Transcriber's Note.
An advertisement for the Expositor's Bible series has been shifted to
the end of the text.
Apparent typographical errors have been corrected; inconsistent
hyphenation has been retained.
Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals while italics are
indicated by _underscores_.
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
_Editor of "The Expositor"_
THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF
ST. JAMES AND ST. JUDE
BY THE REV.
ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM
FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD
_SIXTH EDITION_
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
LONDON MCMVII
_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Vincy, Ld., London and Aylesbury._
CONTENTS.
_INTRODUCTORY._
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 1
_THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._
CHAPTER II.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES 13
CHAPTER III.
THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE: JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD 25
CHAPTER IV.
THE PERSONS ADDRESSED IN THE EPISTLE: THE JEWS OF
THE DISPERSION 42
CHAPTER V.
THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL
AND OF ST. PETER.--THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE DOCTRINE
OF JOY IN TEMPTATION 55
CHAPTER VI.
THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE BOOKS OF ECCLESIASTICUS
AND OF THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.--THE VALUE OF THE APOCRYPHA,
AND THE MISCHIEF OF NEGLECTING IT 68
CHAPTER VII.
THE EXALTATION OF THE LOWLY, AND THE FADING AWAY
OF THE RICH.--THE METAPHORS OF ST. JAMES AND THE PARABLES
OF CHRIST 80
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SOURCE OF TEMPTATIONS, AND THE REALITY OF SIN.--THE
DIFFICULTIES OF THE DETERMINIST 89
CHAPTER IX.
THE DELUSION OF HEARING WITHOUT DOING.--THE MIRROR
OF GOD'S WORD 99
CHAPTER X.
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES.--THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF
INVOLVED IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS
IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 111
CHAPTER XI.
THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING
THE POOR.--THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW 124
CHAPTER XII.
FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION OF THE TEACHING
OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL.--THE RELATION
OF LUTHER TO BOTH 135
CHAPTER XIII.
THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;
AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT 149
CHAPTER XIV.
THE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS.--THE POWERS
AND PROPENSITIES OF THE TONGUE.--THE SELF-DEFILEMENT
OF THE RECKLESS TALKER 165
CHAPTER XV.
THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER 179
CHAPTER XVI.
THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW 191
CHAPTER XVII.
THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE 203
CHAPTER XVIII.
ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES OF STRIFE;
THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER 214
CHAPTER XIX.
THE SEDUCTIONS OF THE WORLD, AND THE JEALOUSY OF
THE DIVINE LOVE 226
CHAPTER XX.
THE POWER OF SATAN AND ITS LIMITS.--HUMILITY THE
FOUNDATION OF PENITENCE AND OF HOLINESS 238
CHAPTER XXI.
SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
INVOLVED IN THE LOVE OF CENSURING OTHERS 250
CHAPTER XXII.
SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES INVOLVED
IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.--THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM 261
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE FOLLIES AND INIQUITIES OF THE RICH; THEIR MISERABLE END 274
CHAPTER XXIV.
PATIENCE IN WAITING.--THE ENDURANCE OF JOB.--THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MENTION OF JOB BY ST. JAMES 289
CHAPTER XXV.
THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING.--THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE
OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST 302
CHAPTER XXVI.
WORSHIP THE BEST OUTLET AND REMEDY FOR EXCITEMENT.--THE
CONNEXION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND CONDUCT 315
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH.--THE ANOINTING OF THE
SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION 323
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONFESSION OF SINS.--THE LAWFULNESS
OF PRAYERS FOR RAIN 335
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE WORK OF CONVERTING SINNERS; ITS CONDITIONS AND REWARDS 350
_THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST JUDE._
CHAPTER XXX.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE 365
CHAPTER XXXI.
THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 377
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.--ITS RELATION
TO 2 PETER 388
CHAPTER XXXIII.
DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION--THREE
PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN 401
CHAPTER XXXIV.
RAILING AT DIGNITIES.--"THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES."--ST. JUDE'S
USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE 415
CHAPTER XXXV.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN. THE LIBERTINES
AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.--THE BOOK OF ENOCH 426
CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM: THE IMPIOUS
DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.--THE APOSTOLIC
WARNING RESPECTING THEM 442
CHAPTER XXXVII.
THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO KORAH: MAKING
SEPARATIONS.--EXHORTATIONS TO THE FAITHFUL TO
BUILD UP THEMSELVES, AND THEN RESCUE OTHERS 450
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
THE FINAL DOXOLOGY: PRAISE TO GOD, THE PROTECTOR OF
HIS SERVANTS 463
INDEX 471
INTRODUCTORY.
CHAPTER I.
_THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES._
This volume is to treat of the General Epistle of St. James and the
General Epistle of St. Jude. According to the most common, but not
invariable arrangement, they form the first and the last letters in
the collection which for fifteen centuries has been known as the
Catholic Epistles. The epithet "General," which appears in the titles
of these Epistles in the English versions, is simply the equivalent of
the epithet "Catholic," the one word being of Latin (_generalis_), the
other of Greek (καθολικός) origin. In Latin, however, _e.g._ in the
Vulgate, these letters are not called _Generales_, but _Catholicæ_.
The meaning of the term Catholic Epistles (καθολικαὶ ἐπιστολαι) has
been disputed, and more than one explanation may be found in
commentaries; but the true signification is not really doubtful. It
certainly does not mean _orthodox_ or _canonical_; although from the
sixth century, and possibly earlier, we find these Epistles sometimes
called the Canonical Epistles (_Epistolæ Canonicæ_), an expression in
which "canonical" is evidently meant to be an equivalent for
"catholic." This use is said to occur first in the _Prologus in
Canonicas Epistolas_ of the Pseudo-Jerome given by Cassiodorus (_De
Justit. Divin. Litt._, viii.); and the expression is used by
Cassiodorus himself, whose writings may be placed between A.D. 540 and
570, the period spent in his monastery at Viviers, after he had
retired from the conduct of public affairs. The term "catholic" is
used in the sense of "orthodox" before this date, but not in connexion
with these letters. There seems to be no earlier evidence of the
opinion, certainly erroneous, that this collection of seven Epistles
was called "Catholic" in order to mark them as Apostolic and
authoritative, in distinction from other letters which were heterodox,
or at any rate of inferior authority. Five out of the seven letters,
viz. all but the First Epistle of St. Peter and the First Epistle of
St. John, belong to that class of New Testament books which from the
time of Eusebius (_H. E._ III. xxv. 4) have been spoken of as
"disputed" (ἀντιλεγόμενα), _i.e._ as being up to the beginning of
the fourth century not _universally_ admitted to be canonical.[1] And
it would have been almost a contradiction in terms if Eusebius had
first called these Epistles "catholic" (_H. E._ II. xxiii. 25; VI.
xiv. 1) in the sense of being universally accepted as authoritative,
and had then classed them among the "disputed" books.
Nor is it accurate to say that these letters are called "catholic"
because they are addressed to both Jewish and Gentile Christians
alike, a statement which is not true of all of them, and least of all
of the Epistle which generally stands first in the series; for the
Epistle of St. James takes no account of Gentile Christians. Moreover,
there are Epistles of St. Paul which are addressed to both Jews and
Gentiles in the Churches to which he writes. So that this explanation
of the term makes it thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose for which
it is used, viz. to mark off these seven Epistles from the Epistles of
St. Paul. Nevertheless, this interpretation is nearer to the truth
than the former one.
