{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_48411/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_48411","id":"gutenberg_48411","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48411","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. James -- Commentaries","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Studies _in the_\n Epistle _of_ James\n\n\n _First published as_\n PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS\n OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n\n A. T. ROBERTSON\n Late Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist\n Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky\n\n _Revised and Edited by_\n Heber F. Peacock\n\n[Illustration: ]\n\n BROADMAN PRESS\n _Nashville, Tennessee_\n\n 421-06232\n\n _Library of Congress catalog card number: 59-5861_\n Printed in the United States of America\n 5.AT58K.S.P.\n\n\n\n\n Preface\n\n\nIn August, 1912, it was my privilege to deliver a course of lectures at\nthe Northfield Bible Conference. There were many requests for the\npublication of the addresses. I shall never forget the bright faces of\nthe hundreds who gathered in beautiful Sage Chapel at 8:30 on those\nAugust mornings. In August, 1913, the lectures were repeated at the New\nYork Chautauqua and at the Winona Bible Conference. There were renewed\nappeals for publication, but it was not possible to put the material\ninto shape because of my work on _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament\nin the Light of Historical Research_.\n\nI have expanded the lectures a good deal and have added some\nintroductory discussion about James himself. I have in mind ministers,\nsocial workers, students of the Bible, Sunday school teachers, and all\nlovers of the Word of God and of rightness of life. Technical matters\nare placed in parentheses or in footnotes so that the reader may go on\nwithout these if he cares to do so. There is a freshness in the Greek\ntext not possible in the English, but those who do not know Greek may\nstill read this book with entire ease.\n\nI do not claim that these addresses are a detailed commentary on the\nEpistle of James. They are expository talks based, I trust, on sober,\nup-to-date scholarship and applied to modern life. It is the old gospel\nin the new age that we need and must know how to use. There is a\nwondrous charm in these words of the long ago from one who walked so\nclose by the side of the Son of man, who misunderstood him at first but\nwho came at last to rejoice in his Brother in the flesh as the Lord\nJesus Christ. It is immensely worthwhile to listen to what James has to\nsay about Christianity and the problems of everyday life. His words\nthrob with power today and strike a peculiarly modern note in the\nemphasis upon social problems and reality in religion. They have the\nbreath of heaven and the warmth of human sympathy and love. Except for a\nfew quotations from the King James Version, Scripture quotations follow\nthe American Standard Version.\n\n\n\n\n Preface to Second Edition\n\n\nThe welcome accorded this interpretation of the Epistle of James makes a\nnew edition necessary. Opportunity is thus afforded for weeding out\nmisprints. Prof. S. L. Watson, of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, has kindly\nverified all the references in the book. The words of James strike a\npeculiarly modern note during these days of war.\n\n A. T. R.\n\n\n\n\n Contents\n\n\n I. James, a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ 1\n II. To the Twelve Tribes Which Are of the Dispersion 28\n III. Joy in Trial 33\n IV. The Way of Temptation 48\n V. The Practice of the Word of God 60\n VI. Class Prejudice 75\n VII. The Appeal to Life 91\n VIII. The Tongues of Teachers 104\n IX. The True Wise Man 124\n X. The Outer and the Inner Life 140\n XI. God and Business 158\n XII. Perseverance and Prayer 177\n\n\n\n\n I\n James, a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ\n\n\n The Brother of the Lord\n\nIt will be well to put together the bits of information about James, or\nJacob,[1] as he is called in the Greek. They are not very numerous, and\nyet it is possible to form a reasonably clear picture of his\npersonality.\n\nIt is here assumed that James the author of the epistle is James the\nbrother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19). It is hardly conceivable that James the\nbrother of John could have written the epistle, since he was put to\ndeath as early as A.D. 44 by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). The matters\npresented in the epistle were hardly acute in the Jewish Christian world\nby that date, and there is no evidence that this James had attained a\nspecial position of leadership that justified a general appeal to Jewish\nChristians.[2]\n\nThe epistle belongs to the five \u201cdisputed\u201d epistles (James, Jude, 2 and\n3 John, 2 Peter) and it circulated in the East before it did in the\nWest. It occurs in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Origen (in Johan. xix.\n6) knows it as \u201cthe Epistle current as that of James\u201d and Eusebius (H.\nE. III. xxv. 3) describes it with the other four as \u201cnevertheless\nwell-known to most people.\u201d\n\nThere are many proofs[3] that the epistle was written by the author of\nthe speech in Acts 15:13-21\u2014delicate similarities of thought and style\ntoo subtle for mere imitation or copying. The same likeness appears\nbetween the Epistle of James and the letter to Antioch, probably written\nalso by James (Acts 15:23-29). There are, besides, apparent\nreminiscences of the Sermon on the Mount, which James may have heard\npersonally or at least heard the substance of it. There is the same\nvividness of imagery in the epistle that is so prominent a\ncharacteristic of the teaching of Jesus.\n\nIf it be urged that the author of the epistle, if related to Jesus,\nwould have said so, one may reply that a delicate sense of propriety may\nhave had precisely the opposite effect. Jesus had himself laid emphasis\non the fact of his spiritual kinship with all believers as more\nimportant (Matt. 12:48-50). The fact that James during the ministry of\nJesus was not sympathetic with His work would also act as a restraining\nforce upon him. The brother of Jesus (see also Jude 1) naturally would\nwish to make his appeal on the same plane as the other teachers of the\ngospel. He rejoices in the title of \u201cservant of God and of the Lord\nJesus Christ,\u201d just as Paul did later (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1)\nand as Jude, the brother of James, did (Jude 1).\n\nPaul, however, added the term \u201capostle\u201d in Romans 1:1 and Titus 1:1\nwhich James and Jude do not employ. None of them were members of the\ntwelve, although Paul claimed apostleship on a par with the twelve (1\nCor. 9:1 f.; 15:8; 2 Cor. 12:11 f.). And yet Paul implies (Gal. 1:19)\nthat James also is an apostle[4] in a true sense of that term. Like\nPaul, he had seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:7). But James, though one of\nthe pillars at Jerusalem with Peter and John (Gal. 2:9), is content with\nthe humbler word \u201cslave.\u201d He is the bondsman of the Lord Jesus Christ as\nwell as of God and so is a Christian in the full sense of the term.\n\nHe places Jesus on a par with God and uses Christ as a part of the name.\nHe identifies his brother Jesus with the Messiah of the Old Testament\nand the fulfilment of the hopes and aspirations of true Judaism. One\nmust perceive that the term \u201cChrist\u201d in the mouth of James carries its\nfull content and is used deliberately. He adds also \u201cLord,\u201d which has\nhere the Old Testament connotation of worship. It is not a mere polite\nterm for station or courtesy. The use of \u201cLord\u201d by the side of \u201cGod\u201d\nplaces James unquestionably in the ranks of worshipers of Jesus Christ\nas Lord and Saviour. See also James 2:1, \u201cfaith of our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\u201d\n\nI consider it settled that James was not the cousin of Jesus, the son of\nthe sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. There is no doubt that the Greek\nword for brother is used for members of a brotherhood in the current\nGreek of the first century A.D., just as we find it so frequently in the\nNew Testament. This usage does not apply to the brothers of Jesus\nreferred to in the Gospels (John 2:12; Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55; John 7:3).\nIn Matthew 12:46, 49 we find both the literal and the figurative use of\n\u201cbrother\u201d side by side. In this looser sense anyone may be called\n\u201cbrother.\u201d\n\nIn Leviticus 10:4 the first cousins of Aaron are termed \u201cbrethren,\u201d but\nthis instance does not justify the constant use of the word in the\nGospels for a definite group of persons as brothers of Jesus if they\nwere only cousins. Besides, they appear constantly with Mary, the mother\nof Jesus, as members of her family. The use of \u201csisters\u201d increases the\nargument for the common use of the word (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:56). There\nare many other difficulties in the way of this position, such as the\nfact of two sisters with the name of Mary and the identification of\nAlphaeus and Clopas.\n\nThe theory that James and the other brothers and sisters were all\nchildren of Joseph by a former marriage (step-brother theory) is free\nfrom the difficulty about the word \u201cbrother\u201d and is not inconceivable in\nitself. Unfortunately there are critical objections to it, for Jesus is\nnot called \u201conly begotten\u201d of Mary but \u201cfirstborn\u201d in Luke 2:7: \u201cShe\nbrought forth her firstborn son.\u201d\n\nJesus is \u201conly begotten\u201d of God (John 1:18), as the widow of Nain had an\nonly son (Luke 7:12) and Jairus an only daughter (Luke 8:42). But\n\u201cfirstborn\u201d occurs in the true sense all through the Septuagint (cf.\nGen. 27:19, 32; 43:33; Deut. 21:15), where there were other children.\nThe inscriptions show it in the true sense. The New Testament instances\nof \u201cfirstborn\u201d are all strictly correct from this standpoint, even\nColossians 1:15 and Romans 8:29. \u201cFirstborn\u201d implies other children.\nBesides, the natural meaning of Matthew 1:25 leads to the same\nconclusion.\n\nThe theory (brother or half-brother theory) that Jesus and James were\nsons of the same mother, Mary, may be said to hold the field against the\nothers. In fact, it is most likely that both of the other theories grew\nout of the desire to secure a greater imaginary sanctity for Mary under\nthe impression that she was more holy if she bore only Jesus and did not\nlive as wife with Joseph. But this is contrary to all Jewish sentiment,\nand certainly there is nothing in the Gospels to countenance this notion\nbut much to contradict it. We conclude, therefore, that James, the\nauthor of the epistle, is the brother of Jesus.\n\n\n In the Family Circle at Nazareth\n\nIn spite of Origen\u2019s opinion (Origen on Matt. 13:55) that the sons and\ndaughters of Joseph were children of a former marriage, an opinion more\nthan offset by the position of Tertullian (_de Monog. 8_, _de Virg. Vel.\n6_), we must think of the family circle at Nazareth as composed of five\nbrothers (Jesus, James, Joses, Judas, Simon, as in Mark 6:3, but Jesus,\nJames, Joseph, Simon, Judas in Matt. 13:55) and the \u201csisters.\u201d Every\nimplication is that they all passed as sons and daughters of Joseph and\nMary in the usual sense. The order implies also that while Jesus was the\neldest, James came next among the brothers. Unfortunately, the names of\nthe sisters are not given.\n\nWe are to think, therefore, of a large home circle in the humble\ncarpenter\u2019s house in Nazareth. Jesus, the eldest, followed the trade of\nJoseph, the father of the family, and came to be known as \u201cthe\ncarpenter\u201d (Mark 6:3). Certainly all the children must have learned to\nwork with their hands, although we do not know whether James adopted\nthat trade or some other. He would soon be called upon to help in the\nsupport of the family, as Joseph seems to be dead when Jesus enters upon\nhis ministry; he is not mentioned with Mary and the children in Matthew\n13:55 and Mark 6:3. Joseph was probably older than Mary. The family were\nnot peasants, and they probably had all the necessary comforts of the\nsimple primitive life of a workman in a small town in Galilee.\n\nJewish boys usually started to school when six years old, but before\nthat the education of James had begun in the home. \u201cJames, together with\nhis brothers and sisters, was brought up in an atmosphere charged with\nreverence for God and love for man, with tenderness, freedom, and\njoy.\u201d[5] The Jewish parents did not shirk parental responsibility for\nthe religious training of the children, and a large family was regarded\nas a blessing from God. The love of God was the first of all lessons\ntaught at home, and this was followed by the simple elements of truth,\nuprightness, mercy, and beneficence.[6] The Jewish mother rejoiced in\nher children, and James was fortunate in having such a mother as Mary\nand such a father as Joseph, whose dedication to the things of their God\nwas sincere.\n\nAt school, while religion was the main theme and portions of the Old\nTestament the textbook, there was abundant intellectual stimulus. The\nquick-witted boy would be all alive to the great problems of faith and\nduty. The teacher would probably use the Aramaic dialect of Galilee,\neven if he had the Old Testament in Hebrew. But the boy would soon learn\nto speak the _Koine_ also, the current Greek of the world, the language\nof commerce and of common intercourse everywhere. Simon Peter, the\nfisherman, knew and used Greek, as did John, the apostle. It was common\nfor people to know two languages. Paul probably knew Aramaic and Hebrew,\nGreek and Latin. Jesus knew and spoke both Aramaic and Greek and\nprobably knew Hebrew also.\n\nJames came to write Greek with a great deal of ease and skill. He was in\nno sense a litt\u00e9rateur. He was no Atticist in his style and did not try\nto imitate the classical Greek writers, whom he probably never read.\nDeissmann[7] does call the Epistle of James \u201ca little piece of\nliterature,\u201d but he means a product of popular literature. Certainly\nthere is nothing artificial in content and style. Is it mere fancy to\nthink that the same poetic beauty shown in Mary\u2019s Magnificat (Luke\n1:46-55) appears in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Epistle of James?\nAt least the rich acquaintance with the Old Testament exists in all\nthree.\n\nThe author of the epistle is gifted with imagination and shows knowledge\nof the apocryphal books, especially the wisdom literature of the Jews.\nBut he is a thorough Jew in his outlook and literary method,[8] so much\nso indeed that it is contended by some that James wrote the epistle\noriginally in Aramaic,[9] an unlikely supposition. The widespread\ndiffusion of Greek in Palestine amply accounts for the author\u2019s grasp of\nthe language.[10] The epigrammatic and picturesque style is due to the\nwriter\u2019s individuality, his environment, and his reading. His vocabulary\nis rich in words about fishing, husbandry, and domestic life, as one\nwould expect.[11] A man of the force and position of James could easily\nbroaden his acquaintance with the Greek tongue as the years went by. The\nGreek is pure _Koine_, with few Hebraisms, though the tone is distinctly\nthat of the Old Testament.[12] He speaks like a prophet of old in the\nservice of Christ. There is no doubt that James came to be a man of\nculture in a real sense.\n\nHe probably married early, as it was the custom of the Jews for men to\nmarry at the age of eighteen.[13] Paul expressly states that the\nbrothers of the Lord were married (1 Cor. 9:5). We do not know, of\ncourse, the age of James when Jesus began his ministry. In all\nprobability he had already married and had a home of his own in\nNazareth. The sisters probably married and settled in Nazareth also\n(Mark 6:3).\n\nWe have no mention of the rest of the children going to Jerusalem when\nthe boy Jesus was taken (Luke 2:41-52). Indeed, it is rather implied\nthat they were not in the company, but this does not mean that James did\nnot have his turn to go at the age of twelve and afterward.\n\nThere is no reason to believe that James grew up to be a Nazarite, as\nHegesippus quoted by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 23) alleges: \u201cHe is\ndistinguished from others of the same name by the title \u2018Just,\u2019 which\nhas been applied to him from the first. He was holy from his mother\u2019s\nwomb, drank no wine or strong drink, nor ate animal food; no razor came\non his head, nor did he anoint himself with oil nor use the bath. To him\nonly was it permitted to enter the Holy of Holies.\u201d The evident\nlegendary details here deprive the statement of real value except as\nwitness to his genuine piety and to the esteem in which he was held by\nthe people generally. Hegesippus adds: \u201cHis knees became hard like a\ncamel\u2019s, because he was always kneeling in the temple, asking\nforgiveness for the people,\u201d a description of his life in Jerusalem\nafter he became a Christian. At any rate, like Joseph his father, he\ngrew up to be a just man and came to be known as James the Just.\n\n\n A Scoffer of Jesus\n\nWe are left to conjecture what the brothers and sisters of Jesus thought\nwhen he went down to the Jordan to meet the Baptist. We know that \u201cMary\nkept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart\u201d (Luke 2:19). Mary\nhad seen the dawning messianic consciousness when Jesus was only twelve\n(Luke 2:49). The reply of Jesus to his mother\u2019s hint about the wine at\nthe wedding of Cana implies that they had talked over his messianic task\n(John 2:4). But the brothers accompanied Jesus, his mother, and the\nsmall band of six disciples to Capernaum after the miracle at Cana, and\nthe group remained together for some days (John 2:12). They may have met\nat Nazareth after the wedding at Cana and thence proceeded to Capernaum.\n\nIt is possible that the brothers, not being at Cana and not knowing the\nsecret between Jesus and Mary, may not have grasped the significance of\nthe events connected with the baptism of Jesus and his entrance upon his\nmessianic career. The presence of the band of \u201cdisciples\u201d (learners at\nthe feet of the new Rabbi) argues that the brothers must have known\nsomething about the wonderful claims of Jesus, their brother. At any\nrate, it is pleasant to see them all here together in Capernaum in\nfellowship and friendliness, \u201ca proof of the closeness of the ties\nuniting our Lord and them. No shadow of estrangement had as yet fallen\nupon their relations.\u201d[14] Godet thinks that Mary and the brothers came\non to Capernaum, eager for more miracles like the one at Cana, and may\nhave been keenly disappointed because Jesus wrought none. This is\npossible but hardly as probable as the idea that it was a friendly group\nin frank fellowship in Capernaum.\n\nWe are left in the dark as to the real attitude of the brothers of Jesus\nwhen he began his great work. They may have looked upon him as a sort of\nirregular rabbi or a mild enthusiast carried away by the new teaching of\nJohn the Baptist. There would be natural pride in his work while it\nsucceeded, without necessary belief in his claims. Certainly Mary must\nhave had at first the utmost faith, tremulous with expectation, in the\nmessiahship of Jesus. Perhaps the brothers were at first only mildly\ninterested or even skeptical of the qualifications of one out of their\nown family circle. The brothers may not have been free from the jealousy\nsometimes seen in home life.\n\nIt was not long before hostility toward Jesus sprang up in Nazareth\nitself, according to the vivid narrative in Luke 4:16-31; it probably\nwas soon after the return of Jesus from Judea and Samaria to Galilee,\ncertainly after the miracle at Capernaum (Luke 4:23), as told in John\n4:46-54. James may have shared with the rest the first wonder at the\nwords of grace (Luke 4:22) and the quick flash of wrath as the pride of\nthe town was pricked (Luke 4:28). Henceforth in Nazareth, despite his\ngrowing fame elsewhere, Jesus was _persona non grata_. His brothers felt\nthis atmosphere of hostility very keenly.\n\nThe curtain falls on the family life in Nazareth till toward the close\nof the Galilean ministry, after the second general tour of Galilee by\nJesus (Luke 8:1-3). The tremendous work of Jesus had created a wonderful\nimpression. The multitudes in amazement asked if Jesus were not the son\nof David, the Messiah (Matt. 12:23). The Pharisees in anger and chagrin\nreplied that he was in league with Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24). The\nexcitement was intense. Jesus could not eat (Mark 3:20). News of all\nthis came to \u201chis friends\u201d (Mark 3:21), who are explained in Mark 3:31\nas \u201chis mother and his brothers.\u201d\n\nProbably already vague rumors were afloat that Jesus was out of his\nhead. Once people said of Jesus that he was \u201ca gluttonous man, and a\nwinebibber\u201d (Luke 7:34), but now he is so queer! In the inner circle at\nNazareth Mary had watched and heard it all. What could it mean? Perhaps,\nMary argued, his reason has been temporarily dethroned by the strain and\nthe excitement. She will go and bring him home where he can have quiet\nand rest. It was easier for the brothers to see it so, since they had\nnot accepted him as Messiah. Perhaps one may have said, \u201cI told you so.\u201d\nAt any rate, \u201cthey went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is\nbeside himself\u201d (Mark 3:21).\n\nJesus is in a crowded house in Galilee near the lake when they come\n(Mark 3:19) and readily understands why they have come when he is told\nthat his mother and brothers are standing without and wish to speak with\nhim (Mark 3:31; Matt. 12:46; Luke 8:19 f.). It is a tragedy of life,\npathetic beyond words. The ecclesiastics have long ago made issue with\nhim and are now violently assailing him. Many of the people are\nfollowing the lead of the Pharisees. And now his own mother and brothers\nhave come and wish to take him home so as to avoid the scandal and shame\nof his further public ministry. The Pharisees say he has a demon and is\nin league with the devil. The \u201ccharitable\u201d construction, therefore, is\nthat he is a lunatic. But Jesus does not go out to meet his own mother\nand brothers (James among them). He had come to know one of the\nbitterest of human sorrows, a pang to the very heart\u2014to be misunderstood\n\u201camong his own kin, and in his own house\u201d (Mark 6:4).\n\nIt is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus found consolation in the\nfact that many did understand him. \u201cAnd looking round on them that sat\nround about him\u201d (Mark 3:34) when the message came, \u201che stretched forth\nhis hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my\nbrethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven,\nhe is my brother, and sister, and mother\u201d (Matt. 12:49 f.). Mother and\nbrothers and even his \u201csisters\u201d (note \u201cand sister\u201d) had failed in the\ncrisis to comprehend Jesus. But the Father in heaven had not veiled his\nface from Jesus. It is not clear that James heard this pathetic rebuke\nfrom Jesus, as he may have remained standing outside the house. Many\nhave come into spiritual fellowship with Jesus who thus have the\npeculiar privilege of taking the place made empty in his heart for the\ntime by mother and sister and brother. With Mary it was a temporary\neclipse, and she was loyal at the end as she stood by the cross (John\n19:25).\n\nJesus made another and a last visit to Nazareth (Matt. 13:54-58; Mark\n6:1-6). There was a revival of interest in him which crystallized into\nhard skepticism, so that Jesus \u201cdid not many mighty works there,\u201d and\neven \u201cmarvelled because of their unbelief.\u201d He was a \u201cprophet without\nhonor\u201d in Nazareth as he left for the last time the city of his\nchildhood and early manhood.\n\nThe tide at last turned against Jesus in Capernaum (John 6:22-71) and in\nGalilee generally. For six months he remained away, save for a brief\nvisit that met with the united hostility of Pharisee and Sadducee (Matt.\n15:39 to 16:4; Mark 8:10-13). The brothers of Jesus meanwhile seemed to\ngrow in this spirit of dislike toward the elder brother. Six months\nbefore the death of Jesus they ridiculed him for his being a virtual\nrefugee from Galilee and for his secretive methods, quite inconsistent\nwith his claims of messiahship (John 7:2-5). James as the oldest of the\nbrothers was probably the spokesman on this occasion. The \u201cadvice\u201d was\nof an extremely irritating nature, with the implication that Jesus was\nseeking to gain credit \u201cin public\u201d while doing his work \u201cin secret.\u201d It\nis not surprising, therefore, that Jesus did precisely the opposite, for\nhe went up to Jerusalem, \u201cnot publicly, but as it were in secret\u201d (John\n7:10).\n\nJohn explains the motive of the brothers (7:4 f.), \u201cfor even his\nbrethren did not believe on him.\u201d[15] They had reached the point when\nthey were willing to attack Jesus. They belonged to the world and did\nnot understand Jesus (John 7:6 f.). It is not necessary to say that\nJames was actually a Pharisee, still less an Essene. The use made of his\nname by the Judaizers in the controversy with Paul does not prove this\nto be true (Gal. 2:12). But certainly he was now in general sympathy\nwith the hostile attitude of the ecclesiastics from Jerusalem (both\nPharisee and Sadducee). The cup that Jesus must drink at Jerusalem has\nthis added bitterness in it.\n\nIt is not particularly surprising, when all things are considered, that\nat his death Jesus commended his mother to John, the beloved disciple,\nrather than to any of his brothers or sisters. They were all completely\nout of sympathy with him and with her. At such an hour sympathy counted\nfar more than blood relationship alone. Besides, the brothers may not\nhave been in Jerusalem at this time, for they still lived in Nazareth.\nIt is possible, of course, that James may have been at the Passover,\nwhich was so generally attended by the Jews. Certainly he was at\nPentecost later (Acts 1:14).\n\nWe do not know whether Jesus appeared to James in Jerusalem or in\nGalilee (1 Cor. 15:7), though Paul mentions it after the appearance to\nthe more than five hundred, which was in Galilee. Mary needed immediate\nattention, and Jesus died upon the cross with James and all his brothers\nand sisters utterly out of touch with him. \u201cDoubtless their very\nintimacy with our Lord blinded them to his real greatness.\u201d[16]\n\n\n Seeing the Risen Christ\n\nIt is Paul who tells us of this most interesting event (1 Cor.\n15:7).[17] As already stated, we do not know where James was when the\nrisen Jesus manifested himself to him. Broadus[18] locates the event in\nJerusalem after the return from Galilee and before the ascension. As a\nmatter of fact, it could have been in Galilee perfectly well. James may\nhave come to Jerusalem (Acts 1:14) because he had been converted in\nGalilee. At any rate, \u201cthis appearance to James is the only one not made\nto a known believer.\u201d[19] But Dale[20] holds that James had already been\nconverted before his Brother appeared to him as a result of information\nfrom his mother or from the apostles. This is, of course, possible, but\nit cannot be insisted on as necessary on the ground that Jesus appeared\nto believers only. The case of Saul refutes that position.\n\nIt is quite possible that James may have heard of the report of the\nresurrection of Jesus and had thus some preparation for the great event\nwhen he saw Jesus risen from the dead. We are told nothing of what\npassed between the two brothers, but one may be sure that no harsh\nreproof came from Jesus for the indifference and even scoffing of James.\nThe brothers of Jesus were children of their age, which was a pharisaic\nage in Palestine. The current expectation was for a political Messiah,\nnot a Saviour dying for the sins of the world.\n\nEven the twelve apostles had not risen to the conception of a spiritual\nMessiah, and they had given up all hope upon the death of Jesus and had\nto be convinced themselves of the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, a\ntask of much difficulty, particularly in the case of Thomas, though they\nall at first scoffed at the stories of Mary Magdalene and the other\nwomen. So, then, the path of James toward faith was not an easy one, but\nhe took it and came out boldly on the side of the disciples of Christ.\nIt is more than likely that it was through James that the other three\nbrothers were led to faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour (Acts 1:14).\n\n_The Gospel of the Hebrews_ as quoted by Jerome (_de Viris Illustribus\n2_) gives a story to the effect that James was already a disciple and\npresent at the last Passover with Jesus and took a vow \u201cthat he would\nnot eat bread from that hour on which he had drunk the cup of the Lord\ntill he saw him risen from the dead. Again, a little afterward, the Lord\nsays, Bring a table and bread. Immediately it is added: He took bread,\nand blessed, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to\nhim, My brother, eat the bread; for the Son of Man has risen from the\ndead.\u201d Mayor[21] is inclined to credit this story in part, but surely it\nutterly misunderstands Luke 22:18, makes James one of the twelve, and is\nimpossible from any point of view, since not even the twelve expected\nJesus to rise from the dead.\n\nThere are difficulties enough connected with the proof of the\nresurrection of Jesus without burdening the narrative with this story.\nBut, let me add, modern science has not made faith in the resurrection\nof Jesus impossible, nor has modern research disposed of the value of\nthe Gospel accounts of this tremendous event. Paul, who testifies to\nthis experience of James, is himself the chief witness to the reality of\nthe fact. This is not the place to enter upon a discussion of this great\nquestion, but modern men may and do still believe in the risen Christ\nwith all simplicity and sincerity.[22]\n\n\n In the Upper Room at Pentecost\n\nThe simple statement in Acts 1:14 is: \u201cThese all ... continued\nstedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and\nwith his brethren.\u201d So then all four are now disciples and are admitted\nto the inmost secrets of the circle of believers in Jerusalem, whither\nthey have now come. Certainly, now that they have all come to believe in\ntheir Brother as in reality the Messiah of Israel risen from the dead,\nthey must come to Jerusalem to be with their mother in her hour of\ntriumph and joy. No one but a mother can understand the fulness of\nsatisfaction in Mary\u2019s heart now. The sword had pierced her own soul\n(Luke 2:35), as old Simeon had prophesied when he saw the Babe in the\nTemple, but now the wound has been healed and there is a new and richer\nMagnificat in her heart. It was worth all that she had endured to wait\nwith the disciples and her other sons in the upper room for the Promise\nof the Father. The breach in her family life had been healed.\n\nIt is clear that the heartiest of welcomes greeted the brothers of\nJesus. They were men of importance in themselves, James in particular,\nwho from every standpoint is one of the first men of his day. It is\npossible that the coolness of James and the other brothers had injured\nthe work of Jesus with a good many, who used this fact against the\nclaims of Jesus. Now the accession of these brothers was of the utmost\nvalue to the band of believers gathered in the upper room, where Jesus\nhad manifested himself before his ascension.\n\nThe presence of the brothers is mentioned by Luke before the choice of\nMatthias to succeed Judas. One may naturally wonder why James was not\nsuggested by Peter, since he undoubtedly was equal to the eleven in\nability and all other qualities save one. But this one defect was fatal.\nHe had not been with the twelve during the ministry of Jesus and so\ncould not be a firsthand witness to his words and teachings (Acts 1:22).\nOtherwise, we may infer that James would have been a welcome addition to\nthe twelve in the place of Judas.[23]\n\nBut the significant fact is that James is present during the wonderful\ndays of this Pentecost and is filled, like the rest, with the Holy\nSpirit. He enters upon the new task of world evangelization with the new\ninsight and the new influx of divine power. He faces the new day with\nthe light of the sun in his face.\n\n\n Leadership in the Jerusalem Church\n\nIf he was disqualified from being one of the twelve, he was not debarred\nfrom liberty to serve. In fact, he was a practical apostle in Jerusalem\nalong with the rest. The twelve kept no secrets from James. He gradually\nwon his way to the love and confidence of all the great church in\nJerusalem. His importance in Jerusalem is recognized by Paul on the\noccasion of his visit to Jerusalem on his return from Damascus, for he\nsays: \u201cOther of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord\u2019s brother\u201d\n(Gal. 1:19). Here Paul treats him as an apostle and practically calls\nhim so.\n\nJames had probably seen Paul before, when he was the leader of the\npersecution against the Christians. He doubtless was glad to see this\npowerful addition to the forces of Christianity, but James is probably\nincluded in Luke\u2019s statement of the reception of Paul on this occasion.\n\u201cAnd they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple\u201d\n(Acts 9:26). Barnabas alone had faith in Paul and the courage to stand\nby him. If James was suspicious of the new convert, so were all the\nrest, and not without reason. It is clear from Paul\u2019s reference in\nGalatians 1:18 that Peter responded heartily to Paul\u2019s advances after\nonce opening his heart to him. They had a delightful fifteen days\ntogether. It is not likely, as Farrar[24] argues, that James, being a\nlegalist, held aloof from Paul throughout. This is wholly gratuitous.\n\nJames is not mentioned again in Acts till 12:17, and in a most\nsignificant manner. James, the brother of John, has been killed by Herod\nAgrippa I. Peter has been thrown into prison but has been released by\nthe angel of the Lord in response to the prayers of the church assembled\nin the home of Mary, mother of John Mark (12:12). Peter goes to the\nhouse and tells the astonished group: \u201cTell these things unto James, and\nto the brethren.\u201d This is somewhere about A.D. 44. James now clearly\noccupies a position of leadership in the church. Peter himself\napparently leaves the city for the time being (12:17). There are already\n\u201celders\u201d (11:30) in the church at Jerusalem. We do not know what the\nposition of James is, but certainly it is one of great honor and\nleadership. The apostles, since James could not be one of the twelve who\nwere charged with the general work of evangelization, may have been glad\nfor James to be in charge at Jerusalem. Certainly he proved himself\nfully equal to the task.\n\nJames maintains the position of leadership in Jerusalem throughout the\nnarrative in Acts. He is evidently the president of the Jerusalem\nConference (Acts 15:14-21). He is in charge of the church when Paul\nvisits Jerusalem the last time (Acts 21:18): \u201cPaul went in with us unto\nJames; and all the elders were present.\u201d He possessed the confidence of\nthis great Jewish church, the mother church at Jerusalem, and had the\near of the non-Christian Jewish world in a way hardly true of any other\ndisciple of Jesus. Jews would listen to James who would not heed Simon\nPeter.\n\n\n The Writing of the Epistle\n\nThe Epistle of James probably was written shortly before the Jerusalem\nConference, most likely just before, that is, about A.D. 48 or 49. There\nis no room here for an extended discussion of the proof of this\nstatement. In general I agree with the arguments of Mayor on this\npoint.[25] Plummer[26] is unable to decide between A.D. 49 and 59.\nWriters like von Soden place it at the end of the century, and Bruckner\nputs it in the second century. Spitta admits that Paul in Romans alludes\nto the Epistle of James, but suggests that the present epistle is a\nChristian adaptation of a Jewish book.\n\nOn the whole, the weight of the argument is toward the conclusion that\nJames wrote the epistle before the Conference and without reference to\nthe Judaizing controversy. Paul in Galatians and Romans may very well\nhave in mind a misuse of what James in chapter 2 says about faith and\nworks, which misapprehension he seeks to correct. The epistle must be\nplaced either between A.D. 40 and 50, before the Judaizing controversy\narose, or in the middle of the second century, after it had died\ndown.[27] The early date has the best of it, in my opinion.\n\nIf this date for the writing of the epistle is correct, we have no\ndifficulty in seeing how James could have written it so early. Already\nabout A.D. 44 we saw his leadership in the Jerusalem church (Acts\n12:17). No man in the apostolic circles at this period had the ear of\nthe Jewish Christians as did James. This is seen further in the fact\nthat he is asked to preside over the Conference in Jerusalem to settle\nthe issues raised by the Judaizers against the work of Paul and Barnabas\namong the Gentiles. The epistle, therefore, seems to come in at this\nstate of the career of James and is the chief expression left of his\nmind and life.\n\n\n Champion of Paul at the Conference\n\nI cannot enter upon a formal discussion of the many questions in dispute\nconcerning this great event in the apostolic period. I can only briefly\nsketch my own interpretation of the part played by James on this\noccasion.[28] In brief, it is here maintained that in Galatians 2:1-10\nPaul gives a report of the private interview with the leaders in\nJerusalem after the first public meeting (Acts 15:3 f.; Gal. 2:2) was\nadjourned because of the violent opposition of the Judaizers (Acts\n15:5). In this private conference Paul, though anxious to win the public\nsupport of James and Cephas and John, \u201cthe reputed pillars\u201d (Gal. 2:9),\nyet was not willing to compromise the great issue at stake, \u201cour liberty\nwhich we have in Christ Jesus\u201d (2:4) and \u201cthe truth of the gospel\u201d\n(2:5).\n\nPaul reveals a certain amount of embarrassment in his references to the\nthree great leaders in Jerusalem, as is manifest in the long and broken\nsentence in verses 6-10. He roundly asserts his independence of them and\naffirms that they imparted nothing to him (2:6). It seems clear that\nsome of the more timid brethren were quite disposed to surrender to the\nJudaizers for the sake of peace and in particular to agree that Titus, a\nfull-fledged Greek convert in Paul\u2019s company, should be circumcised. But\nPaul gave \u201cthe pillars\u201d to understand that he would not have peace on\nthose terms. It is quite possible that James, here mentioned before\nCephas (Peter) and John as the real leader of the group,[29] had not\ntill now clearly understood Paul\u2019s true position.\n\nThe Judaizers had in all probability counted on James to take their side\nagainst Paul, \u201cbut contrariwise, when they saw[30] that I had been\nentrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the\ngospel of the circumcision ... they ... gave to me and Barnabas the\nright hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they\nunto the circumcision\u201d (2:7-9). It is much easier to think of James as\nthe author of chapter 2 in his epistle before this event than after this\npact with Paul. Note also in verse 9, \u201cand when they perceived the grace\nthat was given unto me....\u201d Now the coast is clear, and Paul is sure of\nvictory in the open Conference. The stipulation about the poor (2:10)\nwas in harmony with Paul\u2019s previous practice (Acts 11:29 f.).\n\nIn the second meeting of the general Conference James evidently presides\nand sums up the situation in favor of Paul, after Peter (Acts 15:7-12)\nhas shown how they had already agreed to Gentile liberty in the case of\nCornelius and his household. James, with due deliberation (15:13),\nconcludes (15:12-21) with a pointed endorsement of Simon Peter\u2019s speech\nand acceptance of the work at Caesarea and among the Gentiles generally\nas a visitation of God. He clinches the whole matter by showing that the\nprophets (as Amos 9:11 f.) agree with this position that the Gentiles\nare to be saved. \u201cWherefore my judgment is,\u201d he says as the president of\nthe Conference, practically offering a resolution for the vote of the\nConference, \u201cthat we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn\nto God\u201d (Acts 15:19). He has put the matter in a very happy form. Surely\nJewish Christians could but rejoice to see Gentiles \u201cturn to God.\u201d\n\nJames proposes the writing of an epistle to the Gentile Christians to\nthis effect, with the added warning \u201cthat they abstain from the\npollution of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled,\nand from blood.\u201d It is at least open to question whether \u201cwhat is\nstrangled\u201d is genuine here, since it is wanting in D (Codex Bezae),\nIren\u00e6us, Tertullian, and Cyprian, as also in 15:28. If so, the\nprohibition is against idolatry (idol feasts), murder (blood), and\nimmorality (fornication), the great vices of heathenism. But with the\ntext as it stands, \u201cthings strangled,\u201d we seem to have a concession to\nthe Jewish ceremonial law and to Jewish prejudices on that point. James\nis not uneasy about Moses, for he is read in the synagogues every\nsabbath (Acts 15:21), a reference to the habit of the Christians still\nto worship in the Jewish synagogues (cf. James 2:2).\n\nThe \u201cwisdom\u201d of James is manifest in this masterly address, which held\nconviction to such an extent that the resolution of James was carried\nunanimously by the body of \u201cthe apostles and the elders, with the whole\nchurch\u201d (Acts 15:22), a remarkable outcome when the bitterness of the\nJudaizers is considered and a distinct tribute to the influence of\nJames. We may assume that the Judaizers were silent, since they saw that\nthey were hopelessly defeated.\n\nThe epistle which was sent to the church at Antioch (15:23-29) embodies\nthe ideas of James and was probably written by him, since the style is\nlike that of his speech and the epistle that bears his name. The letter\nexpressly disclaims responsibility for the conduct of the Judaizers at\nAntioch (15:24), pointedly condemns their behavior, commends \u201cour\nbeloved Barnabas and Paul\u201d (vv. 25 f.), refers to the messengers Judas\nand Silas, claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the stand for\nGentile freedom (v. 28), and repeats the stipulations in the speech of\nJames about the special Gentile sins (v. 29).\n\nThere can be no question that James here entered fully into sympathy\nwith the contention of Paul that the yoke of Jewish ceremonialism should\nnot be imposed upon the Gentile Christians. James is a champion of the\nPauline doctrine of grace as opposed to works. It is interesting to note\nthe phrase \u201cthe perfect law of liberty\u201d (James 1:25). It is difficult to\nsee how, after this Conference, James and Paul could misunderstand or\noppose each other. As we shall see, the real explanation of the apparent\nconflict between James 2 and Romans 3 is quite other than this\nunnecessary hypothesis. James has now given the great weight of his\ncharacter and influence among the Jewish Christians to the endorsement\nof the work of Paul among the Gentiles. James is a Jewish Christian but\nnot a Judaizer. He does not wish to impose the burden of the Mosaic\nritual upon the Gentiles, though he still observes it himself, as do the\nother Jewish Christians, including Paul.\n\n\n Misuse of the Name of James\n\nIn Galatians 2:11 Paul speaks of a visit of Peter to Antioch, apparently\nsome time after the events recorded in 2:1-10. If it were before the\nConference, Peter\u2019s conduct at Antioch would be largely relieved of the\ncharge of cowardice. But on the whole, we must follow the order of time\nas given by Paul. We do not, however, know whether this visit of Peter\nwas before the breach between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (Acts\n15:36-41) or after the return of Paul from the second tour (Acts 18:22\nf.). If the latter is true, Barnabas had also come back to Antioch (Gal.\n2:13). Patrick[31] thinks that this visit was not long after the\nConference, probably before the breach with Barnabas. At any rate, Peter\nat Antioch practices social equality with the Gentiles, just as Paul and\nBarnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians there did (Gal. 2:13),\nand just as Peter did in the house of Cornelius, though he apologized\nfor the act then (Acts 10:28), and at Jerusalem when called to account\nfor it (11:1-18). Evidently the question of social equality was not\nraised in the Conference at Jerusalem.\n\n\u201cCertain came from James,\u201d says Paul (Gal. 2:12). Patrick[32] admits\nthat they had some connection with James and may have borne a commission\nfrom James, though not to Peter. It is possible, of course, that rumors\nof Peter\u2019s liberty in the matter of social intercourse may have reached\nJerusalem (cf. Acts 11:1 ff.), where the pharisaic element in the church\nwas very sensitive on this point. It is difficult, however, to believe\nthat James would have felt called upon to send a reprimand to Peter on\nthe subject, even granting that James opposed this conduct of Peter.\n\nThe Judaizers at Antioch seem to have claimed the sanction of James and\nthe rest at Jerusalem in their opposition to Paul and Barnabas (Acts\n15:1, 24 f.), and it is entirely possible that on this occasion the\nvisitors from Jerusalem claimed a connection with James that was not\ntrue. Hort[33] thinks it probable that James merely meant \u201cto send\ncautions to Peter,\u201d with no thought of a rebuke, and that the messengers\nproceeded to frighten Peter with threats of a report to James about his\nconduct at Antioch.\n\nIt is undoubtedly true that the horizon of Jerusalem was not that of\nAntioch and that Paul would have less sympathy for what Peter did under\nfear of consequences at Jerusalem than for James in Jerusalem, who might\nnot fully comprehend developments at Antioch. But the Epistle of James\nand his speech at the Conference make me slow to believe that he had\ngone over to the position of the Judaizers, as Peter did at Antioch.\nPaul boldly charged Peter, and even Barnabas, not with a change of\nconviction but with hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13 f.). Fortunately, it was only a\ntemporary lapse, and both stepped back to the side of Paul in his\nchampionship of a gospel of equality and freedom for all.\n\nPaul makes no formal charge against James, and under all the\ncircumstances I prefer to think that James has been misrepresented at\nAntioch by the visitors from Jerusalem, who dared to use his powerful\nname to whip Peter into line. At any rate, James, not Peter, seems to be\nthe master spirit at Jerusalem, as Paul is at Antioch.\n\n\n Befriending Paul on His Last Visit\n\nPaul came to Jerusalem for the last time in the spring (probably 57 or\n58) with a heavy heart. He reveals his apprehensions in Romans 15:31-33\nand in his address at Miletus (Acts 20:18-35). He has made a brave fight\nfor liberty in Christ almost all over the Roman Empire, but the\nJudaizers have not ceased their attacks upon him. In particular, during\nhis long absence from Jerusalem he has been grossly misrepresented\nthere. He has been frequently warned of trouble if he came, but he is\ndetermined to come in the hope of setting matters right in Jerusalem and\nso preventing a schism in Christianity. He had won at the Conference at\nJerusalem some seven or eight years before.