ees ea = = ae = = - ree 5 <= Lis Sane eee pen se 9k oye : Se ee ed Se ae a therinn Rte bey wie pts a ig ty Re ee rae am, A aie ae a ae ere So ieee eee Pg ee ee a et eo pal I aay ee STS ne eS eS te ole SS El itm Sy BE tay EL ea Cl Teg ab 8 ee i NB fi eg eS awe anions alee aoa ee eas At a Ap Ss Sess aes ~~ a ee =. ~ 405 — we aS ae oe nireer a i eae en a ae eee 2 < ype a Be ce ea ee ee Se ie ee ae ey =a On ee nn ae ep a Ss See et aaa a Xt SL. 3 SS = eos Oe SE OT ONE, SS 2g = ye oe ape Cg les x EP ot = = was ct EN 5 ne < = ans atass ses : ~>: Re Pr =, ens Oe Pee eek [ tee te ee. v.. be Re were a parietal, Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/studiesinepistledQ0robe STUDIES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES A. T. ROBERTSON, M.a., DD., LL.D., LITT.D. BY PROFESSOR A. T. ROBERTSON Tue MINISTER AND His GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. A Harmony OF THE GOSPELS FOR STUDENTS OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Types OF PREACHERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. PAUL THE INTERPRETER OF CHRIST. STUDIES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. A SHorT GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. STUDIES IN MARK’s GOSPEL. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEw TESTAMENT IN THE LicHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH. SYLLABUS FOR NEw TESTAMENT STUDY. A TRANSLATION OF LUKE’s GOSPEL. JoHN THE LoyaL: A SKETCH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. EPOcHsS IN THE LIFE oF JESUS. EPOCcHS IN THE LIFE OF PAUL. . THE PHARISEES AND JEsus. The Stone Princeton Lec- tures for I916. LUKE THE HISTORIAN IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH. THE STUDENT’s CHRONOLOGICAL NEW TESTAMENT. THE GLORY OF THE MINISTRY. THE Divinity OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. PAuUL’s Joy IN CHRIST: STUDIES IN PHILIPPIANS. Maxine Goop In THE MINistRY: A SKETCH OF JOHN Mark. THE NEw CITIZENSHIP. COMMENTARY ON MattTHew: The Bible for Home and School. KEYWORDS IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS. LIFE AND LETTERS OF JoHN A. Broapbus, THe TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING GOD THE FATHER. STUDIES IN THE NEw TESTAMENT. STUDIES IN THE.,,.. EPISTLE OF JAMES . By A. T. ROBERTSON M.A., D.D., LE.D., LITT.D. PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY “C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, App. 97. 22) PRACTICAL AND: SOCIATION AST HG is from his mother’s womb, drank no wine or strong drink, nor ate animal food; no razor came on his head, nor did he anoint himself with oil nor use the bath. To him only was it permitted to enter the Holy of Holies.”” The evident legendary details here deprive the statement of real value except as wit- ness to his genuine piety and to the esteem in which he was held by the people generally. Hegesippus adds: ‘“‘His knees became hard like a camel’s, be- cause he was always kneeling in the temple, asking forgiveness for the people,’ a description of his life — in Jerusalem after he became a Christian. At any rate, like Joseph, his father, he grew up to be a just man and came to be known as James the Just. 3. A Scoffer of Jesus. We are left to conjecture what the brothers and sisters of Jesus thought when he went down to the Jordan to meet the Baptist. We know that ‘Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19).!| Mary had seen the dawning Mes- Slanic consciousness when Jesus was only twelve (Luke 2:49). The reply of Jesus to his mother’s hint about the wine at the wedding of Cana implies that Jesus and his mother had talked over his Mes- sianic task (John 2:4). But the brothers accom- panied Jesus, his mother, and the small band of six disciples to Capernaum after the miracle at Cana, and the group remained together for some days ‘9 62 Mapia révra ovverfpec (note imperfect tense, linear action) ra phyuata av Béddovoa (putting together, piece by piece, every won- drous detail with a mother’s brooding love) év ri xapdia abric, JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 23 (John 2:12). They may have met at Nazareth after the wedding at Cana and thence proceeded to Capernaum. It is possible that the brothers, not being at Cana, and not being in the secret between Jesus and Mary, may not have grasped the sig- nificance of the events connected with the baptism of Jesus and his entrance upon his Messianic career. The presence of the band of ‘“‘disciples’’ (a6qraé, learners at the feet of the new Rabbi) argues that the brothers must have known something about the wonderful claims of Jesus their brother. At any rate, it is pleasant to see them all here together in Capernaum in fellowship and friendliness, ‘‘a proof of the closeness of the ties uniting our Lord and them. No shadow of estrangement had as yet fallen upon their relations.’’! Godet (on Luke 2:12) | thinks that Mary and the brothers came on to Capernaum eager for more miracles like the one at Cana, and may have been keenly disappointed be- cause Jesus wrought none. This is possible, but hardly as probable as the idea that it is a friendly group in frank fellowship in Capernaum. We are left in the dark as to the real attitude of the brothers of Jesus when he begins his great work. They may _have looked upon him as a sort of irregular rabbi or a mild enthusiast carried away by the new teaching of John the Baptist. There would be natural pride in his work, while it succeeded, without necessary belief in his claims. Certainly Mary must have had at first the utmost faith, tremulous with expecta- tion, in the Messiahship of Jesus. Perhaps the 1 Patrick, James the Lord’s Brother, p. 46. 24 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS brothers were at first only mildly interested or even sceptical of the qualifications of one out of their own family circle. The brothers may not have been free from the jealousy sometimes seen in home life. It was not long before hostility toward Jesus sprang up in Nazareth itself, according to the vivid narra- tive in Luke 4: 16-31, probably soon after the re- turn of Jesus from Judea and Samaria to Galilee, certainly after the miracle at Capernaum (Luke 4:23), as told in John 4:46-54. Probably James shared with the rest the first wonder at the words of grace (Luke 4:22) and the quick flash of wrath as the pride of the town was pricked (4:28). Hence- forth in Nazareth, despite his growing fame else- where, Jesus was persona non grata. His brothers felt this atmosphere of hostility very keenly. The curtain falls on the family life in Nazareth till toward the close of the Galilean ministry, after the second general tour of Galilee by Jesus (Luke 8: 1-3). The tremendous work of Jesus had created a wonderful impression. The multitudes in amaze- ment asked if Jesus were not the son of David, the Messiah (Matt. 12: 23). The Pharisees in anger and chagrin replied that he was in league with Beelzebub (12:24). The excitement was intense. Jesus would sometimes withdraw to the deserts and pray (Luke 5:16). Sometimes Jesus and the crowds would not eat (Mark 3:20). News of all this came to “his friends” (Mark 3:21), who are explained in Mark 3:31 as “his mother and his brothers.” Probably already vague rumors were afloat that Jesus was out of his head. Once people said of Jesus that he JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 25 was “a gluttonous man, and a winebibber” (Luke 7:34), but now he is so queer! In the inner circle at Nazareth Mary had watched and heard it all. What could it mean? Perhaps, Mary argued, his reason has been temporarily dethroned by the strain and the excitement. She will go and bring him home, where he can have quiet and rest. It was easier for the brothers to see it so, since they had not accepted him as Messiah. Perhaps one may have said, ‘“‘I told you so.’’ At any rate, “they went to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside him- self’? (Mark 3:21).! Jesus is in a crowded house ° in Galilee near the Lake when they come (Mark 3:19) and readily understands why they have come when he is told that his mother and brothers are standing without and wish to speak with him OMierkyeviet) Matt. 12 746: Luke Siitott)i Ivisva tragedy of life, pathetic beyond words. The eccle- siastics have long ago made issue with him and are now violently assailing him. Many of the people are following the lead of the Pharisees. And now his own mother and brothers have come and wish to take him home so as to avoid the scandal and shame of his further public ministry. The Pharisees say he has a demon and is in league with the devil. The ‘“‘charitable’’ construction therefore is that he is a lunatic. But Jesus does not go out to meet his own mother and brothers (James among them). He had come to know one of the bitterest of human sorrows, a pang to the very heart, to be misunder- stood “among his own kin, and in his own house’’ 1’Rgéorn. Cf. our “ecstasy,” a ‘‘standing out” of oneself. 26: PRACTICA“ AND SOCIAL ASD Eis (Mark 6:4). It is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus found consolation in the fact that many did understand him. ‘And looking round on them which sat round about him,’’! when the message came, ‘‘he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples,’’? and said: “‘Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.’ Mother and brothers had failed in the crisis to comprehend Jesus and even his ‘‘sisters’’ (note ‘‘and sister’). But the Father in heaven had not veiled his face from Jesus. It is not clear that James heard this pathetic rebuke from Jesus, as he may have remained standing out- side the house. Many have come into spiritual fellowship with Jesus who thus have the peculiar consolation of taking the place made empty in his heart for the time by mother and sister and brother. With Mary it was a temporary eclipse and she was loyal at the end as she stood by the cross.* Jesus made another and a last visit to Nazareth (Matt. 13: 54-58; Mark 6:1-6). There was a re- vival of interest in him which crystallized into hard scepticism, so that Jesus did not many mighty works there, and even ‘‘marvelled because of their 1 Mark 3:34, Kal mepiBreWauevoc toi¢ mepi avTov KiKAw Kabnuévove, with all of Mark’s particularity and vividness. 2 Exreivac THY xelpa [abTov] émi rode uabyTdc avrov (Matt. 12:48), with expressive gesture. 3’ Matt. 12:49 f. *John 19:25, tapa rt oravpd tov 'Iyood, close beside it, probably means as near as was allowed. Here his mother stood with the other women. JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 27 unbelief.”” He was a ‘‘prophet without honor’’ in Nazareth as he left for the last time the city of his childhood and early manhood. The tide at last turned against Jesus in Caper- naum (John 6: 22-71) and in Galilee generally. For six months he remains away save for a brief visit that met with the united hostility of Pharisee and Sadducee (Matt. 15:39 to 16:4; Mark 8: 10-13). The brothers of Jesus meanwhile seem to grow in this spirit of dislike toward the elder brother. Six months before the death of Jesus they ridicule him for his being a virtual refugee from Galilee and for his secretive methods, quite inconsistent with his claims of Messiahship (John 7: 2-5). James as the oldest of the brothers was probably the spokesman on this occasion. The “advice” was of an extremely irritating nature, with the implication that Jesus was seeking to gain credit ‘‘in public” (“openly,”’ év mappqo- gia) while doing his work ‘‘in secret’’ (‘in a hidden’’ place, év xpvtr@). It is not surprising therefore that Jesus did precisely the opposite, for he went up to Jerusalem, ‘‘not publicly, but as it were in secret” (John 7:10).!. John explains the motive of the brothers (7: 4f.), ‘“‘for even his brethren did not be- lieve on him.’’? They have reached the point when they are willing to attack Jesus. They belonged to the world and did not understand Jesus (John 7:6f.). It is not necessary to say that James was actually a Pharisee, still less an Essene. The use lov gavepac (cf. gavépwoor in 7:4), GAAG a¢ ev xpurTH (cf. év KpuTTg in 7:4). 2 It is ovdé ériorevoyv and expresses a long standing attitude. 28 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS made of his name by the Judaizers in the contro- versy with Paul does not prove this to be true (Gal. 2:12). But certainly he was now in general sympathy with the hostile attitude of the ecclesias- tics from Jerusalem (both Pharisee and Sadducee). The cup that Jesus must drink at Jerusalem has this added bitterness in it. It is not particularly surprising, when all things are considered, that at his death Jesus commended his mother to John the Beloved Disciple rather than to any of his brothers or sisters. They were all completely out of sym- pathy with him and with her. At such an hour sympathy counted for far more than blood without it. Besides, the brothers may not have been in Jerusalem at this time, for they still lived in Naz- areth. It is possible, of course, that James may have been at the Passover, which was so generally attended by the Jews. Certainly he was at Pente- cost later (Acts 1:14). We do not know whether Jesus appeared to James in Jerusalem or in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:7), though Paul mentions it after the appearance to the more than five hundred, which was in Galilee. Mary needed immediate attention, and was probably taken away from the cross at once by John “unto his own home”’ (cic ra idta),1 probably the Jerusalem home of his mother, certainly not Galilee now. John then came back to the cross and saw the piercing of the side of Jesus by the Roman soldier (John 19:35). But at any rate, it is clear that Jesus died upon the cross with James and all his 1 John 19:27. Cf. 1:11; Acts 21:6. This use of ra dua for one’s home appears in the papyri. Cf. B. U. 86 (ii A. D.), 183 ( A. D.). JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 29 brothers and sisters utterly out of touch with him. “Doubtless their very intimacy with our Lord blinded them to his real greatness.’’! 4. Seeing the Risen Christ. It is Paul who tells us of this most interesting event (1 Cor..15:7).2 As already stated, we do not know where James was when the Risen Jesus mani- fested himself to him. Broadus? locates the event in Jerusalem after the return from Galilee and be- fore the Ascension. As a matter of fact, it could have been in Galilee perfectly well. James may have come to Jerusalem (Acts 1: 14) because he had been converted in Galilee. At any rate, ‘‘this ap- pearance to James is the only one not made to a known believer.’’* But Dale’ holds that James had already been converted before his Brother appeared to him, as a result of information from his mother or from the apostles. This is, of course, possible, but it cannot be insisted on as necessary on the ground that Jesus appeared to believers only. The case of Saul refutes that position. It is quite possible that James may have heard of the report of the Resur- rection of Jesus and had thus some preparation for the great event when he saw Jesus risen from the dead. We are told nothing of what passed between the two brothers, but one may be sure that no hard 1 Patrick, James the Lord’s Brother, p. 60. | 2 érecta H¢6n TaxoBy, The same verb occurs here as in the other appearances of Jesus. 3’ Harmony of the Gospels, p. 229. Gr aurick .Op. (Cit: Dp» 67. ® Epistle of James, p. 5. 30 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS or harsh reproof came from Jesus for the indifference and even scoffing of James. The brothers of Jesus were children of their age, which was a Pharisaic age in Palestine. The current expectation was for a political Messiah, not a Saviour dying for the sins of the world. Even the Twelve Apostles had not risen to the conception of a spiritual Messiah, and they had given up all hope upon the death of Jesus and had themselves to be convinced of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus, a task of much difficulty, particularly in the case of Thomas, though they all at first scoffed at the stories of Mary Magdalene and the other women. So, then, the path of James toward faith was not an easy one, but he took it and came boldly out on the side of the disciples of Christ. It is more than likely that it was through James that the other three brothers were led to faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour (Acts 1: 14). The Gospel of the Hebrews as quoted by Jerome (de Viris Illusiribus 2) gives a story to the effect that James was already a disciple and present at the last Passover with Jesus and took a vow “‘that he would not eat bread from that hour on which he had drunk the cup of the Lord till he saw him risen from the dead. Again, a little afterward, the Lord says, Bring a table and bread. Immediately it is added: He took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My brother, eat the bread; for the Son of Man has risen from the dead.’’ Mayor! is inclined to credit this story in part, but surely it utterly misunderstands 1On James, p. xxxvii. JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 31 Luke 22:18, makes James one of the Twelve, and is impossible from any point of view, since not even the Twelve expected Jesus to rise from the dead. There are difficulties enough connected with the proof of the Resurrection of Jesus without burdening the narrative with this story. But, let me add, modern science has not made faith in the resurrection of Jesus impossible, nor has modern research disposed of the value of the Gospel accounts of this tremendous event. Paul, who testifies to this experience of James, is himself the chief witness to the reality of the fact. This is not the place to enter upon a discussion of this great question, but modern men may and do still believe in the Risen Christ with all simplicity and sincerity.! 5. In the Upper Room at Pentecost. The simple statement in Acts 1:14 is: ‘These all continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.’ So then all four’? are now disciples and are admitted to the inmost secrets of the circle of believers in Jerusalem, whither they have now come. Certainly, now that they have all come to believe in their Brother as in reality the Messiah of Israel risen from the dead, they must come to Jerusalem to be with their mother in her hour of triumph and joy. No one but a mother can understand the fullness of satisfaction in Mary’s heart now. The sword had 1Cf. Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus; Thorburn, The Resurrection Narratives and Modern Criticism. * kal obv Toig adEAgoig avTod, 32\ PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASEREGES pierced her own soul (Luke 2:35), as old Simeon had prophesied when he saw the Babe in the temple, but now the wound has been healed and there is a new and richer Magnificat in her heart. It was worth all that she had endured to wait with the disciples in the Upper Room with her other sons for the Promise of the Father. The breach in her family life had been healed. It is clear that the heartiest of welcomes greeted the brothers of Jesus. They were men of importance in themselves, in par- ticular James, who from every standpoint is one of the first men of his day. It is possible that the coolness of James and the other brothers had in- jured the work of Jesus with a good many who used this fact against the claims of Jesus. Now the accession of these brothers was of the utmost value to the band of believers gathered in the Upper Room, where Jesus had manifested himself before his Ascension. The presence of the brothers is mentioned by Luke before the choice of Matthias to succeed Judas. One may naturally wonder why James was not suggested by Peter, since he undoubtedly was equal to the Eleven in ability and all other qualities save one. But this one defect was fatal. He had not been with the Twelve during the ministry of Jesus, and so could not be a first-hand witness to his words and teachings (Acts 1: 22). Otherwise we may infer that James would have been a welcome addition to the Twelve in the place of Judas.! But the significant fact is that James is present 1 Patrick, op. cit., p. 78. JAMS a COE OER VAN TD GE GOD 33 during the wonderful days of this Pentecost and is filled, like the rest, with the Holy Spirit. He enters upon the new task of world evangelization with the new insight and the new influx of divine power. He faces the new day with the light of the sun in his face. 6. Leadership in the Jerusalem Church. If he was disqualified from being one of thef Twelve, he was not debarred from liberty to serve. | In fact, he was a practical apostle in Jerusalem along with the rest. The Twelve kept no secrets from James. He gradually won his way to the love and confidence of all the great church in Jerusalem. His importance in Jerusalem is recognized by Paul on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem on his re- turn from Damascus,! for he says: ‘“‘Other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother.”’ Here Paul treats him as an apostle and practically calls him so. James had probably seen Paul before, when he was the leader of the persecution against the Christians. He was doubtless glad to see this powerful addition to the forces of Christianity, but James is probably included in Luke’s statement of the reception of Paul on this occasion. ‘And they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple’ (Acts 9:26). Barnabas alone had faith in Paul and the courage to stand by him. If James was suspicious of the new convert, so were all the rest, and not without reason. It is clear from Paul’s reference in Gal. 1:18 (totopijoar Knobav) nical i519. ak 34 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS that Peter responded heartily to Paul’s advances after once opening his heart to him. They had a delightful fifteen days together. It is not likely, as Farrar! argues, that James, being a legalist, held aloof from Paul throughout. This is wholly gra- tuitous.? James is not mentioned again in Acts till r2a.2 37, and in a most significant manner. James, the brother of John, has been killed by Herod Agrippa I. Peter has been thrown into prison, but has been released by the angel of the Lord in response to the prayers of the church assembled in the home of Mary, mother of John Mark (12:12). Peter goes to the house and tells the astonished group: ‘‘Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren.” This is somewhere about A. D. 44. James now clearly occupies a position of leadership in the church. Peter himself apparently leaves the city, for the time being (12:17). There are already “elders’’ (mecoBttepot, 11:30) in the church at Jeru- salem. We do not know what the position of James is, but certainly it is one of great honor and leader- ship. The apostles, since James could not be one of the Twelve who were charged with the general work of evangelization, may have been glad for James to be in charge at Jerusalem. Certainly he — proved himself fully equal to the task. James maintains the position of leadership in Jerusalem throughout the narrative in Acts. He is evidently the President of the Jerusalem Confer- Pte aio os 2) + Patrick ony citi) D453" JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 3s ence (Acts 15:14-21). He is in charge of the church when Paul visits Jerusalem the last time (Acts 21:18): “Paul went in with us unto James: and all the elders were present.’’ He possessed the confidence of this great Jewish church, the mother church at Jerusalem, and had the ear of the non- Christian Jewish world in a way hardly true of any other disciple of Jesus. Jews would listen to James who would not heed Simon Peter. 7. The Writing of the Epistle. “ The Epistle of James was probably written shortly before the Jerusalem Conference, most probably just before, that is, about A. D. 48 or 49. There is no room here for an extended discussion of the proof of this statement. In general I agree with the argu- ments of Mayor on this point. Plummer? is unable to decide between A. D. 49 and A. D. 59. Writers like von Soden place it at the end of the century, and Bruckner puts it in the second century. Spitta admits that Paul, in Romans, alludes to the Epistle of James, but suggests that the present epistle is a Christian adaptation of a Jewish book. But on the whole the weight. of the argument is towards the : conclusion that James wrote the Epistle before the | Conference and without reference to the Judaizing | controversy. Paul, in Galatians and Romans, may very well have in mind a misuse of what James, in 1See his Commentary on James and his article on the Epistle in the Hastings D. B. 2 Epistle of James (Exp. Bible), p. 61f. See also Patrick, op. cit., chap. v. 30° PRACTICAL AND SOCIAD ASP EES chap. 2, says about faith and works, which misap- prehension he seeks to correct. The Epistle must either be placed between 40 and 50 A. D., before the Judaizing controversy arose, or in the middle of the second century, after it had died down.! The early date has the best of it in my opinion. If this date for the writing of the Epistle be cor- rect, we have no difficulty in seeing how James could have written it so early. Already about-A.D. 44 we saw.his leadership in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17). No man in the apostolic circles at this period had the ear of the Jewish Christians as did James. This is seen further in the fact that he is asked to preside over the Conference in Jerusalem to settle the issues raised by the Judaizers against the work of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles. The Epistle, therefore, seems to come in at this stage of the career of James and is the chief expres- sion left of his mind and life. 8. Champion of Paul at the Conference. I cannot enter upon a formal discussion of the > many questions in dispute concerning this great event in the apostolic period. I can only briefly sketch my own interpretation of the part played by James on this occasion.? In brief, it is here main- tained that in Gal. 2:1-10 Paul gives a report of the private interview with the leaders in Jerusalem Cf. M. Jones, The N. T. in the Twentieth Century, p. 321. * For a fuller presentation of the matter from the standpoint of Paul, see my Epochs in the Life of Paul, chap. vii. I identify the visit to Jerusalem in Gal. 2:1-10 and Acts 15, in spite of the argu- ments of Sir W. M. Ramsay to the contrary. JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD yrs after the first public meeting (Acts 15:3f.; Gal. 2:2) was adjourned because of the violent opposi- tion of the Judaizers (Acts 15:5). In this private conference Paul, though anxious to win the public support of ‘‘James and Cephas and John, the re- puted pillars’ (IdékwBoe Kai Kydaco nai *Iwdvyc, ob doxovvtes otbAo, Gal. 2:9), yet was not willing to compromise the great issue at stake, “‘our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus’ (2:4) and “the truth of the gospel’’ (2:5). Paul reveals a certain amount of embarrassment in his references to the three great leaders in Jerusalem, as is manifest in the long and broken sentence in verses 6-10. He roundly asserts his independence of them and affirms that they imparted nothing to him (2:6). It seems clear that some of the more timid brethren were quite disposed to surrender to the Judaizers for the sake of peace and in particular to agree that Titus, a full-fledged Greek convert in Paul’s company, should be circumcised. But Paul gave ‘‘the pillars’’ to under- stand that he would not have peace on those terms. It is quite possible that James, here mentioned be- fore Cephas (Peter) and John as the real leader of the group,! had not till now clearly understood Paul’s true position. The Judaizers had in all probability counted on James to take their side against Paul, ‘‘but contrariwise, when they saw’? that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision as Peter with the gospel of the cir- 1 Cf. Lightfoot on Galatians, ‘St. Paul and the Three.” 2 rovvavriov idévreg, A hint that they had not always seen it this way. 28° PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASE Gis w) cumcision—they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision” (2: 7-9). It is much easier to think of James as the author of chap. 2 in his Epistle before this event than after this pact with Paul. Note also verse g: ‘“‘“And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me.’’! Now the coast is clear and Paul is sure of victory in the open Conference. The stipulation about the poor (2:10) was in harmony with Paul’s previous practice (Acts 11: 2of.). In the second meeting of the general Conference James evidently presides and sums up the situation in favor of Paul after Peter (Acts 15: 7-12) has shown how they had already agreed to Gentile liberty in the case of Cornelius and his household. James, with due deliberation (peta 16 ovyjoa adrovc, 15:13), concludes (15: 14-21) with a pointed endorse- ment of Simon (Zvyedv, verse 14, a quaint Hebraic touch) Peter’s speech and acceptance of the work at Cesarea and among the Gentiles generally as a visi- tation of God (6 @ed¢ éneoxéaro, verse 14). He clinches the whole matter by showing that the prophets (as Amos 9: 11f.) agree? with this position that the Gentiles are to be saved. ‘Wherefore my judgment is,’’* he says as the President of the Con- ference, practically offering a resolution for the vote of the Conference, ‘‘that we trouble! not them that 1 Kai yvdvrec rip ydpw thy dobeiody pot, as if anew experience for them. * robTw ovudwvovaw (15:15), a musical word, our “symphony.” $ did é)@ Kpiva, | * rapevoydeiv is from mapa, év, and oyAéw (from dyAos, a crowd). A crowd may be a great annoyance. AS tee A oe JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 39 from among the Gentiles turn to God.”” He has put the matter in a very happy form. Surely Jewish Christians could but rejoice to see Gentiles “turn to God.’’ James proposes the writing of an epistle (émoreiiar) to the Gentile Christians to this effect with the added warning ‘“‘that they abstain from the pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.’’ It is at least open to question whether ‘‘what is strangled”’ (kai mucKTov) is genuine here, since it is wanting in D (Codex Bezae), Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, as also in 15:28. If so, the prohibition is against . idolatry (idol-feasts), murder (blood), and immoral- ity (fornication), the great vices of heathensim.! But with the text as it stands, “things strangled,” we seem to have a concession to the Jewish cere- monial law and to Jewish prejudices on that point. James is not uneasy about Moses, for he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath (Acts 15: 21), a ref- erence to the habit of the Christians still to worship in the Jewish synagogues (cf. James 2:2). The “wisdom’’ of James is manifest in this masterly ad- dress, which carried conviction to such an extent that the resolution of James was carried unanimously by the body of ‘‘the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (15: 22), aremarkable outcome, when the bitterness of the Judaizers is considered, and a distinct tribute to the influence of James. We may assume that the Judaizers were silent, since they saw that they were hopelessly defeated. 1Cf. Wilson, The Origin and Aim of the Acts of the Apostles, Pp. §3- 40 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS The epistle which was sent to the church at Antioch (15: 23-29) embodies the ideas of James and was probably written by him, since the style is like that of his speech and the Epistle that bears his name. The letter expressly disclaims responsi- bility for the conduct of the Judaizers at Antioch (15:24), pointedly condemns their behavior, com- mends ‘“‘our beloved Barnabas and Paul’ (asf.), refers to the messengers Judas and Silas, claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the stand for Gentile freedom (28), and repeats the stipulations in the speech of James about the special Gentile sins (29). There can be no question that James here entered fully into sympathy with the contention of Paul that the yoke of Jewish ceremonialism should not be imposed upon the Gentile Christians. James is a champion of the Pauline doctrine of “‘grace’’ as opposed to ‘‘works.”’ It is interesting to note the phrase “‘the perfect law of liberty’? (James 1: 25). It is difficult to see how, after this Conference, James and Paul could misunderstand or oppose each other. As we shall see, the real explanation of the apparent conflict between James 2 and Rom. 3 is quite other than this unnecessary hypothesis. James has now given the great weight of his character and influence among the Jewish Christians to the endorsement of ’ the work of Paul among the Gentiles. James is a Jewish Christian, but not a Judaizer. He does not wish to impose the burden of the Mosaic ritual upon the Gentiles, though he still observes it himself, as do the other Jewish Christians, including Paul him- self. JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 41 9. Misuse of the Name of James. In Gal. 2:11 Paul speaks of a visit of Peter to Antioch, apparently some time after the events re- corded in 2:1-10. If it were before the Conference, Peter’s conduct at Antioch would be largely relieved of the charge of cowardice. But, on the whole, we must follow the order of time as given by Paul. We do not, however, know whether this visit of Peter was before the breach between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (Acts 15: 36—41) or after the return of Paul from the second tour (Acts 18: 22f.). If the latter is true, Barnabas had also come back to An- tioch (Gal. 2:13). Patrick! thinks that this visit was not long after the Conference, probably before the breach with Barnabas. At any rate, Peter at Antioch practices social equality with the Gentiles, just as Paul and Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians there did (Gal. 2:13), and just as Peter did in the house of Cornelius, though he apologized for the act then (Acts 10:28), and at Jerusalem when called to account for it (11: 1-18). Evidently the question of social equality was not raised in the Conference at Jerusalem. “Certain came from James” (796 tov yao éAeciv tivac amd "IakwBov), says Paul (Gal. 2:12). Pat- rick? admits that they had some connection with James and may have borne a commission from James, though not to Peter. It is possible, of course, that rumors of Peter’s liberty in the matter of social intercourse may have reached Jerusalem 1 James the Lord’s Brother, p. 188. aTbid., p. 191. 42) PRACTICAL AND SOCIALYVASH Gas (cf. Acts 11: 1ff.) where the Pharisaic element in the church were very sensitive on this point. It is diffi- cult, however, to believe that James would have felt called upon to send a reprimand to Peter on the subject, even granting that James opposed this con- duct of Peter. The Judaizers at Antioch seem to have claimed the sanction of James and the rest at Jerusalem in their opposition to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:1, 24f.), and it is entirely possible that on this occasion the visitors from Jerusalem claimed a connection with James that was not true. Hort} thinks it probable that James merely meant “‘to send cautions to Peter,” with no thought of a re- buke, and that the messengers took the matter in their own hands and proceeded to frighten Peter with threats of a report to James about his conduct at Antioch. It is undoubtedly true that the horizon of Jeru- salem was not that of Antioch, and that Paul would have less sympathy for what Peter did under fear of consequences at Jerusalem than for James in Jeru- salem, who might not fully comprehend develop- ments at Antioch. But the Epistle of James and his speech at the Conference make me slow to believe that he had gone over to the position of the Judaizers, as Peter did at Antioch. Paul boldly charged Peter, and even Barnabas, not with a change of conviction, but with hypocrisy (Gal. 2: 13f.). Fortunately, it was only a temporary lapse, and both step back to the side of Paul in his cham- pionship of a gospel of equality and freedom for all. * Judaistic Christianity, p. 81. eee JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 43 Paul makes no formal charge against James, and, under all the circumstances, I prefer to think that James has been misrepresented at Antioch by the visitors from Jerusalem, who dared to use his power- ful name to whip Peter into line. At any rate, James, not Peter, seems to be the master spirit at Jerusalem, as Paul is at Antioch. 10. Befriending Paul on His Last Visit. Paul came to Jerusalem for the last time in the spring (probably 57 or 58) with a heavy heart. He reveals his apprehensions in Rom. 15: 31-33, and in his address at Miletus (Acts 20: 18-35). He has made a brave fight for liberty in Christ almost all over the Roman Empire, but the Judaizers have not ceased their attacks upon him. In particular, dur- ing his long absence from Jerusalem, he has been grossly misrepresented there. He has been fre- quently warned of trouble if he came, but he is determined to come in the hope of setting matters right in Jerusalem and so preventing a schism in Christianity. He had won at the Conference at Jerusalem some seven or eight years before. Hort! thinks that Paul entered the city ‘‘with much pre- caution and avoidance of observation” under the shelter of Mnason (Acts 21:16). At any rate, the brethren received him gladly (21:17), and on the next day Paul made a formal call on ‘‘James; and all the elders were present’’ (21:18). So here James is still at the head of the work in Jerusalem as at the Conference. The apostles were present then as 1 Judaistic Christianity, p. 106. aq’ \PRAGTIGAL AND SOGTAECAS PEGS they seem to be absent now. This is not a Con- ference, but merely a friendly meeting. Paul’s re- hearsal of his work among the Gentiles meets with the most cordial expressions of satisfaction (21: 20). Paul is among his friends, who tell him of a gross misrepresentation of his position that is current among the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem to the effect that he teaches that Jewish Christians must forsake Moses and the customs of the law (21: 21).! They do not believe it themselves, and only wish to help Paul clear the matter up without interfering at all with the decision of the Conference about the freedom of the Gentiles (21: 22-25). They suggest that Paul join with four men in a Nazirite vow, pay the charges for their purification and for his own, and let all the Jewish Christians see him in the act of worship and ritual observance of the cere- monial law, and thus prove ‘‘that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law” (21: 24). The matter seemed simple enough. Paul had not opposed the observance of the law on the part of Jewish Christians. Galatians was written in de- fense of Gentile liberty. There was no effort to commit Paul to the necessity of the law for salva- tion. As a matter of fact, Paul had kept up his observance of the Jewish customs save as they affected separation from the Gentiles. So Paul accepted the advice and made the offering, ‘“‘purify- ing himself with them’ (21:26). Apparently, the plan succeeded in setting Paul right with the mass * This “informing” (xar770ncav, persistent talking) was done by the Judaizers, who “dinned” it into the ears of the people. JAMES, THE SERVANT OF GOD 45 of the church in Jerusalem. The trouble that led to his arrest arose from the attack of some Jews (not Christians) from Ephesus, who accused Paul of defaming the temple while in the very act of doing worship in the temple. We do not know whether the plan of the elders was the plan of James. Cer- tainly, if he had disapproved, he would have spoken out, as the meeting was at his house. But it was all meant in the utmost kindness to Paul, and it is not possible to show that it was unwise. The inci- dent shows the greatest friendliness between Paul and James, and the frankest recognition on Paul’s part of the great worth and influence of James himself. There is no other reference to James in the New Testament unless it appears in Heb. 13: 7,17, ‘them that have the rule over you.” 11. The Story of His Death. Clement of Alexandria! says that James the Just “was thrown from the gable [of the temple], and beaten to death by a fuller with a club.” Hegesip- pus? gives a long and legendary account of the death of James to the effect that the people of Jerusalem who called James the Just were so enraged when he bore witness to Jesus as the Son of Man that they flung him down from the gable of the temple, stoned him, and a fuller clubbed him.” ‘And they buried him on the spot by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple.”’ But Josephus? gives an entirely different and 1 Hypotyp. vii. apud Eusebius H. E., II. 1. 3. 2 Also preserved in Eusebius H. E., Il. xxitt. 4-18. § Ant. xx. ix. 1. It is interesting to note that Prof. F. C. Burkitt, 46 ,. PRACTICAL JAND SOCIAL ASPRGrs much more credible narrative of the death of James, placing it about A. D. 62 or 63. ‘He charges the Sadducees through the high priest Ananus with the death of James and adds: “‘Ananus, therefore, as being a person of this character, and thinking that he had a suitable opportunity, through Festus being dead, and Albinus still on his journey (to Judea), assembles a Sanhedrin of judges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who is called Christ (his name was James) and some others, and delivered them to be stoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law.’ So he won a martyr’s crown. He was called ‘‘the Just’ (roy dixatov). He had accused the wicked rich of killing “the Righteous One’’ (édovebaate tov dikatov, James 5:6). of Cambridge University, has boldly championed the genuineness of Josephus’s testimony to Jesus. CHAPTER II To THE TWELVE TRIBES WHICH ARE OF THE DISPERSION. 1:1b 1. Simple Address. The writer is wonderfully simple and direct in his greeting as compared with Paul in Rom. 1: 1-7, for instance. There is no principal verb and the nomi- native absolute occurs with the infinitive ("Ié«wBoc— yaipetv), aS is so common in the letters found in the papyri.! Originally a word like ‘“‘sends’’ (émoréa- det) may have been used also. But this short ad- dress is in perfect keeping with the businesslike character of James and the pointed, pungent tone of the Epistle. 2. Lhe Readers. They are evidently not a local church. ‘‘The twelve tribes of the Dispersion’’ naturally refers to the Jews who are scattered in the Gentile world outside of Palestine. The technical term ‘‘Diaspora”’ (dtaonood, from dacreipev, to scatter) occurs in only two other places in the New Testament (John 7: 35; t Pet. 1:1). In John the word has its usual sig- nificance. The Jewish leaders scoffed at Jesus as a failure in Palestine. Perhaps he meant to go and teach the Jews of the Dispersion. The term “‘twelve tribes’’ in James merely means the Jews as a whole 1Cf, Oov—yaipew, P, Oxy. 292, circa A. D. 25. 47 48 PRACTICAL AND SOCIATW GA Sat Gains in the Dispersion, for the tribes were not preserved in a distinctive way outside of Palestine. The “Lost Ten Tribes” evidently had no significance for James. As a matter of fact, they are no more “lost” than Judah and Benjamin. The Jews of Palestine, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, were once more scattered abroad as their ancestors had been twice before to mingle as “Jews” in various parts of the world. Doubtless modern Jews are simply a blend of all the twelve tribes. At the time when James wrote the Jews were very numerous in all the great commercial centers of the world, such as Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamum, Rome, Thessalonica. But it is more than probable that James has in mind chiefly the Eastern Dispersion in Babylonia and Mesopotamia, ‘as Peter (1 Pet. 1:1) addressed the Western Dis- persion. But was James writing to Jews who were not Christians? Was he making an appeal to the non- Christian Jews of the Dispersion to become Chris- tians? The idea is not without fascination in itself. — Dr. J. H. Moulton! contends that this is precisely what James has done, as is shown by the avoidance of specific reference to Christ and to the cross so as not to give offense to the Jews whom he wishes to win. Dr. George Milligan? replies that it is not possible to think of ‘‘a Christian teacher of James’s position suppressing his distinctive beliefs under any circumstances whatsoever.” But the author does 1 The Expositor, VII. iv. p. 45 ff. *The N. T. Documents, p. 112. TO THE TWELVE TRIBES 49 not conceal his view of Jesus. In the very first verse he speaks of “the Lord Jesus Christ,’’ and these words give his human name Jesus, his title Christ (Messiah), and his lordship (deity). Be- sides, in 2:1 James speaks of Jesus as the object of faith, and so of worship, as Moffatt! correctly has it: “As you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory.’ See also 5:7, “‘until the coming of the Lord’’ (cf. 5:8). There are no doctrinal discussions of the Cross and the Resurrection, but all this is distinctly implied. James also announces himself as a Christian in 1:1 and could not wish to conceal the gospel if he meant to win Jews to Christ. Moreover, he draws a distinction between the Christians (‘‘ye’’) and their oppressors (‘‘they,”’ apparently rich Jews) in 2:7: ‘Do not they blaspheme the honorable name, by which ye are called?’ That “‘name’”’ is the name of Christ.2 Cf. also 2:6: “Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment seats?’ Besides, James claims the readers as be- aevers, “my brethren,’ in’ 2:1; /5:7f.)\.. There’ are, doubtless, passages where James pictures unbeliev- ing Jews, as in 2:6f., just mentioned, and, in par- ticular, 5:1-6, that vivid apostrophe to the rich Jews of the time. In 1 Peter 1:1 we find the other instance of Diaspora or Dispersion. Here Peter seems to mean by “‘the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” 1A New Translation of the N. T. Besides, in 3:9 James speaks of “the Lord and Father’’ (God). 7Plummer, Comm., p. 47. 50.) PRACTICAL (AND /SOCTAL AS Pies not merely Jews or Jewish Christians, but all Chris- tians, whether Jews or Gentiles, in the spiritual Dispersion, ‘“‘sojourners’’ from the true Palestine or Promised Land (Heaven). Is this the idea of James? Zahn! takes this position and finds the writer ad- dressing Christians in general, whether Jews or Gen- tiles. But surely the author has in mind simply Chris- tian Jews outside.of Palestine. The use of the word “synagogue”’ as a place of worship (2:2) on a par with ‘“‘church’”’ (5:14) argues for this interpretation. He is addressing the Christian Jews, who now have many problems, and he may have hoped by means of these believing Jews to reach the wider circle of unbelieving Jews. He speaks of Abraham as “our father” (2:21). He assumes that for his readers the Mosaic law is still binding (2: 9-11; 4: 11).? 3. Lhe Occasion. This we do not know. Unlike most of Paul’s Epistles, there are no personal details. We are left to conjecture, as in the case of Jude and 1 John. The picture drawn in the Epistle is that of Jewish Christians of the poorer classes, with a small num- ber of richer brethren (1:10), struggling for life in the midst of a social and economic environment that was utterly unsympathetic, not to say hostile. The process of adjustment was difficult and perilous. There were perils to the individual and to the church life, and James shows real mastery of the 1 Finl. i. 5, 6. 2 Plummer, Comm., p. 46. LO THE TWELVE TRIBES 51 situation that confronted the Jewish Christians in the middle of the first century in the scattered re- gions where they are found. He writes to them in a firm tone, but with manifest understanding and sympathy. 4. Character of the Epistle. The book, small as it is, is a little gem in concep- tion and expression. It reminds one of portions of the Book of Proverbs, some of the Psalms, portions of the Prophets, the- Twelve Patriarchs, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, and the Sermon on the Mount. It is quite possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, at least there are several coinci- dences between them. At any rate, there seems to be some literary connection between some of Paul’s Epistles (Rom., 1 Cor., Gal.), 1 Peter and Hebrews, and the Epistle of James. Some contend that the Epistle makes use of these N. T. books. M. Jones (N. T. in Twentieth Century, p. 316) thinks that the author had some knowledge of the Stoic philoso- phers, but this could have come through Hellenistic Judaism, as, for instance, the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. The author, as already shown, writes in the smooth and easy Koine of a gifted and culti- vated Jew of Palestine. One does not have to say with Patrick! that James ‘“‘had a wide knowledge of classical Greek.”” He may never have read a line of “‘classical’’ Greek, but he knew well the current Greek of his day and used it with fine skill. It is 1QOp. cit., p. 298. 