_THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING THE POOR.
THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW._
"Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor
as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which
He promised to them that love Him? But ye have dishonoured the poor
man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the
judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by the
which ye are called? Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to
the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by
the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of
all."--ST. JAMES ii. 5-10.
St. James is varied in his style. Sometimes he writes short,
maxim-like sentences, which remind us of the Book of Proverbs;
sometimes, as in the passage before us, he is as argumentative as
St. Paul. Having condemned worldly respect of persons as practical
infidelity, he proceeds to prove the justice of this estimate; and he
does so with regard to both items of the account: these respecters of
persons are utterly wrong, both in their treatment of the poor and in
their treatment of the rich. The former is the worse of the two; for
it is in flat contradiction of the Divine decree, and is an attempt to
reverse it. God has said one thing about the poor man's estate, and
these time-servers, publicly in the house of God, say another.
"Hearken, my beloved brethren." He invites their attention to an
affectionate and conclusive statement of the case. "Did not God choose
them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of
the kingdom? But _ye_ have dishonoured the poor man." By the humble
life which, by Divine decree, God's Son led upon the earth, by the
social position of the men whom He chose as His Apostles and first
disciples, by blessings promised to the poor and to the friends of the
poor, both under the Law and under the Gospel, God has declared His
special approbation of the poor man's estate. "But _ye_" (ὑμεῖς δέ,
with great emphasis on the pronoun) "have dishonoured the poor man."
With Haman-like impiety ye would disgrace "the man whom the King
delights to honour."
Let us not misunderstand St. James. He does not say or imply that the
poor man is promised salvation on account of his poverty, or that his
poverty is in any way meritorious. That is not the case, any more than
that the wealth of the rich is a sin. But so far as God has declared
any preference, it is for the poor, rather than for the rich. The poor
man has fewer temptations, and he is more likely to live according to
God's will, and to win the blessings that are in store for those who
love Him. His dependence upon God for the means of life is perpetually
brought home to him, and he is spared the peril of trusting in riches,
which is so terrible a snare to the wealthy. He has greater
opportunities of the virtues which make man Christlike, and fewer
occasions of falling into those sins which separate him most fatally
from Christ. But opportunities are not virtues, and poverty is not
salvation. Nevertheless, to a Christian a poor man is an object of
reverence, rather than of contempt.
But the error of the worldly Christians whom St. James is here
rebuking does not end with dishonouring the poor whom God has
honoured; they also pay special respect to the rich. Have the rich, as
a class, shown that they deserve anything of the kind? Very much the
reverse, as experience is constantly proving. "Do not the rich oppress
you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they
blaspheme the honourable Name by the which ye are called?" Unless we
consider the "synagogue" mentioned above to be a Jewish one, in which
Christians still worship, as in the Temple at Jerusalem, the
gold-ringed worshipper is to be understood as a Christian; and reasons
have been given above (p. 118) for believing that the "synagogue" is a
Christian place of worship. But in any case the rich oppressors here
spoken of are not to be thought of as exclusively or principally
Christian. They are the wealthy as a class, whether converts to
Christianity or not; and apparently, as in chap. v. 1-6, it is the
wealthy unbelieving Jews who are principally in the writer's mind.
St. James is thinking of the rich Sadducees, who at this period
(A.D. 35-65) were among the worst oppressors of the poorer Jews, and
of course were specially bitter against those who had become adherents
of "the Way," and who seemed to them to be renegades from the faith of
their forefathers. It was precisely to this kind of oppression that
St. Paul devoted himself with fanatical zeal previous to his
conversion (Acts ix. 1, 2; 1 Tim. i. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6).
"The judgment-seats" before which these wealthy Jews drag their poorer
brethren may be either heathen or Jewish courts (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 2,
4), but are probably the Jewish courts frequently held in the
synagogues. The Roman government allowed the Jews very considerable
powers of jurisdiction over their own people, not only in purely
ecclesiastical matters, but in civil matters as well. The Mosaic Law
penetrated into almost all the relations of life, and where it was
concerned it was intolerable to a Jew to be tried by heathen law.
Consequently the Romans found that their control over the Jews was
more secure, and less provocative of rebellion, when the Jews were
permitted to retain a large measure of self-government. This applied
not only to Palestine, but to all places in which there were large
settlements of Jews. Even in the New Testament we find ample evidence
of this. The high priest grants Saul "letters to _Damascus_, unto the
synagogues," to arrest all who had become converts to "the Way" (Acts
ix. 2). And St. Paul before Herod Agrippa II. declares that, in his
fury against converts to Christianity, he "persecuted them even unto
_foreign_ cities" (Acts xxvi. 11). Most, if not all, of the five
occasions on which he himself "received of the Jews forty stripes save
one" (2 Cor. xi. 24) must have been during his travels outside
Palestine. The proconsul Gallio told the Jews of Corinth, not only
that they might, but that they must, take their charges against Paul,
for breaking Jewish law, to a Jewish tribunal; and when they
ostentatiously beat Sosthenes before his own tribunal, for some Jewish
offence, he abstained from interfering. It is likely enough that
provincial governors, partly from policy, partly from indifference,
allowed Jewish officials to exercise more power than they legally
possessed; but they possessed quite enough to enable them to handle
severely those who contravened the letter or the traditional
interpretation of the Mosaic Law. That the dragging before the
judgment-seats refers to bringing Christians before Roman magistrates,
in a time of persecution, is a gratuitous hypothesis which does not
fit the context. It was the mob, rather than the rich, that in the
earlier persecutions acted in this way. The rich were contemptuously
indifferent. There is, therefore, no evidence here that the letter was
written during the persecution under Domitian or under Trajan.
