_THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES. THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF INVOLVED
IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP._
"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord
of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your
synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come
in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that
weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place;
and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my
footstool; are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges
with evil thoughts?"--ST. JAMES ii. 1-4.
As has been stated already, in a previous chapter (p. 23), one of
Luther's main objections to this Epistle is that it does not "preach
and urge Christ." "It teaches Christian people, and yet does not once
notice the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ. The writer
names Christ a few times; but he teaches nothing of Him, but speaks of
general faith in God."
This indictment has been more fully drawn out by a modern writer. "The
author's stand-point is Jewish rather than Christian. The ideas are
cast in a Jewish mould. The very name of Christ occurs but twice
(i. 1; ii. 1), and His atonement is scarcely touched. We see little
more than the threshold of the new system. It is the teaching of a
Christian Jew, rather than of one who had reached a true apprehension
of the essence of Christ's religion. The doctrinal development is
imperfect. It is only necessary to read the entire Epistle to perceive
the truth of these remarks. In warning his readers against
transgression of the law by partiality to individuals, the author
adduces Jewish rather than Christian motives (ii. 8-13). The greater
part of the third chapter, respecting the government of the tongue, is
of the same character, in which Christ's example is not once alluded
to, the illustrations being taken from objects in nature. The warning
against uncharitable judgment does not refer to Christ, or to God, who
puts His Spirit in the hearts of believers, but to the law
(iv. 10-12). He who judges his neighbour judges the law. The
exhortation to feel and act under constant remembrance of the
dependence of our life on God belongs to the same category
(iv. 13-17). He that knows good without doing it is earnestly
admonished to practise virtue and to avoid self-security, without
reference to motives connected with redemption. Job and the Prophets
are quoted as examples of patience, not Christ; and the efficacy of
prayer is proved by the instance of Elias, without allusion to the
Redeemer's promise (v. 17). The Epistle is wound up after the same
Jewish fashion, though the opportunity of mentioning Christ, who gave
Himself a Sacrifice for sin, presented itself naturally."[53]
All this may be admitted, without at all consenting to the conclusion
which is drawn from it. Several other considerations must be taken
into account before we can form a satisfactory opinion respecting the
whole case. Few things are more misleading, in the interpretation of
Scripture, than the insisting upon one set of facts and texts, and
passing over all that is to be found on the other side. In this manner
the most opposite views may be equally proved from Scripture.
Universalism and the eschatology of Calvin, Pelagianism and Fatalism,
Papalism and Presbyterianism.
First, both logically and chronologically the teaching of St. James
precedes that of St. Paul and of St. John. To call it "retrograde"
when compared with either of them is to call a child retrograde when
compared with a man. St. Paul had to feed his converts with milk
before he fed them with meat, and the whole of the congregations
addressed by St. James in this letter must have been at a
comparatively early stage of development. In some respects even the
Mother Church of Jerusalem, from which his letter was written, did not
get beyond these early stages. Before it had done so the centre of
Christendom had moved from Jerusalem to Antioch; and to Jerusalem it
never returned. It was useless to build a structure of doctrine before
a foundation of morality had been laid. Advent must come before
Christmas, and Lent before Easter. The manifold significance of the
great truths of the Incarnation and the Resurrection would not be well
appreciated by those who were neglecting some of the plainest
principles of the moral law; and to appeal to the sanctions which
every Jew from his childhood had been accustomed to regard as final
was probably in the long-run more convincing than to remind these
converts of the additional sanctions which they had admitted when they
entered the Christian Church. Moreover, there are passages in the
Epistle which seem to show that St. James at times looks aside to
address Jews who are not Christians at all, and it may be that even
when He addresses Christian converts he deliberately prefers arguments
which would weigh with Jew and Christian alike to those which would
appeal to the latter only. Like St. Paul himself, he was willing to
become to the Jews a Jew, that he might win the Jews. Besides which,
we must allow something for the bias of his own mind. To his death he
remained in many respects, not only a saintly shepherd of the
Christian Church, but also a Hebrew of Hebrews. He is the last Jewish
prophet as well as the first Christian bishop, a Hebrew Rabbi inside
the Church; and even if the condition of his readers had not made it
desirable to lay much stress upon the Law and the Old Testament, the
associations of a lifetime would have led him frequently to those old
sources of truth and morality, all the more so as no authoritative
Christian literature was as yet in existence. It was part of his
mission to help in creating such a literature. He sets one of the
first, it may be the very first, of the mystic stones, which, although
apparently thrown together without order or connexion, form so
harmonious and so complete a whole; and alike in the solidity of its
material and in the simplicity of its form this Epistle is well fitted
to be one of the first stones in such a building.
