_THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER._
"Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men,
which are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth
cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought
not so to be. Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening
sweet water and bitter? Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or
a vine figs? neither can salt water yield sweet."--ST. JAMES
iii. 9-12.
In these concluding sentences of the paragraph respecting sins of the
tongue St. James does two things--he shows the moral chaos to which
the Christian who fails to control his tongue is reduced, and he
thereby shows such a man how vain it is for him to hope that the
worship which he offers to Almighty God can be pure and acceptable. He
has made himself the channel of hellish influences. He cannot at
pleasure make himself the channel of heavenly influences, or become
the offerer of holy sacrifices. The fires of Pentecost will not rest
where the fires of Gehenna are working, nor can one who has become the
minister of Satan at the same time be a minister to offer praise to
God.
When those who would have excused themselves for their lack of good
works pleaded the correctness of their faith, St. James told them that
such faith was barren and dead, and incapable of saving them from
condemnation. Similarly, the man who thinks himself to be religious,
and does not bridle his tongue, was told that his religion is vain
(i. 26). And in the passage before us St. James explains how that is.
His religion or religious worship (θρησκεία) is a mockery and a
contradiction. The offering is tainted; it comes from a polluted altar
and a polluted priest. A man who curses his fellow men, and then
blesses God, is like one who professes the profoundest respect for his
sovereign, while he insults the royal family, throws mud at the royal
portraits, and ostentatiously disregards the royal wishes. It is
further proof of the evil character of the tongue that it is capable
of lending itself to such chaotic activity. "Therewith bless we the
Lord and Father," _i.e._ God in His might and in His love; "and
therewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God." The
heathen fable tells us the apparent contradiction of being able to
blow both hot and cold with the same breath; and the son of Sirach
points out that "if thou blow the spark, it shall burn; if thou spit
upon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of thy mouth"
(Ecclus. xxviii. 12). St. James, who may have had this passage in his
mind, shows us that there is a real and a moral contradiction which
goes far beyond either of these: "Out of the same mouth cometh forth
blessing and cursing." Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness,
"My brethren, these things ought not so to be."
Assuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has
been, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think
themselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in
which persons professing to have a desire to serve God are more ready
to invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce those who
differ from themselves, and are supposed to be therefore under the ban
of Heaven. "They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish
their own, they do not subject themselves to the righteousness of God"
(Rom. x. 2, 3). Hence they rashly and intemperately "curse whom the
Lord hath not cursed, and defy whom the Lord hath not defied" (Num.
xxiii. 8). There are still many who believe that not only in the
psalms and hymns in which they bless the Lord, but also in the sermons
and pamphlets in which they fulminate against their fellow-Christians,
they are "offering service to God" (John xvi. 2). There are many
questions which have to be carefully considered and answered before a
Christian mouth, which has been consecrated to the praise of our Lord
and Father, ought to venture to utter denunciations against others who
worship the same God and are also His offspring and His image. Is it
quite certain that the supposed evil is something which God abhors;
that those whom we would denounce are responsible for it; that
denunciation of _them_ will do any good; that this is the proper time
for such denunciation; that _we_ are the proper persons to utter it?
About every one of these questions the most fatal mistakes are
constantly being made. The singing of _Te Deums_ after massacres and
_dragonnades_ is perhaps no longer possible; but alternations between
religious services and religious prosecutions, between writing pious
books and publishing exasperating articles, are by no means extinct.
For one case in which harm has been done because no one has come
forward to denounce a wrongdoer, there are ten cases in which harm has
been done because some one has been indiscreetly, or inopportunely, or
uncharitably, or unjustly denounced. "Praise is not seasonable
(ὡραῖος) in the mouth of a sinner" (Ecclus. xv. 9); and whatever
may have been the writer's meaning in the difficult passage in which
it occurs, we may give it a meaning that will bring it into harmony
with what St. James says here. The praise of God is not seasonable in
the mouth of one who is ever sinning in reviling God's children.
The illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the
touches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with
Palestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of
this Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are
not rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern slope of
the hill-country of Judæa are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and
the olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and St. James,
if he looked out of window as he was writing, would be likely enough
to see all three. It is not improbable that in one or more of the
illustrations he is following some ancient saying or proverb. Thus,
Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a century later,
asks, "How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an olive,
on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It is impossible,
inconceivable." It is possible that our Lord Himself, when He used a
similar illustration in connexion with the worst of all sins of the
tongue, was adapting a proverb already in use. In speaking of "the
blasphemy against the Spirit" He says, "Either make the tree good, and
its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for
the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye,
being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth
forth good things; and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things. And I say unto you, That every idle word that men
shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment"
(Matt. xii. 33-36). And previously, in the Sermon on the Mount, where
He is speaking of deeds rather than of words, "By their fruits ye
shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but the corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matt.
vii. 16-18).