The Epistles are called "Catholic" because they are not addressed to
any particular Church, whether of Thessalonica, or Corinth, or Rome,
or Galatia, but to the Church universal, or at any rate to a wide
circle of readers. This is the earliest Christian use of the term
"catholic," which was applied to the Church itself before it was
applied to these or any other writings. "Wheresoever the bishop shall
appear, there let the people be," says Ignatius to the Church of
Smyrna (viii.), "just as where Jesus Christ is, _there is the Catholic
Church_"--the earliest passage in Christian literature in which the
phrase "Catholic Church" occurs. And there can be no doubt as to the
meaning of the epithet in this expression. In later times, when
Christians were oppressed by a consciousness of the slow progress of
the Gospel, and by the knowledge that as yet only a fraction of the
human race had accepted it, it became customary to explain "catholic"
as meaning that which embraces and teaches the whole truth, rather
than as that which spreads everywhere and covers the whole earth. But
in the first two or three centuries the feeling was rather one of
jubilation and triumph at the rapidity with which the "good news" was
spreading, and of confidence that "there is not one single race of
men, whether barbarians or Greeks, or whatever they may be called,
nomads or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers
and giving of thanks are not offered, through the name of the
crucified Jesus, to the Father and Creator of all things" (Justin
Martyr, _Trypho_, cxviii.); and that as "the soul is diffused through
all the members of the body, Christians are scattered through all the
cities of the world" (_Epistle to Diognetus_, vi.).[2] Under the
influence of such exultation as this, which was felt to be in harmony
with Christ's promise and command (Luke xxiv. 47; Matt. xxviii. 10),
it was natural to use "catholic" of the universal extension of
Christendom, rather than of the comprehensiveness of the truths of
Christianity. And this meaning still prevails in the time of
Augustine, who says that "the Church is called 'Catholic' in Greek,
because it is diffused throughout the whole world" (_Epp._ lii. 1);
although the later use, as meaning orthodox, in distinction to
schismatical or heretical, has already begun; _e.g._ in the Muratorian
Fragment, in which the writer speaks of heretical writing "which
cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for wormwood is not
suitable for mixing with honey" (Tregelles, pp. 20, 47; Westcott _On
the Canon_, Appendix C, p. 500);[3] and the chapter in Clement of
Alexandria on the priority of the Catholic Church to all heretical
assemblies (_Strom._ VII. xvii).
The four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul were the Christian
writings best known during the first century after the Ascension, and
universally acknowledged as of binding authority[4]; and it was common
to speak of them as "the Gospel" and "the Apostle," much in the same
way as the Jews spoke of "the Law" and "the Prophets." But when a
third collection of Christian documents became widely known another
collective term was required by which to distinguish it from the
collections already familiar, and the feature in these seven Epistles
which seems to have struck the recipients of them most is the absence
of an address to any local Church. Hence they received the name of
Catholic, or General, or Universal Epistles. The name was all the more
natural because of the number seven, which emphasized the contrast
between these and the Pauline Epistles. St. Paul had written to seven
particular Churches--Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Philippi,
Colossæ, and Ephesus; and here were seven Epistles without any address
to a particular Church; therefore they might fitly be called
"_General_ Epistles." Clement of Alexandria uses this term of the
letter addressed to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and
Cilicia" (Acts xv. 23) by the Apostles, in the so-called Council of
Jerusalem (_Strom._ IV. xv.); and Origen uses it of the Epistle of
Barnabas (_Con. Celsum_ I. lxiii.), which is addressed simply to "sons
and daughters," _i.e._ to Christians generally.
That this meaning was well understood, even after the misleading title
"Canonical Epistles" had become usual in the West, is shown by the
interesting Prologue to these Epistles written by the Venerable Bede,
_c._ A.D. 712.[5] This prologue is headed, "Here begins the Prologue
to the seven _Canonical_ Epistles," and it opens thus: "James, Peter,
John, and Jude published seven Epistles, to which ecclesiastical
custom gives the name of _Catholic_, _i.e._ _universal_."