But it is easy to go away with an exaggerated view of the so-called
deficiencies of this letter as regards distinctly Christian teaching.
The passage before us is a strong piece of evidence, and even if it
stood alone it would carry us a long way. Moreover, the strength of it
is not much affected by the ambiguity of construction which confronts
us in the original. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty
how the genitive "of glory" (τῆς δόξης) ought to be taken; but the
Revisers are possibly right: "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons."[54] Nor does it
much matter whether we take the Greek negative (μὴ ... ἔχετε) as an
imperative, "Do not go on holding;" or as an interrogative which
expects a negative reply, "Do ye hold?" In any case we have the
Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the fact of His being an object of faith
to Christians, placed before us in clear language. No mere Jew, and no
Ebionite who believed that Jesus was a mere man, could have written
thus. And the words with which the Epistle opens are scarcely less
marked: "James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ a bond-servant."
In both passages the title "Lord," which in the Old Testament means
Jehovah, is given to Jesus Christ, and in the opening words God and
the Lord Jesus are placed side by side as equal. Moreover, St. James,
who might have claimed honour as the brother of the Lord, prefers to
style himself His bond-servant. He has "known Christ after the flesh,"
few more closely and intimately, and he knows from experience how
little such knowledge avails: "henceforth knows he Him so no more." He
who does the will of God is the true brother of the Lord, and it is
this kind of relationship to Christ that he wishes to secure for his
readers.
Nor do these two passages, in which Jesus Christ is mentioned by name,
stand alone. There is the question, "Do not they blaspheme the
honourable Name by which ye were called?" The honourable Name, which
had been "called upon" them, is that of Christ, and if it can be
blasphemed it is a Divine Name (ii. 7). The Second Advent of Christ,
"the coming of the Lord," is a thing for which Christians are to wait
patiently and longingly (v. 7-9), and the office which He will then
discharge is that of the Divine Judge of all mankind. "The coming of
the Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that
ye be not judged: behold, the Judge standeth before the doors" (v. 8,
9).
Nor have we yet exhausted the passages which in this singularly
practical and undoctrinal Epistle point clearly to the central
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ and His eternal relation to His
Church. "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the
Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name
of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and
the Lord shall raise him up" (v. 14, 15). As in the case of the man
healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts iii. 6, 16) it is "in
the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom God raised from the
dead, even in this Name," that the sick man is to be restored. And
some interpreters (Dorner and Von Soden) think that Christ is
included, or even exclusively intended, in "One is the Lawgiver and
the Judge" (iv. 12. Comp. v. 9). Thus Liddon: "Especially noteworthy
is his assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of men, is not
the delegated representative of an absent Majesty, but is Himself the
Legislator enforcing His own laws. The Lawgiver, he says, is One Being
with the Judge who can save and can destroy; the Son of man, coming in
the clouds of heaven, has enacted the law which He thus
administers."[55] But without taking into account expressions of which
the interpretation is open to doubt, there is quite enough to show us
that the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His redeeming death, His abiding
power, and His return to judgment are the basis of the moral teaching
of St. James, and are never long absent from his thoughts.