62) (PRACTICAL ANDO SOCIAL VAD Es Gans not a labored production and is in no sense arti- ficial. The author is full of the Old Testament and writes like one of the prophets, and yet he has a firm grip upon the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The book forms a fine link between the Old Testament and the New. James, the brother of the Lord Jesus, understands the Old Testament and loves Moses still. He seeks to interpret Chris- tianity more fully on its ethical and social side to the Jewish Christians of his time, who are in sad need of help, beset as they are by Jew and Gentile, and with an imperfect grasp of the new gospel. They find in this Epistle just what they need to make practice correspond to profession, to square life with creed. The lesson is still needed to-day. There is a peculiar modernity about the teaching of James that appeals to modern men who are nothing if not practical. CHAPTER III Joy IN TRIAL. 1: 2-11 Evidently these early Jewish Christians had their share of trial. Who, alas, does not have his por- tion? The problem with us all is to learn how to find the spring of joy in the midst of sorrow, to be happy while we carry our burden. There are always perplexities and anxieties without number. The sea is restless even in its moments of calm beauty. 1. Variety in Trials. 1:2. There is the tone of an elder brother in this Epis- tle, and we see it at the start, when James says ‘‘my brothers” (ddeAgoi pov).! It is no perfunctory phrase with him. It is “‘trials,’’ not ‘‘temptations,’’ that James here has in mind, though the same word (metpaouoc) probably means temptation in 1:12. The word in the Greek came to have either sense though originally it meant only to try, to attempt, just as our English word “‘tempt’’ was at first simply “try.” But it is a short step from “‘try”’ to “make trial of’? one when suspicion exists or evil desire arises. Hence all through the Greek we find the old Greek word (mevpdouat) used in both senses. The New Testament usage varies. There are a half dozen other passages where the word (repaopéc) 1 The papyri frequently show adeAdde for this religious community idea. Cf. Milligan, Greek Papyri, pp. 22, 117. 53 64. PRACTICAL, AND SOCIAL ASERCisS has the idea of trial (Luke 22:28; Acts 20: 19; Gal. 42/1471) Pet. \t:63\47 123 ReV.3 20). i nee Ge the identical expression “manifold trials’? appears. Oesterley (Expos. Gk. Test.) wrongly insists that “temptation” is the meaning in James 1:2 on the ground that “the writer’s Judaism is stronger than his Christianity,’’ and he then uses it as an argument against the genuineness of the book. A soldier (Parry) does have “‘true joy’’ in victory over tempta- tion, like Wordsworth’s Happy Warrior, but that is beside the mark here. There is no conflict here with the avoidance of temptation urged by Jesus (Matt. 6:3; Luke 11:4; Matt. 26: 41; Luke 22:40). James refers rather to external trials into which men fall, trials that are not only ‘‘unwelcome,”’ but also “‘un- sought and unexpected.’’! It is almost the picture of a stumble in the dark when one finds oneself sur- rounded (megi—mnéonre) by hostile forces, just as the poor man “fell among robbers” (Agotaic meguérecer, Luke 10: 30). Besides, one may be surrounded by “‘all sorts of trials’ at once and not merely ‘‘any sort of trial” (Moffatt). The word ‘“‘manifold” (movkidoc) is really many colored, variegated, spotted, mottled, pied, dappled. ‘It never rains but it pours,’ we say at such a time. The same word (rovkiéAoc) is applied to the sicknesses and torments of body and mind which Jesus healed (Matt. 4:24). It is used of the evil desires that lead silly women astray (2 Tim. 3:6), of the lusts and pleasures which once the Cretans served (Titus 3:3), of the variety in the manifesta- 1 Plummer, op. cit., p. 63. ee a ee ee JOY IN TRIAL be tion of God’s power in connection with the gospel (Heb. 2:4), of the many sorts of strange teachings then afloat (Heb. 13:9) of which we are now be- ginning to learn something (incipient Gnosticism and the early stages of Mithraism, for example), of the many trials which brought sorrow to the Christians (x Pet. 1:6), and of the many sides to the grace of God (4:10). God has grace for every trial what- ever its color, whether black or blue, yellow or green, red or crimson. The way to face them all is with joy in the heart and a smile on the face. We are not asked to rush into trials and to make mock-martyrs of ourselves. We are not asked to rejoice because of the trials many or few. Much depends on how we treat (7yjono0e) the problem of trial, much of which is beyond our control, like poverty in wisdom (1: 5) and in substance (1:9) and like persecution (2: 6f.). We are not to be blind to facts nor to submit tamely to what can be cured and should not be endured. James is not a Cynic nor a Stoic, but a victorious Christian who has learned the lesson that thankful joy is easier and wiser than mere dull resignation (Plummer, 77 loco). Each trouble may be met by a special kind of joy as its antidote. The common idea about “‘all joy” (ndoav yapav, omne gaudium) is that James thereby means ‘“‘pure joy,” nothing but joy. “Greet it as pure joy” (Moffatt). That is pos- sible, though it may also mean ‘“‘bring to bear all that joy has to offer.”” It does not mean (Mayor) that all of joy is contained in this view. At any tate, it is much to know that joy in suffering is pos: 56 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS sible, as many saints can testify who have reached the pure air of fellowship with Jesus in suffering (cf. Phil. 3:10), the Brother of James, and of all who suffer, who said: “Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you’’ (Matt. 5: 10-12). This is part of the fellowship of Christ and of the saints, the ‘“‘Sunshine Band” of those who have learned to smile in the midst of tears like the sun- shine in the rain. Paul was able to say: “But we also rejoice in our tribulations’ (Rom. 5:3). This is not the joy of the fanatic nor of the fakir nor of the rhapsodist. It is the joy of the soul that is at peace with God in Christ and has also more than earth and hell can take away, the peace that passeth all understanding. The disciples rejoiced ‘“‘that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (Acts 5:41). Even Marcus Aurelius said: “Say not that that which hath befallen thee is bad fortune, but that to endure it nobly is good fortune.” 2. The Product of Trial. 1:3. The rule of Christian joy thus expounded stands the test of experience. The word “knowing” (yivd- oxovrec) is the one used for experimental knowledge as opposed to mere intellectual apprehension. The tense (present participle) expresses continuous ac- JOY IN TRIAL 57 quisition of fresh knowledge from experience. It is the school of life where we learn most of what we really know. The position of James is thus in thorough harmony with psychology. The command to rejoice in the midst of manifold trials, paradoxical though it seems, is one that the Jewish Christians knew to be true from their experience of grace. Johnstone! has a fine word: “Affliction lets down a blazing torch into his own nature—and he sees many things which he little expected to see.’”’? One of the marvels of modern science is the use of elec- tric light by divers at the bottom of the sea to take pictures of sea life. It is the biological conception that James has in mind. The law of life (nature and grace) works through personal experience and not by mechanical impartation. What do we learn by experience? “That the proving of your faith worketh patience.” Moffatt has it: ‘“That the sterling temper of your faith produces endurance.” The notion is plainly that of testing (16 doxiwoy tHe tiorewe).” See the same phrase in 1 Pet. 1:7. Thus James, as Paul, regards faith as “the very foundation of religion’’ (Mayor). The verb (doxdgw) from which the ad- jective (doxiytoc) is derived is common enough for 1Lectures on the Ep. of James, p. 73. 2Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 259f., makes it plain that to doxducov is just the neuter singular adjective used with the article as an abstract substantive idea. See Prov. 27:21, doxiusov apyipy. Other examples occur in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Lexical Notes from the Papyri, Expositor, December, 1908, p. 566) and Dittenberger, Syll., 588 96. 149, “gives us from 1i/B. C. doxiueior, a noun meaning crucible, which is found in the LXX.” 58 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS testing a yoke of oxen (Luke 14:19), the spirits (x John 4:1), work by fire (x Cor. 3: 13), genuine- ness of love (2 Cor. 8:8), all things (1 Thess. 5: 21). Peter (1 Pet. 1:7) explains the adjective by the verb (tested by fire). Cf. Sirach 2: 5: “For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adver- sity.” One is reminded of the Sermon on the Mount. “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7: 16). Patience (irouov#) is patientia (patior), and is called by Philo the queen of the virtues. The Jews (Oesterley, in loco) had had ample need of this virtue in their checkered history. It is just the opposite of the ‘“‘super-man” of Nietzsche, the triumph of might over right, the will to get what one wishes right or wrong. There is inevitable con- flict between selfish militarism and Christianity. It is a pity that Christians have left it to Socialists to make the most vigorous protest against war. But, alas, both Christians and Socialists are swept under by the vortex of war nolens volens. And yet by pa- tience James does not mean inertia or lack of ambi- tion. It is not complacent self-satisfaction, but the triumph of regulated consideration of the welfare of others, the victory of love over greed, the joy of doing without that others may be happy, the happi- ness of enduring ill for the sake of Jesus. It is very hard to remain under (t7o—évw) misfortune, when it cannot be helped. James does not mean that we are not to try to cure any of the ills of life, not to over come ignorance, poverty, disease, crime. There is here no surcease for the war on the evil conditions of modern life in home or city or state. But many JOY IN TRIAL 59 things cannot be changed. Others will be alleviated by and by. Meanwhile the Christian can rise to the height of patience, of cheerful, joyful patience. It is the practice of cheerfulness that we so much stand in need of. We do not have to shut our eyes to the facts of life and of the human reason and deny the existence of sin and sickness. We can conquer the bitter results of these evils by the joy in Christ that drives away despair. This patience is the product (katepydéeraz) of trial. Weare not born with a supply of patience. It is not bestowed in fulness upon us at the new birth. Like the manna, we need a fresh supply each morning. But the habit of mind termed patience is gradually wrought in us by the discipline of experience. Bit- terness is a possible fruit of sorrow and hard ex- periences. Bitterness is written all over some sad faces. That terrible calamity can be missed, will be missed, if one walks in the way of him who said: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light”? (Matt. 11: 28f.), It may not be easy and light at first, but it becomes so in the presence of Jesus. Nobly does Wordsworth interpret it for us all: “Who, doomed to go in company with pain, And fear and bloodshed, miserable train! Turned his necessity to glorious gain; In face of these doth exercise a power Which is our human nature’s highest dower; 60. PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL AST ECs Controls them and subdues, transrnutes, bereaves Of their bad influence, and their good receives.”’ 3. Perfection by Patience. 1: 4. There is no other way than the slow way of life. The mushroom springs up in a night and goes as quickly away. The oak grows a few inches a year and lasts for centuries. The finest product in God’s garden is the soul of man ripe with the long years of toil and sorrow. Luther Burbank has learned some of the witchery of nature by watching her ways with plant-life. He has shown great patience and has much to show for it. Give patience a chance to do its work (éyérw) and keep on giving it a fair show. Ole Bull said that if he missed practising on his vio- lin one day he noticed the difference in his playing. If he missed two days, other musicians noticed it. If he skipped three days, all the world knew it. “Only, let your endurance be a finished product”’ (Moffatt). It comes to that in all great achieve- ments, for the test is endurance. The goal is at the end (rédoc) of the race where Jesus is the author and finisher (doynyév kat teAewrav) of the faith which we possess (Heb. 12:2). ‘‘We are become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning (r7v dexyqy) of our confidence firm unto the end’’ (uéxyeu téAovg, Heb. 3:14). “But he that endureth to the end (6 dmo- ueivac ele rédoc), the same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13). So patience calls for courage. Discouragement leads to impatience and failure. There is need of long-suffering (ywaxpo-Ovuia, Col. 1:11) if we get “the finished product” (égyov). The word for “per- JON TIN TIRTAL, 61 fect’’ here (tédevoc) occurs also in James 1:17, 25; 3:2. The word, like the substantive (rédoc), has a double usage (cf. finis and our end), either limit or aim. So the perfect (réAevoc) man may be regarded in the absolute sense, the limit, as the Perfect Man Christ Jesus (Eph. 4:13), or as on the way to the goal (no longer a child, v#moc, but a developed man,}! pee or. 2:6; Phil..3275).) The perfect’) (Cor. 13:10) is still to come, but there is “‘perfect love” (x John 4:18). We are to aim after the perfection of God himself (Matt. 5:48). Paul’s ambition was to present each one “‘perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). Cf. also Col. 4:12. Here James has his eye on the goal which is at the end of the long road. He knows full well (3: 2) that in many things we all stumble, but we must persevere. Patience must do its ‘‘perfect work’’ (rédeov %eyov), that ye may be “perfect” (réAecor). But James takes a latitudinal look at the work of patience, not merely the longitudinal view, that ye may be ‘‘entire, lacking nothing’’ (6Aé6nAngou, év undevi Rerouevor), “complete, with never a defeat’? (Mof- fatt). This word for entire (cf. integer) means com- plete in all its parts, whole, not unsound anywhere. At the end of the race we are to be fully developed and sound to the core in heart and limb. The word is used of stones untouched by a tool (Deut. 27:6), of a body without blemish. Epictetus (Bk. III, chap. xxvi, § 25) uses the word of a vessel which one finds ‘“‘whole” or unbroken and ‘‘useful’”’ (oxevog pév 1 Epictetus likewise uses téAevo¢ in contrast with petpaxiov (Ench. Li. § 1): ob« ére el petpdxiov, GAAG avip Hdn TédeELOC. 62’ PRACTICAL) AND SOCIALVASR EG ws bA6KANoov Kai yojoov). It is used of a complete or unbroken household in the papyri (éAoKAjeov oixiac, B. M. III, p. 30, iti7A. D.). Philo' uses both words together as James does here. The substantive (6Ao- xAnoia) is used of ‘‘the perfect soundness” of the man just healed by Peter and John (Acts 3:16). This adjective occurs with “righteousness” (dixaocbvn, Wisd. 15:13) and “worship” or “‘religion’’ (eboéBera, 4 Macc. 17).2. The adjective is used by Paul in his prayer for the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5: 23), ‘preserved entire (6A6«Anoov) without blemish” (dyéur- twc). This is what Jesus does for his glorious church, which is to be ‘‘without spot or wrinkle or any such) thine’ (Eph: 5:27). Jesus) sounei ian Priest, “has perfected (reredeiwxev) forever them that are sanctified’”’ (rode dytagouévove, Heb. 10: 14). Israel, alas, Isaiah (1:6) found wholly wanting in this ‘‘soundness.’’ James’ ideal is that we shall fall short (Aevréuevor, be left) in nothing. Our destiny is to dwell in the family of God and to be like Jesus, our Elder Brother (1 John 3:2). This ultimate divine fulness is not the self-sufficiency (airdpxeva) of — the Stoics. 4. Shortage in Wisdom. 1:5. ‘Defective in wisdom,’’ Moffatt puts it. It is the same word (Asizera:) that occurs at the end of verse *de Abr. 47, p. 8, 6 wév yap Tédewoc dAbKAnpoc & apyxie, “der ganze reife Mensch,” Windisch, Handbuch zum N. T., p. 5. 2“The 6AékAnpo¢ is one who has persevered, or who, having once lost, has now regained his completeness: the téAev¢ is one who has attained his moral end, that for which he was intended, namely, to be a man in Christ’’ (Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., Eleventh Ed., p. 77). JOY IN TRIAL 63 4 and is used with the ablative case (sodiac).1. James is fond of catching up a preceding word and going on with it, even if, as here, in a new sense. ‘“‘If any one of you lacketh wisdom,’ James gently hints. Who is it that does not feel his shortcoming here, at times with painful intensity? What does James mean by wisdom (ood¢ia, sapien- tia)? It is more than knowledge (yvaoue, or even éni- yvwoc). It is more than mere intelligent apprehen- sion (cbveoic) of acquired knowledge. Tennyson says: “‘Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.” James shows familiarity with the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)? and possibly also the so-called Wisdom of Solomon. Certainly he knows the Book of Proverbs. But he here uses wisdom, not in a philosophical or mystical sense. With James wisdom is the right use of one’s oppor- tunities in holy living. It is living like Christ in accord with the will of God. In 3: 13-17 he gives a formal discussion of the two sorts of wisdom. Bede suggests that we need wisdom to know how to look at trial in the true light. Yes, and to give patience the chance to do its perfect work. Paul uses wisdom in the special sense of God’s wisdom as shown in the gospel as infinitely superior to the wisdom of the world which scouted the Cross of Christ. ‘‘We speak wisdom among the perfect’? (the mature, 1 Cor. 2:6). In the Old Testament wisdom is sometimes the Intelligence of God (Prov. 8:22-30). “Ten measures of wisdom came down from heaven, and 1Cf. Vulgate indiget sapieniia. 2See Plummer, Comm,, pp. 72f., for proof. 64° (PRACTICAL AND SOGIAL AS REG. nine of them fell to the lot of the Holy Land” (Kiddushim, 49b). With James the source of wis- dom is God, not the Jews. So then, when our sup- ply runs short, ask of God (aiteitw naga rot Oeov). It is like a bank to which we go to get money.! God is the Banker whose supply of wisdom never gives out. Unlike other bankers, he asks no security save the name of Jesus.2. That name gives us full credit at the Bank of Heaven. On that basis God “gives to all men without question or reproach’”’ (Moffatt). “Liberally”? (é7A@c) we have it in the standard ver- sions. It is a rather difficult word to translate into English. It means simple, single-fold, sincere. Com- pare the “‘single’” eye in Matt. 6:22; Luke 11: 34. In Rom. 12: 8 it is not clear whether ‘‘singleness”’ or ‘liberality’ is the idea, but ‘“‘liberality’’ is obviously correct in 2 Cor. 8: 2, ‘‘the riches of their liberality.” 80 in 9:11, 13, but ‘“‘singleness of heart’’ in Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22. Oesterley finds the notion of James to be “‘singleness of aim, the aim being the impart- ing of benefit without requiring anything in return.” Likewise Bengel interprets it by simpliciter. Either idea makes good sense, for surely God gives to us all with singleness of purpose and also with wealth of liberality. Certainly it is without bargaining on God’s part, for there is no idea of reciprocity. “Without question’? (Moffatt) suggests an under- standing with God, which is true. It is the normal, 1 Note, apd, by the side of, a personal plea. * The late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan testified before a committee of the U. S. Senate that he loaned money primarily on character, not financial ability. JOY IN TRIAL 65 natural thing for a child of God to do, to come to God and ask of him, for he “‘upbraideth not’’ (7 éveidiGovtoc). A fool upbraids, the Son of Sirach says (Ecclus. 20:15). Instead of upbraiding us for asking, the rather we are made to wonder why we did not ask sooner. God does not chide us for our folly, but gives us good measure of wisdom to take its place. ‘This is the literal truth, as many self- confessed fools of the world are glad to testify. They have left the folly of a worldly, selfish, sinful life for the rich joy of the service of God in Christ. The change may come in a moment, for, after all, this new view of life and the power to live it may be had for the asking. ‘‘And it shall be given him.” It will be given on request, with no other identifica- tion than the sinner’s plea who comes in the name of Jesus, the open sesame to the treasures of heaven, himself the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:30) in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden (Col. 2:3). God does ask of us that we use this wisdom for his glory and for the blessing of other lives, the enrichment of other hearts. 5. Doubting Prayer. 1:6-8. Jesus (Matt. 7: 7f.) had urged the disciples to ask with the promise that God would answer. There is a condition attached to the wide-open invitation in James 1:5. It is faith. “‘But let him ask in faith,’’ James adds. By faith (lotic) James means, not a body of doctrine, but trust in God, a working confidence in God that leads him to ask and to expect to receive what he asks. It is certain 66 PRACTICAL“ AND SOCIAL ASE its that God does not answer some prayers, at least not in the way expected. Some requests ought not to be granted, ought, in fact, never to be made. Prayer may be very foolish as well as very wise. — God does not offer to grant every whim of a spoilt and petulant child. But, assuming that one is asking for wisdom, which surely is a proper prayer — for anyone to make, even so he may miss it because he does not exercise wisdom in the asking. He must not chill the ardor of his desire by hesitation and doubt. Let him ask, ‘nothing doubting” (undéy dtaxetvouevoc). To doubt is to have a divided (dvé) mind, that draws him two ways, like the poor donkey that starved because he could not choose » between the two stacks of hay. Such a man is like a wave! of the sea («Atdwm Oadrdoonc, fluctui maris), one of the most transitory things imaginable, driven by the wind (dveutouévw, extrinsecus, Bengel adds), and tossed into sea foam (white-caps) as if blown by a fan or bellows (prmovévw, from fpuric, fan or bellows), a veritable ‘‘brain-storm”’ of perplexity and indecision. God does answer prayer, but not the prayer of a | man like that (éxeivoc) who insults the giver of — whom he asks a favor. Timid faith is quite another thing. That Jesus honored in the case of the father who first said: ‘But if thou canst do anything” (Mark 9:22). Jesus rebuked him for his ‘if thou canst’’ (76 ei dévn). Then the anxious father cried: “T believe; help thou mine unbelief.’”’ There are 1 “Like a cork floating on the wave, now carried towards the shore, now away from it’”’ (Mayor). pees Wage 2 JOY IN TRIAL 67 many difficulties in the way of trust in God to-day. Science has left many minds groping in the dark without God, feeling after him if haply they may find him, not knowing that he is nigh to each of us. We do not have an absentee God. He can and does hear the cry of his children for help. If S OS can find a response over the wind and the wave to the call of the sinking ship, surely it is not strange that the Father of our spirits will hear our call to him. So it will be, “if ye have faith and doubt not”’ (gay mriotiy éynre Kal ur dtaxoOj7e), almost the very words used by James. Jesus had to rebuke his disciples for their lack of faith (Matt. 8:26) when they thought they were perishing from wind and wave. And Simon Peter doubted after he began to walk on the water and began at once to sink. ‘‘O thou of little faith (éAcyémore), wherefore didst thou doubt?” (édioracac) says Jesus to Peter (Matt. 14: a1). Peter had a divided’ mind. ‘‘Let ‘not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.”’ He does not expect anything and he is not disappointed. What a commentary is this sentence upon the half-hearted praying, the lack of interest, the worldly-minded passive worship of many mod- ern Christians. There is no wrestling with God in prayer for victory. ““Double-minded creature that he is, wavering at every turn” (Moffatt). The double-minded man (dé- wpoxoc) is like the two-faced man (Mr. Facing Both Ways). Sirach (2:13) speaks of the sinner coming to two paths and unable to choose. Such a man perishes at the cross-roads. Cf. James 4:8 for the 68 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS only other use of the word in the N. T., though com- mon enough elsewhere. Such indecision goes into duplicity, as Jesus shows about the evil eye and the single eye (Matt. 6: 22f.). It is a miserable life, as anyone knows who leads a double life. The double heart leads to the double life with its pretended double standard of morals. Clement of Rome! says: “Wretched are the double-minded, who doubt in their heart.” No wonder he becomes ‘“‘unstable in in all his ways” (dkardorarog év maéoatc taic ddoi¢ abrod), not able to stand in all his goings. He wobbles and finally reels like a drunken man. Such inconstancy?; winds up in hypocrisy or abandonment to sin.? 6. Ihe Democracy of Faith. 1: 9-11. James returns to the keynote of “all joy” (verse 2) and uses the word “glory” (kavyéo6w). The positive note of exultation is the mark of the true Christian. against the double-minded man. The pessimist is not a representative of Christianity. The true op- timist is not, however, blind to the facts of life. He can glory in God in the midst of all sorts of trials and conditions, whether in high or low estate. His joy is independent of earthly estate. The Cotter’s Saturday Night may be as happy as the one in the Castle near by. Class distinctions are no cause for pride in a spiritual democracy like the church of ~ 1 radaimapat claw of diyyor, of duotdlovres tH Kapdia. Cf. Resch, Agrapha, p. 325 (second ed.). * Bengel gives inconstans. * The faithless lover is called dxaraaine evperh¢ in the Erotic Prag- ment G. 1 (ii/B. C.) A leaden tablet (Audollent, no. 4 °12) speaks of one, Tov TH» olxiar ov akatdoraroy rowovvra, tay re oo Cagis = a cae” ¥ JOY IN TRIAL 69 Jesus Christ. We need in Christianity no ‘‘princes of the church” in the Roman Catholic sense. Pride of rank among the Twelve Disciples was a source of grief to Jesus. The rich and the poor are one in Christ Jesus and all are poor miserable sinners saved by grace. Johnstone (Lectures on James, p. 88) calls this section ‘Rich Poor and Poor Rich.’ That is true and is the probable interpretation here. The hum- ble (rarecvé¢)! brother may, after all, be the richest man in the church, rich in grace, in love, in joy, in peace, in righteousness, in fellowship. This is ‘‘his high estate’ (év 7@ twe), which rises sheer above hovel or palace. Thank God that this infinite wealth of the spirit is still open to the poor all over the world who find the door of competency closed in their faces. The pious poor is more than a phrase. It is often literal fact. The papyri dis- coveries? bear eloquent testimony to the words of Paul about the membership of the church at Corinth (x Cor. 1:26-29). The papyri letters and other documents are chiefly from the middle and lower classes and reflect the actual life of the very people from whom the gospel made most of its converts (the fishermen, the carpenters, the publicans, the tent-makers, etc.). There were already some wealthy members of the early churches, men like Nicodemus, 1 There is the utmost contrast between this use of tamewéd¢ and that in Epictetus, with whom humility is an object of scorn and contempt, a meanness unworthy of man. See Bk. III., chap. ii, § 14. Cf. Sharp, Epictetus and the N. T., p. 130, 133. ? Cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 392; St. Paul, Pp. 47- 70.) PRACTIGAL “ANDI SOCTAL VAS HC Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas of Cyprus. There were “not many mighty,’ but there were some. There soon came to be large numbers of slaves in the churches when the gospel spread among the Gentiles. But already social problems of an acute nature were on hand when James wrote. In fact, we see such problems in the early chapters of Acts, when Ananias and Sapphira wish to get credit for a generosity that they were not willing to show and when high feeling arose in the distribution of the funds for the Aramean (Palestinian) and Hellenistic widows among the Jewish Christians. At no point are people more sensitive than about money. So the rich brother (7Aotet0c) is to be reminded of his humiliation (rameivworc), “in that he is made low,” placed on a level with the ‘lowly brother.” They meet on the level in Christ. Each is as high and as low as the other, no more, no less. The rich man is not to glory over the poor man, nor is the poor brother to cringe in the presence of the rich brother. This is the democracy of faith, the univer- sality of Christ. The rich brother is in constant peril of pride of possession, and so James reminds him of the fate of the beautiful flower of the grass (dv60¢ y6etov) which springs up quickly and withers before the burning heat (xatowy, burner, hot wind) and falls off. It is a striking adaptation of the language of Isaiah (40: 6-8), using the imagery for another purpose. Peter (1: 24) says: “‘All flesh is as grass and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.’’ Christ brings all men to their true level, the common humanity in us all, the Sonship in him JOY IN TRIAL 71 that makes us heirs of heaven. Moffatt changes ‘his high estate’’ to ‘‘when he is raised”’ and ‘‘in that he is made low’’ to “in being lowered.’’ He seems to understand that James refers to the possible ‘‘ups and downs” of life. It will be easy for the lowly brother in that case to rejoice when he becomes rich; but how about the rich brother when he be- comes poor? Plummer (in loco) refuses to see a ‘‘brother’’ at all in the rich man, but only one of the rich Jews who oppressed the early Christians, asin 5:1-6. But that gives an Ebionitic tone to the Epistle. James does indulge in irony, but he is apparently sincere in his picture here. The rich brother will fade away in his goings (rogeiatc¢) as if James has in mind a drummer whose business dries up like a flower. Riches in sooth have wings and fly away. They are sweet like the rose, but soon vanish from us forever. CHAPTER IV Tue Way or TEMPTATION. 1: 12-18 James powerfully sketches the natural history of temptation if yielded to and the glory of victory if overcome. The other sense (temptation) of the word (mecpaouéc) used for trial in 1:2 occurs here. Moffatt indeed..takes ‘‘trial’’ as the idea in 1:12 also (so does Hort im loco), but: certainly in verse 13 we have to say “temptation.” It is most likely that the idea of temptation is present in 1:12. Here James returns to the discussion of the other side of the blessing of trials, namely, the blessing of temptation endured. As a matter of fact, he has not really digressed from the subject. He merely discussed one aspect of the subject. 1. Standing the Test. 1:12. “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation.” We must never forget that Jesus warned us against rushing into temptation, not merely in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4), but also in the Agony of Gethsemane, when Satan had come upon him with renewed energy in spite of repeated de- feats by Jesus since the wilderness temptations (Matt. 26:41; Luke 22:40). Jesus urged the disciples to pray to be spared temptation. No one knew so well as he the power of the evil one. He had wrestled with him to the end and had conquered where others failed. Temptation is not to be courted, not even for the sake of the experience and the possible 72 THE WAY OF TEMPTATION 73 victory. Too many go down in the struggle for any to rush into it lightly. “Fools rush in where angels | fear to tread.” But, if temptation is thrust upon one, then he must fight and he must win as Jesus did. There is always a way of escape (1_Cor. 10:13). We must find the way out (&Baoc). Cf. Job 5:17: “Behold, happy is the man whom the Lord correcteth’’ (7jAey- fev). He only is happy (waxdeuoc, the same word used in the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:3-11) who en- dures Oru Cf. érowovy). That is true patience. It is only ‘“‘when he hath been! approved” (d6xx0¢) after standing the test that ‘“‘he shall receive the crown of life,’ the victor’s crown. The word for “approved” suggests the furnace that removes the dross and leaves the pure metal. The refiner of silver watches, we are told, till he sees his own image in the metal. Then it is pure. The metal is tested and approved. , “The crown of life’ (rév orédavov tH¢ Swe, Cf. Rev. 2: 10) is probably the wreath of victory in the games (cf. 1 Cor. 9: 25; 2 Tim. 2:5), for Greek games were common in Palestine in the days of Herod the Great, and were practised even in Jerusalem itself (Josephus, Ant. 15, 8, 1f.). It is a crown of kingly glory, but it is bestowed as reward of merit to those who love the Lord Jesus. We may have a reference to a Logion of Jesus not preserved in which he makes this promise. ‘‘Blessed is he who hath his raiment white, for he it is who receiveth the crown of joy upon his head.’! In Prov. 1:9 we read that the _ 4 Acta Philippi, Apocal. Apocr. Cf. Resch, Agrapha, 1889, p. 254. Oey 44 PRACTICAL, AND SOCIAL AST EG iis instruction of father and mother “‘shall be a chap- let of grace unto thy head” (cf. also 4:9). In Sir. 15:6 we read of “‘a crown of gladness,” and in the Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi iv. 1) we find “crowns of glory.” Love is the way to win this crown, love and the proof of it in enduring temptation and leading ‘‘the white life.”’ 2. Blaming God: 1:13. Whatever doubt exists in verse 12 about trial or temptation vanishes in verse 13. Here it is clearly temptation to evil. Hort (2 loco) suggests ‘‘tempted by trial,’’ and Moffatt puts it “tried by temptation.”’ Certainly trial becomes a temptation to some men who use it as the excuse for doing wrong. ‘““Though trial in itself is ordered by God for our good, yet the inner solicitation to evil which is aroused by the outer trial is from ourselves’? (Mayor). Any trial, wrongly used, may become a temptation, whereas it — was meant for our development and _ perfection. Temptation is merely one aspect of trial, and not a necessary one. But the word is used of the great — tempter (1 Thess. 3:5, 6 mepdgwr). So Jesus was tempted (mepagéuevec) by Satan in the wilderness (Mark 1:13). Satan desired to sift the apostles as wheat, to ruin them if possible (Luke 22:31). The Pharisees and the Sadducees sought to tempt Jesus (Matt. 15:1). It is the devil’s business to seek to = if lure another into wrong. When a man is tempted, and yields to the tempta- tion, he is eager to blame some one else for his sin. If he cannot do otherwise, he will blame God for PEE WANE OR MDE NP TATION 75; having made him as he is with evil possibilities. In particular is this true of sexual sin, which Oesterley | (in loco) thinks James has specifically in mind here. | Pirviatt.'5..25; 1 Pet. 2217.) Adam: blamed Eve" and Eve the Serpent. And even Adam blamed God, | for he said: ““The woman whom thou gavest to be > with me’ (Gen. 3:12). Some dare to say in so many words: “I am tempted of God.” They hold God responsible for their appetites and passions and seek to quiet the conscience thus while they give way to sin. Others hide behind heredity or en- vironment or evil companions. Even Agamemnon excused himself for his wrong to Achilles by holding Zeus and fate responsible (Hom. Iliad, xix. 86). Sirach (15: 11f.) says: ‘Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away.’’ The origin of sin is a dark problem, but it is a lazy philosophy or a blind one that shirks human responsibility or tries to do it. It matters not whether sin is the remnant of the beast in us (surely some men act at times like the tiger) or the response to evil environment or both, we are merely cowardly when we blame God for our own wrongdoing. ‘ There is no response to evil in God. He is not “man’s giant shadow skyward thrown.” ‘The abso- lute holiness and ethical purity of God should at least protect him from the charge of leading us into sin. The worst of men, in their darkest moments of loneliness, sometimes come face to face with God. Then they do not flippantly blame God, but confess their sins with broken heart. Two things are true about evil and God. One is that God himself (abréc) \ 76 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS tempts no man to sin. He does send trial, but not temptation. We may not understand all the ways of God’s Providence, but we may rest secure in this: The devil does tempt us. That is his business. And yet James does not refer to Satan by name here, for, after all, we ourselves are responsible, as he proceeds to show. It does not help matters with us any more than it did with Eve to la¥ our sin upon the devil“ ‘The other thing that is true is that ‘“‘God cannot be tempted with evil” (éneipaorée Lory Kakov). He cannot be tempted to do evil himself nor be led to tempt others with evil. The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament nor in the Septuagint, but it is a paraphrase of a common proverb in the early Christian writings.! God does chastise us (Heb. 12: 4f., masdever), but he does not tempt us. All this is in strong contrast to the Greek and Roman notions of duty, for the heathen gods were credited with all human and even inhuman vices. The gods upon Olympus revel in lust and cruelty, jealousy and hate. They furnish fit ideals for the philosophy of Nietzsche, but do not accord with the God of the New Testament, the God of con- solation and of peace, of purity and love. 3. Snared by One’s Own Bait. 1: 14. The man himself is responsible for his sin, and he need not seek to place the blame elsewhere. The *Cf. Mayor on James (3rd ed., p. 54f.). The Acts of John (Zahn, Dui TT 3: 5) has uy weipate tov arelpactoy, andgp. 190. 18, 6 yap o& retpd- Sov Tov ameipactov metpdter, The devil tried to tempt even Christ, the Son of God. THE WAY OF TEMPTATION 77 temptation is not a temptation to him if the man /; refuses to listen to the siren’s voice. The man is not | responsible for the efforts of others to allure him to sin, but only in case he listens and yields. Then he is really “‘tempted, when he is drawn away by his own - lust and enticed.” The figure is very bold and im- pressive. The word for ‘drawn away”’ (é&eAxépevoc) is used in Oppian for drawing the fish out from its original retreat, beguiled from under the rock. Then the fish is ready to be snared by the bait (deAcagopevoc, from déAeap, bait). The fish bites at the bait and is caught on the hook. So with aman. He is drawn out by his own lust for the sin placed before him. In the case of sexual sin the impulse is not in itself sinful any more than the fish’s hunger for food. The sexual nature is from God and is meant only for blessing for high and holy ends. But the misuse of this impulse is very easy and very dreadful in its results. Satan sets many kinds of bait for unwary boys and girls, men and women, who at first are taken off their guard and then are drawn away by desire stirred within them toward evil. The evil suggestion is entertained and sin is the outcome. This very word “‘entice’’ (deAeégw) is used of hunting (trapping with bait), and then it is used of the harlot who entices to sin. ‘“‘My son, if sinners en- tice thee, consent thou not” (Prov. 1:10). Philo speaks of our being ‘‘driven by passion or enticed by pleasure.’’ The pitfalls are many in modern life, in , the country, in the village, and in the city. The. modern demons of drink, drug, and the brothel are | busy in finding victims.. But the point made by > 73), ‘PRACTICAL AND) SOCIALVASEECGLES ‘James is that the one who yields does so because of ‘the sin within one’s own heart. One’s own evil ' desire plays the part of temptress (Plummer) and one is drawn away by it and enticed. ‘If thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door” (Gen. 4:7) like a panther ready to spring upon the intended victim caught for the moment off guard. One is reminded afresh of the opening chapters of Proverbs, which cannot be excelled by any of the modern books on sex-instruction, some of which stimulate more im- morality than they prevent. Wise warning is needed and plain talk is demanded, but not pruriency any more than prudery. Alas, and alas, that the paw of the modern Moloch draws into the fire so many thousands of young men and young women from the homes of our land. The best capital of America is the children, and we lose too much of it in the worst of gambles, the traffic in souls. 4. [he Abortion. 1:15. The natural history of sin as the result of tempta- tion to which one yields is given with scientific ac- | curacy and graphic power: ‘‘Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death.’’! Moffatt renders it thus: ‘Then Desire conceives and breeds Sin, while Sin matures and gives birth to Death.” It is a gruesome picture surely. But who can say that it is overdrawn? The Positivist tries to shut God out of the world and so to banish human responsi- * The full text is worth giving: eira 7 ériOvula ovAAaBovoa Tixres auaptiav, 7 68 duapria dmoreAecbcica aroKvel davartov, rs ae THE WAY OF TEMPTATION 79 bility; but, alas, he cannot banish human woe and anguish of heart. The Agnostic flings up his hands in despair and says he does not know and has noth- ing to say in the presence of nature “‘red in tooth and claw.” The brutal Miulitarist adopts the rule of physical might wrongly claimed by Nietzsche to be the mark of the superman. Spiritual and moral prowess should dominate brute force in man, else he becomes only a brute himself. He drops back to the law of the jungle and rejects the law of love in the kingdom of heaven. The “Christian Scientist” blandly shuts his eyes to such errors of mortal mind as sin and sickness and sorrow, and, ostrich-like, cheerfully denies their reality and seeks to blow them away with a puff. But sin is not to be brushed aside in such an “‘old-maidish’’ way. The startling revelations of city life in the midst of Christian civilization have led to protest and revolt against existing conditions. One proof of it is seen in a book like Miss Jane Addams’s ‘‘A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil.’’ Another is seen in the rooting out of houses of prostitution from many of our large cities, the throttling of gambling, the growth of prohibition of the liquor traffic. One good result has come from the Great War—the prohibition of vodka in Russia and the coming of that mighty empire to the side of prohibition. It is not enough to lift up hands in holy horror at the power of sin to-day. something must be done to stop real race-suicide that stalks through modern life in the shape of fear- ful venereal diseases that threaten the very life of the race. — 80 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS But the words of the verse call for particular re- mark. ‘‘Then’’ (eita) is here the historical order following the temptation to which one yields. His lust (ém6vuia) drew him forth to the temptation. He yields and the result is the conception, which embryo develops into sin. This is the first birth, and sin is the child of desire (rixre: duapriav). De- sire is not in itself sinful, but it easily falls into sin. Thus in a true sense desire makes sin where there was no sin, and so gives birth to sin., But this is not all. Sin in its turn matures (démoreAeoOcioa, consumma- tum, Bengel) and gives birth to death.! This second child is like a child born dead. When sin is born death is involved like an embryonic parasite that feeds on sin. Desire, sin, death form the biological line or pedigree. The line is short, for ‘‘the wages of sin is death,” as Paul puts it (Rom. 6: 23).2 The picture in James is that of an abnormal birth like a misshapen animal. I have seen a five-legged cow, the fifth leg on the top of the back standing up © straight. When sin is born death begins (conception) and grows in fascinating power till a new birth comes, and, lo, this child is death itself. ‘The birth of death follows of necessity when once sin is fully formed, for sin from its first beginnings carried death within” (Hort, in loco). The law of death in sin applies to other sins be- sides the so-called sexual sins which write their his- 1 Bengel puts it thus: Peccatum morte gravidum nascitur. The Targum of Jonathan on Isaiah 62:10 says that imagination of sin is sinful. , *74 ovdua, the rations of a soldier. The pay of sin is death and it is always paid. a ae a a ee en eT mE WAY OR TREND EALTION SI tory so plainly in the body and the mind and bring a ' heritage of woe through all the family history. There is here no sowing of wild oats to raise a crop of wheat. The fearful fidelity of modern scientific knowledge throws a lurid light on this passage in James. The sinner makes his bed and lies down in it and drags down with him the helpless ones who are thrown in his care. As I am writing I re- ceive a copy of “Light,” a magazine published by the World’s Purity Federation. This issue for No- vember, 1914, contains an article by a woman who has lived “Twenty-five Years in the Underworld.” Her story reads like a commentary on the words of James. She claims to have had the best of that sordid life, but she concludes: ‘‘No matter what humiliation a girl has to endure, it is better to endure it than to get into this life. There is nothing in it for any of them. The very best of us get it hard before we die. And, at the best, it is Hell.’’ The issue of death is seen, not merely in the diseases of the body, but ‘‘also in the deterioration of mind and character which accompanies every kind of sin” (Mayor, im loco). Death and hell then claim their own. 5. God the Source of Good. 1: 16. The contrast is sharp. “Be not deceived”’ (7 riavaobe); do not wander so in your minds as to think that temptation and sin and death come from God. He is not the source of evil. Rabbi Chaninah says: “No evil thing cometh down from above.’ Cf. Jesus in John 8:23 on “above” and “below.” James is tenderly affectionate in his appeal on this 82, PRACTICAL: ANDI SOCIAL ASE Ears point (My beloved brethren). On the contrary, only good comes from God. God is good, and he alone © is absolutely good (Mark 10:18).! In the Greek the next sentence runs like a hexameter line if one short syllable is considered long by stress of the meter.2 We need not tarry over a fanciful straining after poetical lines in prose. Odesterley agrees with Ewald in seeing here a quotation from a Hellenistic poem. It is far more likely just accidental rhythm common enough in good prose. ‘The scholars differ also as to how to translate the sentence. Moffatt hits it off thus: ‘“‘All we are given is good, and all our endowments are faultless.’” “The Father of lights” sets God over against the worship of the sun so common among the ancients. Plato (Repub. vi. sosff.) compares the sun to the idea of the good. Modern science powerfully illus- trates this comparison of James in bringing out what we owe to the sun in the way of light, heat, and life itself. Philo calls God ‘‘the Father of the all,” the lights (the moon and the stars) and all else in the universe. ‘‘When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?’”.(Psa. 8: 3f.).) (Ch Phila 15) Cant 1’Ayabéc is here used in the sense of absolute, not relative, goodness. 2naca débcig ayahy Kai wav ddépnua rédecov, But see Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the Light of Historical Research, p. 1200. i° He thus preserves the distinction between déoe and dépnyua, Gya0y and TéAetog, eT ee ee a ey en ee ee ee er eo eee ee ee THE WAY OF TEMPTATION 83 not only light (1 John 1:5), but all true light comes from him, all the light that lighteth every man coming into the world (John 1: 9). But the sun appears to move rapidly. Watch the sun drop like a ball of fire at sunset and thus cast a deepening shadow over the earth. The sundial is one of the oldest ways to mark ‘‘the shadow that is cast by turning”’ (teoT%|¢ drockiaoua). Mayor quotes Plu- tarch (Percl. 7) for the use of this figure for shadows cast on the dial (yvwpévwr drooxtacudc). James is | here, of course, using popular language, as we still | do when we say that the sun rises and sets. But with our Father of lights there is “no change of rising and setting’ (Moffatt, magadAay7). He ‘‘casts no shadow on the earth.” Even the pole-star, we now know, whirls on in space, carrying the worlds along with it. But our God is not changeable nor © whimsical. He does not send now good, now ill. He knows how to give good gifts to those that ask him, yea, the best of all gifts, the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13). What seems ill is really good if it comes from God. If one takes his stand by God’s side (tap ©) and looks at his life, he sees God’s plan as a whole for his own life and for God’s glory. 