\n\nHort[34] thinks that Paul entered the city \u201cwith much precaution and\navoidance of observation\u201d under the shelter of Mnason (Acts 21:16). At\nany rate, the brethren received him gladly (21:17), and on the next day\nPaul made a formal call on \u201cJames; and all the elders were present\u201d\n(21:18). So here James is still at the head of the work in Jerusalem as\nat the Conference. The apostles were present then as they seem to be\nabsent now. This is not a conference but merely a friendly meeting.\nPaul\u2019s rehearsal of his work among the Gentiles meets with the most\ncordial expressions of satisfaction (21:20).\n\nPaul is among his friends, who tell him of a gross misrepresentation of\nhis position that is current among the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem to\nthe effect that he teaches that Jewish Christians must forsake Moses and\nthe customs of the law (21:21).[35] They do not believe it themselves\nand only wish to help Paul clear up the matter without interfering at\nall with the decision of the Conference about the freedom of the\nGentiles (21:22-25). They suggest that Paul join with four men in a\nNazarite vow, pay the charges for their purification and for his own,\nand let all the Jewish Christians see him in the act of worship and\nritual observance of the ceremonial law, thus proving \u201cthat thou thyself\nalso walkest orderly, keeping the law\u201d (21:24).\n\nThe matter seemed simple enough. Paul had not opposed the observance of\nthe law on the part of Jewish Christians. Galatians was written in\ndefense of Gentile liberty. There was no effort to commit Paul to the\nnecessity of the law for salvation. As a matter of fact, Paul had kept\nup his observance of the Jewish customs save as they affected separation\nfrom the Gentiles. So Paul accepted the advice and made the offering,\n\u201cpurifying himself with them\u201d (21:26). Apparently the plan succeeded in\nsetting Paul right with the mass of the church in Jerusalem.\n\nThe trouble that led to his arrest arose from the attack of some Jews\n(not Christians) from Ephesus, who accused Paul of defaming the Temple\nwhile in the very act of doing worship in the Temple. We do not know\nwhether the plan of the elders was the plan of James. Certainly if he\nhad disapproved he would have spoken out, as the meeting was at his\nhouse. But it was all meant in the utmost kindness to Paul, and it is\nnot possible to show that it was unwise. The incident shows the greatest\nfriendliness between Paul and James and the frankest recognition on\nPaul\u2019s part of the great worth and influence of James himself. There is\nno other reference to James in the New Testament unless it appears in\nHebrews 13:7, 17, \u201cthem that have the rule over you.\u201d\n\n\n The Story of His Death\n\nClement of Alexandria[36] says that James the Just \u201cwas thrown from the\ngable [of the temple], and beaten to death by a fuller with a club.\u201d\nHegesippus[37] gives a long and legendary account of the death of James\nto the effect that the people of Jerusalem who called James \u201cthe Just\u201d\nwere so enraged when he bore witness to Jesus as the Son of man that\nthey flung him down from the gable of the Temple, stoned him, and a\nfuller clubbed him. \u201cAnd they buried him on the spot by the temple, and\nhis monument still remains by the temple.\u201d\n\nBut Josephus[38] gives an entirely different and much more credible\nnarrative of the death of James, placing it about A.D. 62 or 63. He\ncharges the Sadducees through the high priest Ananus with the death of\nJames and adds: \u201cAnanus, therefore, as being a person of this character,\nand thinking that he had a suitable opportunity, through Festus being\ndead, and Albinus still on his journey (to Judaea), assembles a\nSanhedrin of judges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who\nis called Christ (his name was James) and some others, and delivered\nthem to be stoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law.\u201d So he\nwon a martyr\u2019s crown. He was called \u201cthe Just.\u201d He had accused the\nwicked rich of killing \u201cthe righteous one\u201d (James 5:6).\n\n\n\n\n II\n To the Twelve Tribes Which Are of the Dispersion\n\n\n Simple Address\n\nThe writer is wonderfully simple and direct in his greeting as compared\nwith Paul in Romans 1:1-7, for instance. There is no principal verb, and\nthe nominative absolute occurs with the infinitive, as is so common in\nthe letters found in the papyri. Originally a word like \u201csends\u201d may have\nbeen used also. But this short address is in perfect keeping with the\nbusiness-like character of James and the pointed, pungent tone of the\nepistle.\n\n\n The Readers\n\nThey are evidently not a local church. \u201cThe twelve tribes which are of\nthe Dispersion\u201d naturally refers to the Jews who are scattered in the\nGentile world outside of Palestine. The technical term _diaspora_ occurs\nin only two other places in the New Testament (John 7:35; 1 Peter 1:1).\nIn John the word has its usual significance. The Jewish leaders scoffed\nat Jesus as a failure in Palestine. Perhaps he meant to go and teach the\nJews of the dispersion. The term \u201ctwelve tribes\u201d in James merely means\nthe Jews as a whole in the dispersion, for the tribes were not preserved\nin a distinctive way outside of Palestine.\n\nThe \u201clost ten tribes\u201d evidently had no significance for James. As a\nmatter of fact, they are no more \u201clost\u201d than Judah and Benjamin. The\nJews of Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans were\nonce more scattered abroad, as their ancestors had been twice before, to\nmingle as \u201cJews\u201d in various parts of the world. Doubtless, modern Jews\nare simply a blend of all the twelve tribes. At the time when James\nwrote, the Jews were very numerous in all the great commercial centers\nof the world, such as Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, Ephesus, Miletus,\nPergamum, Rome, Thessalonica. But it is more than probable that James\nhas in mind chiefly the Eastern dispersion in Babylonia and Mesopotamia,\nas Peter (1 Peter 1:1) addressed the Western dispersion.\n\nBut was James writing to Jews who were not Christians? Was he making an\nappeal to the non-Christian Jews of the dispersion to become Christians?\nThe idea is not without fascination in itself. Dr. J. H. Moulton[39]\ncontends that this is precisely what James has done, as is shown by the\navoidance of specific reference to Christ and to the cross so as not to\ngive offense to the Jews whom he wishes to win. Dr. George Milligan[40]\nreplies that it is not possible to think of \u201ca Christian teacher of\nJames\u2019s position suppressing his distinctive beliefs under any\ncircumstances whatsoever.\u201d But the author does _not_ conceal his view of\nJesus. In the very first verse he speaks of \u201cthe Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d and\nthese words give his human name Jesus, his title Christ (Messiah), and\nhis lordship (deity). Besides, in 2:1 James speaks of Jesus as the\nobject of faith and so of worship, as Moffatt[41] correctly has it: \u201cAs\nyou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory.\u201d See also 5:7,\n\u201cuntil the coming of the Lord\u201d (cf. 5:8).\n\nThere are no doctrinal discussions of the cross and the resurrection,\nbut all this is distinctly implied. James also announces himself as a\nChristian in 1:1 and could not wish to conceal the gospel if he meant to\nwin Jews to Christ. Moreover, he draws a distinction between the\nChristians (\u201cye\u201d) and their oppressors (\u201cthey,\u201d apparently rich Jews) in\n2:7: \u201cDo not they blaspheme the honorable name, by which ye are called?\u201d\nThat \u201cname\u201d is the name of Christ.[42] Compare also 2:6: \u201cDo not the\nrich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?\u201d\nBesides, James claims the readers as believers, \u201cmy brethren,\u201d in 2:1\nand 5:7 f. There are, doubtless, passages where James pictures\nunbelieving Jews, as in 2:6 f. just mentioned and in particular 5:1-6,\nthat vivid apostrophe to the rich Jews of the time.\n\nIn 1 Peter 1:1 we find the other instance of _diaspora_, or dispersion.\nHere Peter seems to mean by \u201cthe elect who are sojourners of the\nDispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia\u201d not\nmerely Jews or Jewish Christians but all Christians, whether Jews or\nGentiles, in the spiritual dispersion, \u201csojourners\u201d from the true\nPalestine or promised land (heaven). Is this the idea of James? Zahn[43]\ntakes this position and finds that the writer is addressing all\nChristians in general, whether those persons would be Jews or Gentiles.\n\nBut surely the author has in mind simply Christian Jews outside of\nPalestine. The use of the word \u201csynagogue\u201d as a place of worship (James\n2:2) on a par with \u201cchurch\u201d (5:14) argues for this interpretation. He is\naddressing the Christian Jews, who now have many problems, and he may\nhave hoped by means of these believing Jews to reach the wider circle of\nunbelieving Jews. He speaks of Abraham as \u201cour father\u201d (2:21). He\nassumes that for his readers the Mosaic law is still binding (2:9-11;\n4:11).[44]\n\n\n The Occasion\n\nThis we do not know. Unlike most of Paul\u2019s epistles, there are no\npersonal details. We are left to conjecture, as in the case of Jude and\n1 John. The picture drawn in the epistle is that of Jewish Christians of\nthe poorer classes, with a small number of richer brethren (1:10),\nstruggling for life in the midst of a social and economic environment\nthat was utterly unsympathetic, not to say hostile. The process of\nadjustment was difficult and perilous. There were perils to the\nindividual and to the church life, and James shows real mastery of the\nsituation that confronted the Jewish Christians in the middle of the\nfirst century in the scattered regions where they were found. He writes\nto them in a firm tone but with manifest understanding and sympathy.\n\n\n Character of the Epistle\n\nThe book, small as it is, is a little gem in conception and expression.\nIt reminds one of portions of the book of Proverbs, some of the Psalms,\nportions of the Prophets, the Twelve Patriarchs, the Wisdom of Jesus the\nSon of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, and the Sermon on the\nMount. It is quite possible that both Paul and Peter had read the\nEpistle of James; at least there are several coincidences between them.\nAt any rate, there seems to be some literary connection between some of\nPaul\u2019s epistles (Rom., 1 Cor., Gal.), 1 Peter and Hebrews, and the\nEpistle of James. Some contend that the epistle makes use of these New\nTestament books. M. Jones[45] thinks that the author had some knowledge\nof the Stoic philosophers, but this could have come through Hellenistic\nJudaism, as for instance the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo.\n\nThe author, as already shown, writes in the smooth and easy _Koine_ of a\ngifted and cultivated Jew of Palestine. One does not have to say with\nPatrick[46] that James had a wide knowledge of classical Greek. He may\nnever have read a line of \u201cclassical\u201d Greek, but he knew well the\ncurrent Greek of his day and used it with fine skill. It is not a\nlabored production and is in no sense artificial. The author is full of\nthe Old Testament and writes like one of the prophets; yet he has a firm\ngrip upon the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ.\n\nThe book forms a fine link between the Old and New Testaments. James,\nthe brother of the Lord Jesus, understands the Old Testament and loves\nMoses still. He seeks to interpret Christianity more fully on its\nethical and social side to the Jewish Christians of his time, who are in\nsad need of help, beset as they are by Jew and Gentile, and with an\nimperfect grasp of the new gospel. They find in this epistle just what\nthey need to make practice correspond to profession, to square life with\ncreed. The lesson is still needed today. There is a peculiar pertinence\nabout the teaching of James that appeals to modern men who are nothing\nif not practical.\n\n\n\n\n III\n Joy in Trial\n\n\nEvidently these early Jewish Christians had their share of trial. Who,\nalas, does not have his portion? The problem with us all is to learn how\nto find the spring of joy in the midst of sorrow. There are always\nperplexities and anxieties. The sea is restless even in its moments of\ncalm beauty.\n\n\n Variety in Trials (1:2)\n\nThere is the tone of an elder brother in this epistle, and we see it at\nthe start when James says \u201cmy brothers.\u201d It is no perfunctory phrase\nwith him. It is \u201ctrials,\u201d not \u201ctemptations,\u201d that James here has in\nmind, though the same word probably means temptation in 1:12. The word\nin the Greek came to have either sense, though originally it meant only\nto try, to attempt, just as our English word \u201ctempt\u201d was at first simply\n\u201ctry.\u201d But it is a short step from \u201ctry\u201d to \u201cmake trial of\u201d one when\nsuspicion exists or evil desire arises. Hence all through the Greek we\nfind the old Greek word used in both senses. The New Testament usage\nvaries. There are a half dozen other passages where the word has the\nidea of trial (Luke 22:28; Acts 20:19; Gal. 4:14; 1 Peter 1:6; 4:12;\nRev. 3:10). In 1 Peter 1:6 the identical expression \u201cmanifold trials\u201d\nappears. Oesterley[47] wrongly insists that \u201ctemptation\u201d is the meaning\nin James 1:2 on the ground that \u201cthe writer\u2019s Judaism is stronger than\nhis Christianity,\u201d and he then uses it as an argument against the\ngenuineness of the book.\n\nA soldier (Parry) does have \u201ctrue joy\u201d in victory over temptation, like\nWordsworth\u2019s \u201chappy warrior,\u201d but that is beside the mark here. There is\nno conflict here with the avoidance of temptation urged by Jesus (Matt.\n6:13; Luke 11:4; Matt. 26:41; Luke 22:40). James refers rather to\nexternal trials into which men fall\u2014trials that are not only unwelcome\nbut also unsought and unexpected.[48] It is almost the picture of a\nstumble in the dark when one finds himself surrounded by hostile forces,\njust as the poor man fell among robbers (Luke 10:30).\n\nBesides, one may be surrounded by all sorts of trials at once and not\nmerely any sort of trial (Moffatt). The word \u201cmanifold\u201d is really\nmany-colored, variegated, spotted, mottled, pied, dappled. \u201cIt never\nrains but it pours,\u201d we say at such a time. The same word is applied to\nthe sicknesses and torments of body and mind which Jesus healed (Matt.\n4:24). It is used of the evil desires that lead silly women astray (2\nTim. 3:6), of the lusts and pleasures which once the Cretans served\n(Titus 3:3), of the variety in the manifestation of God\u2019s power in\nconnection with the gospel (Heb. 2:4), of the many sorts of strange\nteachings then afloat (Heb. 13:9) of which we are now beginning to learn\nsomething (incipient Gnosticism and the early stages of Mithraism, for\nexample), of the many trials which brought sorrow to the Christians (1\nPeter 1:6), and of the many sides to the grace of God (1 Peter 4:10).\nGod has grace for every trial whatever its color, whether black or blue,\nyellow or green, red or crimson.\n\nThe way to face them all is with joy in the heart and a smile on the\nface. We are not asked to rush into trials and to make mock martyrs of\nourselves. We are not asked to rejoice because of the trials, many or\nfew. Much depends on how we treat the problem of trial, much of which is\nbeyond our control, like poverty in wisdom (James 1:5) and in substance\n(1:9) and like persecution (2:6 f.).\n\nWe are not to be blind to facts nor to submit tamely to what can be\ncured and should not be endured. James is not a cynic or a stoic but a\nvictorious Christian who has learned the lesson that thankful joy is\neasier and wiser than mere dull resignation (Plummer, _in loco_). Each\ntrouble may be met by a special kind of joy as its antidote. The common\nidea about \u201call joy\u201d is that James thereby means pure joy, nothing but\njoy. \u201cGreet it as pure joy\u201d (Moffatt). That is possible, though it may\nalso mean \u201cbring to bear all that joy has to offer.\u201d It does not mean\n(Mayor) that all of joy is contained in this view. At any rate, it is\nmuch to know that joy in suffering is possible, as many saints can\ntestify who have reached the pure air of fellowship with Jesus in\nsuffering (cf. Phil. 3:10). The Brother of James said: \u201cBlessed are they\nthat have been persecuted for righteousness\u2019 sake: for theirs is the\nkingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and\npersecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my\nsake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven:\nfor so persecuted they the prophets that were before you\u201d (Matt.\n5:10-12).\n\nThis is part of the fellowship of Christ and of the saints, the\n\u201csunshine band\u201d of those who have learned to smile in the midst of\ntears, like the sunshine in the rain. Paul was able to say: \u201cBut we also\nrejoice in our tribulations\u201d (Rom. 5:3). This is not the joy of the\nfanatic or of the fakir or of the rhapsodist. It is the joy of the soul\nthat is at peace with God in Christ and has also more than earth and\nhell can take away, the peace that passes all understanding. The\ndisciples rejoiced \u201cthat they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for\nthe Name\u201d (Acts 5:41). Even Marcus Aurelius said: \u201cSay not that that\nwhich hath befallen thee is bad fortune, but that to endure it nobly is\ngood fortune.\u201d\n\n\n The Product of Trial (1:3)\n\nThe rule of Christian joy thus expounded stands the test of experience.\nThe word \u201cknowing\u201d is the one used for experimental knowledge as opposed\nto mere intellectual apprehension. The tense (present participle)\nexpresses continuous acquisition of fresh knowledge from experience. It\nis the school of life where we learn most of what we really know. The\nposition of James is thus in thorough harmony with psychology. The\ncommand to rejoice in the midst of manifold trials, paradoxical though\nit seems, is one that the Jewish Christians knew to be true from their\nexperience of grace. Johnstone[49] has a fine word: \u201cAffliction lets\ndown a blazing torch into his own nature\u2014and he sees many things which\nhe little expected to see.\u201d One of the marvels of modern science is the\nuse of electric light by divers at the bottom of the sea to take\npictures of sea life.\n\nIt is the biological conception that James has in mind. The law of life\n(nature and grace) works through personal experience and not by\nmechanical impartation. What do we learn by experience? \u201cThat the\nproving of your faith worketh patience.\u201d Moffatt has it: \u201cThat the\nsterling temper of your faith produces endurance.\u201d\n\nThe notion is plainly that of testing. See the same phrase in 1 Peter\n1:7. Thus James, as Paul, regards faith as \u201cthe very foundation of\nreligion\u201d (Mayor). The verb from which the adjective is derived is\ncommon enough for testing a yoke of oxen (Luke 14:19), the spirits (1\nJohn 4:1), work by fire (1 Cor. 3:13), genuineness of love (2 Cor. 8:8),\nall things (1 Thess. 5:21). Peter (1 Peter 1:7) explains the adjective\nby the verb (tested by fire). Compare Sirach 2:5: \u201cFor gold is tried in\nthe fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity.\u201d One is\nreminded of the Sermon on the Mount. \u201cYe shall know them by their\nfruits\u201d (Matt. 7:16).\n\nPatience is _patientia_ (_patior_) and is called by Philo the queen of\nthe virtues. The Jews (Oesterley, _in loco_) had had ample need of this\nvirtue in their checkered history. It is just the opposite of the\n\u201csuperman\u201d of Nietzsche, the triumph of might over right, the will to\nget what one wishes, right or wrong. There is inevitable conflict\nbetween selfish militarism and Christianity. It is a pity that\nChristians have left it to socialists to make the most vigorous protest\nagainst war. But alas, both Christians and socialists are swept under by\nthe vortex of war _nolens volens_. And yet by \u201cpatience\u201d James does not\nmean inertia or lack of ambition. It is not complacent self-satisfaction\nbut the triumph of regulated consideration of the welfare of others, the\nvictory of love over greed, the joy of doing without that others may be\nhappy, the happiness of enduring ill for the sake of Jesus.\n\nIt is very hard to remain under misfortune (the literal meaning of the\nGreek word for patience) when it cannot be helped. James does not mean\nthat we are not to try to cure any of the ills of life, not to overcome\nignorance, poverty, disease, crime. There is here no surcease for the\nwar on the evil conditions of modern life in home or city or state. But\nmany things cannot be changed. Others will be alleviated by and by.\nMeanwhile the Christian can rise to the height of cheerful, joyful\npatience. It is the practice of cheerfulness that we so much need. We do\nnot have to shut our eyes to the facts of life and of the human reason\nand deny the existence of sin and sickness. We can conquer the bitter\nresults of these evils by the joy in Christ that drives away despair.\n\nThis patience is the product of trial. We are not born with a supply of\npatience. It is not bestowed in fulness upon us at the new birth. Like\nthe manna, we need a fresh supply each morning. But the habit of mind\ntermed patience is gradually wrought in us by the discipline of\nexperience. Bitterness is a possible fruit of sorrow and hard\nexperiences. Bitterness is written all over some sad faces. That\nterrible calamity can be missed, will be missed, if one walks in the way\nof him who said: \u201cCome unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,\nand I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I\nam meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For\nmy yoke is easy, and my burden is light\u201d (Matt. 11:28 f.). It may not be\neasy and light at first, but it becomes so in the presence of Jesus.\n\nNobly does Wordsworth interpret it for us all:\n\n Who, doomed to go in company with pain,\n And fear and bloodshed, miserable train!\n Turned his necessity to glorious gain;\n In face of these doth exercise a power\n Which is our human nature\u2019s highest dower;\n Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves\n Of their bad influence, and their good receives.\n\n\n Perfection by Patience (1:4)\n\nThere is no other way than the slow way of life. The mushroom springs up\nin a night and goes as quickly away. The oak grows a few inches a year\nand lasts for centuries. The finest product in God\u2019s garden is the soul\nof man, ripe with the long years of toil and sorrow. Luther Burbank\nlearned some of the witchery of nature by watching her ways with plant\nlife. He showed great patience and has much to show for it. Give\npatience a chance to do its work and keep on giving it a fair show. Ole\nBull said that if he missed practicing on his violin one day, he noticed\nthe difference in his playing. If he missed two days, other musicians\nnoticed it. If he skipped three days, all the world knew it.\n\n\u201cOnly, let your endurance be a finished product\u201d (Moffatt). It comes to\nthat in all great achievements, for the test is endurance. The goal is\nat the end of the race, where Jesus is the author and finisher of the\nfaith which we possess (Heb. 12:2). \u201cWe are become partakers of Christ,\nif we hold ... firm unto the end\u201d (Heb. 3:14). \u201cBut he that endureth to\nthe end, the same shall be saved\u201d (Matt. 24:13).\n\nPatience calls for courage; discouragement leads to impatience and\nfailure. There is need of long-suffering (Col. 1:11), if we get the\n\u201cfinished product.\u201d The word for perfect here occurs also in James 1:17,\n25; 3:2. The word, like the substantive, has a double usage (cf. _finis_\nand our _end_), either limit or aim. So the perfect man may be regarded\nin the absolute sense, the limit, as the perfect Man Christ Jesus (Eph.\n4:13), or as on the way to the goal (no longer a child but a developed\nman, as in 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15). \u201cThe perfect\u201d (1 Cor. 13:10) is\nstill to come, but there is \u201cperfect love\u201d (1 John 4:18). We are to aim\nafter the perfection of God himself (Matt. 5:48). Paul\u2019s ambition was to\npresent each one \u201cperfect in Christ Jesus\u201d (Col. 1:28). Compare also\nColossians 4:12. Here James has his eye on the goal which is at the end\nof the long road. He knows full well (3:2) that in many things we all\nstumble, but we must persevere. Patience must do its \u201cperfect work,\u201d\nthat ye may be \u201cperfect.\u201d\n\nBut James takes a latitudinal look at the work of patience, not merely\nthe longitudinal view\u2014the view that ye may be \u201centire, lacking nothing,\u201d\n\u201ccomplete, with never a defect\u201d (Moffatt). This word for entire (cf.\n_integer_) means complete in all its parts, whole, not unsound anywhere.\nAt the end of the race we are to be fully developed and sound to the\ncore in heart and limb. The word is used of stones untouched by a tool\n(Deut. 27:6), of a body without blemish. Epictetus (bk. III, chap. xxvi,\n\u00a7 25) uses the word of a vessel which one finds whole, unbroken, and\nuseful. It is used of a complete or unbroken household. In the papyri\nPhilo uses both words together, as James does here.\n\nThe substantive is used of the \u201cperfect soundness\u201d of the man just\nhealed by Peter and John (Acts 3:16). This adjective occurs with\n\u201crighteousness\u201d (Wisd. 15:13) and \u201cworship\u201d or \u201creligion\u201d (4 Macc. 17).\nThe adjective is used by Paul in his prayer for the Thessalonians,\n\u201cpreserved entire, without blame\u201d (1 Thess. 5:23). This is what Jesus\ndoes for his glorious church, which is to be without \u201cspot or wrinkle or\nany such thing\u201d (Eph. 5:27). Jesus, our High Priest, \u201chas perfected for\never them that are sanctified\u201d (Heb. 10:14). Alas, Isaiah (1:6) found\nIsrael wholly wanting in this soundness. James\u2019s ideal is that we shall\nfall short in nothing. Our destiny is to dwell in the family of God and\nto be like Jesus, our elder Brother (1 John 3:2). This ultimate divine\nfulness is not the self-sufficiency of the stoics.\n\n\n Shortage in Wisdom (1:5)\n\n\u201cDefective in wisdom,\u201d Moffatt puts it. It is the same word that occurs\nat the end of verse 4. James is fond of catching up a preceding word and\ngoing on with it, even if, as here, in a new sense. \u201cIf any of you\nlacketh wisdom,\u201d James gently hints. Who is it that does not feel his\nshortcoming here, at times with painful intensity?\n\nWhat does James mean by wisdom? It is more than knowledge. It is more\nthan mere intelligent apprehension of acquired knowledge. Tennyson says:\n\u201cKnowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.\u201d James shows familiarity with the\nWisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Ecclus.)[50] and possibly also the\nso-called Wisdom of Solomon. Certainly he knows the book of Proverbs.\nBut here he does not use wisdom in a philosophical or mystical sense.\n\nWith James wisdom is the right use of one\u2019s opportunities in holy\nliving. It is living like Christ in accord with the will of God. In\n3:13-17 he gives a formal discussion of the two sorts of wisdom. Bede\nsuggests that we need wisdom to know how to look at trial in the true\nlight. Yes, and we need it to give patience the chance to do its perfect\nwork. Paul uses wisdom in the special sense of God\u2019s wisdom as shown in\nthe gospel as infinitely superior to the wisdom of the world which\nscouted the cross of Christ. \u201cWe speak wisdom among them that are\nperfect\u201d (the mature, 1 Cor. 2:6, AV).\n\nIn the Old Testament wisdom is sometimes the intelligence of God (Prov.\n8:22-30). \u201cTen measures of wisdom came down from heaven, and nine of\nthem fell to the lot of the Holy Land\u201d (_Kiddushim_, 49_b_). With James\nthe source of wisdom is God, not the Jews. So then, when our supply runs\nshort, ask of God. It is like a bank to which we go to get our money.\nGod is the banker whose supply of wisdom never gives out. Unlike other\nbankers, he asks no security save the name of Jesus.[51] That name gives\nus full credit at the bank of heaven.\n\nOn that basis God \u201cgives to all men without question or reproach\u201d\n(Moffatt). We have it expressed as \u201cliberally\u201d in the standard versions.\nIt is a rather difficult word to translate into English. It means\nsimple, singlefold, sincere. Compare the \u201csingle\u201d eye in Matthew 6:22;\nLuke 11:34. In Romans 12:8 it is not clear whether singleness or\nliberality is the idea, but \u201cliberality\u201d is obviously correct in 2\nCorinthians 8:2, \u201cthe riches of their liberality.\u201d So it is in 9:11, 13,\nbut \u201csingleness of heart\u201d in Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22.\n\nOesterley finds the notion of James to be \u201csingleness of aim, the aim\nbeing the imparting of benefit without requiring anything in return.\u201d\nLikewise, Bengel interprets it by _simpliciter_. Either idea makes good\nsense, for surely God gives to us all with singleness of purpose and\nalso without bargaining on God\u2019s part, for there is no idea of\nreciprocity. \u201cWithout question\u201d (Moffatt) suggests an understanding with\nGod, which is true. It is the normal, natural thing for a child of God\nto come to God and ask of him, for he \u201cupbraideth not.\u201d A fool upbraids,\nthe Son of Sirach says (Ecclus. 20:15). Instead of upbraiding us for\nasking, rather we are made to wonder why we did not ask sooner.\n\nGod does not chide us for our folly but gives us good measure of wisdom\nto take its place. This is the literal truth, as many self-confessed\nfools of the world are glad to testify. They have left the folly of a\nworldly, selfish, sinful life for the rich joy of the service of God in\nChrist. The change may come in a moment, for after all, this new view of\nlife and the power to live it may be had for the asking. \u201cAnd it shall\nbe given him.\u201d It will be given on request, with no other identification\nthan the plea of the sinner who comes in the name of Jesus, the \u201copen\nsesame\u201d to the treasures of heaven, himself the wisdom of God (1 Cor.\n1:30) in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden (Col.\n2:3). God does ask of us that we use this wisdom for his glory and for\nthe blessing of other lives, the enrichment of other hearts.\n\n\n Doubting Prayer (1:6-8)\n\nJesus (Matt. 7:7 f.) had urged the disciples to ask, with the promise\nthat God would answer.\n\nThere is a condition attached to the wide-open invitation in James 1:5.\n\u201cBut let him ask in faith,\u201d James adds. By faith James means not a body\nof doctrine but trust in God, a working confidence in God that leads one\nto ask and to expect to receive what he asks. It is certain that God\ndoes not answer some prayers, at least in the way expected. Some\nrequests ought not to be granted, in fact ought never to be made. Prayer\nmay be very foolish as well as very wise. God does not offer to grant\nevery whim of a spoiled and petulant child. But assuming that one is\nasking for wisdom, which surely is a proper prayer for anyone to make,\neven so he may miss it because he does not exercise wisdom in the\nasking. He must not chill the ardor of his desire by hesitation and\ndoubt. Let him ask, \u201cnothing doubting.\u201d\n\nTo doubt is to have a divided mind that draws him two ways, like the\npoor donkey that starved because he could not choose between the two\nstacks of hay. Such a man is like a wave of the sea (\u201cLike a cork\nfloating on the wave, now carried towards the shore, now away from it,\u201d\nMayor), one of the most transitory things imaginable, driven by the wind\nand tossed into sea foam (whitecaps) as if blown by a fan or bellows, a\nveritable \u201cbrain storm\u201d of perplexity and indecision.\n\nGod does answer prayer, but not the prayer of a man who insults the\nGiver of whom he asks a favor. Timid faith is quite another thing. That\nJesus honored, as in the case of the father who first said, \u201cBut if thou\ncanst do any thing\u201d (Mark 9:22). Jesus rebuked him for his \u201cif thou\ncanst.\u201d Then the anxious father cried out: \u201cLord, I believe; help thou\nmine unbelief.\u201d\n\nThere are many difficulties in the way of trust in God today. Science\nhas left many minds groping in the dark without God, feeling after him\nif haply they may find him, not knowing that he is nigh to each of us.\nWe do not have an absentee God. He can and does hear the cry of his\nchildren for help. If SOS can find a response over the wind and the wave\nto the call of the sinking ship, surely it is not strange that the\nFather of our spirits will hear our call to him. So it will be, \u201cif ye\nhave faith and doubt not,\u201d almost the very words used by James.\n\nJesus had to rebuke his disciples for their lack of faith (Matt. 8:26)\nwhen they thought they were perishing from wind and wave. And Simon\nPeter doubted after he began to walk on the water and started at once to\nsink. \u201cO thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?\u201d says Jesus\nto Peter (Matt. 14:31). Peter had a divided mind. \u201cLet not that man\nthink that he shall receive anything of the Lord.\u201d He does not expect\nanything, and he is not disappointed. What a commentary is this sentence\nupon the halfhearted praying, the lack of interest, the worldly-minded\npassive worship of many modern Christians. There is no wrestling with\nGod in prayer for victory.\n\n\u201cDouble-minded creature that he is, wavering at every turn\u201d (Moffatt).\nThe double-minded man is like the two-faced man (Mr. Facing Both Ways).\nSirach (2:13) speaks of the sinner coming to two paths and being unable\nto choose. Such a man perishes at the crossroads. Compare James 4:8 for\nthe only other use of the word in the New Testament, though common\nenough elsewhere. Such indecision goes into duplicity, as Jesus shows\nabout the evil eye and the single eye (Matt. 6:22 f.). It is a miserable\nlife, as anyone knows who leads a double life. The double heart leads to\nthe double life, with its pretended double standard of morals. Clement\nof Rome says: \u201cWretched are the double-minded, who doubt in their\nheart.\u201d No wonder he becomes \u201cunstable in all his ways,\u201d not able to\nstand in all his goings. He wobbles and finally reels like a drunken\nman. Such inconstancy winds up in hypocrisy or abandonment to sin.\n\n\n The Democracy of Faith (1:9-11)\n\nJames returns to the keynote of \u201call joy\u201d (v. 2) and uses the word\n\u201cglory.\u201d The positive note of exultation is the mark of the true\nChristian against the double-minded man. The pessimist is not a\nrepresentative of Christianity. The true optimist is not, however, blind\nto the facts of life. He can glory in God in the midst of all sorts of\ntrials and conditions, whether in high or low estate. His joy is\nindependent of earthly estate. The \u201ccotter\u2019s Saturday night\u201d may be as\nhappy as the one in the castle nearby. Class distinctions are no cause\nfor pride in a spiritual democracy like the church of Jesus Christ. We\nneed in Christianity no \u201cprinces of the church\u201d in the Roman Catholic\nsense. Pride of rank among the twelve disciples was a source of grief to\nJesus. The rich and the poor are one in Christ Jesus, and all are poor,\nmiserable sinners saved by grace.\n\nJohnstone[52] calls this section \u201cRich Poor and Poor Rich.\u201d That is true\nand is the probable interpretation here. The humble[53] brother may,\nafter all, be the richest man in the church\u2014rich in grace, in love, in\njoy, in peace, in righteousness, in fellowship. This is \u201chis high\nestate,\u201d which rises sheer above hovel or palace. Thank God that this\ninfinite wealth of the spirit is still open to the poor all over the\nworld who find the door of competency closed in their faces. The pious\npoor is more than a phrase. It is often literal fact.\n\nThe papyri discoveries[54] bear eloquent testimony to the words of Paul\nabout the membership of the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:26-29). The\npapyri letters and other documents are chiefly from the middle and lower\nclasses and reflect the actual life of the very people from whom the\ngospel made most of its converts (fishermen, carpenters, publicans,\ntentmakers, etc.). There were already some wealthy members of the early\nchurches, men like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas of Cyprus.\nThere were \u201cnot many mighty,\u201d but there were some. There soon came to be\nlarge numbers of slaves in the churches when the gospel spread among the\nGentiles. But already social problems of an acute nature were on hand\nwhen James wrote. In fact, we see such problems in the early chapters of\nActs, when Ananias and Sapphira wished to get credit for a generosity\nthat they were not willing to show and when high feeling arose in the\ndistribution of the funds for the Aramean (Palestinian) and Hellenistic\nwidows among the Jewish Christians. At no point are people more\nsensitive than about money.\n\nSo the rich brother is to be reminded of his humiliation, \u201cin that he is\nmade low,\u201d placed on a level with the \u201clowly brother.\u201d They meet on the\nlevel in Christ. Each is as high and as low as the other\u2014no more, no\nless. The rich man is not to glory over the poor man, nor is the poor\nbrother to cringe in the presence of the rich brother. This is the\ndemocracy of faith, the universality of Christ.\n\nThe rich brother is in constant peril of pride of possession, and so\nJames reminds him of the fate of the beautiful flower of the grass which\nsprings up quickly and withers before the burning heat and falls off. It\nis a striking adaptation of the language of Isaiah (40:6-8), using the\nimagery for another purpose. 1 Peter 1:24 says: \u201cAll flesh is as grass,\nand all the glory thereof as the flower of grass.\u201d Christ brings all men\nto their true level, the common humanity in us all, the sonship in him\nthat makes us heirs of heaven. Moffatt changes \u201chis high estate\u201d to\n\u201cwhen he is raised,\u201d and \u201cin that he is made low\u201d to \u201cin being lowered.\u201d\nHe seems to understand that James refers to the possible ups and downs\nof life. It will be easy for the lowly brother in that case to rejoice\nwhen he becomes rich; but how about the rich brother when he becomes\npoor?\n\nPlummer (_in loco_) refuses to see a \u201cbrother\u201d at all in the rich man,\nbut only one of the rich Jews who oppressed the early Christians, as in\nJames 5:1-6. But that gives an Ebionitic tone to the epistle. James does\nindulge in irony, but he is apparently sincere in his picture here. The\nrich brother will fade away in his goings, as if James has in mind a\nsalesman whose business dries up like a flower. Riches truly have wings\nand fly away. They are sweet like the rose but soon vanish from us\nforever.\n\n\n\n\n IV\n The Way of Temptation\n\n\nJames powerfully sketches the natural history of temptation if yielded\nto and the glory of victory if overcome. The other sense (temptation) of\nthe word used for trial in 1:2 occurs here. Moffatt indeed takes trial\nas the idea in 1:12 also (so does Hort _in loco_), but certainly in\nverse 13 we have to say \u201ctemptation.\u201d It is most likely that the idea of\ntemptation is present in 1:12. Here James returns to the discussion of\nthe other side of the blessing of trials, namely, the blessing of\ntemptation endured. As a matter of fact, he has not really digressed\nfrom the subject. He merely discusses one aspect.\n\n\n Standing the Test (1:12)\n\n\u201cBlessed is the man that endureth temptation.\u201d We must never forget that\nJesus warned us against rushing into temptation, not merely in the\nLord\u2019s Prayer (Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4) but also in the agony of\nGethsemane, when Satan had come upon him with renewed energy in spite of\nrepeated defeats by Jesus since the wilderness temptations (Matt. 26:41;\nLuke 22:40). Jesus urged the disciples to pray to be spared temptation.\nNo one knew so well as he the power of the evil one. He had wrestled\nwith him to the end and had conquered where others failed. Temptation is\nnot to be courted, not even for the sake of the experience and the\npossible victory. Too many go down in the struggle for any to rush into\nit lightly. \u201cFools rush in where angels fear to tread.\u201d\n\nBut if temptation is thrust upon one, then he must fight and win as\nJesus did. There is always a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). We must find\nthe way out. Compare Job 5:17: \u201cBehold, happy is the man whom the Lord\ncorrecteth.\u201d He only is happy (the same word used in the Beatitudes in\nMatt. 5:3-11) who endures. That is true patience. It is only \u201cwhen he\nhath been approved\u201d after standing the test that \u201che shall receive the\ncrown of life,\u201d the victor\u2019s crown. The word for approved suggests the\nfurnace that removes the dross and leaves the pure metal. The refiner of\nsilver watches, we are told, till he sees his own image in the metal.\nThen it is pure. The metal is tested and approved.\n\n\u201cThe crown of life\u201d (cf. Rev. 2:10) is probably the wreath of victory in\nthe games (cf. 1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 2:5), for Greek games were common in\nPalestine in the days of Herod the Great and were practiced even in\nJerusalem itself (Josephus, _Ant._ 15, 8, 1 f.). It is a crown of kingly\nglory, but it is bestowed as reward of merit to those who love the Lord\nJesus. We may have a reference to a Logion of Jesus not preserved in\nwhich he makes this promise: \u201cBlessed is he who hath his raiment white,\nfor he it is who receiveth the crown of joy upon his head.\u201d[55] In\nProverbs 1:9 we read that the instruction of father and mother \u201cshall be\na chaplet of grace unto thy head.\u201d In Sirach 15:6 we read of \u201ca crown of\ngladness,\u201d and in the _Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs_ (Levi iv. 1)\nwe find \u201ccrowns of glory.\u201d Love is the way to win this crown\u2014love and\nthe proof of it in enduring temptation and leading \u201cthe white life.\u201d\n\n\n Blaming God (1:13)\n\nWhatever doubt exists in verse 12 about trial or temptation vanishes in\nverse 13. Here it is clearly temptation to evil. Hort (_in loco_)\nsuggests \u201ctempted by trial,\u201d and Moffatt puts it \u201ctried by temptation.\u201d\nCertainly trial becomes a temptation to some men who use it as the\nexcuse for doing wrong. \u201cThough trial in itself is ordered by God for\nour good, yet the inner solicitation to evil which is aroused by the\nouter trial is from ourselves\u201d (Mayor). Any trial wrongly used may\nbecome a temptation, whereas it was meant for our development and\nperfection. Temptation is merely one aspect of trial and not a necessary\none. But the word is used of the great tempter (1 Thess. 3:5). So Jesus\nwas tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Mark 1:13). Satan desired to\nsift the apostles as wheat, to ruin them if possible (Luke 22:31). The\nPharisees and the Sadducees sought to tempt Jesus (Matt. 15:1). It is\nthe devil\u2019s business to seek to lure another into wrong.\n\nWhen a man is tempted and yields to the temptation, he is eager to blame\nsomeone else for his sin. If he cannot do otherwise, he will blame God\nfor having made him as he is, with evil possibilities. In particular is\nthis true of sexual sin, which Oesterley (_in loco_) thinks James has\nspecifically in mind here. Compare Matthew 5:28; 1 Peter 2:11. Adam\nblamed Eve, and Eve the serpent. And even Adam blamed God, for he said:\n\u201cThe woman whom thou gavest to be with me\u201d (Gen. 3:12).\n\nSome dare to say in so many words: \u201cI am tempted of God.\u201d They hold God\nresponsible for their appetites and passions and seek to quiet the\nconscience thus while they give way to sin. Others hide behind heredity,\nenvironment, or evil companions. Even Agamemnon excused himself for his\nwrong to Achilles by holding Zeus and fate responsible. Sirach (15:11\nf.) says: \u201cSay not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away.\u201d The\norigin of sin is a dark problem, but it is a lazy philosophy or a blind\none that shirks human responsibility, or tries to do it. It matters not\nwhether sin is the remnant of the beast in us (surely some men act at\ntimes like the tiger) or the response to evil environment or both, we\nare merely cowardly when we blame God for our own wrongdoing.\n\nThere is no response to evil in God. He is not \u201cman\u2019s giant shadow\nskyward thrown.\u201d The absolute holiness and ethical purity of God should\nat least protect him from the charge of leading us into sin. The worst\nof men, in their darkest moments of loneliness, sometimes come face to\nface with God. Then they do not flippantly blame God but confess their\nsins with broken heart. Two things are true about evil and God. One is\nthat God himself tempts no man to sin. He does send trial but not\ntemptation. We may not understand all the ways of God\u2019s providence, but\nwe may rest secure in this: The devil does tempt us. That is his\nbusiness. And yet James does not refer to Satan by name here, for after\nall, we ourselves are responsible, as he proceeds to show. It does not\nhelp matters with us any more than it did with Eve to lay our sin upon\nthe devil. The other thing that is true is that God cannot be tempted\nwith evil. He cannot be tempted to do evil himself or be led to tempt\nothers with evil. The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the New\nTestament or in the Septuagint, but it is a paraphrase of a common\nproverb in the early Christian writings.[56] God does chastise us (Heb.\n12:4 f.), but he does not tempt us.\n\nAll this is in strong contrast to the Greek and Roman notions of duty,\nfor the heathen gods were credited with all human and even inhuman\nvices. The gods upon Olympus revel in lust and cruelty, jealousy and\nhate. They furnish fit ideals for the philosophy of Nietzsche but do not\naccord with the God of the New Testament, the God of consolation and of\npeace, of purity and love.\n\n\n Snared by One\u2019s Own Bait (1:14)\n\nThe man himself is responsible for his sin, and he need not seek to\nplace the blame elsewhere. The temptation is not a temptation to him if\nhe refuses to listen to the siren\u2019s voice. The man is not responsible\nfor the efforts of others to allure him to sin but only in case he\nlistens and yields. Then he is really tempted \u201cwhen he is drawn away by\nhis own lust, and enticed.\u201d\n\nThe figure is very bold and impressive. The word for \u201cdrawn away\u201d is\nused in Oppian for drawing the fish out from its original retreat,\nbeguiling it from under the rock. Then the fish is ready to be snared by\nthe bait. The fish bites at the bait and is caught on the hook. So with\na man. He is drawn out by his own lust for the sin placed before him. In\nthe case of sexual sin the impulse is not in itself sinful any more than\nthe fish\u2019s hunger for food. The sexual nature is from God and is meant\nonly for blessing for high and holy ends. But the misuse of this impulse\nis very easy and very dreadful in its results. Satan sets many kinds of\nbait for unwary boys and girls, men and women, who at first are taken\noff their guard and then are drawn away by desire stirred within them\ntoward evil. The evil suggestion is entertained, and sin is the outcome.