
they fed themselves, _instead of waiting to be fed by the shepherds_?
If so, it is quite misleading to call them shepherds. As we have seen
already (p. 390), there is no reason for thinking that these
profligates set up as teachers or pastors. We shall be safer if we
render the Greek participle (ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες) by a participle:
"pasturing themselves," or "shepherding themselves." Lucifer, as Dr.
Salmon points out, renders it _semetipsos regentes_, which shows that
he understood it in the latter sense. Yet this second view does not
imply anything schismatical in their conduct, but merely that they
were selfish and disorderly. They kept their own good food, and
consumed it among themselves at the love-feast, instead of throwing it
into the common store, and allowing it to be distributed to all by the
elders. With full recognition of the fact that there is much to be
said for other views, the following rendering may be accepted as on
the whole preferable: "These are they who are rocks in your
love-feasts, feasting together without fear, pasturing their own
selves."

In what follows St. Jude piles metaphor on metaphor and epithet on
epithet, in the effort to express his indignation and abhorrence. But
we cannot say that "no doubt also in the comparisons which he employs
he has an eye to the original intention of the love-feast." It is
somewhat forced to say that the love-feast "was to have the blessing
of the rain from heaven; it was meant to be a cause of much fruit in
the whole Christian community." But assuming that "waterless clouds"
and "fruitless trees" may be made to refer to the love-feasts, what
are we to make of "wild waves" and "wandering stars" in that
connexion? It is better to regard the subject of the love-feasts as
ended, and to take the similes which follow as quite independent.
These men are ostentatious, but they do no good. It was perhaps
expected that their admission to the Church would be a great gain to
Christendom; but they are as disappointing as clouds that are carried
_past_ (παραφερόμεναι) by winds without giving any rain; and in the
East that is one of the most grievous among common disappointments.

How the framers of the Authorized Version came to perpetrate such a
contradiction in terms as "trees whose fruit withereth, without
fruit," it is not easy to see. No earlier English version is guilty of
it; nor the Vulgate (_arbores autumnales, infructuosæ_); nor Beza,
with whom Calvin agrees (_arbores emarcidæ, infrugiferæ_); nor Luther
(_kahle unfruchtbare Bäume_). The Greek (δένδρα φθινοπωρινά) means
literally "autumn-withering trees;" _i.e._ just at the time when fruit
is expected they wither and are without fruit. The parable of the
barren fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9) is perhaps in St. Jude's mind. The
epithets form a natural climax--withering in autumn, fruitless, twice
dead, rooted up. These profligates were twice dead, because they had
returned after baptism to the death of sin: the end of such men is
that they shall be rooted out at the last (Ps. xxx. 28; lii. 5; Prov.
ii. 22). When he calls them "wild waves of the sea, foaming out their
own shames," St. Jude is perhaps thinking of the words of Isaiah: "The
wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters
cast up mire and dirt" (lvii. 20). But the wording of the Septuagint
is utterly different from that which we have here; it is the thought
that is similar.

What are we to understand by "wandering stars"? Not planets, nor
comets, neither of which either _seem_ to wander while one looks at
them, or _do_ wander, in St. Jude's sense, as a matter of fact. Both
have their orbits, to which they keep with such regularity that their
movements can be accurately predicted; so that they are symbols rather
of Christian lives than of the course of the ungodly. Much more
probably St. Jude means "falling stars," or "shooting stars," which
seem to leave their place in the heavens, where they are beautiful and
useful, and to wander away into the darkness, to the confusion and
dismay of those who observe them. Thus understood, the simile forms a
natural transition to the prophecy of Enoch which follows. St. Jude's
thoughts have once more gone back to the fallen angels in the _Book of
Enoch_. Angels, like stars, have a path to keep, and those who keep it
not are punished. "I saw the winds which cause the orb of the sun and
of all the stars to set.... I saw the path of the angels.... I
perceived a place which had neither the firmament of heaven above it,
nor the solid ground underneath it; neither was there water above it,
nor anything on wing; but the spot was desolate. And there I saw seven
stars, like great blazing mountains, and like spirits entreating me.
Then the angel [Enoch's guide] said, This place, until the
consummation of heaven and earth, will be the prison of the stars and
the host of heaven. The stars which roll over fire are those which
transgressed the commandment of God" (xviii. 6, 7, 13-16). In another
terrible place he sees stars bound together, and is told that these
are "the stars which have transgressed," and that "this is the prison
of the angels," in which "they are kept for ever" (xxi. 2, 3, 5, 6).
These extracts make it highly probable that when St. Jude compares the
ungodly to "wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath
been reserved for ever," he is thinking once more of the "angels which
left their proper habitation," who are "kept in everlasting bonds
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (ver. 6). After
this return to the ideas contained in the _Book of Enoch_, the
quotation of the prophecy comes quite naturally; and all the more so
because, as Irenæus indicates, Enoch forms a splendid contrast to the
fallen angels: they lost their heavenly habitation by displeasing God,
whereas he was taken up to heaven for pleasing Him. His words show
that he was acquainted with the _Book of Enoch_, and accepted it as
trustworthy: "But Enoch also without circumcision, by pleasing God,
although he was a man, discharged the office of ambassador to angels,
and was translated, and is preserved even until now as a witness of
the just judgment of God: while angels by transgression fell to earth
for judgment; but a man by pleasing Him was translated for salvation"
(_Hær._ IV. xvi. 2). Having compared the profligates to the stars, or
angels, who fell from heaven to earth, St. Jude passes on readily to
quote the warning of one who was taken up from earth to heaven.

And the way in which the prophecy is introduced makes us still more
clear as to the source from which St. Jude derived it: "Enoch, _the
seventh_ from Adam, prophesied." Nowhere in the Old Testament, and
nowhere else in the New, is Enoch said to be "the seventh from Adam."
But he is called "the seventh" in the _Book of Enoch_, where he is
made to say, "I have been born the seventh in the first week"
(xcii. 4), although in order to make seven both Adam and Enoch have to
be counted (xxxvii. 1). The number seven is possibly symbolical,
indicating perfection. Thus Dr. Westcott takes Enoch to be "a type of
perfected humanity" (_Dict. of the Bible_). Yet it is also possible
that he is called "the seventh" in the _Book of Enoch_, and
consequently by St. Jude, in order to mark the extreme antiquity of
the prophecy, or to distinguish him from other persons of the same
name (Gen. xxv. 4; xlvi. 9).

But a careful comparison of the passage in question, as quoted by
St. Jude, and as it stands in the translation of the _Book of Enoch_,
is the chief means of determining the source of the quotation. This,
however, cannot be made satisfactorily until we can place the Greek,
of which the Ethiopic version of the _Book of Enoch_ is a translation,
side by side with St. Jude's Greek.

 ENOCH.                             ST. JUDE

 Behold, He cometh with ten         Behold, the Lord came with ten
 thousands of His holy ones, to     thousands of his holy ones to
 execute judgment upon them,        execute judgment upon all,
 and to destroy the ungodly         and to convict all the ungodly
 and reprove all the carnal [or,    of their works of ungodliness
 and will destroy and convict       which they have ungodly wrought,
 the ungodly with all flesh],       _and of all the hard things which_
 for everything which the           ungodly sinners _have spoken
 sinners and the ungodly have       against Him_ (vv. 14, 15).
 done and committed against Him
 (chap. ii.).

It will be observed that there is nothing in the _Book of Enoch_ to
correspond with the saying about "the hard things which sinners have
spoken against God." This in itself is almost conclusive against the
hypothesis, which on other grounds is not very probable, that some
later writer copied the prophecy as given by St. Jude, and inserted it
into the _Book of Enoch_. If so, why did he not copy it exactly? Why
did he not only slightly vary the wording, but omit a rather important
clause? The passage is very short, and a writer who was anxious to
make St. Jude agree with the reputed prophecy would be likely to make
the agreement exact. On the other hand, if St. Jude is quoting loosely
from memory, or from a Greek or Aramaic original, of which the text
varied somewhat from the Ethiopic translation which has come down to
us, everything is explained. He would be tenacious of the clause about
"hard things spoken against God," as a warning to those who "set at
nought dominion and rail at dignities." It is of course possible that
both the author of this book and St. Jude independently make use of a
traditional saying attributed to Enoch. But seeing that the work was
in existence when St. Jude wrote, was probably well known to his
readers, and contains most of the passage which he quotes; and seeing
that elsewhere in his Epistle he seems to refer to other parts of the
book, far the more reasonable view is that he quotes directly from it.
The case therefore is parallel to that of the reference to _The
Assumption of Moses_ in ver. 9. St. Jude probably believed the
prophecy to be a genuine prophecy of Enoch, and the writing in which
it occurs to be a genuine revelation respecting the visible and
invisible world; but even if he knew its apocryphal character, its
appositeness to the subject of which he is so full might easily lead
him to quote it to persons who would be familiar with it. We have no
right to prejudge the question of fitness, and say that inspiration
would certainly preserve its instruments from wittingly or unwittingly
making use of a fictitious apocalypse. Our business, as reverent and
therefore honest students, is to ascertain whether this writer does
derive some of his material from the document which, after the lapse
of so many centuries, was given back to us about a hundred and twenty
years ago. If on critical grounds we find ourselves compelled to
believe that this document is the source from which St. Jude draws,
then let us beware of setting our own preconceptions above the wisdom
of God, who in this case, as in many more, has been pleased to employ
an unexpected instrument, and has made a human fiction the means of
proclaiming a Divine truth.

