Studies in the
Epistle of James

First published as
PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS
OF CHRISTIANITY

A. T. ROBERTSON
Late Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

Revised and Edited by
Heber F. Peacock

BROADMAN PRESS
Nashville, Tennessee

421-06232

Library of Congress catalog card number: 59-5861
Printed in the United States of America
5.AT58K.S.P.

Preface

In August, 1912, it was my privilege to deliver a course of lectures at the Northfield Bible Conference. There were many requests for the publication of the addresses. I shall never forget the bright faces of the hundreds who gathered in beautiful Sage Chapel at 8:30 on those August mornings. In August, 1913, the lectures were repeated at the New York Chautauqua and at the Winona Bible Conference. There were renewed appeals for publication, but it was not possible to put the material into shape because of my work on A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

I have expanded the lectures a good deal and have added some introductory discussion about James himself. I have in mind ministers, social workers, students of the Bible, Sunday school teachers, and all lovers of the Word of God and of rightness of life. Technical matters are placed in parentheses or in footnotes so that the reader may go on without these if he cares to do so. There is a freshness in the Greek text not possible in the English, but those who do not know Greek may still read this book with entire ease.

I do not claim that these addresses are a detailed commentary on the Epistle of James. They are expository talks based, I trust, on sober, up-to-date scholarship and applied to modern life. It is the old gospel in the new age that we need and must know how to use. There is a wondrous charm in these words of the long ago from one who walked so close by the side of the Son of man, who misunderstood him at first but who came at last to rejoice in his Brother in the flesh as the Lord Jesus Christ. It is immensely worthwhile to listen to what James has to say about Christianity and the problems of everyday life. His words throb with power today and strike a peculiarly modern note in the emphasis upon social problems and reality in religion. They have the breath of heaven and the warmth of human sympathy and love. Except for a few quotations from the King James Version, Scripture quotations follow the American Standard Version.

Preface to Second Edition

The welcome accorded this interpretation of the Epistle of James makes a new edition necessary. Opportunity is thus afforded for weeding out misprints. Prof. S. L. Watson, of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, has kindly verified all the references in the book. The words of James strike a peculiarly modern note during these days of war.

A. T. R.

Contents

[I. James, a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ] 1 [II. To the Twelve Tribes Which Are of the Dispersion] 28 [III. Joy in Trial] 33 [IV. The Way of Temptation] 48 [V. The Practice of the Word of God] 60 [VI. Class Prejudice] 75 [VII. The Appeal to Life] 91 [VIII. The Tongues of Teachers] 104 [IX. The True Wise Man] 124 [X. The Outer and the Inner Life] 140 [XI. God and Business] 158 [XII. Perseverance and Prayer] 177

I
James, a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ

The Brother of the Lord

It will be well to put together the bits of information about James, or Jacob,[1] as he is called in the Greek. They are not very numerous, and yet it is possible to form a reasonably clear picture of his personality.

It is here assumed that James the author of the epistle is James the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19). It is hardly conceivable that James the brother of John could have written the epistle, since he was put to death as early as A.D. 44 by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). The matters presented in the epistle were hardly acute in the Jewish Christian world by that date, and there is no evidence that this James had attained a special position of leadership that justified a general appeal to Jewish Christians.[2]

The epistle belongs to the five “disputed” epistles (James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter) and it circulated in the East before it did in the West. It occurs in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Origen (in Johan. xix. 6) knows it as “the Epistle current as that of James” and Eusebius (H. E. III. xxv. 3) describes it with the other four as “nevertheless well-known to most people.”

There are many proofs[3] that the epistle was written by the author of the speech in Acts 15:13-21—delicate similarities of thought and style too subtle for mere imitation or copying. The same likeness appears between the Epistle of James and the letter to Antioch, probably written also by James (Acts 15:23-29). There are, besides, apparent reminiscences of the Sermon on the Mount, which James may have heard personally or at least heard the substance of it. There is the same vividness of imagery in the epistle that is so prominent a characteristic of the teaching of Jesus.

If it be urged that the author of the epistle, if related to Jesus, would have said so, one may reply that a delicate sense of propriety may have had precisely the opposite effect. Jesus had himself laid emphasis on the fact of his spiritual kinship with all believers as more important (Matt. 12:48-50). The fact that James during the ministry of Jesus was not sympathetic with His work would also act as a restraining force upon him. The brother of Jesus (see also Jude 1) naturally would wish to make his appeal on the same plane as the other teachers of the gospel. He rejoices in the title of “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” just as Paul did later (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1) and as Jude, the brother of James, did (Jude 1).

Paul, however, added the term “apostle” in Romans 1:1 and Titus 1:1 which James and Jude do not employ. None of them were members of the twelve, although Paul claimed apostleship on a par with the twelve (1 Cor. 9:1 f.; 15:8; 2 Cor. 12:11 f.). And yet Paul implies (Gal. 1:19) that James also is an apostle[4] in a true sense of that term. Like Paul, he had seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:7). But James, though one of the pillars at Jerusalem with Peter and John (Gal. 2:9), is content with the humbler word “slave.” He is the bondsman of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as of God and so is a Christian in the full sense of the term.

He places Jesus on a par with God and uses Christ as a part of the name. He identifies his brother Jesus with the Messiah of the Old Testament and the fulfilment of the hopes and aspirations of true Judaism. One must perceive that the term “Christ” in the mouth of James carries its full content and is used deliberately. He adds also “Lord,” which has here the Old Testament connotation of worship. It is not a mere polite term for station or courtesy. The use of “Lord” by the side of “God” places James unquestionably in the ranks of worshipers of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. See also James 2:1, “faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

I consider it settled that James was not the cousin of Jesus, the son of the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. There is no doubt that the Greek word for brother is used for members of a brotherhood in the current Greek of the first century A.D., just as we find it so frequently in the New Testament. This usage does not apply to the brothers of Jesus referred to in the Gospels (John 2:12; Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55; John 7:3). In Matthew 12:46, 49 we find both the literal and the figurative use of “brother” side by side. In this looser sense anyone may be called “brother.”

In Leviticus 10:4 the first cousins of Aaron are termed “brethren,” but this instance does not justify the constant use of the word in the Gospels for a definite group of persons as brothers of Jesus if they were only cousins. Besides, they appear constantly with Mary, the mother of Jesus, as members of her family. The use of “sisters” increases the argument for the common use of the word (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:56). There are many other difficulties in the way of this position, such as the fact of two sisters with the name of Mary and the identification of Alphaeus and Clopas.

The theory that James and the other brothers and sisters were all children of Joseph by a former marriage (step-brother theory) is free from the difficulty about the word “brother” and is not inconceivable in itself. Unfortunately there are critical objections to it, for Jesus is not called “only begotten” of Mary but “firstborn” in Luke 2:7: “She brought forth her firstborn son.”

Jesus is “only begotten” of God (John 1:18), as the widow of Nain had an only son (Luke 7:12) and Jairus an only daughter (Luke 8:42). But “firstborn” occurs in the true sense all through the Septuagint (cf. Gen. 27:19, 32; 43:33; Deut. 21:15), where there were other children. The inscriptions show it in the true sense. The New Testament instances of “firstborn” are all strictly correct from this standpoint, even Colossians 1:15 and Romans 8:29. “Firstborn” implies other children. Besides, the natural meaning of Matthew 1:25 leads to the same conclusion.

The theory (brother or half-brother theory) that Jesus and James were sons of the same mother, Mary, may be said to hold the field against the others. In fact, it is most likely that both of the other theories grew out of the desire to secure a greater imaginary sanctity for Mary under the impression that she was more holy if she bore only Jesus and did not live as wife with Joseph. But this is contrary to all Jewish sentiment, and certainly there is nothing in the Gospels to countenance this notion but much to contradict it. We conclude, therefore, that James, the author of the epistle, is the brother of Jesus.

In the Family Circle at Nazareth

In spite of Origen’s opinion (Origen on Matt. 13:55) that the sons and daughters of Joseph were children of a former marriage, an opinion more than offset by the position of Tertullian (de Monog. 8, de Virg. Vel. 6), we must think of the family circle at Nazareth as composed of five brothers (Jesus, James, Joses, Judas, Simon, as in Mark 6:3, but Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, Judas in Matt. 13:55) and the “sisters.” Every implication is that they all passed as sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary in the usual sense. The order implies also that while Jesus was the eldest, James came next among the brothers. Unfortunately, the names of the sisters are not given.

We are to think, therefore, of a large home circle in the humble carpenter’s house in Nazareth. Jesus, the eldest, followed the trade of Joseph, the father of the family, and came to be known as “the carpenter” (Mark 6:3). Certainly all the children must have learned to work with their hands, although we do not know whether James adopted that trade or some other. He would soon be called upon to help in the support of the family, as Joseph seems to be dead when Jesus enters upon his ministry; he is not mentioned with Mary and the children in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Joseph was probably older than Mary. The family were not peasants, and they probably had all the necessary comforts of the simple primitive life of a workman in a small town in Galilee.

Jewish boys usually started to school when six years old, but before that the education of James had begun in the home. “James, together with his brothers and sisters, was brought up in an atmosphere charged with reverence for God and love for man, with tenderness, freedom, and joy.”[5] The Jewish parents did not shirk parental responsibility for the religious training of the children, and a large family was regarded as a blessing from God. The love of God was the first of all lessons taught at home, and this was followed by the simple elements of truth, uprightness, mercy, and beneficence.[6] The Jewish mother rejoiced in her children, and James was fortunate in having such a mother as Mary and such a father as Joseph, whose dedication to the things of their God was sincere.

At school, while religion was the main theme and portions of the Old Testament the textbook, there was abundant intellectual stimulus. The quick-witted boy would be all alive to the great problems of faith and duty. The teacher would probably use the Aramaic dialect of Galilee, even if he had the Old Testament in Hebrew. But the boy would soon learn to speak the Koine also, the current Greek of the world, the language of commerce and of common intercourse everywhere. Simon Peter, the fisherman, knew and used Greek, as did John, the apostle. It was common for people to know two languages. Paul probably knew Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Jesus knew and spoke both Aramaic and Greek and probably knew Hebrew also.

James came to write Greek with a great deal of ease and skill. He was in no sense a littérateur. He was no Atticist in his style and did not try to imitate the classical Greek writers, whom he probably never read. Deissmann[7] does call the Epistle of James “a little piece of literature,” but he means a product of popular literature. Certainly there is nothing artificial in content and style. Is it mere fancy to think that the same poetic beauty shown in Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) appears in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Epistle of James? At least the rich acquaintance with the Old Testament exists in all three.

The author of the epistle is gifted with imagination and shows knowledge of the apocryphal books, especially the wisdom literature of the Jews. But he is a thorough Jew in his outlook and literary method,[8] so much so indeed that it is contended by some that James wrote the epistle originally in Aramaic,[9] an unlikely supposition. The widespread diffusion of Greek in Palestine amply accounts for the author’s grasp of the language.[10] The epigrammatic and picturesque style is due to the writer’s individuality, his environment, and his reading. His vocabulary is rich in words about fishing, husbandry, and domestic life, as one would expect.[11] A man of the force and position of James could easily broaden his acquaintance with the Greek tongue as the years went by. The Greek is pure Koine, with few Hebraisms, though the tone is distinctly that of the Old Testament.[12] He speaks like a prophet of old in the service of Christ. There is no doubt that James came to be a man of culture in a real sense.

He probably married early, as it was the custom of the Jews for men to marry at the age of eighteen.[13] Paul expressly states that the brothers of the Lord were married (1 Cor. 9:5). We do not know, of course, the age of James when Jesus began his ministry. In all probability he had already married and had a home of his own in Nazareth. The sisters probably married and settled in Nazareth also (Mark 6:3).

We have no mention of the rest of the children going to Jerusalem when the boy Jesus was taken (Luke 2:41-52). Indeed, it is rather implied that they were not in the company, but this does not mean that James did not have his turn to go at the age of twelve and afterward.

There is no reason to believe that James grew up to be a Nazarite, as Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 23) alleges: “He is distinguished from others of the same name by the title ‘Just,’ which has been applied to him from the first. He was holy from his mother’s womb, drank no wine or strong drink, nor ate animal food; no razor came on his head, nor did he anoint himself with oil nor use the bath. To him only was it permitted to enter the Holy of Holies.” The evident legendary details here deprive the statement of real value except as witness to his genuine piety and to the esteem in which he was held by the people generally. Hegesippus adds: “His knees became hard like a camel’s, because he was always kneeling in the temple, asking forgiveness for the people,” a description of his life in Jerusalem after he became a Christian. At any rate, like Joseph his father, he grew up to be a just man and came to be known as James the Just.

A Scoffer of Jesus

We are left to conjecture what the brothers and sisters of Jesus thought when he went down to the Jordan to meet the Baptist. We know that “Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). Mary had seen the dawning messianic consciousness when Jesus was only twelve (Luke 2:49). The reply of Jesus to his mother’s hint about the wine at the wedding of Cana implies that they had talked over his messianic task (John 2:4). But the brothers accompanied Jesus, his mother, and the small band of six disciples to Capernaum after the miracle at Cana, and the group remained together for some days (John 2:12). They may have met at Nazareth after the wedding at Cana and thence proceeded to Capernaum.

It is possible that the brothers, not being at Cana and not knowing the secret between Jesus and Mary, may not have grasped the significance of the events connected with the baptism of Jesus and his entrance upon his messianic career. The presence of the band of “disciples” (learners at the feet of the new Rabbi) argues that the brothers must have known something about the wonderful claims of Jesus, their brother. At any rate, it is pleasant to see them all here together in Capernaum in fellowship and friendliness, “a proof of the closeness of the ties uniting our Lord and them. No shadow of estrangement had as yet fallen upon their relations.”[14] Godet thinks that Mary and the brothers came on to Capernaum, eager for more miracles like the one at Cana, and may have been keenly disappointed because Jesus wrought none. This is possible but hardly as probable as the idea that it was a friendly group in frank fellowship in Capernaum.

We are left in the dark as to the real attitude of the brothers of Jesus when he began his great work. They may have looked upon him as a sort of irregular rabbi or a mild enthusiast carried away by the new teaching of John the Baptist. There would be natural pride in his work while it succeeded, without necessary belief in his claims. Certainly Mary must have had at first the utmost faith, tremulous with expectation, in the messiahship of Jesus. Perhaps the brothers were at first only mildly interested or even skeptical of the qualifications of one out of their own family circle. The brothers may not have been free from the jealousy sometimes seen in home life.

It was not long before hostility toward Jesus sprang up in Nazareth itself, according to the vivid narrative in Luke 4:16-31; it probably was soon after the return of Jesus from Judea and Samaria to Galilee, certainly after the miracle at Capernaum (Luke 4:23), as told in John 4:46-54. James may have shared with the rest the first wonder at the words of grace (Luke 4:22) and the quick flash of wrath as the pride of the town was pricked (Luke 4:28). Henceforth in Nazareth, despite his growing fame elsewhere, Jesus was persona non grata. His brothers felt this atmosphere of hostility very keenly.

The curtain falls on the family life in Nazareth till toward the close of the Galilean ministry, after the second general tour of Galilee by Jesus (Luke 8:1-3). The tremendous work of Jesus had created a wonderful impression. The multitudes in amazement asked if Jesus were not the son of David, the Messiah (Matt. 12:23). The Pharisees in anger and chagrin replied that he was in league with Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24). The excitement was intense. Jesus could not eat (Mark 3:20). News of all this came to “his friends” (Mark 3:21), who are explained in Mark 3:31 as “his mother and his brothers.”