\n\nThis very word \u201centice\u201d is used of hunting (trapping with bait), and\nthen it is used of the harlot who entices to sin. \u201cMy son, if sinners\nentice thee, consent thou not\u201d (Prov. 1:10). Philo speaks of our being\n\u201cdriven by passion or enticed by pleasure.\u201d The pitfalls are many in\nmodern life\u2014in the country, in the village, and in the city. The modern\ndemons of drink, drug, and the brothel are busy in finding victims. But\nthe point made by James is that the one who yields does so because of\nthe sin within his own heart.\n\nA person\u2019s own evil desire plays the part of temptress (Plummer), and he\nis drawn away by it and enticed. \u201cIf thou doest not well, sin coucheth\nat the door\u201d (Gen. 4:7) like a panther ready to spring upon the intended\nvictim caught for the moment off guard. One is reminded afresh of the\nopening chapters of Proverbs, which cannot be excelled by any of the\nmodern books on sex instruction, some of which stimulate more immorality\nthan they prevent. Wise warning is needed and plain talk is demanded,\nbut not pruriency any more than prudery. Alas, that the paw of the\nmodern Moloch draws into the fire so many thousands of young men and\nwomen from the homes of our land. The best capital of America is the\nchildren, and we lose too much of it in the worst of gambles\u2014the traffic\nin souls.\n\n\n The Abortion (1:15)\n\nThe natural history of sin as the result of temptation to which one\nyields is given with scientific accuracy and graphic power: \u201cThen the\nlust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is\nfullgrown, bringeth forth death.\u201d Moffatt renders it thus: \u201cThen Desire\nconceives and breeds Sin, while Sin matures and gives birth to Death.\u201d\nIt is a gruesome picture surely. But who can say that it is overdrawn?\n\nThe positivist tries to shut God out of the world and so to banish human\nresponsibility; but alas, he cannot banish human woe and anguish of\nheart. The agnostic flings up his hands in despair and says he does not\nknow and has nothing to say in the presence of nature, \u201cred in tooth and\nclaw.\u201d The brutal militarist adopts the rule of physical might wrongly\nclaimed by Nietzsche to be the mark of the superman. Spiritual and moral\nprowess should dominate brute force in man, else he becomes only a brute\nhimself. He drops back to the law of the jungle and rejects the law of\nlove in the kingdom of heaven. The Christian Scientist blandly shuts his\neyes to such errors of mortal mind as sin and sickness and sorrow and,\nostrich-like, cheerfully denies their reality and seeks to blow them\naway with a puff. But sin is not to be brushed aside in this way.\n\nThe words of this verse call for particular remark. \u201cThen\u201d is here the\nhistorical order following the temptation to which one yields. His lust\ndrew him forth to the temptation. He yields, and the result is the\nconception; the embryo develops into sin. This is the first birth, and\nsin is the child of desire. Desire is not in itself sinful, but it\neasily falls into sin. Thus in a true sense desire makes sin where there\nwas no sin and so gives birth to sin. But this is not all. Sin in its\nturn matures and gives birth to death.[57] This second child is like a\nchild born dead.\n\nWhen sin is born, death is involved like an embryonic parasite that\nfeeds on sin. Desire, sin, death form the biological line of pedigree.\nThe line is short, for \u201cthe wages of sin is death,\u201d as Paul puts it\n(Rom. 6:23).[58] The picture in James is that of an abnormal birth like\na misshapen animal. I have seen a five-legged cow, the fifth leg on the\ntop of the back standing up straight. When sin is born, death begins\n(conception) and grows in fascinating power till a new birth comes; and\nlo, this child is death itself. \u201cThe birth of death follows of necessity\nwhen once sin is fully formed, for sin from its first beginnings carried\ndeath within\u201d (Hort, _in loco_).\n\nThe law of death in sin applies to other sins besides the so-called\nsexual sins which write their history so plainly in the body and the\nmind and bring a heritage of woe through all the family history. There\nis here no sowing of wild oats to raise a crop of wheat. The fearful\nfidelity of modern scientific knowledge throws a lurid light on this\npassage in James. The sinner makes his bed and lies down in it and drags\ndown with him the helpless ones who are thrown in his care.\n\nAs I am writing I receive a copy of _Light_, a magazine published by the\nWorld\u2019s Purity Federation. The issue for November, 1914, contains an\narticle by a woman who has lived \u201ctwenty-five years in the underworld.\u201d\nHer story reads like a commentary on the words of James. She claims to\nhave had the best of that sordid life, but she concludes: \u201cNo matter\nwhat humiliation a girl has to endure, it is better to endure it than to\nget into this life. There is nothing in it for any of them. The very\nbest of us get it hard before we die. And, at the best, it is Hell.\u201d The\nissue of death is seen not merely in the diseases of the body but \u201calso\nin the deterioration of mind and character which accompanies every kind\nof sin\u201d (Mayor, _in loco_). Death and hell then claim their own.\n\n\n God, the Source of Good (1:16 f.)\n\nThe contrast is sharp. \u201cBe not deceived\u201d; do not wander so in your minds\nas to think that temptation and sin and death come from God. He is not\nthe source of evil. Rabbi Chaninah says: \u201cNo evil thing cometh down from\nabove.\u201d Note Jesus in John 8:23 on \u201cabove\u201d and \u201cbelow.\u201d James is\ntenderly affectionate in his appeal on this point\u2014\u201cmy beloved brethren.\u201d\nOn the contrary, only good comes from God. God is good, and he alone is\nabsolutely good (Mark 10:18).[59] In the Greek the next sentence runs\nlike a hexameter line if one short syllable is considered long by stress\nof the meter.[60] We need not tarry over a fanciful straining after\npoetical lines in prose. Oesterley agrees with Ewald in seeing here a\nquotation from a Hellenistic poem. It is far more likely just accidental\nrhythm common enough in good prose. The scholars differ also as to how\nto translate the sentence. Moffatt has it: \u201cAll we are given is good,\nand all our endowments are faultless.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Father of lights\u201d sets God over against the worship of the sun so\ncommon among the ancients. Plato (Repub. vi. 505 ff.) compares the sun\nto the idea of the good. Modern science powerfully illustrates this\ncomparison of James in bringing out what we owe to the sun in the way of\nlight, heat, and life itself. Philo calls God \u201cthe Father of the all,\u201d\nthe lights (the moon and the stars) and all else in the universe. \u201cWhen\nI consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars,\nwhich thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and\nthe son of man, that thou visitest him?\u201d (Psalm 8:3 f.). Compare\nPhilippians 2:15. God is not only light (1 John 1:5), but all true light\ncomes from him\u2014all the light that lights every man coming into the world\n(John 1:9).\n\nBut the sun appears to move rapidly. Watch the sun drop like a ball of\nfire at sunset and thus cast a deepening shadow over the earth. The\nsundial is one of the oldest ways to mark \u201cthe shadow that is cast by\nturning.\u201d Mayor quotes Plutarch (Percl. 7) for the use of this figure\nfor shadows cast on the dial. James is here, of course, using popular\nlanguage, as we still do when we say that the sun rises and sets. But\nwith our Father of lights there is \u201cno change of rising and setting\u201d\n(Moffatt). He \u201ccasts no shadow on the earth.\u201d Even the polestar, we now\nknow, whirls on in space, carrying the worlds along with it. But our God\nis not changeable or whimsical. He does not send now good, now ill. He\nknows how to give good gifts to those that ask him, yea, the best of all\ngifts, the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13). What seems ill is really good if it\ncomes from God. If one takes his stand by God\u2019s side and looks at his\nlife, he sees God\u2019s plan as a whole for his own life and for God\u2019s\nglory.\n\n\n The New Birth (1:18)\n\n\u201cSo far from God tempting us to evil, his will is the cause of our\nregeneration\u201d (Mayor). He is our Father in a double sense. We owe our\noriginal birth to God, in whose image we are made (Gen. 2:7). We owe our\nspiritual birth likewise to God, who begat us again to a living hope (1\nPeter 1:3). The Mishnah (_Surenh._, iv. 116) says: \u201cA man\u2019s father only\nbrought him forth into this world: his teacher, who taught him wisdom,\nbrings him into the life of the world to come.\u201d Happy is the father who\nleads his child also to Christ. But while the word of truth is the\ninstrument used in the instruction (a pointed lesson for parents,\nteachers, preachers), the actual work of regeneration is due to God as\nFather, yes, and as Mother also, for the word \u201cbrought forth\u201d is the one\nused of the mother (see by contrast v. 15).\n\nThe doctrine of grace here set forth is of a piece with that in Paul\u2019s\nwritings (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 1:5), those of Peter (1 Peter 1:3), and of\nJohn (1:13). Indeed, Jesus himself is quoted as saying: \u201cYe did not\nchoose me, but I chose you\u201d (John 15:16). As the seed of sin produces\ndeath, so the seed of God produces life (1 John 3:9). It is interesting\nto note this piece of fundamental theology in so practical a writer as\nJames, who lays special emphasis on works as proof of life. But James\nhas no such idea as some careless and shallow theologians who think that\na man can galvanize himself into spiritual life by imitative ethics. The\nman must be born again, as Jesus said so impressively to Nicodemus (John\n3:3). The miracle of birth must precede growth and development.\n\nWe are not to puzzle ourselves too much over the mysteries of spiritual\nbiology. We know that the impulse and purpose[61] come from God (John\n1:13). What we do know is that God honors and uses the word of truth,\nboth spoken and written. If this is true, what a responsibility belongs\nto us for diligence and urgency in the use of the word of truth.\n\nBy the truth we are set free from sin and error (John 8:31 f.). The word\nof truth is the gospel of salvation (Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5), the word of\nlife (1 John 1:1). God\u2019s word is truth (John 17:17), and the words of\nJesus are spirit and life (John 6:63). The word of truth, when combined\nwith the power of God (2 Cor. 6:7), quickens into life. So James\nemphasizes the importance of the human element in the new birth, while\nrightly making God supreme in the act of regeneration. We must reach men\nwith the word of God. We must pass it on to the thirsty, the hungry, the\ndying. Every church is, or ought to be, a lifesaving station, a rescue\nmission, a teaching center, a powerhouse, a lighthouse radiating\nknowledge of God in Christ.\n\nThe purpose of God in renewing us by the word of truth is that we in\nturn should win others. We are not an end in ourselves, though God does\nsave us. He saves us that we may serve. We are to be a sort of first\nfruits,[62] not the full harvest. There are fields upon fields beyond us\nready for the reaper. We are just a beginning, just a foretaste. We whet\nthe appetite for larger, richer blessings. \u201cThe trees that are a\nfortnight to the fore are the talk and delight of the town.\u201d[63] One\nspring my baby boy noticed a tree without leaves when all the rest were\nin leaf. \u201cWhat is the matter with this tree?\u201d he asked.\n\nChrist has introduced a new order into the world. He himself is the real\nfirst fruits (1 Cor. 15:20). But there are others through all the\nages\u2014those that ripen first and fast, show the way, give promise of the\nfuture. So Epaenetus was a first fruits of Asia for Christ (Rom. 16:5);\nthe household of Stephanas was in Corinth (1 Cor. 16:15). Blessings rest\non the first fruits for salvation in any church, any town, any family.\nThey are the chosen of God, like the 144,000 in the book of Revelation\n(14:3), the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). The Jews consecrated\ntheir first fruits to God as his in a special sense. All Christians are\nmeant to be first fruits, the promise and earnest of better work (Rom.\n8:23). God has in store great things for his people. The least that we\ncan do is to bring our first and our best, our all, and lay it at the\nfeet of Jesus. The new heaven and the new earth may not come while we\nlive on earth, but we may help heaven to come upon earth by living the\nlife of God.\n\n\n\n\n V\n The Practice of the Word of God\n\n\nNowhere is James richer than in this wonderful paragraph in verses 19-27\nof the first chapter. He has in mind \u201cthe word of truth\u201d of verse 18 and\nfollows that idea with pungent and powerful words that remind one of the\nSermon on the Mount. It is not clear whether the first part of verse 19\nbelongs in idea to what goes before or what follows. \u201cYe know this, my\nbeloved brethren.\u201d It makes perfectly good sense either way. It is also\nuncertain whether we have a statement or a command, for the form may be\neither indicative or imperative. If you know it, act on your knowledge.\nLet us listen to what the Word has to say, since we are renewed by the\nuse of it, and be less captious in our criticism of its teachings\n(Mayor). Moffatt puts it, \u201cBe sure of that, my beloved brothers,\u201d and\nconnects it with verse 18.\n\n\n Brilliant Listening (1:19a)\n\nBy \u201cswift to hear\u201d James brings a vivid picture before us. Moffatt has\nit \u201cquick to listen.\u201d Sirach (5:11) has a like command: \u201cBe swift in thy\nlistening.\u201d One thinks of fleet of foot, yes, and of ear. The Vulgate\nhas _velox_ here. The wild animals (and the Indians) of necessity have\nkeen ears and can hear the slightest rustle of a leaf or crackling of a\ntwig. The rabbit, so often hunted by man and dog, pricks up his ears at\nthe sound of a pin dropping. The use of the telephone and radio have\ngiven added importance to the value of the ear. The ancients relied very\nmuch on the ear, for the reader of books had a wide-awake audience who\ndepended on the ear rather than the eye for information.\n\nThe mechanism of listening is very wonderful, the contact between brain\nand brain through the sound waves of speech and the reception of the\nspoken words by the ear. Jesus often said: \u201cHe that hath ears to hear,\nlet him hear.\u201d The ear with many was, and is, the sole avenue of\nacquiring knowledge. It is no disparagement of books to say that the art\nof conversation is one of the greatest refinements. But the very essence\nof a good conversationalist is that he be also a good listener; else he\nis a consummate bore. Sydney Smith said of Macaulay that his occasional\nflashes of silence made his conversation delightful. In _Qoheleth Rabba_\nwe read: \u201cSpeech for a shekel, silence for two, it is like a precious\nstone.\u201d Broadus had a great lecture on \u201cThe Art of Listening.\u201d It is a\nreally rare art and one of the most useful.\n\nPoor listening will make poor preaching of a really good sermon. Good\nlistening will come near to making a good sermon out of a poor one. The\nwriter of Hebrews complains that his readers have become dull of\nhearing. The word \u201cdull\u201d means no push. They had no push in their ears,\nno energy in listening, were already half asleep. In particular do we\nneed to listen when God speaks to us in his Word of truth, to have \u201ca\nquick and attentive ear to catch what God has spoken\u201d (Hort).\nInattention is irritating and may be deadly. Sirach says: \u201cThe mind of a\nsagacious person will meditate on a proverb; and an attentive ear is the\ndesire of a wise man\u201d (3:29). God is constantly speaking to those with\nears to hear. It is good for the young to learn the habit of attention,\na help in meeting temptation.\n\n\n Eloquent Silence (1:19b)\n\nAnother life rule of James (Windisch) is \u201cslow to speak.\u201d One must not\nforget Homer\u2019s \u201cwinged words,\u201d for words can be laden with messages of\njoy and life and peace and love. Eloquence has its place, real eloquence\nof the soul\u2014words on fire that blaze and burn, words that thrill and\nelectrify, words that make life and death noble and high, words like\nthose of Jesus that are spirit and life (John 6:63). But when all is\nsaid, there is something deeper than mere speech, higher than just\nwords, nobler than talk. If speech is silvern, silence is often golden.\n\nSorrow may be too unutterable for words. Joy may pass beyond all speech.\nThe proverb also has it that \u201cmany a man has had to repent of speaking,\nbut never one of holding his peace,\u201d unless silence is guilty or\ncowardly. But it is easy to be voluble with the tongue and slack in\nlife. Sirach says: \u201cBe not violent with thy tongue, and in thy deeds\nslack and remiss.\u201d Volubility is certainly not a sign of power. The\nsilent man, like Moses, is more likely to be a man of power and\nperformance. The parrot and the owl form good examples of the weakness\nof chatter and the wisdom of silence. Zeno calls attention to the\nobvious fact that we have two ears and one mouth and should therefore\nlisten twice as much as we talk.\n\nJames does not, of course, mean that men should be slow and dull talkers\nafter they begin to talk. He means slow to talk, not slow in talking.\nOften the least interesting men are the very ones who talk most\nfrequently and at the greatest length. We are to think twice before we\nspeak. Sometimes, if we do that, we shall not speak at all. At any rate,\nwe shall be more likely to have sense in our speech. We shall speak to\nmore purpose if we speak after silence and out of the reflection from\nsilence.\n\nMcLaren has a good phrase, \u201cSpread out our souls to the truth.\u201d \u201cBe\nstill, and know that I am God.\u201d Mary \u201ckept all these sayings, pondering\nthem in her heart\u201d (Luke 2:19). She could only listen to God. The\nQuakers have some ground for their plea for meditation in the Christian\nlife. Introspection can, of course, be overdone, but the present age is\nnot given to reflection and contemplation. Practical mysticism is the\nbest type of Christianity. Indeed, Christianity without mysticism is\nempty and formal.\n\nIt is quite possible (Johnstone) that the free conversational style\nemployed in the early Christian meetings was taken advantage of by\ncontentious persons, with the result of serious wranglings, as in the\nchurch at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 14). \u201cIn the multitude of words there\nwanteth not transgression; but he that refraineth his lips doeth wisely\u201d\n(Prov. 10:19). Such violent talkers break up the spiritual life of a\nchurch. The less they know, the more they talk. They have positive\nopinions on every subject of politics or religion. They know how their\nneighbors should act in the smallest details and criticize everybody and\neverything. They are happiest when all is agog with talk of some sort;\nand the more gossipy it is, the better they like it. \u201cThey cannot think,\nand it is a relief to them to hear their own voices\u201d (Dale). Epictetus\n(Ench. xxxiii, \u00a75) has the same idea as James: \u201cLet there be silence for\nthe most part or let that which is necessary be said in few words.\u201d\n\n\n Dull Anger (1:19c f.)\n\nThe third life rule of James is \u201cslow to wrath.\u201d There is a clear\nconnection between speech and anger. Anger inflames one to hasty and\nunguarded talk. In turn, the words act as fuel to the flames. The talk\ninflames the anger, and the anger inflames the talk. The more one talks,\nthe angrier he becomes\u2014like a spitfire. If one stops talking, his anger\nwill cool down for lack of fuel. Men who are dull enough in listening,\nwho will sleep through any sermon, are quick to resent a personal\nreflection or an imagined wrong. Often one\u2019s manhood is gauged by his\nquickness to avenge a personal affront, with murder as the outcome. This\nis a fine place to be dull, when one is tempted to be angry.\n\nAnger is sometimes justifiable, even necessary. There is such a thing as\nrighteous indignation against wrong. Jesus \u201clooked round about on them\nwith anger\u201d (Mark 3:5), but it was compassionate anger. It is possible\nto be angry and sin not (Eph. 4:26), but we must not let the sun go down\nupon our wrath. Unlike God, we do not know all the circumstances in the\ncase. Getting mad is not promoting the kingdom of God. \u201cThe wrath of man\nworketh not the righteousness of God.\u201d (Compare Matthew 5:21 f.) The\neuphemistic phrase of James is emphatic by its very mildness. Man\u2019s\nwrath is set over against God\u2019s righteousness. The growth of religion\nand of civilization is marked by the self-restraint of the individual\nand of the state. Vengeance is a boomerang in most instances. The taking\nof vengeance into one\u2019s own hands brings down the house on one\u2019s head.\nNot only is unhappiness brought to others; immeasurable harm is done in\none\u2019s own life.\n\nAt any rate, it pays every man and every nation to be slow to anger.\n\n Boys, flying kites, haul in their white-winged birds;\n You can\u2019t do that way, when you\u2019re flying words.\n Thoughts, unexpressed, may sometimes fall back dead,\n But God himself can\u2019t kill them once they\u2019re said.\n\nSometimes unpalatable truth has to be spoken, hard words have to be\nsaid. \u201cAm I become your enemy by telling you the truth?\u201d (Gal. 4:16).\nBut the preacher needs to temper rebuke with love and anguish of soul.\n\n\n The Rooted Word (1:21)\n\n\u201cThe implanted word\u201d is probably a mistranslation. The common idea of\nthe word is \u201cinborn\u201d or \u201cinnate\u201d (cf. Wisd. 12:10, \u201ctheir wickedness is\ninborn\u201d). The word is occasionally used for second nature or secondary\ningrowth (Hort). The word is sown, not grafted, and so \u201crooted\u201d seems to\nbe the meaning here (Mayor). See also Romans 6:5, \u201cunited with him in\nthe likeness of his death.\u201d The figure is that of the seed sown in the\nheart and taking root and growing there. So Jesus spoke of the man who\nhad no root in himself (Matt. 13:21).\n\nReceive the rooted word; but before doing so, one must cleanse the heart\nlike a garden of all noxious weeds. The imagery is doubtless a mixed\nmetaphor, but never mind that, for the thought is clear. The \u201cputting\naway\u201d suggests the laying aside of a garment, as in Hebrews 12:1 one\nstrips for the race. In Ephesians 4:21 Paul contrasts putting off the\nold man with putting on the new (cf. also Col. 3:8 ff.). Mayor notes the\ncomparison between dress and character in the wedding garment (Matt.\n22:11), the white robe of purity (Rev. 3:4, 18). In 1 Peter 2:1 we have\nlanguage similar to that of James, \u201cputting away therefore all\nwickedness.\u201d But probably James means to carry the figure of the garden\nall through the verse, as Moffatt has it: \u201cSo clear away all the foul\nrank growth,\u201d the weeds of \u201cfilthiness\u201d and \u201coverflowing of wickedness.\u201d\nThe \u201cfilthiness\u201d may mean impurity. Compare Paul\u2019s phrase \u201ccorrupt\nspeech,\u201d literally \u201crotten speech\u201d in Ephesians 4:29. But in Revelation\n22:11, \u201cAnd he that is filthy let him be made filthy still,\u201d the notion\nis more general.\n\nAnother noxious weed that must be gotten out of the way is \u201cwickedness,\u201d\nwhich here may have the narrower sense of malice. \u201cWhat was called holy\nanger was nothing better than spite\u201d (Hort). It is even suggested that\nthe \u201coverflowing\u201d is a sort of overgrowth or excrescence (Hort), but\nwith no idea of admitting that a small amount of wickedness or malice is\nnot evil. The precise figure is an ebullition or effervescence of\nmalice. Surely one too often sees this picture in actual life. Malice\nbubbles up and runs over into word and deed. \u201cThe evil man out of the\nevil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil\u201d (Luke 6:45). He speaks\nout of the abundance of his heart. Surely evil runs riot unless it is\nchecked and taken out, root and branch. Per contra one loves to think of\nthe abundance of grace (Rom. 5:17, 21) and the abundance of joy (2 Cor.\n8:2).\n\nWhen once the weeds are out of the way, \u201cmake a soil of modesty for the\nWord which roots itself inwardly\u201d (Moffatt). Surely the repentant sinner\ncan only \u201creceive with meekness.\u201d Hort notes that the temper full of\nharshness and pride destroys the faculty of perceiving the voice of God.\nJesus urged men to come to school to him, because he is meek and lowly\nin heart (Matt. 11:29). Meekness is not a virtue that ranks high with\nall men. Many of the ancients counted it a vice, as Nietzsche has taught\nin our generation. But the spirit of Nietzsche\u2019s superman is not the\nspirit of Jesus or of the true gentleman. There can be no true culture\nwithout gentleness and the grace of meekness.\n\nIf the seed of the Word gets root and is allowed to grow (compare the\nwayside, stony-ground, thorny-ground hearers in Christ\u2019s parable in\nMatt. 13), the tree of life will flourish in the garden of the soul.\nThis word is \u201cable to save your souls.\u201d It brings a present salvation\nhere and now (John 5:34), a new life of purity. It helps in the\nprogressive salvation of the whole man in his battle with sin and growth\nin grace (2 Tim. 3:15). It leads to final salvation in heaven with\nChrist in God (1 Peter 1:9). The gospel is the power of God unto\nsalvation (Rom. 1:16); the very power of God pulses in it. See Hebrews\n4:12 f. for a wonderful picture of the vital force of the Word of God,\nquick and powerful, all electric with the energy of the Spirit of God.\nMen may scoff at and scout the message of God, but it saves men\u2019s souls.\nWhat else does that?\n\n\n Hearers Only (1:22-24)\n\nJames keeps the balance well. He has shown the wisdom of good listening.\nNow he proves the futility of mere listening with no effort to put into\npractice what one hears. There is life in the Word of God if it is\nlived. It is quick with life-giving energy for those who put it to the\ntest of life. One may hear and not heed. The Greek used the same word\nfor both ideas. One is reminded of the parable of the sower again, for\nonly one of the four classes of hearers brought forth fruit. That is the\ntest. \u201cBy their fruits ye shall know them.\u201d The reception of the Word\nwill only bring final salvation in case the fruit is borne.\n\nJames knew only too well the empty ceremonialism of the Jews who said\nand did not. Jesus (see Matt. 23) arraigned the hypocrisy of the\nPharisees in the most scathing denunciation of all time. \u201cBut be ye\ndoers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves.\u201d Show\nyourselves \u201cword-doers\u201d (Hort). By \u201cword\u201d it is not clear whether is\nmeant the Torah (Oesterley) or any word of authority (Hort), or the\nrooted word just mentioned (Plummer). The latter is most likely, though\nthe partial personification of \u201cword\u201d here reminds one of the opening\nverses of the Fourth Gospel and of Philo and the Targums.\n\nThe \u201chearers only\u201d did nothing else but listen. They were true \u201csermon\ntasters\u201d who fed upon the ministry of the Word or the written word, only\nto fatten into sloth and spiritual inertia. They got the hookworm\ndisease in religion and belonged to the shirkers, not the workers. Rabbi\nChananiah used to say: \u201cWhosesoever works are in excess of his wisdom,\nhis wisdom stands; and whosesoever wisdom is in excess of his works, his\nwisdom stands not.\u201d[64] The rabbis said there were two crowns, one for\ndoing and one for hearing, based on Exodus 24:7: \u201cwe will do, and we\nwill be obedient\u201d (\u201chear\u201d). The word for hearers appears nowhere else in\nthe New Testament and was used for attendants at the lectures of\nphilosophers and other public speakers rather than learners or\ndisciples. One thinks of the public reading of the Word in the\nsynagogues. But even so, \u201cAct on the Word,\u201d Moffatt has it. Else it is\nlike pouring water into a sieve. It is in one ear and out of the other.\n\nSome people have a sort of religious dissipation in attending revival\nservices and imagine that they have accomplished a great deal if they\nsimply go. People easily acquire itching ears that love to be tickled\nwith some sensation. The word takes no root in the hearts of such men.\nThey run from church to church to get a new word, a sort of soda-water\nhabit. They deceive themselves but nobody else. These spiritual\n\u201cgadabouts\u201d are shallow and skim the surface only. They make a sort of\nmotion picture but accomplish nothing substantial in their own lives or\nin the work of the kingdom. They are guilty of a logical fallacy and are\nthe victims of their own delusions (cf. Col. 2:4). One has thus a case\nof autointoxication. He has inoculated himself with the virus of his own\nerror.\n\nAnd now James draws a wonderfully vivid picture of the idle hearers, the\nhangers-on in revival meetings, like the scum that comes first to the\nsurface, lighthearted, impulsive, nonchalant, without depth of purpose\nor seriousness in life. Such a frivolous listener glances at his face in\na mirror, taking note to see that he looks natural and proper. A quick\nlook suffices for that, for \u201chis natural face,\u201d the face of his birth,\nthe only one that he has. If nothing is awry about his appearance\nreflected in the mirror, he is satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the\nmomentary glance. The mirror was probably of metal, and the word is\noften used by the poets (Mayor). Here the mirror is the Word of God\n(spoken or written) by which one takes a look at himself, and the quick\nand superficial view brings satisfaction or a passing pang. See 1\nCorinthians 13:12 for the use of \u201cmirror\u201d for the imperfect knowledge of\nChrist through reflection in the Word of God and in life contrasted with\nthe blessed reality when face to face with him (Mayor). But here in\nJames the man tarries by the mirror for a moment and soon moves off.\n\nAll that he saw in the Word of God is now out of sight and out of mind,\nlike the wayside hearers in Christ\u2019s parable. If it was a sermon that he\nheard, the impulses for good quickly die away. He is back at his\nbusiness, at his club, or in his home. He straightway forgets what he\nwas like, what sort of man he was in the mirror. In particular, any\nunpleasant features are forgotten. The momentary trembling of the\nconscience no longer bothers him. Alas, how easily the burning heat of\nthe day withers the tender shoots in the stony ground; the weeds and\nthorns choke to death the pious aspirations of the better hours.\n\n\n Real Students of the Word (1:25)\n\nThe image of the mirror is carried on into the picture of the doer of\nthe word, the \u201cdoer that worketh,\u201d a doer of work, \u201can active agent\u201d\n(Moffatt). The phrase is tautological but very emphatic. He is not only\na doer of word but a doer of deeds. He has put the word into practice\nand has brought practical results. He has transmuted word into deed.\nThis is what counts, the practice of the Word of God, not mere glancing\nat the mirror nor chatter about what one saw or picked up, not a hearer\nof forgetfulness. It is astonishing what poor memories men have for what\nGod says. The _Doctrine of Addai_ gives as an uncanonical saying of\nJesus: \u201cThat which we preach before the people by word we should\npractise by deed in the sight of all.\u201d\n\nThe sincere listener pauses long enough to become interested in the real\nmeaning of the Word of God, which is now law to him, for he wishes to\nobey this Word of the Master. These listeners are the joy of the\npreacher\u2019s heart, those who turn to the Scriptures, like the Bereans, to\nsee if these things are so (Acts 17:11). The word in James suggests\ncuriosity and eagerness, as in Sirach 14:23, of the one who looks\nthrough the door of wisdom, and in 1 Peter 1:12, the desire of the\nangels to peer into the problems of the mission of Christ to earth. The\nlaw of God is attractive and perfect to the doer of work, as the\npsalmist has it: \u201cThe law of the Lord is perfect\u201d (Psalm 19:7). But it\nis not a law of compulsion but of freedom. One is free to accept or to\nreject it. Certainly James does not have the view of the Judaizers, who\nmade the law a yoke of bondage even for Gentiles, but rather that of\nPaul, who accented the freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1). Jesus held out\nfreedom as the great blessing of truth (John 8:32)\u2014freedom to exercise\none\u2019s highest functions and faculties held in bondage by sin and mere\nlegalism.\n\nPerhaps the chief emphasis in this verse lies in the word \u201ccontinueth.\u201d\nThe man remains by the side of the roll of the law spread out before him\nand unrolls page after page with the keenest interest and zest until he\nrightly grasps the meaning of God. Thus he puts the Word into practice.\nHe has it stamped on his mind and heart. He is a Christian pragmatist.\nHe, like Brother Lawrence, practices the presence of God. He translates\nthe word of truth into his own life and becomes a living epistle. This\nis the Bible that the twentieth century loves to read. The man who does\nthis is \u201chappy in his doing,\u201d \u201cblessed in his activity\u201d (Moffatt). He is\nhappy in the doing, even if it falls far short of the ideal in the word\nof truth. He has tried, and he will keep on trying. He can sing the song\nof the shirt, the song of the plow, the song of the desk.\n\n\n Complacent Religiosity (1:26)\n\nMere listening may be idle. Mere work may be perfunctory. One may be a\nworker only as well as a hearer only. The hearer only deceives himself\nby an error of reason (1:22). The worker only deceives his own heart by\nan error of conduct. He leads himself astray, out of the path, by the\ndelusion that religion consists in the performance of religious duties,\nnot in the attitude toward God in the heart or the ethical conduct. Paul\nuses the term for Pharisaism (Acts 26:5) and in Colossians 2:18 for the\nworship of the angels. It is the external aspect of public worship.\nOriginally it had the meaning of reverence for the gods (Hort), but it\nsoon came to be used for the ceremonial rites of worship. In 4 Maccabees\n5:6 the word is used for the refusal of the Jews to eat pork.\n\nIn a word, it is applied to one who does faithfully the religious\nchores. The Pharisees form a striking illustration of this emphasis on\nthe ceremonial side of public worship. The regular attendance at the\nhours of prayer, faithful observance of the rules of ritual\npurification, payment of the tithes\u2014these things constituted worship.\nFinally, these _alone_ constituted worship. Religion came to consist in\nthe ceremony alone, the letter and not the spirit, the hull and not the\nkernel.\n\nMost of the things done were good enough. It is good to have the outside\nof the cup clean but not so important as the inside or as clean water in\nthe cup. Jesus exposed this failing of the Pharisees with great\nincisiveness and power. It is easy to mistake form for reality. So men\nhave come to count their beads as prayer, to pray with prayer wheels. A\nperson may attend church regularly, contribute liberally, come to prayer\nmeeting, have family prayers, be a member of the church, and yet not be\nreligious. He may have religiosity and not religion. One may mistake\nperformance of religious functions for the possession of the spirit of\nreligion. In the very act of working out the religious impulse men often\nfall into traps. So here the man considers that he is a religious man.\nHe is content with his religious status, and yet he does not control his\ntongue. \u201cHe bridleth not his tongue\u201d; this is the earliest known use of\nthis striking figure, though Aristophanes speaks of an unbridled mouth.\n\nThe tongue is regarded as an unruly horse that needs bit and bridle held\nfast by the master to control it. The tongue is allowed to say whatever\na spiteful heart prompts. The bitterest words are not felt to be\ninconsistent with personal piety. Such a man considers himself a pillar\nof the church in spite of his loose tongue and loose living. He performs\nreligious duties on Sunday and is a shyster on Monday. He deceives\nhimself, but no one else is deceived. Such a man\u2019s religious service is\nempty of any value with God or man. It is vain and hollow mockery. His\nown complacency makes the matter worse. He is a stumbling block to those\nwho judge religion by him, for he has divorced religion from life.\n\n\n Unspotted from the World (1:27)\n\nJames does not give a definition of religion in this verse but an\nillustration of the right sort of religious exercise in contrast with\nthe futile religiosity already noted. The absence of the article shows\nthat he does not mean an inclusive description. \u201cA religious exercise\npure and undefiled\u201d is here given quite the opposite meaning of the\nprofessional performances of the pharisaic pietists. There is pure\nreligion, and the counterfeit is a tribute to it. This religion is free\nfrom pollution. There is in it no alloy of selfishness nor other sin.\nMoffatt renders it \u201cunsoiled,\u201d but it may have the notion of genuine\nmetal.\n\nThis standard of purity and piety seems impossible, but God knows how to\nestimate the relation between listening and doing, between doing and\nloving, between loving and purity of life. The life must pass muster\nwith God. At first sight one is perhaps depressed by the reflection that\nGod\u2019s standard of piety is so much higher than ours. What some men\nconsider holy worship is to God hollow mockery. But then God is our\nFather. He planted the word of truth in our hearts. He has watched it\ngrow. He knows the limitations of environment in which the tree of life\nhas grown.\n\nJames gives two very practical tests of genuine religion. One is mercy\ntoward the suffering. The widow and the orphan appeal to the hardest\nhearts. And yet men have been known to spend thousands of dollars upon\npalaces of worship while the poor perished in the alley behind the\nchurch. The social side of practical religion is receiving more\nattention these days than it once did. The very hospitals and asylums\nare an expression of that love for our common humanity taught by Jesus.\nJames has no sympathy with that cold orthodoxy that is satisfied with\nsinging psalms to Jehovah while the widow and the orphan suffer, with no\nhelp from the blind worshipers nearby.\n\nChristianity is inward and spiritual, not mere perfunctory ritual. But\nit is not mere mystical brooding or abstract contemplation. The cry of\nthe child and the cry of the mother for the child were heard by Jesus.\nToday the children cry aloud in our streets and in our factories for\nschool and play, for love and sympathy, for better homes and better\nfood, for care of the body and of the soul. Jesus still loves the\nchildren. Christ discovered the child. The modern world at last has\nbegun to find out the child that Jesus has placed in the midst of us.\nThere are many other forms of social service which the true Christian\nmay find right by his door. The neighbor in need may even lie at his\ngate.\n\nThe other test of pure religion offered by James is more distinctly\npersonal and more difficult, though the first test is met none too well.\nIt is \u201cto keep oneself unspotted from the world.\u201d Moffatt has it \u201cfrom\nthe stain of the world.\u201d It is a high calling surely if one is to walk\nin a world like this free from the stain of sin, with no spot upon\ngarments, body, or soul. The Lamb of God was offered as a sacrifice\nwithout spot. Christ will present his church at last without spot. James\nhad just spoken of the use of the tongue. That also can leave a spot or\nstain (cf. 3:6).\n\nThere is much dirt of all kinds about us. The germs of sin infest and\ninfect us all. And yet it is not hopeless to make a fight for purity in\nlife. We do not give up the battle for cleanliness of body, for\nhealthfulness of body, for victory over the germs of disease about us\nand in us. It is worthwhile to lead the clean, white life of purity. One\nhas his reward in his own life\u2014in fresh power, in new joy, in richer\nfruitage. He has his reward also in the inspiration given to others, who\nare cheered to strive likewise against sin, to fight for personal and\nsocial purity, for better homes and better cities, for a better world in\nwhich to serve God, for a bit of heaven here on earth, for the reign of\nGod in human hearts, for likeness to Jesus the Son of God.\n\n\n\n\n VI\n Class Prejudice\n\n\nIn the second chapter James recurs to the discussion of the democracy of\nfaith found in 1:9-11. In fact, it had never been very far in the\nbackground. The use of \u201cmy brethren\u201d is eminently appropriate here,\nsince he is urging the readers to brotherly kindness (Mayor).\n\n\n Face Value in Religion (2:1)\n\nThis is a very hard verse to translate at once, for we must decide three\ndisputed questions. One is whether the verb is imperative or\ninterrogative. It is taken as imperative in most versions, and so most\ninterpreters hold, but Hort urges that it is a tame conception compared\nwith the indignant query expecting the answer no. There is force in this\npoint, as thus James would be expressing vehement surprise that such\npartiality could exist among the Jewish Christians. Still, the\nprohibition against such partiality makes good sense.\n\nThere is little doubt that \u201cthe faith of our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d should\nbe rendered \u201cfaith in our Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d It is objective, not\nsubjective, genitive. For a similar use of the objective genitive with\nfaith one may note Mark 11:22 and Acts 3:16. It is not the faith of\nJesus that is under discussion but the faith of the readers in Jesus\nChrist our Lord. This interpretation commits James to the worship of\nJesus as Lord and Messiah, but that is surely what would be expected in\none who claimed to be a \u201cservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ\u201d\n(1:1). It is true that the standpoint of James is nearer to that of the\nOld Testament than is true of Peter, John, and Paul, but after the great\nPentecost there seems to be no wavering on the great fundamentals of\nChristianity, though there is rich development and enlargement.\n\nThe essence of the Christology of James is precisely that of Paul,\nthough James does not amplify his implications as Paul does. James,\nthough very Jewish in background, is thoroughly Christian. The heart of\nChristianity, the worship of Jesus as Lord and Saviour, is here, though\nchronologically the Epistle of James precedes the teaching of Paul and\nJohn in their writings. It is like the child and the man (Plummer), not\na retrograde movement. It is the outlook of Jerusalem, not that of\nAntioch. What James is discussing is not the personal religion of Jesus\nbut the reader\u2019s faith in Jesus.\n\nThe third disputed point in the verse is the word \u201cglory.\u201d The English\nversions generally insert the words \u201cthe Lord\u201d and make it \u201cthe Lord of\nglory,\u201d but Bengel makes \u201cthe glory\u201d _ipse Christus_. In this he is\nfollowed by Mayor, Hort, and Oesterley; and it is almost certainly true\nthat by \u201cglory\u201d James has in mind the Shekinah. In the Septuagint for\nLeviticus 26:11 the word for Shekinah is just that used in Revelation\n21:3: \u201cBehold, the tabernacle of God is with men.\u201d In John 1:14 we read:\n\u201cAnd the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory,\nglory as of the only begotten from the Father).\u201d Add to this Hebrews\n1:3, \u201cwho, being the effulgence of his glory,\u201d and the case seems made\nout. In _Pirke Aboth_ iii. 3 we note: \u201cTwo that sit together and are\noccupied in words of Thorah have the Shekinah among them.\u201d\n\nJesus claimed, \u201cFor where two or three are gathered in my name, there am\nI in the midst of them\u201d (Matt. 18:20). Jesus is thus not only the Way,\nthe Truth, the Life, and the Resurrection but also the Glory. James may\nhave in mind the resurrection glory of Jesus as he appeared to him. In\nLuke 2:32 Simeon says: \u201cThe glory of thy people Israel.\u201d\n\nBut all this is by way of emphasis for the main point. One who has faith\nin such a Lord as Jesus should not be guilty of \u201cacts of partiality\u201d\n(Hort). The meaning of the phrase is clear, though the origin is\nobscure.[65] The Greek use of the word for mask is illustrated by the\nword for hypocrite. In Leviticus 19:15 we see the full force of the\nidiom: \u201cThou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the\nperson of the mighty.\u201d See Acts 10:34, where Peter learns that God is no\nrespecter of persons.\n\nGod does not accept the outside appearance for the inner reality\u2014nor\nshould we. God is the God of reality. (Compare Heb. 4:12 f.) A just\njudge must not be influenced by the bias of personal preference,\nprejudice, rank, power, money (Mayor). He must decide the case on its\nmerits. There is no room for class prejudice or for the caste system in\nChristianity, as there is none in the heart of God. Christianity is\ndemocratic to the core, that is, real Christianity. Organized\nChristianity has sometimes been the very thing that James here condemns.\nEven in the single church little rifts and cliques easily develop.\n\n\n Partiality in Church (2:2-4)\n\nAlready the Jewish Christians were in peril from this evil. It is, in\nparticular, a sin of ushers who show respect of persons in seating\nstrangers. But pastors are in constant danger of the same sin in general\nchurch relations. The word here for synagogue may mean place of worship\nor the assembly itself, as in Hebrews 10:25, \u201cthe assembling of\nyourselves together.\u201d The word for church does not occur in the\napostolic period (Hort) for place of meeting, but synagogue was already\nin common use in both senses. But it is not necessary to suppose that\nJames has in mind simply a Jewish synagogue, though it is quite possible\nthat the Jewish Christians still attended worship and heard Moses read\nin the synagogue (Acts 15:21), as Christians belonged to the synagogue\nof the Libertines (Acts 6:9) and the early Christians worshiped still in\nthe Temple.\n\nThe use of \u201cyour\u201d seems to mean that it is at least a Christian\ngathering that James refers to, whether meeting in the Jewish synagogue\nor elsewhere. \u201cThe growth of the Gentile element in the church excited\nthe active hostility of the Jews against the whole body of Christians,\nas it troubled the Jewish converts themselves\u201d (Westcott on Hebrews, p.\nxxxviii). Finally the Christians had to set up for themselves, as in\nCorinth (Acts 18:7) and in Ephesus (Acts 19:8 f.). We do not know the\nprecise stage reached by the Jewish Christians here. James may mean some\nparticular instance of trouble in the dispersion that came to his\nnotice, or he may have in mind any Christian gathering in the\ndispersion. The Gentiles often attended the worship of the Jews in the\nsynagogues (Acts 13:16, 43). The use of \u201csynagogue\u201d for Christian\nworship occurs rarely, as in Hermas, _Mand._ xi. 9. The time came when\nsynagogue was used only for Jews or heretics. Epiphanius (_Haer._ xxx.\n18) says that the Ebionites call their meeting \u201csynagogue,\u201d not\n\u201cchurch.\u201d One may note also John\u2019s use of the term \u201csynagogue of Satan\u201d\n(Rev. 2:9; 3:9).\n\nThe picture of the two strangers at church is drawn with bold lines and\nin few words by James; yet it is remarkably clear and picturesque. The\nman with a gold ring probably makes a display of his ring. If he\npreached, he would make most of his gestures with that hand. The word\noccurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Mayor quotes Epictetus\n(_Diss._ 1. 