It remains to give some further account of the intensely interesting
writing which St. Jude appears to have used. The Books of Daniel,
Ezekiel, and Zechariah gave to the Jews a love of visions,
revelations, and prophecies which at times was almost insatiable; and,
when the gift of prophecy came to an end, the three centuries between
Malachi and the Baptist, during which it seemed as if Jehovah had
departed from His people, and "answered no more, neither by dreams nor
by prophets," appeared dreary and intolerable. What had been written
by Moses and the Prophets did not satisfy. Fresh revelations were
desired; and the reality being absent, fiction attempted to stop the
gap. Such writings as the _Book of Enoch_, _Assumption of Moses_,
_Testament of Moses_, _Eldad and Modad_, _Apocalypse of Elijah_, etc.,
etc., were the result. This desire for prophecies and revelations
passed over from Judaism into the Christian Church, and was quickened
rather than satisfied by the Revelation of St. John. During the first
two centuries of the Christian era such literature continued to be
produced by Jews and Christians alike; and specimens of it still
survive in the _Apocalypse of Baruch_ and the _Fourth Book of Ezra_ on
the Jewish side, and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ on the Christian; the
_Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_ being apparently a Jewish
original with Christian interpolations. But in most cases only the
titles survive, and where the revelation or prophecy is attributed to
an Old Testament character we are unable to decide whether the fiction
was of Jewish or of Christian origin.

It is strange that such a writing as the _Book of Enoch_ should have
been allowed to disappear entirely from the West after the fourth
century, and from the East after the eighth. The quotations in the
_Chronographia_ of Georgius Syncellus, some portions of which are not
found in the recovered Ethiopic Version, are the last traces that we
have of it until early in the seventeenth century, when it was
rumoured that it was extant in Abyssinia, and late in the eighteenth,
when it was found there. The revelations which it professes to make
respecting judgment, heaven, and hell might have been expected to make
it a special favourite with Christians from the fourth to the tenth
century, during which period one of the commonest topics of
speculation was the end of the world. Moreover, there was the passage
in Jude, with the notices in Barnabas, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, and others, to keep the book from being
forgotten. But it was generally believed that the end of the world
would be heralded by two great signs--the downfall of Rome, and the
coming of Antichrist. About these the _Book of Enoch_ contains no
hint, and the absence of such material may have caused it to pass out
of knowledge. Englishmen have the honour of giving it back to Europe.
James Bruce brought the Ethiopic translation from Abyssinia in 1773,
and Archbishop Laurence published an English translation of it in
1821, and an Ethiopic text in 1838. Since then the scholars who have
edited it or commented on it have been almost exclusively Germans.[126]

It is generally acknowledged that the book is a composite one.
Probably the original writer incorporated older materials, and his
work has probably been interpolated by later hands. Whether any of
these supposed interpolations are Christian is still debated; and the
question scarcely admits of a decided answer. On the one hand, there
are expressions which would come much more naturally from a Christian
than from a Jew; on the other, it is difficult to see why a Christian
should insert anything at all, if he did not insert what might teach
others Christian truth. Messianic passages abound; and in them the
Messiah is called, again and again, "the Son of man" and "the Elect
One;" twice He is called "the Anointed" (xlvii. 11; li. 4), twice "the
Righteous One" (xxxviii. 2; lii. 6; where Laurence translates
otherwise); once He is "the Son of the offspring of the mother of the
living," _i.e._ Son of the son of Eve (lxi. 10); and once the Lord
speaks of Him as "My Son" (civ. 2). This Messiah is the Judge of men
and angels, by the appointment of Jehovah. "In those days will the
earth give back that which has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will
give back that which has been entrusted to it, which it has received,
and destruction (Abaddon) will give back what it owes.... And in those
days will the Elect One sit upon His throne, and all secrets of wisdom
will come forth from the thoughts of His mouth; for the Lord of
spirits hath given it to Him, and hath glorified Him" (l. 1, 3). "Then
the Lord of spirits made to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect
One, who will judge all the works of the holy" (lx. 10, 11;
lxviii. 39). But this Messiah is not much more than a highly exalted
angel. He is not the Word; he is not God. That this Son of man has
already lived upon the earth is not indicated. Of the name Jesus, the
Crucifixion, the Resurrection, or the Ascension, there is not a trace.
There is no hint of baptism, or of the eucharist, or of the doctrine
of the Trinity. In a word, everything distinctly Christian is absent,
even from that section (xxxvii.-lxxi.) which makes the nearest
approaches to Christian language, and which is probably a later
insertion. It is difficult to see what object a Christian could have
in writing just this and no more. The fact that so many of the angels
have Hebrew names favours the view that the original was in Hebrew or
Aramaic, of which the Greek, from which the Ethiopic version is taken,
was only a translation. If so, this also is in favour of Jewish,
rather than of Christian origin.

Those who can should read the whole book in Laurence's translation, or
still better in Dillmann's. But the more accurately translated
portions given in Westcott and in Stanton will give some idea of the
whole. The latter have been used in this chapter. The book is
manifestly the work of a man of the most earnest convictions, one who
believes in God, and fears Him, and is appalled at the practical
infidelity and utter godlessness which he finds around him. On two
things he is ever insisting: (1) that God's rule extends everywhere,
over angels and men, no less than over winds and stars; (2) that this
rule is a moral one, for He abundantly rewards righteousness, and
fearfully punishes sin. Nothing, therefore, could well be more in
harmony with the spirit and purpose of St. Jude, and it ought not to
perplex us that he makes use of such a book.

But in any case it may reassure us to remember that, in spite of its
being quoted _in_ Scripture, the Church has never been allowed to
admit it _as_ Scripture. The mind of Christendom has never wavered as
to the real character of the _Book of Enoch_. It is one of the many
eccentricities of Tertullian that he upholds its authority; but his
special pleading has misled no one else (_De Cultu Fem._ I. iii.).
Justin Martyr apparently knew it (_Apol._ II. v.), but there is
nothing to show that he accepted it as a genuine revelation. Origen
(_Contra Cels._ V. liv.: comp. _In Numer. Homil._ xxviii. 2; _In
Joannem_, tom. vi., cap. xxv.: De la Rue, ii. 384; iv. 142) distinctly
marks it as uncanonical and of doubtful value; Augustine (_De Civ.
Dei_, XV. xxiii. 4) and Jerome (_De Vir. Illustr._ iv.) reject it as
apocryphal; and soon after their time it seems to have disappeared
from Western Christendom. As already stated, it is uncertain whether
St. Jude was mistaken as to the true nature of the book: it is quite
certain that the Church has been preserved from being so.

NOTE.--For a collection of parallels between the _Book of Enoch_ and
2 Peter and Jude see the _New Testament Commentary for English
Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott, vol. iii., pp. 518, 519
(Cassells, 1879).

[125] Purvey has "But.... And.... But...." Tyndale, Coverdale, Crammer,
and the Genevan Version (following the reading of A) omit the
conjunction altogether in the first place. It is the Rhemish Version
which first introduces "And" into the first place; yet one might have
expected that it, being made direct from the Vulgate, would have been
correct in this particular.

[126] Hofmann, Gfrörer, Lützelberger, Lücke, Ewald, Köstlin,
Hilgenfeld, Weisse, Volkmar, Geiger, Langen, Sieffert, Philippi,
Gebhardt, Wieseler, and others, especially Hoffmann and Dillmann, who
have published complete translations with notes and explanations.
Dillmann's work (Leipzig, 1853) is still the standard work on the
subject, but is out of print. Schodde published an English translation
with notes at Andover, 1882; and the English reader will find much
information in the articles by Westcott in the _Dict. of the Bible_
and by Lipsius in the _Dict. of Chr. Biography_; also in Westcott's
_Introduction to the Gospels_, pp. 73, 99-109, 7th ed.; in Schürer's
_The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_, <DW37>. II., vol. iii.,
pp. 54-73; in Stanton's _The Jewish and the Christian Messiah_ (T. and
T. Clark, 1886), pp. 44-64, 88-95, 139, 140, 170-75, 311-15, 332-35,
347; and in Drummond's _The Jewish Messiah_, 1877, pp. 17-73. Murray's
_Enoch Restitutus_ (Rivington, 1836) does not seem to be of much value.




 CHAPTER XXXVI.

 _THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM:
 IMPIOUS DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.
 THE APOSTOLIC WARNING RESPECTING THEM._

 "These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts (and
 their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing respect of
 persons for the sake of advantage.

 "But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before
 by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you,
 In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own
 ungodly lusts."--ST. JUDE 16-18.


These words form the second part of the threefold description of the
libertines; and just as the first part was balanced by a prophetic
warning quoted from the _Book of Enoch_, so this part is balanced by a
quotation of the prophetic warning given by the Apostles, to the
effect that persons like these ungodly men would certainly arise. This
second division more clearly corresponds to the case of Balaam
mentioned in ver. 11 than the first division of the description
corresponds to the case of Cain. This will appear when we come to
examine the details.

"These are murmurers." For the second time St. Jude points to the
intruders who are disturbing the Church, and shows his readers another
group of characteristics by which these dangerous persons, who
disgrace the name of Christian, may be known. This second group hangs
on closely to what immediately precedes. It seems to have been
suggested by the last words of the prophecy quoted from Enoch, "the
hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." The way in
which the libertines spoke hard things against God was by murmuring
against His decrees and complaining of the dispensations of His
Providence. This is the exact meaning of the word which is rendered
"complainers" (μεμψίμοιροι), and which occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament; "finding fault with their lot," _i.e._ discontented
with the condition of life which God had assigned to them, and not
only blaming Him for this, but for the moral restrictions which He had
imposed upon them and upon all mankind. Men who "walk after their
lusts," and shape their course in accordance with these (κατὰ τὰς
ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι), cannot be contented, for the means of
gratifying the lusts are not always present, and the lusts themselves
are insatiable: even when gratification is possible, it is only
temporary; the unruly desires are certain to revive and clamour once
more for satisfaction. This was notably the case with Balaam, whose
grasping cupidity chafed against the restraints which prevented it
from being gratified. As Bishop Butler says of him, "He wanted to do
what he knew to be very wicked, and contrary to the express command of
God; he had inward checks and restraints, which he could not entirely
get over; he therefore casts about for ways to reconcile this
wickedness with his duty," (_Sermon_ vii.). From a somewhat different
point of view J. H. Newman says much the same thing of him: Balaam
"would have given the world to have got rid of his duties; and the
question was, how to do so without violence" (_Plain Sermons_,
Rivingtons, 1868, vol. iv., p. 28). Isaac Williams, who has a sermon
on the same subject, puts the matter in yet another way. Balaam "knew
what was holy and good, and it may be that he loved it also, but he
loved riches more: his knowledge was with God; his will was with
Satan.... He wished to proceed together with God and Mammon--God on
his lips, and Mammon in his heart" (_The Characters of the Old
Testament_, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 128, 130). The way in which the
libertines seem to have set about the impossible task of getting rid
of their duties and reconciling the service of God with the service of
Satan appears to have been that of roundly declaring that Christian
liberty included freedom to gratify one's desires: if it did not do
so, it was an empty delusion. In this way they "turned the grace of
God into lasciviousness" (ver. 4), and "their mouth spoke great
swelling words." In the parallel passage in 2 Peter an explanation of
this kind is given of the "great swelling words." By means of them
these evil men "enticed others in the lusts of the flesh by
lasciviousness, ... _promising them liberty_" (2 Peter ii. 18, 19).
According to them, it was the magnificent privilege of Christians to
be freed from righteousness and become the slaves of sin. Irenæus
attributes doctrine of this kind to Simon Magus and his followers,
who, "as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through
His grace, and not through their own righteous acts. For righteous
actions are not such in the nature of things, but accidentally"
(_Hær._ I. xxiii. 3).

"Showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage." This, again,
is exactly what Balaam did. He had regard to Balak and the princes
whom he sent as ambassadors; and he did this because he hoped to gain
the large reward which they were told to promise him if he would but
exercise his prophetic power in solemnly cursing Israel. In like
manner these blatant profligates, who were loud in their complaints
against the treatment which they received from Providence, and equally
loud in protesting that the Gospel allowed them and others the licence
which they desired, nevertheless became mean flatterers and parasites
when there was any chance of getting anything from persons of wealth
and distinction. This apparently incongruous combination of arrogant
self-assertion with grovelling sycophancy is common enough in men
without principle, as Calvin remarks. "When there is no one to check
their insolence, or when there is nothing which stands in their way,
their pride is intolerable, so that they imperiously arrogate
everything to themselves; but they meanly flatter those whom they
fear, and from whom they expect some advantage." While they refuse
submission where it is due, they give it where it is not due. They
rebelliously reject the plain commands of God, and yet servilely
cringe to the humours and caprices of their fellow-men.

"But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before
by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Revisers have done well
to restore the "ye"--"But _ye_, beloved"--which was in all English
versions previous to that of 1611, just as in ver. 20. In both cases
the pronoun is emphatic, and places the persons addressed in marked
contrast to the ungodly men against whom they are being warned.
"Whatever they may do, do not you be deceived by their arrogant
language and time-serving conduct, for these are the scoffing
sensualists against whom you have already been warned beforehand by
the Apostles. Their behaviour is amazing, but it ought not to take you
by surprise." St. Jude evidently takes for granted that the Apostolic
warning which he quotes is well known to his readers. Such an appeal
to the authority of the Apostles would certainly be more natural in
one who was himself not an Apostle, but it must not be regarded as
quite decisive, as if St. Jude had written "how that they said to
_us_." Other reasons, however, support the impression which this
passage conveys, that the writer is not an Apostle (see pp. 372, 373).
On the other hand, there is nothing in these words to warrant the
conclusion that the writer regards the Apostles as persons who lived
long ago, or who gave this warning long ago. All that is implied is
that before these ungodly men "crept in privily" into the Church,
Apostles had foretold that such persons would arise. "In the last
time" is not St. Jude's expression, but theirs; and by it the Apostles
certainly did not mean an age remote from their own: the "last time"
had already begun when they wrote (see on 2 Tim. iii. 1, 2, in _The
Pastoral Epistles_, in this series, pp. 377, 378; and comp. 1 John
ii. 18; Heb. i. 2; 1 Peter i. 20).

"How that they said to you" may mean "how that they _used_ to say to
you" (ἔλεγον ὑμῖν), and may refer to oral teaching; but we cannot
be at all certain of this. Still less can we be certain that, if
written warnings are included or specially meant, the reference is to
2 Peter iii. 3: "knowing this first, that in the last days mockers
shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts." Both passages
may have a common source, or that in 2 Peter may be modelled upon this
one. The word for "mockers" is the same in both (ἐμπαῖκται), and it
is a very unusual word, not used by profane writers, nor anywhere else
in the New Testament; in the Septuagint it occurs only once (Isa.
iii. 4), and there apparently in the sense of "childish persons." The
Authorized Version unfortunately obscures this close connexion between
the wording of 2 Peter iii. 3, and that of this passage, by having
"scoffers" in the one, and "mockers" in the other. The particular in
which the two passages really differ must not pass without notice.
St. Jude writes, "walking after their own _ungodly_ lusts," or, more
literally, "their own lusts _of ungodlinesses_" (τῶν ἀσεβειῶν). Most
probably the genitive here is descriptive, as in James i. 24 and
ii. 4; and therefore the substitution of the adjective "ungodly" for
it in the English versions is justifiable. But it is possible that
"lusts of ungodlinesses" means that they lusted after impieties, and
therefore the rendering given in the margin of the Revised Version
should not be left unheeded. Wiclif, Purvey, and the Rhemish here
differ from other English versions, being made from later texts of the
Vulgate, which read, "_secundum desideria sua ambulantes in
impietatibus_ or _in impietate_," whereas the better text has
_impietatum_. However we translate the genitive case, we may regard
the word as an echo of the prophecy quoted from the _Book of Enoch_,
in which "ungodly" or "ungodliness" occurs with persistent iteration
(ver. 15).

The fact that this expression (τῶν ἀσεβειῶν) occurs here, but not in
the parallel verse in 2 Peter, is an indication of a much more
important difference between the two passages. In spite of the great
similarity of wording, the meaning is very different. The mockers in
each case mock at totally different things. In 2 Peter we are
expressly told that they scoffed at the belief that Christ was coming
to judge the world. "What has become of the promise of His coming?
Everything goes on just as it has done for generations." There is not
a hint of any such notion here; on the contrary, it is implied that
these libertines mocked at God's dealings with themselves, and at the
belief that the Gospel did not give them full liberty to gratify their
sensual desires. They were among those of whom it is written that
"fools make a mock at sin" (Prov. xiv. 9). By scoffing at things
sacred, and ridiculing the notion that there is any harm in
licentiousness, or anything estimable in holiness, they created a
moral atmosphere in which men sinned with a light heart, because sin
was made to look as if it were a matter of no moment, a thing to be
indulged in without anxiety or remorse. It would be more reasonable
and less reprehensible to make a mock at carnage or pestilence, and
teach men to go with a light heart into a desolating war or
plague-stricken neighbourhood. In such cases experience of the
manifest horrors would soon cure the light-heartedness. But the
horrible nature of sin is not so manifest, and with regard to _that_
experience teaches its lesson more slowly. It is like a poisoning of
the blood rather than a wound in the flesh, and may have done
incalculable mischief before any serious pain is felt, or any grave
alarm excited. Hence it is quite easy for many to "walk after their
own ungodly lusts," and at the same time "mock at sin" and its
consequences. And then the converse of the proverb becomes true, and
"sin mocks at the fools" that mocked at it--a meaning which the Hebrew
may very well have. In the margin of the Revised Version we read,
"Guilt mocketh at the foolish." As Delilah mocked at Samson, so does
sin mock at those who have been taken captive by it. There is no folly
equal to the foolhardiness of those who make light, either to
themselves or to others, of the deadly character of any form of sin.
They thereby save the tempter all trouble, and do his work themselves.
"His own iniquities shall take the wicked, and he shall be holden with
the cords of his sin. He shall die for lack of instruction; and in the
greatness of his folly he shall go astray" (Prov. v. 22, 23).




 CHAPTER XXXVII.

 _THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO KORAH: MAKING SEPARATIONS.
 EXHORTATION TO THE FAITHFUL TO BUILD UP THEMSELVES,
 AND THEN RESCUE OTHERS._

 "These are they who make separations sensual, having not the Spirit.

 "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,
 praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God,
 looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And
 on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching them
 out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the
 garment spotted by the flesh."--ST. JUDE 19-23.


For the third and last time St. Jude points his finger at the ungodly
intruders who are working such mischief in the Church, and gives
another triplet of characteristics by which they may be recognized.

"These are they who make separations." This is the first point; like
Korah and his company, these men are separatists (οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες).
They do not actually make a schism _from_ the Church, for they
frequent the love-feasts and profess membership; but they create a
faction _within_ it. Even in the public services of the Church they
keep aloof from the poorer members of the congregation. At the
love-feasts they feed themselves on the good things which they bring
with them, instead of handing them over to the ministers to be
distributed among all. And in society they care only for persons of
rank and wealth, out of whom they hope to gain something. Worst of
all, they claim to be specially enlightened members of the Church,
having a more comprehensive knowledge of the nature of Christian
liberty, while they are turning the fundamental principles of
Christian life upside down. Hence, although they are not actual
schismatics, who have gone out of the Church and set up a communion of
their own, their tendencies are in that direction. They are, in short,
much the same kind of people as those against whom St. Paul warns his
readers in the Epistle to the Romans: "Now I beseech you, brethren,
mark them _which are causing the divisions_ and occasions of
stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away
from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but
_their own belly_; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile
the hearts of the innocent" (xvi. 17, 18). And again in the Epistle to
the Philippians: "For many walk of whom I told you often, and now tell
you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
whose end is perdition, _whose god is the belly_, and whose glory is
in their shame, who mind earthly things" (iii. 18, 19). A parallel to
nearly every clause in these two descriptions might be found in the
account of the libertines given by St. Jude. Indeed, the words in
which Bishop Lightfoot sums up St. Paul's description might be adopted
verbatim as a summary of the description in our Epistle: "They are
described as creating divisions and offences, as holding plausible
language, as professing to be wise beyond others, and yet not innocent
in their wisdom." They are "Antinomians, who refuse to conform to the
Cross, and live a life of self-indulgence." "The unfettered liberty of
which they boast, thus perverted, becomes their deepest degradation"
(_Philippians_, Notes on iii. 18, 19).