Probably already vague rumors were afloat that Jesus was out of his head. Once people said of Jesus that he was “a gluttonous man, and a winebibber” (Luke 7:34), but now he is so queer! In the inner circle at Nazareth Mary had watched and heard it all. What could it mean? Perhaps, Mary argued, his reason has been temporarily dethroned by the strain and the excitement. She will go and bring him home where he can have quiet and rest. It was easier for the brothers to see it so, since they had not accepted him as Messiah. Perhaps one may have said, “I told you so.” At any rate, “they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself” (Mark 3:21).

Jesus is in a crowded house in Galilee near the lake when they come (Mark 3:19) and readily understands why they have come when he is told that his mother and brothers are standing without and wish to speak with him (Mark 3:31; Matt. 12:46; Luke 8:19 f.). It is a tragedy of life, pathetic beyond words. The ecclesiastics have long ago made issue with him and are now violently assailing him. Many of the people are following the lead of the Pharisees. And now his own mother and brothers have come and wish to take him home so as to avoid the scandal and shame of his further public ministry. The Pharisees say he has a demon and is in league with the devil. The “charitable” construction, therefore, is that he is a lunatic. But Jesus does not go out to meet his own mother and brothers (James among them). He had come to know one of the bitterest of human sorrows, a pang to the very heart—to be misunderstood “among his own kin, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4).

It is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus found consolation in the fact that many did understand him. “And looking round on them that sat round about him” (Mark 3:34) when the message came, “he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. 12:49 f.). Mother and brothers and even his “sisters” (note “and sister”) had failed in the crisis to comprehend Jesus. But the Father in heaven had not veiled his face from Jesus. It is not clear that James heard this pathetic rebuke from Jesus, as he may have remained standing outside the house. Many have come into spiritual fellowship with Jesus who thus have the peculiar privilege of taking the place made empty in his heart for the time by mother and sister and brother. With Mary it was a temporary eclipse, and she was loyal at the end as she stood by the cross (John 19:25).

Jesus made another and a last visit to Nazareth (Matt. 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6). There was a revival of interest in him which crystallized into hard skepticism, so that Jesus “did not many mighty works there,” and even “marvelled because of their unbelief.” He was a “prophet without honor” in Nazareth as he left for the last time the city of his childhood and early manhood.

The tide at last turned against Jesus in Capernaum (John 6:22-71) and in Galilee generally. For six months he remained away, save for a brief visit that met with the united hostility of Pharisee and Sadducee (Matt. 15:39 to 16:4; Mark 8:10-13). The brothers of Jesus meanwhile seemed to grow in this spirit of dislike toward the elder brother. Six months before the death of Jesus they ridiculed him for his being a virtual refugee from Galilee and for his secretive methods, quite inconsistent with his claims of messiahship (John 7:2-5). James as the oldest of the brothers was probably the spokesman on this occasion. The “advice” was of an extremely irritating nature, with the implication that Jesus was seeking to gain credit “in public” while doing his work “in secret.” It is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus did precisely the opposite, for he went up to Jerusalem, “not publicly, but as it were in secret” (John 7:10).

John explains the motive of the brothers (7:4 f.), “for even his brethren did not believe on him.”[15] They had reached the point when they were willing to attack Jesus. They belonged to the world and did not understand Jesus (John 7:6 f.). It is not necessary to say that James was actually a Pharisee, still less an Essene. The use made of his name by the Judaizers in the controversy with Paul does not prove this to be true (Gal. 2:12). But certainly he was now in general sympathy with the hostile attitude of the ecclesiastics from Jerusalem (both Pharisee and Sadducee). The cup that Jesus must drink at Jerusalem has this added bitterness in it.

It is not particularly surprising, when all things are considered, that at his death Jesus commended his mother to John, the beloved disciple, rather than to any of his brothers or sisters. They were all completely out of sympathy with him and with her. At such an hour sympathy counted far more than blood relationship alone. Besides, the brothers may not have been in Jerusalem at this time, for they still lived in Nazareth. It is possible, of course, that James may have been at the Passover, which was so generally attended by the Jews. Certainly he was at Pentecost later (Acts 1:14).

We do not know whether Jesus appeared to James in Jerusalem or in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:7), though Paul mentions it after the appearance to the more than five hundred, which was in Galilee. Mary needed immediate attention, and Jesus died upon the cross with James and all his brothers and sisters utterly out of touch with him. “Doubtless their very intimacy with our Lord blinded them to his real greatness.”[16]

Seeing the Risen Christ

It is Paul who tells us of this most interesting event (1 Cor. 15:7).[17] As already stated, we do not know where James was when the risen Jesus manifested himself to him. Broadus[18] locates the event in Jerusalem after the return from Galilee and before the ascension. As a matter of fact, it could have been in Galilee perfectly well. James may have come to Jerusalem (Acts 1:14) because he had been converted in Galilee. At any rate, “this appearance to James is the only one not made to a known believer.”[19] But Dale[20] holds that James had already been converted before his Brother appeared to him as a result of information from his mother or from the apostles. This is, of course, possible, but it cannot be insisted on as necessary on the ground that Jesus appeared to believers only. The case of Saul refutes that position.

It is quite possible that James may have heard of the report of the resurrection of Jesus and had thus some preparation for the great event when he saw Jesus risen from the dead. We are told nothing of what passed between the two brothers, but one may be sure that no harsh reproof came from Jesus for the indifference and even scoffing of James. The brothers of Jesus were children of their age, which was a pharisaic age in Palestine. The current expectation was for a political Messiah, not a Saviour dying for the sins of the world.

Even the twelve apostles had not risen to the conception of a spiritual Messiah, and they had given up all hope upon the death of Jesus and had to be convinced themselves of the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, a task of much difficulty, particularly in the case of Thomas, though they all at first scoffed at the stories of Mary Magdalene and the other women. So, then, the path of James toward faith was not an easy one, but he took it and came out boldly on the side of the disciples of Christ. It is more than likely that it was through James that the other three brothers were led to faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour (Acts 1:14).

The Gospel of the Hebrews as quoted by Jerome (de Viris Illustribus 2) gives a story to the effect that James was already a disciple and present at the last Passover with Jesus and took a vow “that he would not eat bread from that hour on which he had drunk the cup of the Lord till he saw him risen from the dead. Again, a little afterward, the Lord says, Bring a table and bread. Immediately it is added: He took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My brother, eat the bread; for the Son of Man has risen from the dead.” Mayor[21] is inclined to credit this story in part, but surely it utterly misunderstands Luke 22:18, makes James one of the twelve, and is impossible from any point of view, since not even the twelve expected Jesus to rise from the dead.

There are difficulties enough connected with the proof of the resurrection of Jesus without burdening the narrative with this story. But, let me add, modern science has not made faith in the resurrection of Jesus impossible, nor has modern research disposed of the value of the Gospel accounts of this tremendous event. Paul, who testifies to this experience of James, is himself the chief witness to the reality of the fact. This is not the place to enter upon a discussion of this great question, but modern men may and do still believe in the risen Christ with all simplicity and sincerity.[22]

In the Upper Room at Pentecost

The simple statement in Acts 1:14 is: “These all ... continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” So then all four are now disciples and are admitted to the inmost secrets of the circle of believers in Jerusalem, whither they have now come. Certainly, now that they have all come to believe in their Brother as in reality the Messiah of Israel risen from the dead, they must come to Jerusalem to be with their mother in her hour of triumph and joy. No one but a mother can understand the fulness of satisfaction in Mary’s heart now. The sword had pierced her own soul (Luke 2:35), as old Simeon had prophesied when he saw the Babe in the Temple, but now the wound has been healed and there is a new and richer Magnificat in her heart. It was worth all that she had endured to wait with the disciples and her other sons in the upper room for the Promise of the Father. The breach in her family life had been healed.

It is clear that the heartiest of welcomes greeted the brothers of Jesus. They were men of importance in themselves, James in particular, who from every standpoint is one of the first men of his day. It is possible that the coolness of James and the other brothers had injured the work of Jesus with a good many, who used this fact against the claims of Jesus. Now the accession of these brothers was of the utmost value to the band of believers gathered in the upper room, where Jesus had manifested himself before his ascension.

The presence of the brothers is mentioned by Luke before the choice of Matthias to succeed Judas. One may naturally wonder why James was not suggested by Peter, since he undoubtedly was equal to the eleven in ability and all other qualities save one. But this one defect was fatal. He had not been with the twelve during the ministry of Jesus and so could not be a firsthand witness to his words and teachings (Acts 1:22). Otherwise, we may infer that James would have been a welcome addition to the twelve in the place of Judas.[23]

But the significant fact is that James is present during the wonderful days of this Pentecost and is filled, like the rest, with the Holy Spirit. He enters upon the new task of world evangelization with the new insight and the new influx of divine power. He faces the new day with the light of the sun in his face.

Leadership in the Jerusalem Church

If he was disqualified from being one of the twelve, he was not debarred from liberty to serve. In fact, he was a practical apostle in Jerusalem along with the rest. The twelve kept no secrets from James. He gradually won his way to the love and confidence of all the great church in Jerusalem. His importance in Jerusalem is recognized by Paul on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem on his return from Damascus, for he says: “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19). Here Paul treats him as an apostle and practically calls him so.

James had probably seen Paul before, when he was the leader of the persecution against the Christians. He doubtless was glad to see this powerful addition to the forces of Christianity, but James is probably included in Luke’s statement of the reception of Paul on this occasion. “And they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple” (Acts 9:26). Barnabas alone had faith in Paul and the courage to stand by him. If James was suspicious of the new convert, so were all the rest, and not without reason. It is clear from Paul’s reference in Galatians 1:18 that Peter responded heartily to Paul’s advances after once opening his heart to him. They had a delightful fifteen days together. It is not likely, as Farrar[24] argues, that James, being a legalist, held aloof from Paul throughout. This is wholly gratuitous.

James is not mentioned again in Acts till 12:17, and in a most significant manner. James, the brother of John, has been killed by Herod Agrippa I. Peter has been thrown into prison but has been released by the angel of the Lord in response to the prayers of the church assembled in the home of Mary, mother of John Mark (12:12). Peter goes to the house and tells the astonished group: “Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren.” This is somewhere about A.D. 44. James now clearly occupies a position of leadership in the church. Peter himself apparently leaves the city for the time being (12:17). There are already “elders” (11:30) in the church at Jerusalem. We do not know what the position of James is, but certainly it is one of great honor and leadership. The apostles, since James could not be one of the twelve who were charged with the general work of evangelization, may have been glad for James to be in charge at Jerusalem. Certainly he proved himself fully equal to the task.

James maintains the position of leadership in Jerusalem throughout the narrative in Acts. He is evidently the president of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:14-21). He is in charge of the church when Paul visits Jerusalem the last time (Acts 21:18): “Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.” He possessed the confidence of this great Jewish church, the mother church at Jerusalem, and had the ear of the non-Christian Jewish world in a way hardly true of any other disciple of Jesus. Jews would listen to James who would not heed Simon Peter.

The Writing of the Epistle

The Epistle of James probably was written shortly before the Jerusalem Conference, most likely just before, that is, about A.D. 48 or 49. There is no room here for an extended discussion of the proof of this statement. In general I agree with the arguments of Mayor on this point.[25] Plummer[26] is unable to decide between A.D. 49 and 59. Writers like von Soden place it at the end of the century, and Bruckner puts it in the second century. Spitta admits that Paul in Romans alludes to the Epistle of James, but suggests that the present epistle is a Christian adaptation of a Jewish book.

On the whole, the weight of the argument is toward the conclusion that James wrote the epistle before the Conference and without reference to the Judaizing controversy. Paul in Galatians and Romans may very well have in mind a misuse of what James in chapter 2 says about faith and works, which misapprehension he seeks to correct. The epistle must be placed either between A.D. 40 and 50, before the Judaizing controversy arose, or in the middle of the second century, after it had died down.[27] The early date has the best of it, in my opinion.

If this date for the writing of the epistle is correct, we have no difficulty in seeing how James could have written it so early. Already about A.D. 44 we saw his leadership in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17). No man in the apostolic circles at this period had the ear of the Jewish Christians as did James. This is seen further in the fact that he is asked to preside over the Conference in Jerusalem to settle the issues raised by the Judaizers against the work of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles. The epistle, therefore, seems to come in at this state of the career of James and is the chief expression left of his mind and life.

Champion of Paul at the Conference

I cannot enter upon a formal discussion of the many questions in dispute concerning this great event in the apostolic period. I can only briefly sketch my own interpretation of the part played by James on this occasion.[28] In brief, it is here maintained that in Galatians 2:1-10 Paul gives a report of the private interview with the leaders in Jerusalem after the first public meeting (Acts 15:3 f.; Gal. 2:2) was adjourned because of the violent opposition of the Judaizers (Acts 15:5). In this private conference Paul, though anxious to win the public support of James and Cephas and John, “the reputed pillars” (Gal. 2:9), yet was not willing to compromise the great issue at stake, “our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus” (2:4) and “the truth of the gospel” (2:5).

Paul reveals a certain amount of embarrassment in his references to the three great leaders in Jerusalem, as is manifest in the long and broken sentence in verses 6-10. He roundly asserts his independence of them and affirms that they imparted nothing to him (2:6). It seems clear that some of the more timid brethren were quite disposed to surrender to the Judaizers for the sake of peace and in particular to agree that Titus, a full-fledged Greek convert in Paul’s company, should be circumcised. But Paul gave “the pillars” to understand that he would not have peace on those terms. It is quite possible that James, here mentioned before Cephas (Peter) and John as the real leader of the group,[29] had not till now clearly understood Paul’s true position.

The Judaizers had in all probability counted on James to take their side against Paul, “but contrariwise, when they saw[30] that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision ... they ... gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision” (2:7-9). It is much easier to think of James as the author of chapter 2 in his epistle before this event than after this pact with Paul. Note also in verse 9, “and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me....” Now the coast is clear, and Paul is sure of victory in the open Conference. The stipulation about the poor (2:10) was in harmony with Paul’s previous practice (Acts 11:29 f.).

In the second meeting of the general Conference James evidently presides and sums up the situation in favor of Paul, after Peter (Acts 15:7-12) has shown how they had already agreed to Gentile liberty in the case of Cornelius and his household. James, with due deliberation (15:13), concludes (15:12-21) with a pointed endorsement of Simon Peter’s speech and acceptance of the work at Caesarea and among the Gentiles generally as a visitation of God. He clinches the whole matter by showing that the prophets (as Amos 9:11 f.) agree with this position that the Gentiles are to be saved. “Wherefore my judgment is,” he says as the president of the Conference, practically offering a resolution for the vote of the Conference, “that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God” (Acts 15:19). He has put the matter in a very happy form. Surely Jewish Christians could but rejoice to see Gentiles “turn to God.”

James proposes the writing of an epistle to the Gentile Christians to this effect, with the added warning “that they abstain from the pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.” It is at least open to question whether “what is strangled” is genuine here, since it is wanting in D (Codex Bezae), Irenæus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, as also in 15:28. If so, the prohibition is against idolatry (idol feasts), murder (blood), and immorality (fornication), the great vices of heathenism. But with the text as it stands, “things strangled,” we seem to have a concession to the Jewish ceremonial law and to Jewish prejudices on that point. James is not uneasy about Moses, for he is read in the synagogues every sabbath (Acts 15:21), a reference to the habit of the Christians still to worship in the Jewish synagogues (cf. James 2:2).

The “wisdom” of James is manifest in this masterly address, which held conviction to such an extent that the resolution of James was carried unanimously by the body of “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (Acts 15:22), a remarkable outcome when the bitterness of the Judaizers is considered and a distinct tribute to the influence of James. We may assume that the Judaizers were silent, since they saw that they were hopelessly defeated.