22) as speaking of an \u201cold man with gold fingers.\u201d The \u201cfine\nclothing\u201d is literally \u201cbrilliant clothing,\u201d \u201cnew glossy clothes\u201d\n(Hort), \u201cthe fine white garment worn by wealthy Jews\u201d (Oesterley), like\nthat in which Herod Antipas clad Jesus when he sent him back to Pilate.\nOne can easily see the distinguished-looking stranger as he steps in at\nthe same time as \u201ca poor man in vile clothing,\u201d \u201cin dirty clothes\u201d\n(Moffatt), \u201cold shabby clothes\u201d (Hort). See Revelation 22:11 for the\nsame adjective for \u201cfilthy.\u201d In James 1:21 we had \u201cfilthiness.\u201d\n\nWe have no means of knowing whether these two men who suddenly enter\nchurch are Christians or simply Jews. Both seem to be strangers. The\ncourtesies extended are based purely on the appearance of these two as\nto dress, not on race or ecclesiastical standing.\n\nThe poor man may be one reduced to beggary\u2014a tramp or hobo. He may be a\npoor working man. He stands in marked contrast with the rich man, as in\n1:9-11. Probably the poor man had on the best clothes that he had.\nShould a man like that come to our churches? Would he be welcome in our\npews? To be sure, cases occur when a bath would help matters and when\nplain, but clean, clothes could be provided by Christian people so as to\nmake attendance at church free from embarrassment. But there are people,\nespecially children, who stay away from both Sunday school and church\nbecause they do not possess decent clothes in which to come. They fear\nthe critical eyes and comments of the people at church.\n\nIt is easy to say that people should rise above such unfavorable\ncircumstances and come on to church to worship God, who reads the heart\nand does not judge men by their clothes. Yes, but a man may conclude\nthat he can worship God just as acceptably and more comfortably in some\nother church where the usher does not seem so ashamed of his coming or\nembarrassed by his presence that, in spite of plenty of empty pews in\nthe grand temple of worship, he finds a back seat for him under the\ngallery or in the gallery on a footstool (literally, \u201cunder my\nfootstool,\u201d probably \u201con the floor by my footstool\u201d), in a corner, or a\nplace to stand against the wall. Meanwhile, the poor man has seen the\nattentions paid the man in fine clothes; he is ushered to a good seat\nwith the air of a prince.\n\nThe soul of the poor man is all the more embittered, since he came\nperhaps in a sort of desperation from the hardness of the world outside,\na world that has economic and social laws that make the battle a\ndifficult one. And now in the temple of God the worshipers of Jesus show\nthe same pride of wealth and station as at a social function. The\npreacher talks of forgiveness of sins and the comfort of the Holy\nSpirit; but he and the ushers keep a sharp eye upon the man who wears\nthe fine clothes, pompous and self-conscious as that man probably feels.\nThe soul of the poor man is made more bitter still as he leaves the\nchurch of the rich and the proud to see if he can find God at home or\nthe devil in the saloon or other den of iniquity.\n\nOne pity of it all is that so many churches have fine, empty, cushioned\nseats, while the strangers who could fill them are not sought for or not\nproperly welcomed if they come. It is a pathetic picture that James here\ngives us\u2014that of the stranger at the door of the church. Most strangers\npass the door of the church by with indifference or disgust. The church\nmust win the strangers outside unless it is to degenerate into a social\nclub of a few select families. A church that only holds its own will\nsoon lose that standing. The task of the church is to win the world to\nChrist. And then when the poor of earth enter, it is worse than folly to\npush them to one side and out of doors, back into the street.\n\nThis touch of life is one of many modern notes in the Epistle of James.\nThe embarrassment of the usher in the presence of two such incongruous\nstrangers at once is probably due to the fact that he knows full well\nthe atmosphere or tone of the church. It is aristocratic or select;\nevangelical and orthodox, not evangelistic or missionary; a haven of\nrest for the stately pious, not a rescue station for the lost. The\nofficers of the church thus make distinctions between the attendants at\nchurch and sort out the congregation according to worldly standards.\nThey are \u201cjudges of evil thoughts\u201d and act with partiality in bestowing\ncourtesies on strangers in the house of God. All this is in such marked\ncontrast to the spirit and conduct of Jesus that one can hardly credit\nhis eyes when he sees it happen in church. It is increasingly difficult\nto get the poor to come to some of the churches. The churches themselves\nmay sometimes become suspicious that the very poor come to church to\nreceive financial help. So the breach widens.\n\n\n Prejudice Against the Poor (2:5-7)\n\nJames now has fewer maxims and a more argumentative style, like that of\nPaul. He makes a passionate appeal for attention: \u201cHearken, my beloved\nbrethren.\u201d He writes as an impassioned speaker speaks (cf. 1:16; 4:13).\nGod\u2019s choice of the people of Israel seems to be in the background\n(Deut. 14:1 f.). The Jews had come in many cases to look on earthly\nprosperity as a mark of divine favor and poverty as a sign of God\u2019s\ndisfavor (cf. Psalm 73).\n\nThe Pharisees were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). But the troubles of the\nJews, in spite of many wealthy Pharisees and Sadducees, had led many of\nthem to see a blessing in poverty. See Testament of the Twelve\nPatriarchs, Gad. vii. 6: \u201cFor the poor man, if, free from envy, he\npleaseth the Lord in all things, is blessed beyond all men.\u201d Oesterley\n(_in loco_) quotes _Chag._ 9_b_ as saying that poverty is the quality\nthat above all befits Israel as the Chosen People. Epictetus (bk. IV,\nchap. i, 43) says: \u201cAnother (thinks the cause of his evils to be) that\nhe is poor.\u201d Epictetus (Stob. 10) says further: \u201cRiches are not among\nthe things that are good.\u201d Luke 6:20 has: \u201cBlessed are ye poor,\u201d where\nMatthew 5:3 has \u201cpoor in spirit.\u201d\n\nIt is certain that the gospel made a powerful appeal to the poorer\nclasses of society among Jews and Gentiles. Jesus claimed it as part of\nhis messianic mission \u201cto preach good tidings to the poor\u201d (Luke 4:18),\nas Isaiah (60:1 f.) had foretold. He asked the messengers of John the\nBaptist to take back to Macherus the news that \u201cthe poor have the good\ntidings preached to them\u201d (Luke 7:22) as one proof of his messiahship.\nPaul enlarges on the choice (1 Cor. 1:27 f.) by God of the foolish, the\nweak, the despised classes to add to his own glory. The early churches\nwere gathered largely from the proletariat. Slaves and masters, rich and\npoor, mingled together in fellowship and brotherly love.\n\nThe papyri discoveries have shown us the world of Jesus and of Paul \u201cin\nthe workaday clothes of their calling.\u201d[66] Deissmann adds: \u201cWe should\nbe sorry indeed not to have been told that Jesus came from an artisan\u2019s\nhome in country surroundings.\u201d[67] The fact that Jesus was a carpenter,\na workingman in the modern sense of that term, should enlist the\nsympathy and the interest of all workingmen. They should heed the call\nof the Carpenter.\n\nHere James boldly champions the cause of the poor as against certain\nrich Jews, probably not members of the church, who have oppressed the\nChristians and dragged them before courts of justice. With their own\nhand these rich Jews had dragged Christians before tribunals. Rich\nSadducees had done this with Peter and John (Acts 4:1). As one of these\npotentates, yea, as a tyrant, Paul had once dragged men and women before\nthe Sanhedrin (Acts 8:3; 22:4). He had even tried to make them blaspheme\n(Acts 26:11). It was not necessary to have special laws against the\nChristians. As objects of dislike it was easy enough, as Paul found out,\nto hale them into court. Paul came to know only too well how the tables\ncould be turned on him when he became a Christian. He had to take his\nown medicine (Acts 13:50; 16:19). Jesus indeed had foretold that just\nthis fate would befall his disciples before the courts of Jews and\nGentiles (Matt. 10:17 f.; John 16:2).\n\nThe anger of these rich Jews against Jesus and Christians leads them\nactually to blaspheme the name of Christ. The Sadducees will not even\ncall the name of Jesus when they discuss the case of Peter and John.\nThey refer with contempt to \u201cthis name\u201d (Acts 4:17), though in the\nthreat they have to name Jesus (v. 18). The disciples rejoiced \u201cthat\nthey were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name\u201d (Acts 5:41).\nSo \u201cthe honorable name,\u201d \u201cthe beautiful name,\u201d \u201cthe noble Name\u201d\n(Moffatt) came to be the shibboleth of the believers in Jesus. His name\nwas to be \u201cthe name which is above every name\u201d (Phil. 2:9 f.). It was\nalready the only name with power to save (Acts 4:12), as Peter boldly\ninformed the Sanhedrin. That was the meaning of the name Jesus (Matt.\n1:21).\n\nHere one sees afresh the Christology of James. The honorable name is the\nname of Jesus, with a possible reference to the use of it in the\nbaptismal formula\u2014\u201cby which ye are called,\u201d \u201cwhich is called upon you.\u201d\nAt any rate, they bear the name of Christian, given probably as a\nreproach (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:14, 16). This name is now their\nbadge of honor and glory. When called upon to say, \u201cAnathema be Jesus,\u201d\nthey reply, \u201cJesus is Lord\u201d (1 Cor. 12:3). Certainly the early Jewish\nChristians had everything to make them fear the powerful rich who had\nfrowned upon Jesus and his cause.\n\nAnd yet James dares to say to the Jewish Christians: \u201cBut ye have\ndishonored the poor man,\u201d \u201cnow you insult the poor\u201d (Moffatt). They had\ndone it out of cringing fear of the rich Jews with all their power, or\nout of anxiety to please the rich so as to win them with fawning\nflattery. We are not to think that all the Jewish Christians had shown\nsuch narrowness or such cowardice, but some instances had come to the\nnotice of James. Per contra note the case of Ananias and Sapphira, who\nwished to gain credit for great liberality to the poor by the use of\npart of the wealth, keeping back half though pretending to give all. All\nthe early Christians were not poor. The cases of Barnabas, Joseph of\nArimathea, and Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary occur to one at\nonce. Jesus did not denounce rich men per se, though he did point out\nwith great power the peril of wealth.\n\nJames is not to be understood as denouncing the rich in a wholesale\nfashion. Consecration is what sanctifies riches\u2014the use of money for the\nglory of God and the blessing of mankind. A man is not a child of the\ndevil just because he is rich or poor. God deals with men in the raw\nmanhood. \u201cA man\u2019s a man for a\u2019 that.\u201d The distinction between the upper\nand the lower classes is partly fictitious and is not a stable\ncondition. The slums are a dreadful fact and a disgrace to modern\ncivilization. People should have decent homes, good food, fresh air, and\nclean clothes. Extreme poverty is a peril to a man\u2019s soul, as is great\nwealth. It is not a sin to be rich, but dangerous, though most of us are\nwilling to take the risk. Epictetus (Stob. 10) says: \u201cIt is difficult\nfor a rich person to be right-minded or a right-minded person rich.\u201d\nRiches and poverty are not essential criteria of character. Over against\nthe slums in our cities one may place the pious poor of Scotland, as\nseen in \u201cThe Cotter\u2019s Saturday Night.\u201d Over against the wild and\nreckless _nouveaux riches_ one may note the generous givers of millions\nto missions and to education.\n\nOne must learn to be just to all classes and to do justice to all. A\nperson needs full knowledge of the social conditions about him and the\ncourage to apply the gospel of Christ to these conditions. But let no\none imagine that sociology can take the place of the gospel of Jesus.\nChristianity is sociological, but sociology is not necessarily\nChristian. We need intelligent sympathy, but most of all we need the\nlove and grace of God in the heart. But minister and man must be\nindependent of bondage to either rich or poor and stand in the freedom\nof Christ.\n\nProf. H. C. Vedder makes a very serious charge against modern ministers:\n\u201cThis attitude of the clergy can be explained only on the ground of\ntheir economic dependence upon the privileged classes. They are the\nhirelings of capitalism, and, to do them justice, they earn their\nwages.\u201d[68] This is a bitter attack upon the ministry for always\nchampioning the cause of capital whenever labor and capital clash. The\ncharge is not always true, as anyone who observes should know. Organized\nlabor is sometimes in the wrong. Corporations that are unjust to labor\nare often denounced in the pulpit. Let every case be met on its merits.\nCertainly the minister of Christ should be on the side of manhood\nagainst mere money. A man\u2019s life is more than money.\n\nJames reminds his readers that God is not ashamed of the poor. In fact,\nhe often calls the poor, as the world regards them, to be rich in faith.\nAfter all, the riches of the spirit and of fellowship with God are the\ntrue riches. So often a turn in the wheel of life leaves a man poor\ntoday who was rich yesterday. And death will separate one from all his\nwealth, save what he has given away. The wicked rich man may scout the\npoor saint here, but Lazarus will rest in Abraham\u2019s bosom while the\nwicked rich man is in torment in hades.\n\nBut even here the pious poor stand high with God, while the wicked rich\nare despised. The poor may be heirs of the kingdom. Think of that\u2014heirs\nof the kingdom of God, the glorious messianic kingdom promised of old\nand now begun, the fulness of which is in the future with God, the\nheavenly kingdom. But even here and now the poor saint is a child of the\nKing and has riches untold. He has love and joy in his heart, a\nsuperiority to adversity, an elevation of spirit, the peace of God that\npasses all understanding; and that is worth more than all the gold of\nOphir.\n\nIt is not mere pious platitude on the part of James when he writes thus.\nHe is but interpreting the soul of mystic Christianity, real\nChristianity, as set forth by Jesus in the Beatitudes, where those only\nare felicitated who have the joy of the spirit independent of outward\ncondition or circumstance. After all, the piety of the poor is a\nnation\u2019s best asset. The poor will someday, many of them, be rich. May\nthey still be pious! The upper classes run down and run out, alas, and\nhave to be recruited constantly from the lower classes. It is the law of\nlife. If we save the masses, we may save the classes. At any rate, it is\na pitiful business to see a church of Jesus Christ ashamed of the poor,\nas the world regards them, for Jesus our Lord was himself poor for our\nsakes, voluntarily poor. \u201cThough he was rich, yet for your sakes he\nbecame poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich\u201d (2 Cor.\n8:9)\u2014rich in God\u2019s mercy and grace, rich in character, in likeness to\nJesus.\n\n\n The Royal Law (2:8 f.)\n\nThe poise of James appears again. He has no wish to stir the passions\nand prejudices of the poor against the rich. Surely it is not a sin to\nlove rich people. They are entitled to the same love as other people,\nmany far more because of the noble use made of their wealth. If you\nreally fulfil the royal law\u2014a law fit for kings or such as a king will\nbe sure to follow (cf. Psalm 72; Zech. 9:9) and supreme over other laws\n(Matt. 22:40)\u2014you do well. We should love both rich and poor alike. This\nroyal law was in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18) and is here quoted. It\nwas sanctioned by Jesus (Matt. 19:18 f.) as one of the two chief\ncommandments on which hang the whole law and the prophets (Matt.\n22:38-40). Love of God and man covers all else. One may compare also the\nGolden Rule as given by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, which is just another way\nof stating the royal law of loving one\u2019s neighbor (one near in need,\nwhether in proximity or not) as oneself, a very high standard for most\npeople.\n\nThe royal law forbids the partiality in church of which James has been\nspeaking, this respect of persons. It is more than an error of judgment\nor a breach of etiquette. It is an act of sin, a slip in ethics, a\nmissing of the mark that is fraught with grave consequences. It is bad\nenough to be convicted by the law as transgressors by this servile\nregard for the rich. It is worse to note the evil effect on the church\nand the community. A church of a clique is doomed. A church is only of\nuse when it is open to the people who need the help of the gospel. The\nchurch opens its doors to let people in, does not put up bars to keep\nthem out.\n\n\n Stumbling in One Point (2:10 f.)\n\nAt first blush it seems that James has Draconian severity in these\nverses, but it is not the severe punishment of small crimes or venial\noffenses. The long list of capital crimes in ancient England shows how\nslowly men have learned to temper justice with mercy. Some of the Stoics\nsaid that the theft of a penny was as bad as parricide. The \u201cblue laws\u201d\nof Connecticut come to mind also. James does not say that all sins are\nequal, that one sin is as bad as another. As a matter of fact, each man\ndiscounts his own sins. The rake looks with scorn on the grafter. The\nman guilty of spiritual pride scouts the drunkard. It is a hard task to\nconvince a man that he is guilty of his own sin.\n\nThe burden of the law was very heavy. The curse of the law (Gal. 3:13)\nwas more than violation of particular precepts, though that was true to\nthe last detail (Deut. 11:26, 28, 32; 27:26), as Jesus explained (Matt.\n5:18 f.). The Jewish fathers put a hedge or fence about the law (_Pirke\nAboth_ i. 1) and made it very difficult to keep all of it (the law as a\nwhole, hard enough as it was), plus the traditions of the elders, which\noften contradicted and set at naught the commandment of God (Mark 7:8\nf.). Compare Sirach 27:12. Rabbi Hunnah, in a midrash on Numbers 5:14,\ntaught that he who committed adultery broke all commandments, and some\nof the rabbis placed the sabbath above all else and held that if one\nprofaned it, he had broken all the commandments. Mayor, per contra,\nquotes some of the rabbis as saying that to keep the law about fringes\nand phylacteries was to keep the whole law. There was a constant\ntendency to make the ceremonial cover up moral and spiritual lapses.\n\nAugustine (Epistle to Jerome, 167) compares this teaching of James with\nthe Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices as mentioned.\nBut certainly James has a higher view than these hair-splitting\npunctilios. Paul saw that the essence of sin lies in the motive (Rom.\n14:23) and that desire to glorify God should pervade all our acts (1\nCor. 10:31). It seems hard to hold someone who makes one slip to strict\naccount and hold him guilty of all. That is true only in the sense that\nJames proceeds to explain that any violation of law makes one a\nlawbreaker.[69]\n\nOne does not have to break all the laws to become a lawbreaker. One\noffense places him in that category. The matter is put with this sharp\nemphasis because of the complacent self-satisfaction of the perfunctory\nceremonialist (James 1:26), who may yet commit the sin of partiality in\nchurch. James is seeking to convict such \u201cpious\u201d sinners of their guilt,\nto rouse them out of their smug self-satisfaction.\n\nIt is quite possible that those who were guilty of spiritual pride and\nother sins of the spirit boasted of their freedom from adultery and\nmurder (Hort). At any rate, we must not forget that out of the heart are\nthe issues of life, that murder springs out of hate and that all of\nGod\u2019s laws come from the same will (Mayor). It is disobedience to the\nwill of God that constitutes the essence of sin. It is not a light\nmatter to be guilty of any sin. Our only hope is in the grace and\nforgiveness of God. There is no room for pride on the part of sinners,\nsetting up one sin against another sin.\n\n\n A Law of Liberty (2:12 f.)\n\nBut James is not a pharisaic legalist nor a Judaizer. He adds these\nverses to make it plain that he does not have in mind the painful\nobservance of separate rules and details. The spirit is greater than the\nletter. Our words and deeds are to be judged by \u201ca law of liberty\u201d (cf.\n1:25), not of bondage. We are under grace, not the old law. We live in\nan atmosphere of love and liberty, not of repression and slavery. God\nwatches the real motive in our conduct toward the rich and the poor as\nin all things. \u201cMercy glorieth against judgment\u201d; mercy triumphs over\njudgment. God shows mercy to us in spite of our shortcomings, for Jesus\nis the pledge of our fidelity and our hope.\n\nWe make so many mistakes that we should have no heart to go on if we had\nto be held to strict account every time we stumbled in one point. Still,\nwe must not overlook the fact that we did stumble. It is our duty not to\nstumble at that point again. So we go on our stumbling way toward that\ngoal of perfection which is ever before us. It was Jesus who said,\n\u201cJudge not, that ye be not judged\u201d (Matt. 7:1). James seems to know this\nsaying, as he lays emphasis on the spirit and motive in holy living.\n\n\n\n\n VII\n The Appeal to Life\n\n\nWe now come to the famous passage that is supposed by some scholars to\nbe an attack on Paul\u2019s doctrine of salvation by faith instead of works.\nJames is interpreted by many to be a champion of works as against Paul\u2019s\ntheory of grace. It is an old controversy and is the occasion of Martin\nLuther\u2019s slighting allusion to the Epistle of James as \u201ca veritable\nepistle of straw.\u201d He thought it contradicted the Epistle of Galatians,\nwhich he loved dearly as his \u201cwife.\u201d It is necessary, therefore, to\nclear the atmosphere a bit before proceeding to the exposition.\n\n\n The Standpoint of James\n\nThis depends on the date of the epistle. (For the discussion of this\nquestion, see chapter I.) It is here assumed that James wrote before the\nJerusalem Conference, before A.D. 50.\n\nPaul wrote Galatians and Romans, as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians, in the\nheat of the Judaizing controversy, to answer the contention that\ncircumcision was essential to the salvation of the Gentiles, that\nChristianity alone was not sufficient but must be supplemented by\nJudaism. No issue ever stirred Paul\u2019s nature like this. It is possible\nthat Paul may have had in mind a misuse of James 2:14-26 by the\nJudaizers when he wrote, knowing that James in reality agreed with him\nin the matter (Acts 15:14-21; Gal. 2:1-10). But James clearly is not\nattacking Paul or Paul\u2019s theory of grace. He rather has in view a\nperversion of the Christian emphasis on the spiritual side as opposed to\nthe ceremonial ritualism of the Pharisees.\n\nThe pendulum swings from one extreme to the other. The Jews had laid too\nmuch emphasis on religious duties (cf. James 1:26), and some of the\nChristians went to the extreme of thinking that no works at all were\nneeded in the Christian life. Some of the Jews, on the other hand, had\nalready gone so far as to consider creed alone essential. \u201cAs soon as a\nman has mastered the thirteen heads of the faith, firmly believing\ntherein ... though he may have sinned in every possible way ... still he\ninherits eternal life.\u201d[70] This Jewish unconcern for real piety in life\nis reflected in the lives of some of the Jewish Christians and is the\noccasion of the remarks of James.\n\nJames\u2019s use of righteousness or justification is in the sense of actual\ngoodness as Jesus uses it in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:1) and of\nsanctification as Paul has it in Romans 6 to 8. It is not the \u201cimputed\nrighteousness\u201d of Paul in Romans 3 and 4. James has a practical purpose,\nnot a theological one. He is not discussing the question as to how\nAbraham was set right with God, how faith was reckoned as righteousness,\nthe point seized on by Paul in the verse. James quotes the whole verse\n(Gen. 15:6), as Paul does, but he is concerned with it as proof that\nwhen put to the test, Abraham lived up to his faith in that he actually\n\u201coffered up Isaac his son upon the altar\u201d (James 2:21). It is the deed\nas proof of faith that James emphasizes, though both points are in the\nnarrative.\n\nJames looks upon works as proof of faith, not as means of salvation.\nJohn the Baptist had demanded \u201cfruits worthy of repentance\u201d (Luke 3:8).\nJesus had said, \u201cBy their fruits ye shall know them\u201d (Matt. 7:20). Paul\nwill discuss death to sin on the part of the believer (Rom. 6:1-11).\nPeter will show how the life will make the calling and election sure (2\nPeter 1:10). The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is a clarion call to hold\nfast the confession of faith to the end. John will insist that those who\nsay they are in the light do not walk in darkness (1 John 1:6; 2:9).\nCertainly then, James is in harmony with the full drift of the gospel\nmessage in his insistence on works as proof of the new life.\n\nPaul, in his contrast between faith and works, has in mind the Jewish\ndoctrine of works as means of salvation. See 2 Esdras 9:7 f.: \u201cWhoever\nshall be able to escape either by his works or by his faith shall see my\nsalvation.\u201d And even here \u201cby faith\u201d does not mean what Paul has in\nmind, saving trust, but rather creed. The Pharisees taught the value of\nworks of supererogation, the \u201cmerit\u201d of the fathers, in particular, the\nmerit of Abraham, whose faith and works were a storehouse for the Jews.\n\u201cWe have Abraham to our father.\u201d That was enough. So the Roman Catholics\nhold that the saints may help us out of purgatory if we pay enough for\ntheir intercession. Prayer itself becomes an _opus operatum_, a credit\nin the balance sheet with God. Most Jews held works alone to be the\nmeans of salvation. The point was keenly discussed in the Jewish schools\nin Jerusalem and Alexandria.\n\nAs to faith, in this passage he is thinking of mere intellectual assent\nto the unity of God or other theological tenets. This was the use of\n\u201cfaith\u201d by many of the Jews. After some of them became Christians, they\ngot no further. It is this idle and empty faith that James is\ncondemning. James does have the other sense of trust for the word, as in\n2:1, \u201cfaith in our Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d the sense in which Paul uses the\nterm when he contrasts it with works (Rom. 3:20-30). It is quite\nimportant to note this distinction.\n\nThe antithesis in James is not, in reality, between faith and works but\nbetween live faith and dead faith, the two uses of the term just\nmentioned. In verse 18 the point is made absolutely clear. It is not\npersonal trust in Christ that James ridicules but an empty theological\ntenet that does not stand the test of actual life. So then, James and\nPaul go off at tangents when the same words occur, for they are talking\nabout different things.\n\n\n Not Pious Pretense (2:14-17)\n\nOnce more James corrects a possible misapprehension. He properly places\nmercy above justice, but no one need think for a moment that good deeds\ndo not matter. God is full of mercy, but there is a limit even with God.\nHe demands some performance, not mere profession. \u201cWhat doth it profit?\u201d\nJames pointedly asks. _Cui bono?_ What is the use? What good is it for a\nman to say he has faith who has no works to prove his faith? How can men\nknow that he has any faith? The mere assertion is all that men have at\nfirst. In the beginning the claim to faith is accepted, but the life\nmust confirm the claim if men are to continue to believe it. God can\nread the heart, but even God demands that the life show the change of\nheart. The life must give expression to what the heart has felt.\n\nJames asks again: \u201cCan that faith[71] save him?\u201d He does not scoff at\nfaith but at such hollow \u201cfaith\u201d as this. James here speaks for the\npractical man of the present day who wishes to see some real difference\nin the life of a man who becomes a Christian. It is an old demand, as we\nsee in 1 John 1 and 2. There is no escape from this appeal to life, nor\nought there to be. Men are judged by their conduct in business during\nthe week as much as by their attendance at church on Sunday. James does\nnot say that a Christian has no faults and never sins or is a hypocrite\nif he sins once. He does say that he should have some faith.\n\nHis illustration in verses 15 and 16 is very forcible and shows that he\nwas probably a striking and popular preacher (Oesterley). It is a\nproblem that is constantly presented to our modern Christians and\nchurches. A brother or sister is in need of food and clothing. They are\nout of work because of the economic conditions beyond their control.\nThey are not professional beggars. One may pause to admit the serious\ndifficulty of knowing how to render real assistance to those who come to\nour doors for help. The modern social workers tell us not to give money\nand clothing but to investigate the case or to have the charity\norganization or some of the rescue workers to do it for us. The great\nnumber of tramps and professional beggars with false stories tends to\nharden our hearts to the many cases of real need all about us. Some of\nthese are too proud to make their real condition known and actually\nstarve to death or perish from disease and cold.\n\nJames here assumes that the case is one of real need that deserves\nsympathy and help. The man who prides himself upon the correctness of\nhis professional creed and pious standing bestows kind words of sympathy\nand nothing else, sending the suffering brother or sister, \u201cill-clad and\nshort of daily food\u201d (Moffatt), out into the bitter cold and shutting\nthe door with a sense of satisfaction after such pious platitudes as,\n\u201cGo in peace, be ye warmed and filled.\u201d He calls his cheap words\nChristian sympathy. It is enough to make demons laugh. The irony of\nJames is keen. \u201cThe things needful to the body,\u201d the ordinary\nnecessities of life, now become rare luxuries to the poor brother or\nsister. So James repeats his query: \u201cWhat doth it profit?\u201d\n\nIt is pertinent per contra to quote Paul on the necessity of love even\nin beneficence: \u201cAnd if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I\ngive my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing\u201d\n(1 Cor. 13:3). What, indeed! One recalls the compassion of Jesus for the\nhungry multitudes whom he fed. His heart was not hardened. He did not\nask them to be satisfied with honeyed words and the aroma of dinner. The\npious pretenders actually think that the needy should be grateful for\nkind advice when sent away without a mouthful to eat. James applies his\nillustration to the point discussed (v. 17). Mere professional faith\nthat talks and does not \u201cis dead in itself.\u201d There is no life in it, no\nreality. It is dead on the inside and is a mere empty shell of pious\npretense. There are people who today turn to our churches for help in\nthe hour of need and get only empty words. It will be in vain then to\nspeak about the grace of God.\n\n\n Not Mere Intellectual Assent (2:18-19)\n\nIt is extremely difficult to follow the thought of James in verse 18. He\nis usually wonderfully perspicuous, but here we are in doubt as to the\npunctuation and the reference in \u201ca man.\u201d Some scholars think that it is\na delicate way that James has of referring to himself, but then James is\nemphasizing works, not mere faith.\n\nIs the sentence a question or an assertion? Shall we say \u201cbut\u201d or \u201cyea\u201d?\nHort has shown a way out that is partly followed by Moffatt. Take the\n\u201cman\u201d as an objector, but let his objection cover only the first\nsentence, the point being to challenge the faith of James, since he has\nput such accent on works. \u201cThou, James, hast thou faith? I also (as well\nas thou) have works.\u201d The objector thus claims to have both faith and\nworks but implies that James has only works and no faith.\n\nThe rest of the verse is then the reply of James to the objector.[72]\nJames bursts in with the answer to the challenge and rests his claim to\nfaith on works as proof. \u201cShow me thy faith apart from thy works, and I\nby my works will show thee my faith.\u201d Here James pits over against each\nother the two sorts of faith\u2014the true faith which James claims to\npossess and which is proved by works and the false faith which is mere\nprofession and entirely apart from works. The antithesis is complete.\nThe dispute turns on how one knows that he has faith. James rests his\ncase on his works and in turn challenges the objector to prove his faith\napart from works.\n\nNow James is ready to drive the point home. He proceeds to show that\nsuch an empty faith as his objector has is mere intellectual assent to\npropositions and is not saving trust that bears fruit in the life. \u201cThou\nbelievest that God is one.\u201d This is one of the statements of the unity\nof God. The usual formula occurs in Deuteronomy 6:4 and in Mark 12:29\n(\u201cThe Lord our God, the Lord is one\u201d). The recitation of this phrase was\nnot merely the orthodox creed but was supposed to have saving efficacy\n(cf. the Moslem repetition of \u201cAllah\u201d). From the time of the exile the\nrepetition of the _Shema_ (Deut. 6:4 ff.) each morning and evening was\nthe duty of every pious Israelite. \u201cWhoever reads the _Shema_ upon his\ncouch is as one that defends himself with a two-edged sword\u201d (Meg.\n3_a_). \u201cThey cool the flames of Gehinnom for him who reads the _Shema_\u201d\n(Ber. 15_b_). Oesterley (_in loco_) adds that \u201cthe very parchment on\nwhich the _Shema_ is written is efficacious in keeping demons at a\ndistance.\u201d\n\nThese statements will help us to understand the atmosphere from which\nJames draws his illustration. And yet James does not ridicule this\nmental assent to the oneness of God. \u201cThou doest well.\u201d Orthodoxy is\nbetter than heresy. Orthodoxy is \u201cthinking straight,\u201d and that is what\nwe all need to do. Every man is right in his own eyes, and the rest are\na bit \u201coff.\u201d But good as monotheism is, it is not enough (cf.\nMohammedanism again).\n\nWhat James criticizes is mere intellectual assent with no vital union\nwith God. \u201cThe demons also believe,\u201d as well as you. The demons know\nonly too well that God is and that he is one. They are monotheists, not\npolytheists. They recognized Jesus: \u201cWhat have we to do with thee, Jesus\nof Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the\nHoly One of God\u201d (Mark 1:24). Compare Matthew 8:29 and Luke 4:41. The\ndemons are thoroughly orthodox on this point, have intellectual assent\n(\u201cfaith\u201d), but they are still demons. They even shudder at the fact and\nthe power of God as they feared Jesus (Mark 1:24; Luke 8:29). The word\nmeans to \u201cbristle,\u201d like the Latin _horreo_, with the hair standing on\nend. \u201cThen a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood\nup\u201d (Job 4:15). So Daniel (7:15) says, \u201cMy spirit was grieved.\u201d The\nargument is as complete as it can be.\n\n\n The Obedient Trust of Abraham (2:20-24)\n\nBut James applies his illustration again. He hammers the objector while\nhe has him. \u201cBut wilt thou know, O vain man?\u201d (\u201cyou senseless fellow,\u201d\nMoffatt). The word is used like the Latin _vanus_ of boasters or\nimpostors, men whose word cannot be depended upon. You can know, if you\nwish to know,[73] \u201cthat faith apart from works is barren,\u201d \u201cfaith\nwithout deeds is dead\u201d (Moffatt), according to some manuscripts. One may\nnote 2 Peter 1:8, \u201cnot idle nor unfruitful.\u201d Faith without works is like\na barren woman, without children to comfort her. \u201cChildren\u201d and \u201cworks\u201d\nare sometimes used as parallel. \u201cWisdom is justified by her works\u201d\n(Matt. 11:19); \u201cwisdom is justified of all her children\u201d (Luke 7:35).\n\nJames thus shows irritation at the dulness of his objector, but he hopes\nto make even such a man see the point by appealing to the axiomatic case\nof Abraham. The faith of Abraham was one of the commonplaces of\ntheological discussion in the rabbinical schools (Oesterley). See Sirach\n44:20 ff.; Wisdom 10:5. It is no wonder that Paul (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:7)\nmakes use of the case of Abraham. He considers it so important that in\nRomans he devotes a whole chapter to the subject. Paul lays chief\nemphasis (Rom. 4:17-21) on Abraham\u2019s faith in the promise of a son. Paul\nalso proves that Abraham had the justifying faith before he was\ncircumcised. James shows that Abraham lived up to his faith when put to\nthe test. Both points are true.\n\nThere was abuse of the faith of Abraham. Thus Rabbi Nehemiah (_Mechilta_\non Ex. 14:31) says: \u201cSo Abraham, solely for the merit of his faith,\nwhereby he believed in the Lord, inherited this world and the other.\u201d\nThe Jews came to rely so much on the \u201cmerit\u201d of Abraham\u2019s faith that\nthey felt that all they had to do was to say, \u201cWe have Abraham to our\nfather\u201d (Matt. 3:9). They leaned[74] on \u201cFather Abraham.\u201d In 1 Maccabees\n2:52 the same use is made of the case of Abraham that we have in James:\n\u201cWas not Abraham found faithful in trial, and it was reckoned to him for\nrighteousness?\u201d In Hebrews 11 the same exposition of faith is set forth\nby the glorious list of heroes who exemplified faith. Among these heroes\nis Abraham, who obeyed to go out (11:8) to a distant land and who\noffered up his only begotten son (11:17).\n\nJames appeals confidently, therefore, to the example of Abraham in\noffering up Isaac upon the altar (cf. Gen. 22:9). He had shown that he\nserved God from love and not merely from fear. His faith had stood the\nseverest of all tests\u2014believing that God would go with him down into the\ndarkness of death and make plain his command that was so hard to obey.\n\nJames interprets the case of Abraham with his usual pungency. \u201cThou\nseest,\u201d or at least, \u201cthou oughtest to see.\u201d The deduction is\ninevitable. \u201cFaith wrought with his works,\u201d \u201cfaith cooperated with\ndeeds\u201d (Moffatt), just the opposite of \u201capart from works.\u201d It is thus\nclear that James did not mean to say that Abraham had only works and not\nfaith. It is faith and works with Abraham, as he had contended in verse\n18. It is like Paul\u2019s \u201cfaith working through love,\u201d energetic faith. So\nJames adds: \u201cby works was faith made perfect,\u201d \u201ccompleted by deeds\u201d\n(Moffatt).\n\nThus with Abraham faith was shown to be alive, not dead; fruitful, not\nbarren; brought to a good result or end, not cut short with mere\nprofession or promise. So the Scripture was fulfilled (made full or\ncomplete) in the case of Abraham: \u201cAnd Abraham believed God, and it [the\nfaith] was reckoned [set down to his credit] unto him for\nrighteousness.\u201d Paul in Romans 4 lays emphasis on the verb \u201cbelieved,\u201d\nand James stresses the obedience which proves the reality of the trust.\n\nBoth points are justly made. In each instance faith precedes the works.\nWe are set right with God by trust, but the life must correspond to the\nnew relation with God. It was so with Abraham. He was called \u201cthe friend\nof God.\u201d Compare 2 Chronicles 20:7. \u201cShall I hide from Abraham that\nwhich I do?\u201d (Gen. 18:17). With the Arabs the term \u201cKhalil Allah\u201d\n(Friend of God) is the current name for Abraham. Epictetus (bk. II,\nchap, xvii, \u00a7 29) speaks of looking \u201cup into heaven as the friend of\nGod.\u201d Plato calls the righteous man \u201con terms of friendship with God.\u201d\nJesus calls his disciples \u201cfriends,\u201d no longer \u201cservants,\u201d in John 15:14\nf. There cannot be such friendship without trust of the most absolute\nkind, a trust that means loyalty to the end.\n\nOne must not think that James discredits faith. He does not. He assumes\nthe need of it. In verse 24 James uses \u201cjustified\u201d more in the sense of\nfinal approval (set right at last) than of the initial restoration of\npeace with God. And even so \u201cthe faith as a ground of justification is\nassumed as a starting point\u201d (Hort).\n\n\u201cYe see,\u201d says James, leaving his imaginary opponent and turning again\nto his readers. They can see the point, whether the empty-headed\ndisputant does or not. It is hard for a controversialist to see anything\nbut his own side of the question. It is \u201cnot only by faith\u201d that a man\nis justified. The case of Abraham shows that works must follow faith in\nthe natural order of grace. James has administered a severe rebuke to\nthe antinomians who deny any responsibility for holy living and disclaim\nthe force of the moral law. There has always been a curious type of\npietism that runs easily into immorality with no compunctions of\nconscience, a sort of emotionalism without ethical tone or flavor.\nAbraham was not simply the father of the Jewish people but the father of\nall the spiritual Israel\u2014the believing children of God in all the ages\nsince, who form the elect of God and of the earth.\n\n\n The Case of Rahab (2:25)\n\nOne wonders why James selects a case like this after speaking of\nAbraham, the father of the fruitful and God\u2019s friend. Oesterley doubts\nhow this verse could come from the pen of a Christian. But James may\nhave wished to select another example at the furthest possible point\nfrom Abraham, a heathen and a proselyte, \u201cthe first of all the\nproselytes\u201d in the land of Canaan (Hort). Certainly if a woman like\nRahab could be saved, no one else need despair. She expressed her faith\nin God: \u201cI know that the Lord hath given you the land ... the Lord your\nGod, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath\u201d (Josh. 2:9, 11,\nAV). Besides, she showed her courage by avowing the cause of Jehovah and\nof Israel, by protecting the messengers (spies, in reality), and by a\nlife of uprightness thereafter.\n\nIt was a crisis in the history of Israel as they came to Jericho, and\nRahab took her stand for God at the start; hence the high honor accorded\nher. She is mentioned in Hebrews 11:31 in the famous list of heroes of\nfaith. In Matthew 1:5 she appears in the genealogy of Christ. She was\ncounted one of the four chief beauties of Israel along with Sarah,\nAbigail, and Esther (Mayor). \u201cEight prophets who were also priests are\ndescended from the harlot Rahab\u201d (_Megilla_ 14_b_). Certainly there is\nno desire in James nor in Hebrews to dignify her infamous trade, which\nshe renounced, but only to single her out as a brand snatched from the\nburning by the power of God.\n\n\n The Union of Faith and Works (2:26)\n\nThis is what James pleads for, not the divorce between creed and\nconduct, which is alas only too prevalent even today. There should be an\nindissoluble marriage between faith and works, a union as close as that\nbetween spirit and body. \u201cFor as the body apart from the spirit is dead,\neven so faith apart from works is dead.\u201d By \u201cspirit\u201d here James means\nsimply the breath of life, without which the body is dead. \u201cFalse faith\nis virtually a corpse\u201d (Hort).\n\nBy this striking paradox James attacks the root of the whole matter and\nhas his last word on the subject. Hort remarks that James by the use of\nthe phrase \u201cjustified by works\u201d seems to be answering Paul in Romans 4:2\nor a misuse of Paul\u2019s \u201cjustified by faith\u201d (Rom. 5:1), though he does\nnot see how James could have seen Paul. I have already expressed my own\nconviction that James and Paul are not really answering one another.\nThey are discussing different aspects of the subject and touch only at\npoints and go off along other lines. In all probability each would agree\nto the statements of the other if the language of each were put in the\nproper perspective. Certainly they agreed when they were together in\nJerusalem (Acts 15; Gal. 2:1-10). But it is important for us that our\nfaith shall be real and vital, not hollow and dead.\n\n\n\n\n VIII\n The Tongues of Teachers\n\n\nJames carries on the discussion of \u201cslow to speak\u201d (1:19). He has just\nbeen writing about idle faith in 2:14-26, and now he proceeds (Plummer)\nto expound the peril of the idle word, \u201cwrong speech after wrong action\u201d\n(Hort). Indeed, in 1:26 he has already mentioned the failure to bridle\nthe tongue as a sure sign of vain religion. Now he expands the matter in\na remarkable paragraph.\n\nThe transition is thus not so abrupt as at first seems to be the case,\nand apparently from the first he planned this discussion of the tongue.\nProbably it comes here (Plummer) because controversies about faith and\nworks were already rife. Here James speaks \u201cagainst those who substitute\nwords for works\u201d (Plummer), a rather large class. \u201cIn noble uprightness,\nhe values only the strict practice of concrete duties, and hates talk\u201d\n(Reuss), if it is _only_ talk. James has the gift of condensation. He\ncan write on talk without taking twenty volumes, like Carlyle, to prove\nthat if speech is silvern, silence is golden (Plummer). The\n\u201covervaluation of theory as compared with practice\u201d (Mayor) condemned in\nchapter II is still present with James as he discusses the tongue.\n\n\n An Oversupply of Teachers (3:1a)\n\nWe are not here to think simply of official teachers like Paul\u2019s\napostles, prophets, teachers (1 Cor. 12:28 f.; Eph. 4:11). In the\nDidache (xiii. 2, xv. 1, 2) teachers are placed on a par with prophets\nand higher than bishops and deacons. There is no doubt that teaching\nreceived tremendous emphasis in the work of the early Christians. Jesus\nis the great Teacher of the ages and is usually presented as teaching.\nIn the Jewish \u201chouses of learning\u201d (synagogues) teaching was as\nprominent an element as worship. The official teachers passed away, and\nthe modern Sunday school movement is an effort to restore the teaching\nfunction in the churches.\n\nThe true preacher should be a teacher also, but many preachers are more\nevangelistic and hortatory than didactic. The best preachers combine all\nthese elements and build up the saints in the faith to which they have\nbeen won. The mission work of modern Christianity also has had to lay\nnew emphasis on the educational side of Christian effort. There is no\nreason why the morning service in public worship should not be a\nteaching service and the evening service more evangelistic. Teachers are\nnecessary. People \u201chaving itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers\nafter their own lusts\u201d (2 Tim. 4:3).[75] Epictetus (bk. III, chap,\nxxiii, \u00a7 29) says: Rufus \u201cused to speak in such a way that each of us as\nwe sat thought that someone had accused us to him.\u201d\n\nBut James here is thinking of the unofficial teachers in the churches.\nIn the Jewish synagogues there was wide latitude allowed for strangers\nand others to speak. Jesus took advantage of this opportunity and taught\nfreely in the synagogues (Matt. 12:9 ff.; Mark 1:39; Luke 6:6 ff.).