The name is not strictly accurate, excepting in the cases of 1 John,
2 Peter, and Jude. It is admissible in a qualified sense of 1 Peter
and James; but it is altogether inappropriate to 2 and 3 John, which
are addressed, not to the Church at large, nor to a group of local
Churches, but to individuals. But inasmuch as the common title of
these letters was not the Epistles "to the Elect Lady" and "to Gaius,"
as in the case of the letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy, but
simply the Second and Third of John, they were regarded as without
address, and classed with the Catholic Epistles. And of course it was
natural to put them into the same group with the First Epistle of
St. John, although the name of the group did not suit them. At what
date this arrangement was made is not certain; but there is reason for
believing that these seven Epistles were already regarded as one
collection in the third century, when Pamphilus, the friend of
Eusebius, was making his famous library at Cæsarea. Euthalius (_c._
A.D. 450) published an edition of them, in making which he had
collated "the accurate copies" in this library; and it is probable
that he found the grouping already existing in those copies, and did
not make it for himself. Moreover, it is probable that the copies at
Cæsarea were made by Pamphilus himself; for the summary of the
contents of the Acts published under the name of Euthalius is a mere
copy of the summary given by Pamphilus, and it became the usual
practice to place the Catholic Epistles immediately after the Acts.
If, then, Euthalius got the summary of the Acts from Pamphilus, he
probably got the arrangement from him also, viz. the putting of these
seven Epistles into one group, and placing them next to the Acts.[6]
The order which makes the Catholic Epistles follow immediately after
the Acts is very ancient, and it is a matter for regret that the
influence of Jerome, acting through the Vulgate, has universally
disturbed it in all Western Churches. "The connexion between these two
portions (the Acts and the Catholic Epistles), commended by its
intrinsic appropriateness, is preserved in a large proportion of Greek
MSS. of all ages, and corresponds to marked affinities of textual
history."[7] It is the order followed by Cyril of Jerusalem,
Athanasius, John of Damascus, the Council of Laodicea, and also by
Cassian. It has been restored by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott
and Hort; but it is not to be expected that even their powerful
authority will avail to re-establish the ancient arrangement.
The order of the books in the group of the Catholic Epistles is not
quite constant; but almost always James stands first. In a very few
authorities Peter stands first, an arrangement naturally preferred in
the West, but not adopted even there, because the authority of the
original order was too strong. A scholiast on the Epistle of James
states that this Epistle has been placed before 1 Peter, "because it
is _more catholic_ than that of Peter," by which he seems to mean that
whereas 1 Peter is addressed "to the elect who are sojourners of the
Dispersion" in certain specified districts, the Epistle of James is
addressed "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion," without
any limitation. The Venerable Bede, in the Prologue to the Catholic
Epistles quoted above (p. 6), states that James is placed first,
because he undertook to rule the Church of Jerusalem, which was the
fount and source of that evangelic preaching which has spread
throughout the world; or else because he sent his Epistle to the
twelve tribes of Israel, who were the first to believe. And Bede calls
attention to the fact that St. Paul himself adopts this order when he
speaks of "James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be
pillars" (Gal. ii. 9). It is possible, however, that the order James,
Peter, John was meant to represent a belief as to the chronological
precedence of James to Peter, and Peter to John; Jude being placed
last because of its comparative insignificance, and because it was not
at first universally admitted. The Syriac Version, which admits only
James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, has the three in this order; and if the
arrangement had its origin in reverence for the first Bishop of
Jerusalem, it is strange that most of the Syriac copies should have a
heading to the effect that these three Epistles of James, Peter, and
John are by the three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Those who
made and those who accepted this comment certainly had no idea of
reverencing the first Bishop of Jerusalem, for it implies that the
Epistle of James is by the son of Zebedee and brother of John, who was
put to death by Herod. But it is probable that this heading is a mere
blundering conjecture. If persons who believed the Epistle to be
written by James the brother of John had fixed the order, they would
have fixed it thus--Peter, James, John, as in Matt. xvii. 1; Mark
v. 37; ix. 2; xiii. 3; xiv. 33; comp. Matt. xxvi. 37; or Peter, John,
James, as in Luke viii. 51; ix. 28; Acts i. 13. But the former
arrangement would be more reasonable than the latter, seeing that John
wrote so long after the other two. The traditional order harmonizes
with two facts which were worth marking--(1) that two of the three
were Apostles, and must therefore be placed together; (2) that John
wrote last, and must therefore be placed last; but whether or no the
wish to mark these facts determined the order, we have not sufficient
knowledge to enable us to decide.
