_ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES
OF STRIFE; THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER._
"Whence come wars, and whence come fightings among you? come they not
hence, even of your pleasures which war in your members? Ye lust, and
have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war; ye
have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask
amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures."--ST. JAMES
iv. 1-13.
The change from the close of the third chapter to the beginning of the
fourth is startling. St. James has just been sketching with much
beauty the excellences of the heavenly wisdom, and especially its
marked characteristic of always tending to produce an atmosphere of
peace, in which the seed that produces the fruit of righteousness will
grow and flourish. Gentleness, good-will, mercy, righteousness,
peace--these form the main features of his sketch. And then he
abruptly turns upon his readers with the question, "Whence come wars,
and whence come sightings among you?"
The sudden transition from the subject of peace to the opposite is
deliberate. Its object is to startle and awaken the consciences of
those who are addressed. The wisdom from below produces bitter
jealousy and faction; the wisdom from above produces gentleness and
peace. Then how is to be explained the origin of the wars and
fightings which prevail among the twelve tribes of the Dispersion?
That ought to set them thinking. These things must be traced to causes
which are earthly or demoniacal rather than heavenly; and if so, those
who are guilty of them, instead of contending for the office of
teaching others, ought to be seriously considering how to correct
themselves. Here, again, there is the strangest contradiction between
their professions and their practice. Clement of Rome seems to have
this passage in his mind when he writes (_c_. A.D. 97) to the Church
of Corinth, "Wherefore are there strifes and wraths, and factions and
divisions, and war among you?" (xlvi.).
"Wars" (πόλομοι) and "fightings" (μάχαι) are not to be understood
literally. When the text is applied to international warfare between
Christian states in modern times, or to any case of civil war, it may
be so interpreted without doing violence to its spirit; but that is
not the original meaning of the words. There was no civil war among
the Jews at this time, still less among the Jewish Christians.
St. James is referring to private quarrels and law-suits, social
rivalries and factions, and religious controversies. The
subject-matter of these disputes and contentions is not indicated,
because that is not what is denounced. It is not for having
differences about this or that, whether rights of property, or posts
of honour, or ecclesiastical questions, that St. James rebukes them,
but for the rancorous, greedy, and worldly spirit in which their
disputes are conducted. Evidently the lust of possession is among the
things which produce the contentions. Jewish appetite for wealth is at
work among them.
It was stated in a former chapter (p. 48) that, there are places in
this Epistle in which St. James seems to go beyond the precise circle
of readers addressed in the opening words, and to glance at the whole
Jewish nation, whether outside Palestine or not, and whether Christian
or not. These more comprehensive addresses are more frequent in the
second half of the Epistle than in the first, and one is inclined to
believe that the passage before us is one of them. In that case we may
believe that the bitter contentions which divided Pharisees,
Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots, and Samaritans from one
another are included in the wars and fightings, as well as the
quarrels which disgraced Christian Jews. In any case we see that the
Jews who had entered the Christian Church had brought with them that
contentious spirit which was one of their national characteristics.