\nThere would be interruption and violent opposition at times (cf. John\n6:59-66). Paul used the courtesy to strangers to speak in the Jewish\nsynagogues and met with open opposition at times (cf. Acts 13:15, 45;\n18:6).\n\nIn Corinth we have a striking instance of the evil of promiscuous\nteaching, unrestrained and unregulated (1 Cor. 14). It became necessary\nfor Paul to rebuke the church for unseemly disorder. There were many who\nwere only too ready to be carried away by any newfangled doctrine. There\nis safety in free discussion, which acts as a safety valve and also\nleaves a deposit of truth. But the acrimonious spirit had a fine\nopportunity to display itself. Men of arrogant convictions and little\nknowledge felt that they \u201chad no need to learn anything from their\nbrethren, but were fully equipped as teachers\u201d (Johnstone), \u201cdesiring to\nbe teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say,\nnor whereof they confidently affirm\u201d (1 Tim. 1:7).\n\nSome men with a certain fluency of speech really had no message and only\nspoke out of vanity and really \u201cthought more of the admiration which\nthey might excite by a display of their powers than of the light and\nstrength which through Gods grace they might give their brethren\u201d\n(Dale). Evidently James is here concerned with these promiscuous,\nofficious, irresponsible, self-appointed teachers, men with a cocksure\nexplanation of all difficulties, not afraid to rush in where angels fear\nto tread.\n\nThe world was full of roving teachers with every sort of patent ism to\ndispense to the public. Both Jews and Athenians were eager for something\nnewer than the last stale theory (the very latest fad). The synagogues\nof the Jews and the churches of the Christians offered a fine platform\nfor these cranks to air their notions. Besides, some of the best of men,\nearnest Christians, have a \u201clust for talk\u201d (W. Robertson Nicoll) that\nleads them into all sorts of excesses.\n\nJames, therefore, is pleading for restraint and moderation when he says,\n\u201cBe not many of you teachers,\u201d \u201cdo not swell the ranks of the teachers\u201d\n(Moffatt). Teachers are absolutely necessary, but the thing can be\noverdone. Some learners (disciples) are needed. Liberty within\nreasonable limits must be allowed, but not rank license. Men must not be\ntoo eager to teach what they do not know.\n\nThere is no danger of an oversupply of well-equipped teachers, who are\nmasters of the message of Christ. There are still too many who are\nincompetent, and therefore the accent on teacher-training in the Sunday\nschools is most timely. The caution of James is pertinent today, but we\nmust not discourage timid souls who can learn to teach and who ought to\nundertake it. The greatness of the teacher\u2019s task must not be\noverlooked. James warns us against its abuse. There is a mental sloth\nthat is as bad as this eagerness to be teachers, a lazy satisfaction\nwith the elements of Christianity and failure to grow into the position\nof teachers of the doctrines of grace, continuing as babes unable to\ndigest solid food (Heb. 5:12).\n\n\n The Peril of Teachers (3:1b)\n\nTeaching has to be done. There is no escape from that, but those who\nteach must understand their responsibility. They are doctors (from\n_doceo_, to teach) of the mind and heart. They cannot escape their\nresponsibility as spiritual surgeons, for they deal with the issues of\nlife and death, \u201cknowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.\u201d In\nseasons of religious excitement it is particularly desirable that men\nshall bear this fact in mind. There is danger for the teacher and for\nthose that hear and are led astray by foolish talk.\n\nFeeling was probably running high in some of the churches, and there was\noccasion for the sobering words of James. \u201cThe penalty of untruth is\nuntruth, to imbibe which is death\u201d (Taylor). One has only to recall the\nwords of Jesus: \u201cAnd I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall\nspeak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by\nthy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be\ncondemned\u201d (Matt. 12:36 f.). It is easy to be overconfident, like the\ncomplacency of the Jews of whom Paul said that each was confident that\nhe was \u201ca corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes\u201d (Rom. 2:20).\n\u201cBlind leaders of the blind\u201d (Matt. 15:14) are they. It is bad enough to\nbreak one of the least commandments, but whoever does \u201cand shall teach\nmen so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matt. 5:19).\n\nThere is no escaping the fact that a heavier penalty rests on preachers\nand teachers who leave a trail of error behind them. This point of view\nexplains Paul\u2019s anxiety in the pastoral epistles for the future of\nChristianity, as it had to confront Pharisaism, Gnosticism, Mithraism,\nthe emperor cult, and the hundred and one vagaries of the age. Certainly\na teacher must speak his mind. He must be intellectually honest and tell\nwhat he sees, but he is not called upon to give his guesses at truth as\ntruth. He ought to be interesting if he can, but not at the expense of\ntruth. Freedom of teaching is quite consonant with fidelity to truth.\nOne does not have to be a mere traditionalist in order to escape wild\nspeculation. He must bring forth things new and old if they are true.\n\nThe severest words that fell from the lips of Jesus are against the\nPharisees who filled the place of teachers for the Jews but who \u201csay,\nand do not,\u201d who \u201csit on Moses\u2019 seat\u201d as authoritative teachers and yet\n\u201cstrain out the gnat, and swallow the camel\u201d (Matt. 23:2-3, 24). \u201cWoe\nunto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not\nin yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered\u201d (Luke 11:52).\nThe child was kept in the dark while at school because the teacher did\nnot let in the light. \u201cThe hungry sheep look up and are not fed.\u201d\n\n\n The Test of Perfection (3:2a)\n\nOthers besides teachers have pitfalls, for teachers are not the only\nerrant men. \u201cFor in many things we all stumble.\u201d James includes himself\nin this category. The Vulgate reads \u201cye\u201d in verse 1 (_sumitis_), not\nwilling to admit that James ran any risk about the heavier judgment; but\nthat is not the correct text. James shows no disposition to exempt\nhimself. One and all we make many slips, stumble over something in the\npath. Our falls are only too frequent. Who is the perfect man? Seneca\n(Clem. 1:6) says, \u201cWe all sin\u201d (_peccamus omnes_). But Epictetus (bk.\nIV, chap. iv, \u00a7 7) uses the word for sin for merely \u201ccommit a fault.\u201d He\nhas a weak conception of sin. Epictetus also (bk. I, chap. xxviii, \u00a7 23)\nsays, \u201cNo man stumbles on account of another\u2019s action.\u201d But surely he is\nin error here.\n\nTeachers are particularly liable to stumble in speech, for precisely in\nthat sphere their activity lies (Plummer). This point is common to all.\nMost assuredly, all men are guilty of sins of speech. Each one is sure\nto stumble there sooner or later. This is a very easy test of one\u2019s\nperfection. He can be prodded by the tongue. \u201cThe scribes and the\nPharisees began to press upon him vehemently, and to provoke him to\nspeak of many things; laying wait [ambush] for him, to catch [as if wild\ngame] something out of his mouth\u201d (Luke 11: 53 f.). Yes, but they were\nall the more angry when the one perfect Man kept control of his tongue.\n\nSmart lawyers often try to trip a witness in his talk. It is hard to be\nconsistent in talk, true in talk, clean in speech. \u201cIf any stumbleth not\nin word, the same is a perfect man,\u201d \u201cwhoever avoids slips of speech is\na perfect man\u201d (Moffatt). \u201cThou art snared with the words of thy mouth\u201d\n(Prov. 6:2). Compare Sirach 28:12-26 for pungent remarks on speech.\n\u201cThat which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man\u201d (Matt.\n15:11). The chemical reaction to talk is a test that we cannot refuse.\nTeachers cannot escape this inevitable test. The rest of this discussion\nconsists of a series of remarkable illustrations of the power of the\ntongue.\n\n\n The Bridle and the Horse (3:2b-3)\n\nThe man who does control his tongue is able to bridle the whole body\nalso (cf. 1:26), for the body goes with the tongue. In fact, nothing is\ncommoner than for one to make a rash statement and then feel compelled\nto stand by it for the sake of imaginary consistency. Hort keenly\nobserves that the force of \u201calso\u201d after \u201cthe whole body\u201d is that a man\nwho can bridle his tongue can bridle his whole body. The tongue is a\nreal Bucephalus, and it takes an Alexander to master him. It is really\nwonderful how a spirited, impetuous horse can be subdued by bit and\nbridle. The spirit does not go out of the horse, but his restless energy\nis under control and guidance.\n\nJames does not mean that a man should be dumb and lifeless, without\nambition and power, but simply that his tongue, like all the rest of the\nbody, should be kept in control. This figure of bridling the tongue, as\nalready noted (1:26), is one of the most vivid figures in all languages.\nDavid said: \u201cI will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue:\nI will keep my mouth with a bridle\u201d (Psalm 39:1).\n\nIt is not merely that the tongue is so hard to put a bridle on but also\nthat the tongue has such an influence on the whole body, able thus to\nlead the body by the bridle.[76] The horse has to follow his mouth, in\nwhich the bridle is placed. The purpose of the bridle is that the horses\nmay obey us, and it is thoroughly successful, as a rule. \u201cWe turn about\ntheir whole body also\u201d along with the mouth. So we should place bridles\nin our mouths for the deliberate purpose of controlling the tongue. It\nwill not happen by accident.\n\nWe are to repress the impulsive and petulant word. Thus we train our own\ntongues and make it easier to subdue the other members of the body. One\nmember cannot be allowed to lead the whole body into sin. Pluck it out,\nif it be the right eye or the right hand (Matt. 5:29). The members of\nthe body are all so related as to be affected by what the others\nexperience. \u201cThe eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee\u201d (1\nCor. 12:21). Without this bridle on the tongue there is no true\nself-control. A tongue loose at both ends means a man whom everyone\nshuns as a nuisance. If the bridle is good for the horse, it is far more\nso for the man. The difference is that the man has to put the bridle\ninto his own mouth and in dual capacity as rider and horse master\nhimself, the most unmanageable of steeds.\n\nA garrulous man is a bore at best, while a woman with a sharp tongue is\na terror to the community. Tell no secrets to a talkative man, and few\nto anyone save your wife. A man who talks to hear himself talk will be\nsure to tell what he ought not to say. The writer of Hebrews refuses to\ngo on with too many details about his heroes of faith, \u201cfor the time\nwill fail me if I tell\u201d (Heb. 11:32), \u201ctime will leave me telling.\u201d If\nthe audience held the bridle, the preacher might stop sooner. The\nphonograph can be turned off at will, permitting only so much \u201ccanned\u201d\ntalk at a time. And yet talk is one of the most delightful things in all\nthe world. But there can be too much of a good thing, if, forsooth, it\nis good. There are few greater nuisances than the interrupter, who\nbreaks into a conversation with no regard for the courtesies of the\noccasion. He is as bad as the man who monopolizes the conversation and\nallows no one else to talk at all. He needs a stopper, not a bridle, in\nhis mouth.\n\n\n The Rudder and the Ship (3:4)\n\nWith great wealth of imagination James proceeds to illustrate still\nfurther the power of the tongue over the rest of the body. The point is\nclear from the illustration of the bridle and the horse, but it is made\nstill clearer by the other figures. The importance of the subject\njustifies this piling up of metaphors. \u201cThis combination of the horse\u2019s\nbridle and the ship\u2019s rudder as illustrative of the tongue is found\u201d\n(Hort) in Philo and Plutarch. \u201cThe argument is _\u00e0 fortiori_ from the\nhorse to the man, and still more from the ship to the man, so that the\nwhole forms a climax, the point being throughout the same, namely, the\nsmallness of the part to be controlled in order to have control over the\nwhole\u201d (Plummer).\n\nThe horse is an irrational creature and yet can be managed by the\nbridle. The ship has no mind at all and yet is moved \u201cby a very small\nrudder,\u201d \u201cturned about,\u201d \u201cwhither the impulse of the steersman willeth.\u201d\nThe \u201cimpulse\u201d may be like \u201cthe rush of water\u201d in Proverbs 21:1, which is\nthere compared to the king\u2019s heart, for God \u201cturneth it whithersoever he\nwill,\u201d or like the rush or onset of the Gentiles and Jews to injure Paul\nin Iconium (Acts 14:5). Here it is the gentle pressure or touch of the\nhand of the steersman who guides the ship on its course straight ahead,\nas he decides (intention, purpose rather than mere will).[77]\n\nThe complete mastery of the steersman over the ship is accented by a\ncomparison of the size of the ancient boats with horses. \u201cBehold, even\nthe ships\u201d (probably we are to translate \u201ceven\u201d rather than \u201calso\u201d),\nwhich, though they are so great (cf. 2 Cor. 1:10), \u201care yet turned about\nby the impulse of the steersman,\u201d even when they are being driven by\nrough winds (if here again we translate \u201ceven\u201d instead of \u201calso\u201d). One\nis reminded of the boat in which Jesus and the disciples were crossing\nthe Sea of Galilee \u201cnow in the midst of the sea, distressed by the\nwaves\u201d (Matt. 14:24). The \u201crough winds\u201d (cf. Prov. 27:16), \u201cstiff winds\u201d\n(Moffatt), were particularly dangerous for the small (from our\nstandpoint) ships of the ancients. But the steersman could hold to his\ncourse even over a rough sea.\n\nThe point of James about the size of the ships would apply with far more\nforce today, when modern leviathans of the deep plow the waters. There\nis now less peril from the stiff winds, but there is all the more ground\nfor wonder that the tiny rudder can control at will the giant of the\nocean. The steersman can drive the mighty monster straight upon an\niceberg and sink it in a few minutes, as in the crash of the _Titanic_.\nGreat as the ship is, the silent forces of nature are still greater. Man\nhas not yet mastered all the powers of nature. But the ship, blind to\nits fate, responded to the will of the steersman, who dashed against the\niceberg.\n\nThe lesson is only too obvious. One must watch the tongue if he is to\navoid shipwreck. The tongue may dash the whole life in blind rage\nagainst God. The ship is one of the most beautiful of objects as it\nrides the waves in proud majesty. But more beautiful still is a life\nthat is not marred by bad or bitter words. Plutarch (_De Garrulitate_,\n10) says that speech beyond control is like a ship out at sea, broken\nloose from its moorings.\n\n\n The Fire and the Forest (3:5 f.)\n\nThe power of the tongue over the body in general is shown by the bridle\nand the rudder. Now the power of the tongue for evil is specifically\nillustrated by the metaphor of fire. True, the tongue is a little\nmember, and yet it \u201cboasteth great things,\u201d \u201ccan boast of great\nexploits\u201d (Moffatt).\n\nIt is not a mere empty boast that the tongue can make. It is hard to\nexaggerate the power of the tongue, which is able to sway great\nmultitudes for good or ill, to stir the wildest passions of man to\nuncontrollable fury, or to exalt men to the highest emotions of their\nnatures. The tongue can soothe the dying or damn the living. The tongue\ncan sing like a songbird or growl like a lion. The tongue can speak\nwords of tenderest love or of venomous hate. It can speak like a\nmegaphone in trumpet tones or in a whisper almost inaudible save to an\neager ear. Plummer tells the story of Amasis, king of Egypt, who sent a\nsacrifice to Bias the sage with the request that he send back the best\npart and the worst. He sent back the tongue.\n\nJames adds, \u201cBehold, how much wood is kindled by how small a fire,\u201d\n\u201cwhat a forest is set ablaze by a little spark of fire\u201d (Moffatt). The\nfigure is that of timber or woodland rather than a pile of wood. Mayor\nquotes Milton: \u201cInto what pit thou seest from what height fallen.\u201d The\ninflammatory Oriental audience with the high pitch of voice, confusion\nof tongues, and wild gesticulation is aptly compared to a forest fire\n(Oesterley).[78]\n\nThere is pathos in the dreadful forest fires that annually devastate our\ncountry. The damage each year amounts to several hundred millions of\ndollars, besides the injury to future generations in the loss of the\nblessings in many ways from the forests. In most instances these forest\nfires, which rage with uncontrollable fury when the wind gets up, are\ndue to accident or mischief. A spark from an engine, a cigarette thrown\nin the leaves, a burning match cast to one side by a hunter, a\nsmoldering campfire, a shot from a gun\u2014these and other like causes\nexplain most of the conflagrations.\n\nThe situation is so serious that the national government has a fire\npatrol to guard the forest reserves. Once a prairie fire starts there is\nhardly any stopping it till it burns out. Mice and matches cause over\ntwelve hundred fires each year in New York City. Only a start is needed,\na start long enough to get beyond control, and we have the horrible\nholocausts of Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, San Francisco. \u201cA burning fire\nkindles many heaps of corn\u201d (Sir. 11:32). The scholiast on this verse\nadds, \u201cThere is nothing which more devastates the world than an evil\ntongue.\u201d Nero set fire to Rome to see the grandeur of the spectacle, and\nhe fiddled while the city burned. Similar irresponsibility is seen often\nin the reckless use of the tongue. We should not light a fire which can\nblaze beyond our control.\n\nSo James adds, \u201cAnd the tongue is a fire.\u201d See Proverbs 16:27, \u201cAnd in\nhis lips there is a scorching fire.\u201d Compare Sirach 28:21-23. \u201cThe\neffect is that of an underground flame, concealed for a while, then\nbreaking out afresh\u201d (Carr). Indeed, \u201cthe world of iniquity among our\nmembers is the tongue,\u201d \u201cthe tongue proves a very world of mischief\namong our members\u201d (Moffatt). The tongue was made for good use and in\nitself is good, but it has been prostituted to evil. So here the very\nword for \u201cis\u201d (cf. 4:4, \u201cmaketh himself\u201d) brings out this distinction.\nThe tongue \u201cis constituted\u201d so, is not so by nature. Now we say that a\nman\u2019s tongue has run away with him. The tongue has made a career for\nitself, \u201cthe world [realm] of iniquity,\u201d \u201cthe unrighteous world\u201d (Hort).\nIt was made the best of members but has run riot till it has become the\npersonification of injustice and all sorts of wrong. The Vulgate has it\nhere _universitas iniquitatis_ rather than _mundus_. One thinks of our\nuse of \u201cuniversity,\u201d a world in itself for good or ill.\n\nJesus spoke of \u201cthe mammon of unrighteousness,\u201d \u201cthe judge of\nunrighteousness.\u201d So the tongue represents the world of iniquity and has\nbecome \u201cthe chief channel of temptation from man to man\u201d (Mayor). \u201cThey\nset their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through\nthe earth\u201d (Psalm 73:9, AV). This microcosm epitomizes the macrocosm of\nevil. Bengel has it _a macrocosmo ad microcosmum_. The evil wrought by\nthe tongue ramifies through the whole of society and goes on and on in\nits deadly influence.\n\nIt \u201cdefiles the whole body,\u201d \u201cstaining the whole of the body\u201d\n(Moffatt).[79] The Vulgate has _maculat_. Jesus had said, \u201cThat which\nproceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man\u201d (Matt. 15:11). At\nfirst James seems to overstate the matter, but modern science reinforces\nhis point. It is now known that angry words cause the glands of the body\nto discharge a dangerous poison that affects the stomach, the heart, the\nbrain. The effect is usually temporary but sometimes fatal. It is\nliterally true that such choler defiles the whole body. Hate has the\nsame effect. The chameleon changes color according to its emotions and\nenvironment. The tongue not only commits evil by lying, by defending\nsin, and by leading to sin, but it leaves a deadly stain in the very\nbody and soul of the one who misuses it. \u201cIt is the palmary instance of\nthe principle that the best when perverted becomes the worst\u2014_corruptio\noptimi fit pessima_\u201d (Plummer).\n\nThe tongue \u201csetteth on fire the wheel of nature,\u201d \u201csetting fire to the\nround circle of existence\u201d (Moffatt), \u201cthe whole circle of innate\npassions\u201d (Oesterley), \u201cthe wheel of man\u2019s creation\u201d (Hort, who adds\n\u201cone of the hardest phrases in the Bible\u201d), \u201cthe wheel of birth\u201d like\nthe Orphic mysteries (P. Gardner), \u201csets the whole creation in flames\u201d\n(Johnstone). Perhaps the idea is that the tongue at the center (hub) of\nthe wheel of nature sets on fire the rest of the wheel. One sees just\nthis thing happen in a pyrotechnic display, where a wheel is set on fire\nin the center. The more it burns the faster it revolves, till the whole\nwheel whirls in a blaze of fire, spitting fire as it whirls. Certainly,\nthe tongue can set fire to all the baser passions in the wheel of life,\nsuch as envy, jealousy, faction, anger, avarice, lust, murder. This fire\nspreads, not simply through the whole man, but may infect \u201cvarious\nchannels and classes till the whole cycle of human life is in flames\u201d\n(Plummer). Its range of devastation frequently is wider than the life of\nthe person who spoke.\n\nIt is not surprising that James adds, \u201cand is set on fire by hell,\u201d\n\u201cwith a flame fed by hell\u201d (Moffatt), _inflammata a gehenna_ (Vulgate).\nIt is the devil, the slanderer par excellence, who sets on fire \u201cthe\nchariot-wheel of man as he advances on the way of life\u201d (Hort). It is\nfirst inflamed by hell (place of the wicked, not the unseen world for\nall) and then inflames all the wheel of nature. The torch is lighted in\nhell, and the hellish flame kindles the tongue, which in turn sets fire\nto the whole nature. Thus the fire was started and is habitually\nreplenished (the tense is imperfect). The Valley of Hinnom or Tophet was\nfirst just the type of the abode of the wicked, and then the continual\nfires kept burning there were transferred to the next world. (Cf. \u201cthe\nfire of Gehenna,\u201d Matt. 5:22.)\n\nBut one must not forget that while the tongue can be set on fire of\nhell, it can also be touched by a live coal from God\u2019s altar. Isaiah\nsaid, \u201cWoe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips,\nand I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have\nseen the King, Jehovah of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphim unto me,\nhaving a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from\noff the altar: and he touched my mouth with it, and said, Lo, this hath\ntouched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin\nforgiven\u201d (6:5-7).\n\nLet us gain comfort from the experience of Isaiah in the contemplation\nof the solemn warning of James. One may note also that tongues as of\nfire sat on the heads of those who were filled with the Holy Spirit on\nthe great day of Pentecost. The tongue can be set on fire of heaven and\ncan pass on the holy fire of God from soul to soul, thus lighting the\nlight of God in the human life.\n\n\n Taming of Wild Beasts (3:7 f.)\n\nJames recurs to the beasts (cf. horse and bridle) for a broader\ndiscussion. The tongue is unbridled all too often and is the most\nunmanageable of wild animals. He had just said that the tongue is set on\nfire of hell. \u201cThe fact that the tongue is the one thing that defies\nman\u2019s power to control it is a sign that there is something satanic in\nits bitterness\u201d (Mayor). He uses the language of Oriental exaggeration\nin giving further proof of his strong statement, a justifiable\nhyperbole: \u201cFor every kind of beasts and birds, of creeping things and\nthings in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind.\u201d \u201cThe art\nof taming is no new thing, but has belonged to the human race from the\nfirst\u201d (Mayor).\n\nIt is perhaps not strictly true that every conceivable animal has been\nsubjected by man, but no one in the light of the past and the present\ncan say that any animal is untamable. It is now a common enough thing to\nsee in a wild animal show performing tigers, leopards, lions, elephants,\nmonkeys, dogs, horses, parrots, seals, bears, and even serpents. It is\nnot merely that wild animals may be domesticated (cf. the wolf and the\ndog), like the zebra and the wild turkey (America\u2019s contribution to the\nworld\u2019s barnyard), but they may be taught to do acts and tricks that\nshow rudimentary reasoning powers. The eye of man can subdue the lion,\nthe tiger, and the serpent as Jesus subdued the untamable demoniac (Mark\n5:4), \u201cand no man had strength to tame him.\u201d Man has proved his kingship\nover the other creatures as God gave him dominion (Gen. 1:26). In many\ncases animals have become so domesticated that they no longer feel at\nhome elsewhere.\n\nMan is proud of his lordship over beast and bird and over the forces of\nnature like wind and wave and electricity. Man can swim like a fish, can\nrun like a deer, and can now even fly like a bird in the airplane with\nits artificial wings. He can talk without wires with unseen persons over\nthousands of miles. He can speed over land and sea like the wind. He can\nsend a message around the earth with the swiftness of light.\n\nBut he cannot control his own tongue. \u201cBut the tongue can no man tame.\u201d\nHere is the language of helplessness, as in the case of the demoniac in\nMark 5:4. Strictly speaking, of course, the tongue is merely the organ\nof speech, and speech is under the control of the mind. By a bold figure\nJames almost personifies the tongue as a separate personality. \u201cIt\ncombines the ferocity of the tiger and the mockery of the ape with the\nsubtlety and venom of the serpent\u201d (Plummer). It is thus the very\nchimera of wild beasts!\n\nThis is the picture of the tongue in its natural state, the tongue of\nthe unregenerate man. The Spirit of God can cleanse a man\u2019s mouth of\nprofanity and unclean speech. \u201cKeep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips\nfrom speaking guile\u201d (Psalm 34:13). Paul puts up the bars: \u201cNor\nfilthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting\u201d\n(Eph. 5:4). Once more he says: \u201cLet no corrupt speech proceed out of\nyour mouth\u201d (4:29). Surely, if one has such an untamable little animal\nin his mouth as the tongue, he needs to watch it with ceaseless care.\nThe evil of the tongue echoes and re-echoes through a community and\noften through the ages. The evil slander can never be stopped. The lie\nis fleet of foot and eludes truth in a race.\n\n\u201cIt is a restless evil,\u201d \u201cplague of disorder that it is\u201d (Moffatt), \u201ca\ndisorderly evil\u201d (Hort), _iniquitum malum_ (Vulgate). It is unstable and\nunreliable, inconsistent and quixotic. It can never be trusted to the\nfull. It will turn on one when off guard, like the lion when the keeper\nturns his eye away. It can be brought under no rules that will work.\n\n\u201cIt is full of deadly poison.\u201d It is \u201cdeath-bringing\u201d poison like the\npoison of asps under their lips (Psalm 140:3). \u201cTheir poison is like the\npoison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear\u201d\n(Psalm 58:4). The poison of the serpent is deposited in a little pocket\nunder the mouth. So the tongue is charged with the venom of hate, as the\nserpent with poison. The hiss of the serpent and the hiss of the goose\nare often reproduced in the sibilant tongue of slander.\n\n\n Sweet and Bitter Water (3:9-11)\n\nThe inconsistency of the conduct of the tongue is graphically portrayed\nby these verses. Plummer happily terms it \u201cthe moral contradictions of\nthe reckless talker.\u201d There is in very truth moral chaos if the\nChristian does not control his tongue. Inconsistency is not an evil per\nse. If one is wrong, he ought to be inconsistent enough to change and do\nright. But it is terrible to see a professing Christian lightly lapse\ninto loose and licentious language. \u201cThe fires of Pentecost will not\nrest where the fires of Gehenna are working\u201d (Plummer).\n\nJames had spoken (1:8) of the double-minded man, unstable in all his\nways. The tongue with the gift of _double-entendre_ is one of the very\nworst, for its word passes muster in polite circles and yet carries to\nthe initiated a sinister or salacious meaning. Epictetus (Ench. xxxiii,\n\u00a7 16) says, \u201cBut dangerous also is the approach to indecent speaking.\u201d\nBut the double tongue talks one way with one person, another with\nanother; it is the way of hypocrisy, the slick tongue, the oily tongue\nof the two-faced man whose word cannot be depended upon, whose word is\nnot so good as his bond.\n\nSirach (5:13) says: \u201cHonor and shame are in talk; and the tongue of man\nis his fall.\u201d He also has this: \u201cIf thou blow the spark, it shall burn;\nif thou spit upon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of\nthy mouth\u201d (28:12). It looks as if James had seen this passage from the\nTwelve Patriarchs (Benjamin 6:5): \u201cThe good mind hath not two tongues,\nof blessing and of cursing, of contumely and of honour, of sorrow and of\njoy, of quietness and of confusion, of hypocrisy and of truth.\u201d\n\nWe may omit the inconsistency of \u201csorrow and of joy,\u201d for that is the\nlot of all of us, but certainly the tongue must not play the part of Dr.\nJekyll and Mr. Hyde. \u201cTherewith bless we the Lord and Father,\u201d the only\ninstance of this precise combination of words in the Bible, expressing\nGod\u2019s power and loving approachableness (cf. Matt. 11:25). The highest\nfunction of human speech (Hort) is the praise of God the Father. Note\nhow when Zacharias recovered his speech, he first praised God (Luke\n1:64). It is glorious to praise God in prayer, in song, in sermon. \u201cO\nLord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall show forth thy praise\u201d\n(Psalm 51:15). \u201cPraise ye Jehovah. Praise Jehovah, O my soul. While I\nlive will I praise Jehovah: I will sing praises unto my God while I have\nany being\u201d (Psalm 146:1 f.).\n\n\u201cBless, and curse not\u201d (Rom. 12:14). Curse not God in anger or in\nflippant profanity. The tongue that praises God surely will not profane\nhis name. But curse not men who are made after the likeness of God,\nthose who are like God in their moral and spiritual nature and not like\nthe beasts of the field (Gen. 1:26; 2 Cor. 3:18). And yet, _horribile\ndictu_, this is precisely what we do. \u201cTherewith curse we men.\u201d James\nhere includes himself in the common run of humanity.\n\nThe tongue exercises this strange power of running away with us like a\nrunaway horse with the bit in his mouth. The scorn of men for men is\nseen in John 7:49, in the Pharisees\u2019 sneer at the mob: \u201cThis multitude\nthat knoweth not the law are accursed.\u201d It is most likely, however,\npersonal abuse that James here refers to. Men who are made in God\u2019s\nimage are abused by the very tongue that blesses God. We curse other\nchildren of our common Father, God. James does not mean, even by\nimplication, to approve cursing at all. It is the wicked man whose\n\u201cmouth is full of cursing\u201d (Psalm 10:7). If we do not love our brother,\nwe do not love God (1 John 4:20). And yet \u201cout of the same mouth cometh\nforth blessing and cursing.\u201d We make our tongue a sort of combination of\nMount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. \u201cMy brethren, these things ought not so to\nbe\u201d\u2014a mild statement all the more effective from its very temperateness.\n\nThe point is easy to illustrate. \u201cDoth the fountain send forth from the\nsame opening sweet water and bitter?\u201d James was familiar with the\nbrackish waters of parts of Palestine. The water of the Dead Sea is\nreally bitter, though fed by the snows of Hermon and the sweet springs\nof the Jordan valley. The waters of Marah were bitter (Ex. 15:23), and\none may recall \u201cthe water of bitterness that causeth the curse\u201d (Num.\n5:18, 23). See also Revelation 8:11 for the waters that were made\nbitter. Pliny (N. H. ii. 103) tells a fable of a fountain of the sun\nthat \u201cwas sweet and cold at noon and bitter and hot at midnight\u201d\n(Mayor). It is possible to sweeten water, as we see in the great\nfiltering plants in our modern cities. And sweet water can become\nbitter. But water is not sweet and bitter at the same time from the same\nfountain. You have sweet water on Hermon and salt water in the Dead Sea\n(also called the Salt Sea), but not both in the same place.\n\n\n The Vine and the Fig Tree (3:12)\n\nJames has not only a new image here but also a new point of view (Hort).\nHe has, in verses 9-11, shown the inconsistency of two kinds of speech\nfrom the same tongue. Now he goes deeper to the heart behind the\nutterance. The comparison is here made between the heart and its\nutterance (tongue). The grape and the fig are the commonest fruits in\nPalestine. \u201cEach tree is known by its own fruit\u201d (Luke 6:44). Yes, and\nJesus had just said (6:43): \u201cFor there is no good tree that bringeth\nforth corrupt fruit; nor again a corrupt tree that bringeth forth good\nfruit.\u201d It is not uncommon to find the point made somewhat as James has\nit. So Epictetus (Diss. ii. 20) says: \u201cHow can a vine grow, not\nvinewise, but olivewise, or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise,\nbut vinewise?\u201d[80] And Jesus says: \u201cEither make the tree good, and its\nfruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt\u201d (Matt.\n12:33). Once more hear Jesus: \u201cDo men gather grapes of thorns, or figs\nof thistles?\u201d (Matt. 7:16). It is the appeal to life.\n\nIt has been charged that James exaggerates the evil of the tongue, but\none who knows life as it is must agree with James. Sirach says, \u201cCurse\nthe whisperer and the double-tongued, for such have destroyed many that\nwere at peace\u201d (28:13). Plummer quotes also a clause from the Syriac\nthat is not in the Greek: \u201cAlso the third tongue, let it be cursed; for\nit has laid low many corpses.\u201d Sirach (28:14 f.) continues: \u201cA third [or\nbackbiting] tongue hath unsettled many, and driven them from nation to\nnation; and strong cities hath pulled down, and overthrown houses of\ngreat men. A backbiting tongue hath cast out capable women, and deprived\nthem of their labors.\u201d The \u201cthird tongue\u201d injures three classes\n(Plummer): the person who utters the slander, the one who listens, and\nthe one of whom the slander is told. It is a triple sin and only sin.\n\u201cNeither can salt water yield sweet,\u201d James adds, and his conclusion\nfalls with the force of a trip hammer. The crisp wisdom of James about\nthe tongue makes one wonder afresh if his mother had not taught him some\nof these aphorisms as a child.\n\n\n\n\n IX\n The True Wise Man\n\n\nThe connection between the paragraph about wisdom (3:13-18) and the\npreceding discussion of the perils of the tongue is very close. James is\nstill thinking of the men who supposed that they had true faith but who\ndid not practice it; \u201cmen who supposed that they had a deeper wisdom and\na larger knowledge than their brethren, and who were continually\nasserting their claim to be teachers\u201d (Dale). But Hort considers the\npassage on the tongue a \u201clong digression,\u201d a view hardly tenable. These\nambitious teachers had overlooked the havoc wrought by tongue (and pen).\n\nJames has given a needed warning about that phase of the subject and now\nturns to the subject matter itself. The ambitious teacher will do all\nthe more harm if he is not merely a bungler of real wisdom but a\ndisseminator of false wisdom. Already the air was full of all sorts of\nfads and fancies that appealed to the unthinking and the unwary. The\nEssenes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Epicureans, the Stoics, the\nMithraists, the Gnostics, the Judaizers, the cult of emperor worship,\nwith more or less distinctness were clamoring for a hearing. There were\nprofessional sophists who traveled over the country with patent\nsolutions of all problems. Some appealed to the nervous or the neurotic,\nlike Christian Science today; others to the ignorant, like Russellism or\nMormonism. Paul will later discuss both speech and wisdom \u201cas good\nthings liable to grievous abuse\u201d (Hort), in 1 Corinthians 1:5, 17; 2;\nand 3.\n\n\n The Call for the Wise Man (3:13a)\n\n\u201cWho is wise and understanding among you?\u201d The question does not mean\nthat nobody is wise and understanding, but it calls a halt on the rush\nof volunteers who have apparently a superfluity of wisdom. An overplus\nof conceit is intolerable for normal persons. Job (12:2) has our\nsympathy when he retorts to his officious advisers: \u201cNo doubt but ye are\nthe people, and wisdom shall die with you.\u201d Once more Job (28:12) asks:\n\u201cBut where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of\nunderstanding?\u201d Here, as very often in the Old Testament, we have wisdom\nand understanding used together. God gave Solomon wisdom and\nunderstanding (1 Kings 4:29). \u201cWisdom is the principal thing; therefore\nget wisdom; ... get understanding\u201d (Prov. 4:7). In Psalm 107:43 we have\nthe question: \u201cWho is wise?\u201d James is thoroughly acquainted with the\nwisdom literature of the Jews, both canonical and uncanonical, and is at\nhome in the handling of this theme. His words are not many, but they\ncarry much of depth and power.\n\nMany of the professional wise men, then as now, were frauds who easily\nduped the gullible populace. They were magicians like Simon Magus, who\ngave it out that he was some great man, and the idle crowd took him at\nhis high estimate of himself (Acts 8:9 ff.). Note also the cases of\nBar-Jesus (Acts 13:6 ff.) and the Jewish exorcists (19:13 ff.). The\nsuccess of these men is one of the most humiliating contemplations about\nour common humanity. Carlyle bluntly called most people fools. But there\nwere really wise men then also, like the Magi and others, who sought\nlight and truth. Oesterley thinks that James by this question appeals to\nthe self-respect of his hearers, who are tired of men with \u201cthe lust of\nteaching and talking\u201d (Plummer). James is still directing blows at sham\nreligion, and there is ample cause for such attacks in all the ages.\nHypocrisy flourishes in all ages and in all climes. This meanest of\nparasites has a marvelous vitality.\n\nThe combination of \u201cwise\u201d and \u201cunderstanding\u201d is not without point (cf.\nDeut. 4:6; Isa. 5:21). This is the only instance of the combination in\nthe New Testament. In classic Greek the second word was used of a\nskilled or scientific person who had gained technical knowledge of a\nsubject. It implies personal acquaintance and experience, not mere\nabstract knowledge or intellectual apprehension of the theory of a\nthing. It is book learning plus practical application, as opposed to one\nwithout this special training. Then the word for wise is given by\nClement of Alexandria (Strom. I. v.) to mean \u201cthe understanding of\nthings human and divine, and their causes.\u201d It is the word found in the\nterm \u201cphilosophy\u201d and implies thoughtfulness, penetration, grasp of the\nrelations of things, and the right use of one\u2019s knowledge for the\nhighest ends. There are learned fools, men who have a lumber of learning\nin their heads but in a disorderly jumble. In the use of James the only\nreally wise man is he who places God in the center of his life, who\nserves Christ as Lord and Master, who keeps the intellect in subjection\nto the will of God.\n\nThere are plenty of ignorant fools also, men who have neither\nintellectual apprehension nor practical wisdom. It is hard to tell which\nis the sadder spectacle, the learned fool or the ignorant fool. But,\ncertainly, a premium is not to be placed upon either class. Both classes\nof fools are to be kept out of the ranks of teachers and preachers if it\ncan be done. Advice on all sorts of subjects is so plentiful that there\nseems to be an abundance of easygoing wisdom. But the world is still\neager to listen to the true wise man if he can be found (cf. Van Dyke\u2019s\n_Other Wise Man_). But the very reputation for wisdom may lead to posing\nas a wise man. James dares to challenge the candidates for teachers of\nwisdom in the churches. Is it not possible that not enough care is taken\nin the choice of teachers in the churches and the ordination of\npreachers of the gospel?\n\n\n The Proof of the Wise Man (3:13b)\n\nWisdom is not a matter for mere technical inquiry. One has to stand an\nexamination on wisdom; but it is that of life, unwritten and\nwritten\u2014that of deeds, not of words. \u201cLet him show by his good life his\nworks in meekness of wisdom.\u201d This test of the wise man is put in a\npeculiarly Jacobean style. The very position of the word \u201cshow\u201d is\nemphatic; it is the first word in the sentence. If one may use the\nvernacular, we are all \u201cfrom Missouri\u201d and \u201chave to be shown\u201d when it\ncomes to each other\u2019s wisdom. The test is the acid test of deeds, not\nwords. We may quibble over words and talk like a wise man, but time will\nprove our words by our deeds.\n\nOne may speak like a wise man and in reality be the biggest sort of a\nfool, yea, a scoundrel. People have learned to discount mere talk when\nit stands alone. Just being a preacher is not enough. One must practice\nwhat he preaches. The Roman Catholic doctrine relieves the priest from\nthe obligation to live the morality which he preaches, but surely that\nis a travesty on the ethics of Christianity. It is false ethics and\nfalse religion. People have a right to hold the preacher to the standard\nof the gospel, just as he has the right to urge upon them the highest\nideals of conduct. There is a wonderful leveling process going on all\nthe time. Lincoln said with rare wisdom that a man may fool all the\npeople part of the time and some of the people all the time, but not all\nthe people all the time.\n\nThe greatest asset that the preacher has, after all, is his life, a long\nlife of piety and consecration. There is no answering that argument\u2014\u201cby\nhis good life his works.\u201d This is the only proof that counts in the long\nrun. The King James Version has here \u201cgood conversation,\u201d which was at\none time good English (_conversatio_, _conversari_), originally one\u2019s\nconduct or bearing (turning oneself about, the precise idea in the Greek\nword). But long ago the English confined the word to talk, perhaps\nbecause some people did little else but talk. But quaint English must\ngive way to the modern preciseness of speech.\n\nIt is the beautiful manner of life that speaks the language of business\ntoday, the flower of a white life that adorns the profession of the\nservice of Christ. But even so, it must be behavior that is sincere,\nthat finds expression in acts, not mere external mannerisms, posing,\nattitudinizing, stage effect. Nothing is more repulsive than\nprofessional pietists who attract attention to themselves rather than to\nChrist the Lord. It is a case pre-eminently where actions speak louder\nthan words and where words alone do more harm than good. Bengel puts it\ntersely: _re potius quam verbis_. In simple truth, the more a man says\nin claim of superior wisdom, the less he is credited with the possession\nof any wisdom.\n\nBut it is not merely a case of deeds versus words but also of\n\u201cgentleness and modesty versus arrogance and passion\u201d (Mayor), \u201cin\nmeekness of wisdom,\u201d \u201cwith the modesty of wisdom\u201d (Moffatt). Meekness\nwas not ranked high among the Greeks. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. IV. v)\nconsidered it a second-rate virtue, \u201cthe mean between passionateness and\nimpassionateness\u201d (Plummer). Epictetus (bk. II, chap, i, \u00a7 36) says:\n\u201cBut think that thou art nobody and that thou knowest nothing.\u201d\n\nThe Christian conception rests upon the idea in the Psalms that meekness\nis a favorite trait of the devout. \u201cThe meek will he guide in justice;\nand the meek will he teach his way\u201d (25:9). \u201cJehovah upholdeth the meek\u201d\n(147:6). In Sirach (3:18) we read: \u201cThe greater you are, the more you\nhumble yourself.\u201d But there is no word comparable to that of Jesus, who\nsaid of himself, \u201cI am meek and lowly in heart\u201d (Matt. 11:29), in his\nplea for men to come to him as teacher. It is an essential prerequisite\nin the teacher, else he is unapproachable and is aloof and cold. Jesus\npronounced a Beatitude on the meek (Matt. 5:5), but he did more\u2014he\nexemplified meekness in his life.\n\nBy meekness James does not mean effeminacy or weakness (any more than\ndid Jesus). He does mean the absence of pretentiousness and wilfulness.\nPeter (1 Peter 3:15) uses the expression \u201cwith meekness and fear\u201d for\nthe spirit with which one is to defend the faith, the \u201creason concerning\nthe hope that is in you.\u201d There can be firmness and courage without\nbumptiousness and bigotry. There are frequent exhortations in the New\nTestament along this line (cf. Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:24; 1 Cor. 4:21). The\nwise man wears the crown of modesty. This spiritual paradox seems absurd\nto the merely worldly-wise.\n\n\n The Disproof of the Wise Man (3:14)\n\n\u201cThe possession of wisdom was made a claim to teachership\u201d (Hort). So\nthe absence of wisdom is a positive disqualification. One may, no doubt,\npossess wisdom and yet not be able to teach. But the lack of wisdom is\nitself a sufficient bar. The wrong spirit shows the lack of wisdom. \u201cBut\nif ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart,\u201d what then? There\nwere many controversialists who had both of these vices.\n\nJealousy is not evil per se. It wavers between the good and evil sense\nand in itself is merely zeal, which may be for good or ill. (For the\ngood use see 2 Cor. 11:2; Gal. 1:14.) Sometimes this zeal was not\naccording to knowledge (Rom. 10:2). Envy is distinguished from zeal\n(emulation) by Aristotle (Rhet. ii. 11. 1). But in the New Testament the\nbad sense of this word prevails (James 4:5; 1 Cor. 3:3; Gal. 5:20; Rom.\n13:13), and it is listed with the works of the flesh. The bitterness of\njealousy is only too well understood by those who give way to this petty\nvice. It tastes bitter, and the taste lasts a long time. Bitterness is\nitself punishment enough for the victims of the sin (Eph. 4:31).\n\nThe other word, \u201cfaction\u201d or \u201cparty spirit,\u201d has an uncertain etymology,\nprobably from the word for hireling. At any rate, the word is soon\napplied to partisans who court and bribe adherents to their candidate.\nIt presents the very quintessence of partisanship and of\nnarrow-mindedness. This is not a mark of wisdom and is not a thing to\nboast of, at any rate. \u201cGlory not\u201d about it, \u201cdo not pride yourselves on\nthat\u201d (Moffatt). And yet this is precisely what many of the Jewish\nChristians were doing already. Thus they lied against the truth, were\n\u201cfalse to the truth,\u201d as Moffatt has it. Such partisan triumph is\nusually obtained by underhand methods and by the suppression of part of\nthe truth. There is such a thing as \u201cpoisoned truth.