Expressions, some of which no mere Jew or Ebionite could have used,
and others which no such imperfect believer would have been likely to
use, abound in this short Epistle, in spite of its simple and
practical character.[56]
"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of
glory, with respect of persons." These words open a new section of the
letter, as the renewed address indicates; and although the Epistle is
not a set treatise, capable of analysis, but a letter, in which the
subjects to be treated are loosely strung together in the order in
which they occur to the writer, yet the connexion between the two very
different subjects of this section and the preceding one can be
traced. The previous section teaches that much hearing is better than
much talking, and that much hearing is worthless without corresponding
conduct. This section denounces undue respect of persons, and
especially of wealthy persons during public worship. The connecting
thoughts are religious worship and the treatment of the poor. The
conduct which is true devotion is practical benevolence, moral purity,
and unworldliness. This conclusion suggests a new subject, worldly
respect of persons in public worship. That is the very reverse of pure
devotion. To _profess_ one's belief in Jesus Christ, the Lord of
glory, and at the same time _show_ one's belief in the majesty of mere
money, is grievously incongruous. St. James is not making any attack
on differences of rank, or asserting that no man is to be honoured
above another. He is pointing out that reverence for the wealthy is no
part of Christianity, and that such reverence is peculiarly out of
place in the house of God, especially when it brings with it a
corresponding disregard of the poor.
"If there come into your _synagogue_." This is one of several
improvements which the Revisers have introduced into this passage. The
Authorized Version has "assembly," which obscures the fact that the
letter is written in those very early days of the Church in which the
Jewish Christians still attended the worship of the Temple and the
synagogue, or if they had a separate place of worship, spoke of it
under the old familiar name. The latter is probably what is meant
here. St. James, in writing to Christians, would hardly speak of a
Jewish place of worship as "_your_ synagogue," nor would he have
rebuked Christians for the way in which different persons were treated
in a synagogue of the Jews. The supposition that "the article (τὴν
συναγωγὴ ὑμῶν) indicates that the _one_ synagogue of the entire Jewish
Christian Dispersion is meant, _i.e._ their religious community
symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship,"
is quite unfounded, and against the whole context. A typical
incident--perhaps something which had actually been witnessed by
St. James, or had been reported to him--is made the vehicle of a
general principle (comp. i. 11). That the reference is to judicial
courts often held in synagogues is also quite gratuitous, and destroys
the contrast between "pure religion" and worldly respect of persons in
public worship.
Another improvement introduced by the Revisers is a uniform
translation of the word (ἐσθής) capriciously rendered "apparel,"
"raiment," and "clothing." Only one word is used in the Greek, and it
is misleading to use three different words in English. By a quaint
misuse of the very passage before us, the translators of 1611 defend
their want of precision in such matters, and avow that in many cases
precision was deliberately sacrificed to variety and to a wish to
honour as many English words as possible by giving them a place in the
Bible! In ordinary copies of the Authorized Version the Address to
King James is commonly given, the far more instructive Address to the
Reader never. Near the close of it the translators say as follows:--
"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that
we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an
identity of words, as some peradventure would wish we had done,
because they observe, that some learned men some where, have been as
exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the
sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified
the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of
the same sense every where) we were especially careful, and made a
conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the
same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we
translate the _Hebrew_ or _Greek_ word once by _Purpose_, never to
call it _Intent_; if one where _Journeying_, never _Travelling_; if
one where _Think_, never _Suppose_; if one where _Pain_, never _Ache_;
if one where _Joy_, never _Gladness_, etc. Thus to mince the matter,
we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it
would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly
Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why
should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely,
when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father
in the primitive time shewed himself greatly moved, that one of
new-fangleness called κράββατοω σκίμπους though the difference be
little or none (Niceph. Call. viii. 42); and another reporteth, that
he was much abused for turning _Cucurbita_ (to which reading the
people had been used) into _Hedera_ (Jerome _in iv. Jonæ_. See S.
Augustine, _Epist._ 71). Now if this happen in better times, and upon
so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we
should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged
(by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good
English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher,
that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images
to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks
behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words,
Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of a
like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed
peradventure with S. James his words, namely, _To be partial in our
selves and judges of evil thoughts_."[57]
In the passage before us the repetition of one and the same word for
"clothing" is possibly not accidental. The repetition accentuates the
fact that such a thing as clothing is allowed to be the measure of a
man's merit. The rich man is neither the better nor the worse for his
fine clothes, the poor man neither the better nor the worse for his
shabby clothes. The error lies in supposing that such distinctions
have anything to do with religion, or ought to be recognized in public
worship; and still more in supposing that any one, whether rich or
poor, may at such a time be treated with contumely.
"Are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges with evil
thoughts?" Here, as in the first verse, there is a doubt whether the
sentence is an interrogation or not. In the former case the meaning is
the same, whichever way we take it; for a question which implies a
negative answer (μή interrogative) is equivalent to a prohibition.