Can it be the case that while physical contradictions are not
permitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral
contradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of
all earthly creatures? The "double-minded man," who prays and doubts,
receives nothing from the Lord, because his petition is only in form a
prayer; it lacks the essential characteristic of prayer, which is
faith. But the double-tongued man, who blesses God and curses men,
what does he receive? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his
doubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is
judged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one
or the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is
prayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no
prayer--no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other case:
if God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no cursing of
His children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot acceptably be
blessed; the very words of praise, coming from such lips, will be an
offence to Him.
But it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of strong
denunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes and
Pharisees; and again, St. Paul cursed Hymenæus and Alexander (1 Tim.
i. 20), the incestuous person at Corinth (1 Cor. v. 5), and Elymas the
sorcerer (Acts xiii. 10). Most true. But firstly, these curses were
uttered by those who could not err in such things. Christ "knew what
was in man," and could read the hearts of all; and the fact that
St. Paul's curses were supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was
acting under Divine guidance in what he said. And secondly, these
stern utterances had their source in love; not, as human curses
commonly have, in hate. It was in order that those on whom they were
pronounced might be warned, and schooled to better things, that they
were uttered; and we know that in the case of the sinner at Corinth
the severe remedy had this effect; the curse was really a blessing.
When _we_ have infallible guidance, and when _we_ are able by
supernatural results to prove that we possess it, it will be time
enough to begin to deal in curses. And let us remember _the
proportion_ which such things bear to the rest of Christ's words and
of St. Paul's words, so far as they have been preserved for us. Christ
wrought numberless miracles of mercy: besides those which are recorded
in detail, we are frequently told that "He healed many that were sick
with divers diseases, and cast out many devils" (Mark i. 34); that "He
had healed many" (iii. 10); that "wheresoever He entered, into
villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in
the market-places, and besought Him that they might touch if it were
but the border of His garment; and as many as touched Him were made
whole" (vi. 56); and so forth (John xxi. 25). But He wrought only one
miracle of judgment, and that was upon a tree, which could teach the
necessary lesson without feeling the punishment (Mark xi. 12-23). All
this applies with much force to those who believe themselves to be
called upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to them to be
enemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force to those
who in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on their
own account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems to
them to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves!
That such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer
acceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral
contradiction of the most startling kind. And are such cases rare? Is
it so uncommon a thing for a man to attend church regularly, and join
with apparent devotion in the services, and yet think little of the
grievous words which he allows himself to utter when his temper is
severely tried? How amazed and offended he would be if he were invited
to eat at a table which had been used for some disgusting purpose, and
had never since been cleansed! And yet he does not hesitate to "defile
his whole body" with his unbridled tongue, and then offer praise to
God from this polluted source!
Nor is this the only contradiction in which such a one is involved.
How strange that the being who is lord and master of all the animal
creation should be unable to govern himself! How strange that man's
chief mark of superiority over the brutes should be the power of
speech, and that he should use this power in such a way as to make it
the instrument of his own degradation, until he becomes lower than the
brutes! They, whether tamed or untamed, unconsciously declare the
glory of God; while he, with his noble powers of consciously and
loyally praising Him, by his untamed tongue reviles those who are made
after the image of God, and thus turns his own praises into
blasphemies. Thus does man's rebellion reverse the order of nature and
frustrate the will of God.
The writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has
been urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty
of that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the
case is over-stated, and that the highly coloured picture is a
caricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that
can honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief
may be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado;
what confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood;
what suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements;
what careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy
jests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single
utterance in each case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years.
One reckless word may blight a whole life. "Many have fallen by the
edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue"
(Ecclus. xxviii. 18). And there are persons who habitually pour forth
such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or
false, or impure. When we look around us, and see the moral ruin which
in every class of society can be traced to reckless language--lives
embittered, and blighted, and brutalized by words spoken and
heard--can we wonder at the severe words of St. James, whose
experience was not very different from our own? Violent and
uncharitable language had become one of the besetting sins of the
Jews, and no doubt Jewish Christians were by no means free from it.
"Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued," says the son of Sirach,
"for such have destroyed many that were at peace" (Ecclus.
xxviii. 13). To which the Syriac Version adds a clause not given in
the Greek, nor in our Bibles: "Also _the third tongue_, let it be
cursed; for it has laid low many corpses." This expression, "third
tongue," seems to have come into use among the Jews in the period
between the Old and New Testament. It means a slanderous tongue, and
it is called "third" because it is fatal to three sets of people--to
the person who utters the slander, to those who listen to it, and to
those about whom it is uttered. "A third tongue hath tossed many to
and fro, and driven them from nation to nation; and strong cities hath
it pulled down, and houses of great men hath it overthrown" (Ecclus.
xxviii. 14); where not only the Syriac, but the Greek, has the
interesting expression "third tongue," a fact obscured in our version.
The "third tongue" is as common and as destructive now as when the son
of Sirach denounced it, or St. James wrote against it with still
greater authority; and we all of us can do a great deal to check the
mischief, not merely by taking care that we keep our own tongues from
originating evil, but by refusing to repeat, or if possible even to
listen to, what the third tongue says. Our unwillingness to hear may
be a discouragement to the speaker, and our refusal to repeat will at
least lessen the evil of his tale. We shall have saved ourselves from
becoming links in the chain of destruction.
There is one kind of sinful language to which the severe sayings of
St. James specially apply, although the context seems to show that it
was not specially in his mind--impure language. The foul tongue is
indeed a "world of iniquity, which defileth the whole body, and
setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell." In
no other case is the self-pollution of the speaker so manifest, or the
injury to the listener so probable, so all but inevitable. Foul
stories and impure jests and innuendoes, even more clearly than oaths
and curses, befoul the souls of those who utter them, while they lead
the hearers into sin. Such things rob all who are concerned in them,
either as speakers or listeners, of two things which are the chief
safeguards of virtue--the fear of God, and the fear of sin. They
create an atmosphere in which men sin with a light heart, because the
grossest sins are made to look not only attractive and easy, but
amusing. What can be made to seem laughable is supposed to be not very
serious. There is no more devilish act that a human being can perform
than that of inducing others to believe that what is morally hideous
and deadly is "pleasant to the eye and good for food." And this
devil's work is sometimes done merely to raise a laugh, merely for
something to say. Does any one seriously maintain that the language of
St. James is at all too strong for such things as these? We hardly
need his authority for the belief that a filthy tongue pollutes a
man's whole being, and owes its inspiration to the evil one.
It is of angry, ill-tempered, unkind words that we do not believe this
so readily. Words that are not false or calumnious, not running out
into blasphemies and curses, and certainly not tainted with anything
like impurity, do not always strike us as being as harmful as they
really are, not only to others, whom they irritate or sadden, but to
ourselves, who allow our characters to be darkened by them. The
captious word, that makes everything a subject for blame; the
discontented word, that would show that the speaker is always being
ill-treated; the biting word, that is meant to inflict pain; the
sullen word, that throws a gloom over all who hear it; the provoking
word, that seeks to stir up strife--of all these we are most of us apt
to think too lightly, and need the stern warnings of St. James to
remind us of their true nature and of their certain consequences. As
regards _others_, such things wound tender hearts, add needlessly and
enormously to the unhappiness of mankind, turn sweet affections sour,
stifle good impulses, create and foster bad feelings, embitter in its
smallest details the whole round of daily life. As regards
_ourselves_, indulgence in such language weakens and warps our
characters, blunts our sympathies, deadens our love for man, and
therefore our love for God. "In particular it makes prayer either
impossible or half useless. Whether we know it or not, the prayer that
comes from a heart indulging in evil temper is hardly a prayer at all.
We cannot really be face to face with God; we cannot really approach
God as a Father; we cannot really feel like children kneeling at His
feet; we cannot really be simply affectionate and truthful in what we
say to Him, if irritation, discontent, or gloom, or anger, is busy at
our breasts. An undisciplined temper shuts out the face of God from
us. We may see His holy Law, but we cannot see Himself. We may think
of Him as our Creator, our Judge, our Ruler, but we cannot think of
Him as our Father, nor approach Him with love."[68] "Salt water cannot
yield sweet."
It was once pleaded on behalf of a man who had been criticized and
condemned as unsatisfactory, that he was "a good man, all but his
temper." "All but his temper!" was the not unreasonable reply; "as if
temper were not nine tenths of religion." "If any man stumbleth not in
word, the same is a _perfect_ man."
[68] _Sermons preached in Rugby School Chapel_, by the Rev. Frederick
Temple, D.D. (Macmillan, 1867), pp. 324, 325.