The epistle which was sent to the church at Antioch (15:23-29) embodies the ideas of James and was probably written by him, since the style is like that of his speech and the epistle that bears his name. The letter expressly disclaims responsibility for the conduct of the Judaizers at Antioch (15:24), pointedly condemns their behavior, commends “our beloved Barnabas and Paul” (vv. 25 f.), refers to the messengers Judas and Silas, claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the stand for Gentile freedom (v. 28), and repeats the stipulations in the speech of James about the special Gentile sins (v. 29).

There can be no question that James here entered fully into sympathy with the contention of Paul that the yoke of Jewish ceremonialism should not be imposed upon the Gentile Christians. James is a champion of the Pauline doctrine of grace as opposed to works. It is interesting to note the phrase “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). It is difficult to see how, after this Conference, James and Paul could misunderstand or oppose each other. As we shall see, the real explanation of the apparent conflict between James 2 and Romans 3 is quite other than this unnecessary hypothesis. James has now given the great weight of his character and influence among the Jewish Christians to the endorsement of the work of Paul among the Gentiles. James is a Jewish Christian but not a Judaizer. He does not wish to impose the burden of the Mosaic ritual upon the Gentiles, though he still observes it himself, as do the other Jewish Christians, including Paul.

Misuse of the Name of James

In Galatians 2:11 Paul speaks of a visit of Peter to Antioch, apparently some time after the events recorded in 2:1-10. If it were before the Conference, Peter’s conduct at Antioch would be largely relieved of the charge of cowardice. But on the whole, we must follow the order of time as given by Paul. We do not, however, know whether this visit of Peter was before the breach between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (Acts 15:36-41) or after the return of Paul from the second tour (Acts 18:22 f.). If the latter is true, Barnabas had also come back to Antioch (Gal. 2:13). Patrick[31] thinks that this visit was not long after the Conference, probably before the breach with Barnabas. At any rate, Peter at Antioch practices social equality with the Gentiles, just as Paul and Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians there did (Gal. 2:13), and just as Peter did in the house of Cornelius, though he apologized for the act then (Acts 10:28), and at Jerusalem when called to account for it (11:1-18). Evidently the question of social equality was not raised in the Conference at Jerusalem.

“Certain came from James,” says Paul (Gal. 2:12). Patrick[32] admits that they had some connection with James and may have borne a commission from James, though not to Peter. It is possible, of course, that rumors of Peter’s liberty in the matter of social intercourse may have reached Jerusalem (cf. Acts 11:1 ff.), where the pharisaic element in the church was very sensitive on this point. It is difficult, however, to believe that James would have felt called upon to send a reprimand to Peter on the subject, even granting that James opposed this conduct of Peter.

The Judaizers at Antioch seem to have claimed the sanction of James and the rest at Jerusalem in their opposition to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:1, 24 f.), and it is entirely possible that on this occasion the visitors from Jerusalem claimed a connection with James that was not true. Hort[33] thinks it probable that James merely meant “to send cautions to Peter,” with no thought of a rebuke, and that the messengers proceeded to frighten Peter with threats of a report to James about his conduct at Antioch.

It is undoubtedly true that the horizon of Jerusalem was not that of Antioch and that Paul would have less sympathy for what Peter did under fear of consequences at Jerusalem than for James in Jerusalem, who might not fully comprehend developments at Antioch. But the Epistle of James and his speech at the Conference make me slow to believe that he had gone over to the position of the Judaizers, as Peter did at Antioch. Paul boldly charged Peter, and even Barnabas, not with a change of conviction but with hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13 f.). Fortunately, it was only a temporary lapse, and both stepped back to the side of Paul in his championship of a gospel of equality and freedom for all.

Paul makes no formal charge against James, and under all the circumstances I prefer to think that James has been misrepresented at Antioch by the visitors from Jerusalem, who dared to use his powerful name to whip Peter into line. At any rate, James, not Peter, seems to be the master spirit at Jerusalem, as Paul is at Antioch.

Befriending Paul on His Last Visit

Paul came to Jerusalem for the last time in the spring (probably 57 or 58) with a heavy heart. He reveals his apprehensions in Romans 15:31-33 and in his address at Miletus (Acts 20:18-35). He has made a brave fight for liberty in Christ almost all over the Roman Empire, but the Judaizers have not ceased their attacks upon him. In particular, during his long absence from Jerusalem he has been grossly misrepresented there. He has been frequently warned of trouble if he came, but he is determined to come in the hope of setting matters right in Jerusalem and so preventing a schism in Christianity. He had won at the Conference at Jerusalem some seven or eight years before.

Hort[34] thinks that Paul entered the city “with much precaution and avoidance of observation” under the shelter of Mnason (Acts 21:16). At any rate, the brethren received him gladly (21:17), and on the next day Paul made a formal call on “James; and all the elders were present” (21:18). So here James is still at the head of the work in Jerusalem as at the Conference. The apostles were present then as they seem to be absent now. This is not a conference but merely a friendly meeting. Paul’s rehearsal of his work among the Gentiles meets with the most cordial expressions of satisfaction (21:20).

Paul is among his friends, who tell him of a gross misrepresentation of his position that is current among the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem to the effect that he teaches that Jewish Christians must forsake Moses and the customs of the law (21:21).[35] They do not believe it themselves and only wish to help Paul clear up the matter without interfering at all with the decision of the Conference about the freedom of the Gentiles (21:22-25). They suggest that Paul join with four men in a Nazarite vow, pay the charges for their purification and for his own, and let all the Jewish Christians see him in the act of worship and ritual observance of the ceremonial law, thus proving “that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law” (21:24).

The matter seemed simple enough. Paul had not opposed the observance of the law on the part of Jewish Christians. Galatians was written in defense of Gentile liberty. There was no effort to commit Paul to the necessity of the law for salvation. As a matter of fact, Paul had kept up his observance of the Jewish customs save as they affected separation from the Gentiles. So Paul accepted the advice and made the offering, “purifying himself with them” (21:26). Apparently the plan succeeded in setting Paul right with the mass of the church in Jerusalem.

The trouble that led to his arrest arose from the attack of some Jews (not Christians) from Ephesus, who accused Paul of defaming the Temple while in the very act of doing worship in the Temple. We do not know whether the plan of the elders was the plan of James. Certainly if he had disapproved he would have spoken out, as the meeting was at his house. But it was all meant in the utmost kindness to Paul, and it is not possible to show that it was unwise. The incident shows the greatest friendliness between Paul and James and the frankest recognition on Paul’s part of the great worth and influence of James himself. There is no other reference to James in the New Testament unless it appears in Hebrews 13:7, 17, “them that have the rule over you.”

The Story of His Death

Clement of Alexandria[36] says that James the Just “was thrown from the gable [of the temple], and beaten to death by a fuller with a club.” Hegesippus[37] gives a long and legendary account of the death of James to the effect that the people of Jerusalem who called James “the Just” were so enraged when he bore witness to Jesus as the Son of man that they flung him down from the gable of the Temple, stoned him, and a fuller clubbed him. “And they buried him on the spot by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple.”

But Josephus[38] gives an entirely different and much more credible narrative of the death of James, placing it about A.D. 62 or 63. He charges the Sadducees through the high priest Ananus with the death of James and adds: “Ananus, therefore, as being a person of this character, and thinking that he had a suitable opportunity, through Festus being dead, and Albinus still on his journey (to Judaea), assembles a Sanhedrin of judges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who is called Christ (his name was James) and some others, and delivered them to be stoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law.” So he won a martyr’s crown. He was called “the Just.” He had accused the wicked rich of killing “the righteous one” (James 5:6).

II
To the Twelve Tribes Which Are of the Dispersion

Simple Address

The writer is wonderfully simple and direct in his greeting as compared with Paul in Romans 1:1-7, for instance. There is no principal verb, and the nominative absolute occurs with the infinitive, as is so common in the letters found in the papyri. Originally a word like “sends” may have been used also. But this short address is in perfect keeping with the business-like character of James and the pointed, pungent tone of the epistle.

The Readers

They are evidently not a local church. “The twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion” naturally refers to the Jews who are scattered in the Gentile world outside of Palestine. The technical term diaspora occurs in only two other places in the New Testament (John 7:35; 1 Peter 1:1). In John the word has its usual significance. The Jewish leaders scoffed at Jesus as a failure in Palestine. Perhaps he meant to go and teach the Jews of the dispersion. The term “twelve tribes” in James merely means the Jews as a whole in the dispersion, for the tribes were not preserved in a distinctive way outside of Palestine.

The “lost ten tribes” evidently had no significance for James. As a matter of fact, they are no more “lost” than Judah and Benjamin. The Jews of Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans were once more scattered abroad, as their ancestors had been twice before, to mingle as “Jews” in various parts of the world. Doubtless, modern Jews are simply a blend of all the twelve tribes. At the time when James wrote, the Jews were very numerous in all the great commercial centers of the world, such as Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamum, Rome, Thessalonica. But it is more than probable that James has in mind chiefly the Eastern dispersion in Babylonia and Mesopotamia, as Peter (1 Peter 1:1) addressed the Western dispersion.

But was James writing to Jews who were not Christians? Was he making an appeal to the non-Christian Jews of the dispersion to become Christians? The idea is not without fascination in itself. Dr. J. H. Moulton[39] contends that this is precisely what James has done, as is shown by the avoidance of specific reference to Christ and to the cross so as not to give offense to the Jews whom he wishes to win. Dr. George Milligan[40] replies that it is not possible to think of “a Christian teacher of James’s position suppressing his distinctive beliefs under any circumstances whatsoever.” But the author does not conceal his view of Jesus. In the very first verse he speaks of “the Lord Jesus Christ,” and these words give his human name Jesus, his title Christ (Messiah), and his lordship (deity). Besides, in 2:1 James speaks of Jesus as the object of faith and so of worship, as Moffatt[41] correctly has it: “As you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory.” See also 5:7, “until the coming of the Lord” (cf. 5:8).

There are no doctrinal discussions of the cross and the resurrection, but all this is distinctly implied. James also announces himself as a Christian in 1:1 and could not wish to conceal the gospel if he meant to win Jews to Christ. Moreover, he draws a distinction between the Christians (“ye”) and their oppressors (“they,” apparently rich Jews) in 2:7: “Do not they blaspheme the honorable name, by which ye are called?” That “name” is the name of Christ.[42] Compare also 2:6: “Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?” Besides, James claims the readers as believers, “my brethren,” in 2:1 and 5:7 f. There are, doubtless, passages where James pictures unbelieving Jews, as in 2:6 f. just mentioned and in particular 5:1-6, that vivid apostrophe to the rich Jews of the time.

In 1 Peter 1:1 we find the other instance of diaspora, or dispersion. Here Peter seems to mean by “the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” not merely Jews or Jewish Christians but all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, in the spiritual dispersion, “sojourners” from the true Palestine or promised land (heaven). Is this the idea of James? Zahn[43] takes this position and finds that the writer is addressing all Christians in general, whether those persons would be Jews or Gentiles.

But surely the author has in mind simply Christian Jews outside of Palestine. The use of the word “synagogue” as a place of worship (James 2:2) on a par with “church” (5:14) argues for this interpretation. He is addressing the Christian Jews, who now have many problems, and he may have hoped by means of these believing Jews to reach the wider circle of unbelieving Jews. He speaks of Abraham as “our father” (2:21). He assumes that for his readers the Mosaic law is still binding (2:9-11; 4:11).[44]

The Occasion

This we do not know. Unlike most of Paul’s epistles, there are no personal details. We are left to conjecture, as in the case of Jude and 1 John. The picture drawn in the epistle is that of Jewish Christians of the poorer classes, with a small number of richer brethren (1:10), struggling for life in the midst of a social and economic environment that was utterly unsympathetic, not to say hostile. The process of adjustment was difficult and perilous. There were perils to the individual and to the church life, and James shows real mastery of the situation that confronted the Jewish Christians in the middle of the first century in the scattered regions where they were found. He writes to them in a firm tone but with manifest understanding and sympathy.

Character of the Epistle

The book, small as it is, is a little gem in conception and expression. It reminds one of portions of the book of Proverbs, some of the Psalms, portions of the Prophets, the Twelve Patriarchs, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, and the Sermon on the Mount. It is quite possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James; at least there are several coincidences between them. At any rate, there seems to be some literary connection between some of Paul’s epistles (Rom., 1 Cor., Gal.), 1 Peter and Hebrews, and the Epistle of James. Some contend that the epistle makes use of these New Testament books. M. Jones[45] thinks that the author had some knowledge of the Stoic philosophers, but this could have come through Hellenistic Judaism, as for instance the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo.

The author, as already shown, writes in the smooth and easy Koine of a gifted and cultivated Jew of Palestine. One does not have to say with Patrick[46] that James had a wide knowledge of classical Greek. He may never have read a line of “classical” Greek, but he knew well the current Greek of his day and used it with fine skill. It is not a labored production and is in no sense artificial. The author is full of the Old Testament and writes like one of the prophets; yet he has a firm grip upon the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The book forms a fine link between the Old and New Testaments. James, the brother of the Lord Jesus, understands the Old Testament and loves Moses still. He seeks to interpret Christianity more fully on its ethical and social side to the Jewish Christians of his time, who are in sad need of help, beset as they are by Jew and Gentile, and with an imperfect grasp of the new gospel. They find in this epistle just what they need to make practice correspond to profession, to square life with creed. The lesson is still needed today. There is a peculiar pertinence about the teaching of James that appeals to modern men who are nothing if not practical.

III
Joy in Trial

Evidently these early Jewish Christians had their share of trial. Who, alas, does not have his portion? The problem with us all is to learn how to find the spring of joy in the midst of sorrow. There are always perplexities and anxieties. The sea is restless even in its moments of calm beauty.

Variety in Trials (1:2)

There is the tone of an elder brother in this epistle, and we see it at the start when James says “my brothers.” It is no perfunctory phrase with him. It is “trials,” not “temptations,” that James here has in mind, though the same word probably means temptation in 1:12. The word in the Greek came to have either sense, though originally it meant only to try, to attempt, just as our English word “tempt” was at first simply “try.” But it is a short step from “try” to “make trial of” one when suspicion exists or evil desire arises. Hence all through the Greek we find the old Greek word used in both senses. The New Testament usage varies. There are a half dozen other passages where the word has the idea of trial (Luke 22:28; Acts 20:19; Gal. 4:14; 1 Peter 1:6; 4:12; Rev. 3:10). In 1 Peter 1:6 the identical expression “manifold trials” appears. Oesterley[47] wrongly insists that “temptation” is the meaning in James 1:2 on the ground that “the writer’s Judaism is stronger than his Christianity,” and he then uses it as an argument against the genuineness of the book.

A soldier (Parry) does have “true joy” in victory over temptation, like Wordsworth’s “happy warrior,” but that is beside the mark here. There is no conflict here with the avoidance of temptation urged by Jesus (Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4; Matt. 26:41; Luke 22:40). James refers rather to external trials into which men fall—trials that are not only unwelcome but also unsought and unexpected.[48] It is almost the picture of a stumble in the dark when one finds himself surrounded by hostile forces, just as the poor man fell among robbers (Luke 10:30).

Besides, one may be surrounded by all sorts of trials at once and not merely any sort of trial (Moffatt). The word “manifold” is really many-colored, variegated, spotted, mottled, pied, dappled. “It never rains but it pours,” we say at such a time. The same word is applied to the sicknesses and torments of body and mind which Jesus healed (Matt. 4:24). It is used of the evil desires that lead silly women astray (2 Tim. 3:6), of the lusts and pleasures which once the Cretans served (Titus 3:3), of the variety in the manifestation of God’s power in connection with the gospel (Heb. 2:4), of the many sorts of strange teachings then afloat (Heb. 13:9) of which we are now beginning to learn something (incipient Gnosticism and the early stages of Mithraism, for example), of the many trials which brought sorrow to the Christians (1 Peter 1:6), and of the many sides to the grace of God (1 Peter 4:10). God has grace for every trial whatever its color, whether black or blue, yellow or green, red or crimson.