Hooker, in his sermons on this passage, although he adopts the
translation of Tyndale, continued by Cranmer and the Genevan Version,
"These are makers of sects," yet in his exposition follows the corrupt
reading which misled the translators of 1611, "These be they who
separate _themselves_" (οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἑαυτούς), "themselves"
being absent from almost all the ancient MSS. and versions. He says,
"St. Jude, to express the manner of their departure which by apostasy
fell away from the faith of Christ, saith, 'They separated
themselves;' noting thereby that it was not constraint of others which
forced them to depart; it was not infirmity and weakness in
themselves, it was not fear of persecution to come upon them, whereat
their hearts did fail; it was not grief of torments, whereof they had
tasted, and were not able any longer to endure them. No, they
voluntarily did separate themselves, with a fully settled and
altogether determined purpose never to name the Lord Jesus any more,
nor to have any fellowship with His saints, but to bend all their
counsel and all their strength to raze out their memorial from amongst
them" (_Serm._ v. 11). Here there is a double error in the quotation
from St. Jude, and therefore considerable error in the exposition of
his meaning. St. Jude does not say that these libertines
"separat_ed_," but that they are "those who _are_ separat_ing_,"
_i.e._ are habitually making separations or differences. He uses the
present participle, not the aorist or perfect. And, as already
noticed, he says nothing about separating _themselves_. So far from
implying that they had "a settled and determined purpose never to name
the Lord Jesus any more, nor to have any fellowship with His saints,"
He shows that these men had crept into the Church, and evidently
intended to remain there, attending the love-feasts and polluting
them, while they put forward the "freedom wherewith Christ had made
them free" as a plea for their own licentiousness; thus "turning the
grace of God into lasciviousness," and by their conduct denying the
Christ in whom they professed to believe. Thus, though they did not
formally leave the Church as heretics, schismatics, or apostates, yet
they had the heretical and schismatical temper, and were apostates in
their manner of life. As Hooker says elsewhere, "Many things exclude
from the kingdom of God, although from the Church they separate not"
(_Eccl. Pol._ V. lxviii. 6). These men had left the way of salvation
to "walk after their own lusts," but they had not separated from the
Church, into which they had surreptitiously obtained admission.

"Sensual" (ψυχικοί). This word has been already discussed in a
previous chapter, in the exposition of the passage where it occurs in
the Epistle of St. James (iii. 15: see pp. 200, 201). "Sensual"
persons are those who live in the world of sense, and are ruled by
human feeling and human reason. They stand not very much above the
carnal, and with them are opposed to the spiritual. In the triplet,
_carnalis, animalis, spiritalis_, the second term is far more closely
allied with the first than with the third. It is possible that the
libertines, in their travesty of the freedom conferred by the Gospel,
made a special claim to be "spiritual" persons, who were above the
restraints of the moral law. They may have held that to their exalted
natures the things of sense were morally indifferent, and might be
indulged in without fear of loss or contamination; while they scoffed
at those Christians who were on their guard against such things, and
called such Christians _psychical_ or sensuous, because they were
careful about the things of sense. St. Jude tells them that it is they
who are sensuous, and not spiritual at all.

"Not having the Spirit." The Revisers maintain this rendering, which
does not appear in English versions until the influence of Beza and
the Genevan Version made itself felt. Calvin seems to adopt it; but
Luther certainly does not ("_die da keinen Geist haben_"). It must be
supposed that the arguments in favour of it are very strong, seeing
that the alternative translation is not allowed a place in the margin
of either Authorized or Revised Version, nor is recommended by the
American Committee. Nevertheless, the points in its favour are well
worth considering. This alternative translation is, "Having no spirit"
(Tyndale, Cranmer), _i.e._ no spiritual nature. "Not having spirit" is
Wiclif's rendering. This agrees very well with the context. St. Jude
has just stigmatized the libertines as "sensuous," or "psychical." Of
the three elements in man's nature, body, soul, and spirit, they are
ruled by the two lower, while the third, which ought to be supreme, is
persistently ignored. They had allowed the spiritual part of their
being to become so bemired with self-indulgence and self-sufficiency,
to be so much under the dominion of human emotion and reason, that it
was utterly inoperative and practically non-existent. Their power of
spiritual insight into things heavenly, of laying hold of the
invisible world, and of entering into communion with God, was gone.
The Holy Spirit was not only absent, but His seat was overturned and
destroyed. The facts that "spirit" has neither article nor epithet in
the Greek, and that the negative is subjective, and not objective
(πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες), are in favour of man's spirit being meant, and
of this clause being an explanation of what precedes. These men are
sensuous _because_ they have lost all spiritual power. It must not,
however, be understood that the absence of article and epithet is any
barrier to the rendering, "Having not the Spirit." Phil. ii. 1 is
proof of that (comp. Eph. ii. 22; vi. 18; Col. i. 8). Nevertheless,
such cases are comparatively rare. The usual expression for the Third
Person of the Holy Trinity is either "the Spirit," or "Holy Spirit,"
or "the Holy Spirit," or "the Spirit of God," or "of the Lord," or "of
Jesus Christ," or "of truth," or "of life," etc. Therefore, when we
find "spirit" without either article, epithet, or distinguishing
genitive, the probabilities are that the spirit of man, and not the
Spirit of God, is intended.

It will be observed that the three independent descriptions of the
libertines, beginning with the words, "These are," become shorter as
they go on. The first is two long verses (12, 13); the second is one
long verse (16); the third is one very short verse. It is as if the
writer were disgusted with the unpalatable subject which necessity had
compelled him to take in hand (ver. 3), and were hurrying through it
to the more pleasing duty of exhorting those faithful Christians for
whose sake he has undertaken this painful task.

"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God,
looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." As
in ver. 17, the "But _ye_, beloved" (ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί) makes an
emphatic contrast between those whom St. Jude addresses and the
sensuous and unspiritual men of whom he has been speaking. He exhorts his
readers to endeavour to keep themselves in favour with God by cultivating
faith, prayer, and hope; and in this exhortation the main purpose of the
letter, as set forth in ver. 3, is fulfilled. The triplet of participles
(ἐποικοδομοῦντες--προσευχόμενοι--προσδεχόμενοι) must not be
lost sight of, although the fact that the main verb (τηρήσατε) comes
in the middle of them, instead of at the end, somewhat obscures the
triple construction.

The expression "building up" (ἐποικοδομεῖν) is in the New Testament
never used of actual building, but always in the metaphorical sense of
believers being united together so as to form a temple. In this temple
Christ is sometimes regarded as the foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11),
sometimes as that which binds the structure together (Eph. ii. 20;
Col. ii. 7). The notion of building up comes from the preposition
(ἐπί), one stone being placed upon another, so that upward progress
is made. "The faith" here is probably the foundation on which the
structure is to rest; but it would be possible to translate "_with_
your most holy faith," instead of "_on_ your most holy faith;" and in
that case the dative would, as in Col. ii. 7, express the cement
rather than the foundation. In any case "the faith" is not the
internal grace or virtue of faith, but, as both the participle and the
adjective show, "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the
saints" (ver. 3). It is "_your_ faith," because it has been thus
delivered to you; and it is "most holy," in marked contrast to the
vile and shifty doctrines which the libertines profess and uphold.

"Praying in the Holy Ghost." This is the best arrangement of the
words, although the Greek allows us to take "in the Holy Ghost" with
the previous clause, a rather clumsy division of the words, which is
sanctioned by Luther, Beza, and the Rhemish Version: "building
yourselves upon our (_sic_) most holy faith, in the Holy Ghost,
praying." The expression "praying in the Holy Ghost" occurs nowhere
else; but that is no reason why St. Jude should not have used it here.
It means that we are to pray in the power and wisdom of the Spirit. In
order that we may pray, and pray aright, He must move our hearts and
direct our petitions.

"Keep yourselves in the love of God." Not our love of God is meant,
but His love of us. This is rendered probable both by what immediately
follows--for "the love of God" should have a meaning similar to that
of "the mercy of Jesus Christ"--and also by the opening address,
"beloved in God" (ver. 1), which St. Jude perhaps has in his mind; for
the whole of the verse before us is closely connected with the first
verse of the Epistle. God's love is the region in which all Christians
should strive to abide, and it is by faith and prayer that this abode
is secured. To be conscious of being beloved by God is one of the
greatest protections that the believer can possess.

"Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."
That mercy which He will show to all faithful Christians when He
returns as Judge at the last day. We may compare "looking for and
earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter iii. 12).
Both in this life and in eternity it is mercy that we need and crave.
The Psalms are full of this thought, as a reference to the numerous
passages in which the word mercy occurs will reveal: see especially
Ps. cxxx. And in connexion with this the concise statement respecting
the relations of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity to believers must
not be overlooked. By prayer in the power of the Holy Spirit we are
kept in the love of the Father through the mercy of the Son. "Unto
eternal life." It is not a matter of much moment whether we take these
words with "keep yourselves," or with "looking," or with "mercy." The
first seems to be the best arrangement, "keep yourselves ... unto
eternal life;" but in any case the eternal life is reached through the
mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ. With a similar thought the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 28) writes of Christ's Second Advent
as an advent "unto salvation" (εἰς σωτηρίαν). The Divine purpose of
both Advents is mercy, and not judgment; but seeing that both Advents
are met by some who refuse to believe and repent, judgment is
inevitable.