6. The New Birth. 1:18. “So far from God tempting us to evil, his will is the cause of our regeneration”? (Mayor). He is our Father in a double sense. We owe our original birth to God, in whose image we are made (Gen. 2: 7). We owe our spiritual birth likewise to God, who begat us again to a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3). The 84° PRACTICAL AND SOCIATAASP ECTS Mishnah (Surenh., iv. 116) says: “A man’s father only brought him forth into this world: his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brings him into the life of the world to come.’’ Happy is the father who leads his child also to Christ. But, while the word of truth (Adyw dAnOciac) is the instrument used in the instruction (a pointed lesson for parents, teachers, preachers), the actual work of regeneration is due to God as Father, yes, and as Mother also, for the word “brought forth” (dmexénoev) is the one used of the mother (see by contrast verse 15 above). The doctrine of grace here set forth is of a piece with that in Paul’s writings (Rom. 12: 2; Eph. 1: 5), those of Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and of John (1:13). Indeed, Jesus himself is quoted as saying: ‘“You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). As the seed of » sin produces death, so the seed of God produces life (1 John 3: 9). It is interesting to note this piece of fundamental theology in so practical a writer as James, who lays special emphasis on works as proof of life. But James has no such idea as some careless and shallow theologians who think that a man can galvanize himself into spiritual life by imitative ethics. The man must be born again, as Jesus said so impressively to Nicodemus (John 3:3). Birth precedes growth and development. We are not to puzzle ourselves too much over the mysteries of spiritual biology. We know that the impulse and purpose (GovAndeic)! comes from God / (John 1:13). What we do know is that God honors * Bengel says: voluntate amantissima, liberrima, purissima, foecun- dissima. Cf. BcvAq for set purpose, not mere will or wish (9é«), THE WAY OF TEMPTATION 85 and uses the word of truth, both spoken and written. If this is true, what a responsibility for diligence and urgency in the use of the word of truth. By the truth we are set free from sin and error (John 8: 31f.). The word of truth is the gospel of salvation (Eph. 1: 13; Col. 1: 5), the word of life (t John 1: 1). God’s word is truth (John 17:17) and the words of | Jesus are spirit and life (John 6:63). The word of truth, when combined with the power of God (2 Cor. 6:7), quickens into life. So James emphasizes the importance of the human element in the new birth while rightly making God supreme in the act of regeneration. We must reach men with the word of God. We must pass it on to the thirsty, the hungry, the dying. Every church is or ought to be a life-saving station, a rescue mission, a teaching center, a power house, a lighthouse radiating knowl- edge of God in Christ. fThe purpose (elc_1d_elvar) of God in renewing us by the word of truth is that we in turn should win others. We are not an end in ourselves, though God does save us. He saves us that we may serve. We are to be a sort of first-fruits (drapyijy teva), not the full harvest. There are fields upon fields beyond us ready for the reaper.; We are just a beginning, just a foretaste. We whet the appetite for larger, richer blessings. ‘‘The trees that are a fortnight to the fore are the talk and delight of the town” (J. 1The inscriptions (Ditt., Syll., 587 7°) use the word for the first- fruits to Demeter and Kore, but Moulton and Milligan (Vocabulary, p. 54) give many examples from the papyri and the inscriptions, where “‘gift’’ or “‘sacrifice’”’ seems sufficient. i 86° PRACTICAL ‘AND SOQIAL ASPEGis Rendel Harris, Present Day Papers, 1901, May, The Elements of a Progressive Church). One spring my baby boy noticed a tree without leaves when all the rest were in leaf. ‘‘What is the matter with this tree?” he said. Christ has introduced a new order into the world. He himself is the real first-fruits (x Cor. 15:20). But there are others through all the ages, those that ripen first and fast, show the way, give promise of the future. So Epainetus was a first-fruit of Asia for Christ (Rom. 16:5), the household of Stephanas in Corinth (1 Cor. 16:15). Blessings on the first-fruits for salvation in any church, any town, any family (2 Thess. 2:13). They are the chosen of God, like the 144,000 in the Book of Revelation (14:3), the Church of the Firstborn (Heb. 12: 23). The Jews consecrated their first- fruits to God as his in a special sense. All Christians are meant to be first-fruits, the promise and earnest of better work (Rom. 8: 23). God has in store great things for his people. The least that we can do is to bring our first and our best, our all, and lay it at the feet of Jesus. The new heaven and the new earth may not come while we live on earth, but we © may help heaven to come upon earth by living the life of God. CHAPTER V THE PRACTICE OF THE WORD OF GOD. 1: 19-27 Nowhere is James richer than in this wonderful paragraph. He has in mind ‘‘the word of truth” (Aéyw dAndeiac) of verse 18, and follows that idea with pungent and powerful words that remind one of the Sermon on the Mount. It is not clear whether the first part of verse 19 belongs in idea to what goes before or what follows. ““Ye know this, my beloved brethren.” It makes perfectly good sense either way. It is also uncertain whether we have a statement or a com- mand, for the form (lore)! may be either indicative or imperative. If you know it, act on your knowl- edge. Let us listen to what the Word has to say, since we are renewed by the use of it and be less captious in our criticism of its teachings (Mayor). Moffatt puts it: ‘‘Be sure of that, my beloved brothers,’ and connects it with verse 18. 1. Brilliant Listening. 1: 19a. By ‘swift to hear’ (raydc sig ro dxovoa) James brings a vivid picture before us. Moffatt has it “quick to listen.” Sirach (5:11) has a like com- mand: ‘‘Be swift in thy listening’ (rayd¢ év dxpodoer cov). One thinks of swift feet, fleet of foot, yes, and of ear. The Vulgate has velox here. The wild ani- mals (and the Indians) of necessity have keen ears 1In 4:4 James has oidate as indicative so that tore is probably imperative. Cf. also Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:17. 87 ort 88) PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASEEGIS and can hear the slightest rustle of a leaf or crackling of a twig. The rabbit, so often hunted by man and dog, pricks up his ears at the sound of a pin dropping. The use of the telephone and wireless telegraphy have given added importance to the value of the ear. The ancients relied very much on the ear, for the reader of books had a wide-awake audience who depended on the ear rather than the eye for infor- mation. The mechanism of listening is very won- derful, the contact between brain and brain through the sound waves of speech and the reception of the spoken words by the ear. Jesus often said: “He that hath ears to hear Jet him hear.’”’ The ear with many was, and is, the sole avenue of acquiring knowledge. It is no disparagement of books to say that the art of conversation is one of the greatest refinements. But the very essence of a good conversationalist is that he be also a good listener, else he is a consum- mate bore. Sydney Smith said of Macaulay that his occasional flashes of silence made his conversation delightful. In Qoheleth Rabba we read: ‘‘Speech for a shekel, silence for two; it is like a precious stone.”’ Broadus had a great lecture on ‘‘The Art of Listen- | ing.’’ It isa really rare art and one of the most use- ful. Poor listening will make poor preaching of a really good sermon. Good listening will come near to making a good sermon out of a poor one. The writer of Hebrews complains that his readers have “become dull of hearing’’ (vwOeo0i yeyévate raic dxoaic). The word for ‘‘dull’’ (vw60i, from vj and &6é) means “no push.” They had no push in their ears, no energy in listening, already half-asleep. In par- Cite PRACTICE OM LAER “WORD 89 ticular do we need to listen when God speaks to us j in his Word of truth, ‘“‘a quick and attentive ear to catch what God has spoken” (Hort). Inattention is irritating and may be deadly. Sirach says: ‘‘The mind of a sagacious person will meditate on a prov- erb; and an attentive ear is the desire of a wise man”’ (3:29). God is constantly speaking to those with ears to hear. It is good for the young to learn the habit of attention, a help in meeting temptation. 2, Eloquent Silence. 1: 109b. Another ‘“‘life-rule’”’ (Lebensregel) of James (Win- disch) is ‘‘slow to speak:’ (Goadd¢ sic T6 Aadtjoa). The Vulgate has tardus. Cne must not forget Homer’s “winged words’ (nrepéevta Enea), for words can be laden with messages of joy and life and peace and love. Eloquence has its place, real eloquence of the soul, words on fire that blaze and burn, words that thrill and electrify, words that make life and death noble and high, words like those of Jesus that are spirit and life (John 6:63). But, when all is said, there is something deeper than mere speech, higher than just words, nobler than talk. If speech is silvern, silence is often golden. Sorrow may be too unutterable for words. Joy may pass beyond all speech. The proverb also has it that ‘‘many a man has had to repent of speaking, but never one of holding his peace,’’ unless silence is guilty or cow- ardly. But it is easy to be voluble with the tongue and slack in life. Sirach says: “‘Be not violent (raydc) with thy tongue, and in thy deeds slack (vw09d¢) and remiss.’”’ Volubility is certainly not a 90 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS sign of power. The silent man, like Moses, is more likely to be a man of power and performance. The parrot and the owl form good examples of the weak- ness of chatter and the wisdom of silence. Zeno calls attention to the obvious fact that?we have two ears and one mouth and should therefore listen twice as much as we talk.’ James does not, of course, mean that men should be slow and dull talkers after we begin or when we should talk. He means slow to talk (ele 76), not slow in talking (é¢v 7@). Often the least interesting men are the very ones who talk most frequently and y at the greatest length. We are to think twice before we speak. Sometimes, if we do that, we shall not speak at all. At any rate, we shall be more likely to have sense in our speech. We shall speak to more purpose if we speak after silence and out of the re- flection from silence. McLaren has a good phrase, “Spread out our souls to the truth.” ‘“‘Be still and know that I am God.” Mary “kept (ovverqjoer) all these sayings, pondering (ovvBdAAovoa) them in her heart”? (Luke 2:19). She could only listen to God. The Quakers have some ground for their plea for meditation in the Christian life. Introspection can, of course, be overdone, but the present age is not given to reflection and contemplation. Practical mysticism is the best type of Christianity. Indeed, a Christianity without mysticism is empty and formal. It is quite possible (Johnstone) that the free con- versational style employed in the early Christian meetings was taken advantage of by contentious Pao DiC hb ORDER WORD QI persons, with the result of serious wranglings, as in the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 14). ‘In the multi- tude of words there wanteth not transgression; but . he that refraineth his lips doeth wisely’’ (Prov. ro: 19). Such violent talkers break up the spiritual life of achurch. The less they know the more they talk. They have positive opinions on every subject of politics or religion. They know how their neighbors should act in the smallest details and criticize every- body and everything. They are happiest when all is agog with talk of some sort, and the more gossipy it is the better they like it. ‘“They cannot think, and it is a relief to them to hear their own voices’’ (Dale). Epictetus (Ench. xxxiii, §5) has the same idea as James: ‘‘Let there be silence for the most part or let that which is necessary be said in few words.”’ Oui Anger. t1o9ct. The third “‘life rule’’ of James is “slow to wrath” , (Boadv¢ sic dpyqv). There is a clear connection be- tween speech and anger. Anger inflames one to hasty and unguarded talk. In turn the words act as fuel to the flames. The talk inflames the anger and the anger inflames the talk. The more one talks the angrier he becomes, like a spit-fire. If one stops talking, his anger will cool down for lack of fuel. Men who are dull enough in listening, who will sleep through any sermon, are quick to resent a personal reflection or an imagined wrong. There is profound wisdom in the plan of Secretary W. J. Bryan for having a period for deliberation before war is possible after a casus bella arises between nations. Often one’s manhood is : t 92. PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS gauged by his quickness to avenge a personal affront with murder as the outcome. This is a fine place to be dull, when one is tempted to be angry. Anger is sometimes justifiable, even necessary. There is such a thing as righteous indignation against wrong. Jesus “looked round about on them with anger” (Mark 3:5), but it was compassionate anger. It is possible to be angry and sin not (Eph. 4:26), but we must not cherish anger, must not “let the sun go down upon our wrath.”’ Unlike God, we do not know all the circumstances in the case. Just getting mad is not promoting the kingdom of God. ‘‘The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” Cf. Matt. 5: 21f. The euphemistic phrase of James is emphatic by its very mildness. Man’s wrath is set over against God’s righteousness. The growth of religion and of civilization is marked by the self-restraint of the individual and of the state. ». Vengeance is a boomerang in most instances. The taking of vengeance into one’s own hands brings down the house on one’s own head. At any rate it pays every man and every nation to be slow to anger. “Boys, flying kites, haul in their white-winged birds; You can’t do that way, when you're flying words. Thoughts, unexpressed, may sometimes fall back dead, But God himself can’t kill them once they’re said.” Sometimes unpalatable truth has to be spoken, hard words have to be said. ‘Am I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). But the preacher needs to temper rebuke with love and anguish of soul. THE PRACTICE OF THE WORD 93 4. The Rooted Word. 1: 21. “The implanted word’’ (rov gugdutov Aéyor) is prob- ably a mistranslation.1 The common idea of the word is “inborn” or “innate’’ (cf. Wisd. 12: 10, “their wickedness is inborn’). The word is occa- sionally used for second nature or secondary in- growth (Hort). The word is sown, not grafted, and so “‘rooted’’ seems to be the meaning here (Mayor).? See also Rom. 6:5, “united (ctudvtoe) with him in the likeness of his death.”’ The figure is that of the seed sown in the heart and taking root and growing there. So Jesus spoke of the man who hath not root in himself (Matt. 13: 21).8 Receive the rooted word; but before doing so one must cleanse the heart like a garden of all noxious weeds. The imagery is doubtless a mixed metaphor, but never mind that, for the thought is clear. The “putting away’’ (droOéuevor) suggests the laying aside of a garment, as in Heb. 12: 1 one strips for the race. In Eph. 4: 21 Paul contrasts putting off the old man with putting on (évdvcac0a) the new (cf. also Col. 3: 8ff.). Mayor notes the comparison between dress and character in the wedding garment (Matt. 22:11), the white robe of purity (Rev. 3:4, 18). In 1 Pet. 2:1 we have language similar to that of James, ‘“‘putting away therefore all wickedness.’’ But prob- ably James means to carry the figure of the garden all through the verse, as Moffatt has it: “So clear away all the foul rank growth,” the weeds of ‘‘filthi- 1 This translation calls for éu@brevtov, hot éudutov. 2 The Latin insitus likewise has a double use, innate or implanted. 3 oun Ever 0& pilav év éavTa, gah PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASHE Gis ness’ (futapiay) and “overflowing of wickedness” (nepiooeiav xaxiac). The “‘filthiness’ may mean im- purity. Compare Paul’s phrase “corrupt speech,” literally ‘‘rotten speech” (Aéyo¢ oanpdc) in Eph. 4: 29. But in Rev. 22: 11, ‘‘And he that is filthy (6 purapéc) let him be made filthy still,’ the notion is more gen- erel. Another noxious weed that must be gotten out of the way is ‘‘wickedness”’ (xaxiag), which here may have the narrower sense of malice. “What was called holy anger was ‘othing better than spite’ (Hort). It is even suggested that the ‘overflowing’ (meguo- aeiav) 18 a Sort of overgrowth or “‘excrescence’’ (Hort), but with no idea of admitting that a small amount of wickedness or malice is not evil. The precise figure is an “‘ebullition” or ‘‘effervescence”’ of malice. Surely one too often sees this picture in actual life. Malice bubbles up and runs over into word and deed. ‘‘The evil man out of the evil treasure in his heart bringeth forth that which is evil’ (Luke 6: 45). He speaks out of the ‘‘abundance’’ (repiocebparoc) of his heart. Surely evil runs riot unless it is checked and taken out root and branch. Per contra one loves to think of the “abundance of grace’ (Rom. 5:17, 21) and the “abundance of joy” (2 Cor'8i2): When once the weeds are out of the way ‘‘make a soil of modesty for the Word which roots itself in- wardly” (Moffatt’s Translation). Surely the re- pentant sinner can only ‘receive with meekness”’ (év moabrytt). Hort notes that the temper full of harshness and pride destroys the faculty of per- ceiving the voice of God. Jesus urged men to come THE PRACTICE OF THE WORD 95 to school to him because he is meek and lowly in heart (Matt. 11:29). Meekness is not a virtue that ranks high with all men. Many of the ancients counted it a vice, as Nietzsche has taught in our generation. But the spirit of Nietzsche’s superman is not the spirit of Jesus nor of the true gentleman. There can be no true culture without gentleness and the grace of meekness. If the seed of the Word gets root and is allowed to grow (compare the wayside, stony-ground, thorny- ground hearers in Christ’s parable in Matt. 13), the tree of life will flourish in the garden of the soul. This word is “‘able to save your souls.”’ It brings a present salvation here and now (John 5:34), a new life of purity. It helps in the progressive salvation of the whole man in his battle with sin and growth in grace (2 Tim. 3:15). It leads to final salvation in heaven with Christ in God (1 Pet. 1:9). The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1: 16), the very power of God pulses in it. See Heb. 4: 12f. for a wonderful picture of the vital force of the word of God, quick and powerful, all electric with the energy of the Spirit of God. Men may scoff at and scout the message of God, but it saves men’s souls. What else does that? 5. Hearers Only. 1: 22-24. . James keeps the balance well. He has shown the wisdom of good listening. Now he proves the fu- tility of mere listening with no effort to put into practice what one hears. There is life in the word | of God if it is lived. It is quick with life-giving PS ec iapramiaanoare seated 96 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS energy for those who put it to the test of life. One may hear and not heed. The Greek used the same word (dxotw) for both ideas. One is reminded of the Parable of the Sower again, for only one of the four classes of hearers brought forth fruit. That is the test. ‘‘By their fruits ye shall know them.” The reception of the word will only bring final salvation _in case the fruit is borne. James knew only too well NOOO cc ie the empty ceremonialism of the Jews who said and did not. Jesus (see Matt. 23) arraigned the hy- | pocrisy of the Pharisees in the most scathing de- | nunciation of all time. ‘But be ye doers of the word, ‘and not hearers only, deluding your own selves.” Show yourselves (yiveoSe) ‘“‘word-doers” (Hort, tro- tai Aéyov). One is reminded of Emerson’s The Thinker, The Sayer, The Doer. By ‘‘word” it is not clear whether is meant the Torah (Oesterley) or any word of authority (Hort) or the rooted word just mentioned (Plummer). The latter is most likely, though the partial personification of word (Aéyog) here reminds one of the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel and of Philo and the Targums. The ‘‘hearers only”’ (uj dxpoatai pévoyv) did nothing ~ else but listen. They were true ‘‘sermon-tasters”’ who fed upon the ministry of the word or the written word, only to fatten into sloth and spiritual inertia. They got the hook-worm disease in religion and be- longed to the ‘‘shirkers,’’ not the ‘‘workers.”’ Rabbi Chananiah used to say: ‘‘Whosesoever works are in excess of his wisdom, his wisdom stands; and whose- soever wisdom is in excess of his works, his wisdom — stands not” (Taylor’s Jewish Fathers, p. 63). The — THE PRACTICE OF THE WORD 97 rabbis said there were two crowns, one for doing and one for hearing, based on Exod. 24:7, ‘‘we will do, and we will hear’’ (‘‘be obedient,’’ Rev. V.). The word for hearers (déxpoarai) appears nowhere else in _ the New Testament and was used for attendants at the lectures of philosophers and other public speakers rather than learners or disciples (ua@nrai). One thinks of the public reading of the word in the synagogues. But even so, ‘“‘Act on the Word” Moffatt has it. Else it is like pouring water into a sieve. It is in one ear and out of the other. Some people have a sort of religious dissipation in >, attending revival services and imagine that they have accomplished a great deal if they simply go. | People easily acquire itching ears that love to be / tickled with some sensation. The word takes no | root in the hearts of such men. They run from. church to church to get a new word, a sort of soda- water habit. They deceive themselves (rapadoyicépe- vot), but nobody else. These spiritual ‘‘gad-abouts”’ are shallow and skim the surface only. They make a sort of moving-picture show, but accomplish nothing substantial in their own lives nor in the work of the kingdom. They are guilty of a logical fallacy (raga- Aoytou6c) and are the victims of their own delusions (cf. Col. 2:4). One has thus a case of auto-intoxica- tion. He has inoculated himself with the virus of his own error. And now James draws a wonderfully vivid pic- ture of the idle hearers, the hangers-on in revival meetings, like the scum that comes first to the sur- face, light-hearted, impulsive, nonchalant, without PE 98 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS depth of purpose or seriousness in life. Such a (frivolous listener glances at (atavootv7t) his face in / a mirror, taking note to see that he looked natural . and proper. A quick look suffices for that, for “‘his ~ natural face’’ (ro medcwroy Tij¢ yevéoews avtov), the face of his birth, the only one that he has. If nothing is / awry about his appearance reflected in the mirror / (év eloonrow), he is satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the momentary glance.!. The mirror was probably of ’ metal and the word is often used by the poets (Mayor). Here the mirror is the Word of God (spoken or written), in which one takes a look at himself, and the quick and superficial view brings satisfaction or a passing pang. See 1 Cor. 13:12 for the use of mirror for the imperfect knowledge of Christ through reflection in the Word of God and in life contrasted with the blessed reality when face to face with him (Mayor). But here in James the man tarries by the mirror for a moment and 1s soon off for good (dreAjAvoer). All that he saw in the Word of God is now out of sight and out of mind, like the wayside hearers in Christ’s parable. If it was a sermon that he heard, the impulses for good quickly die away. He is back at his business or at his club or even in his home. He straightway forgot (émeAd0ero) what he was like (6roto0¢ 7”), what sort of man he was in the mirror. In particular, any unpleasant features are forgotten. The momentary trembling of the conscience no longer bothers him. Alas, alas, how easily the 1 xatevéyoev punctiliar action (aorist). The aorists here are gno- mic, and the perfect ameAfAvev adds also a touch of life. THE PRACTICE OF THE WORD 99 burning heat of the day withers the tender shoots — in the stony ground, the weeds and thorns choke to death the pious aspirations of the better hours. 6. Real Students of the Word. 1:25. The image of the mirror is carried on into the picture of the doer of the word, the ‘‘doer that worketh,”’ a doer of work (rotnrijc Epyov), ‘an active agent”? (Moffatt). The phrase is tautological, but very emphatic. He is not only a doer of word) (Aéyov), but a doer of deeds (oyov). Hehas put the word into practice and has brought practical result. He has transmuted word into deed. This is what counts, the practice of the Word of God, not mere glancing at the mirror nor chatter about what one saw or picked up, not a hearer of forgetfulness (dxooatnc émtAnouov7c). It is astonishing what poor memories men have for what God says. The Dac- trine of Addai gives as an uncanonical saying of Jesus this: ‘“‘That which we preach before the people by word we should practise by deed in the sight of all.”’ The sincere listener pauses long enough to become interested in the real meaning of the word of God, which is now law (véuov) to him, for he wishes to obey this word of the Master. These listeners are the joy _ of the preacher’s heart, those who turn to the /- scriptures, like the Bereans, to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). The word (ragaxtpac) in James suggests curiosity and eagerness, as in Sir. 14: 23, of the one who looks through the door of wisdom and 100 PRACTICAL ‘AND SOCIAL ASPECES in r Pet. 1: 12 of the desire of the angels to peer into the problems of the mission of Christ to earth.} The law of God is attractive to the doer of work as perfect (réAeov), as the Psalmist has it: ‘“The law of the Lord is perfect’’ (Psa. 19:7). But it is not a law of compulsion, but of freedom (éevOepiac). One is free to accept or to reject it. Certainly James does not have the view of the Judaizers who made the law a yoke of bondage even for Gentiles, but rather that of Paul, who accented the freedom in Christ (Gal. s:1). Jesus held out freedom as the great blessing of truth (John 8:32), freedom to exercise one’s highest functions and faculties held in bondage by sin and mere legalism. Perhaps the chief emphasis in this verse lies in the word ‘‘continueth’’ (napapewac). The man re- mains by the side of the roll of the law spread out before him and unrolls page after page with the keenest interest and zest till he rightly grasps the meaning of God. ‘Thus he puts the word into practice. He has it stamped on his mind and heart. He is a Christian Pragmatist. He, like Brother Law- rance, practises the presence of God. He translates the word of truth into his own life, and becomes a living epistle. This is the Bible that the Twentieth Century loves to read. The man who does this is “happy in his doing,’ ‘‘blessed in his activity” (Moffatt).2 He is happy in the doing even if it falls far short of the ideal in the word of truth. He has 1 Epictetus (Bk. I, chap. i, $16) has this: KafueOa ordyevor kat TapaKvrTo“Ev CvVE XC, Tic dveuog mvEi. 2 waKaploc Ev Th Togoes avrou. Sate (One OU EER eV ORD tie TOF tried and he will keep on trying. He can sing the song of the shirt, the song of the plow, the song of the desk. 7. Complacent Religiosity. 1:26. Mere listening may be idle. Mere work may be perfunctory. One may be a worker only as well as a hearer only. The hearer only deceives himself by an error of reason (magadoyiséuevoc, 1:22). The worker only deceives his own heart (¢natév xapdiay éavtov) by an error of conduct. He leads himself astray, out of the path (drarév) by the delusion that religion (Oenoxeia) consisted in the performance of religious duties (Oeqoxeia),! not in the attitude toward God in the heart nor the ethical conduct. Josephus uses it also of the attendance of the priests on public wor- ship.” Paul uses the term for Pharisaism (Acts 26:5), and in Col. 2:18 for the worship of the angels. It is the external aspect of public worship. Originally it had the meaning of reverence for the gods (Hort), but it soon came to be used for the ceremonial rites of worship. In 4 Macc. 5:6 the word is used for the refusal of the Jews to eat pork. In a word, it is applied to one who does faithfully the religious chores. The Pharisees form a striking 1TIn P. Rain, 107 (ii/A. D.) we have ai Opyoxeiac in the sense of religious duties. Dittenberger (Syll., 656) gives O@pyoxeia from an inscription where it means ‘‘the keeping of the month Artemision as sacred to the tutelary goddess” (Moulton and Milligan, Lexical Notes, Expositor, May, 1909, p. 473). ? Ant. ix. 13. 3, iva dei ty GpyoKeig wapapeivwot, Philo distinguishes between evoéBera, Opnoxeia, and dorérng (M. 1. 195). 102 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPEGTS illustration of this emphasis on the ceremonial side of public worship. The regular attendance at the hours of prayer, faithful observance of the rules of ritual purification, payment of the tithes, these things constituted worship. Finally, these alone constituted worship. Religion came to consist in the ceremony alone, the letter and not the spirit, the hull and not ‘the kernel. Most of the things done were good enough. It is best to have the outside of the cup clean, but not so important as the inside nor as clean water in the cup. Jesus exposed this failing of the Pharisees with great incisiveness and power. It is easy to mistake form for reality. So men have come to count their beads as prayer, to pray with prayer wheels. One may attend church regu- larly, contribute liberally, come to prayer meeting, have family prayers, be a member of the church, and yet not be religious. He may have religiosity and not religion. One may mistake performance of religious functions for the possession of the spirit of religion. In the very act of working out the religious impulse men often fall into traps. A deacon once asked his boy if he had put sand in the sugar and 7 rocks in the coffee. If so, he could come on to pray- ers. So here the man considers (doxet) that he is a religious man (Oo70K6c, religiosus in Vulgate). He is content with his religious status and yet he does not control his tongue. He does not bridle (yadrvaywyév) his own tongue, the earliest known use of this strik- ing figure, though Aristophanes (Ran. 862) speaks of an unbridled mouth (dyddivov oréua). The tongue is regarded as an unruly horse that needs bit and o ee — Pee ULC Ona Er WORD 168 bridle held fast by the master to control it. The _ tongue is allowed to say whatever a spiteful heart prompts. The bitterest words are not felt to be inconsistent with personal piety. Such a man con- siders himself a pillar of the church in spite of his loose tongue and loose living. He performs religious duties on Sunday and is a shyster on Monday. He deceives himself, but no one else is deceived. Such a man’s religious service is empty of any value with God or man. It is vain (udratoc) and hollow mockery. His own complacency makes the mat- ter worse. He is a stumbling-block to those who judge religion by him, for he has divorced religion from life. 8. Unspotted from the World. 1:27. James does not give a definition of religion in this verse, but an illustration of the right sort of reli- gious exercise in contrast with the futile religiosity already noted. The absence of the article (Oe7cxeia) shows that he does not mean an inclusive descrip- tion. “A religious exercise pure and undefiled’’ (OonoKeia xaOapad Kai duiavtoc)! is here given quite the opposite of the professional performances of the Pharisaic pietists. There is pure religion and the counterfeit is a tribute to it. This religion is free from pollution. There is in it no alloy of selfishness nor other sin. Moffatt renders it ‘‘unsoiled,’’ but it may have the notion of genuine metal. This stand- 1 This use of auiavrog comes from the LXX, not from the Mystery- Religions when the initiate came from the Taurobolium in the blood- stained robe. 104 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS ard of purity and piety seems impossible, but God knows how to estimate the relation between listen- ing and doing, between doing and loving, between loving and purity of life. The life must pass muster with God (napa tw 666 nai naroi). At first sight one is perhaps depressed by the reflection that God’s standard of piety is so much higher than is ours. What some men consider holy worship is to God hollow mockery. But then God is our Father. He planted the word of truth in our hearts. He has watched it grow. He knows the limitations of environment in which the tree of life has grown. James gives two very practical tests of genuine religion. One is mercy.toward the suffering. T he widow and the orphan appeal to the hardest hearts. And yet men have been known to spend thousands of dollars upon palaces of worship while the poor perished in the alley behind the church. The social side of practical religion is receiving more attention these days than it once did. The very hospitals and asylums are an expression of that love for our com- mon humanity taught by Jesus. James has no sympathy with that cold orthodoxy that is satis- fied with singing psalms to Jehovah while the widow and the orphan suffer, with no help from the blind worshipers nearby. Christianity is inward and spirit- ual, not mere perfunctory ritual. But it 1s not mere mystical brooding nor abstract contemplation. The cry of the child was heard by Jesus and the cry of the mother for the child. To-day the children cry aloud in our streets and in our factories for school and play, ae is Xe ive RACTICE OhorA ER WORDS } 165 for love and sympathy, for better homes and better food, for care of the body and of the soul. Jesus still loves the children. Christ discovered the child. The modern world at last has begun to find out the child that Jesus has placed in the midst of us. There are many other forms of social service which the true Christian may find right by his door. The neighbor in need may even lie at his gate. The other test of pure religion offered by James is more distinctly personal and more difficult, though the first test is met none too well. It is ‘‘to keep oneself-unspotted from the world’ (domtAov éavrov Tnoelv and Tov Koowov). Moffatt has it “from the stain of the world.’’ It is a high calling surely if one is to walk in a world like this free from the stain of sin, with no spot (oe7iAoc) upon garments, body, or soul. The Lamb of God was offered as a sacrifice without spot. Christ will present his church at last without spot (uw éyoveay onidov).1 James had just spoken of the use of the tongue. That also can leave a spot or stain (cf. 3:6). There is dirt and much of all kinds all about us. The germs of sin infest and infect us all. And yet it is not hopeless to make a fight for purity in life. We do not give up the battle for cleanliness of body, for healthful- ness of body, for victory over the germs of disease all about us and in us. It is worth while to lead the clean, white life of purity. One has his reward in one’s own life, in fresh power, in new joy, in richer 1Cf, I, G. II. v. 1054 c.* (Eleusis c. B. C. 300), tyseig Aevxode aoni- dove, ‘applied to stones” (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Wists pi 86). 1066 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS fruitage. He has his reward also in the inspiration given to others who are cheered to strive likewise against sin, to fight for personal purity, for social purity, for better homes and better cities, for a better world in which to serve God, for a bit of heaven here on earth, for the reign of God in human hearts, for likeness to Jesus, the Son of God. CHAPTER VI CLASS. PREJUDICE?) 2) 1713 In this paragraph James recurs to the discussion of the “Democracy of Faith” found in 1:9-11. In fact, it had never been very far in the background. The use of “my brethren” is eminently appropriate here, since he is urging the readers to brotherly kindness (Mayor). 1. Face Value in Religion. 2:1. This is a very hard verse to translate at once, for we must decide three disputed questions. One is whether the verb (7 &yete) is imperative or interrog- ative. It is usually taken as imperative in the versions, and so most interpreters hold, but Hort urges that it is a tame conception compared with the indignant query expecting the answer no (nu). There is force in this point, as thus James would be expressing vehement surprise that such partiality could exist among the Jewish Christians. Still, the prohibition against such partiality makes perfectly good sense. There is little doubt that “‘the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ’’ (ray miotiy rod Kvpiov quay ‘Inoovd Xoiorov) should be rendered ‘faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is objective, not subjective, geni- tive. For a similar use of the objective genitive with faith (miottc) one may note Mark 11: 22 (éyete Tiorev deod), Acts 3:16 (tH TioTel tov Gvéuato¢g atdtod). It is not the faith of Jesus that is under discussion, but 107 108: PRACTICALVAND' SOCIALVASE ERGs the faith of the readers in Jesus Christ Our Lord. This interpretation commits James to the worship of Jesus as Lord and Messiah, but that is surely what would be expected in one who claimed to be a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). It is true that the standpoint of James is nearer to that of the Old Testament than is true of Peter, John, and Paul, but after the great Pentecost there seems to be no wavering on the great funda- mentals of Christianity, though there is rich de- velopment and enlargement. The essence of the Christology of James is precisely that of Paul, though James does not amplify his implications as Paul does. James, though so Jewish in background, is thoroughly Christian. The heart of Christianity, the worship of Jesus as Lord and Saviour, is here, though chronologically the Epistle of James pre- cedes the teaching of Paul and John in their writ- ings. It is like the child and the man (Plummer) and not a retrograde movement. It is the outlook of Jerusalem, not that of Antioch. What James is discussing is not the personal religion of Jesus, but the reader’s faith in Jesus. The third disputed point in the verse is the word “glory’’ (rij¢ 06énc). The English versions generally insert the words “‘the Lord” and make it ‘“‘the Lord of glory,’ but Bengel makes ‘“‘the glory”’ ipse Chris- tus. In this he is followed by Mayor, Hort, Oesterley, and it is almost certainly true that by “glory” (glorig, Vulgate) James has in mind the Shekinah. In the Septuagint for Lev. 26:11 the word for Shekinah (oxqv#) is just that used in Rev. 21:3: CLASS PREJUDICE 109 “Behold, the tabernacle (ox7v4) of God is with men.” In John 1: 14 we read: ‘‘And the Word became flesh, and dwelt (éoxjvwoev) among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father). Add to this Heb. 1:3, “who, being the effulgence of his glory,’’ and the case seems made out.1 In Pirke Aboth iii. 3 we note: ‘“Two that sit together and are occupied in words of Thorah have the Shekinah among them.” Jesus claimed (Matt. 18:20): ‘For where two or three are gathered in -my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Jesus is thus not only the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, but also the Glory. James may have in mind the Resurrection Glory of Jesus as he ap- peared to him. Note in Luke 2:32 what Simeon says: ‘“The glory of thy people Israel.” But all this is by way of emphasis for the main point. One who has faith in such a Lord as Jesus is should not be guilty of “acts of partiality”? (Hort, év mooowTroAnupiacc). The meaning of the phrase is clear, though the origin is obscure.2. The Greek use of the word (7eéowrov) for mask is illustrated by the word for hypocrite (émoxe:t#c). In Lev. 19:15 we 1 It is interesting to note that Epictetus (Bk. III, chap. xxii, § 29) uses ddga (r7v ddfav Kat tHv éxiddvecav) in the sense of “glory” (cf. Titus 2:13), not the classic sense of ‘‘opinion.”’ 2The Hebrew nasé pantm (cf. Psa. 82:2) originally had the idea of lifting the face with a view to comfort. Partiality was a subor- dinate development. Cf. Thackeray, Grammar of the O. T. in Greek, pp. 43 ff. The Greek idiom (7pécwrov AauBdverv) has only the bad meaning and comes from taking off the mask (mpéowroyr), See Luke 20:21; Gal. 2:6f. for the full idiom. See Epictetus, Ench. KVii, UroKpitj¢ el Opdyatog . . . adv yap Tovr’ éotl, TO doféev wroxpivecbat . Tpdcwroy Karoo. Here tpédowrov means “‘character’’ or ‘‘part.’”’ rio PRACTICAL AND SOGIAL VASE EGis see the full force of the idiom: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty” (ob Arjupy tedownoyv Trwyod obdé 7 Oav- udonc ted0wrov dvvdotov). See Acts 10: 34, where Peter learns that ‘‘God is no respecter of persons’’ (od« éotiy meoawnoAnuTTyc 6 Oe6c¢). God does not accept the outside appearance for the inner reality, nor should we. God is the God of reality. Cf. Heb. 4: raf. A just judge must not be influenced by the bias of personal preference, prejudice, rank, power, money (Mayor). He must decide the case on its merits. There is no room for class prejudice nor for the caste- system in Christianity, as there is none in the heart of God. Christianity is democratic to the core, that is, real Christianity. Organized Christianity has sometimes been just the very thing that James here condemns. Even in the single church little rifts and cliques easily come. 2. Partiality in Church. 2: 2-4. Already the Jewish Christians were in peril from this evil. It is in particular a sin of ushers who show respect of persons in seating strangers. But pastors are in constant danger of the same sin in general church relations. The word here for synagogue (svvaywy7) may mean place of worship or the assembly itself, as in Heb. 10:25, “‘the assembling (émovve- ywyn) of yourselves together.’”’ The word for church (éxxAnoia) does not occur in the apostolic period (Hort) for place of meeting, but synagogue was — already in common use in both senses. But it is not necessary to suppose that James has in mind CLASS PREJUDICE III simply a Jewish synagogue, though it is quite pos- sible that the Jewish Christians still attended wor- ship and heard Moses read in the synagogue (Acts 15:21), as Christians belonged to the synagogue of the Libertines (Acts 6:9) and the early Christians worshiped still in the temple. The use of ‘‘your” seems to mean that it is at least a Christian gath- ering that James refers to whether meeting in the Jewish synagogue or elsewhere. ‘‘The growth of the Gentile element in the church excited the active hostility of the Jews against the whole body of Christians, as it troubled the Jewish converts themselves’ (Westcott on Hebrews, p. xxxviii). Finally the Christians had to set up for themselves as in Corinth (Acts 18:7) and in Ephesus (Acts 19: 8f.). We do not know the precise stage reached by the Jewish Christians here. James may mean some particular instance of trouble in the Disper- sion that has come to his notice or he may have in mind any Christian gathering in the Dispersion. The Gentiles often attended the worship of the Jews in the synagogues (Acts 13:16, 43). The use of synagogue for Christian worship occurs rarely, as am EHlermas, Mand. xi. 9. The time came when synagogue was used only for Jews or heretics. Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 18) says that the Ebionites call their meeting synagogue, not church (éxsAnoia). One may note also John’s use of the term synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). The picture of the two strangers at church is drawn with bold lines and in few words by James, _ yet it is remarkably clear and picturesque. The t12 PRACTICAL AND? SOGCIADPASH Gite man with a gold ring or gold-fingered (yevoodaxrv- Atog) probably makes a display of his ring. If he preached he would make most of his gestures with that hand. ‘The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Mayor quotes Epictetus (Diss. I. 22) as speaking of an ‘‘old man with gold fingers” (yépwr vovaor¢ daxtvdiove éywv). The “fine clothing” (gv éo077t Aauroa) is literally “brilliant clothing,” “new glossy clothes’ (Hort), ‘‘the fine white gar- ment worn by wealthy Jews’’ (Oesterley), like that in which Herod Antipas clad Jesus when he sent him back to Pilate (mepyBadov éo0q7a Aauredy). One can easily see the distinguished looking stranger as he steps in at the same time (xai, also) as ‘‘a poor man in vile clothing” (rrwydc éy pumapa éobAre), “in dirty clothes” (Moffat), ‘“‘old shabby clothes’’ (Hort). see Rev. 22:11 for the same adjective for ‘‘filthy” (6 putagéc). In James 1: 21 we had ‘‘filthiness” (6urra- piav). We have no means of knowing whether these two men who suddenly enter church are Chris- tians or mere Jews. Both seem to be strangers. The courtesies extended are based purely on the appear- ance of these two as to dress, not on race or ecclesi- astical standing. The poor man (rrwyéc) may be one reduced to beggary, a tramp or hobo. He may be merely a poor working man. He stands in marked contrast with the rich man (rAototoc), as in I: 9-11. Probably the poor man had on the best clothes that he had. Should a man like that come to our churches? Would he be welcome in our pews? To be sure, cases occur when a bath would help matters . ! Lucian (Trin. 20) has ypvadyerp. CLASS PREJUDICE 113 and when plain, but clean, clothes could be provided by Christian people so as to make attendance at church free from embarrassment. But there are people, especially children, who stay away from both Sunday school and church because they do not possess decent clothes in which to come. They fear the critical eyes and comments of the people at church. It is easy to say that people should rise above such unfavorable circumstances and come on to church to worship God, who reads the heart and does not judge men by their clothes. Yes, but a man may conclude that he can worship God just as acceptably and more comfortably in some other church where the usher does not seem ashamed of his coming nor embarrassed by his presence, so that, in spite of plenty of empty pews in the grand temple of worship, he finds a back seat for him under the gallery or in the gallery on a footstool (literally, 076 TO broréd6y pov is “‘under my footstool,’’ prob- ably on the floor by my footstool) in a corner or a place to stand against the wall. Meanwhile the poor man has seen the attentions paid the man in fine clothes because of his clothes, who is ushered to a good seat (xaAoc) with the air of a prince. The soul of the poor man is all the more embittered since he came in perhaps in a sort of desperation from the hardness of the world outside, a world that has economic and social laws that make the battle a difficult one. And now in the temple of God the worshipers of Jesus show the same pride of wealth and station as at a social function. The preacher preaches forgiveness of sins and the com- 14. PRACTICAL (AND SOCIAL TASER is fort of the Holy Ghost, but he and the usher keep a sharp eye (émGAépnte) upon the man who wears the fine clothes, pompous and self-conscious as that man probably feels. The soul of the poor man is made more bitter still as he leaves the church of the rich and the proud to see if he can find God at home or the devil in the saloon or other den of iniquity. One pity of it all is that so many churches have fine, empty, cushioned seats, while the strangers who could fill them are not sought for or not properly welcomed if they come. It is a pathetic picture that James here gives us, that of the stranger at the door of the church. Most strangers pass the door of the church by with indifference or disgust. The church must win the strangers outside unless it is to degene- rate into a social club of a few select families. A church that only holds its own will soon lose that standing. The task of the church is to win the world to Christ. And then, when the poor of earth enter, it is worse than folly to push them to one side and out of doors back into the street. This touch of life is one of many modern notes in the Epistle of James. The embarrassment of the usher in the presence of two such incongruous strangers at once is probably due to the fact that he knows full well the atmosphere or tone of the church. It is aristocratic or select; evangelical and orthodox, not evangelistic or missionary; a haven of rest for the stately pious, not a rescue station for the lost. The officers of the church thus make distinctions (dtexpiOyre) between the attendants at church and sort out the congregation according to worldly a ee ae CRA SSe PRE; UDI: 115 standards. They are “judges of evil thoughts” (kpiTat dtadoyloua@v rovno@v) and act with partiality in bestowing courtesies on strangers in the house of God. All this is in such marked contrast to the spirit and conduct of Jesus that one can hardly credit his eyes when he sees it happen in church. It is increasingly difficult to get the poor to come to some of the churches. The churches themselves may sometimes become suspicious that the very poor come to church to receive financial help. So the breach widens. 