The way to face them all is with joy in the heart and a smile on the face. We are not asked to rush into trials and to make mock martyrs of ourselves. We are not asked to rejoice because of the trials, many or few. Much depends on how we treat the problem of trial, much of which is beyond our control, like poverty in wisdom (James 1:5) and in substance (1:9) and like persecution (2:6 f.).

We are not to be blind to facts nor to submit tamely to what can be cured and should not be endured. James is not a cynic or a stoic but a victorious Christian who has learned the lesson that thankful joy is easier and wiser than mere dull resignation (Plummer, in loco). Each trouble may be met by a special kind of joy as its antidote. The common idea about “all joy” is that James thereby means pure joy, nothing but joy. “Greet it as pure joy” (Moffatt). That is possible, though it may also mean “bring to bear all that joy has to offer.” It does not mean (Mayor) that all of joy is contained in this view. At any rate, it is much to know that joy in suffering is possible, as many saints can testify who have reached the pure air of fellowship with Jesus in suffering (cf. Phil. 3:10). The Brother of James said: “Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you” (Matt. 5:10-12).

This is part of the fellowship of Christ and of the saints, the “sunshine band” of those who have learned to smile in the midst of tears, like the sunshine in the rain. Paul was able to say: “But we also rejoice in our tribulations” (Rom. 5:3). This is not the joy of the fanatic or of the fakir or of the rhapsodist. It is the joy of the soul that is at peace with God in Christ and has also more than earth and hell can take away, the peace that passes all understanding. The disciples rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (Acts 5:41). Even Marcus Aurelius said: “Say not that that which hath befallen thee is bad fortune, but that to endure it nobly is good fortune.”

The Product of Trial (1:3)

The rule of Christian joy thus expounded stands the test of experience. The word “knowing” is the one used for experimental knowledge as opposed to mere intellectual apprehension. The tense (present participle) expresses continuous acquisition of fresh knowledge from experience. It is the school of life where we learn most of what we really know. The position of James is thus in thorough harmony with psychology. The command to rejoice in the midst of manifold trials, paradoxical though it seems, is one that the Jewish Christians knew to be true from their experience of grace. Johnstone[49] has a fine word: “Affliction lets down a blazing torch into his own nature—and he sees many things which he little expected to see.” One of the marvels of modern science is the use of electric light by divers at the bottom of the sea to take pictures of sea life.

It is the biological conception that James has in mind. The law of life (nature and grace) works through personal experience and not by mechanical impartation. What do we learn by experience? “That the proving of your faith worketh patience.” Moffatt has it: “That the sterling temper of your faith produces endurance.”

The notion is plainly that of testing. See the same phrase in 1 Peter 1:7. Thus James, as Paul, regards faith as “the very foundation of religion” (Mayor). The verb from which the adjective is derived is common enough for testing a yoke of oxen (Luke 14:19), the spirits (1 John 4:1), work by fire (1 Cor. 3:13), genuineness of love (2 Cor. 8:8), all things (1 Thess. 5:21). Peter (1 Peter 1:7) explains the adjective by the verb (tested by fire). Compare Sirach 2:5: “For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity.” One is reminded of the Sermon on the Mount. “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16).

Patience is patientia (patior) and is called by Philo the queen of the virtues. The Jews (Oesterley, in loco) had had ample need of this virtue in their checkered history. It is just the opposite of the “superman” of Nietzsche, the triumph of might over right, the will to get what one wishes, right or wrong. There is inevitable conflict between selfish militarism and Christianity. It is a pity that Christians have left it to socialists to make the most vigorous protest against war. But alas, both Christians and socialists are swept under by the vortex of war nolens volens. And yet by “patience” James does not mean inertia or lack of ambition. It is not complacent self-satisfaction but the triumph of regulated consideration of the welfare of others, the victory of love over greed, the joy of doing without that others may be happy, the happiness of enduring ill for the sake of Jesus.

It is very hard to remain under misfortune (the literal meaning of the Greek word for patience) when it cannot be helped. James does not mean that we are not to try to cure any of the ills of life, not to overcome ignorance, poverty, disease, crime. There is here no surcease for the war on the evil conditions of modern life in home or city or state. But many things cannot be changed. Others will be alleviated by and by. Meanwhile the Christian can rise to the height of cheerful, joyful patience. It is the practice of cheerfulness that we so much need. We do not have to shut our eyes to the facts of life and of the human reason and deny the existence of sin and sickness. We can conquer the bitter results of these evils by the joy in Christ that drives away despair.

This patience is the product of trial. We are not born with a supply of patience. It is not bestowed in fulness upon us at the new birth. Like the manna, we need a fresh supply each morning. But the habit of mind termed patience is gradually wrought in us by the discipline of experience. Bitterness is a possible fruit of sorrow and hard experiences. Bitterness is written all over some sad faces. That terrible calamity can be missed, will be missed, if one walks in the way of him who said: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28 f.). It may not be easy and light at first, but it becomes so in the presence of Jesus.

Nobly does Wordsworth interpret it for us all:

Who, doomed to go in company with pain,

And fear and bloodshed, miserable train!

Turned his necessity to glorious gain;

In face of these doth exercise a power

Which is our human nature’s highest dower;

Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves

Of their bad influence, and their good receives.

Perfection by Patience (1:4)

There is no other way than the slow way of life. The mushroom springs up in a night and goes as quickly away. The oak grows a few inches a year and lasts for centuries. The finest product in God’s garden is the soul of man, ripe with the long years of toil and sorrow. Luther Burbank learned some of the witchery of nature by watching her ways with plant life. He showed great patience and has much to show for it. Give patience a chance to do its work and keep on giving it a fair show. Ole Bull said that if he missed practicing on his violin one day, he noticed the difference in his playing. If he missed two days, other musicians noticed it. If he skipped three days, all the world knew it.

“Only, let your endurance be a finished product” (Moffatt). It comes to that in all great achievements, for the test is endurance. The goal is at the end of the race, where Jesus is the author and finisher of the faith which we possess (Heb. 12:2). “We are become partakers of Christ, if we hold ... firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:14). “But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13).

Patience calls for courage; discouragement leads to impatience and failure. There is need of long-suffering (Col. 1:11), if we get the “finished product.” The word for perfect here occurs also in James 1:17, 25; 3:2. The word, like the substantive, has a double usage (cf. finis and our end), either limit or aim. So the perfect man may be regarded in the absolute sense, the limit, as the perfect Man Christ Jesus (Eph. 4:13), or as on the way to the goal (no longer a child but a developed man, as in 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15). “The perfect” (1 Cor. 13:10) is still to come, but there is “perfect love” (1 John 4:18). We are to aim after the perfection of God himself (Matt. 5:48). Paul’s ambition was to present each one “perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). Compare also Colossians 4:12. Here James has his eye on the goal which is at the end of the long road. He knows full well (3:2) that in many things we all stumble, but we must persevere. Patience must do its “perfect work,” that ye may be “perfect.”

But James takes a latitudinal look at the work of patience, not merely the longitudinal view—the view that ye may be “entire, lacking nothing,” “complete, with never a defect” (Moffatt). This word for entire (cf. integer) means complete in all its parts, whole, not unsound anywhere. At the end of the race we are to be fully developed and sound to the core in heart and limb. The word is used of stones untouched by a tool (Deut. 27:6), of a body without blemish. Epictetus (bk. III, chap. xxvi, § 25) uses the word of a vessel which one finds whole, unbroken, and useful. It is used of a complete or unbroken household. In the papyri Philo uses both words together, as James does here.

The substantive is used of the “perfect soundness” of the man just healed by Peter and John (Acts 3:16). This adjective occurs with “righteousness” (Wisd. 15:13) and “worship” or “religion” (4 Macc. 17). The adjective is used by Paul in his prayer for the Thessalonians, “preserved entire, without blame” (1 Thess. 5:23). This is what Jesus does for his glorious church, which is to be without “spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27). Jesus, our High Priest, “has perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). Alas, Isaiah (1:6) found Israel wholly wanting in this soundness. James’s ideal is that we shall fall short in nothing. Our destiny is to dwell in the family of God and to be like Jesus, our elder Brother (1 John 3:2). This ultimate divine fulness is not the self-sufficiency of the stoics.

Shortage in Wisdom (1:5)

“Defective in wisdom,” Moffatt puts it. It is the same word that occurs at the end of verse 4. James is fond of catching up a preceding word and going on with it, even if, as here, in a new sense. “If any of you lacketh wisdom,” James gently hints. Who is it that does not feel his shortcoming here, at times with painful intensity?

What does James mean by wisdom? It is more than knowledge. It is more than mere intelligent apprehension of acquired knowledge. Tennyson says: “Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.” James shows familiarity with the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Ecclus.)[50] and possibly also the so-called Wisdom of Solomon. Certainly he knows the book of Proverbs. But here he does not use wisdom in a philosophical or mystical sense.

With James wisdom is the right use of one’s opportunities in holy living. It is living like Christ in accord with the will of God. In 3:13-17 he gives a formal discussion of the two sorts of wisdom. Bede suggests that we need wisdom to know how to look at trial in the true light. Yes, and we need it to give patience the chance to do its perfect work. Paul uses wisdom in the special sense of God’s wisdom as shown in the gospel as infinitely superior to the wisdom of the world which scouted the cross of Christ. “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect” (the mature, 1 Cor. 2:6, AV).

In the Old Testament wisdom is sometimes the intelligence of God (Prov. 8:22-30). “Ten measures of wisdom came down from heaven, and nine of them fell to the lot of the Holy Land” (Kiddushim, 49b). With James the source of wisdom is God, not the Jews. So then, when our supply runs short, ask of God. It is like a bank to which we go to get our money. God is the banker whose supply of wisdom never gives out. Unlike other bankers, he asks no security save the name of Jesus.[51] That name gives us full credit at the bank of heaven.

On that basis God “gives to all men without question or reproach” (Moffatt). We have it expressed as “liberally” in the standard versions. It is a rather difficult word to translate into English. It means simple, singlefold, sincere. Compare the “single” eye in Matthew 6:22; Luke 11:34. In Romans 12:8 it is not clear whether singleness or liberality is the idea, but “liberality” is obviously correct in 2 Corinthians 8:2, “the riches of their liberality.” So it is in 9:11, 13, but “singleness of heart” in Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22.

Oesterley finds the notion of James to be “singleness of aim, the aim being the imparting of benefit without requiring anything in return.” Likewise, Bengel interprets it by simpliciter. Either idea makes good sense, for surely God gives to us all with singleness of purpose and also without bargaining on God’s part, for there is no idea of reciprocity. “Without question” (Moffatt) suggests an understanding with God, which is true. It is the normal, natural thing for a child of God to come to God and ask of him, for he “upbraideth not.” A fool upbraids, the Son of Sirach says (Ecclus. 20:15). Instead of upbraiding us for asking, rather we are made to wonder why we did not ask sooner.

God does not chide us for our folly but gives us good measure of wisdom to take its place. This is the literal truth, as many self-confessed fools of the world are glad to testify. They have left the folly of a worldly, selfish, sinful life for the rich joy of the service of God in Christ. The change may come in a moment, for after all, this new view of life and the power to live it may be had for the asking. “And it shall be given him.” It will be given on request, with no other identification than the plea of the sinner who comes in the name of Jesus, the “open sesame” to the treasures of heaven, himself the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:30) in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden (Col. 2:3). God does ask of us that we use this wisdom for his glory and for the blessing of other lives, the enrichment of other hearts.

Doubting Prayer (1:6-8)

Jesus (Matt. 7:7 f.) had urged the disciples to ask, with the promise that God would answer.

There is a condition attached to the wide-open invitation in James 1:5. “But let him ask in faith,” James adds. By faith James means not a body of doctrine but trust in God, a working confidence in God that leads one to ask and to expect to receive what he asks. It is certain that God does not answer some prayers, at least in the way expected. Some requests ought not to be granted, in fact ought never to be made. Prayer may be very foolish as well as very wise. God does not offer to grant every whim of a spoiled and petulant child. But assuming that one is asking for wisdom, which surely is a proper prayer for anyone to make, even so he may miss it because he does not exercise wisdom in the asking. He must not chill the ardor of his desire by hesitation and doubt. Let him ask, “nothing doubting.”

To doubt is to have a divided mind that draws him two ways, like the poor donkey that starved because he could not choose between the two stacks of hay. Such a man is like a wave of the sea (“Like a cork floating on the wave, now carried towards the shore, now away from it,” Mayor), one of the most transitory things imaginable, driven by the wind and tossed into sea foam (whitecaps) as if blown by a fan or bellows, a veritable “brain storm” of perplexity and indecision.

God does answer prayer, but not the prayer of a man who insults the Giver of whom he asks a favor. Timid faith is quite another thing. That Jesus honored, as in the case of the father who first said, “But if thou canst do any thing” (Mark 9:22). Jesus rebuked him for his “if thou canst.” Then the anxious father cried out: “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”

There are many difficulties in the way of trust in God today. Science has left many minds groping in the dark without God, feeling after him if haply they may find him, not knowing that he is nigh to each of us. We do not have an absentee God. He can and does hear the cry of his children for help. If SOS can find a response over the wind and the wave to the call of the sinking ship, surely it is not strange that the Father of our spirits will hear our call to him. So it will be, “if ye have faith and doubt not,” almost the very words used by James.

Jesus had to rebuke his disciples for their lack of faith (Matt. 8:26) when they thought they were perishing from wind and wave. And Simon Peter doubted after he began to walk on the water and started at once to sink. “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” says Jesus to Peter (Matt. 14:31). Peter had a divided mind. “Let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.” He does not expect anything, and he is not disappointed. What a commentary is this sentence upon the halfhearted praying, the lack of interest, the worldly-minded passive worship of many modern Christians. There is no wrestling with God in prayer for victory.

“Double-minded creature that he is, wavering at every turn” (Moffatt). The double-minded man is like the two-faced man (Mr. Facing Both Ways). Sirach (2:13) speaks of the sinner coming to two paths and being unable to choose. Such a man perishes at the crossroads. Compare James 4:8 for the only other use of the word in the New Testament, though common enough elsewhere. Such indecision goes into duplicity, as Jesus shows about the evil eye and the single eye (Matt. 6:22 f.). It is a miserable life, as anyone knows who leads a double life. The double heart leads to the double life, with its pretended double standard of morals. Clement of Rome says: “Wretched are the double-minded, who doubt in their heart.” No wonder he becomes “unstable in all his ways,” not able to stand in all his goings. He wobbles and finally reels like a drunken man. Such inconstancy winds up in hypocrisy or abandonment to sin.

The Democracy of Faith (1:9-11)

James returns to the keynote of “all joy” (v. 2) and uses the word “glory.” The positive note of exultation is the mark of the true Christian against the double-minded man. The pessimist is not a representative of Christianity. The true optimist is not, however, blind to the facts of life. He can glory in God in the midst of all sorts of trials and conditions, whether in high or low estate. His joy is independent of earthly estate. The “cotter’s Saturday night” may be as happy as the one in the castle nearby. Class distinctions are no cause for pride in a spiritual democracy like the church of Jesus Christ. We need in Christianity no “princes of the church” in the Roman Catholic sense. Pride of rank among the twelve disciples was a source of grief to Jesus. The rich and the poor are one in Christ Jesus, and all are poor, miserable sinners saved by grace.