"And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching
out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear." In hardly any
other passage, perhaps, does the Revised Version differ in so many
particulars from the Authorized. The main changes are the result of
changes in the Greek text, which here is in so corrupt a state that
the original cannot be restored with certainty. The readings adopted
by the Revisers have the advantage of giving us another triple
division, which St. Jude is very likely to have made. This triple
division is preserved in the Vulgate, and therefore in Wiclif and the
Rhemish Version. Our other translators, with Luther and Beza, not
finding it in the inferior Greek MSS. which they used, of course do
not give it.[127] With one possible exception, the text adopted by the
Revisers seems to be the best that can be framed with our present
evidence. It is doubtful whether we ought not to substitute "convict"
(ἐλέγχετε) for the first "have mercy" (ἐλεᾶτε). This reading has
very powerful support (AC, the best cursives, Vulgate, Memphitic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic), and is adopted by many critics. But it may
possibly be an early correction of a still earlier corruption, and not
a restoration of the original reading. This is one of those passages
about which we must be content to remain in doubt as to what the
author actually wrote (see above on ver. 5, p. 404).

In any case the writer is giving directions as to how to deal with two
or three different classes of persons, who are in danger of being
seduced by the libertines; and possibly the libertines themselves are
included. We will assume that three classes are named. In the first we
are confronted with an uncertainty of translation. The participle
rendered "who are in doubt" (διακρινομένους) may also mean "while
they contend" with you. Which meaning we prefer will depend partly
upon the reading which we adopt for the imperative which governs the
accusative. "On some _have mercy_, when they are in _doubt_," makes
very harmonious sense; for earnest doubters, who are unable to make up
their minds for or against the truth, are to be treated with great
tenderness. Again, "And some _convict_, when they _contend_ with you,"
makes very harmonious sense; for it is those who are disposed to be
contentious that need to be refuted and convinced of their error. It
is in favour of the latter version of the command that the verbs
rendered "convict" and "contend" occur, _and in the same sense_, in
the earlier part of the Epistle (vv. 9, 15). In either case that which
is doubted or contended about is "the faith once for all delivered
unto the saints," on which believers are to "build themselves up."

The second class are such as can still be rescued, but by strong
measures. No hint, however, is given as to their characteristics; we
are merely told that there are some who require to be taken with
decision, and perhaps even with violence, out of their perilous
surroundings, in order that they may be saved from destruction. We may
perhaps think of those who, without being in doubt or inclined to
dispute about the faith, are being carried away into licentiousness by
intercourse with the libertines. The fire out of which they are to be
snatched is not the penal fire of the judgment to come, but the state
of perdition in which they are now living. We seem to have here, as in
ver. 9, a reminiscence of Zechariah iii. 1, where we read, "Is not
this a brand plucked out of the fire?" In Amos iv. 11 we have the same
figure, and the context there agrees with the suggestion just made as
to the kind of person indicated by St. Jude: "I have overthrown some
among you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a
brand plucked out of the burning." There are some who need to be
rescued in the way that the angels rescued Lot, with urgency and
constraint (Gen. xix. 16, 17); and it is specially in reference to
temptations such as Lot had gone into that such urgency is needed.

The third class is one which must be treated with great
circumspection: "and on some have mercy _with fear_; hating even the
garment spotted by the flesh." This does not mean, as Luther supposes,
that we must "let them severely alone, and have nothing to do with
them," but that in dealing with evil so insidious and so infectious,
we must take care that we are not contaminated ourselves. It is quite
possible to approach evil with good intentions, and then, through want
of proper humility and caution, end in finding it fatally attractive.
We must carefully preserve abhorrence for all that is associated with
pollution. In the _defiled_ garment (comp. James iii. 6, where the
same word is used) St. Jude appears once more to have Zechariah
iii. 1-3 in his mind; but the Greek of the LXX. is there quite
different (ἱμάτια ῥυπαρά, instead of ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα). The
garment here mentioned is the _chiton_, or shirt, which came in
contact with the body, and would itself be rendered unclean if the
body were unclean. It therefore serves well as a symbol for that which
has become perilous through being closely connected with evil. But
while the evil and that which has been contaminated by it are to be
hated, compassion is to be shown to those who have fallen victims to
it. To be _shown_, not merely _felt_, as is manifest from the word
which St. Jude uses (ἐλεᾷν, not οἰκτείρειν). The passages in which
this verb (or its more common form ἐλεεῖν) elsewhere occurs in the
New Testament prove that it means "to _have_ mercy on, to succour and
bring help to," and not merely "to _feel_ pity for" without doing
anything to relieve the person pitied (Matt. ix. 27; xv. 22; xvii. 15;
xviii. 33; xx. 30; Mark x. 47; Luke xvi. 24; xvii. 13; xviii. 38;
Phil. ii. 27). It is specially used of God's showing mercy to those
who do not deserve it (Rom. ix. 15, 16, 18; xi. 32; 1 Cor. vii. 25;
2 Cor. iv. 1; 1 Tim. i. 13, 16; 1 Peter ii. 10), and therefore fitly
expresses the sympathy which ought to be manifested by the faithful
towards the fallen. But in some cases this sympathy must be manifested
_in fear_. It is by acting in the spirit of godly fear that love of
the sinner can be combined with hatred of the sin. Without it sympathy
with the sinner is too likely to turn into sympathy with the sin. To
put it otherwise: All our efforts for the reformation of others must
be begun and continued with self-reformation; and therefore St. Jude
insists on the necessity for spiritual progress and prayer, before
advising as to the treatment of the fallen. It is while we are
earnestly detesting and contending against a particular sin in
ourselves that we can most safely and effectually deal with that sin
in others.

Finally, it must be noted as specially remarkable that St. Jude, after
all the strong language which he has used in describing the wickedness
of those who are corrupting the Christian community, does _not_, in
this advice as to the different methods which are to be used in
dealing with those who are going or have gone astray, recommend
denunciation. Not that denunciation is always wrong; in some cases it
may be necessary. But denunciation by itself commonly does more harm
than good; while other methods, which must be added in order to make
denunciation effectual, are often quite as efficacious when no
denunciation has been employed. It is quite possible to manifest one's
abhorrence of "the garment spotted with the flesh," without public or
private abuse of those who are the authors of the defilement.

[127] Nevertheless, Westcott and Hort reject the triple division, and
adopt the text of B, "which involves the incongruity that the first οὕς
must be taken as a relative, and the first ἐλεᾶτε as indicative. Some
primitive error evidently affects the passage" (ii., p. 107). It is
difficult to believe that their text is right.




 CHAPTER XXXVIII.

 _THE FINAL DOXOLOGY: PRAISE TO GOD,
 THE PROTECTOR OF HIS SERVANTS._

 "Now unto Him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set
 you before the presence of His glory without blemish in exceeding
 joy, to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be
 glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now, and for
 evermore." Amen.--ST. JUDE 24, 25.


From his severe and sombre warnings and exhortations St. Jude turns in
joyous and exulting confidence to Him who alone can make them
effectual. He has spoken with sternness and horror of great wickedness
which has been manifested both in the past and in the present, and of
God's terrible judgments upon it. He has exhorted his readers to
beware of it, and not to let their abhorrence of it grow less when
they are engaged in the merciful work of rescuing others from it. Now,
in conclusion, he offers a fervent tribute of praise to Him who is a
God of love as well as of justice, and who is as able and ready to
protect those who cling to Him and serve Him as to punish those who
murmur and rebel against Him.

The doxologies at the end of the Epistle to the Romans and at the
beginning of the First Epistle to Timothy should be compared with this
one. The former is nearest to it in form; and it is from the doxology
in Romans that the epithet "wise," which the Authorized Version
wrongly inserts both here and in 1 Tim. i. 17, probably comes.
Doxologies, modelled on those in the New Testament, became elastic in
some respects, and stereotyped in others. The formula "to the only
wise God" was a common one, and hence scribes inserted the epithet,
perhaps almost mechanically, in places where it was not found in the
original. It is quite possible that St. Jude knew the Epistle to the
Romans, and his doxology, especially in its opening words, may be a
conscious or unconscious imitation of it; for the Epistle to the
Romans was written some years before the earliest date that can with
any probability be assigned to this Epistle.

"To guard you from stumbling;" which in two respects is more than "to
keep you from falling." Firstly, "guard" preserves the idea of
_protection_ against perils, both manifest and secret, more decidedly
than "keep;" and secondly, one may have many stumbles without any
falls, and therefore to be preserved from even stumbling implies a
larger measure of care on the part of the protector. But even "to
guard you from stumbling" does not quite do justice to the Greek
(φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους), nor is it easy to do so. "Guard you so
that you are exempt from stumbling and never trip or make a false
step" is the full meaning of the expression. The verb which is here
negatived is used by St. James (ii. 10): "Whosoever shall keep the
whole law, and yet stumble (πταίσῃ) in one point, he is become
guilty of all." The Vulgate lets go the metaphor of stumbling, and
translates simply "to preserve you without sin" (_conservare sine
peccato_). That which is impossible with men is possible with God, and
the Divine grace can protect Christians against their own frailty.
Christ says of His sheep that they shall assuredly never perish, and
that no one, whether powers of evil or human seducers, can snatch them
out of His hand (John x. 28). Their wills are free, and they may will
to leave Him; but if they determine to abide with Him they will be
safe.

"And to set you before the presence of His glory without blemish."
This is the blessed result of His protecting them from stumbling. The
revised translation, "without blemish" (ἀμώμους), at first sight looks
like a needless and vexatious change from the "faultless" of the
Authorized Version, and a clumsy one, because it gives two English
words for one Greek word. But the change is a real improvement, for
the Greek word is a _sacrificial_ term, which "faultless" is not. It
is frequently used of victims, which must be "without blemish," in
order to be suitable for offerings. It is not common in classical
Greek, but frequent in the LXX. (Exod. xxix. 1; Lev. i. 3, 10;
xxii. 21-24; Num. vi. 14; xix. 2). In 1 Macc. iv. 42 it is used of the
priests, and so also in Philo (_De Merc. Mer._ i.; _De Agric._ xxix.:
see Lightfoot on μωμοσκοπθέν: Clem. Rom. xli.). In the New Testament
it is used sometimes of the sinlessness of Christ (Heb. ix. 14;
1 Peter i. 19), sometimes of the ideal perfection of Christians (Eph.
i. 4; v. 27; Phil. ii. 15). In the Epistle to the Colossians St. Paul
has almost the same idea as St. Jude--"to _present_ you holy and
_without blemish_ and unreprovable _before Him_" (i. 22); and again in
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians--"to the end He may stablish
your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father, at the
coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints" (iii. 13). "Before the
presence of His glory" refers to the glory of God which shall be
revealed at the last day.