\u201d So partisan\nvictory often leaves a bitter sting, because those in defeat know that\nan unfair advantage has been taken of them and of the truth of God.\n\nIt is clear that these opening chapters in the Epistle of James reveal a\npitiful condition of controversy among some of the Jewish churches, such\nas Paul has to rebuke in Corinth later (cf. 1 Cor. 1-4). \u201cThe whole\nChristianity of many a devotee consists only, we may say, in a bitter\ncontempt for the sins of sinners, in a proud and loveless contention\nwith what it calls the wicked world\u201d (Stier).\n\nThe point of James is precisely this. The very contentiousness which\nthey regarded as supreme proof of their qualifications as exponents of\nthe faith is here urged by James as absolute proof that they are\ndisqualified for the position of teachers. Their bitterness makes it\nimproper for them to talk about love and gentleness. Sometimes the very\nfierceness of one\u2019s contention for orthodoxy drives some people into\nheresy. It is a sad outcome when one\u2019s high and holy ambition to teach\nthe things of Christ is frustrated by a Christless spirit of wrangling\nand personal abuse.\n\n\n The Wisdom from Below (3:15 f.)\n\nWisdom is precisely what we all need and desire, but the bitter\nself-seeking partisans just described \u201cdo not cherish the truth except\nas a possession of their own, or a missile of their own\u201d (Hort). \u201cThis\nwisdom,\u201d claimed by the pompous bigots in verse 14, can only be so\ndescribed in terms of courtesy or, more exactly, of irony. It is only\nwisdom so-called and is real folly. It is at best worldly wisdom,\n\u201cearthly,\u201d not merely in the sense of taking place on earth rather than\nin heaven (John 3:12) but with the earthly horizon and outlook as\nopposed to the heavenly, like those who mind earthly things (Phil.\n3:19). Such a wisdom passes for \u201cthe wisdom of this world\u201d (1 Cor. 1:20;\n3:19) but is distinctly not \u201cGod\u2019s wisdom,\u201d \u201ca wisdom not of this world\u201d\n(1 Cor. 2:6 f.).\n\n\u201cThis wisdom\u201d is not merely earthly but does not come down from above,\nmore exactly, \u201cis not of a kind that cometh down\u201d (Hort)\u2014not such a\nwisdom, indeed, as God gives (James 1:5). It has the smell of earth in\nthe evil sense of that term. It is not from above but in reality from\nbelow. Jesus said to the Pharisees: \u201cYe are from beneath; I am from\nabove: ye are of this world; I am not of this world\u201d (John 8:23). The\nantithesis is complete both in origin and spirit. The axioms of the\nselfish, like \u201clook out for Number One,\u201d are the wisdom of the devil:\n\u201cAll that a man hath will he give for his life\u201d (Job 2:4).\n\nThis selfish wisdom is merely that of the natural man, not a mark of the\nregenerate spirit. There is no single English word that properly renders\nthis word. \u201cPsychic\u201d transliterates it but does not translate it.\n\u201cSensual\u201d makes it too much a matter of the body, as does \u201cfleshly,\u201d\nlike the Vulgate _animalis_. It does not appear in the Septuagint and\nonly six times in the New Testament (James 3:15; Jude 19; 1 Cor. 2:14;\n15:44, 46). The broad distinction between soul and body or mind and body\n(dichotomy) is not so hard to grasp, but the threefold division\n(trichotomy) into spirit, soul, and body, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:23,\nseems to place the psyche below the pneuma.[81]\n\nIt seems clear from 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the spiritual man is the\nregenerate man, while the natural man is the unregenerate man in his\nunsaved state of sin. So here, therefore, this earthly wisdom is that of\nthe unregenerate man; it is not sanctified wisdom. He may not be carnal,\nthe slave of the animal passions, but merely coldly unspiritual. Such a\nwisdom does not reach the higher levels of the man\u2019s nature.\n\nBut it is still worse. Such a wisdom is demoniacal, devilish\n(_diabolica_, Vulgate), \u201cin that it raised up the very devil in the\nhearts of both opposer and opposed\u201d (Oesterley). It is wisdom such as\nthat which demons have (Bengel), not such as God gives (1:5). It is the\nwisdom of those who do the will of the flesh (Eph. 2:2 f.), who follow\nthe teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). One is reminded of the words of\nJesus in John 8:44: \u201cYe are of your father the devil.\u201d \u201cThus the wisdom\nshared by demons answers to the faith shared by demons of 2:19\u201d (Hort),\nthe tongue set on fire by hell (3:6).\n\nIt is indeed a keen knowledge of human nature that James here reveals,\nbut it is a sad indictment all the same. It reads like nature in the\nrough, red in tooth and claw, the law of the jungle, not the law of\ngrace. It is Nietzsche\u2019s superman, not the love that serves, that came\nto minister and not to be ministered unto. The might of right is not\nunderstood by those who hold that might is right. There is a new\npaganism today in Berlin, in Paris, in London, in New York. It is very\nsubtle and very scornful of the pity of Jesus.\n\nRed blood is a good thing, to be sure, so be it that it courses through\na clean heart. The survival of the fittest is the law of nature, but\nfittest for what? The law of the wolves is to turn and devour the wolf\nthat falls in the chase. The philosophy of Nietzsche is a bit more\nbrutal in its plainness of speech than the wisdom of the world usually\nputs it. But even so, its demoniacal character stands out more sharply.\n\u201cI want; therefore, I have the right to get.\u201d This is the policy of\naggression on the part of nations and individuals, of rogues and\nrapists, of grafters and white-slavers, of bank-looters and oppressors\nof labor.\n\nThe further comment of James elucidates his point: \u201cFor where jealousy\nand faction are (v. 14), there is confusion and every vile deed.\u201d\nJealousy and faction come from the devil. He sows suspicion in the\nchurches, in the midst of families, in the hearts of those who let him\nin. James had already (3:8) accused the tongue of being a restless evil\nand (1:8) had spoken of the unstable man. God is not the God of\nconfusion but of peace (1 Cor. 14:33), so that the factions in the\nchurches cannot claim God as supporting them, any more than nations at\nwar have the right to make flippant claims that God is on their side in\na conflict.\n\nOesterley has a fine description of the spirit of the professional\ncontroversialist: \u201cAcute argument, subtle distinctions, clever\ncontroversial methods which took small account of truth so long as a\ntemporary point was gained, skilful dialectics, bitter sarcasms, the\nmore enjoyed and triumphed in if the poisonous shaft came home and\nrankled in the breast of the opponent\u2014in short, all those tricks of the\nunscrupulous controversialist, which are none the less contemptible for\nbeing clever\u2014this was wisdom of a certain kind.\u201d But in reality it left\nthe way open for \u201cevery vile deed,\u201d for the word here for \u201cvile\u201d means\nworthless, not immoral.\n\nIn the realm of morals what is merely indifferent soon gets to be bad.\nThe Vulgate puts it _omne opus pravum_. So in John 3:20 we read: \u201cFor\nevery one that doeth evil hateth the light.\u201d Bugs and bats hate the\nlight. There is a toboggan slide in sin. The easy way is the evil way.\nSee per contra James 1:17. Anarchy brings moral chaos (Plummer) to the\nsoul as to nations. The wiseacres of the world play havoc with the souls\nand bodies of men who follow their lead to hell. In every town there is\na bunch of men who cling together in their evil life and profess a\nwisdom superior to that of the gospel. They know it is a lie, but they\ncomfort each other and are too proud to break away from the gang. But\nthe end will come. There are no happy old men save those that are\nChristians.\n\n\n The Wisdom from Above (3:17)\n\nThere is wisdom from above, that is, from God, as James had already said\n(1:5). This is the true wisdom, God\u2019s wisdom both in source and\ncharacter. James had not, of course, seen Paul\u2019s remarks on wisdom in 1\nCorinthians 1 and 2, if he wrote his epistle by A.D. 50. But he had full\nopportunity to be familiar with Proverbs, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of\nSirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon. \u201cFor the Lord giveth wisdom: out of\nhis mouth cometh knowledge and understanding\u201d (Prov. 2:6, AV). \u201cWisdom\nmay praise herself, and glory in the midst of her people\u201d (Sir. 24:1).\n\u201cFor wisdom is more mobile than any motion; and she also passeth and\ngoeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is a breath\nof the power of God, and a pure effluence from the glory of the\nAlmighty; therefore no defiled thing falls into her. For she is a\nreflection of the everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the\nefficiency of God, and image of his goodness\u201d (Wisd. 7:24-26).\n\nOnce more: \u201cFor she is more beautiful than the sun, and above every\nposition of stars, being compared with the light, she is found superior\u201d\n(Wisd. 7:29). But while James is undoubtedly conversant with the wisdom\nliterature of the Jews, he is no mere copyist. He has the Christian\nstandpoint and makes his own contribution to the discussion of wisdom.\nHis words are few, but they fit and strike right to the heart of the\nsubject.\n\nIt is \u201cfirst pure.\u201d Purity is the inner characteristic of the wise. It\nis pretty nearly like the Latin _purus_ (pure) and means not so much\ncleansed (cf. Matt. 5:8, \u201cthe pure in heart\u201d) as a combination of this\nidea and consecration as holiness. It is thus free from stain or\ndefilement of any kind (not merely sexual purity), like a ray of light,\n\u201cin holiness and sincerity of God\u201d (2 Cor. 1:12). Christ himself is\ncalled pure (1 John 3:3), the ideal toward which we are to strive. We\nmust learn to put first things first. In wisdom purity of character and\nmotive is absolutely essential at any cost.\n\n\u201cThen peaceable.\u201d Important as peace is, purity is paramount.\nPeaceableness is, to be sure, the outer characteristic of wisdom, and if\none has the bright light of inner wisdom, he will have it. But wisdom\ndoes not desire peace at any price or at the cost of purity. \u201cAll her\npaths are peace\u201d (Prov. 3:17), and the chastening of God\u2019s hand yields\n\u201cpeaceable fruit unto them that have been exercised thereby\u201d (Heb.\n12:11). Plummer wisely notes that the order of James here is logical and\nnot always strictly chronological.\n\nOne is not to compromise with evil and error, but all the same, if one\nis to have no peace till he has absolute purity of every sort in his\nenvironment, he must needs be always at war and never rest at all. An\nequation of common sense must, of course, be struck, though there is the\nconstant temptation to get used to unpleasant surroundings and finally\nto make no protest at all. Plummer likewise observes that James places\nthe emphasis on the spiritual and moral, not on the intellectual, just\nthe opposite of modern ideals of culture and education. There is nothing\nin the position of James to justify the Spanish Inquisition, for\ninstance. The persecutor has often consoled himself with the thought\nthat he is doing his victim\u2019s soul a real service by rescuing him from\nhis error.\n\nCertainly, if one is pure, it is easier for him to be peaceable,\nprovided he also loves. \u201cIf it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be\nat peace with all men\u201d (Rom. 12:18). There is a great deal in the New\nTestament on the subject of peace. It is true that Jesus said, \u201cI came\nnot to bring peace, but a sword\u201d (Matt. 10:34), when men are wedded to\nsin and can only be shaken loose by the sword of truth. But there are\nthose who let the peace of God rule in their hearts as umpire (Col.\n3:15). We are to pursue the things of peace (Rom. 14:19) as men of peace\nbut not to be afraid to stand up for truth and righteousness (purity),\neven if we have to fight.\n\nThen \u201cgentle,\u201d \u201cforbearing\u201d (Hort). The word is used by Thucydides\n(viii. 93) of men who will listen to reason, and (i. 76) of moderation,\nlike the Latin _clementia_. Originally the word meant what was fitting,\nfair, reasonable, but it was also associated with the idea of yielding,\n\u201cimplying one who does not stand on his rights, but is ready to give way\nto the wishes of others\u201d (Mayor). Matthew Arnold gathered the idea into\nhis phrase \u201csweet reasonableness.\u201d Aristotle (vi. 11) uses it of the\nforgiving man, one who does not stand on strict justice but who listens\nto merciful consideration. Certainly gentleness is the true mark of the\ngentleman who does not stickle over little points, who, in a word, is\nconsiderate.\n\nThe Christian wisdom, therefore, does not like to give pain. Paul makes\nan appeal \u201cby the meekness and gentleness of Christ\u201d (2 Cor. 10:1). See\nalso Acts 24:4; 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 3:2; 1 Peter 2:18 (gentle masters);\nand in particular, Philippians 4:5: \u201cLet your forbearance be known unto\nall men.\u201d It means the very essence of fairness as opposed to\nunreasonableness (Ps. Sol. 5:14). Compare Paul\u2019s panegyric on love (1\nCor. 13).\n\nIt is also \u201ceasy to be entreated,\u201d \u201cconciliatory\u201d (Moffatt). The word is\na common one for military discipline (4 Macc. 8:6; Jos. War ii. 20,7),\nthough it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. As \u201cgentle\u201d\nrefers usually to one in a superior position, so this word is used\nmainly of one in an inferior rank (Mayor). The good soldier is the one\nwho has learned how to execute orders. Philo employs it as the opposite\nof the disobedient. It is _tractabilis_, not _morosa_. The Vulgate has\n_suadibilis_. It is a word in common use about children, pupils, all who\nobey laws. If preachers were always gentle, perhaps the church members\nwould be more docile and teachable. This wisdom from above is _suaviter\nin modo, fortiter in re_.\n\nIt is also \u201cfull of mercy and good fruits.\u201d This is just the reverse of\nthe party feeling already condemned. Mercy is the active principle of\ncompassionate love. One may note already 1:8, 27; 2:13 in contrast with\n2:15. This wisdom bears good (\u201cwholesome,\u201d Moffatt) fruits, not mere\nleaves (empty boasting). The plural (fruits) shows that there is variety\nand abundance for all. It is not satisfied with abstract virtue but\nwishes to bless others.\n\nThis wisdom is likewise \u201cwithout variance,\u201d \u201cunambiguous\u201d (Moffatt). The\nword occurs nowhere else in the New Testament and has puzzled\ntranslators a great deal. It is rendered \u201cwithout wrangling,\u201d \u201cwithout\njudging,\u201d \u201cwithout partiality,\u201d \u201cwithout distinctions,\u201d \u201cundoubted,\u201d\n\u201cwithout feigning,\u201d \u201cwithout doubtfulness,\u201d \u201cundecided,\u201d \u201cunhesitating,\u201d\n\u201cunwavering,\u201d \u201csingle-minded.\u201d The Vulgate has _non judicans_.\n\nSomething can be said for all these renderings. The context must\ndecide.[82] If one considers the use of the verb in James 1:6 and 2:4,\nprobably the idea of decision is the true one here. It is wholehearted\nconviction, positiveness in adherence to the truth, single-minded\ndevotion rather than the wavering indecision of false wisdom. It is\nPrincipal Forsyth\u2019s idea of \u201cPositive Preaching\u201d for the modern mind.\n\nIt is finally \u201cwithout hypocrisy,\u201d[83] \u201cstraightforward\u201d (Moffatt). Here\nthere is no ambiguity as to the import of the word. It is not the\nhypocritical wisdom of earth, the spurious invitation, but the genuine\narticle. It is sincere, \u201cwithout show or pretence\u201d (Mayor). The word is\nused of love (Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6), of faith (1 Tim. 1:5), of\nbrotherly love (1 Peter 1:22). The idea here concerns our relations with\nmen as the preceding adjective outlined our attitude toward God (Hort).\nThis wisdom has the ring of pure gold and passes at par value with all\nmen. Surely such wisdom as this will always be in demand by modern men\nwho love reality and hate pretense.\n\n\n The Harvest of Righteousness (3:18)\n\nIn this verse James gathers up the sum and substance of all that he has\nhad to say so far. He has just spoken of peace and of good fruits. He\nhas been insisting on righteous deeds and not mere words, upon a live\nfaith, not a dead creed. \u201cAnd the fruit of righteousness is sown in\npeace for them that make peace.\u201d \u201cAnd the peacemakers who sow in peace\nreap righteousness\u201d (Moffatt). The fruit is righteousness (genitive of\napposition). The figure of sowing is common enough. It is the slow\nprocess of soil, seed, plant, blossom, fruit, harvest.\n\nThis is the life of piety (wisdom) that James lays before his readers.\nThe phraseology occurs elsewhere (Psalm 1:3). Thus Proverbs 11:30: \u201cThe\nfruit of the righteous is a tree of life.\u201d So in Amos 6:12 we have\n\u201cfruit of righteousness.\u201d In the New Testament note Philippians 1:11,\n\u201cfilled with the fruits of righteousness,\u201d and Hebrews 12:11, \u201cpeaceable\nfruit.\u201d There is a difficulty here in the fact that the fruit instead of\nthe seed is sown. But such a prolepsis of thought is not unknown, as in\nPsalm 97:11: \u201cLight is sown for the righteous.\u201d The sower sows in peace,\nand the harvest of righteousness is gathered in peace. The peacemaker\nhas the rainbow promise of his harvest in due time if he does not faint\nnor grow weary. \u201cThey who make peace show likeness to God, the great\nmaker of peace\u201d (Hort).\n\n\n\n\n X\n The Outer and the Inner Life\n\n\nOesterley thinks it inconceivable that 4:1-12 could have been addressed\nto Jewish churches at an early date, while they were still in the fresh\nglow of the new faith in Christ. He says, \u201cThese verses reveal an\nappalling state of moral depravity in these _Diaspora_ congregations;\nstrife, self-indulgence, lust, murder, covetousness, adultery, envy,\npride and slander are rife; the conception of the nature of prayer seems\nto have been altogether wrong among these people, and they appear to be\ngiven over wholly to a life of pleasure. It must have been terrible for\nthe writer to contemplate such a sink of iniquity.\u201d\n\nYes, but James does not say that _all_ the Christians were guilty of\nthese sins. It was bad enough without overstating the situation.\nBesides, we have the state of affairs in the church at Corinth to guide\nus as to the possibility of sins in a young church, and the state of\naffairs among the Galatian churches is not much better (cf. \u201cso soon\ndeparting\u201d). Covetousness and strife early appear in the church in\nJerusalem, as we know from Acts 4 and 5. Reaction comes only too\nswiftly, as is noted after all great revivals; for instance, the years\nfollowing the Welsh revival. Within a year or two after Paul left\nThessalonica discipline was sorely needed in the church there, as we\nknow from 1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n\nThe Gentile world was given over to immorality of all sorts, and Judaism\nwas deadened with formalism. It was no easy task to make real spiritual\nlife grow in such an atmosphere. And yet this is precisely what\nChristianity undertakes to do. Jesus came that men might have life,\nspiritual vitality, and might have it abundantly (John 10:10; 20:31).\nJames is chiefly concerned that his readers may share in this new life\nin Christ and may show the inner reality by the outward expression. He\nnever gets away from this central conception of Christianity. The\nappearance of sin in hideous forms among the followers of Jesus stirs\nJames to intense indignation. Mayor notes that the severity of tone in\nthis paragraph is accented by the absence of \u201cbrothers.\u201d\n\n\n The Origin of War (4:1-2a)\n\nJames makes frequent use of the rhetorical question, as here when he\nboldly demands the origin of the strife among the churches of the\nDiaspora: \u201cWhence come wars and whence come fightings among you?\u201d This\nuse of question gives life to style and is the mark of a good teacher.\nNote also the repetition of \u201cwhence,\u201d which gives added piquancy. In the\nEpistle of Clement of Rome (xlvi) to the church at Corinth (about A.D.\n97) he seems to refer to this passage in James, where he asks:\n\u201cWherefore are these strifes and wraths, and factions and divisions, and\nwar among you?\u201d Basically, ecclesiastical strife does not differ in\norigin and spirit from wars between nations. Sometimes there is even\nmore bitterness. Certainly no wars have been fiercer than the so-called\n\u201creligious\u201d wars of history.\n\nIt does seem like irony that the two world wars should have come after\nso many years of growth of the peace sentiment in the world. But\nChristianity is on the side of peace, and Christians must keep up the\nfight for peace. Jesus left a legacy of peace for individuals and for\nnations who win it: \u201cMy peace I give unto you\u201d (John 14:27). There has\nappeared one evidence of a better public opinion in the fact that in the\nwar each nation sought to justify itself in the eyes of the world as not\nthe aggressor but as being on the defensive. This apology is some\nconcession, at least to enlightened Christian sentiment, which\nultimately will banish war from the earth along with slavery, alcohol,\nthe brothel, and other agencies of the devil.\n\nMeanwhile, James occupies the standpoint of the Christian optimist, who\nfights for the highest and the best. So Simon Peter writes: \u201cBeloved, I\nbeseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts,\nwhich war against the soul\u201d (1 Peter 2:11). We need not press the\ndistinction between wars and fightings, though the first means a state\nof war and the lasting resentment connected with it, while the second\nrefers to battles or outbursts of passion which occur during a state of\nwar. James does not, of course, here refer to wars between nations but\nto the factional bickerings in the churches, the personal wrangles that\nembitter church life. \u201cAmong you,\u201d he adds, to drive the question home.\n\nJames answers his first question by a second. \u201cCome they not hence, even\nof your pleasures that war in your members?\u201d James sees an intimate\nconnection between strife and laxity of life. The case of the church at\nCorinth is a point where factional divisions and gross immorality\nflourished together. Plato (Phaedo 66) says: \u201cWars and factions, and\nfightings have no other source than the body and its lusts. For it is\nfor the getting of wealth that all our wars arise, and we are compelled\nto get wealth because of our body, to whose service we are slaves.\u201d\n\nJames and Plato agree therefore in finding the origin of war in the\nlusts of the body, but they differ in their opinion as to how to treat\nthe body. Plato exhorts neglect and scorn of the body, while James urges\nthe victory of the spirit over the body. \u201cPlato has no idea that the\nbody may be sanctified here and glorified hereafter; he regards it\nsimply as a necessary evil, which may be minimized by watchfulness, but\nwhich can in no way be turned into a blessing\u201d (Plummer).\n\nThe source of all war (private and public) is \u201cthe pleasures that war in\nyour members.\u201d The same word for \u201cwar\u201d between the fleshly desires\noccurs in 1 Peter 2:11, and in Romans 7:23 Paul uses it of the conflict\nbetween the two laws of his nature. The word for \u201cpleasure\u201d does not\nnecessarily mean sensual pleasures but that which is sweet and leads to\nsinful strife (like ambition, love of money or power). In Titus 3:3 Paul\ncombines both words, \u201clusts and pleasures.\u201d[84] \u201cThe potential pleasure\nseated in each member constitutes a hostile force, a foe lying in ambush\nagainst which we have continually to be on our guard\u201d (Mayor).\n\nIn the _Letter of Aristeas_[85] the question is asked: \u201cWhy do not the\nmajority of men receive virtue?\u201d The answer is given: \u201cBecause all are\nnaturally without self-control and are bent on pleasures.\u201d It must be\nsaid that the philosophy of hedonism in this sense of the term has a\npowerful hold upon the average man. Buddha said trouble came of desire.\n\nIt is not an inspiring picture that James here draws, and one would like\nto believe that he has a wider outlook than the Christian community when\nhe names his bill of particulars. \u201cYe lust, and have not: ye kill, and\ncovet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war.\u201d Here Westcott and Hort make\na full stop in their text, and this is probably correct.\n\nThe presence of \u201ckill\u201d before \u201ccovet\u201d gives a great deal of trouble to\nthe commentators, who find it an anticlimax. Mayor urges the\nsubstitution of \u201cenvy\u201d for \u201ckill,\u201d but there is no manuscript authority\nfor it, and the difficulty is not really mended. Hort has the most\nprobable solution by this punctuation: \u201cYe covet, and have not: ye\ncommit murder. And ye envy, and cannot attain: ye fight and war.\u201d At any\nrate, the humiliating fact remains that lust, covetousness, envy,\nfighting, and murder are here charged against some of the readers of the\nepistle.\n\nIt looks as if some of them held to the view that they were entitled to\nall that they could grasp, that Providence was on the side of the\nheaviest battalions, that might constituted right. \u201cLust\u201d is here used\nin the most general sense, like \u201ccovet.\u201d The failure to find\nsatisfaction leads to jealousy, fighting, war, and even murder.\nCovetousness leads to fights with individuals and nations. Lust in the\nnarrow sense and murder are common partners. The fight is on in every\nman\u2019s life against all that is low and mean. He can keep a pure life\nonly by living the victorious life. There is also the common oppression\nof the poor by the greedy and grasping in all the ages. \u201cNo man shall\ntake the mill or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man\u2019s\nlife to pledge\u201d (Deut. 24:6). So Sirach (34:21 f.) says: \u201cHe that taketh\naway his neighbour\u2019s living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the\nlabourer of his hire is a blood-shedder.\u201d The opposite of all this\npitiful business is seen in the nobility of love as portrayed in 1\nCorinthians 13.\n\n\n Asking Amiss (4:2b-3)\n\nThe latter part of verse 2 is a puzzle to the commentators: \u201cYe have\nnot, because ye ask not.\u201d Oesterley (following Carr) thinks that we have\na string of poetical quotations (_stromateis_), \u201cnot very skilfully\nstrung together.\u201d Mayor takes it as a mere repetition of \u201cye lust, and\nhave not\u201d and says that it is not a further step. But surely James does\nnot mean to say that the one reason why the impulses to lust,\ncovetousness, envy, fighting, and murder are not gratified is that men\ndo not pray so as to carry their point with God and man! That would make\nprayer a travesty and God a puppet of man\u2019s evil desires.\n\nI must believe that this sentence belongs to verse 3 in thought and\nshould be so punctuated. We must always bear in mind that the original\nGreek text had no punctuation and that we are at liberty to punctuate\n_de novo_ if the context demands it. There is, no doubt, a backward look\nin \u201cye have not,\u201d but in reality James here starts a new topic, that of\nprayer. There is a delicate hint in the use of the middle voice here\nthat they had not put their hearts into their prayers.[86] \u201cYe ask\u201d with\nthe mere form of words and naturally \u201creceive not,\u201d \u201cbecause ye ask\namiss,\u201d \u201cwrongly,\u201d as in John 18:23.\n\nTheir prayers are vitiated by the evil purpose, \u201cthat ye may spend it in\nyour pleasures,\u201d \u201cwith the wicked intention of spending it on your\npleasures\u201d (Moffatt). Even Epictetus (Cod. Vat. 3) says of the gods:\n\u201cAnd then shall they give to thee the good things when thou rejoicest\nnot in pleasure, but in virtue.\u201d How often we all miss it in prayer! We\nask for what we should not, staking our judgment against that of God. We\nask with a spirit of rebellion and not of subjection to the will of God\n(4:7). We ask, not for the glory of God nor for the blessing of others,\nbut for the gratification of our own selfish pleasures, even when the\nthings asked for are good in themselves.\n\nWe may even get to the point where we dare ask God for what is not good\nin itself. \u201cNo asking from God which takes place in a wrong frame of\nmind towards him or towards the object asked has anything to do with\nprayer. It is an evil asking\u201d (Hort). God cannot be made a private asset\nto further our own selfish interests or to serve the wicked world (cf. 1\nTim. 6:4 f.). \u201cIf we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us\u201d\n(1 John 5:14). The word in James for \u201cspend\u201d means to consume, to waste,\nto dissipate. It is used of the prodigal son who \u201cspent all\u201d (Luke\n15:14).\n\nPrayer is probably the poorest of all our spiritual exercises. It should\nbe the most constant and the most helpful. It calls for searching of\nheart and all sincerity. It is right and proper to pray for our daily\nbread (Matt. 6:11), provided we do our daily tasks so as to earn our\ndaily bread. God does not mean prayer to be a substitute for work. Trust\nis not anxiety (Matt. 6:31), but it is also not presumption. The use of\nthe name of Jesus does not cause the door of grace to spring open for us\nunless we first put ourselves under the rule of Jesus.\n\n\n The Friendship of the World (4:4)\n\nThe words \u201cadulterers and\u201d of the Authorized Version are not genuine,\noccurring in late documents. The sudden outburst of \u201cye adulteresses,\u201d\n\u201cwanton creatures\u201d (Moffatt), leaves one in doubt whether James is\nsingling out one special form of sin so common in the world (Hort) or is\nusing the word in the figurative sense (Mayor) so frequent in the Old\nTestament for the sin of idolatry (cf. Psalm 73:27; Ezek. 23:27; Hos.\n2:2; Isa. 57). Jesus denounced his age in Palestine as \u201can evil and\nadulterous generation\u201d (Matt. 12:39). It will make good sense with\neither interpretation.\n\nOesterley argues that \u201cthe depraved state of morals to which the whole\nsection bears witness must, in part at least, have been due to the\nwickedness and co-operation of the women, so that there is nothing\nstrange in their being specifically mentioned in connection with that\nform of sin with which they would be more particularly associated.\u201d Such\na sin ought not, to be sure, to be found among Christians, but 1\nCorinthians 5 shows how early it appeared in the church in Corinth, a\npeculiarly licentious city.\n\nThe pressure of the easygoing, laissez-faire life of the world on this\npoint is hard upon true Christians in all the ages. It is not merely\nthat a double standard of morals is claimed by men of the world for\nthemselves, though denied to their own wives, but they are aggressive\nagainst the virtue of the daughters and wives of other men. This agelong\nevil is condoned even by women of the world who are clean themselves, in\na blind surrender to the fact that men seem to be hopelessly evil.\n\nIf the word \u201cadulteresses\u201d is here taken literally, as is probable,\nJames makes a bold appeal to women of pleasure to cease from sin and to\nlet God rule in their lives. It is surely worthwhile to make such an\nappeal even to those who seem to be hopelessly abandoned to the evil\nworld. But it is pre-eminently worthwhile to seek to warn, and to\nprevent from ruin, the young men and women of our day. \u201cKnow ye not,\u201d\nsays James with heat, \u201cthat the friendship of the world is enmity with\nGod?\u201d Pastors sometimes find men and women living in adultery and\ncomplacently keeping up their church connections. James means to show\nthe utter inconsistency of such a course of conduct.\n\nBut if \u201cadulteresses\u201d is taken in the figurative sense, there is still\nthe friendship of the world that is enmity with God. The friendship of\nthe world is preferred to that of God. \u201cWorld\u201d[87] here is not the earth\nwith all its beauty and charm (God\u2019s world made by him; cf. Psalm 19),\nnor mankind, for whom Christ died (John 3:16), but that world of selfish\npleasure and sin out of which Christ called his disciples and which in\nturn hated them as it hated Christ (John 15:18 ff.). This world will\nonly love as a familiar friend those who cater to its ideals and\nstandards, who condone its slackness of morals and neglect of God.\n\nThis cleavage between the wayward, wicked world and the kingdom of God\nis a fact of the utmost significance (John 17:15 ff.). The Christian has\nto learn the secret of living in such a worldly atmosphere without being\ncontaminated by it. One does not wish to be considered a religious crank\nand queer. He desires to have influence with his friends and business\nacquaintances. But one cannot be a \u201chail fellow well met\u201d in sin and\nevery form of worldly indulgence and retain his influence for God. The\ntime comes when a choice must be made between friends, for that sort of\nlife in the world becomes incompatible with friendship with God. One\nmust make his choice. \u201cIf any man love the world, the love of the Father\nis not in him\u201d (1 John 2:15). One cannot run with the hare and the\nhounds. The devil makes no objection to such a double life of hypocrisy,\nbut God does. God is gracious and forgiving to sinners who repent but\nhas no mercy for presumptuous sinners who defy his kindness and keep in\ntouch with the devil and his circles of evil.\n\nThe word \u201cenmity\u201d is the term for personal hostility. Preference for sin\nconstitutes a personal offense toward God, who can have no rival, any\nmore than a true wife can suffer a rival in the affections of her\nhusband. \u201cThe mind of the flesh is enmity against God\u201d (Rom. 8:7). One\nmust make his choice. \u201cNo man can serve two masters: for either he will\nhate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and\ndespise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon\u201d (Matt. 6:24). Plummer\nargues clearly that James does not condemn the scientist\u2019s love of\nnature or the sociologist\u2019s enthusiasm, which is not always shared in by\npreachers as much as is desirable.\n\nPreaching often is so given to denunciation of sin that it fails to\nexalt the possibilities of the right sort of manhood. It thus repels the\nvery men that it wishes to attract. So far from that, love for man is\none of the main proofs of love for God (1 John 4:20). The passion for\nthe souls of men is the true mark of the redeemed. Paul (Titus 2:12)\nurges that \u201cdenying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live ...\ngodly in this present world\u201d (or \u201cage\u201d more exactly). \u201cWhosoever\ntherefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of\nGod,\u201d \u201cwhoever, then, chooses to be the world\u2019s friend turns enemy to\nGod\u201d (Moffatt).\n\nA person makes his choice as he is able to do by the exercise of his own\nwill and purpose. But once and finally made, he renders himself _ipso\nfacto_ an enemy to God. There is no help for it so long as God is really\nthe God of purity and righteousness. Josephus calls Poppea, the infamous\nwife of Nero and proselyte to Judaism, a worshiper of God (_Ant._ xx. 8.\n11), but surely such \u201cworship\u201d was not acceptable to God. James (2:23)\nhas termed Abraham \u201cthe friend of God,\u201d but he entered into that\nrelation to God on terms of obedience to God as Lord. On no other terms\nis friendship with God possible. It is not a question of one\u2019s feelings\nbut of the actual state of affairs. \u201cTo be on terms of friendship with\nthe world involves living on terms of enmity with God\u201d (Hort).\n\nThe word \u201cfriendship\u201d does not itself occur elsewhere in the New\nTestament, though it is found several times in Proverbs; but the words\n\u201cfriend\u201d and to \u201clove as a friend\u201d are common enough. Gildersleeve\n(_Justin Martyr_, p. 135) notes that Xenophon uses the two verbs for\nlove as synonymous. But in the New Testament there is a distinction\ndrawn in John 21:15-17. The one is the \u201cdeeper\u201d and richer word, while\nthe other is the \u201cmore human.\u201d[88] Certainly one has no right to claim\nintimate family relationship with God as his friend while at the same\ntime living in adulterous relations with the sinful world that hates\nGod. The \u201cseductions of the world\u201d (Plummer) are very real and very\nmany, but surrender to them is not constant with the fellowship of God.\nThe law of spiritual life is not always understood. Some men wonder why\nthey are not spiritually happy, why they do not enjoy religion. They are\nliving in sin with the world and yet marvel at their lack of communion\nwith God.\n\n\n The Yearning of the Spirit for Us (4:5 f.)\n\n\u201cOr think ye?\u201d says James, as the alternative. Either the friendship of\nthe world is enmity with God or you think \u201cthat the scripture speaketh\nin vain.\u201d \u201cWhat, do you consider this an idle word of Scripture?\u201d\n(Moffatt). This rhetorical question expects an indignant denial.\nTherefore, the argument holds that the friendship of the world is enmity\nwith God. But what is the Scripture? Is it only the passage in verse 6\nthat is referred to? The punctuation of the Revised Version allows that.\nWe have two questions before the one quotation. But it may be that the\ngeneral sense of Scripture is meant by the first question. Usually \u201cthe\nScripture\u201d occurs before a direct quotation, as in Romans 4:3.\n\nSome would take the rest of verse 5 after the first question as a\nquotation, although no such quotation occurs in the Old Testament. The\ngeneral sense appears in various parts of the Old Testament, as in\nExodus 20:5: \u201cI am the Lord thy God, a jealous God.\u201d Compare Isaiah\n63:8-16; Zechariah 8:2. Oesterley even sees a direct allusion to\nGalatians 5:17, 21; Romans 8:6, 8; 1 Corinthians 3:16, and an argument\nfor the late date of the Epistle of James. But this is forcing the\nmatter rather stiffly. The New Testament writers seem to have used\nchains of quotations (catenae) as, for instance, in Romans 3:10-18. Paul\nprobably makes a free paraphrase of Isaiah 64:4 in 1 Corinthians 2:9,\nand of Isaiah 60:1-2 in Ephesians 5:14. Either this is what is done\nhere, or James is already referring to verse 6, a quotation from\nProverbs 3:34.\n\nIt is not necessary to take the second sentence in verse 5 as a\nquestion. We may follow the margin: \u201cThe spirit which he made to dwell\nin us he yearneth for even unto jealous envy,\u201d or \u201cwith jealousy doth He\nyearn after the spirit which he causeth to dwell in us\u201d (Hort), or \u201cHe\nyearns jealously for the spirit he set within us\u201d (Moffatt). In one case\n(the question) we take \u201cthe Spirit\u201d as a subject and as the Holy Spirit.\nIn the other case (the affirmation) we take \u201cspirit\u201d as object and as\nour redeemed spirit planted in us by God (cf. Rom. 8:4-16 for both\nideas). In either rendering it is the Spirit of God (cf. Rom. 8:9) who\ndwells in us and helps us strive against the evil forces of the world in\nour own hearts.\n\nGod has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts (Gal. 4:6), who\nhelps us in the fight with the flesh (Gal. 5:16-26). It is the doctrine\nof the indwelling Spirit of God, a very precious doctrine in the New\nTestament (John 7:39; 16:7; Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:17;\n4:30). The Spirit of God has made his home in us. This is our glory and\nour hope.\n\nThe word for \u201cyearn\u201d is a very strong one. It is the verb in Psalm 42:1:\n\u201cAs the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after\nthee, O God.\u201d Peter uses it of the longing of newborn babes after the\nsincere milk of the word (1 Peter 2:2). So Paul yearns after the\nPhilippians (1:8).\n\nThere are many interpretations and many ways of punctuating the words\n\u201cunto jealous envy\u201d or \u201cwith jealousy.\u201d We may not tarry over them.\nProbably the idea is that the Holy Spirit covets our souls. He does not\nwish the devil to have us. Usually this word for jealous envy has a bad\nsense, but the context here makes it clear. God is a jealous God. He can\nbrook no rival in our hearts. God wishes the whole of our heart\u2019s love,\nnot just a part. He claims the rights of a loving husband to all our\nheart\u2019s devotion. In our hours of doubt and weakness \u201cthe Spirit himself\nmaketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered\u201d (Rom.\n8:26). We may thank God that he is a jealous God for his people Israel.\nHe broods over his children with a mother\u2019s love, longing for their\ngrowth and development.\n\n\u201cBut he giveth more grace\u201d (literally, \u201cgreater grace\u201d), \u201cyet he gives\ngrace more and more\u201d (Moffatt). The words \u201cgiveth grace\u201d come from the\nquotation following (Prov. 3:34). The effect of this jealous affection\non God\u2019s part is not to abandon us but to heap more and richer favors\nupon us. God demands of us wholehearted surrender and service, but he\npours out the wealth of his love upon us. \u201cGod resisteth the proud, but\ngiveth grace to the humble.\u201d\n\nThis Septuagint quotation (see also 1 Peter 5:5) is a free translation\nof the idea in the Hebrew text. It is the striking figure of God\nstanding in the way, across the path of the proud man who carries his\nhead so high above others. He will in due time be brought low. Pride\ngoes before a fall, for God is to be met along that road (cf. Acts 18:6;\nRom. 13:2). The man of the world feels no need of God and feels secure\nand serene. But he reckons without his Host. God shows favor to the\nhumble (cf. the contrast in 1:10).\n\nThe proud men think themselves the monopolists (Hort) of divine favor,\nbut they find out sooner or later that they are passed by in favor of\nthe man with lowliness of spirit and nobility of life, who makes God,\nnot the world, the Lord of his life. This man God honors with far more\ngrace than the world can offer. He will have trouble (\u201cwith\npersecutions\u201d), no doubt, \u201cbut he shall receive a hundredfold now in\nthis time,\u201d while \u201cin the world to come eternal life\u201d (Mark 10:29 f.).\nThe prince in God\u2019s kingdom and at his court is not the man who wears\nthe trappings of earthly rank and station but the one who caught the\nspirit of Jesus and sought to do good to all as he found opportunity.\nPlummer wonders if James had not heard his mother recite the Magnificat.\nCertainly he here echoes the same beautiful spirit.\n\n\n Choice Between God and the Devil (4:7-8a)\n\nIt comes to this, that a man must decide whether or not God is to rule\nhis life. It is self or God, and that is the same thing as the devil or\nGod, for a self without God is ruled by the devil. \u201cBe subject therefore\nunto God,\u201d since, as James has shown in verse 6, God gives grace to the\nhumble and withstands the proud. \u201cThe proud spirit has to be curbed\u201d\n(Oesterley). Peter has expanded this idea in a great passage (1 Peter\n5:6-9). Our only hope is under the leadership of God. The devil is the\n\u201cprince of the world\u201d (John 14:30), and he has plenty of help in the\nworld rulers of darkness (Eph. 6:11 f.). The proud and self-willed are\nsure to fall into his condemnation (1 Tim. 3:6).\n\n\u201cBut resist the devil.\u201d Take your stand (note the aorist tense) in the\nface of the devil, the great hinderer and slanderer. The fight is on\nbetween the forces of God and Satan, and one must take sides. A man once\nsaid that he wished to be impartial in the struggle between God and the\ndevil. That species of liberality is out of the question. He that is not\nwith Christ is against him. There is no middle ground.\n\nJames does not stop to parley over the existence of the devil. He\nassumes the reality of the dread agent of evil, who is bent on the\ndestruction of all that is good in man. The point to see clearly is that\nthere is but one thing to do, and that is to fight the devil, not with\nfire but with the word of God, with the help of the Spirit of God. \u201cGet\nthee hence, Satan,\u201d Jesus had to say (Matt. 4:10). \u201cAnd he will flee\nfrom you.\u201d The devil will run if we fight him with the might of God. One\nway to submit to God is to fight off the devil.\n\nBut it is not all negative. The converse is true also. \u201cDraw nigh to\nGod, and he will draw nigh to you.\u201d The Hebrew had a technical term for\ndrawing nigh to God for the purpose of worship (Ex. 19:22; Jer. 30:21).\nIt is not true that the devil is irresistible and it is useless to\noppose him (Plummer). This is one of the pleas of the devil himself to\nbreak down the resisting power of the human will and so to take all\nfight out of us. The principle that James here announces is true to\nScripture, to psychology, and to human experience. If we draw nigh to\nthe devil, he will draw nigh to us. If we resist him, he will flee from\nus. If we resist God, even God will finally depart from us and leave us\nto our sins. If we approach God in worship, he opens his heart to us.\n\u201cReturn unto me, and I will return unto you\u201d (Zech. 1:3). \u201cTo this end\nwas the Son of man manifested, that he might destroy the works of the\ndevil\u201d (1 John 3:8). \u201cThe Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him\u201d\n(Psalm 145:18, AV). God first draws nigh unto us (John 16:16), and when\nwe respond, lo, he is there before us. The place of safety and of power\nfor the Christian is the throne of grace. There he has a mighty Friend\nand Helper (Heb. 4:16). We can draw close to God, as a child to his\nfather in the dark, and feel his presence.\n\n\n A Call to Repentance (4:8b-10)\n\nHere James speaks like one of the Old Testament prophets. His epistle,\nwhile thoroughly Christian, is yet nearer to the standpoint of the Old\nTestament prophets than any other book in the New Testament. \u201cCleanse\nyour hands, ye sinners.\u201d The priests washed their hands before they\nentered the tabernacle to worship (Ex. 30:19-21; Lev. 16:4). It was\nnatural for the language to be applied to moral purity: \u201cI will wash my\nhands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O Jehovah\u201d (Psalm\n26:6). See also Hebrews 10:22. So Pilate sought to emphasize his own\nfreedom from guilt by washing his hands (Matt. 27:24), if by so doing he\nmight also soothe his own conscience. It is now as it has always been:\n\u201cWho shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his\nholy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart\u201d (Psalm 24:3 f.,\nAV).\n\nThe clean hands signify little in a moral sense\u2014however desirable for\nsanitary and other reasons\u2014unless the heart is also clean. Indeed, the\nPharisees came to make the cleansing of the hands a substitute for moral\ncleanness (Mark 7:8 ff.). \u201cPurify your hearts, ye doubleminded.\u201d The\nword for purification here is the common one for ceremonial cleansing\n(Ex. 19:10), but the idea is figurative, as in 1 Peter 1:22 and 1 John\n3:3. James seems to refer to Psalm 73:13. \u201cWash you, make you clean\u201d\n(Isa. 1:16). The double-minded (cf. James 1:8) must no longer halt\nbetween two opinions. They must forsake the world and give God the whole\nheart. It is a brave word for reality in religion and against the hollow\nmockery of mere lip service.