Johnstone[52] calls this section “Rich Poor and Poor Rich.” That is true and is the probable interpretation here. The humble[53] brother may, after all, be the richest man in the church—rich in grace, in love, in joy, in peace, in righteousness, in fellowship. This is “his high estate,” which rises sheer above hovel or palace. Thank God that this infinite wealth of the spirit is still open to the poor all over the world who find the door of competency closed in their faces. The pious poor is more than a phrase. It is often literal fact.

The papyri discoveries[54] bear eloquent testimony to the words of Paul about the membership of the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:26-29). The papyri letters and other documents are chiefly from the middle and lower classes and reflect the actual life of the very people from whom the gospel made most of its converts (fishermen, carpenters, publicans, tentmakers, etc.). There were already some wealthy members of the early churches, men like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas of Cyprus. There were “not many mighty,” but there were some. There soon came to be large numbers of slaves in the churches when the gospel spread among the Gentiles. But already social problems of an acute nature were on hand when James wrote. In fact, we see such problems in the early chapters of Acts, when Ananias and Sapphira wished to get credit for a generosity that they were not willing to show and when high feeling arose in the distribution of the funds for the Aramean (Palestinian) and Hellenistic widows among the Jewish Christians. At no point are people more sensitive than about money.

So the rich brother is to be reminded of his humiliation, “in that he is made low,” placed on a level with the “lowly brother.” They meet on the level in Christ. Each is as high and as low as the other—no more, no less. The rich man is not to glory over the poor man, nor is the poor brother to cringe in the presence of the rich brother. This is the democracy of faith, the universality of Christ.

The rich brother is in constant peril of pride of possession, and so James reminds him of the fate of the beautiful flower of the grass which springs up quickly and withers before the burning heat and falls off. It is a striking adaptation of the language of Isaiah (40:6-8), using the imagery for another purpose. 1 Peter 1:24 says: “All flesh is as grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass.” Christ brings all men to their true level, the common humanity in us all, the sonship in him that makes us heirs of heaven. Moffatt changes “his high estate” to “when he is raised,” and “in that he is made low” to “in being lowered.” He seems to understand that James refers to the possible ups and downs of life. It will be easy for the lowly brother in that case to rejoice when he becomes rich; but how about the rich brother when he becomes poor?

Plummer (in loco) refuses to see a “brother” at all in the rich man, but only one of the rich Jews who oppressed the early Christians, as in James 5:1-6. But that gives an Ebionitic tone to the epistle. James does indulge in irony, but he is apparently sincere in his picture here. The rich brother will fade away in his goings, as if James has in mind a salesman whose business dries up like a flower. Riches truly have wings and fly away. They are sweet like the rose but soon vanish from us forever.

IV
The Way of Temptation

James powerfully sketches the natural history of temptation if yielded to and the glory of victory if overcome. The other sense (temptation) of the word used for trial in 1:2 occurs here. Moffatt indeed takes trial as the idea in 1:12 also (so does Hort in loco), but certainly in verse 13 we have to say “temptation.” It is most likely that the idea of temptation is present in 1:12. Here James returns to the discussion of the other side of the blessing of trials, namely, the blessing of temptation endured. As a matter of fact, he has not really digressed from the subject. He merely discusses one aspect.

Standing the Test (1:12)

“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation.” We must never forget that Jesus warned us against rushing into temptation, not merely in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4) but also in the agony of Gethsemane, when Satan had come upon him with renewed energy in spite of repeated defeats by Jesus since the wilderness temptations (Matt. 26:41; Luke 22:40). Jesus urged the disciples to pray to be spared temptation. No one knew so well as he the power of the evil one. He had wrestled with him to the end and had conquered where others failed. Temptation is not to be courted, not even for the sake of the experience and the possible victory. Too many go down in the struggle for any to rush into it lightly. “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

But if temptation is thrust upon one, then he must fight and win as Jesus did. There is always a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). We must find the way out. Compare Job 5:17: “Behold, happy is the man whom the Lord correcteth.” He only is happy (the same word used in the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:3-11) who endures. That is true patience. It is only “when he hath been approved” after standing the test that “he shall receive the crown of life,” the victor’s crown. The word for approved suggests the furnace that removes the dross and leaves the pure metal. The refiner of silver watches, we are told, till he sees his own image in the metal. Then it is pure. The metal is tested and approved.

“The crown of life” (cf. Rev. 2:10) is probably the wreath of victory in the games (cf. 1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 2:5), for Greek games were common in Palestine in the days of Herod the Great and were practiced even in Jerusalem itself (Josephus, Ant. 15, 8, 1 f.). It is a crown of kingly glory, but it is bestowed as reward of merit to those who love the Lord Jesus. We may have a reference to a Logion of Jesus not preserved in which he makes this promise: “Blessed is he who hath his raiment white, for he it is who receiveth the crown of joy upon his head.”[55] In Proverbs 1:9 we read that the instruction of father and mother “shall be a chaplet of grace unto thy head.” In Sirach 15:6 we read of “a crown of gladness,” and in the Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi iv. 1) we find “crowns of glory.” Love is the way to win this crown—love and the proof of it in enduring temptation and leading “the white life.”

Blaming God (1:13)

Whatever doubt exists in verse 12 about trial or temptation vanishes in verse 13. Here it is clearly temptation to evil. Hort (in loco) suggests “tempted by trial,” and Moffatt puts it “tried by temptation.” Certainly trial becomes a temptation to some men who use it as the excuse for doing wrong. “Though trial in itself is ordered by God for our good, yet the inner solicitation to evil which is aroused by the outer trial is from ourselves” (Mayor). Any trial wrongly used may become a temptation, whereas it was meant for our development and perfection. Temptation is merely one aspect of trial and not a necessary one. But the word is used of the great tempter (1 Thess. 3:5). So Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Mark 1:13). Satan desired to sift the apostles as wheat, to ruin them if possible (Luke 22:31). The Pharisees and the Sadducees sought to tempt Jesus (Matt. 15:1). It is the devil’s business to seek to lure another into wrong.

When a man is tempted and yields to the temptation, he is eager to blame someone else for his sin. If he cannot do otherwise, he will blame God for having made him as he is, with evil possibilities. In particular is this true of sexual sin, which Oesterley (in loco) thinks James has specifically in mind here. Compare Matthew 5:28; 1 Peter 2:11. Adam blamed Eve, and Eve the serpent. And even Adam blamed God, for he said: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me” (Gen. 3:12).

Some dare to say in so many words: “I am tempted of God.” They hold God responsible for their appetites and passions and seek to quiet the conscience thus while they give way to sin. Others hide behind heredity, environment, or evil companions. Even Agamemnon excused himself for his wrong to Achilles by holding Zeus and fate responsible. Sirach (15:11 f.) says: “Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away.” The origin of sin is a dark problem, but it is a lazy philosophy or a blind one that shirks human responsibility, or tries to do it. It matters not whether sin is the remnant of the beast in us (surely some men act at times like the tiger) or the response to evil environment or both, we are merely cowardly when we blame God for our own wrongdoing.

There is no response to evil in God. He is not “man’s giant shadow skyward thrown.” The absolute holiness and ethical purity of God should at least protect him from the charge of leading us into sin. The worst of men, in their darkest moments of loneliness, sometimes come face to face with God. Then they do not flippantly blame God but confess their sins with broken heart. Two things are true about evil and God. One is that God himself tempts no man to sin. He does send trial but not temptation. We may not understand all the ways of God’s providence, but we may rest secure in this: The devil does tempt us. That is his business. And yet James does not refer to Satan by name here, for after all, we ourselves are responsible, as he proceeds to show. It does not help matters with us any more than it did with Eve to lay our sin upon the devil. The other thing that is true is that God cannot be tempted with evil. He cannot be tempted to do evil himself or be led to tempt others with evil. The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament or in the Septuagint, but it is a paraphrase of a common proverb in the early Christian writings.[56] God does chastise us (Heb. 12:4 f.), but he does not tempt us.

All this is in strong contrast to the Greek and Roman notions of duty, for the heathen gods were credited with all human and even inhuman vices. The gods upon Olympus revel in lust and cruelty, jealousy and hate. They furnish fit ideals for the philosophy of Nietzsche but do not accord with the God of the New Testament, the God of consolation and of peace, of purity and love.

Snared by One’s Own Bait (1:14)

The man himself is responsible for his sin, and he need not seek to place the blame elsewhere. The temptation is not a temptation to him if he refuses to listen to the siren’s voice. The man is not responsible for the efforts of others to allure him to sin but only in case he listens and yields. Then he is really tempted “when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.”

The figure is very bold and impressive. The word for “drawn away” is used in Oppian for drawing the fish out from its original retreat, beguiling it from under the rock. Then the fish is ready to be snared by the bait. The fish bites at the bait and is caught on the hook. So with a man. He is drawn out by his own lust for the sin placed before him. In the case of sexual sin the impulse is not in itself sinful any more than the fish’s hunger for food. The sexual nature is from God and is meant only for blessing for high and holy ends. But the misuse of this impulse is very easy and very dreadful in its results. Satan sets many kinds of bait for unwary boys and girls, men and women, who at first are taken off their guard and then are drawn away by desire stirred within them toward evil. The evil suggestion is entertained, and sin is the outcome.

This very word “entice” is used of hunting (trapping with bait), and then it is used of the harlot who entices to sin. “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not” (Prov. 1:10). Philo speaks of our being “driven by passion or enticed by pleasure.” The pitfalls are many in modern life—in the country, in the village, and in the city. The modern demons of drink, drug, and the brothel are busy in finding victims. But the point made by James is that the one who yields does so because of the sin within his own heart.

A person’s own evil desire plays the part of temptress (Plummer), and he is drawn away by it and enticed. “If thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door” (Gen. 4:7) like a panther ready to spring upon the intended victim caught for the moment off guard. One is reminded afresh of the opening chapters of Proverbs, which cannot be excelled by any of the modern books on sex instruction, some of which stimulate more immorality than they prevent. Wise warning is needed and plain talk is demanded, but not pruriency any more than prudery. Alas, that the paw of the modern Moloch draws into the fire so many thousands of young men and women from the homes of our land. The best capital of America is the children, and we lose too much of it in the worst of gambles—the traffic in souls.

The Abortion (1:15)

The natural history of sin as the result of temptation to which one yields is given with scientific accuracy and graphic power: “Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death.” Moffatt renders it thus: “Then Desire conceives and breeds Sin, while Sin matures and gives birth to Death.” It is a gruesome picture surely. But who can say that it is overdrawn?

The positivist tries to shut God out of the world and so to banish human responsibility; but alas, he cannot banish human woe and anguish of heart. The agnostic flings up his hands in despair and says he does not know and has nothing to say in the presence of nature, “red in tooth and claw.” The brutal militarist adopts the rule of physical might wrongly claimed by Nietzsche to be the mark of the superman. Spiritual and moral prowess should dominate brute force in man, else he becomes only a brute himself. He drops back to the law of the jungle and rejects the law of love in the kingdom of heaven. The Christian Scientist blandly shuts his eyes to such errors of mortal mind as sin and sickness and sorrow and, ostrich-like, cheerfully denies their reality and seeks to blow them away with a puff. But sin is not to be brushed aside in this way.

The words of this verse call for particular remark. “Then” is here the historical order following the temptation to which one yields. His lust drew him forth to the temptation. He yields, and the result is the conception; the embryo develops into sin. This is the first birth, and sin is the child of desire. Desire is not in itself sinful, but it easily falls into sin. Thus in a true sense desire makes sin where there was no sin and so gives birth to sin. But this is not all. Sin in its turn matures and gives birth to death.[57] This second child is like a child born dead.

When sin is born, death is involved like an embryonic parasite that feeds on sin. Desire, sin, death form the biological line of pedigree. The line is short, for “the wages of sin is death,” as Paul puts it (Rom. 6:23).[58] The picture in James is that of an abnormal birth like a misshapen animal. I have seen a five-legged cow, the fifth leg on the top of the back standing up straight. When sin is born, death begins (conception) and grows in fascinating power till a new birth comes; and lo, this child is death itself. “The birth of death follows of necessity when once sin is fully formed, for sin from its first beginnings carried death within” (Hort, in loco).

The law of death in sin applies to other sins besides the so-called sexual sins which write their history so plainly in the body and the mind and bring a heritage of woe through all the family history. There is here no sowing of wild oats to raise a crop of wheat. The fearful fidelity of modern scientific knowledge throws a lurid light on this passage in James. The sinner makes his bed and lies down in it and drags down with him the helpless ones who are thrown in his care.

As I am writing I receive a copy of Light, a magazine published by the World’s Purity Federation. The issue for November, 1914, contains an article by a woman who has lived “twenty-five years in the underworld.” Her story reads like a commentary on the words of James. She claims to have had the best of that sordid life, but she concludes: “No matter what humiliation a girl has to endure, it is better to endure it than to get into this life. There is nothing in it for any of them. The very best of us get it hard before we die. And, at the best, it is Hell.” The issue of death is seen not merely in the diseases of the body but “also in the deterioration of mind and character which accompanies every kind of sin” (Mayor, in loco). Death and hell then claim their own.

God, the Source of Good (1:16 f.)

The contrast is sharp. “Be not deceived”; do not wander so in your minds as to think that temptation and sin and death come from God. He is not the source of evil. Rabbi Chaninah says: “No evil thing cometh down from above.” Note Jesus in John 8:23 on “above” and “below.” James is tenderly affectionate in his appeal on this point—“my beloved brethren.” On the contrary, only good comes from God. God is good, and he alone is absolutely good (Mark 10:18).[59] In the Greek the next sentence runs like a hexameter line if one short syllable is considered long by stress of the meter.[60] We need not tarry over a fanciful straining after poetical lines in prose. Oesterley agrees with Ewald in seeing here a quotation from a Hellenistic poem. It is far more likely just accidental rhythm common enough in good prose. The scholars differ also as to how to translate the sentence. Moffatt has it: “All we are given is good, and all our endowments are faultless.”

“The Father of lights” sets God over against the worship of the sun so common among the ancients. Plato (Repub. vi. 505 ff.) compares the sun to the idea of the good. Modern science powerfully illustrates this comparison of James in bringing out what we owe to the sun in the way of light, heat, and life itself. Philo calls God “the Father of the all,” the lights (the moon and the stars) and all else in the universe. “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” (Psalm 8:3 f.). Compare Philippians 2:15. God is not only light (1 John 1:5), but all true light comes from him—all the light that lights every man coming into the world (John 1:9).

But the sun appears to move rapidly. Watch the sun drop like a ball of fire at sunset and thus cast a deepening shadow over the earth. The sundial is one of the oldest ways to mark “the shadow that is cast by turning.” Mayor quotes Plutarch (Percl. 7) for the use of this figure for shadows cast on the dial. James is here, of course, using popular language, as we still do when we say that the sun rises and sets. But with our Father of lights there is “no change of rising and setting” (Moffatt). He “casts no shadow on the earth.” Even the polestar, we now know, whirls on in space, carrying the worlds along with it. But our God is not changeable or whimsical. He does not send now good, now ill. He knows how to give good gifts to those that ask him, yea, the best of all gifts, the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13). What seems ill is really good if it comes from God. If one takes his stand by God’s side and looks at his life, he sees God’s plan as a whole for his own life and for God’s glory.