How enormous would have been the loss had the Catholic Epistles been
excluded from the canon of the New Testament it is not difficult to
see. Whole phases of Christian thought would have been missing. The
Acts and the Epistles of St. Paul would have told us of their
existence, but would not have shown to us what they were. We should
have known that there were serious differences of opinion even among
the Apostles themselves, but we should have had a very imperfect
knowledge as to their nature and reconciliation. We might have guessed
that those who had been with Jesus of Nazareth throughout His ministry
would not preach Christ in the same way as St. Paul, who had never
seen Him until after the Ascension, but we should not have been sure
of this; still less could we have seen in what the difference would
have consisted; and we should have known very little indeed of the
distinctive marks of the three great teachers who "were reputed to be
pillars" of the Church. Above all, we should have known sadly little
of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and of the teaching of those many
early Christians who, while heartily embracing the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, believed that they were bound to hold fast not only to the
morality, but to the discipline of Moses. Thus in many particulars we
should have been left to conjecture as to how the continuity in the
Divine Revelation was maintained; how the Gospel not merely
superseded, but fulfilled, and glorified, and grew out of the Law.
All this has to a large extent been made plain to us by the providence
of God in giving to us and preserving for us in the Church the seven
Catholic Epistles. We see St. James and St. Jude presenting to us that
Judaic form of Christianity which was really the complement, although
when exaggerated it became the opposite, of the teaching of St. Paul.
We see St. Peter mediating between the two, and preparing the way for
a better comprehension of both. And then St. John lifts us up into a
higher and clearer atmosphere, in which the controversy between Jew
and Gentile has faded away into the dim distance, and the only
opposition which remains worthy of a Christian's consideration is that
between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God
and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death.
[1] "Canonical" (κανονκός), from canon (κανών, connected with κάννα,
"a reed or _cane_," "measuring-rod or ruler"), is used in both a
passive and an active sense. A canonical book is primarily one which
has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a
measure or standard. Just as a cane, cut to the length of a
yard-measure, thenceforth becomes a yard-measure itself, so the
Scriptures were first of all tested as to their authority, and then
became a standard for testing all other teaching; _i.e._ they became
_canonical_.
[2] Comp. Ignatius, _Magn._ X.; Irenæus, _Hær._ I. x. 1, 2; III.
iv. 2; V. xx. 1; Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ VI., _sub-finem_;
Tertullian, _Apol._ i., xxxvii.; _Adv. Judæos_, vii., xii., etc., etc.
[3] It has been remarked that this play upon words (_fel_ and _mel_),
which cannot be reproduced in English, is an argument against the
theory of a Greek original.
[4] In the _Codex Sinaiticus_ and some other authorities the Pauline
Epistles are placed immediately after the Gospels, an arrangement
which probably had its origin in the fact that for many early
Christians these two groups constituted their New Testament. Among
versions the Memphitic and the Thebaic have this order.
[5] It is omitted by Giles and other editors, but is given by Cave, in
his _Historia Literaria_ (I., p. 475), who says that it comes from an
ancient MS. in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
[6] Westcott _On the Canon_, pp. 362, 417, 3rd Ed.
[7] Westcott and Hort, II., p. 321; Scrivener, _Introduction to the
Criticism of the N.T._ pp. 70, 74, 3rd Ed.
_THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._