"In exceeding joy" is a further consequence from the second point, as
the second from the first. To be protected against stumbling leads to
being presented without blemish before the judgment-seat, and this is
an occasion of intense delight. As St. Peter puts it, "Inasmuch as ye
are partakers of Christ's sufferings, rejoice; that at the revelation
of His glory also ye may rejoice with exceeding joy" (1 Peter iv. 13).

"To the only God our Saviour." St. Paul, like St. Jude, speaks of God
the Father as our Saviour. He is "an Apostle of Christ Jesus according
to the commandment of God our Saviour" (1 Tim. i. 1), and he says that
intercession and thanksgiving for others "is good and acceptable in
the sight of God our Saviour" (ii. 3). Still more fully he says that
"God our Saviour ... saved us ... through Jesus Christ our Saviour
(Titus iii. 4-6: comp. i. 3; ii. 10). The work of the Son is the work
of the Father; and so in the Old Testament we have Jehovah spoken of
as the Saviour and Redeemer of His people (Ps. cvi. 21; Isa. xli. 15,
21; xlix. 26; lx. 16). And this is the meaning of the clause which
textual criticism has restored to us in this passage. God is our
Saviour "_through Jesus Christ our Lord_." Some take these words with
what follows. "To the only God be glory, majesty, dominion and power,
through Jesus Christ our Lord;" which makes excellent sense, and is in
harmony with the doxology in 1 Peter iv. 11, "that in all things God
may be glorified through Jesus Christ." It is no strong objection to
this to urge that in that case St. Jude would have reversed the order
of the clauses (δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν). In the doxology at the end of the Epistle to the
Romans (which St. Jude _may_ have in his mind) "through Jesus Christ"
precedes "be the glory," and yet cannot easily be taken with anything
else (omitting ᾧ as a probable corruption). The combination "glory
and dominion" occurs in other doxologies (1 Peter iv. 11; Rev. i. 6;
v. 13); "majesty" and "power" do not occur in any. "Majesty" in the
New Testament is found in Hebrews i. 3 and viii. 1 only; but it occurs
in the LXX. and in Clement of Rome (xvi. 1). The doxology in 1 Chron.
xxix. 11 is specially worthy of notice. The word seems to have been
used almost exclusively of the majesty of God, and the four words
together sum up the Divine glory and omnipotence. It is a little
remarkable that in this case St. Jude abandons his favourite triplets,
and gives four attributes rather than three. But he returns in a still
more remarkable way to his favourite arrangement in the concluding
words.

"Before all time, and now, and for evermore." Thus, in a very
comprehensive phrase, eternity is described. Throughout all time, and
throughout the ages which precede and follow it, these attributes
belong to God. Evil men in their dreamings may "set at nought dominion
and rail at glories," and their mouth may "speak great swelling words"
about their own superior knowledge and greater liberty, and may mock
and scoff at those who will not follow them in "walking after their
own ungodly lusts." Nevertheless, ages before they were born, and ages
after they shall have vanished from the world which they are troubling
by their presence, glory, majesty, dominion, and power belong to Him
who saves us, and would save even them, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

They _belong_ to Him. This seems to be the meaning rather than that
they are _ascribed_ to Him. No verb is given in the Greek; neither
"is," as in 1 Peter iv. 11 (ᾧ ἐστὶν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος), nor
"be" (ἔστω), which in most doxologies may be understood. "To Him
_be_ glory _before all time_" is scarcely sense, for our wishes cannot
influence the past. "To Him belongs glory before all time" is the
statement of a simple fact.

It is those who know their own frailty and liability to sin; who know
the manifold temptations which surround them, and the terrible
attractiveness which many of them can present; who know from past
experience what frequent and grievous falls are possible; that can
best understand the statement of fact which this doxology contains,
and the significance of it. He who can guard such creatures as we are
from stumbling, in such a world as this, must be the only God; must be
He who was, and is, and is to come; must possess throughout all time
and all eternity the highest powers and glories which the heart of man
can conceive. The wonders of the material universe impress us in our
more solemn moments with feelings of awe, and reverence, and love for
Him who is the Author of them all. How much more should the wonders of
the kingdom of heaven do so! Out of sinful man to make a saint is more
than to make a world out of nothing; and to keep sinful men from
stumbling is more than to keep the stars in their courses. There is a
free and rebellious will to be won and retained in the one case,
whereas there is nothing but absolute and unresisting obedience in the
other. The difference is that which is so beautifully expressed in the
103rd and 104th Psalms. In the latter of these two exquisite songs of
praise and thanksgiving Jehovah is praised as the Creator and
Regulator of the world, in the former as the Pardoner and Preserver of
His servants. In the one case blessing and praise is offered to the
Lord--

  "Who laid the foundations of the earth,
  That it should not be moved for ever.
  Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a vesture;
  The waters stood above the mountains.
  They went up by the mountains,
  They went down by the valleys,
  Unto the place which Thou hadst founded for them.
  Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;
  That they turn not again to cover the earth.
  O Lord, how manifold are Thy works!
  In wisdom hast Thou made them all:
  The earth is full of Thy riches.
  Let the glory of the Lord endure for ever;
  Let the Lord rejoice in His works:
  Who looketh on the earth, and it trembleth;
  He toucheth the mountains, and they smoke."

  Ps. civ. 5, 6, 8, 9, 24, 31, 32.

But in the other song the Lord is praised, not so much in relation to
the glorious universe which He creates and controls, but in relation
to the spirits of men, whom He restores, and of angels, whom He
retains, to willing obedience and service.

  "Bless the Lord, O my soul,
  And forget not all His benefits:
  Who forgiveth all thine iniquities;
  Who healeth all thy diseases;
  Who redeemeth thy life from destruction;
  Who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies.
  He hath not dealt with us after our sins,
  Nor rewarded us after our iniquities.
  For as the heaven is high above the earth,
  So great is His mercy toward them that fear Him.
  As far as the east is from the west,
  So far hath He removed our transgressions from us.
  Bless the Lord, ye angels of His;
  Ye mighty in strength, that fulfil His word,
  Hearkening unto the voice of His word,
  Bless the Lord, all ye His hosts;
  Ye ministers of His, that do His pleasure."

  Ps. ciii. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21.

It is quite in harmony with such a strain as this that the joyous
doxology with which St. Jude's stern letter suddenly ends is written.
Its clauses lend themselves to that parallelism which distinguishes
Hebrew poetry, and they have not only the spirit, but the form, of a
concluding strophe of praise.

  "Now unto Him that is able to guard you from stumbling,
  And to set you before the presence of His glory without blemish
    in exceeding joy,
  To the only God our Saviour,
  Through Jesus Christ our Lord,
  Glory, majesty, dominion and power,
  Before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen."

NOTE.--The "Amen" at the end of this Epistle, as at the end of Romans
and 2 Peter, which like this close with a doxology, seems to be
genuine (comp. 1 Peter iv. II; v. II); but that at the end of 2 Peter
is somewhat doubtful. In all other books of the New Testament,
excepting Galatians, the final "Amen" is probably spurious.




INDEX.


Abraham, the Friend of God, 160, 162.

Absolution, Forms of, 342.

Academy, 367.

_Address to the Reader_, Translators', 119.

Adultery, Spiritual, 227.

Advents of Christ, 278, 458.

'Ælius Gallus, 328.

Agape, 428.

Albinus, 40.

Alexander the Great, 163.

Alford, 32, 399, 418.

Alphæus, 27.

Amasis, 173.

Amen, 470.

American civil war, 235.

Ananus, 40.

Angels, Sinful, 408.

Anointing the sick, 326.

Antioch, Synod at, 369.

Aphraates, 22.

Apocrypha, 76, 145, 156, 204, 424.

Apostolic, Luther's view of, 23.

Aristotle, 67, 103, 156, 197.

Arrian, 182.

_Assumption of Moses_, 422.

Assumption of the Virgin, 384.

Athanasius, 7, 16, 369.

Augustine, 65, 98, 132, 207, 296, 300, 307, 334, 358, 369, 441.

Auricular confession, 336, 340.

Authenticity of the Epistle of St. James, 14; of St. Jude, 365.

Azazel, 411.


Barnabas, Epistle of, 18, 23, 76.

Baur, F. C., 138, 140.

Bede, 6, 8, 84, 103, 153, 172, 267, 268, 282, 285, 296, 331, 351.

Bellarmine, 339.

Bengel, 115, 285, 325, 418.

Beyschlag, 60.

Beza, 159, 222, 387, 418, 432, 454, 457.

Bias the sage, 173.

Bodenstein, 24.

British Association, 346.

Brother of the Lord, 28, 31, 374.

Bruce, 410.

Brückner, 60, 378, 390, 418.

Building up, 456.

Butler, Archer, 383, 386.

Butler, Bishop, 99, 443.


Cæsar, Julius, 287.

Cajetan, 332, 336.

Calendars, 31.

Caligula, 349.

Calvin, 222, 283, 319, 325, 360, 417, 432.

Canonical, 2.

Canonical Books, 17.

Canonical Epistles, 1, 6.

Carlyle, 166.

Carpocrates, 389.

Cassian, 7.

Cassiodorus, 2, 285, 369.

Catholic, 3.

Catholic Epistles, 1, 10.

Cave, 6.

Celsus, 328.

Censuring, Love of, 251.

Ceriani, 422.

Channing, 381.

Christ's sayings in St. James' Epistle, 100, 309.