The New Birth (1:18)

“So far from God tempting us to evil, his will is the cause of our regeneration” (Mayor). He is our Father in a double sense. We owe our original birth to God, in whose image we are made (Gen. 2:7). We owe our spiritual birth likewise to God, who begat us again to a living hope (1 Peter 1:3). The Mishnah (Surenh., iv. 116) says: “A man’s father only brought him forth into this world: his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brings him into the life of the world to come.” Happy is the father who leads his child also to Christ. But while the word of truth is the instrument used in the instruction (a pointed lesson for parents, teachers, preachers), the actual work of regeneration is due to God as Father, yes, and as Mother also, for the word “brought forth” is the one used of the mother (see by contrast v. 15).

The doctrine of grace here set forth is of a piece with that in Paul’s writings (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 1:5), those of Peter (1 Peter 1:3), and of John (1:13). Indeed, Jesus himself is quoted as saying: “Ye did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). As the seed of sin produces death, so the seed of God produces life (1 John 3:9). It is interesting to note this piece of fundamental theology in so practical a writer as James, who lays special emphasis on works as proof of life. But James has no such idea as some careless and shallow theologians who think that a man can galvanize himself into spiritual life by imitative ethics. The man must be born again, as Jesus said so impressively to Nicodemus (John 3:3). The miracle of birth must precede growth and development.

We are not to puzzle ourselves too much over the mysteries of spiritual biology. We know that the impulse and purpose[61] come from God (John 1:13). What we do know is that God honors and uses the word of truth, both spoken and written. If this is true, what a responsibility belongs to us for diligence and urgency in the use of the word of truth.

By the truth we are set free from sin and error (John 8:31 f.). The word of truth is the gospel of salvation (Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5), the word of life (1 John 1:1). God’s word is truth (John 17:17), and the words of Jesus are spirit and life (John 6:63). The word of truth, when combined with the power of God (2 Cor. 6:7), quickens into life. So James emphasizes the importance of the human element in the new birth, while rightly making God supreme in the act of regeneration. We must reach men with the word of God. We must pass it on to the thirsty, the hungry, the dying. Every church is, or ought to be, a lifesaving station, a rescue mission, a teaching center, a powerhouse, a lighthouse radiating knowledge of God in Christ.

The purpose of God in renewing us by the word of truth is that we in turn should win others. We are not an end in ourselves, though God does save us. He saves us that we may serve. We are to be a sort of first fruits,[62] not the full harvest. There are fields upon fields beyond us ready for the reaper. We are just a beginning, just a foretaste. We whet the appetite for larger, richer blessings. “The trees that are a fortnight to the fore are the talk and delight of the town.”[63] One spring my baby boy noticed a tree without leaves when all the rest were in leaf. “What is the matter with this tree?” he asked.

Christ has introduced a new order into the world. He himself is the real first fruits (1 Cor. 15:20). But there are others through all the ages—those that ripen first and fast, show the way, give promise of the future. So Epaenetus was a first fruits of Asia for Christ (Rom. 16:5); the household of Stephanas was in Corinth (1 Cor. 16:15). Blessings rest on the first fruits for salvation in any church, any town, any family. They are the chosen of God, like the 144,000 in the book of Revelation (14:3), the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). The Jews consecrated their first fruits to God as his in a special sense. All Christians are meant to be first fruits, the promise and earnest of better work (Rom. 8:23). God has in store great things for his people. The least that we can do is to bring our first and our best, our all, and lay it at the feet of Jesus. The new heaven and the new earth may not come while we live on earth, but we may help heaven to come upon earth by living the life of God.

V
The Practice of the Word of God

Nowhere is James richer than in this wonderful paragraph in verses 19-27 of the first chapter. He has in mind “the word of truth” of verse 18 and follows that idea with pungent and powerful words that remind one of the Sermon on the Mount. It is not clear whether the first part of verse 19 belongs in idea to what goes before or what follows. “Ye know this, my beloved brethren.” It makes perfectly good sense either way. It is also uncertain whether we have a statement or a command, for the form may be either indicative or imperative. If you know it, act on your knowledge. Let us listen to what the Word has to say, since we are renewed by the use of it, and be less captious in our criticism of its teachings (Mayor). Moffatt puts it, “Be sure of that, my beloved brothers,” and connects it with verse 18.

Brilliant Listening (1:19a)

By “swift to hear” James brings a vivid picture before us. Moffatt has it “quick to listen.” Sirach (5:11) has a like command: “Be swift in thy listening.” One thinks of fleet of foot, yes, and of ear. The Vulgate has velox here. The wild animals (and the Indians) of necessity have keen ears and can hear the slightest rustle of a leaf or crackling of a twig. The rabbit, so often hunted by man and dog, pricks up his ears at the sound of a pin dropping. The use of the telephone and radio have given added importance to the value of the ear. The ancients relied very much on the ear, for the reader of books had a wide-awake audience who depended on the ear rather than the eye for information.

The mechanism of listening is very wonderful, the contact between brain and brain through the sound waves of speech and the reception of the spoken words by the ear. Jesus often said: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” The ear with many was, and is, the sole avenue of acquiring knowledge. It is no disparagement of books to say that the art of conversation is one of the greatest refinements. But the very essence of a good conversationalist is that he be also a good listener; else he is a consummate bore. Sydney Smith said of Macaulay that his occasional flashes of silence made his conversation delightful. In Qoheleth Rabba we read: “Speech for a shekel, silence for two, it is like a precious stone.” Broadus had a great lecture on “The Art of Listening.” It is a really rare art and one of the most useful.

Poor listening will make poor preaching of a really good sermon. Good listening will come near to making a good sermon out of a poor one. The writer of Hebrews complains that his readers have become dull of hearing. The word “dull” means no push. They had no push in their ears, no energy in listening, were already half asleep. In particular do we need to listen when God speaks to us in his Word of truth, to have “a quick and attentive ear to catch what God has spoken” (Hort). Inattention is irritating and may be deadly. Sirach says: “The mind of a sagacious person will meditate on a proverb; and an attentive ear is the desire of a wise man” (3:29). God is constantly speaking to those with ears to hear. It is good for the young to learn the habit of attention, a help in meeting temptation.

Eloquent Silence (1:19b)

Another life rule of James (Windisch) is “slow to speak.” One must not forget Homer’s “winged words,” for words can be laden with messages of joy and life and peace and love. Eloquence has its place, real eloquence of the soul—words on fire that blaze and burn, words that thrill and electrify, words that make life and death noble and high, words like those of Jesus that are spirit and life (John 6:63). But when all is said, there is something deeper than mere speech, higher than just words, nobler than talk. If speech is silvern, silence is often golden.

Sorrow may be too unutterable for words. Joy may pass beyond all speech. The proverb also has it that “many a man has had to repent of speaking, but never one of holding his peace,” unless silence is guilty or cowardly. But it is easy to be voluble with the tongue and slack in life. Sirach says: “Be not violent with thy tongue, and in thy deeds slack and remiss.” Volubility is certainly not a sign of power. The silent man, like Moses, is more likely to be a man of power and performance. The parrot and the owl form good examples of the weakness of chatter and the wisdom of silence. Zeno calls attention to the obvious fact that we have two ears and one mouth and should therefore listen twice as much as we talk.

James does not, of course, mean that men should be slow and dull talkers after they begin to talk. He means slow to talk, not slow in talking. Often the least interesting men are the very ones who talk most frequently and at the greatest length. We are to think twice before we speak. Sometimes, if we do that, we shall not speak at all. At any rate, we shall be more likely to have sense in our speech. We shall speak to more purpose if we speak after silence and out of the reflection from silence.

McLaren has a good phrase, “Spread out our souls to the truth.” “Be still, and know that I am God.” Mary “kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). She could only listen to God. The Quakers have some ground for their plea for meditation in the Christian life. Introspection can, of course, be overdone, but the present age is not given to reflection and contemplation. Practical mysticism is the best type of Christianity. Indeed, Christianity without mysticism is empty and formal.

It is quite possible (Johnstone) that the free conversational style employed in the early Christian meetings was taken advantage of by contentious persons, with the result of serious wranglings, as in the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 14). “In the multitude of words there wanteth not transgression; but he that refraineth his lips doeth wisely” (Prov. 10:19). Such violent talkers break up the spiritual life of a church. The less they know, the more they talk. They have positive opinions on every subject of politics or religion. They know how their neighbors should act in the smallest details and criticize everybody and everything. They are happiest when all is agog with talk of some sort; and the more gossipy it is, the better they like it. “They cannot think, and it is a relief to them to hear their own voices” (Dale). Epictetus (Ench. xxxiii, §5) has the same idea as James: “Let there be silence for the most part or let that which is necessary be said in few words.”

Dull Anger (1:19c f.)

The third life rule of James is “slow to wrath.” There is a clear connection between speech and anger. Anger inflames one to hasty and unguarded talk. In turn, the words act as fuel to the flames. The talk inflames the anger, and the anger inflames the talk. The more one talks, the angrier he becomes—like a spitfire. If one stops talking, his anger will cool down for lack of fuel. Men who are dull enough in listening, who will sleep through any sermon, are quick to resent a personal reflection or an imagined wrong. Often one’s manhood is gauged by his quickness to avenge a personal affront, with murder as the outcome. This is a fine place to be dull, when one is tempted to be angry.

Anger is sometimes justifiable, even necessary. There is such a thing as righteous indignation against wrong. Jesus “looked round about on them with anger” (Mark 3:5), but it was compassionate anger. It is possible to be angry and sin not (Eph. 4:26), but we must not let the sun go down upon our wrath. Unlike God, we do not know all the circumstances in the case. Getting mad is not promoting the kingdom of God. “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” (Compare Matthew 5:21 f.) The euphemistic phrase of James is emphatic by its very mildness. Man’s wrath is set over against God’s righteousness. The growth of religion and of civilization is marked by the self-restraint of the individual and of the state. Vengeance is a boomerang in most instances. The taking of vengeance into one’s own hands brings down the house on one’s head. Not only is unhappiness brought to others; immeasurable harm is done in one’s own life.

At any rate, it pays every man and every nation to be slow to anger.

Boys, flying kites, haul in their white-winged birds;

You can’t do that way, when you’re flying words.

Thoughts, unexpressed, may sometimes fall back dead,

But God himself can’t kill them once they’re said.

Sometimes unpalatable truth has to be spoken, hard words have to be said. “Am I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). But the preacher needs to temper rebuke with love and anguish of soul.

The Rooted Word (1:21)

“The implanted word” is probably a mistranslation. The common idea of the word is “inborn” or “innate” (cf. Wisd. 12:10, “their wickedness is inborn”). The word is occasionally used for second nature or secondary ingrowth (Hort). The word is sown, not grafted, and so “rooted” seems to be the meaning here (Mayor). See also Romans 6:5, “united with him in the likeness of his death.” The figure is that of the seed sown in the heart and taking root and growing there. So Jesus spoke of the man who had no root in himself (Matt. 13:21).

Receive the rooted word; but before doing so, one must cleanse the heart like a garden of all noxious weeds. The imagery is doubtless a mixed metaphor, but never mind that, for the thought is clear. The “putting away” suggests the laying aside of a garment, as in Hebrews 12:1 one strips for the race. In Ephesians 4:21 Paul contrasts putting off the old man with putting on the new (cf. also Col. 3:8 ff.). Mayor notes the comparison between dress and character in the wedding garment (Matt. 22:11), the white robe of purity (Rev. 3:4, 18). In 1 Peter 2:1 we have language similar to that of James, “putting away therefore all wickedness.” But probably James means to carry the figure of the garden all through the verse, as Moffatt has it: “So clear away all the foul rank growth,” the weeds of “filthiness” and “overflowing of wickedness.” The “filthiness” may mean impurity. Compare Paul’s phrase “corrupt speech,” literally “rotten speech” in Ephesians 4:29. But in Revelation 22:11, “And he that is filthy let him be made filthy still,” the notion is more general.

Another noxious weed that must be gotten out of the way is “wickedness,” which here may have the narrower sense of malice. “What was called holy anger was nothing better than spite” (Hort). It is even suggested that the “overflowing” is a sort of overgrowth or excrescence (Hort), but with no idea of admitting that a small amount of wickedness or malice is not evil. The precise figure is an ebullition or effervescence of malice. Surely one too often sees this picture in actual life. Malice bubbles up and runs over into word and deed. “The evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil” (Luke 6:45). He speaks out of the abundance of his heart. Surely evil runs riot unless it is checked and taken out, root and branch. Per contra one loves to think of the abundance of grace (Rom. 5:17, 21) and the abundance of joy (2 Cor. 8:2).

When once the weeds are out of the way, “make a soil of modesty for the Word which roots itself inwardly” (Moffatt). Surely the repentant sinner can only “receive with meekness.” Hort notes that the temper full of harshness and pride destroys the faculty of perceiving the voice of God. Jesus urged men to come to school to him, because he is meek and lowly in heart (Matt. 11:29). Meekness is not a virtue that ranks high with all men. Many of the ancients counted it a vice, as Nietzsche has taught in our generation. But the spirit of Nietzsche’s superman is not the spirit of Jesus or of the true gentleman. There can be no true culture without gentleness and the grace of meekness.

If the seed of the Word gets root and is allowed to grow (compare the wayside, stony-ground, thorny-ground hearers in Christ’s parable in Matt. 13), the tree of life will flourish in the garden of the soul. This word is “able to save your souls.” It brings a present salvation here and now (John 5:34), a new life of purity. It helps in the progressive salvation of the whole man in his battle with sin and growth in grace (2 Tim. 3:15). It leads to final salvation in heaven with Christ in God (1 Peter 1:9). The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16); the very power of God pulses in it. See Hebrews 4:12 f. for a wonderful picture of the vital force of the Word of God, quick and powerful, all electric with the energy of the Spirit of God. Men may scoff at and scout the message of God, but it saves men’s souls. What else does that?

Hearers Only (1:22-24)

James keeps the balance well. He has shown the wisdom of good listening. Now he proves the futility of mere listening with no effort to put into practice what one hears. There is life in the Word of God if it is lived. It is quick with life-giving energy for those who put it to the test of life. One may hear and not heed. The Greek used the same word for both ideas. One is reminded of the parable of the sower again, for only one of the four classes of hearers brought forth fruit. That is the test. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The reception of the Word will only bring final salvation in case the fruit is borne.

James knew only too well the empty ceremonialism of the Jews who said and did not. Jesus (see Matt. 23) arraigned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in the most scathing denunciation of all time. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves.” Show yourselves “word-doers” (Hort). By “word” it is not clear whether is meant the Torah (Oesterley) or any word of authority (Hort), or the rooted word just mentioned (Plummer). The latter is most likely, though the partial personification of “word” here reminds one of the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel and of Philo and the Targums.

The “hearers only” did nothing else but listen. They were true “sermon tasters” who fed upon the ministry of the Word or the written word, only to fatten into sloth and spiritual inertia. They got the hookworm disease in religion and belonged to the shirkers, not the workers. Rabbi Chananiah used to say: “Whosesoever works are in excess of his wisdom, his wisdom stands; and whosesoever wisdom is in excess of his works, his wisdom stands not.”[64] The rabbis said there were two crowns, one for doing and one for hearing, based on Exodus 24:7: “we will do, and we will be obedient” (“hear”). The word for hearers appears nowhere else in the New Testament and was used for attendants at the lectures of philosophers and other public speakers rather than learners or disciples. One thinks of the public reading of the Word in the synagogues. But even so, “Act on the Word,” Moffatt has it. Else it is like pouring water into a sieve. It is in one ear and out of the other.