3. Prejudice Against the Poor. 2: 5-7. James now has fewer maxims and a more argu- mentative style, like that of Paul. He makes a passionate appeal for attention: ‘““Hearken, my be- loved brethren.”’ He writes as an impassioned speaker speaks (cf. 1:16; 4:13). God’s choice of the people of Israel seems to be in the background (Deut. 14: 1f.)! The Jews had come in many cases to look on earthly prosperity as a mark of divine favor and poverty as a sign of God’s disfavor (cf. Psa. 73). The Pharisees were lovers of money (@:Adpyv- go, Luke 16:14). But the troubles of the Jews, in spite of many wealthy Pharisees and Sadducees, had led many of them to see a blessing in poverty. See Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gad. vii. 6: “For the poor man, if, free from envy, he pleaseth the Lord in all things, is blessed beyond all men.” O6csterley (in loco) quotes Chag. ob as _ saying that poverty is the quality that above all 1There the same word éeAéaro occurs of God with Aadv mepiobcuop, r16 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS befits Israel as the chosen people. Epictetus (Bk. IV, chap. i, $ 43) says: ‘‘Another (thinks the cause of his evils to be) that he is poor”’ (6 & ér1 trwyé¢ éorwy, using trwyé¢ in the sense of ‘‘poor,’”’ not ‘‘beggar’’). Epictetus (Stob. 10) says further: “‘Riches (Aovroc) are not among the things that are good.’ Luke 6:20 has “Blessed are ye poor’ (oi mrwyoi) where Matt. 5:3 has ‘‘poor in spirit.’’ Certain it is that the gospel made. a powerful appeal to the poorer classes of society among Jews and Gentiles. Jesus claimed it as part of his Messianic mission ‘‘to preach good tidings to the poor” (Luke 4:18), as Isaiah (60: 1f.) had foretold. He asked the mes- sengers of John the Baptist to take back to Mache- rus the news that ‘‘the poor have the gospel preached to them’ (Luke 7:22) as one proof of his Messiah- ship. Paul enlarges on the choice! by God of the foolish, the weak, the despised classes to add to his own glory. The early churches were largely gath- ered from the proletariat. Slaves and masters, rich and poor, mingled together in fellowship and broth- erly love. The papyri discoveries have shown us the world of Jesus and of Paul “‘in the workaday clothes of their calling’ (Deissmann, St. Paul, p. 47). Deiss- mann adds: ‘‘We should be sorry indeed not to have been told that Jesus came from an artisan’s home in country surroundings.’”’ The fact that Jesus was a carpenter, a workingman in the modern sense of that term, should enlist the sympathy and the in- terest of all workingmen, all labor men. They +1 Cor. 1:27f. Three times he has here the very word, éeAéEaro, used by James. CRASS PRE UDICE 117 should heed the Call of the Carpenter. Here James boldly champions the cause of the poor as against certain rich Jews, probably not members of the church, who have oppressed (xatadvvacoretovoly)! the Christians and dragged (&xcovary) them before courts of justice (xeerjgca). With their own hand (airoé) these rich Jews had dragged Christians before tri- bunals. Rich Sadducees had done this with Peter and John (Acts 4:1). As one of these potentates (duvacrevw), yea, aS a tyrant (xatadvvactetw), Paul had once dragged (ctew) men and women before the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:3; 22:4). He had even tried to make them blaspheme (Acts 26:11). It was not necessary to have special laws against the Chris- tians. As objects of dislike it was easy enough, as Paul found out, to hale them into court. Paul came to know only too well how the tables could be turned on him when he became a Christian. He had to take his own medicine (Acts 13:50; 16:19). Jesus had indeed foretold that just this fate would befall his disciples before the courts of Jews and Gentiles (Matt. 10: 17f.; John 16:2). The anger of these rich Jews against Jesus and Christians leads them actually to blaspheme the name of Christ. The Sadducees will not even call the name of Jesus when they discuss the case of Peter and John. They refer with contempt to “this name’’ (Acts 4:17), though in the threat they have to name Jesus (verse 18). The disciples rejoiced ‘‘that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (Acts 5:41). So ‘‘the honorable name,” “the beau- 1In Acts 10:38 we have karadvvacrevouévovg td Tov diaBddov, 118 -PRACTIGAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS tiful name”’ (76 caddy dvoua), “the noble Name’’ (Mof- fatt) came to be the shibboleth of the believers in Jesus. His name was to be “‘the name above every name’’ (Phil 2: of.). It was already the only name with power to save (Acts 4:12), as Peter boldly informed the Sanhedrin. That was the meaning of the name Jesus (Matt. 1:21). Here one sees afresh the Christology of James. The honorable name is the name of Jesus, with a possible reference to the use of it at baptism in the baptismal formula, “‘by which ye are called,’ ‘“‘which is called upon you” (70 émuxAnOév 2p buds). At any rate, they bear the name of Christian, given probably as a reproach (Acts 11: 26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4: 14, 16). This name is now their badge of honor and glory. When called upon to say: “Anathema be Jesus” (dvdOeua "Iqooic) they reply: “Jesus is Lord’? (Képiog "Inoove).1 Cer- tainly the early Jewish Christians had everything to make them fear the powerful rich who had frowned upon Jesus and his cause. And yet James dares to say to the Jewish Chris- tians: “But ye have dishonored the poor man” (ipeig dé ATydoate tov mrwy6v), ‘Now you insult the poor” (Moffatt). They had done it out of cringing fear of the rich Jews with all their power or out of anxiety to please the rich so as to win them with fawning flattery. We are not to think that all the Jewish Christians had shown such narrowness or such cowardice, but some instances had come to the notice of James. Per contra note the case of Ananias and Sapphira, who wished to gain credit for great Ra Corei2 sa CLASS PREJUDICE 119 liberality to the poor by the use of part of the wealth, keeping back half though pretending to give all. All the early Christians were not poor. The cases of Barnabas, Joseph of Arimathea, Laz- arus and his sisters Martha and Mary, occur to one at once. Jesus did not denounce rich men per se, though he did point out with great power the peril of wealth. So James is not to be understood as denouncing the rich in a wholesale fashion. Con-. secration is what sanctifies riches, the use of the money for the glory of God and the blessing of mankind. A man is not a child of the devil just because he is rich or poor. God deals with men in the raw manhood. “A man’s a man for a’ that.” The distinction between the upper and the lower classes is partly fictitious and is not a stable con- dition. The slums are a dreadful fact and a disgrace to modern civilization. People should have decent homes, good food, fresh air, and cleanliness in clothing. Extreme poverty is a peril to a man’s soul, as is great wealth. It is not a sin to be rich, but dangerous, though most of us are willing to take the risk. Epictetus (Stob. 10) says: “‘It is difficult for a rich person to be right-minded or a right-minded person rich.”” Riches and poverty are not essential criteria of character. Over against the slums in our cities one may place the pious poor of Scotland, as seen in “The Cotter’s Saturday Night.” ) Over against the wild and reckless nouveaux riches one may note the generous givers of millions to missions and to education. One must learn to be just to all classes and to do justice to all. One needs full 120 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS knowledge of the social conditions about him and the courage to apply the gospel of Christ to these con- ditions. But let no one imagine that sociology can take the place of the gospel of Jesus. Christianity is sociological, but sociology is not necessarily Chris- tian. We need intelligent sympathy, but most of all the love and grace of God in the heart. But minister and man must be independent of bondage to either rich or poor and stand in the freedom of Christ. Professor H. C. Vedder makes a very serious charge against modern ministers in his book, The Gospel of Jesus and the Problems of Democracy, p. 46: “This attitude of the clergy can be explained only on the ground of their economic dependence upon the privileged classes. They are the hirelings of capitalism, and, to do them justice, they earn their wages.”’ This is a bitter attack upon the ministry, for always championing the cause of capital whenever labor has a clash with capital. The charge is not always true, as anyone who ob- serves should know. Organized labor is sometimes in the wrong. Corporations that are unjust to labor are often denounced in the pulpit. Let every case be met on its merits. Certainly the minister of Christ should be on the side of manhood against mere money. A man’s life is more than money. James reminds his readers that God is not ashamed of the poor. In fact, he often calls the poor, as the world regards them (176 xéouw, ethical dative), to be rich in faith (mAovoiove év miore). After all, this is the true riches, that of the spirit, that of fellowship with God. So often a turn in the wheel of life CLASS PREJUDICE 121 leaves a man poor to-day who was rich yesterday. And death will separate one from all his wealth save what he has given away. That is all that he can really keep. The wicked rich man may scout the poor saint here, but Lazarus will rest in Abraham’s bosom while the wicked rich man is in torment in Hades. But even here the pious poor stand high with God, while the wicked rich are despised. The poor may be heirs of the kingdom (KAnoovépuove tic Baotreiac). Think of that—heirs of the Kingdom of God, the glorious Messianic Kingdom promised of old and now begun, the fulness of which is in the future with God, the heavenly kingdom. But even here and now the poor saint is a child of the King and has riches untold. He has love and joy in his heart, a superiority to adversity, an elevation of spirit, the peace of God that passes all understand- ing, and that is worth more than all the gold of Ophir. It is not mere pious platitude on the part of James when he writes thus. He is but interpreting the soul of mystic Christianity, real Christianity, as set forth by Jesus in the “‘Beatitudes,’’ where those only are felicitated (axderor) who have the joy of the spirit independent of outward condition or cir- cumstance. After all the piety of the poor is a nation’s best asset. The poor will some day, many of them, be rich. May they still be pious! The upper classes run down and run out, alas, and have to be constantly recruited from the lower classes. It is the law of life. If we save the masses we may gave the classes. At any rate, it is a pitiful business to see a church of Jesus Christ ashamed of the poor, 122 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS as the world regards them, for Jesus, our Lord, was himself poor for our sakes, voluntarily poor: ‘“Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9), rich in God’s mercy and grace, rich in char- acter, in likeness to Jesus. 4. The Royal Law. 2: 8f. The poise of James appears again. He has no wish to stir the passions and prejudices of the poor against the rich. Surely it is not a sin to love rich people. They are entitled to the same love as other people, many far more because of the noble use made of their wealth. If you really (uévrov, original usage) fulfil (redeite, cf. 1:27) the royal law (vénoy Baotdinov), a law fit for kings or such as a king will be sure to follow (cf. Psa. 72; Zech. 9: 9) and supreme over other laws (Matt. 22:40), you do well (xaréac moeité), They should love both rich and poor alike. This “royal law’’ was in the Old Testament — (Lev. 19: 18) and is here quoted. ‘It was sanctioned — by Jesus (Matt. 19: 18f.) as one of the two chief commandments on which hang the whole law and — the prophets (Matt. 22:38-40). Love of God and man covers all else. One may compare also the > Golden Rule as given by Jesus in Matt. 7:12, which © is just another way of stating the “royal law” of loving one’s neighbor (réy mAnoioy cov, one near in need whether in space or not) as oneself, a very high standard for most people. The royal law forbids the partiality in church of © which James has been speaking, this respect of per- . CLASS ‘PREJUDICE 123 sons (1p0cwroAnunreite). It is more than an error of judgment or a breach of etiquette. It is an act of sin (duagriav), a slip in ethics, a missing of the mark that is fraught with grave consequences. It is bad enough to be convicted (éAcyxouevor) by the law as transgressors (maga-Gdrat, stepping aside) by this servile regard for the rich. It is worse to note the evil effect on the church and the community. A church of a clique is doomed. A church is only of use when it is open to the people who need the help of the gospel. The church opens its doors to let people in; does not put up bars to keep them out. 5. Stumbling in One Point. 2: 1of. At first blush it seems that James has Draconian severity in these verses, but it is not the severe punishment of small crimes or venial offenses. The long list of capital crimes in ancient England shows how slowly men have learned to temper justice with mercy. Some of the Stoics said that the theft of a penny was as bad as parricide. The “Blue Laws’’ of Connecticut come to mind also. James does not say that all sins are equal, that one sin is as bad as another. As a matter of fact, each man discounts his own sins. The rake looks with scorn on the grafter. The man guilty of spiritual pride scouts the drunkard. It is a hard task to convince a man that he is guilty of his own sin. The burden of the law was very heavy. The curse of the law (Gal. 3:13) was more than violation of particular pre- cepts, though that was true to the last detail (Deut. 11:26, 28, 32; 27:26), as Jesus explained (Matt. 5: 124) PRACTICAL’ AND SOCIAL ASPECTS r8f.). The Jewish fathers put a hedge or fence about the law (Pirke Aboth i. 1) and made it very difficult to keep all the law (étov rév véyov, the law as a whole, hard enough as it was) plus the tradi- tions of the elders, which often contradicted and set at naught the commandment of God (Mark 7: 8f.). Cf. Sirach 27:12. Rabbi Hunnah, in a Midrash on Num. 5:14, taught that he who committed adultery | broke all commandments, and some of the rabbis placed the Sabbath above all else and held that, if one profaned it, he had broken all the command- ments. Mayor, per contra, quotes some of the rabbis as saying that to keep the law about fringes and phylacteries was to keep the whole law. There was a constant tendency to make the ceremonial cover up moral and spiritual lapses. Augustine (Epistle to Jerome, 167) compares this teaching of James with the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices alluded to above. But certainly James has a higher view than these hairsplitting punctilios. Paul saw that the essence of sin lay in the motive (Rom. 14:23), and that desire to glorify God should pervade all our acts (1 Cor. ro: 31). It seems hard to hold one to strict account who makes one slip (rraioy év évi) and hold him guilty of all (mévrwy évoyoc, held liable [see use of évoyog in P. Oxy. 275. A. D. 66] for all): That is true only in the sense that James proceeds to explain that any violation of law makes one a law breaker (rapaBdarne vouov).! One does not have to break all ‘Codex D adds to Luke 6:4: rij atti juépa Ocacduerde tiva épyats- Hevov TH oaBBdty eimev avira, "AvOpwre ei ev oldac ti Tmovei¢ waxdprog el, — CEASS PRE ;UDICE 125 the laws to become a lawbreaker. One offence places one in that category. The matter is put with this sharp emphasis because of the com- placent self-satisfaction of the perfunctory cere- monialist (James 1:26) who may yet commit the sin of partiality in church. James is seeking to convict such ‘“‘pious’”’ sinners of their guilt, to rouse them out of their smug self-satisfaction. It is quite possible that those who were guilty of spiritual pride and other sins of the spirit, boasted of their freedom from adultery and murder (Hort). At any rate, we must not forget that out of the heart are the issues of life, that murder springs out of hate, and that all of God’s laws come from the same Will (Mayor). It is disobedience to the Will of God that constitutes the essence of sin. It is not a light matter to be guilty of any sin. Our only hope is in the grace and forgiveness of God. There is no room for pride on the part of sinners, setting up one sin against another sin. 6. A Law of Liberty. 2: 12f. But James is not a Pharisaic legalist nor a Judaizer. He adds these verses to make it plain that he does not have in mind the painful observance of separate rules and details. The spirit is greater than the letter. Our words (Aadéire) and deeds (moeite) are to be judged by ‘‘a law of liberty”’ (dtd vowov édevOe- piag. Cf. 1:25), not of bondage. We are under et dé py oldag émixatdparoc kal tapaBatne el tov véuov. But this logion does not compare Sabbath breaking with other sins, though it does emphasize insight into the motive of the act. 126 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS grace, not the old law. We live in an atmosphere of love and of liberty, not of repression and of slavery. God watches the real motive in our con- duct toward the rich and the poor as in all things. “Mercy glorieth against judgment” (xataxavyéra Edeo¢ Kpioewc), mercy triumphs over judgment. God shows mercy to us in spite of our shortcomings, for Jesus is the pledge of our fidelity and our hope. We make so many” mistakes that we should have no heart to go on if we had to be held to strict account every time we stumble in one point. Still, we must not overlook the fact that we did stumble. It is our duty not to stumble at that point again. So we go on our stumbling way toward that goal of per- fection which is ever before us. It was Jesus who said: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). James seems to know this saying, as he lays emphasis on the spirit and motive in holy living. “I will sing of mercy and judgment” (Psa. ror: 1). CHAPTER VII THE APPEAL TO LIFE. 2: 14-26 We now come to the famous passage that is sup- posed by some scholars to be an attack on Paul’s doctrine of salvation by faith instead of works. James is interpreted by many to be a champion of works as against Paul’s theory of grace. It is an old controversy and is the occasion of Martin Luther’s -slighting allusion to’ the Epistle of James as “a veritable epistle of straw.’ He thought it contra- dicted the Epistle of Galatians, which he dearly loved as his ‘‘wife’? (Weib). It is necessary, there- fore, to clear the atmosphere a bit before proceeding to the exposition. 1. The Standpoint of James. This depends on the date of the Epistle, for the discussion of which question see Chapter I. 7. It is here assumed that James wrote before the Jeru- salem Conference, before 50 A. D. (1) Without the Judaizing Controversy in Mind. Paul wrote Galatians and Romans, as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians, in the heat of that controversy to answer the contention of the Judaizers that circum- cision was essential to the salvation of the Gentiles, that Christianity alone was not sufficient, but must be supplemented by Judaism. No issue ever stirred Paul’s nature like this. It is possible that Paul may 127 at * th 123) PRACTICALVAND SOCTADCASE H@is have had in mind a misuse of James 2: 14-26 by the Judaizers when he wrote, knowing that Jamesg ; in reality agreed with him in the matter (Acts 15: 14-21; Gal. 2: 1-10). But James clearly is not a tacking Paul nor Paul’s theory of grace. He rather has in view a perversion of the Christian em-_ phasis on the spiritual side as opposed to the cere- | monial ritualism of the Pharisees. The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other. The Jews had laid too much emphasis on religious duties (cf. James 1:26), and some of the Christians went to the extreme of thinking that no works at all were needed in the Christian life. Some of the Jews, on the other hand, had already gone so far as" to consider creed alone essential. ‘‘As soon as a man has mastered the thirteen heads of the faith, firmly believing therein . . el he may have - sinned in every possible way ... still he inherits | eternal life.”! This Jewish unconcern of real piety in life is reflected in the lives of some of the Jewish Christians and is the occasion of the remarks of James. f (2) James’s Use of Righteousness or Justification (édsxatHOn, 2:21). It is the sense of actual goodness ‘ as Jesus uses it in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. : 6:1) and like sanctification as Paul has it in Rom. : 6 to 8. It is not the “imputed righteousness’’ of Paul, in Rom. 3 and 4 (Gal. 3). James has a practical purpose, not a theological one. He ist not discussing the question as to how Abraham | was set right with God, how faith was ‘“‘reck- \ 1 Maim. on Mishnah, Sanhedrin xi. 1. Pe me 8 Die ail ed nl ap od ned OW Ba 129 oned”’ (éAoyic#n) as righteousness (ele dixacootvny), the point seized on by Paul in the verse. James quotes the whole verse (Gen. 15:6), as Paul does, but he is concerned with it as proof that, when put to the test, Abraham lived up to his faith in that he ° actually “offered up Isaac, his son, upon the altar’’ (James 2:21). It is the deed as proof of faith that . James emphasizes, though both points are in the narrative. (3) James’s Use of Works (oya). He looks upon works as proof of faith, not as means of salvation. John the Baptist had demanded ‘‘fruits worthy of repentance’’ (Luke 3:8): Jesus had said: ‘‘By their fruits ye shall know them”’ (Matt. 7: 20). Paul will discuss death to sin on the part of the believer (Rom. 6:1-11). Peter will show how the life will make the calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10). The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is a clarion call to hold fast the confession of faith to the end. John will insist that those who say they are in the light do not walk in darkness (1 John 1:6; 2:9). Certainly then James is in harmony with the full drift of the gospel message in his insistence on works as proof of the new life. Paul, in his contrast between faith and works, has in mind the Jewish doctrine of works as means of salvation. See.2 Esdras g: 7f.: ““Who- ever shall be able to escape either by his works or _ by his faith shall see my salvation.’ And even here “by faith’? does not mean what Paul has in mind, but rather creed, not saving trust. The Pharisees taught the value of works of supererogation, the “merit”? of the fathers, in particular, the merit of 130 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS Abraham whose faith and works were a storehouse for the Jews. ‘‘We have Abraham to our father.”’ That was enough. So the Roman Catholics hold that the saints may help us out of purgatory if we pay enough for their intercession. Prayer itself be- comes an opus operatum, a credit in the balance sheet with God. Most Jews held works alone to be the means of salvation. The point was keenly dis- cussed in the “Jewish schools in Jerusalem and Alexandria. (4) James’s Use of Faith. In this passage he is thinking of mere intellectual assent to the unity of God or other theological tenets. : This was the use of “faith’’ by many of the Jews. After some of them became Christians they still got no further. ‘It is this idle and empty faith that James is con- demning. James does have the other sense of trust for the word (mio7tc), as in 2: 1, “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,’’ the sense in which Paul uses the term when he contrasts it with works (Rom. 3: 20-30). It is quite important to note this dis- tinction. (5) The Antithesis in James. It is not in reality between faith and works, but between live faith and — dead faith, | the two uses of the term just mentioned. In verse 18 the point is made absolutely clear. It is not personal trust in Christ that James ridicules, but “van empty theological tenet that does not stand the A test of actual life. So then James and Paul go off at tangents when the same words occur, for they are talking about different things. Tilo W aby ae.) el af oan oped Ope LA eo 131 2. Not Pious Pretence. 2:14-17. Once more James corrects a possible misappre- hension. He properly places mercy above justice, but no one need think for a moment that good deeds do not matter. God is full of mercy, but there is a limit even with God. He demands some perform- ance, not mere profession. ‘‘What doth it profit?” (Ti dpeAocg;) James pointedly asks. Cuz bono? What is the use? What good is it? What boots it for a man to say (Aéyy) he has faith (iorev), but for him to have no works (ya) to prove his faith? How can men know that he has any faith? The mere assertion is all that men have at first. In the be- ginning the claim to faith is accepted, but the life must confirm the claim if men are to continue to be- lieve the claim. God can read the heart, but even God demands that the life show the change of heart. James asks again: ‘‘Can that faith (% miotc)! save (o@oat) him?” He does not scoff at faith, but at such hollow “faith” as this. James here speaks for the practical man of the present day who wishes to see some real difference in the life of a man who becomes a Christian. It is an old demand, as we see in i John 1 and 2. There is no escape from this appeal to life, nor ought there to be. Men are judged by their conduct in business during the week as much as by their attendance at church on Sun- day. James does not say that a Christian has no faults, and never sins, or is a hypocrite if he sins 1The article here has almost the original demonstrative force. James means the kind of faith that rests on mere assertion without works to prove it. 132) PRACTICAL AND) SOCIAL ASPECTS once. He does say that he should have some fruit. His illustration in verses 15 and 16 is very forcible and shows that he was probably a striking and popular preacher (Oesterley). It is a problem that is constantly presented to our modern Christians and churches. A brother or sister is in need of food and clothing. They are out of work because of the economic conditions beyond their control. They are unable to obtain work. They are not pro- fessional beggars. One may pause to admit the serious difficulty of knowing how to render real assistance to those who come to our doors for help. ' The modern social workers tell us not to give money and clothing, but to investigate the case or to have the charity organization or some of the rescue workers do it for us. The great number of tramps and professional beggars with false stories tends to harden our hearts to the many cases of real need all about us. Some of these are too proud to make their real condition known and actually starve to death or perish from disease and cold. James here assumes that the case is one of real need that de- serves sympathy and help. The man who prides himself upon the correctness of his professional creed and pious standing bestows kind words of sympathy and nothing else, sending the suffering brother or sister, “ill-clad and short of daily food” (Moffatt), out into the bitter cold and shuts the door with a sense of satisfaction after such pious platitudes as: “Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled” (iméyere év sionvn, Oeouaivecde cai xooravecbe). He calls his cheap words Christian sympathy. It is to make demons PE De AP Pr AL bOae hi 133 laugh. The irony of James is very keen. ‘The things needful to the body” (ra émirjdea tod oapa- toc), the ordinary necessities of life, now become rare luxuries to the poor brother or sister. So James repeats his query: ‘‘What doth it profit?’ It is pertinent per contra to quote Paul on the necessity of love even in beneficence: ‘‘And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing”’ (ovdév Whedovpar, 1 Cor. 13:3). What, indeed! One recalls the compassion of Jesus for the hungry mul- titudes whom he fed. His heart was not hardened. He did not ask them to be satisfied with honeyed words and the aroma of dinner. The funny part of it all is that such pious pretenders actually think that the needy should be grateful for the kind advice when sent away without a mouthful to eat. James applies his illustration to the point under discussion (verse 17). Mere professional faith that talks and does not “is dead in itself’ (vexed éoriv xa? éavrjy). There is no life in it and no reality. It is dead on the inside and is a mere empty shell of pious pretence. There are people who to-day turn to our churches for help in the hour of need and get only empty words. It will be in vain then to speak about the erace of God. 3. Not Mere Intellectual Assent. 2:18, 19. It is extremely difficult in verse 18 to follow the thought of James. He is usually wonderfully per- spicuous, but here we are in doubt as to the punc- tuation and the reference in “‘a man” (ttc). Some a 134 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS scholars think that it is a delicate way that James has of referring to himself, but then James is em- phasizing works, not mere faith. Is the sentence a question or an assertion? Shall we say “But” or “Yea” (for daié)? Hort has shown a way out that is partly followed by Moffatt. Take the ‘“‘man” as an objector, but let his objection cover only the first sentence, the point being to challenge the faith of James, since ~he has put such accent on works, “Thou, James, hast thou faith? I also (as well as thou) have works” (6d riot tyec; Kdyo éoya byw). The objector thus claims to have both faith and works, but implies that James has only works and no faith. The rest of the verse is then the reply of James to the objector.!| James bursts in with the answer to the challenge and rests his claim to faith on works as proof. “Show me thy faith apart from thy works” (deiZov por tiv tiorey cov yooic Tar toyav), “and I by my works wiil show thee my faith” (xdyo oot deigtw Ex THY Epywy pov tiv miotw).? Here James pits over against each other the two sorts of faith— the true faith which James claims to possess and which is proved by works, and the false faith which is mere profession and entirely apart from (ywoic) works. The antithesis is complete. The dispute turns on how one knows that he has “faith.” James rests his case on his ‘‘works’’ and in turn challenges the objector to prove his “faith” apart from works. 1 One may compare Paul’s habit of answering an imaginary objec- tor in the development of his argument. Cf. Rom. 2: I; 9:20. * Note the sharp contrast in miotse by the position at the be- ginning and the end of the sentence. FOE NE A DOs alice 135 Now James is ready to drive the point home. He proceeds to show that such an empty faith as his objector has is mere intellectual assent to proposi- tions and is not saving trust that bears fruit in the life. “Thou believest that God is one” (od motebvers drt ei¢ Oed¢ %ottv). This is one of the statements of the unity of God. The usual formula occurs in Deut. 6:4 and in Mark 12:29 (‘“The Lord our God, the Lord is one’). The recitation of this phrase was not merely the orthodox creed, but was supposed to have saving efficacy (cf. the Moslem repetition of ‘‘Allah’”’). From the time of the exile the repetition of the Shema (Deut. 6: 4ff.) every morning and evening was the duty of every pious Israelite. ‘‘Whoever reads the Shema upon his couch is as one that defends himself with a two- edged sword’”’ (Meg. 3a). ‘They cool the flames of Gehinnom for him who reads the Shema’’ (Ber. tsb.). Ocesterley (in loco) adds that ‘“‘the very parchment on which the Shema is written is effica- cious in keeping demons at a distance.’’ These statements will help us to understand the atmos- phere from which James draws his illustration. And yet James does not ridicule this mental assent to the oneness of God. “Thou doest well” (kare moeic). Orthodoxy is better than heresy. Ortho- doxy is thinking straight (ép0o0dcé%ia) and that is what we all need to do. Every man is right in his own eyes and the rest are a bit “‘off.”” But, good as monotheism is, it is not enough (cf. Mohamme- danism again). What James criticizes is mere in- tellectual assent with no vital union with God. 136 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS “The demons also believe’ (kai ta@ datndvia morebov- ov), also as well as you. The demons know only too well that God is and that he is one. They are monotheists, not polytheists. They recognized Jesus: ‘‘What have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? We know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God’’ (Mark 1:24). Cf. Matt. 8:29; Luke 4:41. The demons are thoroughly orthodox on this point, have intellectual assent (‘‘faith’), but they are still demons. They even shudder (¢picoovew) at the fact and the power of God as they feared Jesus (Mark 1:24; Luke 8:29). The word means to ‘‘pristle,’’ like the Latin horreo, with the hair stand- ing on end. ‘Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up” (Job 4:15). So ‘Daniel (7: 15) says: “My spirit was grieved” (&dorée 76 Teva pov). The argument is as complete as it can be. 4. The Obedient Trust of Abraham. 2: 20-24. But James applies his illustration again. He hammers the objector while he has him. “But wilt thou know, O vain man?” (6éAec d& yrova, & dvOpw- me xevé), “you senseless fellow’? (Moffatt). The word (xevé¢) is used like the Latin vanus (the Vul- gate has inanis, Corbey MS. vacue) of boasters or impostors, men whose word cannot be depended upon. You can know, if you wish to know! “that + yveval, aorist tense and so punctiliar, know once for all, with almost a touch of impatience in the tense. +b Sti ND Sh a dled Dyed ed Oss g CA lian o> 137 faith apart from works is barren’”’ (ért 4 tiotie ywoic tov Epywy doy7 éoriv), “faith without deeds is dead’’ (Moffatt), according to some manuscripts (vexed, mortua, not deyéc, otiosa). One may note 2 Pet. 1:8, “not idle nor unfruitful’’ (ob« dpyod¢ obd& dxderove). Faith without works is like a barren woman, without children to comfort her. ‘Children’? and “works” are sometimes used as parallel. ‘‘Wisdom is justified by her works” (Matt. 11:19); ‘““Wisdom is justified of all her children” (Luke 7: 35). James thus shows irritation at the dulness of his objector, but he hopes to make even such a man see the point by appealing to the axiomatic case of Abraham. The faith of Abraham was one of the commonplaces of theological discussion in the rab- binical schools (Oesterley). See Sirach 44: 2off.; Wisd. 10:5. It is no wonder that Paul (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:7) makes use of the case of Abraham. He considers it so important that in Romans he devotes a whole chapter to the subject. Paul lays chief emphasis (Rom. 4:17-21) on Abraham’s faith in the promise of a son. Paul also proves that Abra- ham had the justifying faith before he was circum- cised. James shows that Abraham lived up to his faith when put to the test. Both points are true. There was abuse of the faith of Abraham. Thus Rabbi Nehemiah (Mechilta on Exod. 14:31) says: “So Abraham, solely for the merit of his faith, whereby he believed in the Lord, inherited this world and the other.’’ The Jews came to rely so much on the “merit’’ of Abraham’s faith that they felt that all they had to do was to say: ‘“‘We have 138 (PRACTICAL ‘AND SOCIAL) ASP ais Abraham to our father’’ (Matt. 3:9). They leaned! on ‘‘Father Abraham.” In 1 Macc. 2: 52 the same use is made of the case of Abraham that we have in James: “Was not Abraham found faithful (cipé6y moroc) in trial, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness?’ In Heb. 11 the same exposition of faith is set forth by the glorious list of heroes who exemplified faith. Among these is Abraham, who “obeyed to go out” (11:8) to a distant land and who offered up his only-begotten son (11:17). James appeals confidently therefore to the example of Abraham in offering up (dvevéyxac) Isaac upon the altar (cf. Gen. 22:9). He had shown that he served God from love and not merely from fear. His faith had stood the severest of all tests, be- lieving that God would go with him down into the darkness of death and make plain his command that was so hard to obey. James interprets the case of Abraham with his usual pungency. ‘Thou seest’’ (GAémeic) or, at least, thou oughtest to see. The deduction is inevitable. “Faith wrought with his works’ (4 miorte ovvijoyer toi¢ Epyoe abtov),” ‘faith cooperated with deeds” (Moffatt), just the opposite of ‘apart from works.” It is thus clear that James did not mean to say that Abraham had only works and not faith. It is faith and works with Abraham, as he had contended in verse 18. It is like Paul’s ‘faith working through love,” energetic faith (miotic di dydénn¢e évegyoupévn). ‘See Lightfoot’s Appendix on ‘The Faith of Abraham,” in his Comm. on Galatians. * Note the tense of ovvgpyet, imperfect, kept on codperating. ee Ss * SS PPLE A Pe Ae Coma Ler 139 So James adds: ‘‘by works was faith made perfect” (éx tav %oywy 7 Tiotic étredeoOn), “completed by deeds’”’ (Moffatt). Thus with Abraham faith was shown to be alive, not dead; fruitful, not barren; brought to a good result or end (réAo¢), not cut short with mere profession or promise. So the Scripture was fulfilled (étAyjeo@n, made full or com- plete) in the case of Abraham: ‘And Abraham be- lieved (ériotevoev) God and it (the faith, miotvc) was reckoned (éAoyic6n, set down to his credit) to him for righteousness’’ (ei¢ dteavoovvnv). Paul, in Rom. 4, lays emphasis on the verb ‘“‘believed,’”’ and James stresses the obedience which proves the reality of the trust. Both points are justly made. In each instance faith precedes the works. We are set right with God by trust, but the life must correspond to the new relation with God. It was so with Abra- ham. He was called ‘‘the friend of God’’ (didoc Oeov éxAjOn). Cf. 2 Chron. 20:7. ‘Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?’ (Gen. 18:17). With the Arabs the term Khalil Allah (Friend of God) is the current name for Abraham. Epictetus (Bk. II, chap. xvii, § 29) speaks of looking “up into heaven as the friend of God ’’(¢iAov rod Geov). Plato calls the righteous man ‘‘on terms of friend- ship with God” (GeogiAjce). Jesus calls his disciples “friends” (@idove), no longer ‘‘servants’”’ (dobAove), in John 15:14f. There cannot be such friendship without trust (mioti¢) of the most absolute kind, a trust that means loyalty to the end. One must not think that James discredits faith. He does not. He assumes the need of it. In verse 140 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ‘ASPECTS 24 James uses “‘justified’’ (dsmasovrat) more in the sense of final approval (set right at last) than of the initial restoration of peace with God. And even so ‘the faith as a ground of justification is assumed as a starting point’? (Hort). ‘Ye see’’ (éeare), says James, leaving his imaginary opponent and turning again to his readers. They can see the point whether the empty-headed disputant does or not. It is hard for a controversialist to see anything but his own side of the question. It is “not only by faith” (ob« én TioTews povov) that a man is justified. The case of Abraham shows that works must follow faith in the natural order of grace. James has administered a severe rebuke to the antinomians who deny any responsibility for holy living and disclaim the force of the moral law. There has always been a curious type of pietism that ran easily into immorality with no compunctions of conscience, a sort of emo- tionalism without ethical tone or flavor. Abraham was not simply the father of the Jewish people, but the father of all the spiritual Israel, the believing children of God in all the ages since, who form the “elect of God and of the earth. 5. Lhe Case of Rahab. 2:25. One wonders why James selects a case like this after speaking of Abraham, the father of the faithful and God’s friend. Oesterley doubts how this verse could come from the pen of a Christian. But James may have wished to select another example at the furthest possible remove from Abraham, a heathen and a proselyte, ‘‘the first of all the proselytes’’ in a ae ie ee A Oia I4I the land of Canaan (Hort). Certainly, if a woman like Rahab could be saved, no one else need despair. She expressed her faith in God: “I know that the Lord God hath given you the land... the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and in earth beneath” (Josh. 2:9, 11). Besides, she showed her courage by avowing the cause of Jehovah and of Israel, by protecting the messengers (dyyéAove, spies in reality), and by a life of uprightness thereafter. It was a crisis in the history of Israel as they came to Jericho and Rahab took her stand for God at the start. Hence the high honor accorded her. she is mentioned in Heb. 11:31 in the famous list of heroes of faith. In Matt. 1:5 she appears in the genealogy of Christ. She was counted one of the four chief beauties of Israel along with Sarah, Abi- gail, Esther (Mayor). ‘Eight prophets who were also priests are descended from the harlot Rahab”’ (Megilla 14b). Certainly, there is no desire in James nor in Hebrews to dignify her infamous trade which she renounced, but only to single her out as a brand snatched from the burning by the power of God. 6. The Union of Faith and Works. 2: 26. This is what James pleads for, not the divorce between creed and conduct, which is, alas, only too prevalent even to-day. There should be an indis- soluble marriage between faith and works, a union as close as that between spirit and body. ‘For as the body apart from the spirit is dead (76 capa ywopie mvevpuatoc vexody éortv), even so faith apart from 142 PRACTICAL \AND SOCTALVAS RW is works is dead” (ottwe nai 7 triotig ywopic Eoywy vexpd— éovtv). By “‘spirit’’ here James means simply the breath of life without which the body is dead. “False faith is virtually a corpse’ (Hort). By this striking paradox James strikes at the root of the whole matter and has his last word on the subject. Hort remarks that James by the use of the phrase ‘Sustified by works’’ ( foywr édixat60n) seems to be answering Paul in Rom. 4:2 or a misuse of Paul’s ‘Sustified by faith’? (Rom. 5:1), though he does not see how James could have seen Paul. I have already expressed my own conviction that James and Paul are not really answering one another. They are discussing different aspects of the subject and touch only at points and go off along other lines. In all probability each would agree to the statements of the other if the language of each were put in the proper perspective. Certainly, they agreed when they were together in Jerusalem (Acts 15; Gal. 2:1-_— 10). But it is important for us that our faith shall _ be real and vital and not hollow and dead. CHAPTER VIII THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS. 3: 1-I2 James carries on the discussion of ‘‘slow to speak” (1:19). He has just been writing about idle faith (miott¢ deyj) in 2:14-26, and now he _ proceeds (Plummer) to expound the peril of the idle word (pjwa daeyov), “wrong speech after wrong action”’ (Hort). Indeed, in 1: 26 he had already mentioned the failure to bridle the tongue as a sure sign of vain religion. Now he expands the matter in a remark- able paragraph. The transition is thus not so abrupt as at first seems to be the case, and ap- parently from the first he planned this discussion of the tongue. Probably it comes here (Plummer) because controversies about faith and works were ‘already rife. Here James speaks “‘against those who substitute words for works’? (Plummer), a rather large class, alas! ‘In noble uprightness, he values only the strict practice of concrete duties, and hates talk’”’ (Reuss), if it is only talk. James has the eift of condensation. He can write on talk without taking twenty volumes, like Carlyle, to prove that if speech is silvern, silence is golden (Plummer). The “overvaluation of theory as compared with prac- tice’ (Mayor) condemned in chapter 2 is still present with James as he discusses the tongue. 1. An.Oversupply of Teachers. 3: 14a. We are not here to think simply of official teachers like Paul’s apostles, prophets, teachers (1 Cor. 12: 143 144 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS 28f.; Eph. 4:11). In the Didache (xiii. 2, xv. 1, 2) teachers (d:ddoxador) are placed on a par with prophets (mpopjrat) and higher than bishops (énioxo- mot) and deacons (é:déxovor), There is no doubt that teaching received tremendous emphasis in the work of the early Christians. Jesus is the great Teacher of the ages and is usually presented as teaching (d:ddoxw). In the Jewish ‘Houses of Learning” (synagogues) teaching was as prominent an element as worship. The official teachers passed away and the modern Sunday school movement is an effort to restore the teaching function in the churches. The true preacher should be a teacher also, but many preachers are more evangelistic and hortatory than didactic. The best preachers com- bine all these elements and build up (olxodopéw) the saints in the faith to which they have been won. Even the mission work of modern Christianity has had to lay new emphasis on the educational side of Christian effort. There is no reason why the morn- ing service in public worship should not be a teach- ing service and the evening service more evangelistic. Teachers are necessary. People “having itching ears will heap up to themselves (émowpedcovery éavroic) teachers after their own lusts” (2 Tim. 4:3).1 Epic- tetus (Bk. III, chap. xxiii, §29) says: Rufus “used to speak in such a way that each of us as we sat thought that someone had accused us to him.” But James here is thinking of the unofficial teachers (diddoxadot) in the churches. In the Jew- 1 In Hermas (Sim. 9:22) we read of teachers who OéAovowy é6eAode ddoxador elvar ddpovec bvTec. sadly true. LHe TONGUES OF TEACHERS 145 ish synagogues there was wide latitude allowed for strangers and others to speak. Jesus took advan- tage of this opportunity and taught freely in the synagogues (Matt. 12: off.; Mark 1:39; Luke 6: 6ff.). There would be interruption and violent opposition at times (cf. John 6:59-66). Paul used the courtesy to strangers to speak in the Jewish synagogues and met with open opposition at times fereACtS 13.15, 45°" 18:6), In Cornnth we havea striking instance of the evil of promiscuous teaching, unrestrained and unregulated (1 Cor. 14). It be- came necessary for Paul to rebuke the church for unseemly disorder. ‘There were many who were only too ready to be carried away by any new- fangled doctrine. There is safety in free discussion, which acts as a safety-valve and also leaves a de- posit of truth. But the acrimonious spirit had a fine opportunity to display itself. Men of arrogant convictions and little knowledge felt that they “had no need to learn anything from their brethren, but were fully equipped as teachers’’ (Johnstone), ‘‘de- siring to be teachers of the law, though they under- stand neither what they say, nor whereof they confidently affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7). Some men with a certain fluency of speech really had no message and only spoke out of vanity and really ‘‘thought more of the admiration which they might excite by a display of their powers than of the light and strength which through God’s grace they might give their brethren’? (Dale). Evidently James is here con- cerned with these promiscuous, officious, irrespon- sible, self-appointed teachers, men with a cock-sure 146 PRACTICAL AND SOGIAT AS Ta explanation of all difficulties, not afraid to rush in where angels fear to,tread. The world was full of roving teachers with every sort of patent “asm”’ to dispense to the public. Both Jews and Athenians were eager for something newer than the last stale theory (the very latest fad). The synagogues of the Jews and the churches of the Christians offered a fine platform for these cranks to air their notions. Besides, some of the best of men, earnest Christians, have a “‘Lust for Talk’ (Sir W. Robertson Nicoll) that leads them into all sorts of excesses. James, therefore, is pleading for restraint and moderation when he says: ‘‘Be not many of you teachers” (ui moAdAot diddéoxado yiveobe).1 ‘Do not swell the ranks of the teachers’”’ (Moffatt). Teachers are absolutely necessary, but the thing can be overdone. Some learners (pa6yrai, disciples) are needed. Liberty within reasonable limits must be allowed, but not rank license. Men must not be too eager to teach what they do notknow. There is no danger of an oversupply of well-equipped teachers who are masters of the message of Christ. There are still too many who are incompetent, and therefore the accent on ‘‘teacher-training’’ in the sunday schools is most timely. The caution of James is pertinent to-day, but we must not dis- courage timid souls who can learn to teach and who ought to undertake it. The greatness of the teacher’s task must not be overlooked. James Warns us against its abuse. There is a mental sloth that is as bad as this eagerness to be teachers, a 1Cf. Vulgate Nolite plures magistri fiert, not doctores. THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 147 lazy satisfaction with the elements of Christianity and failure to grow into the position of teachers of the doctrines of grace, continuing as babes unable to digest solid food (Heb. 5: 12). 