Nevertheless, their Christianity, rather than their debt, was probably
the reason why these poor Jewish Christians were prosecuted in the
synagogue courts by the wealthy Jews.
So far from this passage being evidence that the Epistle was written
at a time long after the death of St. James, it is, as Renan has
carefully shown, almost a proof that it was written during his
lifetime. As regards the relations between rich and poor, "the Epistle
of James is a perfect picture of the Ebionim at Jerusalem in the years
which preceded the revolt." The destruction of Jerusalem "introduced
so complete a change into the situation of Judaism and of
Christianity, that it is easy to distinguish a writing subsequent to
the catastrophe of the year 70 from a writing contemporary with the
third Temple. Pictures evidently referring to the internal contests
between the different classes in Jerusalem society, such as that which
is presented to us in the Epistle of James, are inconceivable after
the revolt of the year 66, which put an end to the reign of the
Sadducees."[58] These were the times when women bought the priesthood
for their husbands from Herod Agrippa II., and went to see them
officiate, over carpets spread from their own door to the Temple; when
wealthy priests were too fastidious to kill the victims for sacrifice
without first putting on silk gloves; when their kitchens were
furnished with every appliance for luxurious living, and their tables
with every delicacy; and when, supported by the Romans, to whom they
truckled, they made war upon the poor priests, who were supported by
the people. Like Hophni and Phinehas, they sent out their servants to
collect what they claimed as offerings, and if payment was refused the
servants took what they claimed by force. Facts like these help us to
understand the strong language used here by St. James, and the still
sterner words at the beginning of the fifth chapter. In such a state
of society the mere possession of wealth certainly established no
claims upon the reverence of a Christian congregation; and the fawning
upon rich people, degrading and unchristian at all times, would seem
to St. James to be specially perilous and distressing then.
"Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by which ye are called?"
The last clause literally means "which was called upon you" (τὸ
ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς); and we need not doubt that the reference is
to the Name of Christ which was invoked upon them at their baptism;
_quod invocatum est super vos_, as the Vulgate has it. The same
expression is found in the Septuagint of those who are called by God's
Name (2 Chron. vii. 14; Jer. xiv. 9; xv. 16; Amos ix. 12). Some have
suggested that the name here indicated is that of "poor," or of
"brethren," or of "Christian;" but none of these is at all probable.
It may be doubted whether the last was already in common use; and
"blaspheme" would be a very strong expression to use of any of them;
whereas both it and "honourable" are quite in keeping if the name be
that of Christ. The word rendered "honourable" (καλόν) cannot be
adequately translated. It is the same as that which is rendered "good"
when we read of "the _Good_ Shepherd" (John x. 11). It suggests what
is beautiful, noble, and good, as opposed to what is foul, mean, and
wicked; and such is the Name of Christ, which is called in a special
sense "_the_ Name" (Acts v. 41; 3 John 7. Comp. Ignatius, _Eph._ iii.,
vii.; _Philad_. x.; Clem. Rom. ii., xiii.). That the blasphemers are
not Christians is shown by the clause "which was called upon _you_."
Had Christians been intended, St. James would have written "Do not
they blaspheme the honourable Name which was called upon _them_?" That
they blasphemed the Name in which they were baptized would have been
such an aggravation of their offence that he would not have failed to
indicate it. These blasphemers were no doubt Jews; and St. James has
in his mind the anathemas against Jesus Christ which were frequent
utterances among the Jews, both in the synagogues and in conversation.
St. Paul alludes to these when he says, "No man speaking in the Spirit
of God saith, Jesus is anathema;" and Justin Martyr writes, "That
which is said in the Law, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,
confirms our hope which is hung upon the crucified Christ, not as if
God were cursing that crucified One, but because God foretold that
which would be done by all of you (Jews) and those like you.... And
you may see with your eyes this very thing coming to pass; for in your
synagogues you curse all those who from Him have become Christians"
(_Trypho_, xcvi.). The text, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree," was a favourite one with the Jews in their controversies with
Christians, as St. James would know well (see Gal. iii. 13); and all
this tends to show that he refers to literal blasphemy by word of
mouth, and not to the virtual blasphemy which is involved in conduct
that dishonours Christ.
His argument, therefore, amounts to this, that the practice of
honouring the rich for their riches is (quite independently of any
dishonour done to the poor) doubly reprehensible. It involves the
meanness of flattering their own oppressors, and the wickedness of
reverencing those who blaspheme Christ. It is a servile surrender of
their own rights, and base disloyalty to their Lord.