Some people have a sort of religious dissipation in attending revival services and imagine that they have accomplished a great deal if they simply go. People easily acquire itching ears that love to be tickled with some sensation. The word takes no root in the hearts of such men. They run from church to church to get a new word, a sort of soda-water habit. They deceive themselves but nobody else. These spiritual “gadabouts” are shallow and skim the surface only. They make a sort of motion picture but accomplish nothing substantial in their own lives or in the work of the kingdom. They are guilty of a logical fallacy and are the victims of their own delusions (cf. Col. 2:4). One has thus a case of autointoxication. He has inoculated himself with the virus of his own error.

And now James draws a wonderfully vivid picture of the idle hearers, the hangers-on in revival meetings, like the scum that comes first to the surface, lighthearted, impulsive, nonchalant, without depth of purpose or seriousness in life. Such a frivolous listener glances at his face in a mirror, taking note to see that he looks natural and proper. A quick look suffices for that, for “his natural face,” the face of his birth, the only one that he has. If nothing is awry about his appearance reflected in the mirror, he is satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the momentary glance. The mirror was probably of metal, and the word is often used by the poets (Mayor). Here the mirror is the Word of God (spoken or written) by which one takes a look at himself, and the quick and superficial view brings satisfaction or a passing pang. See 1 Corinthians 13:12 for the use of “mirror” for the imperfect knowledge of Christ through reflection in the Word of God and in life contrasted with the blessed reality when face to face with him (Mayor). But here in James the man tarries by the mirror for a moment and soon moves off.

All that he saw in the Word of God is now out of sight and out of mind, like the wayside hearers in Christ’s parable. If it was a sermon that he heard, the impulses for good quickly die away. He is back at his business, at his club, or in his home. He straightway forgets what he was like, what sort of man he was in the mirror. In particular, any unpleasant features are forgotten. The momentary trembling of the conscience no longer bothers him. Alas, how easily the burning heat of the day withers the tender shoots in the stony ground; the weeds and thorns choke to death the pious aspirations of the better hours.

Real Students of the Word (1:25)

The image of the mirror is carried on into the picture of the doer of the word, the “doer that worketh,” a doer of work, “an active agent” (Moffatt). The phrase is tautological but very emphatic. He is not only a doer of word but a doer of deeds. He has put the word into practice and has brought practical results. He has transmuted word into deed. This is what counts, the practice of the Word of God, not mere glancing at the mirror nor chatter about what one saw or picked up, not a hearer of forgetfulness. It is astonishing what poor memories men have for what God says. The Doctrine of Addai gives as an uncanonical saying of Jesus: “That which we preach before the people by word we should practise by deed in the sight of all.”

The sincere listener pauses long enough to become interested in the real meaning of the Word of God, which is now law to him, for he wishes to obey this Word of the Master. These listeners are the joy of the preacher’s heart, those who turn to the Scriptures, like the Bereans, to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). The word in James suggests curiosity and eagerness, as in Sirach 14:23, of the one who looks through the door of wisdom, and in 1 Peter 1:12, the desire of the angels to peer into the problems of the mission of Christ to earth. The law of God is attractive and perfect to the doer of work, as the psalmist has it: “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). But it is not a law of compulsion but of freedom. One is free to accept or to reject it. Certainly James does not have the view of the Judaizers, who made the law a yoke of bondage even for Gentiles, but rather that of Paul, who accented the freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1). Jesus held out freedom as the great blessing of truth (John 8:32)—freedom to exercise one’s highest functions and faculties held in bondage by sin and mere legalism.

Perhaps the chief emphasis in this verse lies in the word “continueth.” The man remains by the side of the roll of the law spread out before him and unrolls page after page with the keenest interest and zest until he rightly grasps the meaning of God. Thus he puts the Word into practice. He has it stamped on his mind and heart. He is a Christian pragmatist. He, like Brother Lawrence, practices the presence of God. He translates the word of truth into his own life and becomes a living epistle. This is the Bible that the twentieth century loves to read. The man who does this is “happy in his doing,” “blessed in his activity” (Moffatt). He is happy in the doing, even if it falls far short of the ideal in the word of truth. He has tried, and he will keep on trying. He can sing the song of the shirt, the song of the plow, the song of the desk.

Complacent Religiosity (1:26)

Mere listening may be idle. Mere work may be perfunctory. One may be a worker only as well as a hearer only. The hearer only deceives himself by an error of reason (1:22). The worker only deceives his own heart by an error of conduct. He leads himself astray, out of the path, by the delusion that religion consists in the performance of religious duties, not in the attitude toward God in the heart or the ethical conduct. Paul uses the term for Pharisaism (Acts 26:5) and in Colossians 2:18 for the worship of the angels. It is the external aspect of public worship. Originally it had the meaning of reverence for the gods (Hort), but it soon came to be used for the ceremonial rites of worship. In 4 Maccabees 5:6 the word is used for the refusal of the Jews to eat pork.

In a word, it is applied to one who does faithfully the religious chores. The Pharisees form a striking illustration of this emphasis on the ceremonial side of public worship. The regular attendance at the hours of prayer, faithful observance of the rules of ritual purification, payment of the tithes—these things constituted worship. Finally, these alone constituted worship. Religion came to consist in the ceremony alone, the letter and not the spirit, the hull and not the kernel.

Most of the things done were good enough. It is good to have the outside of the cup clean but not so important as the inside or as clean water in the cup. Jesus exposed this failing of the Pharisees with great incisiveness and power. It is easy to mistake form for reality. So men have come to count their beads as prayer, to pray with prayer wheels. A person may attend church regularly, contribute liberally, come to prayer meeting, have family prayers, be a member of the church, and yet not be religious. He may have religiosity and not religion. One may mistake performance of religious functions for the possession of the spirit of religion. In the very act of working out the religious impulse men often fall into traps. So here the man considers that he is a religious man. He is content with his religious status, and yet he does not control his tongue. “He bridleth not his tongue”; this is the earliest known use of this striking figure, though Aristophanes speaks of an unbridled mouth.

The tongue is regarded as an unruly horse that needs bit and bridle held fast by the master to control it. The tongue is allowed to say whatever a spiteful heart prompts. The bitterest words are not felt to be inconsistent with personal piety. Such a man considers himself a pillar of the church in spite of his loose tongue and loose living. He performs religious duties on Sunday and is a shyster on Monday. He deceives himself, but no one else is deceived. Such a man’s religious service is empty of any value with God or man. It is vain and hollow mockery. His own complacency makes the matter worse. He is a stumbling block to those who judge religion by him, for he has divorced religion from life.

Unspotted from the World (1:27)

James does not give a definition of religion in this verse but an illustration of the right sort of religious exercise in contrast with the futile religiosity already noted. The absence of the article shows that he does not mean an inclusive description. “A religious exercise pure and undefiled” is here given quite the opposite meaning of the professional performances of the pharisaic pietists. There is pure religion, and the counterfeit is a tribute to it. This religion is free from pollution. There is in it no alloy of selfishness nor other sin. Moffatt renders it “unsoiled,” but it may have the notion of genuine metal.

This standard of purity and piety seems impossible, but God knows how to estimate the relation between listening and doing, between doing and loving, between loving and purity of life. The life must pass muster with God. At first sight one is perhaps depressed by the reflection that God’s standard of piety is so much higher than ours. What some men consider holy worship is to God hollow mockery. But then God is our Father. He planted the word of truth in our hearts. He has watched it grow. He knows the limitations of environment in which the tree of life has grown.

James gives two very practical tests of genuine religion. One is mercy toward the suffering. The widow and the orphan appeal to the hardest hearts. And yet men have been known to spend thousands of dollars upon palaces of worship while the poor perished in the alley behind the church. The social side of practical religion is receiving more attention these days than it once did. The very hospitals and asylums are an expression of that love for our common humanity taught by Jesus. James has no sympathy with that cold orthodoxy that is satisfied with singing psalms to Jehovah while the widow and the orphan suffer, with no help from the blind worshipers nearby.

Christianity is inward and spiritual, not mere perfunctory ritual. But it is not mere mystical brooding or abstract contemplation. The cry of the child and the cry of the mother for the child were heard by Jesus. Today the children cry aloud in our streets and in our factories for school and play, for love and sympathy, for better homes and better food, for care of the body and of the soul. Jesus still loves the children. Christ discovered the child. The modern world at last has begun to find out the child that Jesus has placed in the midst of us. There are many other forms of social service which the true Christian may find right by his door. The neighbor in need may even lie at his gate.

The other test of pure religion offered by James is more distinctly personal and more difficult, though the first test is met none too well. It is “to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” Moffatt has it “from the stain of the world.” It is a high calling surely if one is to walk in a world like this free from the stain of sin, with no spot upon garments, body, or soul. The Lamb of God was offered as a sacrifice without spot. Christ will present his church at last without spot. James had just spoken of the use of the tongue. That also can leave a spot or stain (cf. 3:6).

There is much dirt of all kinds about us. The germs of sin infest and infect us all. And yet it is not hopeless to make a fight for purity in life. We do not give up the battle for cleanliness of body, for healthfulness of body, for victory over the germs of disease about us and in us. It is worthwhile to lead the clean, white life of purity. One has his reward in his own life—in fresh power, in new joy, in richer fruitage. He has his reward also in the inspiration given to others, who are cheered to strive likewise against sin, to fight for personal and social purity, for better homes and better cities, for a better world in which to serve God, for a bit of heaven here on earth, for the reign of God in human hearts, for likeness to Jesus the Son of God.

VI
Class Prejudice

In the second chapter James recurs to the discussion of the democracy of faith found in 1:9-11. In fact, it had never been very far in the background. The use of “my brethren” is eminently appropriate here, since he is urging the readers to brotherly kindness (Mayor).

Face Value in Religion (2:1)

This is a very hard verse to translate at once, for we must decide three disputed questions. One is whether the verb is imperative or interrogative. It is taken as imperative in most versions, and so most interpreters hold, but Hort urges that it is a tame conception compared with the indignant query expecting the answer no. There is force in this point, as thus James would be expressing vehement surprise that such partiality could exist among the Jewish Christians. Still, the prohibition against such partiality makes good sense.

There is little doubt that “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” should be rendered “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is objective, not subjective, genitive. For a similar use of the objective genitive with faith one may note Mark 11:22 and Acts 3:16. It is not the faith of Jesus that is under discussion but the faith of the readers in Jesus Christ our Lord. This interpretation commits James to the worship of Jesus as Lord and Messiah, but that is surely what would be expected in one who claimed to be a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). It is true that the standpoint of James is nearer to that of the Old Testament than is true of Peter, John, and Paul, but after the great Pentecost there seems to be no wavering on the great fundamentals of Christianity, though there is rich development and enlargement.

The essence of the Christology of James is precisely that of Paul, though James does not amplify his implications as Paul does. James, though very Jewish in background, is thoroughly Christian. The heart of Christianity, the worship of Jesus as Lord and Saviour, is here, though chronologically the Epistle of James precedes the teaching of Paul and John in their writings. It is like the child and the man (Plummer), not a retrograde movement. It is the outlook of Jerusalem, not that of Antioch. What James is discussing is not the personal religion of Jesus but the reader’s faith in Jesus.

The third disputed point in the verse is the word “glory.” The English versions generally insert the words “the Lord” and make it “the Lord of glory,” but Bengel makes “the glory” ipse Christus. In this he is followed by Mayor, Hort, and Oesterley; and it is almost certainly true that by “glory” James has in mind the Shekinah. In the Septuagint for Leviticus 26:11 the word for Shekinah is just that used in Revelation 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men.” In John 1:14 we read: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father).” Add to this Hebrews 1:3, “who, being the effulgence of his glory,” and the case seems made out. In Pirke Aboth iii. 3 we note: “Two that sit together and are occupied in words of Thorah have the Shekinah among them.”

Jesus claimed, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). Jesus is thus not only the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the Resurrection but also the Glory. James may have in mind the resurrection glory of Jesus as he appeared to him. In Luke 2:32 Simeon says: “The glory of thy people Israel.”

But all this is by way of emphasis for the main point. One who has faith in such a Lord as Jesus should not be guilty of “acts of partiality” (Hort). The meaning of the phrase is clear, though the origin is obscure.[65] The Greek use of the word for mask is illustrated by the word for hypocrite. In Leviticus 19:15 we see the full force of the idiom: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.” See Acts 10:34, where Peter learns that God is no respecter of persons.

God does not accept the outside appearance for the inner reality—nor should we. God is the God of reality. (Compare Heb. 4:12 f.) A just judge must not be influenced by the bias of personal preference, prejudice, rank, power, money (Mayor). He must decide the case on its merits. There is no room for class prejudice or for the caste system in Christianity, as there is none in the heart of God. Christianity is democratic to the core, that is, real Christianity. Organized Christianity has sometimes been the very thing that James here condemns. Even in the single church little rifts and cliques easily develop.

Partiality in Church (2:2-4)

Already the Jewish Christians were in peril from this evil. It is, in particular, a sin of ushers who show respect of persons in seating strangers. But pastors are in constant danger of the same sin in general church relations. The word here for synagogue may mean place of worship or the assembly itself, as in Hebrews 10:25, “the assembling of yourselves together.” The word for church does not occur in the apostolic period (Hort) for place of meeting, but synagogue was already in common use in both senses. But it is not necessary to suppose that James has in mind simply a Jewish synagogue, though it is quite possible that the Jewish Christians still attended worship and heard Moses read in the synagogue (Acts 15:21), as Christians belonged to the synagogue of the Libertines (Acts 6:9) and the early Christians worshiped still in the Temple.

The use of “your” seems to mean that it is at least a Christian gathering that James refers to, whether meeting in the Jewish synagogue or elsewhere. “The growth of the Gentile element in the church excited the active hostility of the Jews against the whole body of Christians, as it troubled the Jewish converts themselves” (Westcott on Hebrews, p. xxxviii). Finally the Christians had to set up for themselves, as in Corinth (Acts 18:7) and in Ephesus (Acts 19:8 f.). We do not know the precise stage reached by the Jewish Christians here. James may mean some particular instance of trouble in the dispersion that came to his notice, or he may have in mind any Christian gathering in the dispersion. The Gentiles often attended the worship of the Jews in the synagogues (Acts 13:16, 43). The use of “synagogue” for Christian worship occurs rarely, as in Hermas, Mand. xi. 9. The time came when synagogue was used only for Jews or heretics. Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 18) says that the Ebionites call their meeting “synagogue,” not “church.” One may note also John’s use of the term “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9).

The picture of the two strangers at church is drawn with bold lines and in few words by James; yet it is remarkably clear and picturesque. The man with a gold ring probably makes a display of his ring. If he preached, he would make most of his gestures with that hand. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Mayor quotes Epictetus (Diss. 1. 22) as speaking of an “old man with gold fingers.” The “fine clothing” is literally “brilliant clothing,” “new glossy clothes” (Hort), “the fine white garment worn by wealthy Jews” (Oesterley), like that in which Herod Antipas clad Jesus when he sent him back to Pilate. One can easily see the distinguished-looking stranger as he steps in at the same time as “a poor man in vile clothing,” “in dirty clothes” (Moffatt), “old shabby clothes” (Hort). See Revelation 22:11 for the same adjective for “filthy.” In James 1:21 we had “filthiness.”

We have no means of knowing whether these two men who suddenly enter church are Christians or simply Jews. Both seem to be strangers. The courtesies extended are based purely on the appearance of these two as to dress, not on race or ecclesiastical standing.

The poor man may be one reduced to beggary—a tramp or hobo. He may be a poor working man. He stands in marked contrast with the rich man, as in 1:9-11. Probably the poor man had on the best clothes that he had. Should a man like that come to our churches? Would he be welcome in our pews? To be sure, cases occur when a bath would help matters and when plain, but clean, clothes could be provided by Christian people so as to make attendance at church free from embarrassment. But there are people, especially children, who stay away from both Sunday school and church because they do not possess decent clothes in which to come. They fear the critical eyes and comments of the people at church.