2. Ihe Peril of Teachers. 3: 1b. Teaching has to be done. There is no escape from that, but those who teach must understand their responsibility. They are doctors (from doceo, to teach) of the mind and heart. They cannot escape their responsibility, as spiritual surgeons, for they deal with the issues of life and death, “knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment’’ (elddre¢ Ore psisov xoiua AnupoueOa). In seasons of re- ligious excitement it is particularly desirable that men shall bear this fact in mind. There is danger for the teacher and for those that hear and are led astray by foolish talk. Feeling was probably run- ning high in some of the churches, and there was occasion for the sobering words of James. ‘“‘The penalty of untruth is untruth, to imbibe which is death” (Taylor). One has only to recall the words of Jesus: “And I say unto you, that every idle word (67a dpyév) that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned”’ (Matt. 12: 36f.). It is easy to be overconfident, like the complacency of the Jews of whom Paul said that each was con- fident that he was ‘‘a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes’? (Rom. 2:20). “Blind leaders of the blind’ (Matt. 15:14) are they. It is bad enough 148 PRACTICAL: AND) SOGTAL ASE EG its to break one of the least commandments, but who- ever does, ‘‘and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven’? (Matt. 5:10). There is no escaping the fact that a heavier penalty rests on preachers and teachers who leave a trail of error behind them. This point of view explains Paul’s anxiety in the Pastoral Epistles for the future of Christianity, as it had to confront Pharisaism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, the Emperor-Cult, and the hundred and one vagaries of the age. Certainly, a teacher must speak his mind. He must be intel- lectually honest and tell what he sees, only he is not calied upon to give his guesses at truth as truth. There is no harm in a teacher’s being interesting. He ought to be if he can, but not at the expense of truth. Freedom of teaching is, moreover, quite con- sonant with fidelity to truth. Surely one does not have to be a mere traditionalist in order to escape wild speculation. He must bring forth things new and old if they are true. The severest words that fell from the lips of Jesus are against the Pharisees who filled the place of teachers for the Jews, but who “‘say and do not,” who ‘‘sit on Moses’ seat’? as authoritative teachers and yet “‘strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel’’ (Matt. 23). ‘Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered’”’ (Luke 11:52). The trag- edy of that situation beggars description. The child was kept in the dark while at school because the teacher did not let in the light. ‘The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.” THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 149 3. The Test of Perfection. 3: 2a. Others besides teachers have pitfalls, for teachers are not the only errant men. “For in many things we all stumble” (moAda yao mralouev dnavtec). James includes himself in this category. The Vulgate reads “ve’’ in verse 1 (sumitis), not willing to admit that James ran any risk about the heavier judgment, but that is not the correct text. James shows no dispo- sition to exempt himself. One and all (dravtec) we make many slips, stumble over (rralouev) something in the path. Our falls are only too frequent (7oAA4). Who is the perfect man? Seneca (Clem. 1:6) says: “We all sin’ (peccamus omnes). But Epictetus (Bk. IV, chap. iv, $7) uses the word for “‘sin’’ (duaprévw) for merely ‘‘commit a fault.’’ He has a weak con- ception of sin. Epictetus also (Bk. I, chap. xxviii, § 23) says: ‘“No man stumbles on account of another’s action.’’ But surely he is in error here. Teachers are particularly liable to stumble in speech, for precisely in that sphere their activity lies (Plummer). This point is common to all (é ttc). Most assuredly, all men are guilty of sins of speech. » Each one is sure to stumble there sooner or later. This is a very easy test of one’s perfection. He can be prodded by the tongue. “The scribes and the Pharisees began to press upon him vehemently (dewvaco évéyerv), and to provoke him to. speak (arootopatigerv) of many things; laying wait (évedpet- ovtec, ambush) for him, to catch (@qeetea, as if wild game) something out of his mouth” (Luke 11: 53f.). Yes, but they were all the more angry when the one Perfect Man kept control of his tongue. 130 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS smart lawyers often try to trip a witness in his ) talk. It is hard to be consistent in talk, true in talk, clean in speech. “If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect (téAeoc) man.’ ‘‘Who- ever avoids slips of speech is a perfect man’’ (Mof- fatt). ‘Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth” (nayi¢c loyved dvdpi ta idva yeidn, Prov. 6: 2. Note avdpi, man, not woman). Cf. Sirach 28: 12-26 for pungent remarks on speech. ‘That which pro- ceedeth out of the man, this defileth the man”’ (Matt. 15:11). The chemical reaction to talk is a test that we cannot refuse. It is open to the least expert to apply to us. Teachers cannot escape this inevitable test. The rest of this paragraph consists of a series of remarkable illustrations of the power of the tongue. 4. The Bridle and the Horse. 3: 2b, 3. The man who does control his tongue is able to bridle the whole body also (cf. 1: 26), for the body goes with the tongue. In fact, nothing is com- moner than for one to make a rash statement and. then to feel compelled to stand by it for the sake of imaginary consistency. Hort keenly observes that the force of ‘‘also’”’ (xai) after ‘‘the whole body”’ is that a man who can bridle his tongue can bridle his whole body. The tongue is a real Bucephalus and it takes an Alexander to master him. It is really won- derful how a spirited, impetuous horse can be sub- dued by bit and bridle. The spirit does not go out of the horse, but his restless energy is under control and guidance. James does not mean that a man THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS I51 should be dumb and lifeless, without ambition and power, but simply that his tongue, like all the rest of the body, should be kept in control. This figure of bridling the tongue (yadwwaywyjoat), as already noted (1:26), is one of the most vivid figures in all languages. David said: “I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue; I will keep my mouth with a bridle’ (Psa. 39:1). It is not merely that the tongue is so hard to put a bridle on (cf. the mouths of some horses), but also that the tongue has such an influence on the whole body (dAov 16 cia), able thus to lead the body by the bridle (yadsuvaywyjoat).1 The horse has to follow his mouth, in which the bridle is placed. The pur- pose of the bridle is that the horses may obey us (elo 76 TreifecOat abtods fiv), and it is thoroughly suc- cessful as a rule. ‘“‘We turn about their whole body also’ (uerdyouev) along with the mouth. So we should place bridles in our mouths for the deliberate purpose of controlling the tongue. It will not happen by accident. The very finest people, like blooded horses, are hardest to control. We are to repress the impulsive and petulant word. Thus we train our own tongues and make it easier to sub- due the other members of the body. One member cannot be allowed to lead the whole body into sin. Pluck it out, if it be the right eye or the right hand (Matt. 5:29). The members of the body are all so related as to be affected by what the others ex- perience. ‘The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee’ (1 Cor. 12:21). Without 1Cf. Hermas, Mand, 12. I. 152 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS this bridle on the tongue there is no true self-control. A tongue loose at both ends means a man whom everyone shuns as a nuisance. If the bridle is good for the horse, it is far more so for the man. The difference is that the man has to put (@éAAw) the bridle into his own mouth and in his dual capacity as rider and horse master himself, the most un- manageable of steeds. A garrulous man is a bore at best, while a woman with a sharp tongue is a terror to the community. Tell no secrets to a talka- tive man, and few to anyone save your wife. A man who talks to hear himself talk will be sure to tell what he ought not to say. The writer of Hebrews refuses to go on with too many details about his heroes of faith, “for the time will fail me if I tel]”’ _ (Heb. 11: 32), “time will leave me telling” (émAeiwer we yao dinyotuevov). If the audience held the bridle the preacher might stop sooner. The phonograph can be turned off at will, only so much “canned” talk at a time. And yet talk is one of the most delightful things in all the world. But there can be too much of a good thing, if, forsooth, it is good. There are few greater nuisances than the interrupter who breaks into a conversation with no regard for the courtesies of the occasion. He is as bad as the man who monopolizes the conversation and allows no one else to talk at all. He needs a stopper, not a bridle, in his mouth. 5. Ihe Rudder and the Ship. 3:4. With great wealth of imagination James proceeds to illustrate still further the power of the tongue THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 153 over the rest of the body. The point is clear from the illustration of the bridle and the horse, but it is made still clearer by the other figures. The im- portance of the subject justifies this piling up of metaphors. ‘This combination of the horse’s bridle and the ship’s rudder as illustrative of the tongue is found” (Hort) in Philo and Plutarch. ‘‘The argu- ment is ad fortiori from the horse to the man, and still more from the ship to the man, so that the whole forms a climax, the point being throughout the same, namely, the smallness of the part to be controlled in order to have control over the whole” (Plummer). The horse is an irrational creature and yet can be managed by the bridle. The ship has no mind at all and yet is moved ‘“‘by a very small rudder’”’ (i76 éAaxiorov mydadiov),’ “turned about’ (werdyerat. Cf. petdyowev, verse 3), “whither the impulse of the steersman willeth’’ (Grov 7 dou7 tov ebObvorvtocg Bodie: tat), The ‘impulse’? may be like ‘‘the rush of water’ (é6pu7 tdatoc) in Prov. 21:1 (LXX), which is there compared to the king’s heart, for God “turneth it whithersoever he will,’’ or like the rush or onset of the Gentiles and Jews to injure Paul in Iconium (Acts 14:5). Here it is the gentle pressure or touch of the hand of the steersman (ev@vvovroe, dirigentis, Vg.) who guides the ship on its course straight ahead, as he decides (GovAerat, intention, purpose rather than mere will, 6éA«:).’ 1 Only here and Acts 27:40 in the N. T. It is from 77d6c¢, blade of an oar, perhaps kin to 7éCa, rote. ‘E4ayiorov is the elative superla- tive (cf. Wisd. 14.5). The Vulgate has a modico gubernaculo. 2 Cf., however, the use of #é4v in John 3:8 and 1 Pet. 3:17. T54> PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL TAS ERG its The complete mastery of the steersman over the ship is accented by the size of the ancient boats in comparison with horses. ‘‘Behold even the ships” (idod kai ta TAcia), so probably we are to translate rather than by “‘also,’”’ which, ‘“‘though they are so great’? (ryduxaita édvta. Cf. 2 Cor. 1:10), are yet turned about by the impulse of the steersman, “even when they are being driven by rough winds’’ (kai b7O dvéuwv ondnodv édavydueva), if here again we translate ‘‘even” instead of. ‘‘also.”’ One is re- minded of the boat in which Jesus and the disciples were crossing the Sea of Galilee ‘‘now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves’’ (GacavGéuevor bné Tov kyudtwv, Matt. 14:24). The ‘rough winds’ (dvewot oxdAnoot. Cf. Prov. 27:16, LXX)) sstit winds” (Moffatt), were particularly dangerous for the small (from our standpoint) ships of the an- cients. But the steersman could hold to his course even over a rough sea. The point of James about the size of the ships would apply with far more force to-day when modern leviathans of the deep, like the Lusitania and the Vaterland, plough the waters. There is now less peril from the stiff winds, but there is all the more ground for wonder that the tiny rudder can control at will the giant of the ocean. The steersman can drive the mighty mon- -. ster straight upon an iceberg and sink it in a few minutes, as in the crash of the Titanic. Great as the ship is, the silent forces of nature are still greater. Man has not yet mastered all the powers of nature. But the ship, blind to its fate, responded to the will of the steersman, who dashed against the iceberg. THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 15s The lesson is only too obvious. One must watch the tongue if he is to avoid shipwreck. The tongue may dash the whole life in blind rage against God. The ship is one of the most beautiful of objects as it rides.the waves in proud majesty. But more beau- tiful still is a life that is not marred by bad or bitter words. Plutarch (De Garrulitate, 10) says that speech beyond control is like a ship out at sea broken loose from its moorings. 6. The Fire and the Forest. 3: sf. The power of the tongue over the body in general is shown by the bridle and the rudder. Now the » power of the tongue for evil is specifically illustrated by the metaphor of fire. True, the tongue is a little member (pixedv pédoc), and yet (kai) it ‘‘boasteth great things’ (weydéAa adbyet),! “can boast of great exploits” (Moffatt). It is not a mere empty boast that the tongue can make. It is hard to exaggerate the power of the tongue which is able to sway great multitudes for good or ill, to stir the wildest passions of man to uncontrollable fury or to exalt men to the highest emotions of their natures. The tongue can soothe the dying or damn the living. The tongue can sing like a songbird or growl like a lion. The tongue can speak words of tenderest love or of venomous hate. It can speak like a megaphone in trumpet tones or in a whisper almost inaudible 1A Theban epitaph (Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca, 489') of the 4th c. A. D. “has the very phrase’? (Moulton and Milligan, Vo- cabulary of the N. T., 1914, p. 94) of James 3:5 6v peyad’ av] yqoaca -matpic O4[8]n. Note the alliteration of uw in James. 156 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS Save to an eager ear. Plummer tells the story of Amasis, king of Egypt, who sent a sacrifice to Bias the sage with the request that he send back the best part and the worst. He sent back the tongue. James adds: ‘Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a fire’ (idov HAixov mie frinny Any dvar- — ret), “what a forest (éAnv, silvan, Vg.) is set ablaze by a little spark of fire’ (Moffatt).1. The figure is that of timber or woodland rather than a pile of wood. Mayor quotes Milton: “Into what pit thou seest from what height fallen.” The inflammatory » Oriental audience with the high pitch of voice, confusion of tongues, and wild gesticulation is aptly compared to a forest fire (Oesterley).2 There is pathos in the dreadful forest fires that annually dev- astate our country. The damage each year amounts to several hundred millions of dollars, besides the injury to future generations in the loss of the bless- ings from the forests in many ways. In most instances these forest fires, which rage with un- controllable fury when the wind gets up, are due to accident or mischief. A spark from an engine, a cigarette thrown in the leaves or a burning match cast to one side by a hunter, a smouldering camp- fire, a shot from a gun—these and other like causes * Note the double use of 7Aiko¢ for how little (quantillus) or how large (quantus). The context makes it clear. For the double ques- tion, see Mark 15:24. Jesus, in Luke 12:49, uses the word évérrw about lighting the torch for his own sacrificial death. Cf. P. Giss. I. 3. 8 (A. D. 117), Sbovreg tae éoriag avdmrauev (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 37). *The Midr. Rabb. on Levit. (xiv. 2) xvi has quania incendia lingua excttat (Mayor). ee a a THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 187 explain most of these conflagrations. The situation is so serious that the national government has a fire patrol to guard the forest reserves. Once a prairie fire starts there is hardly any stopping it till it burns out. Mice and matches cause over twelve hundred fires each year in New York City. Only a start is needed, a start long enough to get beyond control, and we have the horrible holo- causts of Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, San Francisco. _/ “A burning fire kindles many heaps of corn”’ (Sirach 11:32). The scholiast on this verse adds: ‘“There is nothing which more devastates the world than an evil tongue.’”’ Nero set fire to Rome to see the grandeur of the spectacle and he fiddled while the city burned. Similar irresponsibility is often seen in the reckless use of the tongue. So James adds: ‘‘And the tongue is a fire” (kai 7 yAwooa tie), See Prov. 16:27, “And in his lips there. is a’ scorching fire.’ Cf; Sirach 28: 21-23. “The effect is that of an underground flame, con- cealed for a while, then breaking out afresh” (Carr). Indeed, “‘the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue” (6 késpo¢g Tie ddtKiag ) yA@ooa Kabiosra- tat év Tolg pédsoww nuoy), “the tongue proves a very world of mischief among our members’ (Moffatt). The tongue was made for good use, and in itself is good, but it has been prostituted to evil. So here the very word for ‘‘is’” (xaOiorata. Cf. 4:4, “‘mak- eth himself’) brings out this distinction. The tongue ‘as constituted”’ so, not is so by nature. So now we say that a man’s tongue has run away with him. The tongue has made a career for itself, ‘‘the world 158 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS (realm) of iniquity,” ‘‘the unrighteous world’’ (Hort). It was made the best of members, but has run riot till it has become the personification of injustice (ddtxiac) and all sorts of wrong. The Vulgate has it here Universitas iniquitatis rather than mundus. One thinks of our use of “university,” a world in itself for good or ill. Jesus spoke of “the mammon of unrighteousness,” “‘the judge of unrighteousness.” So the tongue represents the world of iniquity and has become ‘‘the chief channel of temptation from man to man’ (Mayor). ‘‘They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walk- eth through the earth” (Psa. 73:9). This microcosm — epitomizes the macrocosm of evil. Bengel has it a macrocosmo ad microcosmum. The evil wrought by the tongue ramifies through the whole of society and goes on and on in its deadly influence. It ‘‘defiles the whole body”’ (7 omtAovea GAov Té oGpa), “staining the whole of the body” (Moffatt).1. The Vulgate has maculat. Jesus had said: ‘‘That which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man” (Matt. 15:11). At first James seems to overstate the matter, but modern science reénforces his point. It is now known that angry words cause the glands of the body to discharge a dangerous poison that. affects the stomach, the heart, the brain. The effect is usually temporary, but sometimes fatal. It is literally true that such choler defiles the whole body. Hate has the same effect. The chameleon 1 Cf. Jude 23, éom:Awpévov, Cf. also James 1:27, doriAov, and 2 Pet. 2:13, orlAor kati pduot, One thinks of the smoke and soot of slander besmirching all that it touches. THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 159 changes color according to its emotions and en- vironment. The tongue not only commits evil by lying, by defending sin, and by leading to sin, but it leaves a deadly stain in the very body and soul of the one who misuses it. “It is the palmary in- stance of the principle that the best when perverted becomes the worst—corruptio optimi fit pessima’”’ (Plummer), The tongue “‘setteth on fire the wheel of nature’”’ (pAoyigovea tov TeoXdy Tic yevéoewc), “‘setting fire to the round circle of existence’”’ (Moffatt), ‘‘the whole circle of innate passions’”’ (Oesterley), ‘‘the wheel of man’s creation” (Hort, who adds “‘one of the hardest phrases in the Bible’), “the wheel of birth” like the Orphic mysteries (P. Gardner), ‘“‘sets the whole creation in flames’’ (Johnstone). Perhaps the idea is that the tongue at the center (hub) of the wheel of nature sets on fire the rest of the wheel. One sees just this thing happen in a pyrotechnic display where a wheel is set on fire in the center. The more it burns the faster it revolves, till the whole wheel whirls in a blaze of fire, spitting fire as it whirls, regular spit-fire. Certainly, the tongue can set fire to all the baser passions in the wheel of life, such as envy, jealousy, faction, anger, avarice, lust, murder, This fire spreads, not simply through the whole man, but may infect “‘various channels and classes till the whole cycle of human life is in flames” (Plummer). _ It is not surprising that James adds: ‘‘and is set on fire by hell’’ (proyiGouévyn m6 tio yeévyyc), ‘with a flame fed by hell’? (Moffatt), inflammata a gehenna (Vul- gate). It is the devil, the slanderer (6 dsd@oAog) par 160 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS excellence, who sets on fire ‘‘the chariot-wheel of man as he advances on the way of life’’ (Hort). It is first inflamed by hell (yéevva, not dye; place of the wicked, not the unseen world for all) and then inflames all the wheel of nature. The torch is lighted in hell, and the hellish flame kindles the tongue, which in turn sets fire to the whole nature. Thus the fire was started and is habitually replenished (note tense of ddoyiCouévg). “The Valley of Hinnom (pdpays Evvdj) or Tophet was first just the type of the abode of the wicked, and then the continual fires there kept burning were transferred to the next world. Cf. “the fire of Gehenna”’ (Matt. 5:22). But one must not forget that, while the tongue can be set on fire of hell, it can also be touched by a live coal from God’s altar. ‘‘Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar; and he touched my mouth with it, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin forgiven” (Isa. 6: 5-7). Let us gain comfort from the experience of Isaiah in the contemplation of the solemn warning of James. One may note also that tongues as of fire sat on the heads of those who were filled with the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. The tongue can be set on fire of heaven and can pass on the holy fire of God from soul to soul, thus light- ing the light of God in the human life. LAP TONGUES OR eVACTIERS 161 7. Taming of Wild Beasts. 3: 7f. James recurs to the beasts (cf. horse and bridle) for a broader discussion. The tongue is unbridled all too often and is the most unmanageable of wild animals. He had just said that the tongue is set on fire of hell. ‘The fact that the tongue is the one thing that defies man’s power to control it is a sign that there is something satanic in its bitterness”’ (Mayor). He uses the language of Oriental exag- geration in giving further proof of his strong state- ment, a justifiable hyperbole: ‘‘For every kind of beasts and birds (maca yao dioic Onoiwy TE Kai TETELvoY) ,! of creeping things and things in the sea (éomer@y re kai évadiwy),? is tamed, and hath been tamed (dapdé- erat nai dedduaota)® by mankind (77 dtoe rH dvOow- rivy.’* “The art of taming isno new thing, but has belonged to the human race from the first’’ (Mayor). It is perhaps not strictly true that every conceivable animal has been subjected by man, but no one in the light of the past and the present can say that any animal is untamable. It is now a common enough thing to see in a wild animal show, performing tigers, leopards, lions, elephants, monkeys, dogs, horses, parrots, seals, bears, and even serpents. It is not merely that wild animals may be domesti- 1Note the pleonastic force of gore like natura. Note also the pairs (te xat), The-word @ypia may include insects like bees. 2 Cf. Vulgate serpentium et ceterorum. Note the list in Gen. 1:26; 9:2; 1 Kings 4:33. 3’ Note change of tense, first durative or linear, then state of completion. *Note use of ¢tov¢ again and repetition of the article to single out the adjective in contrast with the gtov¢ of beasts. 162 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS cated (cf. the wolf and the dog), like the zebra and the wild turkey (America’s contribution to the world’s barnyard), but they may be taught to do acts and tricks that show rudimentary reasoning powers. The eye of man can subdue the lion, the tiger, the serpent as Jesus subdued the untamable demoniac (Mark 5:4), ‘and no man had strength to tame him” (kai ovdeicg toyvoey abtov dapdéom). Man has proved his kingship over the other creatures as \ God gave him dominion (Gen. 1:26). In many cases animals have become so domesticated that they feel no longer at home elsewhere. Man is proud of his lordship over beast and bird and over the forces of nature, like wind and wave and elec- tricity. Man can swim like a fish (for a little while), can run like a deer (for a bit), and can now even fly like a bird in the aeroplane with its artificial wings. He can talk without wires over thousands of miles with unseen persons. He can speed over land and sea like the wind. He can send a message around the earth with the swiftness of the light. But he cannot control his own tongue. ‘But the tongue no man can tame”’ (r7jv 0& yA@ooay ovdeic Oapd- ca dbvata dvOoérwv). Here is the language of help- lessness, as in the case of the demoniac in Mark 5:4. Strictly speaking, of course, the tongue is merely the organ of speech and speech is under the control of the mind. By a bold figure James almost personifies the tongue as a separate personality. “It combines the ferocity of the tiger and the mockery of the ape with the subtlety and venom of the ser- pent” (Plummer). It is thus the very chimera of HE TONGUES, OF PEACHERS 8. 762 wild beasts! This is the picture of the tongue in its natural state, the tongue of the unregenerate man. The Spirit of God can cleanse a man’s mouth of profanity and unclean speech. ‘‘Keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile’ (Psa. 34:13). Paul puts up the bars: ‘‘No filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting’ (Eph. 5:4). Once more he says: ‘“‘Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth” (4:29). Surely, if one has such an untamable little animal in his mouth as the tongue, he needs to watch it with ceaseless care. The evil of the tongue echoes and reéchoes through a community and often through the ages. The evil slander can never be stopped. The lie is fleet of foot and eludes truth in a race. “It is a restless evil’’ (dxatdoratov nax6v), ‘plague of disorder that it is’ (Moffatt), ‘‘a disorderly evil” (Hort), iniquitum malum (Vulgate). It is un- stable and unreliable, inconsistent and quixotic. It can never be trusted to the full. It will turn on one when off guard like the lion when the keeper turns his eyeaway. It can be brought under no rules that will work. “It is full of deadly poison” (ueor7 lod Oavarndégov). | It is ‘‘death-bringing”’ (@avarnddgov, mortifero)! poison (tov) like the poison of asps under their lips (dé¢ dorridwy br0 Ta veidn abr@v), Psa. 140:3. “Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear’”’ (Psa. 58:4). The poison of the serpent is deposited in a little pocket under the 1Cf. LXX, Job 33:23; 4 Macc. 8:17 for the word Gavarndédpoc, Common in Plato and Xenophon. 164 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS mouth. So the tongue is charged with the venom of hate as the serpent with poison. ‘The hiss of the serpent and the hiss of the goose are often repro- duced in the sibilant tongue of slander. 8. Sweet and Bitter Water. 3: 9-11. The inconsistency of the conduct of the tongue is graphically portrayed by these verses. Plummer happily terms it ‘‘the moral contradictions of the reckless talker.’’ There is in very truth moral chaos if the Christian does not control his tongue. Incon- sistency is not an evil per se. If one is wrong he ought to be inconsistent enough to change and do right. But it is terrible to see a professing Christian lightly lapse into loose and licentious language. ‘‘The fires of Pentecost will not rest where the fires of Gehenna are working’? (Plummer). James had spoken (1:8) of the double-minded man (dabvyoc), unstable (dxardoraroc) in all his ways. The tongue with the gift of double entendre is one of the very worst, a word that passes muster in polite circles and yet carries to the initiated a sinister or salacious meaning. Epictetus (Ench. xxxiii, $16) says: “But dangerous also is the approach to indecent speak- ing.’’ But the double tongue (6-yAwosoc) that talks one way with one person, another with another, is utterly unreliable, the mark of double dealing, hy- pocrisy, the slick-tongue, the oily tongue of the two- faced man, whose word cannot be depended upon, whose word is not as good as his bond. Sirach (5:13) says: “Honor and shame are in talk; and the tongue of man is his fall.’”” He also (28: 12) has THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 165 this: “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.” It looks as if James had seen this passage from the Twelve Patriarchs (Ben- jamin 6:5): “The good mind hath not two tongues (dv0 yAwooac), of blessing and of cursing (ebAoyiac Kai xatdpac), of contumely and of honour, of sorrow and of joy, of quietness and of confusion, of hypocrisy and of truth.” We may omit the inconsistency of “sorrow and of joy,” for that is the lot of all of us, but certainly the tongue must not play the part of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. ‘‘Therewith bless we the Lord and Father’ (év atta ebAoyotpev tov Kboiov Kai matépa),1 the only instance of this precise combina- tion of words in the Bible, expressing God’s power and loving approachableness (cf. Matt. 11:25). The highest function of human speech (Hort) is the praise of God the Father. Note how when Zacharias recovered his speech he first praised God (Luke 1: 64, éAddet ebdoyov tov Oedv). It is glorious to praise God in prayer, in song, in sermon. ‘“O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall show forth thy praise’ (Psa. 51:15). ‘“‘Praise ye Jehovah. Praise Jehovah, O my soul. While I live will I praise Jehovah: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being’’ (Psa. 146: 1f.) So far so good. ‘“‘Bless and curse not’’ (ebsoyette kai pn Katagaode, Rom. 12:14). Curse not God in anger nor in flippant profanity. The tongue that praises God surely will not profane his name. But 1Note the instrumental use of év, as in LXX and xow7 else- where. 166 -PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS curse not men “‘who are made after the likeness of God” (rovd¢ a6’ buoiwoty Oeov yeyovérac), those who are like God in their moral and spiritual nature and not like the beasts of the field (Gen. 1: 26; 2 Cor. 3: 18). And yet, horribile dictu, this is precisely what we do. “Therewith curse we men’ (év atti xatapdpueba). James here includes himself in the common run of humanity. The tongue exercises this strange power of running away with us like a runaway horse with the bit in his mouth. The scorn of men for men is seen in John 7:49 in the sneer of the Pharisees at the mob: “This multitude that knoweth not the — law are accursed” (émdparo). It is most likely, however, personal abuse that James here refers to. Men who are made in God’s image are abused by the very tongue that blesses God. We curse other children of our common Father, God. James does not mean even by implication to approve cursing at all. Far from it. It is the wicked man whose “mouth is full of cursing’”’ (Psa. 10: 7). If we do not love our brother, we do not love God (1 John 4: 20). And yet “out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing” (&& tod abrod ordpatoc eépyerar — evioyia kai xatéea), We make our tongue a sort of combination of Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. “My brethren, these things ought not so to be’ (ob XO), GEAOi pov, Tav’Ta obTwC yevéo@a),! a mild state- ment all the more effective from its very temperate- ness. The point is easy to illustrate. ‘Doth the foun- 1 The only instance of yp7 in the N. T. Elsewhere dei, But note Prov. 25:27. It is weaker than dei (necessity). 4 TEE YTONGUES OPS TRBAGHERS 167 tain (uj te 7 myn)! send forth (Geter)? from the same opening (é« tij¢ ome)’ sweet water and bitter (76 yAv- Kd kat rd mTuKodv)?” James was familiar with the brackish waters of parts of Palestine. The water of the Dead Sea is really bitter (mov), though fed by the snows of Hermon and the sweet (yAv«d) springs of the Jordan Valley. The waters of Marah were bitter (Exod. 15: 23), and one may recall ‘‘the water of bitterness that causeth the curse’ (Num. 5: 18, 23). See also Rev. 8:11 for the waters that were made bitter. Pliny (N. H. ii. 103) tells a fable of a fountain of the sun that ‘‘was sweet and cold at noon and bitter and hot at midnight’? (Mayor). It is possible to sweeten water, as we see in the great filtering plants in our modern cities. Yes, and sweet water can become bitter. But water is not sweet and bitter at the same time from the same fountain. You have sweet water on Hermon and salt water in the Dead Sea (also called the Salt Sea), but not both in the same place. 9g. The Vine and the Fig Tree. 3:12. James has not only a new image here, but also a - new point of view (Hort). He has, in 9-11, shown the inconsistency of two kinds of speech from the same tongue. Now he goes deeper to the heart behind the utterance. The comparison is here made between the héart and its utterance (tongue). The 1 uh Tt expects the answer “No.” Ilyy# is fons. 2 Used chiefly of the budding of plants, but also of the bubbling of water, gurgling up. 3 orf is the cleft in the rock out of which the water bursts (Gptez). 168; PRACTIGAL AND SOCIAL VASPEGTS grape and the fig are the commonest fruits in Pales- tine. ‘‘Each tree is known by its fruit’’ (Luke 6: 44). Yes, and Jesus had just said (6:43): ‘‘For there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit; nor again a corrupt tree that bringeth forth good fruit.” It is not uncommon to find the point made some- what as James has it. So Epictetus (Diss. ii. 20): ‘““How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an Olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but Vinewise? (uj éAatao dAd’ dumedtkic;).1 So Jesus: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt” (Matt. 12:33). Once more hear Jesus: “‘Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?’’ (Matt. 7: 16). It is the appeal to life. It has been charged that James exaggerates the evil of the tongue, but one who knows life as it is must agree with James. Sirach says: ‘Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued (dé:co#), for such have destroyed many that were at peace’ (28:13). Plummer quotes also a clause from the Syriac that is not in the Greek: ‘‘Also the third tongue, let it be cursed; for it has laid low many corpses.’’ Sirach (28: 14f.) continues: “‘A third (or backbiting) tongue hath unsettled many, and driven them from nation to nation; and strong cities hath it pulled down, and overthrown houses of great men. A_ back- biting tongue hath cast out capable women, and deprived them of their labors.” The ‘‘third tongue”’ injures three classes (Plummer): the person who 1 Seneca (Ep. XIII. 2. 25) says: Non nascitur itaque ex malo bonum, non magis quam ficus ex olea. THE TONGUES OF TEACHERS 169 utters the slander, the one who listens, and the one of whom the slander is told. It is a triple sin and only sin. ‘‘No more can salt water yield fresh” (odte dAvadyv yAved rorjoat tdwp), James adds, and his conclusion falls with the force of a trip-hammer. The crisp wisdom of James about the tongue makes one wonder afresh if his mother had not taught him some of these aphorisms as a child. CHAPTER IX THE TRUE WISE MAN. 3: 13-18 The connection between this paragraph about wisdom and the preceding discussion of the perils of the tongue is very close. James is still thinking of the men who supposed that they had true faith, but who did not practice it, ““men who supposed that they had a deeper wisdom and a larger know]l- edge than their brethren, and who were continually asserting their claim to be teachers” (Dale). But Hort considers the passage on the tongue a “‘long digression,’’ a view hardly tenable. These am- bitious teachers had overlooked the havoc wrought by tongue (and pen). James has given a needed warning about that phase of the subject and now turns to the subject matter itself. The ambitious teacher will do all the more harm if he is not merely a bungler of real wisdom, but a disseminator of false wisdom. Already the air was full of all sorts of fads and fancies that appealed to the unthinking and the unwary. The Essenes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Epicureans, the Stoics, the Mithraists, the Gnostics, the Judaizers, the Cult of Emperor Worship, with more or less distinctness were clamor- ous for a hearing. There were professional Sophists, who traveled over the country with patent solutions of all problems. Some appealed to the nervous or ‘ the neurotic, like ‘‘Christian Science’’ to-day; others 170 THE TRUE WISE MAN 171 to the ignorant, like Russellism or Mormonism. Paul will later discuss both speech and wisdom “‘as good things liable to grievous abuse’? (Hort) in Beier C17" Sandys 1. Lhe Call for the Wise Man. 3: 13a. “Who is wise and understanding among you?” (tig sopog Kai érvoriwov év ipiv;), The question does not mean that nobody is wise and understanding, but it calls a halt on the rush of volunteers who have apparently a superfluity of wisdom. An over- plus of conceit is intolerable for normal persons. Job (12:2) has our sympathy when he retorts to his, officious advisers: ‘‘No doubt but ye are the people and wisdom will die with you.’”? Once more Job (28:12) asks: ‘But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?’’ Here, as very often in the Old Testament, we have wisdom and understanding used together. God gave Solo- mon wisdom and understanding (1 Kings 4: 20). “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wis- dom, and get understanding” (Prov.:4:7). In Psa. 107:43 we have the question: ‘‘Who is wise?’ (ri¢ copéc;). James is thoroughly acquainted with the wisdom literature of the Jews, both canonical and uncanonical, and is at home in the handling of this theme. His words are not many, but they carry much of depth and power. Many of the professional wise men, then as now, were frauds who easily duped the gullible populace. They were magicians like Simon Magus, who gave it out that he was some great man, and the idle 172) \PRACTIGAL CAND SOGLADL VAS PGrits crowd took him at his high estimate of himself (Acts 8: off.). Note also the case of Barjesus (Acts 13: 6ff.) and the Jewish exorcists (19: 13ff.). The suc- ‘cess of these men is one of the most humiliating contemplations about our common humanity. Car- lyle bluntly called most people fools. But there were really wise men then also, like the Magi and others, who sought light and truth. Oesterley thinks that James by~this question appeals to the self- respect of his hearers, who are tired of men with “the lust of teaching and talking’? (Plummer). James is still directing blows at sham religion, and there is ample cause for such attacks in all the ages. Hypocrisy flourishes in all ages and in all climes. It has a marvellous vitality, this meanest of para- sites. The combination of “‘wise’’ (codé¢) and ‘‘under- standing” (émorjuwy) is not without point (cf. Deut. 4:6; Isa.5:.21). This is the only instance of the com- bination in the New Testament. In classic Greek the second word was used of a skilled or scientific person who had gained technical knowledge of a subject. It implies personal acquaintance and ex- perience, not mere abstract knowledge or intellectual apprehension of the theory of a thing. It is book- learning plus practical application as opposed to one without this special training. Then the word for wise is given by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. v.) to mean ‘‘the understanding of things human and divine, and their causes.’’ It is the word found in the term “‘philosophy’”’ and implies thoughtfulness, pene- tration, grasp of the relations of things, and the right THE TRUE WISE MAN 1723 use of one’s knowledge for the highest ends.!. There are, forsooth, learned fools, men who have a lumber of learning in their heads, but in a disorderly jumble. In the use of James the only really wise man is he who places God in the center of his life, who serves Christ as Lord and Master, who keeps the intellect - in subjection to the will of God. ‘There are plenty of ignorant fools also, men who have neither intel- lectual apprehension nor practical wisdom. It is hard to tell which is the sadder spectacle, the learned fool or the ignorant fool. But certainly a premium is not to be placed upon either class. Both classes of fools are to be kept out of the ranks of teachers and preachers if it can be done. Advice on all sorts of subjects is so plentiful that there seems to be an abundance of easygoing wisdom. But the world is still eager to listen to the True Wise Man if he can be found (cf. Van Dyke’s ‘‘Other Wise Man’’). But the very reputation for wisdom may lead to posing as a wise man. James dares to challenge the candi- dates for teachers of wisdom in the churches. Is it not possible that not enough care is taken in the choice of teachers in the churches and the ordination of preachers of the gospel? 2. The Proof of the Wise Man. 3:13b. Wisdom is not a matter for mere technical in- quiry. One has to stand an examination on wisdom; but it is that of life, unwritten and written; that of deeds, not of words. ‘‘Let him show by his good 1 Yogia ranks highest of all the words for intellectual attainment or endowment (yvdatc, émiyvwor, excothun, siveote, opdvnatc), 174 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS life his works in meekness of wisdom”’ (deéétw &x rij Kadnc advactpoons Ta Epya avTov Ev TeabTyTL oodiac). This test of the wise man is put in a peculiarly Jacobean style. The very position of the word ‘‘show’’ is -emphatic, the first word in the sentence. If one > may use the vernacular, we are all ‘from Missouri’ and “have to be shown” when it comes to each other’s wisdom. ‘The test is the acid test of deeds, not words. We may quibble over words and talk like a wise man, but time will prove our words by our deeds. One may speak like a wise man and in reality be the biggest sort of a fool, yea, of a scoun- drel. People have learned to discount mere talk when it stands alone. Just being a preacher is not enough. One must practise what he preaches. The Roman Catholic doctrine relieves the priest from the obligation to live the morality which he preaches, but surely that is a travesty on the ethics of Chris- tianity. It is false ethics and false religion. People have a right to hold the preacher to the standard of the gospel, just as he has the right to urge upon them the highest ideals of conduct. There is a wonderful levelling process going on all the time. Lincoln said with rare wisdom that a man may fool all the people part of the time, and, some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time. The greatest asset that the preacher has, after all, is his life, a long life of piety and consecration. There is no answering that argument, ‘‘by his good life his works.’’ This is the only proof that counts in the long run. The King James Version has hoe TRUE WIiSkIMAN 175 here ‘‘good conversation’ (é tij¢ Kadje dvacreodiec), which was good old English (conversatio, conver-., sari), originally one’s conduct or bearing (turn- ing oneself about, the precise idea in the Greek word).! But long ago the English confined the word to talk, perhaps because some people did little else but talk. But the quaint old English must give way to the modern preciseness of speech. It is the beautiful (xaAéc) manner of life that speaks the language of business to-day, the flower of a white life that adorns the profession of the service of Christ. But even so, it must be behaviour that is sincere, that finds expression in acts (ya), not mere external mannerisms, posing, attitudinizing, stage-effect. Nothing is more repulsive than pro- fessional pietists who attract attention to themselves rather than to Christ the Lord. It is a case pre- eminently where actions speak louder than words and where words alone do more harm than good. Bengel puts it tersely: re potius quam verbis. In. simple truth the more a man says in claim of su- perior wisdom the less he is credited with the pos- session of any wisdom. But it is not merely a case of deeds versus words, but also of ‘‘gentleness and modesty versus arrogance and passion’? (Mayor), “in meekness of wisdom”’ (év moabtyte codiac), “‘with the modesty of wisdom” (Moffatt). Meékness was not ranked high among 1 Epictetus (Bk. I, chap. vii, §2) has it avacrpogpy tiv (ev) avTi kafjxovoav. Moulton (Vocabulary, p. 38) notes the absence of the word in this sense in the papyri, though the verb avaorpédeobar is common. The substantive is frequent in the inscriptions. L760) PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL VAST Hite the Greeks. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. IV. v.) considered it a second-rate virtue, “‘the mean between pas- sionateness and impassionateness’’ (Plummer). Epic- tetus (Bk. II, chap. i, ch. 36) says: “But think that thou art nobody and that thou knowest noth- ing.” The Christian conception rests upon the idea in the Psalms, where meekness is a favorite trait of the devout. ‘The meek will he guide in judgment; and the meek will he teach his way’’ (25:9). ‘““The Lord upholdeth the meek’”’ (147:6). In Sirach (3:18) we read: ‘‘The greater you are, the more you humble yourself”? (dow péyacg el, tocobtw Taretvod ‘ccavtév). But there is no word comparable to that of Jesus, who said of himself: “I am meek and lowly in heart’? (Matt. 11:29, meate elute nat tamevds TH xapdia) in his plea for men to come to him as teacher. It is an essential prerequisite in the teacher, else he is unapproachable and is aloof and cold. Jesus pro- nounced a beatitude on the meek (Matt. 5:5), but he did more: he exemplified meekness in his life. By meekness James does not mean effeminacy or weakness (any more than Jesus). He does mean ‘the absence of pretentiousness and _ wilfulness. Peter (1 Pet. 3:15) uses the expression ‘‘with meek- ness and fear’’ for the spirit with which one is to defend the faith, the “‘reason for the hope that is in you.”’ There can be firmness and courage without bumptiousness and bigotry. There are frequent ex- hortations in the New Testament along this line (cf;,Gal.6:3)2 Timi 2) 24) 9 Cor! 4.21). nei man wears the crown of modesty. This spiritual paradox seems absurd to the merely worldly wise. THE TRUE WISE MAN 177 3. The Disproof of the Wise Man. 3:14. “The possession of wisdom was made a claim to teachership”’ (Hort). So the absence of wisdom is a positive disqualification. One may, no doubt, possess wisdom and yet not be able to teach. But the lack of wisdom is itself a sufficient bar. The wrong spirit shows the lack of wisdom. ‘But if ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart’ (e dé ¢iAov mixoov Eyere nai éoiiay év TH xapdia bu@v), what then? There were many controversialists who had both of these vices. Jealousy (¢jAoc) is not evil per se. It wavers between the good and evil sense and in itself is merely zeal (¢é@, to boil), which may be for good or ill. For the good use see 2 Cor. 11: 2; Gal. 1:14). Sometimes this zeal was not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2). Envy (¢06voc) is distin- guished from zeal (emulation) by Aristotle (Rhet. ii. 11. 