\n\nIn verse 9 we have a rather unusual exhortation for the New Testament.\nThe word for repentance does not mean sorrow but change of mind and\nlife. The need for a change implies sorrow for the sins of one\u2019s life,\nto be sure. But one may have sorrow and still not change his heart and\nlife. The thing that counts is the change, not the degree of the sorrow.\nBut, certainly, sorrow for sin is appropriate and natural for the sinner\nwho turns away from it. There is certainly room for the appeal to \u201cbe\nafflicted, and mourn, and weep\u201d (all aorists with a note of urgency in\nthe tense). One is reminded of the \u201cwoe\u201d of Jesus in Luke 6:25. We have\nhere a call to the godly sorrow described in 2 Corinthians 7:10. There\nis a time to laugh and a time to mourn; yes, and a time for laughter to\nbe turned to mourning and even for joy to be turned into heaviness, like\nthe poor publican with downcast eyes in the Temple before God (Luke\n18:13). \u201cThe words express the contrast between the loud unseemly gaiety\nof the pleasure-seeker, and the subdued mien and downcast look of the\npenitent\u201d (Oesterley).\n\n\u201cHumble yourselves in the sight of the Lord.\u201d This is the only proper\nattitude for the sinner, whether saved or unsaved. See the same figure\nin 1 Peter 5:6. The proud Pharisee in Luke 18:11 is the picture of all\nthat worship should not be.\n\n\u201cAnd he shall exalt you.\u201d This is the law of grace, as is often stated\nby Jesus: \u201cEvery one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that\nhumbleth himself shall be exalted\u201d (Luke 14:11). But the man that\nhumbles himself before the eye of the Lord must do so because of real\napprehension of his own sin and need of forgiveness, not for the purpose\nof future exaltation to be obtained by momentary self-abnegation. The\ndelicate balance of motives here is preserved. The promise will come\ntrue only if the person really turns to the Lord with sincerity of\nheart. Nothing is more needed today than this prostration before God.\n\n\n Captious Criticism (4:11 f.)\n\nMoffatt places these verses just after 2:13, since this seems to have\nbeen its original place. This is the position also given by Oesterley.\nAnd yet it is quite possible that James here merely recurs to the\nsubject of the loose tongue, as he had already done once (cf. 1:26; 3:2\nff.). See also 5:12. He has one word more on this burning topic, a sort\nof postscript on the tongue, an extremely difficult subject to say the\nlast word about. \u201cSpeak not one against another, brethren.\u201d The tense of\nthe verb (present durative) implies that some of them had been doing\nprecisely this thing.\n\nIt is so easy to \u201ctalk down on one,\u201d to act as critic (cf. Matt. 7:1) of\none\u2019s brother in Christ. We cannot help forming opinions of each other,\nbut we can avoid captious criticism, sharp and needless censure. The\npoint made by James is that this habit assumes the right to judge the\nvery law of God. It is far easier to play the part of critic of the law\nthan to be a doer of the law. Destructive criticism is always the\ncheaper exercise and the more useless. Constructive criticism is more\ncreative and much harder.\n\nThere is one supreme Lawgiver and Judge, \u201che who is able to save and\ndestroy.\u201d This power belongs to God, the Creator (Matt. 10:28; Luke\n6:9), not to man, the creature. The critic of the law prefers to find\nflaws in the law rather than to undertake to obey it. He assumes that he\ncan enact a better law, but it is all assumption. James shows his\nimpatience with such criticism by saying, \u201cBut who art thou that judgest\nthy neighbor?\u201d See Romans 14:4. In common law we are to give every man\nthe benefit of the doubt and to assume his innocence till his guilt is\nproven. But in current speech the sharp tongue follows no such rule of\nreason but creates suspicion and sows hate and strife at every turn.\n\n\n\n\n XI\n God and Business\n\n\nThe arrogance of the sinful heart is clearly shown in 4:13 to 5:6. Such\na heart prefers worldliness to the worship of God (see 4:1-10) and\nflippantly criticizes one\u2019s neighbors with lighthearted satisfaction\nwith self and a positive love of faultfinding (4:11 f.). This easy\narrogance faces the future with unconcern. No look Godward is taken in\nbusiness ventures. James \u201copposes the irreligious sense of travelling\nmerchants\u201d (Windisch). These Jews of the Diaspora had come to have a\nconsiderable part of the business of the Roman Empire. They professed to\nbe servants of God, but in practice they often denied and ignored the\nGod of their fathers.\n\n\n Leaving God Out (4:13-15)\n\nOne may hope that James alludes to the Jewish merchants, not Jewish\nChristians. Certainly those Jewish merchants who became Christians\ncontinued their business, though not in a godless fashion. The merchant\nhas one of the most useful and most honorable of all callings, but it\nseems clear that some of the Jewish merchants had already brought\ndisfavor upon the business by their sharp practices. See Sirach 26:29.\n\u201cA merchant will hardly keep himself from doing wrong; and a huckster\nwill not be declared free from sin.\u201d This piece of moralizing is\nevidently occasioned by some tricks in trade indulged in by Jewish\nmerchants. One is bound to admit that some modern Jews retain some of\nthe same reputation in certain lines of trade.\n\nBut the point that James makes is a peril to Christian merchants also.\nThe keen competition in all kinds of business is a constant temptation\nto violate the Golden Rule and to ignore God as well as the welfare of\none\u2019s customers in order to make money and to meet a rival who is\nunscrupulous in trade. The Christian businessman today can do business\non a high plane. Hustle and enterprise need not condescend to underhand\nmethods. It is a pleasure to note the activity of the Gideons, an\norganization of Christian men who, besides doing other useful things,\nhave placed copies of the Bible in the rooms of most American hotels.\nThese men have not left God out.\n\nIn Palestine the Jews held on to the agricultural life, but in the\nDiaspora they were merchants and bankers. Philo (In Flaccum VIII) gives\na picture of the Jewish merchants and bankers in Alexandria. Josephus\n(Ant. XII, 2-5) alludes to the Jewish traveling merchant about 175 B.C.\nOne of the wonders of history is how the Jews, scattered over the world,\nfinally without a land of their own, have yet by their wits maintained\nthemselves as a race and a religion and have been leaders in business,\nin art, in music, in politics, in literature.\n\n\u201cCome now, ye that say\u201d is the impatient challenge of James to those who\nleave God out of account in their plans for the future. The tone of\nimpatience is due to the conviction that one should be so conscious of\nhis own weakness as not to boast about the future. \u201cTo-day or tomorrow\nwe will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get\ngain.\u201d And then we shall move on to the next town and work that with our\nwares, for all the world like a modern \u201cfire sale\u201d or secondhand\nclothing store with its bankruptcy or fire features. The picture is\ndrawn from life. The use of \u201cthis city\u201d is merely typical, as if James\nwere pointing it out on the map (Mayor), and is more vivid than \u201csuch\nand such a city.\u201d\n\nIn James 1:11 we read that the rich man shall \u201cfade away in his goings,\u201d\nan allusion to the travels of the rich merchants. We see the rapid\nmovements of the Jewish Christians illustrated by the travels of Aquila\nand Priscilla, who came from Rome to Corinth (Acts 18:1 f.), then to\nEphesus (18:18), to Rome again (Rom. 16:3), and back to Ephesus (2 Tim.\n4:19). The phrase \u201cspend a year there\u201d is literally \u201cdo a year there,\u201d\nand the idiom occurs also in Acts 15:33; 20:3 (cf. Prov. 13:23).\n\nThe wide dispersion of the Jews all over the Roman Empire gave them\nbusiness connections that made it easy to get new business and to hold\nthe old trade. The very word here for \u201ctrade\u201d means to travel into a\nregion to get business, just like a modern commercial traveler. Our word\n\u201cemporium\u201d is just this word. The Jews made the very Temple itself \u201ca\nhouse of merchandise.\u201d So then trading implied traveling for business\n(Matt. 22:5).\n\nIn 2 Peter 2:3 a somber light is thrown by this same word: \u201cAnd in\ncovetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you.\u201d\n\u201cAnd get gain.\u201d This is the climax of the whole, the aim of the journeys\nand the trading. \u201cThe frequent conjunctions separate the different items\nof the plan, which are rehearsed thus one by one with manifest\nsatisfaction. The speakers gloat over the different steps of the\nprogramme which they have arranged for themselves\u201d (Plummer). There is\nno harm in planning to make money or in travel for that purpose. The\nharm lies in the complete ignoring of God in all their plans.\n\n\u201cWhereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow,\u201d[89] \u201cyou who know\nnothing about to-morrow\u201d (Moffatt). James has ample authority in this\nstatement. \u201cBoast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a\nday may bring forth\u201d (Prov. 27:1). The prohibition implies a\ncarelessness about the future that grew out of indifference to God.\nThere is a rabbinical saying (_Sanhed._ 100_b_) to this effect: \u201cCare\nnot for the morrow, for ye know not what a day may bring forth.\u201d James\nis condemning those who make their plans for the future with God left\nout, as if all were in their own hands. Jesus spoke the wonderful\nparable of the rich fool for the benefit of two brothers who were\nquarreling over the estate: \u201cSoul, thou hast much goods laid up for many\nyears; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry\u201d (Luke 12:19).\n\nThis was the worldly-wise view of the Cyrenaics and the Epicureans, and\nit is the standpoint of multitudes of modern men who under the influence\nof monism (like Haeckel) deny the existence of a personal God or who act\nas if there were no God (Psalm 14:1). But God replies to the fool, \u201cThou\nfoolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee; and the things\nwhich thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?\u201d Jesus does not\ncontradict this position when he says: \u201cBe not therefore anxious for the\nmorrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the\nday is the evil thereof\u201d (Matt. 6:34). He is here condemning\noveranxiety, that is as distrustful of God as reckless unconcern. There\nis the golden mean of calm trust in God.\n\nWe are not to live in a haphazard manner, without plan or purpose. We\nare to make plans, but we must put God into our preparations. It is\ncowardly to be superstitious in the anticipation of evil. Some people\nknock on wood if they happen to boast a bit. Others are superstitious\nabout the number thirteen, about Friday, about the moon, and a hundred\nother hallucinations. The point with these Jews is not worry or\nsuperstition but irreligion. There are multitudes of practical pagans\ntoday who fear not God nor regard man. They carry on their business with\nno fear of consequences for their evil practices. They wreck a bank or a\nrailroad with equal nonchalance and care not for the suffering caused\nthereby in the homes of the poor.\n\nAs a matter of fact, we are ignorant of the morrow. We do not know the\nweather of the morrow with certainty, in spite of our gauges and\nforecasts. Many railroad accidents are due to the unknown elements in\nthe problems of travel. A faulty rail, a broken tie, a weakened wheel, a\nrolling stone, a careless brakeman, a sleeping switchman, a malicious\nrobber\u2014a hundred and one things may happen, any one of which will cause\ndeath to helpless victims. \u201cThe best laid schemes o\u2019 mice and men gang\naft a-gley.\u201d\n\nThe uncertainty of life is one of the things that a wise man must\nconsider and face. A clot of blood on the brain may cause instant and\nunexpected death. The heart, driven too hard, may suddenly cease to\nbeat. \u201cWhat is your life?\u201d He does not mean manner of life or the life\nprinciple or eternal life. The question concerns all, the good and the\nwicked alike. The question as to the character of life pertains to its\nbrevity and uncertainty on earth. \u201cFor ye are a vapor,\u201d \u201cyou are but a\nmist\u201d (Moffatt). The word is common for smoke, as the \u201csmoke of a\nfurnace\u201d (Gen. 19:28), \u201cvapor of smoke\u201d (Acts 2:19; from Joel 2:30),\nsteam or breath; so our \u201catmosphere.\u201d Job lamented (7:7): \u201cOh remember\nthat my life is a breath.\u201d We are \u201ca vapor that appeareth for a little\ntime, and then vanisheth away.\u201d Aristotle (Hist. An. vi. 7) uses these\ntwo verbs of the appearance and the disappearance of a flock of birds as\nthey sweep across the sky. The usage occurs also of the eclipse of the\nsun. The transitoriness of human life should lead to full and hearty\nrecognition of God, not to careless slighting of him.\n\n\u201cFor that ye ought to say\u201d (more exactly, \u201cinstead of your saying\u201d), \u201cIf\nthe Lord will, we shall both live, and do this or that.\u201d James does not,\nof course, mean that one should always say these words. That gets to be\ncant or mere claptrap. It becomes repellent to hear one use the name of\nGod flippantly and constantly. Besides, it comes to signify little or\nnothing, as one may count his beads or say his Pater Nosters with no\nregard to what he is doing. There should be significance in our acts and\nwords of worship.\n\nThe Jews made a point not to use the name of God too familiarly. They\noften used \u201cthe Name\u201d for God, and Christians came to refer to Christ in\nthe same way, \u201cfor the Name\u201d (Acts 5:41). The late Jews came, perhaps\nunder Mohammedan influence, to use the formula \u201cif the Name wills\u201d when\nabout to start upon a journey (Oesterley). The rabbis (Plummer) have a\nstory of a Jewish father who, at the circumcision of his son, boasts\nthat with seven-year-old wine he would celebrate for a long time the\nbirth of his son. That night Rabbi Simeon meets the Angel of Death and\nasks him, \u201cWhy art thou thus wandering about?\u201d The angel replies:\n\u201cBecause I slay those who say, \u2018We will do this or that,\u2019 and think not\nhow soon death may come upon them.\u201d\n\nThe thing that matters is for us to have the right attitude of heart\ntoward God, not the chattering of a formula. God does not have to be\npropitiated by a charm or amulet. God should be the silent partner in\nall our plans and work, to be consulted, to be followed whenever his\nwill is made known. Paul frequently spoke of his plans, sometimes\nmentioning God, as in Acts 18:21 (God willing), 1 Corinthians 4:19 (if\nthe Lord will), and 1 Corinthians 16:7 (if the Lord permit); but also\nwith no mention of God in words, as in Acts 19:21; Romans 15:28; 1\nCorinthians 16:5. But always Paul felt that his movements were \u201cin the\nLord,\u201d as in Philippians 2:24. He never left God out of his life.\nIndeed, he practiced the presence of God.\n\n\n Conscious Opposition (4:16)\n\nIt is bad enough to ignore God, as so many men do. A slight is almost as\nhard to bear as an insult. However, a positive refusal to do God\u2019s known\nwill is worse. \u201cBut now,\u201d as is really the case (cf. 1 Cor. 14:6), \u201cBut\nhere you are\u201d (Moffatt), instead of your trust in God, \u201cye glory in your\nvauntings.\u201d In their pride of life (1 John 2:16) they practically defied\nGod. The word meant originally a wanderer about the country, a vagabond,\na Scottish landlouper, a swaggerer, an imposter, a braggart. In Job\n41:34 we find the \u201csons of pride.\u201d \u201cAnd I exalted not myself in\narrogance\u201d (Test. Joseph XVII, 8). And Jesus said, \u201cI am among you as he\nthat serveth\u201d (Luke 22:27, AV).\n\nThese men were exalting themselves at the expense of God. They were\nrunning against the known will of God. One of the rabbis says, \u201cIt is\nrevealed and known before Thee that our will is to do Thy will\u201d\n(_Berachoth_, 17_a_). \u201cAll such glorying is evil,\u201d says James. It is not\nwicked per se to boast (cf. 1:9), but such boasting as mentioned is\nwicked. It is not impossible to know the will of God if one will pay the\nprice. \u201cIf any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the\nteaching, whether it is of God\u201d (John 7:17). The way opens to the one\nwho is willing to put God to the test. \u201cThe boaster forgets that life\ndepends on the will of God\u201d (Mayor).\n\n\n Negative Sin (4:17)\n\nIn a way this verse is a summary of the entire epistle (cf. 1:22; 2:14;\n3:1, 13; 4:11). Hence James\u2019s \u201ctherefore\u201d is quite in point. Moffatt\nplaces this verse at the end of chapter 2. Spitta, however, finds no\nconnection in the context and takes it as a familiar quotation. This may\nindeed be a reference to the words of Jesus in Luke 12:47: \u201cThat\nservant, who knew his lord\u2019s will, and made not ready, nor did according\nto his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.\u201d There is an excusable\nignorance or at least a mollifying ignorance (cf. Luke 12:48; Acts 3:17;\n1 Tim. 1:13). There is palliation for unconscious sins. But James is\ndealing with failure to obey the will of God. It is conscious and wilful\nsin, but of the negative kind.\n\nThese sins of omission (_peccata omissionis_) are treated lightly by\nmany people. The Talmud in general takes this easy position on the\nsubject. Oesterley quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (_Yoma_ viii, 6) on\nZephaniah 1:12: \u201cI will search Jerusalem with candles, and I will punish\nthe men,\u201d which adds: \u201cnot by daylight, nor with the torch, but with\ncandles, so as not to detect venial sins.\u201d But he adds this also\n(_Shabbath_, 54_b_): \u201cWhosoever is in a position to prevent sins being\ncommitted in his household, but refrains from doing so, becomes liable\nfor their sins.\u201d And in 1 Samuel 12:23 we read, \u201cGod forbid that I\nshould sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you\u201d (AV).\n\nJesus made it plain that he considered sins of omission as real sins:\n\u201cThese ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone\u201d\n(Matt. 23:23). Hear his tragic words to the deluded sinner at the\njudgment bar: \u201cI was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was\nthirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not\nin; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me\nnot\u201d (Matt. 25:42 f.). The repetition of \u201cnot\u201d here is like the tolling\nof a bell. Hear then James: \u201cTo him therefore that knoweth to do good,\nand doeth it not, to him it is sin.\u201d So also Paul urged the Galatians\nnot to grow weary in doing the good or beautiful (Gal. 6:9).\n\nIt is so easy to shut one\u2019s eyes and not to see the opportunities for\nservice. It is so easy to let prejudice blind us to the needs of the\nreal neighbor, as the priest and the Levite passed by on the other side\nand left the poor wounded man to suffer (Luke 10:31 f.). The point that\nJames is anxious to make is that this blindness is sin. The man who has\nlearned how to do the high and noble deed and then falls short has\ncommitted a sin. It is a heavy indictment that is here drawn against us.\nWe are charged with not coming up to the standard of our highest\nknowledge. Plummer comments pertinently on the Roman Catholic doctrine\nof probabilism, which seeks to excuse the weakness of the flesh and to\njustify a person in his preference of the lower in the presence of the\nhigher. \u201cSo long as it is not certain that the act in question is\nforbidden it may be permitted.\u201d Plummer adds, \u201cThe moral law is not so\nmuch explained as explained away.\u201d Alphonse de Sarasa wrote on \u201cThe Art\nof Perpetual Enjoyment\u201d (_Ars Semper Gaudendi_), a piece of special\npleading for the indulgence of the flesh. \u201cThe good is the enemy of the\nbest,\u201d and the bad is the enemy of the good. Down the steps we go to the\nbottom of the ladder.\n\n\n Tainted Wealth (5:1-3)\n\nOesterley finds proof of the \u201cpatchwork\u201d character of the epistle in the\nfive paragraphs of the closing chapter. But in a \u201cwisdom\u201d book one does\nnot expect direct connection between the paragraphs. That is not true of\nthe practical portions of the Pauline epistles. In the first eleven\nverses of this chapter the eschatological standpoint is occupied,\npossibly that of Jewish eschatology in 1-6 and that of Christian\neschatology in 7-11 (Oesterley). Note \u201cin the last days\u201d in verse 3.\n\nJames is familiar with the prophetic imagery of the messianic times in\napocalyptic style but is very pointed in his courageous indictment of\nthe follies and iniquities of the wicked rich. Johnstone entitles this\nparagraph \u201cthe woes of the wicked rich.\u201d Mayor says, \u201cIt is not the\ncareless worldliness of the bustling trader which is condemned, but the\nmore deadly worldliness of the unjust capitalist or landlord.\u201d In verse\n7 James seems to contrast \u201cthe brethren\u201d with the rich of verses 1-6. It\nis worthwhile to quote Isaiah 33:1: \u201cWoe to thee that spoilest, and thou\nwast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt not\ntreacherously with thee! when thou shalt cease to spoil, thou shalt be\nspoiled; and when thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously, they\nshall deal treacherously with thee\u201d (AV). And Habakkuk 2:9: \u201cWoe to him\nthat getteth an evil gain for his house, that he may set his nest on\nhigh, that he may be delivered from the hand of evil!\u201d Note also the\nbook of Enoch: \u201cWoe to those that build their houses with sin\u201d (94:7);\n\u201cWoe unto you mighty who violently oppress the righteous, for the day of\nyour destruction will come\u201d (96:8).\n\nPerhaps there is an allusion to the words of Jesus against the Pharisees\n(Matt. 23:13-36). The Gospel of Luke is held by some to have an\nEbionitic tendency because it preserves some plain words of Jesus to,\nand about, the rich (6:24; 18:24). But Jesus is not hostile toward the\nrich, for he had friends and followers from the wealthy classes,\nalthough he dealt very squarely and honestly with them. Some Jews held\nthat all the rich were wicked, as some modern socialists and anarchists\ndo. But certainly Jesus did not fawn upon the rich or curry favor with\nthem by flattery or compromise. It is easy to denounce classes of men en\nmasse. It requires perspicacity and courage to discriminate, to be just,\nand to seek to remedy real ills. The rich Jews had already oppressed the\nChristians and made the conditions of life hard.\n\nThe Christians were helpless for any immediate relief. They had little\nor no power in government and had to live in the social and economic\natmosphere created by those hostile to them. It was not a democratic but\nan imperialistic age. In holding out the consolation that rectification\nof these grave evils will take place at the second coming of Christ,\nJames does not mean to condone the present situation or to acquiesce in\nit. But what cannot be cured can be endured.\n\nChristianity has had a long and hard fight in the effort to alleviate\nthe sufferings of the poor. Ofttimes grasping men of money have used the\nvery church itself as a means of oppression instead of an agent of\nblessing. It is a sad state when men and women with real social wrongs\ncome to feel that Christianity is a negative factor in their struggle or\na positive hindrance to success.\n\nJames turns upon these oppressors: \u201cCome now, ye rich, weep and howl for\nyour miseries that are coming upon you.\u201d This \u201ccome now\u201d is like that in\n4:13. \u201cWeep and shriek,\u201d Moffatt has it. The word is an onomatopoetic\nword and is used only of violent grief, as in Isaiah 13:6; 4:31. It does\nnot occur elsewhere in the New Testament. The apocalyptic writings have\na good deal to say about the miseries that were coming upon them (cf.\nJoel 2:10 ff.; Zech. 14:6 ff.; Dan. 12:1). The Gospels connect them also\nwith the Day of the Lord (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13:14-27; Luke 21:9-19).\nPart of the Gospel prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction of\nJerusalem.\n\n\u201cYour riches are corrupted,\u201d \u201cyour wealth lies rotting\u201d (Moffatt). The\nperfect tense presents the state of rottenness. This ill-gotten gain\nwill not keep; it is already putrid. There is such a thing as tainted\nmoney\u2014blood money wrung from the oppressed toilers; money gained by\nfinancial legerdemain (high finance) at the expense of helpless\nstockholders, whose stock is watered for the benefit of the few in\ncontrol; money made out of the souls and bodies of men and women in the\nsaloon and the white slave traffic.\n\nThe ethics of money-making is a large question and a vital one in modern\nlife. It is raised in an acute form by this passage. Christians cannot\nafford to make money by crushing the life out of business rivals on the\njuggernaut principle. The Golden Rule ought to work in business. Christ\nclaims control of money and the making of money. The Christian who acts\non the \u201cbulkhead,\u201d or compartment, principle of life and keeps his money\nin a separate bulkhead into which he does not allow Christ to enter is\ndisloyal to Christ. Christ claims the right of a partner in our\nbusiness, not a silent but an active partner. We are in business with\nChrist and for Christ. The Christian has no right to have rotten riches.\nHe should have clean money, not filthy lucre. Sound money is more than\nmere phrase. Money represents labor, and labor is the sweat of brain and\nbrawn. The gambler cannot offer clean money to God. He has robbed a man\nof his money.\n\n\u201cYour garments are moth-eaten.\u201d We have the prophetic perfect here, and\nJames sees the outcome as a reality in a state of completion. It is a\nvivid picture of fine clothes eaten by moths and full of holes, ruined\nbeyond repair. In the East these rich garments were handed down as\nheirlooms from generation to generation and often formed a considerable\npart of the wealth of a rich man. Paul refers to this when he said, \u201cI\ncoveted no man\u2019s silver, or gold, or apparel\u201d (Acts 20:33). The picture\nof an old moth-eaten garment is forlorn in the extreme. \u201cThough I am\nlike a rotten thing that consumeth, like a garment that is moth-eaten\u201d\n(Job 13:28). A plutocrat is subject to the fate of all mortals.\n\n\u201cYour gold and your silver are rusted,\u201d \u201clie rusted over\u201d (Moffatt). As\na matter of fact, gold does not rust in the ordinary sense, except by\nchemicals, though silver tarnishes rather easily. However, this verb is\nused in Sirach 12:11 of a mirror dimmed with rust; but the Hebrew word\nis used also of filth. A dirty mirror is one of the ugliest sights.\nJames is using popular language, to be sure, and is not to be held to\nthe terminology of science. But scientists themselves hardly know how to\nuse language accurately, since radium is found to break down the lines\nbetween metals and transmutation actually occurs like the alchemy of the\nancients.\n\nIn James 3:8 this word for \u201crust\u201d is used for poison. At any rate, decay\nrests on all mortal things. It is not necessary to wait for the Day of\nthe Lord to see this fact. \u201cTheir rust shall be for a testimony against\nyou.\u201d There will be no escape from this telltale rust which, like gray\nhairs, betrays age and the approach of death. \u201cAnd shall eat your flesh\nas fire.\u201d Westcott and Hort place \u201cas fire\u201d with the next sentence.\nEither punctuation makes good sense, but it is a bolder figure used as\nmentioned, for nothing eats up what it seizes upon more rapidly or\ncompletely than fire. Feeding the flames of a furnace, as a stoker in a\ngreat ship, is one of the most exhaustive of all tasks. Fire licks up\nall in its reach and will gut modern fireproof buildings (iron and\nconcrete) when once it gets started. The plural here emphasizes the\ncompleteness of the work of destruction.\n\n\u201cYe have laid up your treasure in the last days.\u201d These wicked rich have\nheaped up treasure like a thesaurus and in the end of the day have seen\nit turn to dust and ashes, crumbling between their fingers. There is no\nvault on earth secure against moth, rust, and thieves (Matt. 6:19).\nThose who set their hearts upon the wealth of earth are bound to come to\ngrief. Pitiful is the state of the man \u201cthat layeth up treasure for\nhimself, and is not rich toward God\u201d (Luke 12:21). The only wealth that\nlasts is riches toward God, and this is open to us all. The only wise\nuse of money is in making friends who will welcome us (Luke 16:9) into\nthe eternal tabernacles. The mammon of unrighteousness may be so\nemployed. If it is not, one will find that he has simply treasured up\nwrath against the day of wrath, to be paid at last with compound\ninterest (Rom. 2:5).\n\n\n Wronged Workers (5:4)\n\nThe God of all the earth will do right. He is not deaf to the cries of\nthose oppressed millions in the ages whose piteous appeals for elemental\njustice come to him. This is a terrible indictment of Jewish capitalists\nwho withheld the meager wages of the men who gathered the harvests.\n\u201cBehold, the hire of the laborers who mowed your fields, which is of you\nkept back by fraud, crieth out.\u201d The hire of the laborers reminds one of\nthe proverb, \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his hire\u201d (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim.\n5:18). The word for \u201chire\u201d occurs sometimes in the sense of reward\n(e.g., 1 Cor. 3:8, 14), but the original idea is that of pay for work\ndone (e.g., Matt. 20:8), and so here.\n\nThe word for laborer means any kind of workman, but it is common in the\nNew Testament for agricultural workers. \u201cThe harvest indeed is\nplenteous, but the laborers are few\u201d (Matt. 9:37). When the work is\ndone, it is only simple justice for the workman to receive his pay, for\nthe hungry mouths at home have to be filled.\n\nIn the Old Testament the cause of the workman was guarded with special\ncare: \u201cThou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy,\nwhether he be of thy brethren, or of thy sojourners that are in thy land\nwithin thy gates: in his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall\nthe sun go down upon it ... lest he cry against thee unto Jehovah, and\nit be sin unto thee\u201d (Deut. 24:14 f.). See also Malachi 3:5: \u201cI will be\na swift witness against ... those that oppress the hireling in his\nwages.\u201d Tobit charges his son Tobias, \u201cLet not the wages of any man,\nwhich hath wrought for thee, tarry with thee, but give him it out of\nhand\u201d (Tobit 4:14). Sirach (34:21 f.) says, \u201cThe bread of the needy is\nthe life of the poor: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood.\nHe that taketh away his neighbor\u2019s living slayeth him; and he that\ndefraudeth a laborer of his hire is a blood-shedder.\u201d Certainly,\ntherefore, the Jews were not without explicit teaching on this vital\npoint of elemental social justice.\n\nAnd yet these men \u201cwho mowed\u201d (literally, \u201cheap together\u201d)[90] their\nfields had the sad experience of not receiving the wages, \u201cof you kept\nback by fraud, comes too late from you\u201d (Mayor). The word means to \u201cfall\nshort,\u201d \u201cbe too late.\u201d[91]\n\nThe honest laborers who form the foundation of our industrial system are\nnot to be treated as beggars or hobos. They are not subjects for\ncharity. They are the human element in the industrial problem. Blood is\nthicker than water and is more valuable than gold. The horror of war is\nthat it treats men as fodder for cannon, regardless of the result to the\nman or those dependent on him.\n\nThis stolen pay \u201ccries out\u201d and ought to cry out, whether the hire is\nkept back after the work is done or whether the employer purposely\nsqueezes the laborer down to starvation wages in order to make more\nmoney for himself. There is a just balance to be struck by which both\ncapital and labor may receive fair remuneration. \u201cThe cries of them that\nreaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe cries of the harvesters\u201d (Moffatt) are musical when they sing\ntogether as they work, content with their wages and joyous in their\nwork. But the cries here heard are of a very different sort. They are\nthe angry, resentful outcries of men who have been wronged in their very\nsouls by those who should have been their protectors and friends, those\nfor whom the harvesters have worked. These men cry to heaven, and they\nought to do so. Mayor notes four sins that cry to heaven: a brother\u2019s\nblood (Gen. 4:10), the sin of Sodom (Gen. 18:20), the oppressed hireling\n(Deut. 24:15), and the cry of Job for justice (Job 16:18 f.). But men\nought to hear the cry of the laborers before they become too clamorous.\nIt is only right that social injustice should be rectified here and now\nand the transgressors punished.\n\nThe social test of modern Christianity is to do justice to the laboring\nmen without doing injustice to the capitalists. The conditions of life\nmust be made easier. If corporations have no souls, the men who toil at\nthe forge have. Men are entitled to a bit of heaven here and now at\ntheir own hearth and home. Somehow, many of the laborers have come to\nfeel that the churches do not sympathize with the struggles of the\nlaboring classes to better their hard lot but fawn upon the very rich\nwho sometimes grind the toilers to the earth. It is easy to be extreme\nand unjust to one side or the other. The main thing is to be faithful to\nGod and man, to man as man. The poorest of men is worth more than a\nsheep, yes, than gold and silver. The soul is without price, and the\nsoul dwells in the body. We must shake the shackles free from men and\nwomen who cry out to God. The Lord God of Sabaoth has heard their cries\nand will punish the offenders in due time, but that fact does not\nabsolve us from our present duty in the midst of conditions that call\nfor action. Wronged workers have a right to a hearing at the bar of\npublic opinion. They will cry on until they are heard.\n\n\n The Wanton Use of Money (5:5 f.)\n\nEvidently James is all ablaze as he faces the situation of his readers.\nThese Jewish plutocrats, some of them shysters, have made their money\nout of the blood and sweat of the toiling poor. And then they spend it\nin a way to anger the wronged workers still more. They live in the most\nluxurious extravagance and waste of money while the cold, half-naked,\nhungry toilers who made the wealth go unpaid. It is no wonder that such\nlaborers grow bitter at heart. It is a vivid and even ghastly picture of\nthe wicked rich who revel at the cost of human happiness, who with\ncareless indifference shut their eyes to the misery all around them due\nto their own injustice. Christianity endeavors to make this cold\ncynicism impossible, to persuade to be just and, if need be, go the\nsecond mile in eagerness to help rather than to hang back and higgle\nover the first.\n\n\u201cYe have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure, ye have\nrevelled on earth and plunged into dissipation\u201d (Moffatt). The sound of\nrevelry by night has no melody to the ears of the man whose wife and\nchildren are starving because he does not get a square deal from his\nemployer. In Hermas (_Sim._ 7. 1) both of these verbs are used together\n(\u201creminiscence of this passage,\u201d Mayor) of those who gave themselves up\nto the lusts of the world. See also 1 Timothy 5:6: \u201cShe that giveth\nherself to pleasure is dead while she liveth.\u201d One is reminded of the\npicture of the beggar Lazarus who lay at the rich man\u2019s gate while the\nman feasted within. The conditions will be reversed in heaven if the\npoor are Christians and the rich man is unsaved (Luke 16:25). That hope\nis not to be despised, but James is not content to spare the rich now\nwhile they inflict such wrongs on men whom they employ.\n\n\u201cYe have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter.\u201d We have here a\nhard phrase to understand. Homer uses the verb meaning to turn milk into\ncheese (_Od._ ix. 246). But we cannot feel sure (cf. Luke 21:34). And\nwhat is \u201cthe day of slaughter\u201d? Moffatt boldly renders it thus: \u201cYou\nhave fattened yourselves as for the Day of Slaughter.\u201d That is at least\ncomprehensible. At any rate, when Jerusalem was destroyed, the Romans\nslew the rich Jews indiscriminately, whether they remained in the city\nor flew in despair to the Romans who were bent on plunder (cf. Josephus,\n_War_, v. 10, 2). The pious poor in all the ages have suffered at the\nhands of the rich and the mighty. Even in America religious liberty came\nas the result of fierce struggle. Political freedom was bought with the\nprice of blood. Economic justice will be won only by tears and blood.\n\nThe very limit is reached. \u201cYe have condemned, ye have killed the\nrighteous one; he doth not resist you.\u201d Many take these words to refer\nto the death of Jesus as the culmination of iniquity, when the rich\nPharisees and Sadducees obtained the death of the poor Carpenter of\nNazareth. In these words Peter charged that the Jews had been guilty of\nChrist\u2019s death: \u201cBut ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for\na murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of life\u201d (Acts\n3:14 f.).\n\nCertainly the application to Jesus has a deal of verisimilitude. Stephen\nused similar language: \u201cAnd they killed them that showed before of the\ncoming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and\nmurderers\u201d (Acts 7:52). \u201cThe Righteous One\u201d is thus seen to be one of\nthe titles given Jesus by the early disciples. There is no reason why\nJames should not have referred to the death of Jesus in those words.\n\nBut the book of Wisdom has similar language about the righteous poor who\nare oppressed by the wicked rich, and the parallel is so clear that\nprobably James refers directly to it. See Wisdom 2:10 ff.: \u201cLet us\noppress the poor righteous man; let us not spare the widow, nor\nreverence the ancient grey hairs of the aged.... Let us lie in wait for\nthe righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clear contrary\nto our doings; he upbraideth us with our offending the law.\u201d It was so\nin the days of the prophets. Hear Amos (2:6 f.) as he thunders against\nthe evils of his day: \u201cThey have sold the righteous for silver, and the\nneedy for a pair of shoes\u2014they that pant after the dust of the earth on\nthe head of the poor\u201d (surely the most greedy of men for real estate, if\nthey even seek that on top of the head of the poor!). The picture is one\nof the oppression of the good man who is unresisting and allows himself\nto be robbed. The horrors of war to helpless women and children come\nbefore us.\n\nIt is curious that in the legendary account[92] of the death of James,\nwho was later called also \u201cthe Just,\u201d we are told that the Jews ran upon\nJames, crying, \u201cOh! oh! even the righteous one.\u201d One of the priests\nvainly cried out: \u201cStop! What are you doing? The righteous one is\npraying for you.\u201d According to this story, James himself finally met the\nvery fate of those unfortunate victims of Jewish greed and hate, of whom\nJesus is the chief illustration. Progress in behalf of human rights is\nwon only by slow advances here and there. But in the end of the day the\ncause wins. The stars in their courses fight against Sisera and all the\nenemies of man and God.\n\n\n\n\n XII\n Perseverance and Prayer\n\n\nThe purpose of James in writing his epistle comes out clearly in 5:7-20.\nHe wishes to hearten the Jewish Christians in the midst of their trials\nas well as to make a protest against the oppressions to which they were\nsubjected. \u201cThe storm of indignation is past, and from this point to the\nend of the Epistle St. James writes in tones of tenderness and\naffection\u201d (Plummer). He has denounced the persecutors and now turns to\nthe brethren who are under the heel of the money devil.\n\n\n Patience till the Parousia (5:7 f.)\n\n\u201cBe patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.\u201d Moffatt\nhas it \u201ctill the arrival of the Lord.\u201d The example of the righteous man,\nwhether Christ or the typical righteous poor man, argues strongly for\nlong-suffering (\u201clong-tempered\u201d like our \u201csweet-tempered,\u201d\n\u201cquick-tempered,\u201d and the opposite of \u201cshort-tempered,\u201d according to\nMayor). In the Christian race one cannot afford to be short of wind. He\nhas a long run and must hold out until the goal is reached (cf. Heb.\n12:1-3).\n\nOne is reminded of the opening note of the Epistle of James (1:2-4),\nwhere he urged joy in the midst of varied trials. The wicked rich\ndeserve all the fierce denunciation that James has just bestowed and all\nthe penalty that God will inflict, but the suffering Christians must not\nengage in mere recrimination. James does not discourage protest against\nwrong or the effort to remove evil. But there is a residuum of suffering\nand pain in the cup of all of us. When all else is done, in the end of\nthe day we must drink that cup. Let us do it with the spirit of soldiers\nwho fall in the trenches at the post of duty. It is better to do it\nwithout flinching and without making a wry face. God is full of\nlong-suffering toward us (Rom. 2:4; 1 Peter 3:20), and men have shown\nthe same spirit (James 5:10; 2 Cor. 6:6). The patience in James 1:3 f.\nis just \u201cremaining under,\u201d but here the point is to do it and make no\nfuss about it, not to call attention to what one is suffering, to be a\nmartyr without insisting on being recognized as one.\n\nThe early Christians were so eager for the second coming of the Lord\nJesus that they were impatient for his return and some of them\ncompletely upset about it, although Jesus had emphasized the utter\nuncertainty of the time and had urged watchfulness and readiness. By a\nskilful turn (Plummer) James \u201cmakes the unconscious impatience of\nprimitive Christianity a basis for his exhortation to conscious\npatience.\u201d\n\nSome of them no longer had a taste for the slow work of plowing, sowing,\nand reaping, forgetting what Jesus had said of the gradual growth of the\nkingdom of God from seed to harvest. So James, probably with the words\nof Jesus in mind, says, \u201cBehold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious\nfruit of the earth.\u201d The farmer, tiller of the soil, has much to\ndiscourage him in the making and selling of his crops. The soil has to\nbe kept up to its level of fertility and must be properly prepared. The\nseed must be of good quality and has to be sown at the proper season.\nThe weeds will come, and the harvest is dependent on the sun and the\nrain. He cannot hasten the process. When he has done the most scientific\nfarming, he can only wait in expectancy. Often, perhaps daily, the\nfarmer watches the growth of the grain, \u201cbeing patient over it,\u201d bending\nover it as a fond father. He knows that he cannot hasten the season. The\nearly rain made possible the sowing of the seed. The latter rain will\nmake possible a harvest. Meanwhile, he can do nothing but wait \u201cuntil it\nreceive\u201d the final touch from God\u2019s hand. By force of circumstances the\nfarmer has to exercise long-suffering toward his crop of wheat.\n\n\u201cBe ye also patient.\u201d James applies his illustration with directness and\npower. \u201cYe also,\u201d as well as the husbandman. He does it, for nature has\ntaught him her secrets. \u201cYe\u201d should do so, for Jesus has shown you the\nway. \u201cEstablish your hearts.\u201d Peter is charged with just this task when\nhe has turned (Luke 22:32). God strengthens us (1 Peter 5:10; 1 Thess.\n3:13), but we must do our share. \u201cFor the coming of the Lord is at\nhand.\u201d\n\nThe phrase \u201cis at hand\u201d is the one that John the Baptist used of the\nnearness of the kingdom of heaven which had come right upon them (Matt.\n3:2). So Peter (1 Peter 4:7) says, \u201cThe end of all things is at hand.\u201d\nPaul (Phil. 4:5) says, \u201cThe Lord is at hand.\u201d There is no doubt that the\nearly Christians hoped that Jesus would come back quickly and thus\nrelieve them from the ills of an impossible social system (Rom. 13:11; 1\nThess. 4:15; 1 John 2:18). But they did not at all feel sure that Jesus\nwas coming right away (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 3:1 ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1-10;\nPhil. 1:21-23).\n\nWhen 2 Peter was written, scoffers were already asking, \u201cWhere is the\npromise of his coming?\u201d (2 Peter 3:4). The answer is given that one day\nwith the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.\nBack to their tasks they must go, back to the building up of the kingdom\nof God in the midst of a world of woe and sin, on with the conflict till\nJesus comes, on with the long siege against human greed and inhumanity\nto man. Patience is the word\u2014patience and prayer, pluck and praise,\npower and peace in the end.\n\n\n Folly of Recrimination (5:9)\n\nIf things do not go to suit us, the natural way is to blame somebody\nelse for what has befallen us. We generally exculpate ourselves from all\nresponsibility. A na\u00efve illustration of this propensity is found in John\n12:19: \u201cBehold how ye prevail nothing; lo, the world is gone after him.\u201d\nAt the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem the Pharisees, thinking\nthat their cause against Jesus was lost, turned and blamed each other\nfor the outcome. So then \u201cmurmur not, brethren, one against another.\u201d\nLiterally it is, \u201cgroan not, brothers, against one another.\u201d See Romans\n8:23: \u201cWe ourselves groan within ourselves.\u201d It is the inward and\nunexpressed feeling rather than the outward expression of\ndissatisfaction (cf. James 4:11).\n\nThe secret grudge is taken out in groans and murmurs. In Mark 7:34 Jesus\nis said to have groaned as he looked up to heaven and prayed, perhaps\nout of sheer weariness at the burden of sin and sorrow that was upon\nhim. It is hard to be content and to smother resentment at known or\nsuspected wrong. The suppressed volcano may easily break out into a\nviolent eruption. \u201cLet them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if\nthey be not satisfied\u201d (Psalm 59:15, AV). The murmur of a mob is often\nsenseless, and in all events we must bear in mind that we bring down\ncondemnation on our own heads.\n\n\u201cThat ye be not judged,\u201d says James. He recurs to this point in 5:12.\nProbably the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:1 are recalled by James.\n\u201cBehold, the judge standeth before the door.\u201d He will hear all\ncomplaints and set everything right. The picture appears to be that in\nthe Mishnah _Ab._ iv. 16: \u201cThis world is as if it were a vestibule to\nthe future world; prepare thyself in the vestibule, that thou mayest\nenter the reception room.\u201d Jesus is the Judge who stands at the door\nthrough which all must pass. The conception is eschatological and\napocalyptic. See Matthew 24:33: \u201cKnow ye that he is nigh, even at the\ndoors.\u201d In Revelation 3:20 Jesus is represented as saying: \u201cBehold, I\nstand at the door and knock.\u201d Let him in now, that you and he may sup\ntogether. Let him in now, else you may stand before him hereafter as\nculprit and helpless and hopeless. \u201cKiss the son, lest he be angry, and\nye perish in the way\u201d (Psalm 2:12). Treat kindly one another so that you\nwill not need the Son to act as Judge between you.