It is easy to say that people should rise above such unfavorable circumstances and come on to church to worship God, who reads the heart and does not judge men by their clothes. Yes, but a man may conclude that he can worship God just as acceptably and more comfortably in some other church where the usher does not seem so ashamed of his coming or embarrassed by his presence that, in spite of plenty of empty pews in the grand temple of worship, he finds a back seat for him under the gallery or in the gallery on a footstool (literally, “under my footstool,” probably “on the floor by my footstool”), in a corner, or a place to stand against the wall. Meanwhile, the poor man has seen the attentions paid the man in fine clothes; he is ushered to a good seat with the air of a prince.

The soul of the poor man is all the more embittered, since he came perhaps in a sort of desperation from the hardness of the world outside, a world that has economic and social laws that make the battle a difficult one. And now in the temple of God the worshipers of Jesus show the same pride of wealth and station as at a social function. The preacher talks of forgiveness of sins and the comfort of the Holy Spirit; but he and the ushers keep a sharp eye upon the man who wears the fine clothes, pompous and self-conscious as that man probably feels. The soul of the poor man is made more bitter still as he leaves the church of the rich and the proud to see if he can find God at home or the devil in the saloon or other den of iniquity.

One pity of it all is that so many churches have fine, empty, cushioned seats, while the strangers who could fill them are not sought for or not properly welcomed if they come. It is a pathetic picture that James here gives us—that of the stranger at the door of the church. Most strangers pass the door of the church by with indifference or disgust. The church must win the strangers outside unless it is to degenerate into a social club of a few select families. A church that only holds its own will soon lose that standing. The task of the church is to win the world to Christ. And then when the poor of earth enter, it is worse than folly to push them to one side and out of doors, back into the street.

This touch of life is one of many modern notes in the Epistle of James. The embarrassment of the usher in the presence of two such incongruous strangers at once is probably due to the fact that he knows full well the atmosphere or tone of the church. It is aristocratic or select; evangelical and orthodox, not evangelistic or missionary; a haven of rest for the stately pious, not a rescue station for the lost. The officers of the church thus make distinctions between the attendants at church and sort out the congregation according to worldly standards. They are “judges of evil thoughts” and act with partiality in bestowing courtesies on strangers in the house of God. All this is in such marked contrast to the spirit and conduct of Jesus that one can hardly credit his eyes when he sees it happen in church. It is increasingly difficult to get the poor to come to some of the churches. The churches themselves may sometimes become suspicious that the very poor come to church to receive financial help. So the breach widens.

Prejudice Against the Poor (2:5-7)

James now has fewer maxims and a more argumentative style, like that of Paul. He makes a passionate appeal for attention: “Hearken, my beloved brethren.” He writes as an impassioned speaker speaks (cf. 1:16; 4:13). God’s choice of the people of Israel seems to be in the background (Deut. 14:1 f.). The Jews had come in many cases to look on earthly prosperity as a mark of divine favor and poverty as a sign of God’s disfavor (cf. Psalm 73).

The Pharisees were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). But the troubles of the Jews, in spite of many wealthy Pharisees and Sadducees, had led many of them to see a blessing in poverty. See Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gad. vii. 6: “For the poor man, if, free from envy, he pleaseth the Lord in all things, is blessed beyond all men.” Oesterley (in loco) quotes Chag. 9b as saying that poverty is the quality that above all befits Israel as the Chosen People. Epictetus (bk. IV, chap. i, 43) says: “Another (thinks the cause of his evils to be) that he is poor.” Epictetus (Stob. 10) says further: “Riches are not among the things that are good.” Luke 6:20 has: “Blessed are ye poor,” where Matthew 5:3 has “poor in spirit.”

It is certain that the gospel made a powerful appeal to the poorer classes of society among Jews and Gentiles. Jesus claimed it as part of his messianic mission “to preach good tidings to the poor” (Luke 4:18), as Isaiah (60:1 f.) had foretold. He asked the messengers of John the Baptist to take back to Macherus the news that “the poor have the good tidings preached to them” (Luke 7:22) as one proof of his messiahship. Paul enlarges on the choice (1 Cor. 1:27 f.) by God of the foolish, the weak, the despised classes to add to his own glory. The early churches were gathered largely from the proletariat. Slaves and masters, rich and poor, mingled together in fellowship and brotherly love.

The papyri discoveries have shown us the world of Jesus and of Paul “in the workaday clothes of their calling.”[66] Deissmann adds: “We should be sorry indeed not to have been told that Jesus came from an artisan’s home in country surroundings.”[67] The fact that Jesus was a carpenter, a workingman in the modern sense of that term, should enlist the sympathy and the interest of all workingmen. They should heed the call of the Carpenter.

Here James boldly champions the cause of the poor as against certain rich Jews, probably not members of the church, who have oppressed the Christians and dragged them before courts of justice. With their own hand these rich Jews had dragged Christians before tribunals. Rich Sadducees had done this with Peter and John (Acts 4:1). As one of these potentates, yea, as a tyrant, Paul had once dragged men and women before the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:3; 22:4). He had even tried to make them blaspheme (Acts 26:11). It was not necessary to have special laws against the Christians. As objects of dislike it was easy enough, as Paul found out, to hale them into court. Paul came to know only too well how the tables could be turned on him when he became a Christian. He had to take his own medicine (Acts 13:50; 16:19). Jesus indeed had foretold that just this fate would befall his disciples before the courts of Jews and Gentiles (Matt. 10:17 f.; John 16:2).

The anger of these rich Jews against Jesus and Christians leads them actually to blaspheme the name of Christ. The Sadducees will not even call the name of Jesus when they discuss the case of Peter and John. They refer with contempt to “this name” (Acts 4:17), though in the threat they have to name Jesus (v. 18). The disciples rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (Acts 5:41). So “the honorable name,” “the beautiful name,” “the noble Name” (Moffatt) came to be the shibboleth of the believers in Jesus. His name was to be “the name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9 f.). It was already the only name with power to save (Acts 4:12), as Peter boldly informed the Sanhedrin. That was the meaning of the name Jesus (Matt. 1:21).

Here one sees afresh the Christology of James. The honorable name is the name of Jesus, with a possible reference to the use of it in the baptismal formula—“by which ye are called,” “which is called upon you.” At any rate, they bear the name of Christian, given probably as a reproach (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:14, 16). This name is now their badge of honor and glory. When called upon to say, “Anathema be Jesus,” they reply, “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3). Certainly the early Jewish Christians had everything to make them fear the powerful rich who had frowned upon Jesus and his cause.

And yet James dares to say to the Jewish Christians: “But ye have dishonored the poor man,” “now you insult the poor” (Moffatt). They had done it out of cringing fear of the rich Jews with all their power, or out of anxiety to please the rich so as to win them with fawning flattery. We are not to think that all the Jewish Christians had shown such narrowness or such cowardice, but some instances had come to the notice of James. Per contra note the case of Ananias and Sapphira, who wished to gain credit for great liberality to the poor by the use of part of the wealth, keeping back half though pretending to give all. All the early Christians were not poor. The cases of Barnabas, Joseph of Arimathea, and Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary occur to one at once. Jesus did not denounce rich men per se, though he did point out with great power the peril of wealth.

James is not to be understood as denouncing the rich in a wholesale fashion. Consecration is what sanctifies riches—the use of money for the glory of God and the blessing of mankind. A man is not a child of the devil just because he is rich or poor. God deals with men in the raw manhood. “A man’s a man for a’ that.” The distinction between the upper and the lower classes is partly fictitious and is not a stable condition. The slums are a dreadful fact and a disgrace to modern civilization. People should have decent homes, good food, fresh air, and clean clothes. Extreme poverty is a peril to a man’s soul, as is great wealth. It is not a sin to be rich, but dangerous, though most of us are willing to take the risk. Epictetus (Stob. 10) says: “It is difficult for a rich person to be right-minded or a right-minded person rich.” Riches and poverty are not essential criteria of character. Over against the slums in our cities one may place the pious poor of Scotland, as seen in “The Cotter’s Saturday Night.” Over against the wild and reckless nouveaux riches one may note the generous givers of millions to missions and to education.

One must learn to be just to all classes and to do justice to all. A person needs full knowledge of the social conditions about him and the courage to apply the gospel of Christ to these conditions. But let no one imagine that sociology can take the place of the gospel of Jesus. Christianity is sociological, but sociology is not necessarily Christian. We need intelligent sympathy, but most of all we need the love and grace of God in the heart. But minister and man must be independent of bondage to either rich or poor and stand in the freedom of Christ.

Prof. H. C. Vedder makes a very serious charge against modern ministers: “This attitude of the clergy can be explained only on the ground of their economic dependence upon the privileged classes. They are the hirelings of capitalism, and, to do them justice, they earn their wages.”[68] This is a bitter attack upon the ministry for always championing the cause of capital whenever labor and capital clash. The charge is not always true, as anyone who observes should know. Organized labor is sometimes in the wrong. Corporations that are unjust to labor are often denounced in the pulpit. Let every case be met on its merits. Certainly the minister of Christ should be on the side of manhood against mere money. A man’s life is more than money.

James reminds his readers that God is not ashamed of the poor. In fact, he often calls the poor, as the world regards them, to be rich in faith. After all, the riches of the spirit and of fellowship with God are the true riches. So often a turn in the wheel of life leaves a man poor today who was rich yesterday. And death will separate one from all his wealth, save what he has given away. The wicked rich man may scout the poor saint here, but Lazarus will rest in Abraham’s bosom while the wicked rich man is in torment in hades.

But even here the pious poor stand high with God, while the wicked rich are despised. The poor may be heirs of the kingdom. Think of that—heirs of the kingdom of God, the glorious messianic kingdom promised of old and now begun, the fulness of which is in the future with God, the heavenly kingdom. But even here and now the poor saint is a child of the King and has riches untold. He has love and joy in his heart, a superiority to adversity, an elevation of spirit, the peace of God that passes all understanding; and that is worth more than all the gold of Ophir.

It is not mere pious platitude on the part of James when he writes thus. He is but interpreting the soul of mystic Christianity, real Christianity, as set forth by Jesus in the Beatitudes, where those only are felicitated who have the joy of the spirit independent of outward condition or circumstance. After all, the piety of the poor is a nation’s best asset. The poor will someday, many of them, be rich. May they still be pious! The upper classes run down and run out, alas, and have to be recruited constantly from the lower classes. It is the law of life. If we save the masses, we may save the classes. At any rate, it is a pitiful business to see a church of Jesus Christ ashamed of the poor, as the world regards them, for Jesus our Lord was himself poor for our sakes, voluntarily poor. “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9)—rich in God’s mercy and grace, rich in character, in likeness to Jesus.

The Royal Law (2:8 f.)

The poise of James appears again. He has no wish to stir the passions and prejudices of the poor against the rich. Surely it is not a sin to love rich people. They are entitled to the same love as other people, many far more because of the noble use made of their wealth. If you really fulfil the royal law—a law fit for kings or such as a king will be sure to follow (cf. Psalm 72; Zech. 9:9) and supreme over other laws (Matt. 22:40)—you do well. We should love both rich and poor alike. This royal law was in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18) and is here quoted. It was sanctioned by Jesus (Matt. 19:18 f.) as one of the two chief commandments on which hang the whole law and the prophets (Matt. 22:38-40). Love of God and man covers all else. One may compare also the Golden Rule as given by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, which is just another way of stating the royal law of loving one’s neighbor (one near in need, whether in proximity or not) as oneself, a very high standard for most people.

The royal law forbids the partiality in church of which James has been speaking, this respect of persons. It is more than an error of judgment or a breach of etiquette. It is an act of sin, a slip in ethics, a missing of the mark that is fraught with grave consequences. It is bad enough to be convicted by the law as transgressors by this servile regard for the rich. It is worse to note the evil effect on the church and the community. A church of a clique is doomed. A church is only of use when it is open to the people who need the help of the gospel. The church opens its doors to let people in, does not put up bars to keep them out.

Stumbling in One Point (2:10 f.)

At first blush it seems that James has Draconian severity in these verses, but it is not the severe punishment of small crimes or venial offenses. The long list of capital crimes in ancient England shows how slowly men have learned to temper justice with mercy. Some of the Stoics said that the theft of a penny was as bad as parricide. The “blue laws” of Connecticut come to mind also. James does not say that all sins are equal, that one sin is as bad as another. As a matter of fact, each man discounts his own sins. The rake looks with scorn on the grafter. The man guilty of spiritual pride scouts the drunkard. It is a hard task to convince a man that he is guilty of his own sin.

The burden of the law was very heavy. The curse of the law (Gal. 3:13) was more than violation of particular precepts, though that was true to the last detail (Deut. 11:26, 28, 32; 27:26), as Jesus explained (Matt. 5:18 f.). The Jewish fathers put a hedge or fence about the law (Pirke Aboth i. 1) and made it very difficult to keep all of it (the law as a whole, hard enough as it was), plus the traditions of the elders, which often contradicted and set at naught the commandment of God (Mark 7:8 f.). Compare Sirach 27:12. Rabbi Hunnah, in a midrash on Numbers 5:14, taught that he who committed adultery broke all commandments, and some of the rabbis placed the sabbath above all else and held that if one profaned it, he had broken all the commandments. Mayor, per contra, quotes some of the rabbis as saying that to keep the law about fringes and phylacteries was to keep the whole law. There was a constant tendency to make the ceremonial cover up moral and spiritual lapses.

Augustine (Epistle to Jerome, 167) compares this teaching of James with the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices as mentioned. But certainly James has a higher view than these hair-splitting punctilios. Paul saw that the essence of sin lies in the motive (Rom. 14:23) and that desire to glorify God should pervade all our acts (1 Cor. 10:31). It seems hard to hold someone who makes one slip to strict account and hold him guilty of all. That is true only in the sense that James proceeds to explain that any violation of law makes one a lawbreaker.[69]

One does not have to break all the laws to become a lawbreaker. One offense places him in that category. The matter is put with this sharp emphasis because of the complacent self-satisfaction of the perfunctory ceremonialist (James 1:26), who may yet commit the sin of partiality in church. James is seeking to convict such “pious” sinners of their guilt, to rouse them out of their smug self-satisfaction.

It is quite possible that those who were guilty of spiritual pride and other sins of the spirit boasted of their freedom from adultery and murder (Hort). At any rate, we must not forget that out of the heart are the issues of life, that murder springs out of hate and that all of God’s laws come from the same will (Mayor). It is disobedience to the will of God that constitutes the essence of sin. It is not a light matter to be guilty of any sin. Our only hope is in the grace and forgiveness of God. There is no room for pride on the part of sinners, setting up one sin against another sin.

A Law of Liberty (2:12 f.)

But James is not a pharisaic legalist nor a Judaizer. He adds these verses to make it plain that he does not have in mind the painful observance of separate rules and details. The spirit is greater than the letter. Our words and deeds are to be judged by “a law of liberty” (cf. 1:25), not of bondage. We are under grace, not the old law. We live in an atmosphere of love and liberty, not of repression and slavery. God watches the real motive in our conduct toward the rich and the poor as in all things. “Mercy glorieth against judgment”; mercy triumphs over judgment. God shows mercy to us in spite of our shortcomings, for Jesus is the pledge of our fidelity and our hope.

We make so many mistakes that we should have no heart to go on if we had to be held to strict account every time we stumbled in one point. Still, we must not overlook the fact that we did stumble. It is our duty not to stumble at that point again. So we go on our stumbling way toward that goal of perfection which is ever before us. It was Jesus who said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). James seems to know this saying, as he lays emphasis on the spirit and motive in holy living.