1). But in the New Testament the bad sense of this word prevails (James 4:5; 1 Cor. 3:3; Gal. 5:20; Rom. 13: 13) and it is listed with the works of the flesh. The bitterness (mxedv) of jealousy is only too well understood by those who give way to this petty vice. It tastes bitter and the taste lasts a long time. Bitterness is itself punishment enough for the victims of the sin (Eph. 4:31). The other word, “faction” or ‘‘party spirit’ (ée.0ia), has an uncertain etymology, probably from the word for ‘“hireling”’ (%ov60c). At any rate, the word is soon applied to partisans who court and bribe adherents to their candidate. It presents the very quintessence of partisanship and of narrow-mindedness. ‘This is not a mark of wisdom and is not a thing to boast of 178, PRACTICAL; AND SOCIAL ASPEGGS at any rate. “Glory not” (uq xataxavydobe) about it, “do not pride yourselves on that’’ (Moffatt). And yet this is precisely what many of the Jewish Chris- | tians were doing already. Thus they lied against the truth, were ‘‘false to the truth,’ as Moffatt has it (pebdeobe kata tHG dAnOeiac). Such partisan triumph ‘ is usually obtained by underhand methods and by — the suppression of part of the truth. There is such | a thing as ‘‘poisoned truth,” truth with poison in it. So partisan victory often leaves a bitter sting be- cause those in defeat know that an unfair advantage > has been taken of them and of the truth of God. | It is clear that these opening chapters in the Epistle of James reveal a pitiful condition of con-— “troversy among some of the Jewish churches, such as Paul has to rebuke in Corinth later (cf. 1 Cor. 1 to 4). ‘“‘The whole Christianity of many a dev- otee consists only, we may say, in a bitter contempt _ for the sins of sinners, in a proud and loveless con- tention with what it calls the wicked world’’ (Stier). { The point of James is precisely this. The very ae tentiousness which they regarded as supreme proof of their qualifications as exponents of the faith is here urged by James as absolute proof that they are disqualified for the position of teachers. Their bit- . terness makes it improper for them to talk about love. and gentleness. Sometimes the very fierceness of one’s contention for orthodoxy drives some people into heresy. It is a sad outcome when one’s high and holy ambition to teach the things of Christ is frustrated by a Christless spirit of wrangling and personal abuse. | THE TRUE WISE MAN 170 4. The Wisdom from Below. 3: 156. Wisdom, forsooth, is precisely what we all need and desire, but the bitter self-seeking partisans just described “‘do not cherish the truth except as a pos- session of their own, or a missile of their own”’ (Hort). “This wisdom’’ (atrtn 7 oodia), that claimed by the pompous bigots in verse 14, can only be so described in terms of courtesy or, more exactly, of irony. It is only wisdom so-called and is real folly. It is at best worldly wisdom, ‘‘earthly’’ (émiyevoc), not merely in the sense of taking place on earth rather than in heaven (John 3:12), but with the earthly horizon and outlook as opposed to the heavenly (érovedvioc), like those who mind earthly things (ra ériyera ppovovytec, Phil. 3:19). Such a wisdom passes for “‘the wisdom of this world’ (j oodia row Kdopov tobTov, 1 Cor. 1:20; 3:19), but is distinctly not ‘‘God’s wisdom,” ‘“‘a wisdom not of this world”’ (1 Cor. 2:6f.). ‘This wisdom’ is not merely “earthly,” but does not come down from above (ov totiv abtn 4 codia dvwhev Karepyouévn), more e€X- actly “is not of a kind that cometh down’’ (Hort), not such a wisdom, indeed, as God gives (James 1:5). It has the smell of earth in the evil sense of that term. It is not from above, but in reality from below. Jesus said to the Pharisees: “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (‘Yueic && tov Kdétw boré, éyo ék THY dvw siui tusig Ex TobTOV TOV Kdopov ~aTE, £7 OVE elui 8x tov Kéopov tovtov, John 8:23). The antithe- Sis is complete both in origin and spirit. The axioms 1It is terrena, not coelestis. 180 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS of the selfish, like ‘‘Look out for ‘Number One,’ ’ are the wisdom of the devil: ‘All that a man hatt will he give for his life’’ (Job 2: 4). | This selfish wisdom is merely that of the ‘“‘natura man’ (pvyeeq), not a mark of the regenerate Spirit: There is no single English word that properly renders this word. ‘Psychic’ transliterates it, but does not translate it. ‘Sensual’? makes it too much a matter of the body, as does ‘‘fleshly,” like the Vulgate animalis. It does not appear in the Septua- gint and only six times in the New Testament (James 3:15; Jude 19; r Cor. 2:14; 15: 44>, 46). The broad distinction between soul and body or mind and body (dichotomy) is not so hard to grasp, but the threefold division (trichotomy) into spirit, soul, and body (nvetpa, poy, cia), as in 1 Thess. 5: 23, seems to place the psuché below the pneuma.1 It seems clear from 1 Cor. 2:14 that “‘the spiritual man” (6 mvevnarixdc) is the regenerate man, while “the natural man” (6 ypuyexdc) is the unregenerate man, in his unsaved state of sin. So here, therefore, this earthly wisdom is that of the unregenerate man; it is not sanctified wisdom. He may not be “carnal’’ (capuixéc), not the slave of the animal pas- sions, but merely coldly unspiritual. Such a wisdom does not reach the higher levels of the man’s nature. But it is still worse. Such a wisdom is ‘“demonia- cal’”’ (daworadye), ‘devilish’ (diabolica, Vulgate), ‘‘in that it raised up the very devil in the hearts of both. *Cf. Jude 19, Wuycxol, rrvevua pp Eyovrec. See also 1 Cor. 15:45 for distinction between 7vedua and yoxy, and between tvevuatixdy and — Wu yiKov, THE TRUE WISE MAN 181 opposer and opposed”’ (Oesterley). It is wisdom such as that which demons have (Bengel), not such as God gives (1:5). It is the wisdom of those who. do the will of the flesh (Eph. 2: 2f.), who follow the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). One is reminded of the words of Jesus in John 8: 44: “Ye are of your father the devil.” ‘‘Thus the wisdom shared by demons answers to the faith shared by demons of 2:19’ (Hort), the tongue set on fire by hell (3: 6). It is indeed a keen knowledge of human nature that James here reveals, but it is a sad indictment all the same. It reads like nature in the rough, red in tooth and claw, the law of the jungle, not the law of grace. It is Nietzsche’s superman, not the love that serves, that came to minister, not to be ministered unto. The might of right is not understood by those who hold that might is right. There isa New Paganism to-day in Berlin, in Paris, in London, in New York. It is very subtle and very scornful of the pity of Jesus. Red blood is a good thing, to be sure, so be: it that it courses through a clean heart. The sur- vival of the fittest is the law of nature, but fittest for what? The law of the wolves is to turn and devour the wolf that falls in the chase. The philoso- phy of Nietzsche is a bit more brutal in its plainness of speech than the wisdom of the world usually puts it. But even so, its demoniacal character stands out more*sharply. “I want’’; therefore “I have the right to get.’’ This is the policy of aggression on the part of nations and individuals, of rogues and rapists, of grafters and white-slavers, of bank-looters and oppressors of labor. 182 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS The further comment of James elucidates his point: “For where jealousy and faction are (cf. verse 14), there is confusion and every vile deed” (éxei dxataotacla Kal Trav havirov Taya), Jealousy and fac- -tion come from the devil. He sows suspicion in the churches, in the midst of families, in the hearts of those who let him in. James had already (3:8) accused the tongue of being a restless evil and (1: 8) had spoken of the unstable man. God is not the God of confusion, but of peace (1 Cor. 14\'33),) so that the factions in the churches cannot claim God as supporting them any more than nations at war ‘have the right to make flippant claims that God is on their side in a conflict. Oesterley has a fine description of the spirit of the professional contro- versialist: ‘‘Acute argument, subtle distinctions, clever controversial methods which took small ac- count of truth so long as a temporary point was gained, skilful dialectics, bitter sarcasms, the more enjoyed and triumphed in if the poisonous shaft came home and rankled in the breast of the Op- ponent—in short, all those tricks of the unscru- pulous controversialist, which are none the less contemptible for being clever—this was wisdom of a certain kind.” But in reality it left the way open for “every vile deed,” for the word here for “‘vile’’ _ (padA0or) means ‘“‘worthless,” not “immoral.’’ In the realm of morals what is merely indifferent soon gets to be bad. The Vulgate puts it omne opus pravum. So in John 3: 20 we read: “For every one that doeth evil hateth light” (6 nadie TedTOWY [uLOEL TO arc). .Bugs and bats hate the light. There is a toboggan THE TRUE WISE MAN 183 slide in sin. ‘The easy way” is the evil way. See per contra James 1:17. Anarchy brings moral chaos (Plummer) to the soul as to nations. The wiseacres of the world play havoc with the souls and bodies of men who follow their lead to hell. In every town, there is a bunch of men who cling together in their evil life and profess a wisdom superior to that of the gospel. They know it is a lie, but they comfort each other and are too proud to break away from the gang. But the end will come. There are no happy old men save those that are Christians. 5. Lhe Wisdom from Above. 3:17. There is wisdom from above (dvw6ev), that is, from God, as James had already said (1:5). This is the true wisdom, God’s wisdom both in source and character. James had not, of course, seen Paul’s remarks on wisdom in 1 Cor. 1 and 2, if he wrote his Epistle by A. D. 50. But he had full opportunity to be familiar with Proverbs, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon. “For the Lord giveth wisdom, out of his mouth com- eth knowledge and understanding’ (Prov. 2:6). ‘“‘Wisdom may praise herself, and glory in the midst of her people’ (Sirach 24:1). ‘For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; and she also passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure effluence from the glory of the Almighty; therefore no defiled thing falls into her. For she is a reflection of the everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the efficiency of God, and image of his goodness” 184 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS (Wisd. 7: 24-26). Once more: “For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above every position of stars, being compared with the light, she is found superior’ (Wisd. 7:29). But, while James is un- doubtedly conversant with the Wisdom literature of the Jews, he is no mere copyist. He has the Chris- tian standpoint and makes his own contribution to the discussion of wisdom. His words are few, but fit, and strike-right to the heart of the subject. It is “first pure” (mp@rov pév dyvi éorvv). Purity is the inner characteristic of the wise. It (ayv6c) is pretty nearly like the Latin purus (pure) and means not so much cleansed (xaOagéc, cf. Matt. 5:8, “the pure in heart’’) as a combination of this idea and consecration as holiness (dyoc).1 It is thus free from stain or defilement of any kind (not merely sexual purity), like a ray of light, ‘in holiness and sincerity of God” (éy dyiérqre Kai elAtnorvia rod Geov, 2 Cor. 1:12). Christ himself is called pure (dyvéc, ‘1 John 3:3), the ideal toward which we are to strive. We must learn to put first things first. In wisdom purity of character and motive is absolutely essen- tial at any cost. “Then peaceable’ (&recta elpnvix). Important as peace is, purity is paramount. Peaceableness is, to be sure, the outer characteristic of wisdom, and, if one has the bright light of inner wisdom, he will +The word dyvéc is common enough in the inscriptions for cere- monial purity and also for ethical purity. It is applied to Athena Polias, the “Blessed Virgin of Greek Religion” (Ditt., Syll., 364”), THv waTplov ayvav mapbévov. See Moulton & Milligan, Vocabulary, BS: THE TRUE WISE MAN 185 have it. But wisdom does not desire peace at any price nor at the cost of purity. ‘“‘All her paths are peace” (Prov. 3:17) and the chastening of God’s hand yields ‘‘peaceable fruit unto them that have been exercised thereby’? (Heb. 12:11). Plummer wisely notes that the order of James here is logical and not always strictly chronological. One is not to compromise with evil and error, but all the same, if one is to have no peace till he has absolute purity of every sort in his environment, he must needs be always at war and never rest at all. An equation of common sense must, of course, be struck, though there is the constant temptation to get used to un- pleasant surroundings and finally to make no pro- test at all. Plummer likewise observes that James places the emphasis on the spiritual and moral, not on the intellectual, just the opposite of modern ideals of culture (Kultur) and education. There is nothing in the position of James to justify the Spanish Inquisition, for instance. The persecutor has often consoled himself with the thought that he is doing his victim’s soul a real service by rescuing him from his error. Certainly, if one is pure, it is easier for him to be peaceable, provided he also loves. “If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men” (Rom. 12:18). There is a great deal in the New Testament on the subject of peace (elpjvn). It is true that Jesus said: ‘I came not to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34), when men are wedded to sin and can only be shaken loose by the sword of truth. But these are those who let the peace of God rule in their hearts as umpire (Col. 3:15). 186'PRACTICAL AND) SOCIAL VASPEGIS We are to pursue the things of peace (ra@ tie elojvnc dlokwnev, Rom. 14: 19) as men of peace, but not to be afraid to stand up for truth and righteousness (pur- ity) even if we have to fight. Then ‘‘gentle’’ (émetnjc), ‘forbearing’’ (Hort). The word is used by Thucydides (viii. 93) of men who will listen to reason and (i. 76) of moderation, like the Latin clementia. Originally the word meant what was fitting, fair, reasonable (clog), but it was also associated with the idea of yielding (ex), “implying one who does not stand on his rights, but is ready to give way to the wishes of others’’ (Mayor). Matthew Arnold gathered the idea into his phrase “sweet reasonableness.’ Aristotle (vi. 11) uses it of the forgiving man, one who does not stand on strict justice, but who listens to merciful consideration. Certainly, gentleness is the true mark of the gentle- man, who does not stickle over little points, who, in a word, is considerate. The Christian wisdom, therefore, does not like to give pain. Paul makes an appeal “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ’’ (dia tij¢ mpatrntog Kai éemterxiag tov Xovorov, 2 Cor. 10v1). | See also: Acts: 24: 43) ame Titus 3:2; 1 Pet. 2:18 (gentle masters); and, in particular, Phil. 4:5: ‘“‘Let your forbearance be known unto all men.”’ It means the very essence of fairness as opposed to unreasonableness (Ps. of Sol. 5:14). Cf. Paul’s panegyric on love (1 Cor. 13). It is also ‘“‘easy to be entreated”’ (ebmeO7c), ““con- ciliatory’’ (Moffatt). The word is a common one for military discipline (4 Macc. 8:6; Jos. War ii. 20, 7), though it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testa- THE TRUE WISE MAN 187 ment. As gentle (éme«jc) refers usually to one ina superior position, so this word (evmeOjc) .s used mainly of one in an inferior rank (Mayor). The good soldier is the one who has learned how to execute orders. Philo employs it as the opposite of the disobedient (dmeOjc). It is tractabilis, not morosa. The Vulgate has suadibilis. It is a word in common use about children, pupils, all who obey laws. If preachers were always gentle, perhaps the. church-members would be more docile and teach- able. This wisdom from above is suaviter in modo, fortiter in re. It is also “full of mercy and good fruits’ (ueor7 édéove kal kapnav dyadav). This is just the reverse of the party-feeling already condemned. Mercy is the active principle of compassionate love. One may note already 1:8, 27; 2:13 in contrast with 2:15. This wisdom bears good (‘“‘wholesome,”’ Moffatt) fruits, not mere leaves (empty boasting). The plural (fruits) shows that there is variety and abun- dance for all. It is not satisfied with abstract virtue, but wishes to bless others. This wisdom is likewise “without variance’ (dda- kpitoc), “unambiguous’’ (Moffatt). The word oc- curs nowhere else in the New Testament and has puzzled translators a gréat deal. It is rendered “without wrangling,” “without judging,” ‘without partiality,” ‘‘without distinctions,” ‘‘undoubted,”’ “without feigning,” “without doubtfulness,”’ “‘unde- cided,” ‘‘unhesitating,” ‘“‘unwavering,” ‘“‘single- minded.” The Vulgate has non judicans. Some- thing can be said for all these renderings. The 188 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS context must decide.! If one considers the use of the verb in James 1:6; 2:4, probably the idea of decision is the true one here. It is whole-hearted ‘conviction, positiveness in adherence to the truth, single-minded devotion rather than the wavering in- decision of the false wisdom. It is Principal For- syth’s idea of ‘‘Positive Preaching” for the modern mind. : It is finally ‘‘without hypocrisy” (dvv7éxgrtog),” “straightforward”’ (Moffatt). Here there is no am- _ biguity as to the import of the word. It is not the hypocritical wisdom of earth, the spurious invita- tion, but the genuine article. It is sincere, ‘without show or pretence’”” (Mayor). The word is used of love (Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6), of faith (1 Tim. 1: 5), of brotherly love (1 Pet. 1:22). The idea here con- cerns our relations with men as the preceding ad- jective outlined our attitude toward God (Hort). This wisdom has the ring of pure gold and passes at par value with all men. Surely such wisdom as this will always be in demand by modern men who love reality and hate pretence. 6. The Harvest of Righteousness. 3:18. In this verse James gathers up the sum and sub- stance of all that he has had to say so far. He has 1The verb da-kpivoua: means to distinguish, but the resultant idea is very variable. Moulton and Milligan (Vocabulary, p. 9) quote O. G. I. S. 509. 8 (ii/A. D.), obd& tovro rd pépoc Karédurov adc. dxpttov, * The Vulgate has sine simulatione. Of course, t6-xpito¢ is from tro-cpivouat, like to-xpit#c, and is used of the actor’s mask and then for mere imitation, hypocrisy. THE TRUE WISE MAN 189 just spoken of peace and of good fruits. He has been insisting on righteous deeds and not mere words, upon a live faith, not a dead creed. ‘‘And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace’’ (kaprro¢ dé dixatoobyng év elonyy omei- petal Tolg ToLovo.v sionvnv). “‘And the peacemakers who sow in peace reap righteousness” (Moffatt). The fruit is righteousness (genitive of apposition). The figure of sowing is common enough. It is the slow process of soil, seed, plant, blossom, fruit, har- vest. This is the life of piety (wisdom) that James lays before his readers. The phraseology occurs elsewhere (Psa. 1:3). Thus Prov. 11:30: ‘The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life’ (LXX has éx kapTov dixatootync). Soin Amos 6:12 we have “‘fruit of righteousness.” In the New Testament note Phil. 1:11, “filled with the fruit of righteousness,” and Heb. 12:11, “peaceable fruit’’ («apréyv elonrnéy). There is a difficulty here in the fact that the ‘‘fruit’’ instead of the ‘‘seed” is ‘‘sown’’ (omeiperat). But such a prolepsis of thought is not unknown, as in Psa. 97: 11: ‘‘Light is sown for the righteous.”? The sower sows in peace and the harvest of righteousness is gathered in peace. The peace-maker has the rainbow promise of his harvest in due time if he faint not nor grow weary. ‘‘They who make peace show likeness to God, the great maker of peace”’ (Hort). CHAPTER X THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE. 4:1-12 Oesterley thinks it inconceivable that these verses could have been addressed to Jewish churches at an early date, while they were still in the fresh glow of the new faith in Christ. He thinks that “these verses reveal an appalling state of moral depravity in these Diaspora congregations: strife, self- indulgence, lust, murder, covetousness, adultery, envy, pride and slander are rife: the conception of the nature of prayer seems to have been altogether wrong among these people, and they appear to be given over wholly to a life of pleasure. It must have been terrible for the writer to contemplate such a sink of iniquity.” Yes, but James does not say that all the Christians were guilty of these sins. It was bad enough in all conscience without over- stating the situation. Besides, we have the state of © affairs in the church at Corinth to guide us as to the possibility of sins in a young church, and the state of affairs among the Galatian churches is not much better (cf. “‘so soon departing’). Covetousness and strife early appear in the church in Jerusalem, as we know from Acts 4 and 5. Reaction comes only too swiftly, as is noted after all great revivals, for in- stance, the years following the late Welsh revival. Within a year or two after Paul left Thessalonica discipline is sorely needed in the church there, as we 190 | THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE ror know from 1 and 2 Thessalonians. The Gentile world was given over to immorality of all sorts, and Judaism was deadened with formalism. It was no easy task to make real spiritual life grow in such an atmosphere. And yet this is precisely what Chris- tianity undertakes to do. Jesus came that men might have life, spiritual vitality, and might have it abundantly (John 10:10; 20:31). James is chiefly concerned that his readers may share in this new life in Christ and may show the inner reality by the outward expression. He never gets away from this central conception of Christianity. The appearance of sin in hideous forms among the followers of Jesus stirs James to intense indignation. Mayor notes that the severity of tone in this paragraph is accented by the absence of “‘brothers’’ (ddeAdol). 1. The Origin of War. 4:1, 2a. James makes frequent use of the rhetorical ques- tion as here when he boldly demands the origin of the strife among the churches of the Diaspora: “Whence come wars and whence come fightings among you?” (ré0ev éAcuwor Kal TéOev pdyat ev byiv;). This use of question gives life to style and is the mark of a good teacher. Note also the repetition of “whence” (mé0ev) which gives added piquancy. In the Epistle of Clement of Rome (xlvi) to the Church at Corinth (about A. D. 97) he seems to refer to this passage in James where he asks: ‘‘Wherefore are these strifes and wraths, and factions and divisions, and war among you?” At bottom ecclesiastical strife does not differ in origin and spirit from wars - 192) PRACTICAL” AND) SOCIAL ASPEGS between nations. Sometimes there is even more bitterness. Certainly, no wars have been fiercer than the so-called “religious” wars of history. It does seem like irony that the Great War should have come after so many years of growth of the peace sentiment in the world. But Christianity is on the side of peace and Christians must keep up the fight for peace. The spirit of Jesus is in the Lake Mohonk Peace Conference. Jesus left a legacy of peace for individuals and for nations who win it (“My peace I give unto you,” John 14:27). There has appeared one evidence of a better public opinion in the fact that in the Great War now raging over Europe and Asia each nation has sought to justify itself in the eyes of the world as not the aggressor, but on the defensive. This apology is some conces- sion, at least, to enlightened Christian sentiment, which will ultimately banish war from the earth along with slavery, alcohol, the brothel, and other agencies of the devil. Meanwhile, James occupies the standpoint of the Christian optimist who fights for the highest and the best. So Simon Peter: “‘Be-. loved, I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (z Pet. 2:11). We need not press the dis- tinction between “wars” (méAeuoe) and “fightings” (vaya), though the first means a state of war and the lasting resentment connected with it, while the second refers to battles or outbursts of passion which occur during a state of war. James does not, of course, here refer to wars between nations, but to the factional bickerings in the churches, the personal THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 193 wrangles that embitter church life. ‘“‘Among you’’. (év tyiv), he adds, to drive the question home. James answers his first question by a second. “Come they not hence, even of your pleasures that war in your members?” (ob« évrevOev, tx TOY HdovOv Day THY oTPaTEvoOUéEVWY bv ToOIg péAsoLY buov;). James sees an intimate connection between strife and laxity of life. The case of the church at Corinth is a point where factional divisions and gross immoral- ity flourished together. Plato (Phaedo 66) says: “Wars and factions, and fightings 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.” James and Plato agree therefore in finding the origin of war in the lusts of the body, but they differ in their opinion as to how to treat the body. Plato exhorts neglect and scorn of the body, while James urges the victory of the spirit over the body. ‘‘Plato has no idea that the body may be sanctified here and glorified here- after; 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’? (Plummer). The source of all war (private and public) is ‘‘the pleasures (jd0vev) that war (oreatevopévwv) in your -members.”! The same word for ‘“‘war’’ between the fleshly desires occurs in 1 Pet. 2:11 and in Rom. 7:23 Paul uses it (dvtictpatevdpevov) of the conflict 1Philo (M. 2, p. 205) traces all the tragic wars of Greeks and Barbarians to one source (a76 jude myc), éexiBuulag H ypnudtov h db§y¢ 4 7dovns. 194 PRACTICAL ‘AND SOGIAMAS PEO between the two laws of his nature. The word for ‘“‘nleasure’’ does not necessarily mean sensual pleas- ures (cf. émOvutat), but what is sweet (jdbc, qdov7q) and leads to sinful strife (like ambition, love of - money or of power). In Titus 3:3 Paul combines both words, ‘‘lusts and pleasures’ (émiOvytatg nal joovaic).! ‘The potential pleasure seated in each member constitutes a hostile force, a foe lying in ambush against which we have continually to be- on our guard” (Mayor). In the Letter of Aristeas (cf. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 567) the question is asked: ‘“Why do not the majority of men receive virtue?” The answer is given: ‘“‘Because all are naturally without self-con-~ trol and are bent on pleasures” (émi tag jdovdc). It must be said that the philosophy of Hedonism in~ this sense of the term has a powerful hold upon the - average man. Buddha said trouble came of desire. It is not an inspiring picture that James here draws, and one would like to believe that he has a wider outlook than the Christian community when he names this bill of particulars. ‘Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war’’ (émOuyeite, wai ove Eyere: ovetere kat Cndovte, nai ob divacbe émitvyetv: pdyeobe Kal tode- peite). Here Westcott and Hort make a full stop in their text, and this is probably correct. The pres- ence of “‘kill’”’ (@ovetere) before ‘“‘covet’’ (énAovre) gives a great deal of trouble to the commentators — who find it an anti-climax. Mayor urges the sub-_ 1See both terms also in 4 Macc. 5:23, doTe macdv tév Adovay kal © EniOyuay xpateiv, See also Philo, M. 1, p. 445, jdoval } éiOupiac, THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 193 stitution of ‘‘envy”’ (#@oveire) for ‘‘kill,”’ but there is no manuscript authority for it and the difficulty is not really mended. Hort has the most probable solution by this punctuation: “‘Ye covet, and have not: ye commit murder. And ye envy, and cannot attain: ye fight and war.’ At any rate, the humil- iating fact remains that lust, covetousness, envy, fighting, murder, are here charged against some of the readers of the Epistle. It looks as if some of them held to the view that they were entitled to all that they could grasp, that Providence was on the side of the heaviest battalions, that might consti- tuted right. ‘‘Lust’’ (émOuyeire) is here used in the most general sense, like ‘‘covet.’’ The failure to find satisfaction (Kai obk éyete) leads to jealousy (¢nAcire), fighting (wéyeoOe), war (modeueire), and even murder (povedere). Covetousness leads to fights with indi- viduals and nations. Lust in the narrow sense and murder are common partners. The fight is on in every man’s life against all that is low and mean. He can keep a pure life only by living the victorious life. There is also the common oppression of the poor by the greedy and grasping in all the ages. “No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge” (Deut. 24:6). So Sirach (34: 21f.) says: “He that taketh away his neighbour’s living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a blood-shedder.’’ The opposite of all this pitiful business is seen in the nobility of love as portrayed Por ALOT, 13° 1906 ‘PRAGTICAT AND! SOCIALSASH ECs 2. Asking Amitss. 4: 2b, 3. The latter part of verse 2 is a puzzle to the com- mentators: ‘“Ye have not, because ye ask not” (od« — Exere, dla TO pq alteicOar tudc). Od0csterley (follow- ing Carr) thinks that we have a string of poetical quotations (‘“‘stromatetis’’), “not very skilfully strung together.”” Mayor takes it as a mere repetition of “ye lust and have not,” and says “‘it is not a further step.” But surely James does not mean to say that © the one reason why the impulses to lust, covetous-_ ness, envy, fighting, and murder are not gratified is because men do not pray so as to carry their point / with God and man! That were to make prayer a travesty and God a puppet of man’s evil desires. I must believe that this sentence belongs to verse 3 in thought and should be so punctuated. We must always bear in mind that the original Greek text had no punctuation and that we are at liberty to punctuate de novo if the context demands it. There is, no doubt, a backward look in “ye have not,” verse 2, but in reality James here starts a new topic, that of prayer. There is a delicate hint in the use | ‘of the middle voice (aireic@ar) here that they had not put their hearts into their prayers. ‘Ye ask’ with 1See Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the Light of Historical Research, p. 805, for discussion of the distinction between aité and aitovuat, The Schol. Aristoph. 15. 6 says: TO pév ait@ TO arAa Cyto, Td dé altovpat we’ ixesiac, That is it exactly. In prayer one must seek with passion. The Syro-Phcenician woman, pleading for her daughter, said: ‘‘Lord, help me’’ (Matt. 15:25). So Herod Antipas said to Salome: Alryodv ye 5 édv 6éAnc, while she said to her mother in eagerness and perplexity: Ti airfowuat. Since the middle denotes more earnestness, it is quite frequent in the papyri. THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 197 the mere form of words (eireite) and naturally ‘‘re- ceive not’ (ov AauBdvere), ‘because ye ask amiss’ (dvéTt xaxw@e aiteiofe), ‘‘wrongly’’ (Kaxo¢), as in John 18:23. Their prayers are vitiated by the evil purpose, “‘that ye may spend it in your pleasures’’ (iva év taic Hdovaic danavijonte), ‘with the wicked in- tention of spending it on your pleasures’”’ (Moffatt). Even Epictetus (Cod. Vat. 3) says of the gods: “And then shall they give to thee the good things when thou rejoicest not in pleasure (jdo0r7), but in” virtue.” How often we all miss it in prayer! We ask for what we should not, staking our judgment ° against that of God. We ask with a spirit of rebel- lion and not of subjection to the will of God (4: 7). We ask, not for the glory of God nor for the blessing of others, but for the gratification of our own selfish pleasures (7jdovai) even when the things asked for are good in themselves. We may even get to the point where we dare ask God for what is not good in itself. ‘‘No asking from God which takes place in a wrong frame of mind towards him or towards the object asked has anything to do with prayer. It is an evil asking’’ (Hort). God cannot be made a pri- vate asset to further our own selfish interests or to ° serve the wicked world (cf. 1 Tim. 6:4f.). ‘If we ask (aitéye0a) anything according to his will, he heareth us’’ (1 John 5:14). The word in James for “spend” (daravdw) means to ‘‘consume,’’ to “‘waste,”’ to “‘dissipate.’’ It is used of the Prodigal Son who “spent all’? (Luke 15:14). Prayer is probably the poorest of all our spiritual exercises. It should be the most constant and the most helpful. It calls 198 (PRACTICAL AND: SOGIAL ‘ASPECTS for searching of heart and all sincerity. It is right and proper to pray for our daily bread (Matt. 6: 11), provided we do our daily tasks so as to earn our daily bread. God does not mean prayer to be a substitute for work. Trust is not anxiety (Matt. © 6:31), but it is also not presumption. The use of — the ‘‘name’’ of Jesus does not cause the door of grace to spring open for us unless we put ourselves under the rule of Jesus. 3. The Friendship of the World. 4:4. The words “adulterers and” of the Authorized | Version are not genuine, occurring in late documents. The sudden outburst, “ye adulteresses’’ (woryadidec), “wanton creatures’ (Moffatt), leaves one in doubt — whether James is singling out one special form of sin so common in the world (Hort) or is using the word in the figurative sense (Mayor) so frequent in the Old Testament for the sin of idolatry (cf. Psa. 73:27; Ezek. 23:27; Hos. 2:2; Isa. 57). Jesus de nounced his age in Palestine as ‘‘an evil and adul- terous generation” (Matt. 12:39). It will make © good sense with either interpretation. Oecsterley ar- gues that “the depraved state of morals to which the whole section bears witness must, in part at least, have been due to the wickedness and co- operation of the women, so that there is nothing strange in their being specifically mentioned in con- nection with that form of sin with which they would be more particularly associated.” Such a sin ought not, to be sure, to be found among Christians, but 1 Cor. 5 shows how early it appeared in the church THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 199 in Corinth, a peculiarly licentious city. The pres- sure of the easy-going, laissez-faire life of the world on this point is hard upon true Christians in all the ages. It is not merely that a double standard of morals is claimed by men of the world for them- selves, though denied to their own wives, but they are aggressive against the virtue of the daughters and wives of other men. This age-long evil is con- doned even by women of the world who are clean themselves in a blind surrender to the fact that men seem to be hopelessly evil and they let it go at that. If the word ‘‘adulteresses’’ is here taken literally, as is probable, James makes a bold appeal to women of pleasure (7d0v7) to cease from sin and to let God rule in their lives. It is surely worth while to make such an appeal even to those who seem to be hopelessly abandoned to the evil world. But it is preeminently worth while to seek to warn - and to prevent from ruin the young men and women of our day. The facts about this ‘Ancient Evil’ are presented with fearful plainness and power by Miss Jane Addams from the standpoint of the ““New Conscience.”” At last American cities are seeing the folly of calm acquiescence in the presence of this monster evil which should be driven out with lash and whip. ‘‘Know ye not” (ov« oidate), says James with heat, ‘“‘that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” (dtc 4 gtAia tov Kéopov éxGpa Tov Oeov étoriv;) Pastors sometimes find men and women living in adultery and complacently keeping up their church connections. James means to show the utter inconsistency of such a course of conduct. 200 PRACTICAL: AND: SOCIAEVASPEGES ‘ ; But, if ‘“‘adulteresses’’ is taken in the figurative | 4 sense, there is still the friendship of the world that — is enmity with God. The friendship of the world is preferred to that of God. World (oouoc)! here is — not the earth with all its beauty and charm (God’s world made by him. Cf. Psa. 19), nor mankind, for whom Christ died (John 3:16), but that world of © selfish pleasure and sin out of which Christ called his disciples and which in turn hated them as it © hated Christ (John 15:18ff.). This ‘world’ will only love (g:Aéw) as a familiar friend (dtAoc) those who cater to its ideals and standards, who condone ~ its slackness of morals and neglect of God. This cleavage between the wayward wicked world and the kingdom of God is a fact of the utmost signifi- cance (John 17: 15ff.). The Christian has to learn the secret of living in such a worldly atmosphere without being contaminated by it. One does not : wish to be considered a religious crank and queer. ‘He desires to have influence with his friends and business acquaintances. But one cannot be a “‘hale fellow well-met” in sin and every form of worldly indulgence and retain his influence for God. The time comes when a choice must be made between friends, for that sort of life in the world becomes incompatible with friendship with God. One must 'The xéouw¢ was originally “order.” The order and beauty of God’s world are attractive to the right-minded man (Rom. 1: 20). It is applied to the people of the earth (John 1:29) and then to the believers who are alienated from God (John 8: 23; 12:31), this world which the devil rules (John 14:30; 1 John 5:19), whose spirit is hostile to that of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12), against which James has already (1:25) warned his readers. THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 2o1 make his choice. ‘If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). One cannot run with the hare and the hounds. The devil makes no objection to such a double life of hypocrisy, but God does. God is gracious and for- giving to sinners who repent, but has no mercy for presumptuous sinners who defy his kindness and keep in touch with the devil and his circles of evil. The word ‘‘enmity”’ (&y3ea) is the term for personal hostility. Preference for sin constitutes a personal, offense towards God, who can have no rival any more than a true wife can suffer a rival in the affections of her husband. ‘“The mind of the flesh is enmity against God” (Rom. 8:7).!. One must make his choice. “‘No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24). Plummer argues clearly that James does not condemn the scientist’s love of nature nor the sociologist’s enthusiasm which, forsooth, is not always shared in by preachers as much as is desirable. Preaching often is so given to denunciation of sin that it fails to exalt the possi- bilities of the right sort of manhood. It thus repels the very men that it wishes to attract. So far from that, love for man is one of the main proofs of love for God (1 John 4:20). The passion for the souls of men is the true mark of the redeemed. Paul (Titus 2:12) urges that “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts’ (ra¢ noopexac émOvpiac), “we should léydpa ei¢ Oe6v, The objective genitive in James 4:4, éx¥pa tov Gov, has the same import. 202 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS live godly in this present world’ (cbceBi¢ Shower ev T@ viv al@v.) or “‘age’’ more exactly. ‘‘Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God’ (¢ éav ody BovanOy pido elvat TOU KOojwov, ExSpo0¢ tov Oeov Kabiotata), ‘“who-— ever, then, chooses to be the world’s friend turns enemy to God” (Moffatt). One makes his choice - (GovAn67) as he is able to do by the exercise of his own will and purpose (Sova#). But, once and finally made, he renders himself (xadioratat) ipso facto an enemy to God (éy9pd¢ rod Oeov). There is no help for it so long as God is really the God of purity and righteousness. Josephus calls Poppa, the infamous — wife of Nero and proselyte to Judaism, a worshipper of God (GeoaeBijc, Ant. xx. 8. 11), but surely such “worship’”’ was not acceptable to God. James (2: 23) has termed Abraham “‘the friend of God” (giAoc deov), but he entered into that relation to God on — terms of obedience to God as Lord. On no other i terms is friendship with God possible. It is not a question of one’s feelings, but of the actual state of affairs. ‘“To be on terms of friendship with the world involves living on terms of enmity with God’ (Hort). The word “friendship” (q:Aéa) does not itself occur elsewhere in the New Testament, though — it is found several times in Proverbs, but the words — “friend”’ (gidoc) and to “love as a friend” (gAéw) © are common enough. Gildersleeve (Justin Martyr, — ie p. 135) notes that Xenophon uses the two verbs for — 0 love (dyardéw and ¢:Aéw) as synonymous. But in the | i oe = tm — " 4 a 4 a ose * He also remarks that ¢yardo is a colder word than ¢Aéw and is - more common in the N. T. to avoid the idea of kissing in q:Aéw, j THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 203 New Testament there is a distinction drawn in John 21:15-17. The one (dya7déw) is the ‘‘deeper”’ —and richer word, while the other (¢:Aéw) is the ‘“‘more human” (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the N. T., p. 2). Certainly, one has no right to claim intimate family relationship with God as his friend while at the same time living in adulterous relations with the sinful world that hates God. The ‘‘seduc- tions of the world’”’ (Plummer) are very real and very many, but surrender to them is not consonant with the fellowship of God. The law of spiritual life is not always understood. Some men wonder why they are not spiritually happy, why they do not enjoy religion. They are living in sin with the world and yet marvel at their lack of communion with God. 4. The Yearning of the Spirit for Us. 4: 5f. “Or think ye?’ (7 doxeite), says James, as the alternative. Either the friendship of the world is enmity with God or you think that ‘‘the Scripture speaketh in vain” (kevic 7 yoady Aéyer). ‘‘What, do you consider this an idle word of Scripture?’ (Mof- fatt). This rhetorical question expects an indignant denial. Therefore the argument holds that the friendship of the world is enmity with God. But what is the Scripture? Is it only the passage in verse 6 that is referred to? The punctuation of the Revised Version allows that. We have two ques- Epictetus uses ayatdw in the classical sense of ‘‘be content,’ but once (Stob. 9) “in a sense approaching that of N. T. love’’ (Sharp, Epictetus, and the N. T., p. 126). 204), PRACTICAL AND SOCTAL. ASPECIS tions before the one quotation. But it may be that the general sense of Scripture is meant by the first question. Usually ‘“‘the Scripture’’ occurs before a direct quotation, as in Rom. 4:3. Some would take the rest of verse 5 after the first question as a quota- tion, although no such quotation occurs in the Old Testament. The general sense appears in various parts of the Old Testament, as in Exod. 20:5: “I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God’”’ (@ed¢ SnAwrije). Cf. Isa. 63: 8-16; Zech. 8:2. Odcesterley even sees a direct allusion to Gal. 5:17, 21; Rom. 8:6, 8.7 Cor 3:16, and an argument for the late date of the Epistle of James. But this is forcing the matter rather stiffly. The New Testament writers seem to have used chains of quotations (catenz), as, for in- stance, in Rom. 3: 10-18. Paul probably makes a free paraphrase of Isa. 64:4 in 1 Cor. 2:9 and of Isa. 60:1, 2 in Eph. 5:14. Either this is what is done here or James is already referring to verse 6, a quotation from Prov. 3: 34. It is not necessary to take the second sentence in 3 verse 5 as a question. We may follow the margin: 4 “The spirit which he made to dwell in us he yearneth — for even unto jealous envy,”’ or “‘with jealousy doth He yearn after the spirit which he caused to dwell in us’’ (Hort), or ‘‘He yearns jealously for the spirit he set within us” (Moffatt), (mode O6vov énitobei rd Tvevua O Katoxtoey év quiv), In one case (the ques- tion) we take the Spirit as subject and as the Holy Spirit. In the other case (the affirmation) we take spirit as object and as our redeemed spirit planted in us by God (cf. Rom. 8: 4-16 for both ideas). In THE OUTER AND THE INNER) LIFE 2os either rendering it is the Spirit of God (cf. Rom. 8: 9) who dwells in us and helps us strive against the evil forces of the world in our own hearts. God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts (Gal. 4: 6), who helps us in the fight with the flesh (Gal. 5: 16- 26). It is the doctrine of the Indwelling Spirit of God, a very precious doctrine in the New Testament MObOn7: 39;, 10.75, Kom, 8:11.00) CGor.3) 16;)Gal. 4-6; Eph. 3:17; 4:30). The Spirit. of God has made his home (xat@xoev, from olkog and xaré) in- us. This is our glory and our hope. The word for “yearn” (émmodei) is a very strong one. It is the verb in Psa. 42:1 (LXX): ‘‘As the hart panteth (émurodet) after the water brooks, so panteth: (érro- Sei) my soul after thee, O God.” Peter uses it of . the longing of new-born babes after the sincere milk of the word (1 Pet. 2:2). So Paul yearns after (émmo90) the Philippians (Phil. 1:8). There are ‘many interpretations and many ways of punctuating ‘the words ‘‘unto jealous envy’ or “with jealousy”’ (red¢ PO6vov). We may not tarry over them. Prob- ably the idea is that the Holy Spirit covets our souls. He does not wish the devil to have us. Usually this word for ‘‘jealous envy”’ (@6é6voc) has a bad sense, but the context here makes it clear. God is a jealous God. He can brook no rival in our hearts. God wishes the whole of our hearts’ love, not just a part. He claims the rights of a loving husband to all our hearts’ devotion. In our hours of doubt and weakness “‘the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered’? (Rom, 8: 26, brepevtvyydver orev- 206 PRACTICAL ANDSOCIAL ASPECTS aypoic ddadjtoc), We may thank God that he is qa jealous God for his people Israel. He broods over _ his children with a mother’s love and longing for their growth and development. “But he giveth more grace” (eigova dé didwou xaolv), literally ‘greater grace,” “yet he gives grace more and more’ (Moffatt). The words ‘“‘giveth © grace’ (didwouy xdgev) come from the quotation fol- lowing (Prov. 3:34). The effect of this jealous affection on God’s part is not to abandon us, but to heap more and richer favors upon us. God demands > of us whole-hearted surrender and service, but he pours out the wealth of his love upon us. ‘‘God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the hum- ble’ (6 Oed¢ drepnddvore dvtitdoceral tamewvoic dé didw- ov yao). This Septuagint quotation (see also rt Pet. 5:5) is a free translation of the idea in the Hebrew text. Itis the striking figure of God stand- ing in the way (dvtitdocerat), across the path of the proud man who carries his head so high above others (irepijpavoc). He will in due time be brought low. Pride goeth before a fall, for God is to be met along that road. (Cf. Acts 18:6; Rom. 13:2.) The man of the world feels no need of God and feels secure and serene. But he reckons without his ~ host. God shows favor (didwo yéerv) to the hum- ble (ranevoic. Cf. the contrast in 1:10). The proud men think themselves the monopolists (Hort) — of divine favor, but they find out sooner or later that they are passed by in favor of the man with © lowliness of spirit and nobility of life, who makes — God, not the world, the Lord of his life. This man — THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 207 God honors with far more “‘grace’’ than the world can offer. He will have trouble (“‘with persecu- tions’), no doubt, but “‘he shall receive a hundred- - fold now in this time,’’ while ‘‘in the world to come eternal life’? (Mark 10: 20f.). The prince in God’s kingdom and at his court is not the man who wears the trappings of earthly rank and station, but the one who caught the spirit of Jesus and sought to do good to all as he found opportunity. © Plummer wonders if James had not heard his mother recite the Magnificat. Certainly, he here echoes the same beautiful spirit. 5. Choice Between God and the Devil. 