In the present case the meaning will be affected if we consider the
sentence to be a statement of fact, and the number of translations
which have been suggested is very large. In both cases we may safely
follow the Vulgate and _all_ English versions in making the first
verse a prohibition, and the fourth a question. "Are ye not divided in
your own mind?" Or more literally, "Did ye not doubt in yourselves?"
_i.e._ on the typical occasion mentioned. At the outset St. James
says, "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of
persons." But the conduct described respecting the treatment of the
gold-ringed man and the squalidly clothed man shows that they do have
respect of persons in their religion, and that shows that genuine
faith in Christ is wanting. Such behaviour proves that they _doubt_ in
themselves. They are not single-hearted believers in the Lord Jesus,
but double-minded doubters (i. 6, 7), trying to make the best of both
worlds, and to serve God and Mammon.
The word rendered "doubt" (διακρίνεσθαι) _may_ mean "distinguish:"
"Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?" It is so taken by
Renan (_L'Antéchrist_, p. 49) and others. This makes sense, but it is
rather obvious sense; for of course to give a rich man a good place,
and a poor man a bad one, is making distinctions. It seems better to
adhere to the meaning which the word certainly has in the preceding
chapter (i. 6), as well as elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt.
xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23; Acts x. 20; Rom. iv. 20; xiv. 23), and
understand it as referring to the want of faith in Christ and in His
teaching which was displayed in a worldly preference for the rich over
the poor, even in those services in which His words were to be taught
and His person adored.
"Judges _with_ evil thoughts" is an improvement on the more literal
but misleading "judges _of_ evil thoughts" (κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν
ποωηρὼν). The meaning of the genitive case is that the evil thoughts
_characterize_ the judges, as in such common phrases as "men _of_ evil
habits," "judges _of_ remarkable severity" (see above on "hearers of
forgetfulness," p. 108). The word for "thoughts" is one which in
itself suggests evil, even without any epithet. It is the word used of
the reasonings of the Pharisees, when they taxed our Lord with
blasphemy for forgiving sins (Luke v. 22. Comp. xxiv. 38). St. Paul
uses it of those who are "vain in their reasonings" (Rom. i. 21;
1 Cor. iii. 20), and couples with it "murmurings" (Phil. ii. 14) as
congenial company. Those men who, even while engaged in the public
worship of God, set themselves up as judges to honour the rich and
condemn the poor, were not holding the faith of Jesus Christ, but were
full of evil doubts, questionings, and distrust.
[53] Davidson, _Introduction to the Study of the N.T._ vol. i. pp. 327,
328, 2nd ed. (Longmans, 1882).
[54] There is, however, a good deal to be said for Bengel's
suggestion, that τῆς δόξης is in apposition with τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰ.
Χριστοῦ, _i.e._ "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (who is) the
Glory." Comp. Luke ii. 32; Eph. i. 7; 1 Peter iv. 14; 2 Peter i. 17;
Col. i. 27; John i. 14. See J. B. Mayor's note in the _Expositor_,
Sept., 1889, pp. 225-28.
[55] _Bampton Lectures_, Lect. VI, p. 433 (Rivingtons, 1867).
[56] Among these should be included the phrases which St. James uses
to indicate the Gospel revelation: "the Word of truth" (i. 18); "the
implanted Word" (i. 21); "the perfect law, the law of liberty"
(i. 25); "the royal law" (ii. 8).
[57] From the _Exact Reprint Page for Page of the A.V. published in
the Year MDCXI._ (Oxford, 1833). See also Trench _On the A.V. of the
N.T._, pp. 83-101, and Lightfoot _On a Fresh Revision of the N.T._,
pp. 33-59, for some excellent remarks on the harm done by making
differences in the English where there is no difference in the Greek.
In the present passage, besides the threefold translation of ἐσθής,
there is a double translation of λαμπρός ("_goodly_ apparel" and
"gay clothing"), and also of εἰσέλθῃ ("come" and "come in"). In
1 John ii. 24 we have the same word (μένειν) translated in three
different ways ("abide," "remain," "continue") in the same verse,
entirely destroying the effect of St. John's impressive repetition.