But perhaps (the argument continues) some will defend this respect
paid to the rich as being no disloyalty to Christ, but, on the
contrary, simple fulfilment of the royal law, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." Be it so, that the rich as a class are unworthy
of respect and honour, yet nevertheless they are our neighbours, and
no misconduct on their side can cancel the obligation on our side to
treat them as we should wish to be treated ourselves. We ourselves
like to be respected and honoured, and therefore we pay respect and
honour to them. To those who argue thus the reply is easy. Certainly,
if that is your motive, ye do well. But why do you love your neighbour
as yourselves if he chances to be rich, and treat him like a dog if he
chances to be poor? However excellent your reasons for honouring the
wealthy may be, you still do not free yourselves from the blame of
showing an unchristian respect of persons, and therefore of committing
sin, "being convicted by the law as transgressors."
The law of loving one's neighbour as oneself is a "royal law," not as
having emanated from God or from Christ as King, still less as being a
law which binds even kings, or which makes kings of those who observe
it. It is a royal law, as being sovereign over other laws, inasmuch as
it is one of those two on which "hang all the Law and the Prophets"
(Matt. xxii. 40). Indeed, either of the two may be interpreted so as
to cover the whole duty of man. Thus St. Paul says of this royal law,
"The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal. v. 14). And St. John teaches the same
truth in a different way, when he declares that "he that loveth not
his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not seen"
(1 John iv. 20). The expression "royal law" occurs nowhere else,
either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint, but it is found in a
dialogue entitled Minos (p. 317), which is sometimes wrongly
attributed to Plato. It is one which might readily occur to any one as
a name for a supreme moral principle.
"Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he
is become guilty of all."[59] The law is the expression of one and the
same principle--love; and of one and the same will--the will of God.
Therefore he who deliberately offends against any one of its
enactments, however diligently he may keep all the rest, is guilty of
offending against the whole. His guiding principle is not love, but
selfishness--not God's will, but his own. He keeps nine tenths of the
law because he likes to do so, and he breaks one tenth because he
likes to do so. The fact of his wilful disobedience proves that his
obedience is not the fruit of love or loyalty, but of self-seeking. If
we ask what his character is, the answer must be, "He is a
lawbreaker." These respecters of persons claimed to be observers of
the law, because they treated their rich neighbours as they would have
liked to be treated themselves. St. James shows them that, on the
contrary, they are transgressors of the law, because they pick and
choose as to what neighbours shall be treated thus kindly. They keep
the law when it is convenient to keep it, and break it when it is
inconvenient to keep it. Such keeping of the law is in its essence,
not obedience, but disobedience. He who follows honesty only because
honesty is the best policy is not an honest man, and he who obeys the
law only because obedience suits him is not an obedient man. There is
no serving God with reservations. However small the reservation may
be, it vitiates all the rest. In order to "_fulfil_ the law" (a rare
expression, found only here and in Rom. ii. 27), we must keep it all
round, independently of our own likes and dislikes.
St. James is not here countenancing the severity of Draco, that small
crimes deserve death, and that there is no worse punishment for great
crimes; nor yet the paradox of the Stoics, that the theft of a penny
is as bad as parricide, because in either case the path of virtue is
left, and one is drowned as surely in seven feet of water as in
seventy fathoms. He is not contending that all sins are equal, and
that to break one of God's commands is as bad as to break them all.
What he maintains is that no one can claim to be a fulfiller of the
law in virtue of his extensive obedience so long as there is any
portion of the law which he wilfully disobeys. Why does he disobey in
this? Because it pleases him to do so. Then he would disobey in the
rest if it pleased him to do so. The motive of his conduct is not
submission, but self-will. He is in character "a transgressor of the
law."
Both defects are common enough still, and are likely to remain so.
Paying respect to _persons_, _dignities_, and _positions_ is a
frequent form of meanness, especially in the manner here condemned, of
courting the rich and slighting the poor. It is a Christian duty to
respect the rank or the office of those whom God has placed in a
position superior to ourselves, and it is also a Christian duty to
reverence those who by God's grace are leading lives of virtue and
holiness; but it is unchristian partiality to honour a man merely for
his wealth, or to dishonour him merely for his poverty. And secondly,
we are all of us prone to plead, both before the world and our own
consciences, the particulars in which we do _not_ offend as a set-off
against those in which we _do_. To detect ourselves thus balancing a
transgression here, against many observances there, ought at once to
startle us into the conviction that the whole principle of our lives
must be faulty. Our aim is, not to love God, or to obey Him, but to
get to heaven, or at least to escape hell, _on the cheapest terms_.
[58] _L'Antechrist_, pp. xi.-xiii., 49-54.
[59] This text caused St. Augustine much perplexity. He sent a long
discussion of it to Jerome, asking for his opinion. Augustine's solution
is that the whole law hangs on the love of God, and that every
transgression is a breach of love (_Ep._ CLXVII. iv. 16).