4:7, 8a. It comes to this at bottom, that a man must de- cide whether God is to rule his life or not. It is self or God, and that is the same thing as the devil or God, for a self without God is ruled by the devil. “Be subject therefore unto God”’ (imordynre obv 7G 6eq), since, as James has shown in verse 6, God gives grace to the humble and withstands the proud. The idea is like that in Psa. 3:7 (LXX): “Be sub- ject to the Lord” (érordéynh& 7G xvpiw). ‘The proud spirit has to be curbed”’ (Oesterley). Peter has ex- panded this idea in a great passage (1 Pet. 5: 6-0). Our only hope is under the leadership of God. The devil is the “prince of the world’’ (6 rod kéopov dpywr. John 14:30), and he has plenty of help in the world rulers of darkness (Eph. 6: 11f.). The proud and self-willed are sure to fall into his condemna- fon (1 Tim. 3: 6). “But resist the devil” (dvriotnte dé TO dtaB6Aw). 208 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ‘ASPECTS Take your stand (note the aorist tense) in the face of (dvri) the devil, the great hinderer and slanderer (dtdBoroc), The fight is on between the forces of God and Satan, and one must take sides. A man once said that he wished to be impartial in the struggle between God and the devil. That species of liberality is out of the question. He that is not with Christ is against him. There is no middle ground. James does not stop to parley over the existence of the devil. He assumes the reality of the dread agent of evil who is bent on the destruc- tion of all that is good in man. The point to see clearly is that there is but one thing to do, and that is to fight the devil, not with fire, but with the word of God, with the help of the Spirit of God. ‘Get thee hence, Satan,’’ Jesus had to say (Matt. 4: 10). “And he will flee from you’’ (kat debterar dd’ budv). The devil will run if we fight him with the might of God. One way to submit to God is to fight off the devil. But it is not all negative. The converse is true also. “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you’ (éyylcate 76 OG, nai tyyioes tyiv). The He- brew had a technical term for drawing nigh to God for the purpose of worship (Exod. 19: 22; Jer. 30: 21). It is not true that the devil is irresistible and that it is useless to oppose him (Plummer). This is one of the pleas of the devil himself to break down the resisting power of the human will and so to take all fight out of us. The principle that James here an- nounces is true to Scripture, to psychology, and to human experience. If we draw nigh to the devil he THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 209 will draw nigh to us. If we resist him he will flee from us. If we resist God, even God will finally depart from us and leave us to our sins. If we ap- proach God in worship he opens his heart to us. “Return unto me, and I will return unto you” (Zech. 1:3). “To this end the Son of man was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). ‘‘The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him” (Psa. 145:18). God first draws nigh unto us (John 16: 16) and when we respond, lo, he is there before us. The place of safety and of power for the Christian is the Throne of Grace. There he has a mighty Friend and Helper (Heb. 4:16). We can draw close to God as a child to his father in the dark and feel his Presence. 6. A Call to Repentance. 4: 8b—to. Here James speaks like one of the Old Testament prophets. His Epistle, while thoroughly Christian, is yet nearer to the standpoint of the Old Testament prophets than any other book in the New Testa- ment. ‘‘Cleanse your hands, ye sinners’’ («a@apioare . xeloac, duaptwAoi). The priests washed their hands before they entered the tabernacle to worship (Exod. B0:19-21; Lev. 16:4). It was natural for the language to be applied to moral purity: “I will wash my hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O God” (Psa. 26:6). See also Heb. 10: 22. So Pilate sought to emphasize his own freedom (!) from guilt by washing his hands (Matt. 27:24), if by so doing he might also soothe his own conscience. It is now as it has always been: ‘‘Who shall ascend 210 \PRACTIGAL AND SOCIAL ASPRO GS unto the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a purerheart q.itihsanoncat: | The clean hands signify little in a moral sense, however desirable for sanitary and other reasons, unless the heart is also clean. Indeed, the Pharisees came to make the cleansing of the hands a sub- stitute for moral cleanness (Mark 7: 8ff.). ‘Purify your hearts, ye double-minded” (éyvicare Kapdiac, dapuyo). The word for purification here is the common one for ceremonial cleansing (Exod. 19: 10), but the idea is figurative, as in 1 Pet. 1:22 and 1 John 3:3. James seems to refer to Psa. 73:13: “Wash you, make you clean” (Actcacbe abapot yiv- eo0e, Isa. 1:16). The double-minded (daboyor. Cf. James 1: 8) must no longer halt between two opinions. i They must forsake the world and give God the whole heart. It is a brave word for reality in re-_ ligion and against the hollow mockery of mere lip” service. In verse 9 we have a rather unusual exhortation — for the New Testament. The word for repentance (uerdévora) does not mean sorrow, but change of mind and life. The need for a change implies sorrow for. the sins of one’s life, to be sure. But one may have : sorrow and still not change his heart and life. The \ thing that counts is the change, not the degree of the - sorrow. But, certainly, sorrow for sin is appropriate — and natural for the sinner who turns away from it. ' There is certainly room for the appeal to “be . afflicted and mourn and weep” (radatwpnoate nad mevOnoaTe Kai KAavoate, all aorists with a note of | THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE art urgency in the tense). One is reminded of the ‘‘woe’”’ of Jesus in Luke 6:25. We have here a call to the godly sorrow described in 2 Cor. 7:10. There is a time to laugh and a time to mourn; yes, and a time for laughter to be turned (vetatpan7jrw) to mourning and even for joy to be turned into heaviness (atjpecav),! like the poor publican with downcast eyes in the temple before God (Luke 18:13). ‘The words ex- press the contrast between the loud unseemly gaiety of the pleasure-seeker, and the subdued mien and downcast look of the penitent’ (Oesterley). ‘Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord” (rarervGOnre évomioy Kvpiov). This is the only proper attitude for the sinner, whether saved or unsaved. wee the same figure in 1 Pet. 5:6. The proud Phari- see in Luke 18:11 is the picture of all that worship should not be. ‘“‘And he shall exalt you”’ (kai tyaoe tude). Thisis the law of grace, as is often stated by Jesus: ‘‘Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted’’ (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11). But the man that humbles himself before the eye of (évamoyv) the Lord must do so because of real apprehension of his own sin and need of forgiveness, not for the purpose of future exaltation to be obtained by momentary self- abnegation. The delicate balance of motives here is preserved. The promise will come true, if only one 1See again Luke 6:25. Better mourn now than always here- after. Karjgeca is a classical word that occurs here only in the N. T. It expresses the look of one who has his eyes down upon the ground. 212. PRACTICAL MAND USOGLA TL] Tiss Pages really turns to the Lord with sincerity of heart. _Nothing is more needed to-day than just this pros- tration before God. 7, Captious Criticism. 4:11. Moffatt places these verses just after 2: 13, since this ‘‘seems to have been its original place.”’ This is the position also given by Oesterley. And yet it is quite possible that James here merely recurs to. the subject of the loose tongue, as he had already done once (cf. 1: 26; 3: 2ff.). .See also 5:12. He has) “one word more’ on this burning topic, a sort of. postscript on the tongue, an extremely difficult sub-_ ject to say the last word about. ‘‘Speak not against one another, brethren” (7) natadareite dAAjAwY, ddei- ; doi). The tense of the verb (present durative) im- ples that some of them had been doing precisely this thing. It is so easy to ‘‘talk down on one” (xaTadadov), to act as critic (xpivwv, cf. Matt. 7:1) of one’s brother in Christ. We cannot help form-— ‘ing opinions of each other, but we can avoid captious criticism, sharp and needless censure. The point made by James is that this habit assumes the right to judge the very law of God. It is far easier to play the part of critic (xgiric) of the law than to be a doer (mounrijc) of the law. Destructive criticism is always the cheaper exercise — and the more useless. Constructive criticism is more creative and much harder. There is one supreme — lawgiver (vowobérne) and judge, “he who is able to” save and destroy” (6 dvvduevog oioa nai drodioa), ‘This power belongs to God, the Creator (Matt. eg Se THE OUTER AND THE INNER LIFE 2713 10:28; Luke 6:9), not to man, the creature. The critic of the law prefers to find flaws in the law rather than to undertake to obey it. He assumes that he can enact a better law, but it is all assump- tion. James shows his impatience with such criti- cism by saying: ‘But who art thou that judgest thy neighbor?’ (od dé tic el, 6 xpivwy tov TAnoiov). See Rom. 14:4. In common law we are to give every. man the benefit of the doubt and to assume his innocence till his guilt is proven. But in current speech the sharp tongue follows no such rule of reason, but creates suspicion and sows hate and strife at every turn. CHAPTER UXT Gop AND BUSINEss. 4:13-5:6 The arrogance of the sinful heart is clearly shown here. Such a heart prefers worldliness to the worship of God (see 4: 1-10) and flippantly criti-. cises one’s neighbors with light-hearted satisfaction with self and a positive love of fault-finding (4:11f). This easy arrogance faces the future with unconcern. No look Godward is taken in their business ventures. James “opposes the irreligious sense of travelling merchants”? (Windisch)'. These Jews of the Dia-— spora had come to have a considerable part of the. business of the Roman Empire. They professed - to be servants of God, but in practice they often denied and ignored the God of their fathers. 1. Leaving God out of Account. 4:13-15. One may hope that James alludes to the Jewishl “merchants, not Jewish Christians. Certainly those | Jewish merchants who became Christians con- tinued their business, though not in a Godless fash-_ | ion. The merchant has one of the most useful and most honorable of all callings, but it seems lead that some of the Jewish merchants had already brought disfavor upon the business by their sharp — practices. See Sirach 26:29. ‘‘A merchant will hardly keep himself from doing wrong; and a huck- * Wider den irreligidsen Sinn der Geschaftsreisenden. 214 GOD AND BUSINESS 218 ster will not be declared free from sin.’’ This piece of moralizing is evidently occasioned by some tricks in trade indulged in by Jewish merchants. One is bound to admit that some modern Jews retain some of the same reputation in certain lines of trade. The very term “‘Jewing’’ in current use is an illus- tration of this trait. There were then as now enough Jewish merchants who dealt in business on un- ethical lines to create suspicion. But the point that James makes is a peril to Christian merchants also. The keen competition in all kinds of business is a . constant temptation to violate the Golden Rule and to ignore God as well as the welfare of one’s cus- tomers in order to make money and to meet a rival who is unscrupulous in trade. The Christian drummer to-day can do business on a high plane. Hustle and enterprise need not condescend to under- hand methods. It is a pleasure to note the activity . of the Gideons, an organization of Christian drum- mers who, among other useful things, have placed copies of the Bible in the rooms of most American hotels. Mr. J. H. Mills, a quaint layman of North - Carolina, used to say that the Good Samaritan was a drummer. In Palestine the Jews held on to the agricultural life, but in the Diaspora they were merchants and bankers. Philo (In Flaccum VIII) gives a picture of the Jewish merchants and bankers in Alexandria. Josephus (Ant. XII, 2-5) alludes to the Jewish travelling merchant about B. C. 175. It is one of the wonders of history how, the Jews, scattered over the world, finally without a land of their own, have yet by their wits maintained them- 216 'PRACTICAL MAND: SOCTAD VASE Bhs selves as a race and a religion and have been leaders in business, in art, in music, in politics, in literature. “Come now, ye that say” (dye viv of Aéyortec)’ is the impatient challenge of James to those who leave God out of account in their plans for the future. The tone of impatience is due to the conviction that one should be so conscious of his own weakness as not to boast about the future. ‘‘To-day or to- morrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain’”’ (o7juepov 7} aveov Tmropev- obueOa eig tHhvde THY TOALY Kal TotnoouEv Exe EviavToY Kai éuTropevodueda Kai Kepdjoouev), And then we shall move on to the next town and work that with our wares, for all the world like a modern ‘‘fire sale’ or second-hand clothing store with its bankruptcy or fire features. The picture is drawn from life. The use of ‘‘this city’’ (ride riv méAuv) is merely typical, as if James were pointing it out on the map (Mayor), and is more vivid than ‘‘such and such a city.” In James 1:11 we read that the rich man shall “fade away in his goings’’ (év raic mogeiasc), an allusion to the travels of the rich merchants. We — see the rapid movements of the Jewish Christians — illustrated by the travels of Aquila and Priscilla, — who come from Rome to Corinth (Acts 18: 1f.), then © to Ephesus (18:18), to Rome again (Rom. 16:3), and back to Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:19). The phrase “spend a year there’ (rovjoowev éxet éviavtdv) is liter- — 1 The use of dye with of Aéyovtes causes no trouble as dye is a mere } interjection. See Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the © Light of Hist. Research, pp. 941, 949. It occurs thus in the LXX. Cf. Judg. 19:6; 2 Kings 4:24. eS GOD AND BUSINESS 217 ally ‘‘do a year there,’ and the idiom occurs also m/ Acts. 15:33; 20:3) (cf.. Prov. 13:23)..: The wide dispersion of the Jews all over the Roman Em- pire. gave them business connections that made it easy to get new business and to hold the old trade. The very word here for “‘trade’’ (éurogeva6- peda) means to travel into (éumopetouar) a region to get \the business just like a modern drummer or commercial traveller. Our word emporium (éu- mégtov) is just this word. The Jews made the very: Temple itself ‘“‘a house of merchandise’ (olxov éutopiov). So then trading implied travelling for the business (Matt. 22:5). In 2 Pet. 2:3 a sombre light is thrown by this same word. ‘‘And in covetous- ness shall they with feigned words make merchan- dise of you” (dpa éuropedoortat).t “And get gain” (kat xepdjoowev). This is the climax of the whole, the aim of the journeys and the trading. ‘‘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” (Plummer). There is no harm in planning to make money nor in travel for that purpose. The harm lies in the complete ignoring of God in all their plans. “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the mor- row’ (oltivec tHe avetov),” “you who know nothing 1 Transitive use of the verb. 2 Note the causal use of olrvveec, not indefinite, but more definite. Westcott and Hort read ta 77¢ avpiov in the margin, ‘‘the things of the to-morrow day”’ (7épac, understood). 218 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS about to-morrow’ (Moffatt). James has ample authority in this statement. ‘‘Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth” (Prov. 27 : 1). The prohibition implies a carelessness about the future that grew out of indifference to God. There is a rabbinical saying (Sanhed. toob) to this effect. “Care not for the morrow, for ye know not what a day may bring forth.” James is condemning those who make their plans for the future with God left out of the problem, as if all were in their own hands. Jesus spoke the wonderful parable of the Rich Fool for the benefit of two brothers who were quarrelling over the estate: ‘“‘Soul, thou hast much goods laid ‘up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry.” This was the worldly-wise view of the Cyrenaics and the Epicureans and is the standpoint of multitudes of modern men who under the influence of Monism (like Haeckel) deny the existence of a personal God or who act as if there were no God. ‘‘The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.’ (Psa. 14:1). But God replies to the fool, ‘“Thou — foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?’ Jesus does not contradict this position when he says: ‘‘Be not therefore anxious (uepyuvjonte) for the morrow; for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” (Matt. 6:34). He is here condemning — over-anxiety that is as distrustful of God as reckless _ unconcern. There is the golden mean of calm © 1 ug Kavye Ta El¢ abplov, ov yap y.vookere Ti TéEETAL H ETLOVOR. GOD AND BUSINESS 219 trust in God. We are not to live at haphazard without plan or purpose. We areto make plans, only we must put God into our preparations. It is cowardly to be superstitious in the anticipation of evil. Some people knock on wood if they happen to boast a bit. Others are superstitious about the number thirteen, about Friday, about the moon, and a hundred other hallucinations. The point with these Jews is not worry or superstition, but irreligion. There are multitudes of practical pagans to-day who reck not about God, who fear not God nor regard man. They carry on their | business with no thought of God and no fear of consequences for their evil practices. They wreck a bank or a railroad with equal nonchalance and care not for the suffering in the homes of the poor caused thereby. As a matter of fact we are ignorant of the morrow. We do not know the weather of the morrow with certainty in spite of our signal service. Many rail- road accidents are due to the unknown elements in the problems of travel. A faulty rail, a broken tie, a weakened wheel, a rolling stone, a careless brake- man, a sleeping switchman, a malicious robber, a hundred and one things may happen, any one of which will cause death to helpless victims. ‘““The’ best laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft a-gley.’’_ ) The uncertainty of life is one of the things that a wise man must consider and face. A clot of blood’ on the brain may cause instant and unexpected death. The heart, driven too hard, may suddenly cease to beat. “‘What is your life?” (mola 9 gwi 220 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS ipov;). He does not mean manner of life (Gioc) nor the life principle nor eternal life. The question concerns all, the good and the wicked alike. The question as to the character (roia, of what sort) of life pertains to its brevity and uncertainty on earth. “For ye are a vapor’’ (dtpic yde éore), ‘you are but a mist’? (Moffatt). The word is common for smoke, as the “smoke of furnace’”’ (Gen. 19: 28), “‘vapor of smoke’’ (dtuic xanvov, Acts 2:19; from Joel 2: 30), steam or breath. So our ‘‘atmosphere.”’ Job la- mented (7:7): “O remember that my life is a breath” (rvetud pov 7 Son). We are a vapor “that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away’ (mpd¢ dAiyov patvonévn, Ereita nai ddavicouérvn).* Aristotle (Hist. An. vi. 7) uses these two verbs of the appearance (¢aiverat) and the disappearance (dpavigerat) of a flock of birds as they sweep across the sky. The usage occurs also of the eclipse of the sun. The transitoriness of human life should lead to full and hearty recognition of God, not to careless slighting of Him. “For that ye ought to say,’’ more exactly “In- stead of your saying’? (dvr? rob Aéyery tpac),? “If the Lord will’ (ay 6 Kiguoe 6é4n) “we shall both live, and do this or that” (kal Sjoouev nat rovfoouer TovTo 7} éxeivo). James does not, of course, mean that one should always say these words. That ‘gets to be cant or mere clap-trap. It becomes * Note the play on the same verb here. For mpd¢ dAiyov, see 1 Tim. 4:8. 2A neat Greek idiom, the preposition with the infinitive. Cf. Psa. 108:4, avti tov dyaray pe. GOD AND BUSINESS 221 repellent to hear one use the name of God flippantly and constantly. Besides, it comes to signify little or nothing, as one may count his beads or say his Pater Nosters with no regard to what he is doing. The Jews made a point not to use the name of God too familiarly. They often used ‘“‘the Name’’ for God, and Christians came to refer to Christ in the same way, ‘for the Name’ (Acts 5:41). The late Jews came, perhaps under Mohammedan influence, to use the formula “If the Name wills,’’ when about to start upon a journey (Oesterley). The rabbis (Plummer) have a story of a Jewish father who at the circumcision of his son, boasted that with seven- year-old wine he would celebrate for a long time the birth of his son. That night Rabbi Simeon meets the Angel of Death and asks him ‘‘Why art thou thus wandering about?’ The angel replies: ‘‘Be-’ cause I slay those who say, we will do this or that, and think not how soon death may come upon them.” The thing that matters is for us to have the right attitude of heart toward God, not the chattering of a formula. God does not have to be propitiated by a charm or amulet. God should be the silent partner in all our plans and work, to be consulted, to be followed whenever his will is made known. Paul frequently spoke of his plans, some- times mentioning God as in Acts 18: 21 (God willing,, ‘tov Oeov Oédovtoc) and 1 Cor. 4:19 (if the Lord will, édv 6 Kigtog GeAzjon) and 1 Cor. 16:7 (if the Lord per- mit, éav 6 Kiotoc émirpémn), but also with no mention of God in words as in Acts 19: 21; Rom. 15: 28; 1 Cor. 16:5. But always Paul felt that his movements 222 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS were “in the Lord” (év Kveiw) as in Phil. 2:24. He never left God out of his life. 2. Conscious Opposition. 4:16. It is bad enough to ignore God as so many men, alas, do. A slight is almost as hard to bear as an ‘insult, but not quite. However, a positive refusal to do God’s known will is worse. “But now” (viv dé), as is really the case (cf. 1 Cor. 14:6), “But here you are’ (Moffatt), instead of your trust in God, “ye glory in your vauntings’’ (kavydo6e éy taic Gdacvoviatc tuwv). In their pride of life (7 dAagovia rod Biov, 1 John 2:16) they practically defied God. The word (daagov) meant originally a wanderer (dan) about the country, a vagabond, a Scotch landlouper, a swaggerer, an impostor, a braggart. In Job 2:8 we find the ‘‘children of pride” (viot dragovwv). “And I exalted not myself in arrogance (Test. Joseph XVII, 8). And Jesus said: “I am among you as one that serveth” (Luke 22: 27). These men were exalting themselves at the expense — of God, They were running against the known will of God. One of the rabbis says: ‘‘It is revealed — and known before Thee that our will is to do Thy will’? (Berachoth, 17a). ‘“‘All such glorying is evil” — (doa Kavynotc tolattn Tovnod éortv), says James. It is not wicked (moved) per se to boast (cf. 1:9), but such boasting as this is wicked and only wicked © 191 like the wicked one (6 movypéc). It is not impossible © to know the will of God if one will pay the price. — “Tf any man willeth to do (0éAy zovsiv) his will, 1 éy adalovia, \ q | o_O Oe — GOD AND BUSINESS 223 he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God” (John 7:17). The way opens out to the one who is willing to put God to the test. ‘‘The boaster - forgets that life depends on the will of God” (Mayor). 3. Negative Sin. 4:17. In a way this verse is a summary of the entire SM cmiCh at O20 lata Sco tTh rraind oT rE ence James’ “‘therefore”’ (ovv) is quite in point. Moffatt places this verse at the end of chapter 2. Spitta, however, finds no connection in the context and takes © it as a familiar quotation. This may indeed be a reference to the words of Jesus in Luke 12: 47: ‘‘That , servant, who knew his lord’s will, and made not ready, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” There is an excusable ignor- ance or at least a mollifying ignorance (cf. Luke 12:48; Acts 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:13). There is pallia- tion for unconscious sins. But James is dealing with failure to obey the will of God. It is conscious . and wilful sin, but of the negative kind. ‘These sins of omission (peccata omissionis) are treated lightly by many people. The Talmud in general takes this easy position on the subject. Oesterley quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma viii, 6) on Zeph. 1: 12: “T will search Jerusalem with candles, and I will punish the men” which adds: ‘‘not by daylight, nor with the torch, but with candles, so as not to detect venial sins.’”’ But he adds also this (Shabbath, 54b): “Whosoever is in a position to prevent sins being committed in his household, but refrains from doing 224, PRACTICAL, AND SOGIAD ASPEROTS so, becomes liable for their sins.’?’ And in 1 Sam. .12: 23 we read, “‘God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you.” Jesus made it plain that he considered sins of omission as real sins: ‘‘These things ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone” (Matt. 23: 23). Hear his tragic words to the deluded sinner at the judgment bar:. “I was hungry, and ye did not ‘give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick and in prison, and ye visited me not” (Matt. 25: 4ef.). The repetition of ‘‘not’’ here is like the tolling of a bell. Hear then James: ‘‘To him therefore that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin’’ (cld6re ovv Kaddv ToLeivy Kai un ToLlovYTL, daria avt@ éotiv). So also Paul urged the Galatians not to grow weary in doing the good or beautiful (Gall. 6:9, T6 Kaddv tovovvtec). It is so easy to shut one’s - eyes and not to see the opportunities for service. It is so easy to let prejudice blind us to the needs of the real neighbor, as the priest and the Levite passed — by on the other side (dyrimap7AGev) and left the poor wounded man to suffer (Luke 10: 31f.). The point that James is anxious to make is that this blindness is sin. The man who has learned how to do the high and noble deed and then falls short has committed asin. It is a heavy indictment that is here drawn © against us. We are charged with not coming up © to the standard of our highest knowledge. Plum- mer comments pertinently on the Roman Catholic doctrine of Probabilism which seeks to excuse the j ee ee ee ee GOD AND BUSINESS 225 weakness of the flesh and to justify one in his pre- ference of the lower in the presence of the higher. “So long as it is not certain that the act in question is forbidden it may be permitted.’ Plummer adds: “The moral law is not so much explained as ex- plained away.’ Alphonse de Sarasa wrote on ‘‘The Art of Perpetual Enjoyment”’ (Ars Semper Gaudendi), a piece of special pleading for the indulgence of the flesh. ‘The good is the enemy of the best,’’ and the bad is the enemy of the good. Down the steps we go to the bottom of the ladder. 4. Tainted Wealth. 5: 1-3. Oesterley finds proof of the “patchwork”’ character of the Epistle in the five paragraphs of the closing chapter. But in a “wisdom” book one does not expect direct connection between the paragraphs. That is not true of the practical portions of the Pauline Epistles. In the first eleven verses of this chapter the eschatological standpoint is occupied, possibly that of Jewish eschatology in 1-6 and that of Christian eschatology in 7-11 (Oesterley). Note “in the last days’ in verse 3. James is familiar with the prophetic imagery of the Messianic times in apocalyptic style, but very pointed in his courageous indictment of the follies and iniquities of the wicked rich. Johnstone entitles this paragraph “‘the woes of the wicked rich.’”’ Mayor says: “It is not the careless worldliness of the bustling trader which is condemned, but the more deadly worldliness of the unjust capitalist or landlord.” In verse 7 James seems to contrast ‘‘the brethren’’ with the rich of 226) PRACTICAL AND (SOCIAL AS RE Wits verses 1-6. It is worth while to quote Isa. 33:1: “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.’’ And Hab. 2:9: “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.” Note also the Book of Enoch 94: 7: ‘“Woe to those that build their houses with sin’’; 96: 8, “Woe unto you mighty who- violently oppress the righteous, for the day of your destruction will come.” Perhaps there is an allu- sion to the words of Jesus against the Pharisees (Matt. 23: 13-36). The Gospel of Luke is held by some to have an Ebionitic tendency because it preserves some plain words of Jesus to and abou the rich (6:24; 18:24). But Jesus is not hostile towards the rich, for he had friends and followers from the wealthy classes, though he dealt very squarely and honestly with them. Some Jews held that all the rich were wicked as some modern socialists and anarchists do. But certainly Jesus” did not fawn upon the rich nor curry favor with them by flattery or compromise. It is easy to deg nounce classes of men en masse. It requires per- , Spicacity and courage to discriminate, to be just, and to seek to remedy real ills. The rich Jews had already oppressed the Christians and made the conditions of life hard. _ The Christians were helpless for any immediate GOD AND BUSINESS 207 relief. They had little or no power in government and had to live in the social and economic atmos- phere created by those hostile to them. It was not a democratic, but an imperialistic age. In holding out the consolation that rectification of these grave evils will come at the second coming of Christ, James does not mean to condone the present situa- tion nor to acquiesce in it. But what cannot be cured can be endured. Christianity has had a long. and hard fight in the effort to alleviate the sufferings of the poor. Ofttimes grasping men of money have used the very church itself as a means of oppression instead of an agent of blessing. It is a sadstate when men and women with real social wrongs come to feel that Christianity is a negative factor in their struggle or a positive hindrance to success. James turns upon these oppressors: ‘Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you.” This ‘‘come now”’ (dye viv) is like that in 4:13. ‘Weep and shriek’ («Aatoate dAoAvCovrec), Moffatt has it. The word (éAoAtgw) is an onomato- poetic word and is used only of violent grief as in Isa. 13:6; 14:31. It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. The apocalyptic writings have a good deal to say about the ‘“‘miseries”’ (raAaitrwpiate) “that were coming” (rai¢ émepyouévatc) upon them (cf. Joel 2: 1off.; Zech. 14: 6ff.; Dan. 12:1): The gospels connect them also with the Day of the Lord (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13: 14-27; Luke 21: 9-19). Part of the gospel prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. “Your riches are corrupted’ (6 mAovrog tpav 223; PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPREGS oéontev),* “your wealth lies rotting’ (Moffatt). The perfect tense presents the state of rottenness. This — ill-gotten gain will not keep. It is already putrid — and smells to heaven. There is such a thing as — tainted money, blood-money wrung from the op- — pressed toilers, money gained by financial legerde- © main (‘‘high finance’) at the expense of helpless — stockholders whose stock is watered for the benefit — of the few in control; money made out of the souls and bodies of men and women in the saloon and the © white slave traffic. The ethics of money-making is © a large question and a vital one in modern life. It is raised in an acute form by this passage. Christians cannot afford to make money by crushing the life — out of business rivals on the juggernaut principle. — The Golden Rule ought to work in business. Christ © claims control of the money and the making of © money. The Christian is disloyal to Christ who ~ acts on what Rev. John A. Hutton calls the “bulk- — head” or compartment principle of life and keeps © his money in a separate bulkhead into which he ~ does not allow Christ to enter. Christ claims the © right of a partner in our business, and not that of a — silent partner, but an active one. We are in busi- ~ ness with Christ and for Christ. The Christian has — no right to have rotten riches. He should have clean — money, not filthy lucre. Sound money is more than — mere phrase. Money represents labor and labor — 1In Epictetus (see Sharp, Epictetus and the N.° T., pp. 57f.) — catpé¢ has the weaker sense of ‘‘poor,” like the use of “rotten” in ~ England. In P. Brit. M. 356 (i/A. D.) dere carpdv airy dodva:, the — idea of ca7pédv is “stale.” GOD AND BUSINESS 220 is the sweat of brain and brawn. The gambler cannot offer clean money to God. He has robbed a man of his money. “Your garments are moth-eaten” (ra tudria tpev ont6Bewra yéyovev). We have the prophetic perfect here and James sees the outcome as a reality ina state of completion. It is a vivid picture of fine clothes eaten by moths and full of holes, ruined beyond repair. In the east these rich garments. were handed down as heirlooms from generation to generation and often formed a considerable part of the wealth of a rich man. Paul refers to this when he said: ‘I coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel’ (Acts 20:33). The picture of an old moth-eaten garment is forlorn in the extreme. “Though I am like a rotten thing that consumeth, like a garment that is moth-eaten’’ (Job 13: 28). A plutocrat is subject to the fate of all mortals. “Your gold and your silver are rusted’’ (6 xyevod¢ buoy Kai 6 doyveog xatiwrat)’, ‘‘lie rusted over’ (Mof- fatt). As a matter of fact gold does not rust in the ordinary sense, except by chemicals, though silver tarnishes rather easily. However, this verb (katt6w) is used in Sirach 12:11 of a mirror dimmed with rust, but the Hebrew word is used also of filth. . A dirty mirror is one of the ugliest sights. James is using popular language, to be sure, and is not to be held to the terminology of science. But scientists themselves hardly know how to use language ac- curately since radium is found to break down the 1 The Pindaric construction occurs with this singular verb (karl ral), 230) PRACTICAL (AND SOCIAL SAS Pit ae lines between metals and transmutation (according to Sir William Ramsay) actually occurs like the alchemy of the ancients. In James 3:8 this word for ‘rust’ (lé¢) is used for poison. At any rate, there rests decay on all mortal things. It is not necessary to wait for the Day of the Lord to see this fact. ‘‘Their rust’’ (6 log aitov) “shall be for a testimony against you’’ (cle papripioy tyiv torat). There will be no escape from this telltale rust which, like gray hairs, betrays age and the approach of death. ‘‘And shall eat your flesh as fire’ (xai payetat Tag adoKxac buaY a Te). Westcott and Hort place ‘“‘as fire’? (¢ mie) with the next sentence. Either punctuation makes good sense, but it is a bolder figure as above, for nothing eats up what it seizes upon more rapidly or completely than fire. Feeding the flames of the furnace as a stoker in the great ships is one of the most exhaustive of all tasks. Fire licks up all in its reach and will gut modern fire-proof buildings (iron and concrete) when once it gets started, even the wonderful concrete structures of the Edison plant. The plural here (ra¢ adpxac) emphasizes the completeness of the work of de- struction. “Ye have laid up your treasures in the last days” (O0noaveicare év éoyaratc tuépatc). These wicked rich have heaped up treasure like a thesaurus and in the end of the day have seen it turn to dust and ashes, crumbling between their fingers. There is no vault on earth secure against moth and rust and thieves (Matt. 6:19). Those who set their hearts upon the wealth of earth are bound to come to grief. Pitiful a GOD AND BUSINESS 231 is the state of the man ‘‘that layeth up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God” (Luke 12: 21). The only wealth that lasts is riches toward God, and this is open to us all. The only wise use of money is so to use it as to make friends who will welcome us in heaven (Luke 16:9) into the eternal tabernacles. The mammon of unrighteousness may be so employed. If it is not, one will find that he has simply treasured up wrath against the day of wrath, to be paid at last with compound interest meiRom) 2:5). 5. Wronged Workers. 35:4. The God of all the earth will do right. He is not ‘deaf to the cries of those oppressed millions in the ages whose piteous appeals for elemental justice come to him. This is a terrible indictment of Jew- ‘ish capitalists who withheld the meager wages of the men who gathered the harvests. ‘“‘Behold, the hire of the laborers who mowed your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth out.’’ The hire of the laborers (6 pode TOV éoyar@v) reminds one of the proverb, ‘‘The laborer is worthy of his hire’ (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18). The word for “‘hire’’ (usc06¢) occurs sometimes in the sense of reward (e. g., r Cor. 3:8, 14), but the original idea is that of pay for work done (e. g., Matt. 20: 8), and so here. The word for laborer (épyérjc) means any kind of workman, but it is common in the’ New Testament for agricultural workers. ‘The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers (ol éoya- tat) are few” (Matt. 9:37). When the work is done 232 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS it is only simple justice for the workman to receive his pay, for the hungry mouths at home have to be ~ filled. In the Old Testament the cause of the work- man was guarded with special care: ‘‘Thou shalt not oppress a 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: lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it be a sin unto thee’ (Deut. 24: 14f.). See also Mal. 3:5, “I will be a swift witness against . . . those that oppress the hireling in his wages.’’ Tobit charges his son Tobias: ‘“‘Let not the wages of any man, which hath wrought for thee, tarry with thee, but give him it out of hand” (Tobit 4: 14). Sirach (34: 21f.) says: “‘The bread of the needy is the life of the poor: he that defraudeth (droctepév) him thereof is a man of blood. He that taketh away his neighbor’s living slayeth him; and he that de- fraudeth a laborer of his hire is a blood-shedder.” Certainly, therefore, the Jews were not without ex- plicit teaching on this vital point of elemental social - justice. And yet these men ‘‘who mowed” (dpunodvrwy, lit- erally, ‘heap together’’)! their fields had the sad experience of not receiving the wages, ‘‘of you kept — back by fraud’’ (6 ddvorepnuévos ad’ tyr), “comes too — late from you” (Mayor). The word means to “fall — short,’’ “be too late’’ (totepéw is like torepor, “‘later’”’). Note Heb. 4:1 (corepyxéva). See P. Lond. 11663 ~ 1 At harvest time there is always special demand for laborers at J higher wages than usual to save the ripe grain before it perishes. ee ee Fahy pls ah eT li the Se ie ae en JE i een ss = ee Se Ne ng I ee pigeon See og eet eh GOD AND BUSINESS 233 (A. D. 42) for the very word (dévorep7) used of ‘‘a bath insufficiently warmed’? (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 99). The honest laborers who form the foundation of our industrial system are not to be treated as beggars or “hobos.’’ They are not subjects for charity. They are the human element in the industrial problem. Blood is thicker than water and is more valuable than gold. The horror of war is that it treats men as fodder for cannon regardless of the result to the man or those de- pendent on him. This stolen pay ‘‘cries out’’ (xpdéer) and ought to cry out, whether the hire is kept back after the work is done or whether the employer purposely squeezes the laborer down to starvation wages in order to make more money for himself. There is a just balance to be struck by which both capital and labor may receive just remuneration. ‘“‘The cries of them that reaped (ai Boal rev Oepicdytwv) have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth (ei¢ ra wra Kuoiov LaBaod eiceAjAvbav).”’ ‘“The cries of the harvesters” (Moffatt) are musical when they sing together as they work, content with their wages and joyous in their work. But the “‘cries’’ here heard are of a very different sort. They are the angry, resentful outcries of men who have been wronged in their very souls by those who should have been their protectors and friends, those for whom the harvesters have worked. These men cry to heaven and they ought to do so. Mayor notes. four sins that cry to heaven: A brother’s blood (Gen. 4:10), the sin of Sodom (Gen. 18:20), the 234 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS oppressed hireling (Deut. 24:15), the cry of Job for justice (16:18f.). But men ought to hear the cry of the laborers before they become too clamor- ous. It is only right that social injustice should be rectified here and now and the transgressors pun- ished. We have come upon a time when the hosts of labor and capital are like two armed camps, ready for instant battle. Even as these words are penned the country faces the spectacle of a pro- longed war in the mining region of Colorado that has gone beyond the power of the State authorities to control and that has taxed the resources of the national government for a solution. There are probably wrongs on both sides. The State cannot do everything. It is a vain hope to expect a millen- nium in the socialistic State of the radical socialists, and yet much that is called socialism is simply common humanity and Christian brotherhood taught by Jesus, chief of all, and reenforced in the Epistles. It is undoubtedly true that society has paid more -attention to the making of money than to the men who toil to make it. The social test of modern Christianity is to do justice to the laboring men without doing injustice to the capitalists. The conditions of life must be made easier. If corpora- tions have no souls, the men who toil at the forge have. Men are entitled to a bit of heaven here and now in their own hearth and home. Somehow many of the laborers have come to feel that the churches do not sympathize with the struggles of the laboring classes to better their hard lot, but fawn upon the very rich who sometimes grind the GOD AND BUSINESS 235 toilers to the earth. It is easy to be extreme and unjust to one side or the other. The main thing is to be faithful to God and man, to man as man. The poorest of men is worth more than a sheep, yes, and than gold and silver. The soul is without price and the soul dwells in the body. We must shake the shackles free from men and women who cry out to God. The Lord God of Sabaoth has heard their cries and will punish the offenders in due time, but that fact does not absolve us from our present duty in the midst of conditions that call for action. Wronged workers have a right to a hearing at the bar of public opinion. They will cry on till they are heard. 6. The Wanton Use of Money. 5: 5f. Evidently James is all ablaze with passion as he faces the situation of his readers. These Jewish plutocrats, some of them shysters, had made their money out of the blood and sweat of the toiling poor (cf. modern sweat-shops). And then they spend it in a way to anger the wronged workers still more. They live in the most luxurious ex- travagance and waste of money while the cold, half-naked, hungry toilers who made the wealth go unpaid. It is no wonder that such laborers grow bitter at heart. It is a vivid and even ghastly pic- ture of the wicked rich who revel at the cost of human happiness, who with careless indifference shut their eyes to the misery all around them due to their own injustice. Christianity endeavors to make this cold cynicism impossible, to persuade to 236 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS be just and, if need be, go the second mile in eager- ness to help rather than to hang back and higgle over the first. During the dreadful days of the strike at Lawrence, Mass., a daughter of one of the wealthy mill owners braved the criticism of her social circle and boldly went among the very men who cursed her father as the cause of it all. She went as an angel of mercy to bind up the broken hearts and lives. “Ye have lived delicately on the earth, and ‘taken your pleasure’ (érevdjoate éni rie yng nai tomatadjoate), “ye have revelled on earth and plunged into dissipation’ (Moffatt). The sound of revelry by night has no melody to the ears of the man whose wife and children are starving because he does not get a square deal from his employer. In Hermas (Sim. 6. 1) both of these verbs are used together (“‘reminiscence of this pas- sage,’ Mayor) of those who gave themselves up to the lusts of the world. See also 1 Tim. 5:6: ‘‘She that giveth herself to pleasure is dead while she liveth.” One is reminded of the picture of the beggar Lazarus who lay at the rich man’s gate while he feasted within. ‘The conditions will be reversed in heaven if the poor are Christians and the rich man is unsaved (Luke 16:25). That hope is not to be despised, but James is not content to spare the rich now while they inflict such wrongs on men whom they employ. “Ye have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter” (20pépare tac xapdiag dudv ev tuépa obayie). We have here a hard phrase to understand. Homer uses the verb (rpépw) of turning milk into cheese GOD AND BUSINESS 237 (Od. ix. 246). But we cannot feel sure (cf. Luke 21:34). And what is “‘the day of slaughter’’? Moffatt boldly renders thus: “You have fattened | yourselves as for the Day of Slaughter.’’ That is at least comprehensible. At any rate, when Jerusalem was destroyed the Romans slew the rich Jews indis- » criminately whether they remained in the city or flew in despair to the Romans who were bent on plunder (cf. Josephus, War, v. 10, 2). The pious poor in all the ages have suffered at the hands of the rich and the mighty. Even in America religious liberty came as the result of fierce struggle. Political freedom was bought with the price of blood. Eco- nomic justice will be won only by tears and blood. The very limit is reached. ‘‘Ye have condemned, ‘ye have killed the righteous one; he doth not resist you” (xaredixdoare, ipovetoate Tov dinatov. Ovx dvtitdo- cera miv). Many take these words to refer to the death of Jesus as the culmination of iniquity when the rich Pharisees and Sadducees obtained the death of the poor Carpenter of Nazareth. Peter charged the Jews with Christ’s death in these words: “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 3: 14f.). Certainly the application to Jesus has a deal of verisimilitude. Stephen used similar language: “‘And they killed them which showed before the coming of the Right- eous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers’ (Acts 7:52). ‘“‘The Righteous One’”’ (6 dixatoc) is thus seen to be one of the titles given Jesus by the early disciples. There is no reason 1230 (PRACTICAL AND SOCAL WASH Eels es why James should not have referred to the death > of Jesus in these words. But the Book of Wisdom — has similar language about the righteous poor who > are oppressed by the wicked rich and the parallel is so clear that probably James refers directly to it. see Wisdom 2: toff.: “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 clear contrary to our doings; he upbraideth us with our offending the It was so in the days of the prophets. Hear 99 law. Amos as he thunders against the evils of his day: “They have sold the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; they that pant after the — dust of the earth on the head of the poor” (surely — the most greedy of men for real estate, if they even — seek that on top of the head of the poor!). The picture is one of the oppression of the good man — who is unresisting and allows himself to be robbed. | The horrors of war to helpless women and children — come before us. It is curious that in the legendary account! of the death of James, who was later called also “‘the Just” (6 dikatoc), we are told that the Jews ran upon James — ‘crying: “Oh! oh! even the righteous one has gone | astray—let us stone the righteous one” (6 6 kai 6 dixatoc énAaviOn—AOdéowuev tov dixacov). One of the priests vainly cried out: “Stop! What are you doing? The righteous one is praying for you.” According to this story, James himself finally met — ' Eusebius, H. E. ii. 23 (taken from Hegesippus). GOD AND BUSINESS 239 the very fate of those unfortunate victims of Jew- ish greed and hate of whom Jesus is the chief illus- tration. Progress in behalf of human rights is won only by slow advances here and there. But in the end of the day the cause wins. The stars in their courses fight against Sisera and all the enemies of man and God. CHAPTER XII PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER. 5: 7-20 The purpose of James in writing his Epistle comes out clearly heré. He wishes to hearten the Jewish Christians in the midst of their trials as well as to make a protest against the oppressions to which they were subjected. ‘‘The storm of indignation is . past, and from this point to the end of the Epistle St. James writes in tones of tenderness and affec- tion’’ (Plummer). He has denounced the persecu- tors, and now turns to the brethren who are under the heel of the money-devil. 