Christology of St. James, 111.

Chrysostom, 292, 331, 338, 368.

Clement of Alexandria, 5, 21, 36, 76, 213, 307, 362, 369, 422.

Clement of Rome, 18, 20, 23, 160, 215, 245, 292, 295.

Clergy and laity, 324.

Clopas, 26, 27.

Confession of sins, 336.

_Confessions_ of St. Augustine, 333.

Conjectural emendation, 405.

Conversation, 195.

Converting sinners, 351, 357.

Council of Hippo, 17.

---- of Jerusalem, 35, 61.

---- of Laodicea, 14, 17, 24.

---- of Liège, 341.

---- of Trent, 341.

Covering sins, 351.

Cynics, 66, 315.

Cyprian, 368.

Cyrenaics, 265.

Cyril of Jerusalem, 7, 17.


Date of St. James' Epistle, 61.

---- of St. Jude's Epistle, 371, 375, 389.

---- of the Book of Wisdom, 69, 75.

Davidson, 45, 55, 112.

Day of slaughter, 284.

Defilement by the tongue, 177.

Demons, 150.

Denunciation, 181.

Descriptive Genitive, 98, 108, 122, 447.

Destruction of Jerusalem, 128, 276, 407.

Determinism, 93, 95.

Development of doctrine, 380.

Devil, Personality of the, 150, 240.

De Wette, 378.

Didymus of Alexandria, 369, 422.

Dillmann, 438, 440.

Diognetus, 4.

Dispersion, Jews of the, 50, 53, 143.

Disputed books, 2, 15, 366.

Döllinger, 30, 31, 153, 273, 328, 400.

Domitian, 324.

Dorner, 116, 390.

Douay Version, 295.

Double-mindedness, 245.

Doubtful readings, 281, 361, 391, 402.

Doubtful renderings, 122, 174, 212, 213, 428, 430, 447.

Doxologies, 466.

Drummond, 423, 439.


Ebionism of St. James, 83.

Ecclesiasticus, 69, 73, 109, 281.

_Edinburgh Review_, 77.

Elders of the Church, 323.

Elijah's prayers, 344.

_Enoch, Book of_, 409, 433, 437, 447.

Enthusiasm of humanity, 231.

Ephrem Syrus, 370.

Epicureans, 265, 283.

Erasmus, 222, 351, 353, 418.

Essenes, 306.

Eucharist and Love-feast, 429.

Eusebius, 2, 14, 17, 162.

Euthalius, 6.

Evil-speaking, 259.

_Expositor_, 98, 115.

Extreme Unction, 326.


Faith and works, 137, 143.

Faith of Abraham, 156.

Faith of the demons, 151.

Faith of Rahab, 161.

Farrar, F. W., 32, 70, 393, 399.

Fault-finding, Love of, 251.

Field, 415.

First Prayer-Book of Edward VI., 333, 342.

Free-will, 93.

Friend of God, 160, 162.

Fronmüller, 399, 408.


Gelasius of Cyzicus, 422.

General Epistles, 5.

Genevan Version, 372, 200, 454.

Genitive, Characterizing, 98, 108, 122, 447.

Gentleman defined, 202.

Georgius Syncellus, 410, 438.

Gnosticism, 389.

Greek Church, Forms of absolution in, 343.

Gregory Nazianzen, 268.

_Guardian_, 333.


Harnack, 20, 370.

Harper, Jesuit, 385.

Hatch, 146, 256, 399.

Hearing without doing, 101.

Hefele, 14.

Hegesippus, 28, 36, 39, 374.

Hermas, 18, 20, 249.

Herod the Great, 328.

Hexameter in St. James' Epistle, 96.

Hilgenfeld, 49, 375, 399, 423.

Hippolytus, 20, 367.

Hoffmann, 438.

Hofmann, 399, 407, 410, 438.

Holzmann, 60.

Hooker, 43, 65, 320, 339, 407, 452, 453.

Hornejus, 222.

Hutton, 95, 387.


Ignatius, 3, 130, 212, 279, 429.

Inspiration, 298, 344, 405, 424.

Intercession, 325, 342.

Irenæus, 20, 434, 438, 444.


James, The name, 25.

James of Alphæus, 27.

James the Just, 31, 36, 41, 47.

Jealousy, 198.

Jealousy, Divine, 234.

Jellett, 211.

Jeremy Taylor, 332.

Jerome, 7, 31, 366, 369.

Jerusalem, Destruction of, 128, 276, 407.

Job, Character of the Book of, 297, 299.

---- Coincidences with the Book of, 267, 281, 291.

John, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 313.

Josephus, 36, 39, 53, 221, 285, 349.

Joy in temptation, 63.

Judas not Iscariot, 372.

---- of James, 372, 376.

Judgment, Day of, 412.

Julius Cæsar, 287.

Justin Martyr, 4, 130, 146, 429, 441.


Keble, 101.


Lange, 285, 296, 399.

Laodicea, Council of, 7, 14, 17, 24.

Lardner, 420.

Last days, Meaning of the, 278.

Lateran Council, 341.

Lectionary, New, 76.

Leo the Great, 340.

Liddon, 116, 230.

Light healing, 245.

Lightfoot, Bishop, 20, 32, 120, 367, 379, 429, 451.

---- John, 77, 328.

Lincoln, President, 235.

Love-feast, 428, 431.

Lucifer of Cagliari, 431.

Luke, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 313.

Luther, 23, 147, 159, 293, 427, 454, 457.


Making separations, 450.

_Magnificat_, 236.

Malchion, 370.

Manchester, Bishop of, 345.

Mansel, 392.

Margoliouth, 79.

Mark, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 312.

Martyrologies, 31.

Matthew, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 310.

Mayor, J. B., 115.

Messianic ideas in the _Book of Enoch_, 439.

Metaphors of St. James, 86, 88.

Meyer, 32, 390.

Midrash, 420.

Mocking at sin, 188, 448.

Monica, 358.

Moorhouse, Bishop, on prayers for rain, 345.

_Moses, Assumption of_, 422.

Muratorian Canon, 20, 367.

Mussus, 383.


Nature, Love of, 86, 231.

Neander, 290, 325.

Nectarius, 340.

Newman, J. H., 202, 266, 380, 383, 443.

Nicephorus, 422.


Œcumenius, 285, 399, 418.

Oil, Use of, for the sick, 327, 331.

Origen, 5, 21, 307, 330, 337, 369, 372, 441.


Paes, 105.

Pamphilus, 6, 7.

Patience, Greek words for, 291.

---- in criticism, 299.

---- in waiting, 289.

Pattison, Mark, 208.

Pelagius, 307.

Penitentiary presbyters, 340.

Peshitto, 21, 30, 368.

Peter, Coincidences with the Epistle of, 58, 85, 217, 256, 353.

Petronius, 349.

Philip of Side, 325.

Philo, 52, 145.

Plato, 67, 103, 218.

Plumptre, 32, 349, 399.

Plutarch, 162.

Polycarp, 307.

Positivism, 92, 94.

Prayer for change of weather, 344.

Predestination, 397.

Presumption about the future, 262.

Probabilism, 273.

Proculus Torpacion, 330.

Public confession of sins, 339.

Punctuation, 91, 174, 220, 296, 334, 377.

Purvey, 200, 212, 447.


Rabbi Simeon, 264.

Rahab, 20.

Reality of sin, 92.

Remorse and free-will, 93.

Renan, 122, 128, 371.

Resch, 56, 90, 233, 362.

Respect of persons, 119, 134, 444.

Reuss, 141, 166, 390, 399.

Revisers, Improvements made by the, 57, 80, 109, 114, 118, 119, 136,
 151, 170, 175, 196, 226, 231, 335, 409, 445, 458, 465.

Rhemish Version, 80, 200, 292, 427, 430, 447, 457.

Roman government in Palestine, 127.

Romans, Coincidences with the Epistle to the, 57, 100, 272.

Royal law, 131.


Salmon, 21, 50, 55, 69, 71, 139, 385, 425, 431.

Sarasa, 273.

Sarum Office, 342.

Satan, Personality of, 150, 240.

Schaff, 32, 399.

Schott, 407, 418.

Schürer, 50, 423, 424, 439.

Sensual, Meaning of, in N.T., 200, 453.

Septimius Severus, 21, 330.

_Sicarii_, 221.

Shadow of turning, 98.

Sham religion, 180, 192.

Sibylline oracles, 51.

_Sinaiticus, Codex_, 5, 403.

Slaughter, Day of, 284.

Socrates, 340.

Solidarity of the Divine Law, 132.

Sozomen, 340.

Stanton, 412, 439.

Stars, Wandering, 432.

Stier, 32, 199, 297, 325, 333, 399.

Stoicism, 66, 133, 315.

Strauss, 381.

Style of St. James, 62, 124.

Suarez, 322.

Submission and penitence, 238, 246.

Swearing, 302; when lawful, 306.

Synagogue, Christian, 19, 118, 126.

Syriac Version, 8, 21, 26, 30, 187, 368.


Talkativeness, Perils of, 186.

Taylor, Jeremy, 332.

Teachers, responsibilities of, 167.

Temper, 190.

Temple, F., 189.

Temptation, Joy in, 63.

---- Source of, 90.

---- not irresistible, 240, 243.

Tertullian, 307, 330, 337, 342, 368, 441.

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, 249, 437.

Theodore of Tarsus, 331.

Tischendorf, 7.

Tobit, 281, 295.

Tongue, Defilement by the, 177.

---- The third, 187.

Toulouse, Council of, 341.

Tregelles, 7.

Trench, 120.

Trent, Council of, 341.

Triplets in St. Jude's Epistle, 396.

Tyndale, 200, 222.


Unction, Extreme, 326.

Unrecorded sayings of Christ, 56, 89, 249, 362.


Verbal inspiration, 405.

_Viaticum_, 332.

Virginity, Perpetual, of Mary, 31.

Vulgate, Insertion in the, 5.