\n\n\n Examples of Patience (5:10 f.)\n\nJames, like a practical preacher, loves to illustrate his points. He has\na fitting one at hand in \u201cthe prophets who spake in the name of the\nLord.\u201d They spoke in the name, with the authority and with the power of\nthe Lord. The idiom is common enough in the Septuagint and, indeed, in\nthe papyri.[93] They spoke as the representatives of Jehovah. Mayor\nseems a bit perplexed over the failure of James to mention Jesus as the\nsupreme example of suffering, as is done by Peter (1 Peter 2:21), who\nspoke of Christ\u2019s leaving us an example, by Paul (Phil. 2:5-11), and by\nthe author of Hebrews (12:1-5).\n\nPerhaps James may have thought it was particularly pertinent for these\nJewish Christians to be reminded of the prophets as an \u201cexample of\nsuffering and of patience.\u201d Certainly they endured evil in abundance and\nhad great need of long-suffering. It was common enough to appeal to them\nfor this purpose. Jesus did it with keenest irony at the mock heroic\nmonuments built later to the memory of the martyred prophets (Matt.\n5:12; 23:34, 37). Stephen did it with so sharp a tongue that the\nSanhedrin stoned him to death for his courage and proved the truth of\nhis words by their own acts (Acts 7:52). Elijah says to Jehovah, \u201cThe\nchildren of Israel have ... slain thy prophets with the sword\u201d (1 Kings\n19:10, 14). Jeremiah says also, \u201cYour own sword hath devoured your\nprophets, like a destroying lion\u201d (2:30). As patterns of patience take\nNoah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. These illustrate in\nvarious ways the patience of which the readers of the Epistle of James\nstand in sore need.\n\n\u201cBehold, we call them blessed that endured.\u201d He had already done that in\nJames 1:12. Jesus had promised salvation to the one who endured to the\nend (Matt. 24:13). Men usually felicitate the survivors of a\ncatastrophe. Often they become popular heroes.\n\nIn particular, \u201cye have heard of the patience of Job.\u201d Job was the most\nfrequently quoted instance in Old Testament times and is a perfectly\nobvious one for James. And yet Job did have passionate outbursts of\nindignation at the gibes and superfluous advice of his tormenting\nfriends, and even of his wife, when God seemed to have deserted him. But\nit must be remembered that Job did not curse God and die. He waited for\nGod to speak and make it all plain. Job hardly exhibited long-suffering,\nbut he clearly did show patience. He was not exactly meek, but he\nrevealed the endurance of a sensitive man. Although Job is the most\nfamous instance of patience in the Old Testament, yet he is nowhere else\ncited as such in the New Testament. We need not discuss the question\nwhether Job is parable or fact, as the point is here precisely the same.\n\nYe \u201chave seen the end of the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity,\nand merciful.\u201d The outcome in the case of Job proves the point. It\nturned out all right with Job. So he illustrates the pity and mercy of\nthe Lord; \u201cthe end of the Lord\u201d is seen in the conclusion, like a novel\nthat turns out happily at last. In the midst of the stress and storm of\nJob\u2019s life and his violent outbursts of emotion and exalted feeling God\nis sympathetic and compassionate. God has understood Job and watched his\nendurance all the while. The story is so well known that James does not\nhave to tell it but can depend upon his readers to see the point of the\nillustration.\n\n\n Profanity (5:12)\n\nThis little paragraph seems to come in rather abruptly, with no\nconnection with what precedes. As a result, Oesterley regards it as \u201ca\nfragment of a larger piece\u201d which James here tears from its context,\nperhaps a saying from Jesus. But Plummer is more likely correct in\nthinking of it as an appendix after rounding out the epistle, coming\nback to the blessedness of trial, with which topic the epistle opens.\n\nThe exhortations need not have a close connection with each other. As a\nmatter of fact, James has spoken more against the sins of speech than\nany other single sin. Plummer well says, \u201cHe has spoken against\ntalkativeness, unrestrained speaking, love of correcting others,\nrailing, cursing, boasting, murmuring\u201d (see 1:19, 26; 3:1-12; 4:11, 13;\n5:9). He now recurs to the sins of speech to say a few words against one\nof the commonest evils of which he has not spoken specifically. He\nevidently is thinking of the words of Jesus as we have them in Matthew\n5:34-37, though it is not an exact quotation.[94] He may, indeed, as\nResch holds, give another version of the same logion (cf. 2 Cor. 1:17).\nBut there was ample ground for this prohibition, as the Jews had learned\nhow to split hairs on the subject of profanity.\n\nThe Third Commandment was plain enough on the subject, and it was\nsupported by the Pharisees and the Essenes. The Essenes, indeed, opposed\nall oaths, even before courts, and were said to have been excused by\nHerod from taking the oath of allegiance (Jos., _Ant._ xv. 10.4). And\nyet, as Mayor notes, this is not consistent with the oath of initiation\nwhich the Essenes took (Jos., _War_ ii. 8.7). The Jewish view is well\nrepresented by Sirach 23:7-11 and by Philo (M. 2, p. 184).\n\nThe early Christians found trouble with this verse of James, as with the\nwords of Jesus on the same point. See the list of quotations from the\nearly writers in Mayor. Augustine sees no harm in oaths before courts if\nit were not for the danger of committing perjury. And yet it may be\nseriously questioned if Jesus or James is thinking of oaths in courts of\njustice, since Jesus himself did not refuse to answer when put on oath\nby the high priest before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26: 63 f.). Besides,\nsolemn asseveration is allowed in the Old Testament (Deut. 6:13; 10:20;\nIsa. 65:16). It is far more likely the flippant use of oaths (profanity)\nthat is here condemned. There were, and are still, all sorts of devices\nby which more or less pious people feel justified in calling on the name\nof the Lord in ordinary speech. It is today one of the saddest things in\nlife to note how common profanity is in the ordinary speech of men and\nof boys, mannish boys who imitate the men about them. It is positively\ndisheartening to hear it on the streets, in the streetcars, in the\ntrains.\n\nIf one is puzzled, as was Augustine, over the words \u201cabove all things,\u201d\non the ground that profanity is not worse than adultery and murder, we\nmay take it either as a kind of hyperbole (as did Augustine) or as a\nsort of elative superlative (not literally _before_ all but only very\nimportant), as limited to the forms of impatience in the preceding\ncontext, like 1 Peter 4:8, where the same idiom occurs (Mayor). But if\nthe strict interpretation be insisted on, one has only to consider what\nthe sin of profanity really is. It is a blasphemous use of the name of\nthe Most High God. The fact that it is usually done without thinking\nmitigates the offense, but sometimes the full bitterness of profanity is\nmeant. Few things are worse than sulfurous speech like the very fumes of\nhell. For my part, I should not press the words \u201cabove all things\u201d too\nfar in this context.\n\n\u201cSwear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other\noath.\u201d[95] Certainly this is plain enough to be understood. It is\nconclusive and inclusive and leaves no room for the milder forms of\nprofanity for which Christians sometimes excuse themselves. \u201cBut let\nyour yea be yea; and your nay, nay;\u201d \u201clet your \u2018yes\u2019 be a plain \u2018yes,\u2019\nyour \u2018no\u2019 a plain \u2018no\u2019\u201d (Moffatt)\u2014this, and nothing more. But there is\nthe trouble. The need for emphasis and the love of strong assertion lead\na person so easily to go beyond the bounds of good taste and decency.\nEdersheim (i. p. 583) has a Midrash quotation: \u201cThe good man\u2019s yea is\nyea, and his nay nay.\u201d\n\nIn calmer moments one knows that the value of his statement rests\nessentially on his own character for veracity. His mere word is enough\nand, in truth, all that one can offer. Violent expletives throw\ndiscredit on a person\u2019s ordinary statements and suspicion on the one\nthat he seeks to bolster up with artificial means. Profanity is one of\nthe worst and most useless of sins. It brings good to none and harm to\nall, in particular to the one who uses it. \u201cThat ye fall not under\njudgment.\u201d The Judge is at the door (James 5:9), and there is no escape.\n\n\n Worship and Excitement (5:13)\n\nPlummer has a very keen and pertinent heading for his chapter on this\nverse, and it is noteworthy that he devotes an entire chapter to this\none verse, a verse that is little understood by most interpreters. His\nheading is this: \u201cWorship the Best Outlet and Remedy for Excitement. The\nConnection between Worship and Conduct.\u201d Certainly oaths are not the way\nto express one\u2019s emotions, whether one be angry or merely excited, least\nof all when one has the miserable habit of profanity and is unaware of\nhis foul speech. And yet it is not wrong to express one\u2019s feelings.\nThere is no merit in the self-repression of the cynic or the stoic. \u201cLet\nthe expression of strongly excited feelings be an act of worship\u201d\n(Plummer). This is an intensely practical point.\n\n\u201cIs any among you suffering?\u201d And what church or community does not have\none or more of these occasional or chronic sufferers? The word has a\nwider meaning than mere bodily sickness. Paul uses it for suffering\nhardship as a good soldier (2 Tim. 2:3, 9; 4:5). It includes any kind of\nill of body or mind. It means, literally, having hard experiences, and\nit refers to natural depression as a result of such misfortunes. The\nremedy is not in despondency or in suicide. The remedy lies in prayer.\n\u201cLet him pray,\u201d let him pray as a habit (present tense of durative\naction). Prayer is a blessing to the heart and to the mental life. It is\ngood to talk with God. The worry disappears in God\u2019s presence and often\nthe very ill itself disappears. But if it does not go, he gives grace\nsufficient to bear the burden. So then prayer is the proper outlet for\nthe depressed Christian.\n\nHere lies one of the great blessings of public worship in the house of\nGod. The tired soul finds rest in prayer in the house of prayer. There\nis comfort in secret prayer and in family worship, but the man makes a\ntremendous psychological blunder who cuts himself off from the spiritual\ntonic of the public worship of God. Those in charge of that worship\nshould never fail to have in mind such persons who come to church\nseeking comfort and strength.\n\nBut some hearts are overjoyed and feel like giving expression to their\njoy in unusual ways, almost in ecstasy. \u201cIs any cheerful?\u201d There are\nmany in happy mood, in good spirits or \u201cgood cheer\u201d (cf. Acts 27:22,\n25). These are in good health of soul and perhaps also of body. \u201cLet him\nsing praise.\u201d The word originally meant to play on a stringed instrument\n(Sir. 9:4), but it comes to be used also for singing with the voice and\nthe heart (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15), making melody with the heart to the\nLord.\n\nThere is a wondrous exaltation of soul in the public praise of God. The\ncombination of instruments and of voice enables the soul of man to pour\nitself out toward God in richness of praise. This is far better than the\nreckless, unrestrained ecstasy of overwrought emotionalism. Plummer\nnotes properly that there is no merit or demerit per se in excitement.\nThe wild dervish commands only astonishment, not sympathy. Religious\nexcitement may become the occasion of bringing discredit upon\nChristianity, even when it represents real fervor and an element of\nworship. The spirit of man cannot always be restrained. Under the\npreaching of Wesley and Whitefield the audiences were sometimes carried\nto excesses of emotion. But far better this than the deadness and\ncoldness of mere formalism. Revivals occasionally have been marked by\nsuch excesses, like the \u201cJerks\u201d in Kentucky one hundred and fifty years\nago when, however, real change of life took place.\n\nThere is wisdom in the words of James here. Let the religious emotions\nfind expression in prayer and praise. The effect is not only good for\nthe moment but is good for conduct and life as a whole. If we could only\nmanage somehow to turn some of the energy that goes into our activities\ninto religious worship, certainly the effect would be more wholesome all\naround. People cannot help a measure of excitement. Some of it is good\nfor them. There is tonic in communion with God, tonic for soul and body.\n\n\n God and Medicine (5:14-18)\n\nFew subjects have excited more interest in recent years than the subject\nhere presented. So many subsidiary issues are raised that it is\ndifficult to treat the question adequately in a few pages.\n\nMany varieties of \u201cfaith cures\u201d have been before the world. The\nso-called Christian Science movement is now the most prominent of them\nall, combining an idealistic philosophy and pantheistic religion. This\ncombination takes up various aspects of Buddhism, Gnosticism, and a dash\nof Christian verbiage with the vital elements of Christianity gone, and\nuses some of the well-known ideas of modern psychology as to the\ninfluence of the mind on the body. As a whole, it is a hopeless jumble\nof absurdities and inconsistencies and is hostile to the worship of\nJesus. It leads astray a certain type of mind without clear reasoning\nprocesses and fattens on the fees for mental healing, a portion of which\ngoes to the mother church in Boston. There is only the most superficial\nparallel between what James here describes and what the Christian\nScience \u201chealer\u201d practices.\n\nThere is in James an absence of all mercenary ideas. There is no\n\u201ccommercialized use of prayer,\u201d to use the legal phrase of one of the\nNew York courts. There is also the use of olive oil, the best medicine\nknown to the ancient world and still one of the best remedial agencies,\nwhether used internally or externally. The disciples of Jesus on their\ntour of Galilee had the double ministry of preaching and healing (Matt.\n10:7 f.), and they anointed the sick with oil (Mark 6:13). In Isaiah 1:6\nthe prophet says that the bruises were \u201cneither bound up, neither\nmollified with oil.\u201d So the good Samaritan bound up the wounds of the\npoor victim of the robbers and poured oil and wine upon him (Luke\n10:34).\n\nA number of questions come bristling for discussion as we proceed with\nthis passage in James. The use of the word \u201cchurch\u201d rather than\nsynagogue, as in 2:2, is to be observed. The local church undoubtedly\nhad a close kinship to the Jewish synagogue in origin and worship. The\nvery phrase \u201celders of the church\u201d occurs also in Acts 20:17 and in the\nplural, like bishops at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). There was a council of\nelders in the synagogue (Luke 7:3), and the word appears in an official\nsense in the Egyptian papyri.[96]\n\nBut a more vital question for our subject is whether these elders come\nin an official capacity to perform an ecclesiastical \u201canointing\u201d with\noil or whether they come to pray as brothers in Christ and rub with the\nolive oil (cf. Isa. 1:6) as medicine. Mayor quotes Philo (_Sonm_, M. i.\n666), Pliny (N. H. xxiii. 34-50), and Galen (_Med. Temp._, book ii) in\npraise of oil as a medicine. In Herod\u2019s last illness a bath of oil was\nrecommended to him (Jos., _War_ i. 33, 5).\n\nThere is, therefore, no doubt as to the ancient opinion about, and use\nof, oil as a medicine. It is probable that each one will decide this\nquestion according to his predilections. For my own part, I incline to\nthe view that we have here not a sacramental or priestly function on the\npart of these elders but the double duty of ministry of the word and of\nmedicine (with prayer). The nearest parallel in modern life is the\nmedical missionary, who goes with the word of life and the healing balm\nof modern science. He heals the sick with the physician\u2019s skill and the\nprayer of faith. Paul helped the sick (Acts 20:35) at Ephesus and often\nhealed the sick, and yet he worked side by side with Luke, the beloved\nphysician, as in the island of Melita (Acts 28:8 f.).\n\nThere is certainly no indication that what is called \u201cextreme unction\u201d\nwas practiced or urged by James and the apostolic Christians. That was a\nlater development in Greek and Roman Catholic churches that is foreign\nto the tone of this epistle. There is here no such superstition as\nsending for a minister when death is at hand to perform a magical ritual\nceremony to stave off death. Mayor has a full statement of the chief\nfacts about the sacrament of unction in later centuries. He suggests\nthat the cases of the failure of the simple use of oil as a medicine\nprobably led finally to the special consecration of the oil or the use\nof relics. But in James we seem to have not a ceremony or ecclesiastical\nfunction but rather the simple use of oil as a medicine and prayer \u201cin\nthe name of the Lord.\u201d\n\nToday we have a more advanced medical science which is, however, by no\nmeans final and infallible. We separate the functions of the minister\nand the physician. We prefer the doctor to the oil, but we still need\nGod with the doctor. It is a great error for one to think that God is\nnot to be called upon because we have a skilled physician. The minister\nstill has a place, and a very important place, in the problem of\ntherapeutics, particularly in those many cases of a more or less nervous\ntype when the influence of the mind on the body is very pronounced.\nOften in the most severe illness the deciding factor is not medicine but\nhope, as any doctor will say. The minister should make friends with the\nphysician and be at his service and co-operate with him. The minister\nneeds to be careful to be a help and not a hindrance in cases of\nsickness. He should be a sedative and an inspiration to the patient, not\nan irritant or an excitant. It is a just ground of complaint that\nphysicians have against those preachers who lend themselves to the\nschemes of quack doctors with patent medicines for all sorts of ills.\n\nBut coming back to the use of prayer, James says, \u201cAnd the prayer of\nfaith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up.\u201d The\ncredit is here given to prayer and the power of God. One is not to infer\nthat James gives no credit to medicine. The oil was good; God works\nthrough medicine and without medicine. The best that we still know on\nthis subject is this: prayer and medicine, or God and the doctor. The\npromise of James may be compared with those of Jesus in Mark 11:24 and\nJohn 14:14. But the very essence of prayer is acquiescence with us. By\n\u201csave\u201d here James means \u201ccure,\u201d as it often does in the Gospels (Mark\n5:23; 6:56; 8:35).\n\nThe prayer of faith is the only kind that is real prayer, and it is\ntrust in God with full acknowledgment of God\u2019s power and love. Some men\nhave always had the idea of a God so aloof from the world that he cares\nnothing about it or is powerless to help. There is nothing in modern\nscientific knowledge inconsistent with an immanent, yet transcendent,\nGod who holds the key of life in himself. The wondrous laws of nature\nare all of God, and there are many more that we do not yet understand.\nScience has vastly increased our sense of wonder about God and his\nworld. We have only skirted the fringes of knowledge. It is idle to say\nthat God, if he really sent his Son to redeem men from sin and all\nearthly woe, does not care if we suffer in body and mind. The Father\u2019s\nhand rests upon us all. He can be reached. He is not far from any of us,\nand he loves us.\n\n\u201cAnd if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him,\u201d not by being\nhealed in body nor because he is healed of his sickness. The two things\ndo not correspond, nor does one follow because of the other. What James\nmeans, undoubtedly, is that the cured man, convicted of his sins and out\nof gratitude to God for his goodness, repents of his sins and is\nforgiven.\n\nThis is what should always happen in such cases, but often it occurs\nthat men who profess repentance on a bed of sickness forget it when they\nget up. This is sheer ingratitude and a horrible outcome. But certainly\nif the sick man is a sinner, he should be prayed for. It is the time of\nopportunity to get him to listen to the voice of God. No undue advantage\nneed be taken of one\u2019s situation, and yet it is wise to speak plainly\nthen. Sickness is a great leveler and brings us all down. Beyond any\ndoubt, Roman Catholics have made good use of their asylums and\nhospitals. Other denominations are beginning to take a real interest in\nthis aspect of Christian activity. In the hour of sickness it is a great\nmercy to fall into the hands of those who love God and where the love of\nJesus is mingled with the highest medical science.\n\nDuring sickness is a good time to confess our sins to one another as\nwell as to God. \u201cConfess therefore your sins one to another.\u201d Clearly if\nthe sick man, conscious now of his own weakness, is not willing to\nconfess his sins against others, God will not forgive him.\n\nAs Mayor points out, James expands the words of Jesus about forgiving\nthose who have trespassed against us (Matt. 5:23 f.; 6:14), so as to\nbring out both sides of the subject. Let the sick man ask forgiveness of\nthose whom he has wronged. Then let them forgive him and pray for him.\n\u201cPray one for another.\u201d The Roman Catholics\u2014Bellarmine, for\ninstance\u2014sometimes appeal to this passage as a justification for\nauricular confession to the priest; but Luther has a pointed answer: \u201cA\nstrange confessor. His name is \u2018One Another.\u2019\u201d Cajetan \u201cspeaks the\nlanguage of common sense\u201d (Mayor) and admits that James has no such\ncustom in mind. What James urges is public confession, in particular to\nthose wronged, not private and secret confession to a priest.\n\nThe Roman Catholic confessional is one of the most dangerous of\necclesiastical institutions. It puts untold power for harm into the\nhands of the priest. It is difficult to conceive how a husband or father\ncould be willing for wife or daughter to make secret confession to a\npriest. The abuses of the confessional make a horrible chapter in human\nhistory. Not merely are things wrung out that should not be told, but\nevil is suggested that would never be thought of. The original form of\nabsolution was \u201cprecatory rather than declaratory\u201d (Plummer).\n\nBut it is a great good to the soul to open the heart and make a frank\nconfession to the church or to the persons who have been injured. Great\nsorrow would be avoided if men would only have the manhood to do this\nthing. Tertullian (On Penance viii) well says, \u201cConfession of sins\nlightens as much as concealment aggravates them.\u201d Confession of sin was\none of the cardinal tenets in the preaching of John the Baptist. The\nRomanists demanded penance for sins publicly confessed, and private\nenmity (Plummer) took advantage of it for purposes of revenge.\n\nThen it is a good time to pray \u201cthat ye may be healed.\u201d Then the power\nof God is with men to heal both soul and body. Many a revival has\nstarted in a church because those who have been estranged have buried\nthe hatchet and seen eye to eye again. There is power in prayer when the\nsoul is open to God, as can be true only when hate disappears from the\nheart. \u201cThe supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its\nworking,\u201d \u201cthe prayers of the righteous have a powerful effect\u201d\n(Moffatt).\n\nThis short sentence is clearer in the Greek than in any of the English\nrenderings. Plummer suggests, \u201cGreat is the strength of a righteous\nman\u2019s supplication, in its earnestness.\u201d The word for \u201csupplication\u201d is\nmore specific than the usual term and suggests a sense of need. But the\ncrucial word is the participle, which may be either middle or\npassive.[97] Our word \u201cenergetic\u201d is derived from the verbal adjective.\nThe notion of energy is present, at any rate. The great word in modern\nscience is this very word \u201cenergy,\u201d which is made luminous by\nelectricity and radium. The only prayer worthwhile is one with energy in\nit, whether inwrought (taking the participle as passive) by the Spirit\nof God or at work (middle voice) through the spiritual passion of the\nman\u2019s own soul. Such a prayer has much force in it and is not a mere\nceremony or rattle of meaningless words.\n\nThe emphasis on \u201ca righteous man\u201d here does not mean that God will not\nhear the cry of a sinner for mercy but probably that a righteous man is\nmore likely to put the proper energy into his prayer. We may reflect\nsadly that our prayers often have no power with God because they have no\nenergy when said. There is no power in the dynamo; the engine has gone\ndead; the steam is not high enough to move the driving wheel. Oesterley\nquotes aptly the words of Rabbi Ben Zakkai in _Berachoth_, 34_b_, when\nprayers for a sick child are desired: \u201cAlthough I am greater in learning\nthan Chaninah, he is more efficacious in prayer; I am indeed the Prince,\nbut he is the Steward who has constant access to the King.\u201d They have it\nbecause they live close to God. With a great price they have won this\nhigh prerogative. Ofttimes they are the humblest of men in earthly\nstation and store. Very mechanical, surely, is the idea of Rabbi Isaac\n(_Jebamoth_, 64_a_), who says: \u201cThe prayer of the righteous is\ncomparable to a pitchfork; as the pitchfork changes the position of the\nwheat so the prayer changes the disposition of God from wrath to mercy.\u201d\n\nJames has a typical case to illustrate his point. \u201cElijah was a man of\nlike passions with us,\u201d \u201cwith a nature just like our own\u201d (Moffatt).\nJames emphasizes the human frailties of Elijah to show that he does not\nrefer to ceremonial or sacramental rites when he urges prayer for the\nsick. Such prayer is the privilege not merely of the elders of the\nchurch but of any good man who has the ear of God. That power is not a\nfunction of ecclesiastical position but the reward of holy living and\ntrust in God. Elijah had his weaknesses as we all have, but God heard\nhim. The point for us is that if God heard Elijah, he will hear any of\nus who puts the same amount of spiritual energy into his prayer. \u201cHe\nprayed fervently.\u201d There is no use to pray in any other way. Elijah\nprayed seven times before the rain came. Halfhearted prayer defeats\nitself (cf. doubting prayer in 1:6 ff.).\n\nMany modern men have no faith in prayer of any kind save as a wholesome\nreaction on the mind of the one who prays. They scout the idea that the\nGod of the universe would condescend to listen to the feeble chatter of\nsuch worms in the dust as men. They conceive it as impossible that God\nwould alter his will in any particular because of such insignificant\nrequests. Least of all do they admit the possibility that God would\nchange the weather in response to the prayer of one or many individuals.\nThey argue that the laws of the weather are fixed by the laws of nature\nand that God does not alter his own laws. A very pretty network of\nimpossibilities is fixed up, but all the same, the experience of\nChristians breaks right through these entanglements.\n\nA real God is greater than his own laws, and his own will is the chief\nlaw of his nature. God is not an absentee God; he is our Father and\nloves for us to tell him our troubles. Certainly God knows how to work\nhis own laws. We do not have to think that Elijah had the matter of\ndrought and rain in his own hands at his beck and call. Far from it.\nElijah won by strenuous prayer and perseverance, not by lightly\ninforming God of his wishes. Besides, when rain came in response to the\nprayer of Elijah, it came out of clouds, as rain always does. God made\nthe clouds gather from the west (the Mediterranean) till the rain came.\nAs the hot winds from the east and the south brought the drought, so the\nwest winds brought rain. Many times in my own experience I have known\npeople to pray for rain, and the rain came. The rain may not have come\nin response to the prayer; that I do not know. But it came the very\nnight in which prayer was made for it at the prayer meeting. The\ndifficulty in the matter of rain is no greater than in cases of\nsickness. The root of the trouble is the lack of trust in God, the\nbroken relation with God, the loss of power with him.\n\n\n Rescue Work or Restoring the Erring (5:19 f.)\n\nJames makes a last appeal to his readers, and it has a touch of\ntenderness\u2014\u201cMy brethren.\u201d In verse 5 he spoke of the case of a sick man\nwho is brought to confess his sins and is led to God. Here he seems to\nrefer specifically to the case of a brother who has fallen into error.\nThere are such sad instances that puzzle many a pastor by their\nindifference, hardness, and even scorn of Christ. \u201cIf any among you err\nfrom the truth, and one convert him.\u201d\n\nThe condition (third class) is put delicately only as a supposed case,\nnot assumed as true and yet probable, alas. \u201cErr\u201d is from the Latin\n_errare_ (to wander, to go astray). The Greek word here suggests the\npicture of one who is lost in the mountains, who has missed his\npath,[98] without passing on the question of his own part in the\nprocess. That is now neither here nor there, for he is lost. Our\n\u201cplanet\u201d is this word, from the notion that these luminaries were\nwandering stars, not fixed like the rest. We now know that none of the\nstars are fixed, but they all move with great speed.\n\nWhatever the cause, it is not impossible for brethren to go astray \u201cfrom\nthe truth.\u201d One way to treat them is to kick them out of the way, down\nthe hill. Another way is to go after them with hammer and tongs to beat\nthem back into the path. Another course is to give them up in disgust\nand to wash our hands of all responsibility. It must be confessed that\noften it is very hard to do anything else, since brethren act with so\nmuch independence and resent any effort to show them a better way. When\nthey start away, often they go the whole way. But there is a more\nexcellent way\u2014the way of love. See 1 Corinthians 13 and Galatians 6:1\nff.\n\nWe are our brothers\u2019 keepers in spite of all they say and all that we\nmay feel. You that are spiritual have a call to mind the broken lives\nall about you. There is no nobler work than this rescue work, to turn a\nsinner \u201cfrom the error of his way.\u201d It is so hard to get a man back on\nthe right track. He, like all lost men, wanders round and round in his\nold tracks of sin and error. He is the victim of his own logical\nfallacies and sinful delusions. Though a giant, he is bound by the cords\nof the Lilliputians, the bonds of habit which he does not break.\n\nIt is enough to discourage any social worker in the slums or in the\ntenement districts of our cities to see the hopeless conditions in which\nthe victims live. Drugs have fastened some with clamps of steel; drink\nhas fired the blood of others; cigarettes have deadened the will of\nothers; and immorality has hurled still others into the pit. They\nstumble into the rescue halls, \u201ccities of refuge\u201d in our cities. Happy\nare those who know how to save souls like these who have known better\ndays and who have gone down into the valley of sin and sorrow. But it is\nworthwhile to save souls like these for whom Jesus died. Let the rescue\nworker know (by personal experience, in truth) that he \u201cshall save a\nsoul from death,\u201d from a living death in which such a soul already finds\nitself and from eternal death as well. That is the reward of the winner\nof souls.\n\nBut it is not alone those who go down into the depths of gross sin, the\n\u201cpick-me-ups\u201d of life, that are to be won back. There are many who live\nin accord with the outward ethical standards of life who turn away from\nthe knowledge of Jesus, who go after the strange gods of gold, of\nso-called knowledge, of materialistic monism, of \u201cnew thought,\u201d of\nChristian Science, of Russellism, of any new fad in science or\nphilosophy or religion, of any new form of old wives\u2019 fables that lead\nmen astray. These are, in reality, more difficult to win back to the\ntruth as it is in Jesus, for they have the pride of knowledge and look\nwith compassionate condescension on those who still worship Jesus as God\nand Saviour from sin.\n\nThe worker for souls has one more joy. He learns to see the good side of\nhuman nature. The bad side is there beyond a shadow of doubt. No man\nknows that better than the worker for the redemption of human souls. But\nthis fact does not make him a pessimist or a cynic. He sees the angel in\nthe stone. He learns the love that \u201cshall cover a multitude of sins,\u201d\n\u201chides a host of sins\u201d (Moffatt), that covers with a veil the sins of\nthe poor soul who wandered away and is now brought back. See 1 Peter 4:8\nfor the same idea.\n\nThis is not the Jewish doctrine of merit in good works balancing evil\nones, as Oesterley holds. Mayor also thinks that the man who rescues\nanother saves his own soul. But this interpretation seems out of harmony\nwith the teaching of Jesus and the whole trend of the gospel message. We\ndo not need to go back to these \u201cblind guides\u201d of Pharisaism to find the\nkey to this verse and that in 1 Peter 4:8, where we read that \u201clove\ncovers a multitude of sins.\u201d It is the love that no longer sees the sins\nof the saved sinner. We see the true idea in Proverbs 10:12: \u201cHatred\nstirreth up strifes, but love covereth all transgressions.\u201d See also\nPsalm 85:2: \u201cThou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people; thou hast\ncovered all their sin.\u201d In Luke 7:47 Jesus speaks of the love of the\nconverted woman as proof that she has been forgiven much.\n\nJames presents the joy of the winner of souls who throws the mantle of\nlove over the sins of the repentant sinner, the joy of the Shepherd who\nhas found the lost sheep out on the mountain and is returning with him\nin his arms, the joy of the Father who welcomes the prodigal boy home\nwith the best robe and the fatted calf, the joy in the presence of the\nangels that one sinner has repented and turned unto God. That is heaven\non earth. The preacher who has missed this joy of winning souls has\nmissed the greatest reward in his ministry. If he has this, he can do\nwithout much else. He can stand many rebuffs, small salary, lack of\nhelp, if only there is this meat to eat that satisfied the soul of Jesus\nwhen he led one poor abandoned woman into the light and life of God.\n\n\n\n\n Select Bibliography\n\n\nDibelius, M., and Greeven, H. \u201cDer Brief des Jakobus,\u201d _Meyer\n Kommentar_. 1956.\n\nEaston, B. S., and Poteat, G. \u201cJames,\u201d _The Interpreter\u2019s Bible_. 1957.\n\nHauck, F. \u201cDie Kirchenbriefe.\u201d _N. T. Deutsch_. 1949.\n\nHort, F. J. A. _The Epistle of St. James 1:1 to 4:7_. 1909.\n\nKnowling, R. J. \u201cCommentary on the Epistle of St. James,\u201d _The\n Westminster Series_. 1904.\n\nLenski, R. C. H. _The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and\n of the Epistle of James._ 1946.\n\nMarty, J. _L\u2019epitre de Jacques._ 1935.\n\nMayor, J. B. _The Epistle of St. James._ 1910.\n\nMoffatt, J. _The General Epistles._ 1928.\n\nOesterley, W. \u201cThe General Epistle of James,\u201d _Expositor\u2019s Greek\n Testament_. 1910.\n\nPatrick, W. _James, the Lord\u2019s Brother._ 1906.\n\nPlummer, A. \u201cThe General Epistle of St. James,\u201d _Expositor\u2019s Bible_.\n 1891.\n\nRopes, J. H. \u201cA Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St.\n James,\u201d _The International Critical Commentary_. 1916.\n\nRoss, A. \u201cJames and the Johannine Epistles,\u201d _New International\n Commentary_. 1954.\n\nSchlatter, A. Der _Brief des Jakobus._ 1932.\n\nTasker, R. V. G. \u201cThe General Epistle of James,\u201d _Tyndale New Testament\n Commentaries_. 1957.\n\nWindisch, H., and Preisker, H. \u201cDie Katholischen Briefe,\u201d _Handbuch zum\n N. T._ 1951.\n\n\n\n\n Footnotes\n\n\n[1]Our \u201cJames\u201d comes through the Italian \u201cGiacomo.\u201d The name is common\n enough in the first century A.D.\n\n[2]For careful discussion of the authenticity of the epistle, see J. B.\n Mayor, _The Epistle of St. James_ (New York: Macmillan and Co.,\n 1910), pp. xlvii-lxvii; Alfred Plummer, \u201cThe General Epistles of St.\n James and St. Jude,\u201d _The Expositor\u2019s Bible_, ed. W. Robertson\n Nicoll (New York: Hodder & Stroughton, 1891), pp. 13-24.\n\n[3]See Mayor, _ibid._, p. iv.\n\n[4]Barnabas is also called an apostle in Acts 14:4, 14.\n\n[5]William Patrick, _James, the Lord\u2019s Brother_ (New York: Charles\n Scribner\u2019s Sons, 1906), p. 23.\n\n[6]_Ibid._, p. 25.\n\n[7]G. A. Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, trans. L. R. M.\n Strachan (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1913), p. 242.\n\n[8]George Milligan, _New Testament Documents, Their Origin and Early\n History_ (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1910), p. 111.\n\n[9]Mayor, _op. cit._, pp. ccv-ccxiii.\n\n[10]Milligan, _loc. cit._\n\n[11]Mayor, _op. cit._, p. cxcii.\n\n[12]A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light\n of Historical Research_ (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1915), p.\n 123.\n\n[13]Charles Taylor, _Saying of the Jewish Fathers_ (New York: G. P.\n Putnam\u2019s Sons, 1898), Appendix 97.\n\n[14]Patrick, _op. cit._, p. 46.\n\n[15]The tense expresses a long-standing attitude.\n\n[16]Patrick, _op. cit._, p. 60.\n\n[17]The same verb occurs here as in the other appearances of Jesus.\n\n[18]J. A. Broadus (comp.), _Harmony of the Gospels_ (New York: A. C.\n Armstrong & Son, 1893), p. 229.\n\n[19]Patrick, _op. cit._, p. 67.\n\n[20]R. W. Dale, _The Epistle of James and Other Discourses_ (New York:\n Hodder & Stroughton, 1895), p. 5.\n\n[21]_Op. cit._, p. xxxvii.\n\n[22]James Orr, _The Resurrection of Jesus_ (New York: George H. Doran\n Co., 1908); Thorburn, _The Resurrection Narratives and Modern\n Criticism_.\n\n[23]Patrick, _op. cit._, p. 78.\n\n[24]_St. Paul_, i., p. 233.\n\n[25]See his commentary on James and his article on the epistle in James\n Hastings, _A Dictionary of the Bible_ (New York: Charles Scribner\u2019s\n Sons, 1899), II, 540-48.\n\n[26]Plummer, _op. cit._, pp. 61 f.; Patrick, _op. cit._, chap. V.\n\n[27]Cf. Maurice Jones, _The New Testament in the Twentieth Century_ (New\n York: Macmillan and Co., 1914), p. 321.\n\n[28]For a fuller presentation of the matter from the standpoint of Paul,\n see my _Epochs in the Life of Paul_ (New York: Charles Scribner\u2019s\n Sons, 1914), chapter VII. I identify the visit to Jerusalem in\n Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15, in spite of the arguments of Sir W. M.\n Ramsay to the contrary.\n\n[29]Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, _Saint Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Galatians_ (New\n York: Macmillan and Co., 1913).\n\n[30]A hint that they had not always seen it this way.\n\n[31]_Op. cit._, p. 188.\n\n[32]_Ibid._, p. 191.\n\n[33]F. J. A. Hort, _Judaistic Christianity_ (New York: Macmillan and\n Co., n.d.), p. 81.\n\n[34]_Ibid._, p. 106.\n\n[35]This \u201cinforming\u201d was done by the Judaizers, who dinned it into the\n ears of the people.\n\n[36]Hypotyp. vii. apud Eusebius H. E., II. l. 3.\n\n[37]Also preserved in Eusebius H. E., II. xxiii. 4-18.\n\n[38]Ant. xx. ix. 1. It is interesting to note that Prof. F. C. Burkitt,\n of Cambridge University, has boldly championed the genuineness of\n Josephus\u2019 testimony to Jesus.\n\n[39]_The Expositor_, VII. iv. p. 45 ff.\n\n[40]_Op. cit._, p. 112.\n\n[41]_A New Translation of the New Testament._ Besides, in 3:9 James\n speaks of \u201cthe Lord and Father\u201d (God).\n\n[42]Plummer, _op. cit._, p. 47.\n\n[43]Einl. i. 5, 6.\n\n[44]Plummer, _op. cit._, p. 46.\n\n[45]_Op. cit._, p. 316.\n\n[46]_Op. cit._, p. 298.\n\n[47]W. E. Oesterley, \u201cThe General Epistle of James,\u201d _The Expositor\u2019s\n Greek Testament_, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.\n Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.), IV, 63.\n\n[48]Plummer, _op. cit._, p. 63.\n\n[49]Lectures on the Epistle of James, p. 73.\n\n[50]See Plummer, _op. cit._, pp. 72 f., for proof.\n\n[51]The late J. Pierpont Morgan testified before a committee of the U.\n S. Senate that he loaned money primarily on character, not financial\n ability.\n\n[52]_Op. cit._, p. 88.\n\n[53]There is the utmost contrast between this use of \u201chumble\u201d and that\n in Epictetus, with whom humility is an object of scorn and contempt,\n a meanness unworthy of man. See bk. III, chap., ii, \u00a7 14. Cf. Sharp,\n _Epictetus and the New Testament_, pp. 130, 133.\n\n[54]Cf. Deissmann, _op. cit._, p. 392; _St. Paul: A Study in Social and\n Religious History_, trans. by Lionel R. M. Strachan (New York:\n George H. Doran Co., 1912), p. 47.\n\n[55]Acta Philippi, Apocal. Apocr. Cf. Resch, Agrapha, 1889, p. 254.\n\n[56]Cf. Mayor, _op. cit._, p. 54 f. The devil tried to tempt even\n Christ, the Son of God.\n\n[57]Bengel puts it thus: _Peccatum morte gravidum nascitur_. The Targum\n of Jonathan says that imagination of sin is sinful.\n\n[58]\u201cWages\u201d means literally the rations of a soldier. The pay of sin is\n death, and it is always paid.\n\n[59]\u201cGood\u201d is here used in the sense of absolute, not relative goodness.\n\n[60]But see Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light\n of Historical Research_, _op. cit._, p. 1200.\n\n[61]Bengel says: _voluntate amantissima, liberrima, purissima,\n foecundissima_.\n\n[62]The inscriptions (Ditt., _Syll._, 587^268) use the word for the\n first fruits to Demeter and Kore, but James Hope Moulton and George\n Milligan, _Vocabulary of the Greek Testament_ (New York: George H.\n Doran Co., 1915), p. 54, give many examples from the papyri and the\n inscriptions where \u201cgift\u201d or \u201csacrifice\u201d seems sufficient.\n\n[63]J. Rendel Harris, \u201cThe Elements of a Progressive Church,\u201d _Present\n Day Papers_, May, 1901.\n\n[64]_Taylor_, _op. cit._, p. 63.\n\n[65]The Hebrew (Psalm 82:2) originally had the idea of lifting the face\n with a view to comfort. Partiality was a subordinate development.\n Cf. H. St. John Thackeray, _Grammar of the Old Testament Greek\n According to the Septuagint_ (New York: G. P. Putnam\u2019s Sons, 1909),\n pp. 43 ff. The Greek idiom has only the bad meaning and comes from\n taking off the mask. See Luke 20:21; Gal. 2:3 f. for the full idiom.\n\n[66]Deissmann, _St. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History_,\n _loc. cit._, p. 47.\n\n[67]_Ibid._\n\n[68]_The Gospel of Jesus and the Problems of Democracy_ (New York:\n Macmillan and Co., 1914), p. 46.\n\n[69]Codex D adds to Luke 6:4: \u201cOn the same day seeing a certain man\n working on the Sabbath, he said to him, \u2018Man, if you know what you\n are doing you are blessed; if you do not know you are accursed and a\n transgressor of the law.\u2019\u201d But this logion does not compare\n sabbath-breaking with other sins, though it does emphasize insight\n into the motive of the act.\n\n[70]Maim. on Mishnah, Sanhedrin xi. 1.\n\n[71]The article here has almost the original demonstrative force. James\n means the kind of faith that rests on mere assertion without works\n to prove it.\n\n[72]One may compare Paul\u2019s habit of answering an imaginary objector in\n the development of his argument. See Romans 2:1; 9:20.\n\n[73]Aorist tense and so punctiliar\u2014know once for all\u2014with almost a touch\n of impatience in the tense.\n\n[74]See Lightfoot, _loc. cit._\n\n[75]In Hermas (_Sim._ 9:22) we read of teachers who \u201cwish to be\n self-appointed teachers, fools though they are.\u201d\n\n[76]Cf. Hermas, _Mand._ 12. 1.\n\n[77]Cf., however, John 3:8 and 1 Peter 3:17.\n\n[78]The Midr. Rabb. on Levit. (xiv. 2) xvi has _quanta incendia lingua\n excitat_ (Mayor).\n\n[79]Cf. Jude 23. Cf. also James 1:27 and 2 Peter 2:13. One thinks of the\n smoke and soot of slander, besmirching all that it touches.\n\n[80]Seneca (Ep. XIII. 2. 25) says: _Non nascitur itaque ex malo bonun,\n non magis quam ficus ex olea._\n\n[81]Cf. Jude 19. See also 1 Cor. 15:45 for a distinction between these\n words.\n\n[82]The verb means to distinguish, but the resultant idea is extremely\n variable.\n\n[83]The Vulgate has _sine simulatione_. The Greek word is used of the\n actor\u2019s mask and then for mere imitation, hypocrisy.\n\n[84]See both terms also in 4 Macc. 5:23. See also Philo, M. 1, p. 445.\n\n[85]Cf. Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, ed. H. St.\n John Thackeray (New York: G. P. Putnam\u2019s Sons, 1900), p. 567.\n\n[86]See Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of\n Historical Research_, _op. cit._, p. 805. In prayer one must seek\n with passion. Since the middle voice denotes more earnestness, it is\n quite frequent in the papyri.\n\n[87]The cosmos was originally \u201corder.\u201d The order and beauty of God\u2019s\n world are attractive to the right-minded man (Rom. 1:20). It is\n applied to the people of the earth (John 1:29) and then to the\n believers who are alienated from God (John 8:23; 12:31), to this\n world which the devil rules (John 14:30; 1 John 5:19), whose spirit\n is hostile to that of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12), against which James has\n already (1:25) warned his readers.\n\n[88]Moulton and Milligan, _op. cit._, p. 2.\n\n[89]Westcott and Hort read in the margin, \u201cthe things of the to-morrow\n day.\u201d\n\n[90]At harvest time there is always special demand for laborers at\n higher wages than usual, to save the ripe grain before it perishes.\n\n[91]Note Heb. 4:1. The word occurs in the papyri for \u201ca bath\n insufficiently warmed.\u201d\n\n[92]Eusebius, H. E. ii. 23 (taken from Hegesippus).\n\n[93]Deissmann, _Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and\n Inscriptions_ (New York: Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons, 1901), p. 198.\n\n[94]Plummer notes that the Epistle of James shows more coincidences with\n the words of Jesus than all of Paul\u2019s epistles and that all of them\n deal with the morality of the gospel, with conduct and life. This is\n all as the circumstances would lead us to expect.\n\n[95]The use of the present imperative in prohibition rather than the\n aorist subjunctive implies that the thing was being done. That is\n probably true, for church members have been known to be guilty of\n this sin. However, it is possible for this tense to prohibit the\n habit rather than the single act. \u201cKeep on not swearing.\u201d See\n Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of\n Historical Research_, _op. cit._, pp. 851-54.\n\n[96]Deissmann, _Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and\n Inscriptions_, _op. cit._, pp. 154 f., 233 f.\n\n[97]See extensive discussion in Mayor. The New Testament usage favors\n the middle, but the passive is also in use, and either makes good\n sense.\n\n[98]The passive voice does not have its technical force here as in Rev.\n 18:23 but rather is more like the middle in sense as in Deut. 22:1\n and probably (Mayor) in Luke 21:8; 2 Peter 2:15. The passive is\n constantly making inroads on the middle in Koine Greek.\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\n--Silently corrected a few typographical errors.\n\n--Retained publication information from the printed exemplar, which was\n already in the public domain.","title":"Studies in the Epistle of James","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":66324}