1. Patience Tull the Parousia. 5: vf. “Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord” (waxpodvujoate ovy, ddeAdoi, fw the mapov- aiag Tov Kvpiov).! Moffatt has it “‘till the arrival of the Lord.’”’ The example of the righteous man, whether Christ or the typical righteous poor man, argues (odv) strongly for longsuffering (uaxgo-Ovuéw is ““long-tempered”’ like our ‘“‘sweet-tempered,”’ ‘“quick- tempered,”’.and is the opposite of ‘‘short-tempered,”’ so Mayor). In the Christian race one cannot afford to be short of wind. He has a long run and must ‘hold out till the goal is reached (cf. Heb. 12: 1-3). 1In P. Par. 26, B. C. 163, note éy Méugee rapovoiac (“visits to Memphis’). 240 PERSEVERANCE, AND PRAYER = 24rt One is reminded of the opening note of the Epistle of James (1: 2-4), where he urged joy in the midst of varied trials. The wicked rich deserve all the fierce denunciation that James has just bestowed and all the penalty that God will inflict, but the’ suffering Christians must not engage in mere re- crimination. James does not discourage protest - against wrong nor the effort to remove evil. But there is a residuum of suffering and pain in the cup of all of us. When all else is done, in the end of the day we must drink that cup. Let us do it with the spirit of soldiers who fall in the trenches at the post of duty. It is better to do it without flinching and without making a wry face. Men (and even women)’ have undergone major operations without anes- ' thesia. God is full of “longsuffering” toward us (Rom. 2:4; 1 Pet. 3:20), and men have shown the same spirit (James 5:10; 2 Cor. 6:6). The patience in James 1:3f. is just “remaining under’ (d7ouov7), but here the point is to do it and make no fuss about it, not to call attention to what one is suffering, to be a martyr without insisting on being recognized as one. The early Christians were so eager for the second coming (rapovoia) of the Lord Jesus that they were impatient for his return and some of them com- pletely upset about it, though Jesus had emphasized the utter uncertainty of the time and had urged watchfulness and readiness. By a skilful turn (Plummer) James “‘makes the unconscious impa- tience of primitive Christianity a basis for his exhortation to conscious patience.’’ Some of them 242 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL AS hr ais no longer had a taste for the slow work of plowing, sowing, and reaping, forgetting what Jesus had said of the gradual growth of the Kingdom of God from seed to harvest. So James, probably with the words of Jesus in mind, says: “Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth’’ (idod 6 yewoyoc éxdéyeTar TOV Tipwovy KapTov THO yao). The farmer, tiller of the soil (yewpyd¢), has much to dis- ‘courage him in the making and selling of his crops. The soil has to be kept up to its level of fertility and must be properly prepared. The seed must be of good quality and has to be sown at the proper season. The weeds will come and the harvest is dependent on the sun and the rain. He cannot hasten the process. When he has done the most scientific farming, he can only wait in expectancy (éedéyerar, note éx).1 Often, perhaps daily, the farmer goes and watches the growth of the grain, ‘‘being patient over it” (uaxpo8vpey én’ aizS), bending over it as a fond father. He knows that he cannot hasten the season. The “early” rain (npdipov) made pos- sible the sowing of the seed. The “‘Jatter’’ rain (éywov) will make possible a harvest. Meanwhile he ‘can do nothing but wait “‘till it receive’ (fw¢ AGBy) the final touch from God’s hand. By force of cir- cumstances the farmer has to exercise long-suffering toward his crop of wheat. “Be ye also patient’? (waxpoOvurjcate kat rete). James applies his illustration with directness and power. “Ye also,” as well as the husbandman. He 1Note P. Oxy., 939 (iv/A. D.), line 27, éxdorne Spac éxdexduevoe — tiv [oli agi (“hourly expecting thy arrival’). PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER = 243 does it, for nature has taught him her secrets. ‘‘Ye’’. should do so, for Jesus has shown you the way. “Establish your hearts’’ (orgpigate tag xapdiag pdr). Peter is charged with just this task when he has turned (Luke 22:32). God strengthens us (1 Pet. 5:10; 1 Thess. 3:13), but we must do our share. “For the coming of the Lord is at hand” (6m 4 Tapovoia Tov Kuoiov iyytxev). The word “is at hand’”’ (7yyuev) is the one that John the Baptist used of the nearness of the Kingdom of Heaven which had come right upon them (Matt. 3:2). So Peter (1 Pet. 4:7) says: “The end of all things has drawn near.”’ Paul (Phil. 4: 6) says: ‘‘The Lord is nigh”’ (or near). There is no doubt that the early Christians hoped _ that Jesus would come back quickly and thus re- ' lieve them from the ills of an impossible social eNO GUTS c(t T say Cons) 63 1 Thess ise 1 John 2:18). But they did not at all feel sure that Jesus was coming right away (1 Thess. 5: 2; me biess) 92 rites) 2 Cor, co t—To3. Phil. ‘ti 21-23)) When 2 Peter is written scoffers are already asking, ‘“‘Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet. 3: 4.)° The answer is given that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Back to their tasks they must go, back to the building up of the Kingdom of God in the midst of a world of woe and sin, on with the conflict till Jesus comes, on with the long siege against human greed and inhumanity to man. Patience is the word, patience and prayer, pluck and praise, power’ and peace in the end. 244 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS 2. Folly of Recrimination. 5:9. If things do not go to suit us, the natural Way is to blame somebody else for what has befallen us. We generally exculpate ourselves from all responsi- bility. There is a naive illustration of this propen- sity in John 12:19: “Behold, ye prevail nothing; lo, the world is gone after him.’”’ At the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem the Pharisees, thinking that their cause against Jesus is lost, turn and blame each other for the outcome. So then “murmur not, brethren, one against another” (9) otevdcere, ddeAdoi, kat’ addAjdwv), Literally it is, “groan not, brothers, against one another.” See Rom. 8:23: “We our- selves groan (orevdgouev) within ourselves.” It is ‘rather the inward and unexpressed feeling than the outward expression of dissatisfaction (cf. James A: 11). The secret grudge is taken out in groans and “murmurs. In Mark 7:34 Jesus is said to have groaned (éorévatey) as he looked up to heaven and prayed, perhaps out of sheer weariness at the burden - of sin and sorrow that was upon him. It is hard to be content and to smother resentment at known or suspected wrong. The suppressed volcano may eas- ily break out into a violent eruption. “They will run here and there for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied”’ (Psa. 59:15). The murmur of a mob is often senseless, and in all events we must bear in mind that we bring down condemnation on our own heads. “That ye be not judged” (iva un KecOjre), says James. He recurs to this point in s: ra. Probably the words of Jesus in Matt. 7:1 are recalled by James. “Behold, the judge standeth before the PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER = 245 doors” (idod 6 xeitijg 706 TOY Oveav Eorneev). He will hear all complaints and set everything right. The picture appears to be that in the Mishna (AbD. iv. 16): “This world is as if it were a vestibule to the , future world; prepare thyself in the vestibule, that thou mayest enter the reception room.’’ Jesus is _the Judge who stands at the Door through which all must pass. The conception is eschatological and apocalyptic. See Matt. 24:33: ‘Know ye that he is nigh, at the doors’ (émi Oipac). In Rev. 3:20 Jesus is represented as saying: ‘‘Behold, I stand at. the door and knock.”’ Let him in now, that you and he may sup together. Let him in now, else you may stand before him hereafter as culprit and _ helpless and hopeless. ‘‘Kiss the Son, lest he be anery, and ye perish in the way’’ (Psa. 2:12). Treat kindly one another so that you will not need the Son to act as Judge between you. 3. Examples of Patience. 5: 10f. James, like a practical preacher, loves to illus- trate his points. He has a fitting one right to hand in “‘the prophets who spake in the name of the Lord”’ (rode moopjrac, of éAdAnoay tv TH Svéuarte Kuoiov). They spoke in the name, with the authority, and so with the power of the Lord. The idiom is common enough in the Septuagint and, indeed, in the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 198). They spoke as the representatives of Jehovah. Mayor seems a bit perplexed over the failure of James to mention Jesus as the supreme example of suffering, as is done by Peter (1 Pet. 2:21), who spoke of Christ 246 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS leaving us an example (iroypayysv), and by Paul (Phil. 2: 5-11), and by the author of Hebrews (r12: 1-5). Perhaps James may have thought it was particularly pertinent for these Jewish Christians to be reminded of the prophets as an ‘‘example of suf- fering and patience” (indderyya rie Kaxorabiac kab rhe pHaxpoOupiac). Certainly, they endured evil (axora6ia) in abundance and had great need of long-suffering (uaxpoOuuia). It was common enough to appeal to them for this purpose. Jesus did it with keenest irony at the mock heroic monuments built later to the memory of the martyred prophets (Matt. s: 12: 23:34, 37). Stephen did it with so sharp a tongue that the Sanhedrin stoned him to death for his courage and proved the truth of his words by their own “acts (Acts 7:52). Elijah says to Jehovah: 4 he children of Israel . . . have slain thy prophets ~with the sword” (1 Kings 19:10, 14). Jeremiah says also: “Your own sword hath devoured your prophets like a destroying lion” (Jer. 2:30). As patterns of patience ‘‘take’’ (AdBere) Noah, Abra- ham, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah. These illus- trate in various ways the patience of which the readers of the Epistle of James stand in sore need. “Behold, we call them blessed that endured” (idod 3 HaKkapicouey Tove broueivavtac). He had already done that in James 1:12. Jesus had promised salvation to the one who endured to the end (Matt. 24:1 a) Men usually felicitate the survivors of a catastrophe. Often they become popular heroes. In particular, ‘“‘ye have heard of the patience of * Job” (rijv bropovay THB jxotcare). Job was the most PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER = 247 frequently quoted instance in the Old Testament times and is a perfectly obvious one for James. And yet Job did have passionate outbursts of indig- nation at the jibes and superfluous advice of his tor- menting friends and even of his wife when God seemed to have deserted him. But it must be remembered Job did not curse God and die. He waited for God to speak and make it all plain. Job hardly exhibited longsuffering (waxpoOvuia), but he clearly did show patience (t7royorvj). He was not exactly meek, but he revealed the endurance of a sensitive man. Though Job is the most famous instance of patience in the Old Testament, yet he is nowhere else cited as such in the New Testament. We need not discuss the question whether Job is par- able or fact, as the point is here precisely the same. Ye “have seen the end of the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful” (16 réA0c Kuoiov eldete, Ott ToAvarAayxvog borty 6 KboLOc Kal oiKTiopuwr), The outcome in the case of Job proves the point. . It turned out all right with Job. So he illustrates the pity and mercy of the Lord; “the end of the Lord” is seen in the conclusion like a novel that turns out happily at last. In the midst of the stress and storm of Job’s life (Sturm und Drang) and his violent outbursts of emotion and exalted feeling God is sympathetic (roAtvorAayxvoc) and com- passionate (olxtipywv). God has understood Job and watched his endurance all the while. The story is so well known that James does not have to tell it, but can depend upon his readers to see the point of the illustration. 248 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS 4. Profanity. 5:12. This little paragraph seems to come in rather abruptly, with no connection with what precedes. As a result, Oesterley regards it as ‘‘a fragment of a larger piece’? which James here tears from its con- text, perhaps a saying from Jesus. But Plummer is more likely correct in thinking of it as an appen- dix after rounding out the Epistle, coming back to the blessedness of trial with which topic the Epistle opens. The exhortations need not have a close connection with each other. As a matter of fact, James has spoken more against the sins of speech than any other single sin. Plummer well says: “He has spoken against talkativeness, unrestrained speak- ing, love of correcting others, railing, cursing, boast- ing, murmuring)" (110) 26113: 1212: «ase 135 5:9). He now recurs to the sins of speech to say a few words against one of the commonest evils of which he has not spoken specifically. He evidently is thinking of the words of Jesus as we have them in Matt. 5: 34-37, though it is not an exact quotation. ! He may, indeed, as Resch holds, give another ver- sion of the same logion (cf. 2 Cor. 1: 17). But there was ample ground for this prohibition, as the Jews had learned how to split hairs on the subject of profanity. The third commandment was plain enough on the subject and it was supported by the Pharisees and the Essenes. The Essenes, indeed, ‘Plummer notes that the Epistle of James shows more coinci- dences with the words of Jesus than all of Paul’s epistles, and that all of them deal with the morality of the gospel, with conduct and life. This is all just as the circumstances would lead us to expect. PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER = 249 opposed all oaths, even before courts, and were said to have been excused by Herod from taking the oath of allegiance (Jos., Ant. xv. 10. 4). And yet, as Mayor notes, this is not consistent with the oath of initiation which the Essenes took (Jos., War ii. 8. 7). The Jewish view is well represented by Sirach 23: 7-11 and by Philo (M. 2, p. 184). The early Christians found trouble with this verse of James, as with the words of Jesus on the same point. See list of quotations from the early writers in Mayor. Augustine sees no harm in oaths before courts if it were not for the danger of committing’ perjury. And yet it may be seriously questioned if Jesus or James is thinking of oaths in courts of justice, since Jesus himself did not refuse to answer when put on oath by the high priest before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26: 63f.). Besides, solemn assev- eration is allowed in the Old Testament (Deut. ’ 6:13; 10: 20; Isa. 65: 16). It is far more likely the flippant use of oaths (profanity) that is here con-. demned. There were, and are still, alas, all sorts of devices by which more or less pious people felt justified in calling on the name of the Lord in ordinary speech. It is to-day one of the saddest things in life to note how common profanity is in the ordinary speech of men and of boys, mannish boys who imitate the men about them. It is positively disheartening to hear it on the streets, in the street- cars, in the trains. If one is puzzled, as was Augustine, over the words “‘above all things’’ (7e6 mavTwv), on the ground that profanity is not worse than adultery and 250 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS murder, we may take it either as a kind of hyperbole (as Augustine) or as a sort of “‘elative’” superlative - (not literally before all, but only “‘very important’’) as limited to the forms of impatience in the preceding context like 1 Pet. 4:8, where the same idiom (roo nmdvtwv) occurs (so Mayor). But, if the strict inter-— pretation be insisted on, one has only to consider what the sin of profanity really is. It is a blasphe- mous use of the name of the Most High God. The fact that it is usually done without thinking miti- gates the offense, but sometimes the full bitterness of profanity is meant. Few things are worse than sulphurous speech like the very fumes of hell. For my part, I should not press the words ‘“‘above all things’’ too far in this context. “Swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath” (uj duviere, unre tov ovpavoy pate THY yiv pnte dddAov tiva OoKxov).1 Cer- tainly this is plain enough to be understood. It is conclusive and inclusive and leaves no room for the milder forms of profanity for which Christians sometimes excuse themselves. “But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay” (jTw dé tyoyv 76 Nal vai kat 76 OW od), “let your ‘yes’ be a plain ‘yes,’ your ‘no’ a plain ‘no’”’ (Moffatt). This, and nothing more. But there is the trouble. The need for 1The use of the present imperative in prohibition rather than the aorist subjunctive implies that the thing was being done. That is probably true, for church members have been known to be guilty — of this sin. However, it is possible for this tense to prohibit the habit rather than the single act. ‘Keep on not swearing.” See — Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the Light of Hist. Res., ) p. 851-854. PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER. 251 emphasis and the love of strong assertion lead one so easily to go beyond the bounds of good taste and of decency. Edersheim (i. p. 583) has a Midrash quotation: ““The good man’s yea is yea, and his nay nay.’ In calmer moments one knows that the value of his statement rests at bottom on his own character for veracity. His mere word is enough and, in truth, all that one can offer. Violent ex- pletives throw discredit on one’s ordinary state- ments and suspicion on the one that he seeks to bolster up with artificial means. Profanity is one of the worst and most useless of sins. It brings good to none and harm to all, in particular to the one who uses it. ‘‘That ye fall not under judgment’ (tva pH dnd xoiow téante). The Judge is at the door (James 5:9) and there is no escape. 5. Worshtp and Excitement. 5: 13. Plummer has a very keen and pertinent heading for his chapter on this verse, and it is noteworthy that he devotes an entire chapter to this one verse, a verse that is little understood by most interpre- ters. His heading is this: ‘‘Worship the Best Outlet and Remedy for Excitement. The Connection be- tween Worship and Conduct.’”’ Certainly oaths are not the way to express one’s emotions, whether one’ be angry or merely excited, least of all when one has the miserable habit of profanity and is unaware of his foul speech. And yet it is not wrong to ex- - press one’s feelings. There is no merit in the self- repression of the Cynic or the Stoic. “Let the expression of strongly excited feelings be an act of 252 /PRACTICALVAND SOCIAL (ASE EGUS worship”? (Plummer). This is an intensely practical point. “Is any among you suffering?’ (Kaxoradei tic éy tpiv;). And what church or community does not have one or more of these occasional or chronic sufferers? The word (xaxo7a06) has a wider meaning than mere bodily sickness. Paul uses it for suffer- ing hardship as a good soldier (2 Tim. 2:3, 9; 4:5). .It includes any kind of ill of body or mind. It means literally having had experiences and refers to the natural depression as a result of such mis- fortunes. The remedy is not in despondency or in suicide. The ‘remedy lies in prayer. 9 Det. hae pray” (meocevyéoOw), let him pray as a habit (present tense of durative action). Prayer is a blessing to the heart and to the mental life. It is good to talk with God. The worry disappears in God’s presence and often the very ill itself disappears. But if it does not go, he gives us grace sufficient to bear the burden. So then prayer is the proper outlet for the depressed Christian. Here lies one of the great blessings of public worship in the house of God. The tired soul finds rest in prayer in the house of — prayer. There is comfort in secret prayer and in family worship, but the man makes a tremendous psychological blunder who cuts himself off from the — spiritual tonic of the public worship of God. Those in charge of that worship should never fail to have such in mind—such spirits who come to church seeking comfort and strength. But some hearts are overjoyed and feel like giving ~ expression to their joy in unusual ways, almost in © ecstasy. “Is any cheerful?’ (cdOvet r1¢;). There — PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER 253 are many in happy mood, in good spirits or “ good cheer” (cf. Acts 27:22, 25). These are in good health of soul and mayhap also of body. ‘Let him sing praise’ (~addérw). The word originally _ meant to play on a stringed instrument (Sir. 9: 4), _ but it comes to be used also for singing with the voice and the heart (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15), making melody with the heart also to the Lord. There is a wondrous exaltation of soul in the public praise of God. The combination of instruments and of voice enables the soul of man to pour itself out toward God in richness of praise. This is far better than the reckless, unrestrained ecstasy of overwrought emotionalism. Plummer notes prop- erly that there is no merit or demerit per se in excitement. The wild dervish commands only as- tonishment, not sympathy. Religious excitement may become the occasion of bringing discredit upon Christianity, even when it represents real fervor and an element of worship. The spirit of man cannot always be restrained. Underthe preaching of Wesley and Whitefield the audiences were some- times carried to excesses of emotion. But far better this than the deadness and coldness of mere formal- ism. Revivals occasionally have been marked by such excesses, like the “‘Jerks” in Kentucky a hundred , years ago, when, however, real change of life took place. There is wisdom in the words of James here. Let the religious emotions find expression in prayer and praise. The effect is not only good for the moment, but is good for conduct and life as a whole. If we could only manage somehow to turn some of 254 PRACTICAL “AND 'SOCIALVASPEGIS the energy that goes into dancing into religious worship, certainly the effect would be more whole-_ some all round. People cannot help a measure of excitement. Some of it is good for them. There is tonic in communion with God, tonic for soul and ~ body. 6. God and Medicine. 5: 14-18. Few subjects have excited more interest in recent _ years than the subject here presented. So many subsidiary issues are raised that it is difficult to treat the question adequately in a few pages. The career of Alexander Dowie, with his work at Zion City, is still fresh in the mind of the public. The man undoubtedly performed some wonderful cures, but turned out to be a mountebank if not worse. _ Many varieties of “faith-cures” have been before the world. The so-called Christian Science move- ment is now the most prominent of them all, com- bining an idealistic philosophy and pantheistic religion. This combination takes up various as- pects of Buddhism, Gnosticism, and a dash oft) Christian verbiage, with the vital elements of Christianity gone, and uses some of the well-known ideas of modern psychology as to the influence of the mind on the body. As a whole it is a hopeless jumble of absurdities and inconsistencies and is hostile to the worship of Jesus. It leads astray a certain type of mind without clear reasoning proc- esses and fattens on the fees for mental healing, a portion of which go to the Mother Church in Bos- ton. There is only the most superficial parallel : ) f PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER 25 between what James here describes and what the Christian Science “‘healer’’ practises. There is in James an absence of all mercenary ideas. There is no “commercialized use of prayer,’’ to use the legal i ah, - phrase of one of the New York courts. There is also the use of olive oil, the best medicine known to the ancient world, and still one of the best re- -medial agencies, whether used internally or ex- ) ternally. The disciples of Jesus on their tour of acs el Galilee had the double ministry of preaching and healing (Matt. ro: 7f.) and they andinted the sick ’ with oil (Mark 6:13). In Isa. 1:6 the prophet says that the bruises were ‘‘neither bound up, neither - mollified with oil.’’ So the Good Samaritan bound - up the wounds of the poor victim of the robbers and - poured oil and wine upon him (Luke 10: 34). A number of questions come bristling for discus- sion as we proceed with this passage in James. The, use of the word church (rij¢ éxxAnoias) rather than synagogue, as in 2:2, is to be observed. The local | church undoubtedly had a close kinship to the | Jewish synagogue in origin and worship. The very _ phrase ‘elders’ (rove moeoButégovc) of the church occurs also in Acts 20:17 and in the plural like bishops at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). There was a council of elders in the synagogue (Luke 7:3), and- _ the word appears in an official sense in the Egyptian papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 154f., 233f.).1 But a more vital question for our subject is whether - these elders come in an official capacity to perform an ecclesiastical ‘‘anointing”’ (dAenpavtes #Aaiw) with 1 The phrase 6 mpsoBbrepoe tHe Kung occurs ina Ptolemaic papyrus. 256 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS : H oil or whether they come to pray as brothers in Christ and rub with the olive oil (cf. Isa. 1:6) as” medicine. Mayor quotes Philo (Sonm, M. i. 666), | Pliny (NV. H. xxiti. 34-50), and Galen (Med. Temp., , Book ii) in praise of oil as a medicine. In Herod’s” ‘last illness he was recommended a bath of oil (Jos., _ War 1. 33, 5). There is therefore no doubt as to the ancient opinion about and use of oil as a medicine. It is probable that one will decide this question — according to his predilections. For my own part, I incline to the view that we have here, not a sacra- mental or priestly function on the part of these elders, but the double duty of ministry of the word — and of medicine (with prayer), The nearest parallel in modern life is the medical missionary, who goes - with the word of life and the healing balm of modern _ science. He heals the sick with the physician’s skill and the prayer of faith. Paul helped the sick — (Acts 20:35) at Ephesus and often healed the sick, and yet he worked side by side with Luke, the be- ; loved physician, as in the island of Melita (Acts 28: 8f.). There is certainly no indication that what is — ‘called “extreme unction” was practised or urged by — James and the Apostolic Christians. That was a late development in the Greek and Roman Catholic churches that is foreign to the tone of this Epistle. — There is here no such superstition as sending for a . minister, when death is at hand, to perform a magical ritual ceremony to stave off death. Mayor i has a full statement of the chief facts about the “sacrament”? of unction in later centuries. Mayor — suggests that the cases of the failure of the simple — ee. ae PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER: 9257 use of oil as a medicine probably led finally to the special consecration of the oil or the use of relics. But in James we seem to have not a ceremony or ecclesiastical function, but rather the simple use of oil as a medicine and prayer ‘“‘in the name of the Lord.”’ To-day we have a more advanced medical science, which is, however, by no means final and infallible. We separate the functions of the minister and the physician, We prefer the doctor to the oil, but we still need God with the doctor. It isa great error for one to think that God is not to be called upon because we havé a skilled physician. The minister still has a place, and a very important place, in the problem of therapeutics, particularly in those many cases of a more or less nervous type when the influence of the mind on the body is very pronounced. Often in the most severe illness the deciding factor is not medicine, but hope, as any doctor will say. The minister should make friends with the physician and be at his service and co- operate with him. The minister needs to be careful to be a help, and not a hindrance, in cases of sickness. He should be a sedative and an inspiration to the patient, not an irritant or an excitant. It is a just ground of complaint that physicians have against those preachers who lend themselves to the schemes of “‘quack’’ doctors with patent medicines for all sorts of ills. But to come back to the use of prayer. James says: ‘‘And the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up” («at 4 ebyq tag mictews aos. TOV Kduvorra, Kal eyepet abrov 6 KbgL0¢). The credit is here given to prayer and the power of God. One is not to infer that James gives no — credit to medicine. The oil was good, God works — through medicines and without medicine. The best that we still know on this subject is just this: — Prayer and medicine or God and the doctor. The promise of James is unconditioned, like those of — Jesus in Mark 31:24; John 14:14. But the very essence of prayer is acquiescence in the will of God, — not a demand on God’s acquiescence with us. By © ‘save’ (ode) here James means ‘‘cure,’”’ as often — in the Gospels (Mark 5: 23; 6:56; 8:35, etc.). The prayer of faith is the only kind that is real prayer, and it is trust in God with full acknowledgment of God’s power and love. Some men have always 7 had the idea of a God so aloof from the world that ~ he cared nothing about it or was powerless to help.” There is nothing in modern scientific knowledge in- consistent with an immanent, yet transcendent, God who holds the key of life in himself. The wondrous laws of nature are all of God and there are many more that we do not yet understand. Science has vastly increased our sense of wonder about God and his world. We have only skirted the fringes of knowl- edge. It is idle to say that God, if he really sent his Son to redeem men from sin and all earthly woe, does not care if we suffer in body and mind. The Father’s hand rests upon us all. He can be reached. He is not far from any of us and he loves us. “And if he have committed sins, it shall be for- given him” (kdv duapriag 7 TeTounKac, adeOjoetar adbT@), not by being healed in body nor because he is healed | 258 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS | PERSEVERANCE CAND PRAYER) 266 of his sickness. The two things do not correspond nor does one follow because of the other. What James means, undoubtedly, is that the cured man, convicted of his sins and out of gratitude to God for his goodness, repents of his sins and is forgiven. This is what should always happen in such cases, _ but often it occurs that men who profess repentance on a bed of sickness forget it when they get up. This is sheer ingratitude and a horrible outcome. | But certainly, if the sick man is a sinner, he should be prayed for. It is the time of opportunity to get him to listen to the voice of God. No undue ad- vantage need be taken of one’s situation, and yet it is wise to speak plainly then. Sickness is a great ‘leveller and brings us all down.!' Beyond any doubt, Roman Catholics have made good use of their asylums and hospitals. Other denominations are be- ginning to take a real interest in this aspect of Christian activity. In the hour of sickness it is a great mercy to fall into the hands of those who love | God and where the love of Jesus is mingled with the highest medical science. It is a good time to confess our sins to one another as well as to God, when we fall sick. ‘Confess ’ therefore your sins one to another” (&owoAoyetobe oby GAAnAotc tac duagriac). Clearly if the sick man, conscious now of his own weakness, is not willing to confess his sins (trespasses, tapamTa@pata, Some MSS. have it) against others, God will not forgive him. 1 Note «dv (=even if) here instead of xai éav and the rare peri- phrastic perfect subjunctive active 7 teroujxoc. The condition is the third class (undetermined with prospect of determination). 260 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASREGTS As Mayor points out, James expands the words of Jesus about forgiving those who have trespassed against us (Matt. 5:23; 6:14), so as to bring out both sides of the subject. Let the sick man ask ‘forgiveness of those whom he has wronged. Then let them forgive him and pray for him. ‘Pray one for another’ (ai mpooebyecbe inép dAdjAwv). The Roman Catholics sometimes appeal to this passage as a justification for auricular confession to the priest, Bellarmine, for instance, but Luther has a pointed answer: ‘“‘A strange confessor. His name is “One Another.’’’ Cajetan ‘‘speaks the language of common sense’’ (Mayor) and admits that James has no such custom in mind. What James urges is public confession, in particular to those wronged, not private and secret confession to a priest. The Roman Catholic Confessional is one of the most dangerous of ecclesiastical institutions.” It puts un- told power for harm into the hands of the priest. It is difficult to conceive how a husband or father could be willing for wife or daughter to make secret confession to a priest. The abuses of the confes- sional make a horrible chapter in human history. Not merely are things wrung out that should not be told, but evil is suggested that would never be thought of. The original form of absolution was “precatory rather than declaratory” (Plummer). But it is a great good to the soul to open the heart and make a frank confession to the church or to the persons who have been injured. Great sorrow would be avoided if men would only have the man- hood to do this thing. Tertullian (On Penance Viti) PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER 261 well says: “‘Confession of sins lightens as much as concealment aggravates them.’ Confession of sin was one of the cardinal tenets in the preaching of John the Baptist. The Romanists demanded pen- ance for sins publicly confessed and private enmity (Plummer) took advantage of it for purposes of revenge. Then it is a good time to pray ‘‘that ye may be healed’”’ (érw¢ iadjze). Then the power of God is with men to heal both soul and body. Many a revival has started in a church because those who have been estranged have buried the hatchet and see eye to eye again. There is power in prayer when the soul is open to God as can be true only when hate disappears from the heart. ‘‘The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working” (road loxber dénate OtKaiov éevepyovuéyn), “the prayers of the righteous have a powerful effect’? (Moffatt). This short sentence is clearer in the Greek than in any of the English renderings. Plummer suggests: “Great is the strength of a righteous man’s supplica- tion, in its earnestness.’’ The word for ‘“‘supplica- tion’ (déqjotc) is more specific than the usual term term (évy7j) and suggests a sense of need. But the crucial word is the participle (évepyovpévn), which may be either middle or passive.1 Our word “‘ener- getic’’ is derived from the verbal adjective (évep- ynttxoc) of this word. The notion of “energy” is present at any rate. The great word in modern science is this very word energy, which is made 1 See extensive discussion in Mayor. The N. T. usage favors the middle, but the passive is also in use and either makes good sense. 262: PRACTICAL AND (SOGIAT JA SBEGES luminous by electricity and radium. The only prayer worth while is one with “energy” in it, whether “inwrought”’ (taking évepyounévn as passive) by the Spirit of God or at work (middle voice) through the spiritual passion of the man’s own soul. Such a prayer has much force (odd ioyter) in it and is not a mere ceremony nor rattle of meaning- less words. The emphasis on ‘“‘a righteous man” (dixaiov) here does not mean that God will not hear the cry of a sinner for mercy, but probably that a righteous man is more likely to put the proper energy into his prayer. We may sadly reflect that our prayers often have no power with God because they have no energy when said. There is no power in the dynamo. The engine has gone dead. The steam is not high enough to move the driving wheel. _ Oesterley quotes aptly the words of Rabbi Ben Zakkai in Berachoth, 34b, when prayers for a sick child are desired: ‘Although I am greater in learn- ing than Chaninah, he is more efficacious in prayer; I am indeed the Prince, but he is the Steward who has constant access to the King.” There are men who have power in prayer. They have it because they live close to God. With a great price they have won this high prerogative. Ofttimes they are the humblest of men in earthly station and store. Very mechanical surely is the idea of Rabbi Isaac (Jebamoth, 64a), who says: “‘The prayer of the righteous is comparable to a pitchfork; as the ‘pitchfork changes the position of the wheat so the prayer changes the disposition of God from wrath to mercy.”’ PERSEVERANCE AND» PRAYER ~ "263 James has a typical case to illustrate his point. “Elijah was a man of like passions with us’ (’Hieia¢ avOowrocg iv duovorabic quiv), ““with a nature just like our own’”’ (Moffatt). James emphasizes the human frailties (éuotorabjc) of Elijah to show that he does not refer to ceremonial or sacramental rites when’ he urges prayer for the sick. Such prayer is the privilege, not merely of the elders of the church, but of any good man who has the ear of God. That power is not a function of ecclesiastical position, but the reward of holy living and trust in God. Elijah had his weaknesses as we all have, but God heard him. The point for us is that, if God heard Elyah, he will hear any of us who puts the same amount of spiritual energy into his prayer. ‘He prayed fer- vently’’ (mpocevy% mpoonttaro).1 There is no use to. pray in any other way. Elijah prayed seven times before the rain came. Half-hearted prayer defeats itself (cf. doubting prayer in 1: 6ff.). Many modern men have no faith in prayer of any kind save as a wholesome reaction on the mind of the one who prays. They scout the idea that the God of the universe would condescend to listen to the feeble chatter of such worms in the dust as men. They conceive it as impossible that God would alter in the least his will in any particular because of such insig- nificant requests. Least of all do they admit the possibility that God would change the weather in response to the prayer of one or many individuals. They argue that the laws of the weather are fixed 1 This idiom, common in the LXX in translation from the He- brew infinitive absolute, appears also in the common Greek. 264. PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS by the laws of nature and that God does not alter his own laws. A very pretty network of impossi- bilities is fixed up, but all the same the experience of Christians breaks right through all these en- tanglements. A real God is greater than his own laws and his own will is the chief law of his nature. God is not an absentee God and he is our Father and loves for us to. tell him our troubles. Certainly God knows how to work his own laws. We do not have to think that Elijah had the matter of drouth and rain in his own hands, at his beck and call (rob jen BoéSar nat ov EBoezev). Far from it. Elijah won — in prayer by strenuous prayer and perseverance, not by lightly informing God of his wishes. Besides, when rain came in response to the prayer of Elijah, ‘it came out of clouds, as rain always does. God made the clouds gather from the west (the Mediter- ranean) till the rain came. As the hot winds from the east and the south brought the drouth, so the west winds brought the rain. Many times in my own experience I have known people to pray for rain and the rain came. This very thing happened last summer (1914). The rain may not have come in response to the prayer. Of that I do not know, but it came the very night in which prayer was made for it at the prayer meeting. The difficulty in the matter of rain is no greater than in cases of sickness. The root of the trouble is the lack of trust in God, the broken relation with God, the loss of power with God. PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER 265 7. Rescue Work or Restoring the Erring. 5: tof. James makes a last appeal to his readers and it has a touch of tenderness. ‘My brethren” (dded- poi ov). In verse 16 he spoke of the case of a sick man who is brought to confess his sins and is led to God. Here he seems to refer specifically to the case of a brother who has fallen into error. There are such sad instances that puzzle many a pastor by their indifference, hardness, and even scorn of Christ. “If any among you err from the truth, and one convert him” (éév tig éy tpiv nAavndy ard tI GAndeiag Kat excoreéyy tig adtév). The condition (third class) is put delicately only as a supposed case, not assumed as true and yet as probable, alas. ‘‘Err’ is from the Latin errare (to wander, to go astray). The Greek word here (7Aav767) suggests the picture of one who is lost in the mountains, who has missed his path,! without passing on the question of his own part in the process. That is now neither here nor there, for he is lost. Our “planet” is this word from the notion that these luminaries were wander- ing stars, not fixed like the rest. We now know that none of the stars are ‘‘fixed,’’ but they all move with great speed. But, whatever the cause, it, is not impossible for brethren to go astray “‘from the truth.” One way to treat them is to kick them out of the way down the hill. Another way is to go after them with hammer and tongs to beat them 1The passive voice does not have its technical force here as in Rev. 18:23, but rather is more like the middle in sense as in Deut. 22:1 and probably (Mayor) in Luke 21:8; 2 Pet. 2:15. The pas- sive is constantly making inroads on the middle in the xowg, 266 PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS back into the path. Another way is to give them | up in disgust and to wash our hands of all responsi- bility. It must be confessed that often it is very hard to do anything else, since brethren act with so much independence and resent any effort to show them a better way. When_they start away, so often they go the whole way. But there is a_ more excellent -way, the way of love. See, not only t Cor. 13, but also Gal. 6: 1ff. We are our brothers’ keepers in spite of all they say and all that we may feel. Ye that are spiritual have a call to mind the broken lives all about you. There is no nobler work than this rescue work, to “turn a sinner from ve the error of his way”’ (6 émorpépag duaprwddv Ex TAdyyg édod abtov).1 It is so hard to get a man back on the right track. He, like all lost men, wanders round © and round in his old tracks of sin and error. He is the victim of his own logical fallacies and sinful delusions. Though a giant, he is bound by the cords of the Lilliputians, the bonds of habit which he does not break. It is enough to discourage any social worker in the slums or in the tenement dis-— tricts of our cities to see the hopeless conditions in which the victims live. Drugs have fastened some with clamps of steel. Drink has fired the blood of - others. The cigarette has deadened the will of these. Immorality has hurled these sah: to the pit. They stumble into the rescue halls, “cities of refuge’ in our cities. Happy are those who know 1Note 6 érvorpéwac, the aorist participle describing the worker for souls, 4 ( — ee Se PERSEVERANCE AND PRAYER — 267 how to save souls like these, who have known better days and who have gone down into the valley of sin and sorrow. But it is worth while to save souls like these for whom Jesus died. Let the rescue worker know (y:vwoxétw, by personal ex- ‘perience, in truth) that he “‘shall save a soul from death” (coce: wuynv é Oavdrov), from a living death in which such a soul already finds itself and from eternal death as well. That is the reward of the winner of souls. But it is not alone those who go down into the depths of gross sin, the “pick-me-ups” of life, that are to be won back. There are many who live in accord with the outward ethical standards of life who turn away from the knowledge of Jesus, who go after the strange gods of gold, of “knowledge falsely so-called,’ of materialistic monism, of ‘New Thought,” of “‘Christian Science,” of ‘“‘Russellism,”’ of any new fad in science or philosophy or religion, of any new form of old wives’ fables that lead men astray. These are in reality more difficult to win back to the truth as it is in Jesus, for they have the pride of knowledge and look with compassionate condescension on those who still worship Jesus as God and Saviour from sin. The worker for souls has one more joy. He learns to see the good side of human nature. The bad side is there beyond a shadow of doubt. No man knows that better than the worker for the redemption of human souls. But this fact does not make him a pessimist or a cynic. He sees the angel in the stone. He learns the love that ‘“‘shall 2638) PRACTICAL AND: SOGTATS ASP iss cover a multitude of sins’’ (kaAtdper tARO0¢ duaptidy),* ‘“‘hides a host of sins’ (Moffatt), covers with a veil (xadtwet) the sins of the poor soul who wandered away and is now brought back. See 1 Pet. 4:8 for the same idea. This is not the Jewish doctrine of merit in good works balancing evil ones, as Oesterly holds. Mayor also thinks that the idea is that the man who rescues another saves his own soul. But I cannot agree to that interpretation, so out of har- mony with the teaching of Jesus and the whole trend of the gospel message. We do not need to go back to these “‘blind guides’ of Pharisaism to find the key to this verse and that in 1 Pet. 4:8, where we read that “‘love covers a multitude of sins.” It is the love that no longer sees the sins of the saved sinner. We see the true idea in Prov. 10: 12: “‘Hate stirreth up strife, but love covereth all transgres- sions.”’ See also Psa. 85:2: ‘“Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people; thou hast covered all their sin.’”’ In Luke 7:47 Jesus speaks of the love of the converted woman as proof that she has been forgiven much. James presents the joy of the winner of souls who throws the mantle of love over the sins of the repentant sinner, the joy of the Shepherd who has found the lost sheep out on the mountain and is returning with him in his arms, the joy of the Father who welcomes home the prodigal boy with the best robe and the fatted calf, — the joy in the presence of the angels that one sinner has repented and turned unto God. That is heaven on earth. The preacher who has missed this joy 1 The Vulgate has it operiet multitudinem peccatorum. Bre Roe VERANCEVAND PRA VERS ("269 of winning souls has missed the greatest reward in his ministry. If he has this, he can do without much else. He can stand many rebuffs, small salary, lack of help, if only he has this meat to eat that satisfied the soul of Jesus when he led one poor abandoned woman into the light and life of God. SOME MODERN BOOKS ON JAMES Only the best of the modern books are here men- tioned: Beyschlag, W.> Der Brief des Jakobus. Meyer- Kommentar. Sechste Auflage. 18098. rown, Charles. The General Epistle of James. A Devotional Commentary. Second edition. 1907. ee Pk Carr, Arthur. The General Epistle of St. James. The Cambridge Greek Testament. 18096. Dale, R. W. Discourses on the Epistle of James. 1895. Hollmann, G. Der Jakobusbrief. Die Schriften des Neuen Testament. 1907. Hort, F. J. A. The Epistle of St. James, 1:1 to AMT OE OOO: v Johnstone, R. Lectures Exegetical and Practical. 1871. Edition two in 1889. ~ Knowling, R. J. Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. The Westminster Series. 1904. / Mayor, J. B. The Epistle of St. James. Third Edition. 1010. The ablest volume on James. Meinertz, Der Jakobus Brief und sein Verfasser. 190s. Roman Catholic interpretation. Oesterley, W. The General Epistle of James. The Expositor’s Greek Testament. IgTIo. Patrick, W. James, the Lord’s Brother. 1906. Plummer, A. The General Epistle of St. James. The Expositor’s Bible. 1891. _ 270 i SOME MODERN BOOKS ON JAMES 271 soden, H. von. Der Brief des Jakobus. Hand- Commentar. 18093. Spitta, F. Der Brief Jakobus. 1896. Weiss, B. Der Jakobusbrief und die neuere Kritik. 1904. Windisch, H. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament IQII. ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY fj Carpenter, W. Boyd. The Wisdom of James the Hust. 1003. ‘Deems, C. F. The Gospel of Common Sense. /Patry, J. The General Epistle of James. 1904. Ropes, J. H. The Epistle of James. 1916. ae WAY aay DATE DUE he ee ee a ee PRINTEDINU.S A. | , the Epistle of James wy a oO a oO tT ie) c& BS2785. Studies in y ivi ceton Theological Seminary | 1 1012 0 Prin {| | | lil ill lil