Wandering stars, 432.

Weiss, 32, 70, 76, 399.

Westcott, 4, 7, 17, 24, 434, 439, 458.

Wetstein, 296, 399.

Wiclif, 427, 447, 458.

Wiesinger, 399, 418.

Wieseler, 32.

Williams, Isaac, 444.

Wisdom, Book of, 69, 74, 287.

Wisdom from above, 205.

Wisdom from below, 194.

World, Meaning of, in St. James, 229.

Worship and conduct, 317.

---- and emotion, 315.

---- and music, 320.


Zahn, 21, 70, 370.

Zealots, 198, 221, 277, 285.


_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._




BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

_Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d._

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

By the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.,

_Master of University College, Durham._


"Dr. Plummer's name is a guarantee for sensible, scholarly work, and
his 'Pastoral Epistles' quite maintains its reputation.... It is an
admirable example of what popular theology ought to be--presuming a
somewhat high level of education and interest in its readers, and
built throughout upon sound erudition and sensible, devout, and
well-disciplined reflection."--_Saturday Review._

"After a short statement of the grounds for believing in the Pauline
authorship of these Epistles, the writer takes some of the chief
paragraphs of the text, explains their meaning, draws out their
historical significance, and concludes with a practical application to
modern times of the truths contained in the paragraph. The treatment
is throughout scholarlike, lucid, thoughtful."--_Guardian._

"The value of the expositions in themselves is much enhanced by the
mode in which they are brought to bear on beliefs and practices of the
present age."--_Literary Churchman._

"Full of life and vigour.... No difficulty in the Epistles is evaded,
rather are troublesome passages attacked with keener relish. Dr.
Plummer has spared no pains on his task, and has produced what is
practically the best commentary we have on these important
Epistles."--_British Weekly._

"This volume preserves the reputation of its predecessors for being of
high artistic merit, in the vividness with which it clothes doctrines
and precepts, existing in abstract forms in the Epistles, with the
concrete realities of daily needs, brings them to change the metaphor
into full harmony with the symphonies of a holy life."--_Rock._

"The introductory chapter on the character and genuineness of the
Pastoral Epistles' is most masterly and conclusive.... The exposition
is marked by sound and painstaking scholarship, sympathetic insight
into and careful analysis of the Apostle's thought."--_Nonconformist._

"The author of this work is already well known by his excellent
volumes on the Gospel and the Epistles of St. John. Among other
excellencies in the new volume we may mention the first chapter of the
exposition which discusses carefully and attractively the genuineness
of the Epistles annotated."--_Methodist Tunes._


LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.




THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.

_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._


FIRST SERIES.

 Colossians.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D., D.Lit.

 St. Mark.
  By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.

 Genesis.
  By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.

 1 Samuel.
  By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.

 2 Samuel.
  By the same Author.

 Hebrews.
  By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.


SECOND SERIES.

 Galatians.
  By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.

 The Pastoral Epistles.
  By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.

 Isaiah I.--XXXIX.
  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. I.

 The Book of Revelation.
  By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.

 1 Corinthians.
  By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D,

 The Epistles of St. John.
  By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Armagh.


THIRD SERIES.

 Judges and Ruth.
  By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.

 Jeremiah.
  By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.

 Isaiah XL.-LXVI.
  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.

 St. Matthew.
  By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.

 Exodus.
  By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.

 St. Luke.
  By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.


FOURTH SERIES.

 Ecclesiastes.
  By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.

 St. James and St. Jude.
  By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.

 Proverbs.
  By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.

 Leviticus.
  By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.

 The Gospel of St. John.
  By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.

 The Acts of the Apostles.
  By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.


FIFTH SERIES.

 The Psalms.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.

 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
  By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.

 The Book of Job.
  By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.

 Ephesians.
  By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.

 The Gospel of St. John.
  By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.

 The Acts of the Apostles.
  By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.


SIXTH SERIES.

 1 Kings.
  By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.

 Philippians.
  By Principal RAINY, D.D.

 Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
  By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.

 Joshua.
  By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.

 The Psalms.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.

 The Epistles of St. Peter.
  By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.


SEVENTH SERIES.

 2 Kings.
  By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.

 Romans.
  By the Right Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.

 The Books of Chronicles.
  By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.

 2 Corinthians.
  By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.

 Numbers.
  By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.

 The Psalms.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.


EIGHTH SERIES.

 Daniel.
  By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.

 The Book of Jeremiah.
  By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.

 Deuteronomy.
  By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.

 The Song of Solomon and Lamentations.
  By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.

 Ezekiel.
  By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.

 The Books of the Twelve Prophets.
  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols




LITTLE BOOKS ON RELIGION.

Edited by Rev. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.

Cloth Elegant, 1_s._ 6_d._ each.


 Christ and the Future Life.
  By R. W. DALE, D.D., LL.D.

 The Seven Words from the Cross.
  By Rev. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.

 The Visions of a Prophet. Studies in Zechariah.
  By Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D.

 The Four Temperaments.
  By Rev. ALEXANDER WHYTE, D.D.

 The Upper Room.
  By Rev. JOHN WATSON, M.A., D.D. (Ian Maclaren).

 The Unity and Symmetry of the Bible.
  By Rev. Professor MONRO GIBSON, M.A., D.D.

 Gospel Questions and Answers.
  By Rev. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.

 Why be a Christian?
  By Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D.

 Four Psalms.
  By Rev. Professor G. A. SMITH, D.D.

 The Holy Father and the Living Christ.
  By Rev. PETER TAYLOR FORSYTH, D.D., Cambridge.

 Christian Perfection.
  By the same Author.

 From Strength to Strength.
  By Rev. J. H. JOWETT, M.A., of Carr's Lane Chapel, Birmingham.

 Restored Innocence.
  By Rev. R. J. CAMPBELL, B.A., Brighton.

 Aids to Belief.
  By the Right Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D., Lord Bishop of Derry.

 The Print of the Nails.
  By T. H. DARLOW, M.A.

 The Four Gospels.
  By the Rev. R. H. FISHER, B.D.

 The Seven Deadly Sins.
  By the Rev. JAMES STALKER, M.A., D.D.


LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.




OUTLINES OF A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

Based on Psychology and History.

By AUGUSTE SABATIER, Dean of the Faculty of Protestant Theology,
Paris. Authorised Translation by Rev. T. A. SEED. Crown 8vo cloth,
7_s._ 6_d._


"This is a striking book."--_Literature._

"It contains matters of surpassing interest. The volume is an
attractive one, and the translation well accomplished."--_The
Expository Times._

"Seldom have we read any book with so much mental satisfaction and
moral delight."--_Methodist Times._

"It is a fascinating book. It quivers with the intense emotion of a
fine spirit who has lived through the experience embodied in the
book."--_The Aberdeen Free Press._




THE PROVIDENTIAL ORDER OF THE WORLD.

By ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D., Professor of Apologetics and New
Testament Exegesis in the Free Church College, Glasgow. Crown 8vo,
cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._


"The lectures are excellent literature, and will add to the reputation
he already enjoys as a scholar and theologian."--_Scotsman._

"We can cordially thank Professor Bruce for what deserves to be called
a noble book."--_Glasgow Herald._

"It is able in thought and clear in exposition; it shows a wide grasp
of the subject, and a considerable acquaintance with all the varieties
of philosophical speculation thereupon; it is tolerant, and its
estimates of current thought are generally suggestive."--_Times._




THE MINISTRY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

By Rev. JOHN MORGAN, Viewforth Free Church, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo,
cloth, 5_s._


"A most interesting work.... Many earnest Christians will find in
these pages the reflection of their own spiritual difficulties and
anxieties."--_Record._

"A volume of good sound practical discourses."--_Methodist Times._


LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.




_WORKS BY THE RIGHT REV. HANDLEY C. G. MOULE, D.D.,_

_LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM._




Twenty-first Thousand. Fcap 8vo, 2_s._ 6_d._

OUTLINES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

_One of the Volumes of the_ THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.


"Mr. Moule has attempted a very difficult task, and has at least
succeeded in condensing an immense mass of information into a small
compass. It is perhaps superfluous to say that his work is
characterised by great reverence from the first page to the last. At
every point the reader feels that he is reading a statement of a
theology which is the life of the writer. In the more strictly
theological part the summary is, as a rule, arranged and expressed
excellently."--_Guardian._




DR. MOULE'S COMMENTARIES ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES.

Crown 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._


The Epistle to the Romans.

_In the_ EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.

"We do not hesitate to place it in the very front of the little group
of volumes which are the best examples of this carefully edited work.
It would be pleasant to linger upon this commentary, upon the
clearness with which the great evangelical doctrines of the Epistle
are explained and enforced, upon the earnestness of its personal
appeal, and the charm which often marks its language; but the
judicious student of the New Testament will obtain the book for
himself."--_Record._


Crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._

Ephesian Studies.


Crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._

Philippian Studies.

Lessons in Faith and Love from St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians.

"Dr. Moule carefully translates and paraphrases each section of St.
Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, and draws out the permanent lessons
of faith and love which it contains; he has made a wise choice of the
book of the Bible on which to comment, and has treated it with
wisdom and reverence.... It is a book to be pondered over in
meditation, and we think that those who so use it will find themselves
repaid."--_Guardian._


Crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._

Colossian Studies.

Lessons in Faith and Holiness from St. Paul's Epistles to the
Colossians and Philemon.

"Dr. Moule has not only given to us a faithful and scholarly
translation of St. Paul's Epistles, but he has most carefully brought
out the full teaching of faith and love in a series of beautiful
meditations altogether devotional. This is an invaluable addition to
our devotional commentaries of St. Paul's Epistles, and we trust that
the learned author may be led to continue his studies yet further in
this grand field of practical meditation, which not only enlightens
the human mind, but must deepen and quicken the spiritual life within
us. The book is a marvel of cheapness."--_Church Bells._


LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.





End of Project Gutenberg's The Expositor's Bible:, by Alfred Plummer

*** 