Just as St. Paul has to contend with Greek love of faction in his
converts at Corinth, so St. James has to contend with a similar Jewish
failing among the converts from Judaism. And it would seem as if he
hoped through these converts to reach many of those who were not yet
converted. What he wrote to Christian synagogues would possibly be
heard of and noted in synagogues which were not Christian. At any rate
this Epistle contains ample evidence that the grievous scandals which
amaze us in the early history of the Apostolic Churches of Corinth,
Galatia, and Ephesus were not peculiar to converts from heathenism:
among the Christians of the circumcision, who had had the advantage of
life-long knowledge of God and of His law, there were evils as
serious, and sometimes very similar in kind. The notion that the
Church of the Apostolic age was in a condition of ideal perfection is
a beautiful but baseless dream.[74]
"Whence wars, and whence fightings among you? come they not hence,
even of your pleasures which war in your members?" By a common
transposition, St. James, in answering his own question, puts the
pleasures which excite and gratify the lusts instead of the lusts
themselves, in much the same way as we use "drink" for intemperance,
and "gold" for avarice. These lusts for pleasures have their quarters
or camp in the members of the body, _i.e._ in the sensual part of
man's nature. But they are there, not to rest, but to make war, to go
after, and seize, and take for a prey that which has roused them from
their quietude and set them in motion. There the picture, as drawn by
St. James, ends. St. Paul carries it a stage farther, and speaks of
the "different law in my members, warring _against the law of my
mind_" (Rom. vii. 23). St. Peter does the same, when he beseeches his
readers, "as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts,
which war _against the soul_" (1 Peter ii. 11); and some commentators
would supply either "against the mind" or "against the soul" here. But
there is no need to supply anything, and if one did supply anything
the "wars and sightings _among you_" would rather lead us to
understand that the lusts in each one's members make war against
everything which interferes with their gratification, and such would
be the possessions and desires of other people. This completion of
St. James's picture agrees well also with what follows: "Ye lust, and
have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain." But it is best to
leave the metaphor just where he leaves it, without adding anything.
And the fact that he does not add "against the mind" or "against the
soul" is some slight indication that he had not seen either the
passage in Romans or in the Epistle of St. Peter. (See above, p. 57.)
In the _Phædo_ of Plato (66, 67) there is a beautiful passage, which
presents some striking coincidences with the words of St. James.
"Wars, and factions, and sightings have no other source than the body
and its lusts. For it is for the getting of wealth that all our wars
arise, and we are compelled to get wealth because of our body, to
whose service we are slaves; and in consequence we have no leisure for
philosophy, because of all these things. And the worst of all is that
if we get any leisure from it, and turn to some question, in the midst
of our inquiries the body is everywhere coming in, introducing turmoil
and confusion, and bewildering us, so that by it we are prevented from
seeing the truth. But indeed it has been proved to us that if we are
ever to have pure knowledge of anything we must get rid of the body,
and with the soul by itself must behold things by themselves. _Then_,
it would seem, we shall obtain the wisdom which we desire, and of
which we say that we are lovers; when we are dead, as the argument
shows, but in this life not. For if it be impossible while we are in
the body to have pure knowledge of anything, then of two things
one--either knowledge is not to be obtained at all, or after we are
dead; for then the soul will be by itself, apart from the body, but
before that not. And in this life, it would seem, we shall make the
nearest approach to knowledge if we have no communication or
fellowship whatever with the body, beyond what necessity compels, and
are not filled with its nature, but remain pure from its taint, until
God Himself shall set us free. And in this way shall we be pure, being
delivered from the foolishness of the body, and shall be with other
like souls, and shall know of ourselves all that is clear and
cloudless, and that is perhaps all one with the truth."
Plato and St. James are entirely agreed in holding that wars and
fightings are caused by the lusts that have their seat in the body,
and that this condition of fightings without, and lusts within, is
quite incompatible with the possession of heavenly wisdom. But there
the agreement between them ceases. The conclusion which Plato arrives
at is that the philosopher must, so far as is possible, neglect and
excommunicate his body, as an intolerable source of corruption,
yearning for the time when death shall set him free from the burden of
waiting upon this obstacle between his soul and the truth. Plato has
no idea that the body may be sanctified here and glorified hereafter;
he regards it simply as a necessary evil, which may be minimized by
watchfulness, but which can in no way be turned into a blessing. The
blessing will come when the body is annihilated by death. St. James,
on the contrary, exhorts us to cut ourselves off, not from the body,
but from friendship with the world. If we resist the evil one, who
tempts us through our ferocious lusts, he will flee from us. God will
give us the grace we need, if we pray for that rather than for
pleasures. He will draw nigh to us if we draw nigh to Him; and if we
purify our hearts He will make His Spirit to dwell in them. Even in
this life the wisdom that is from above is attainable, and where that
has found a home factions and fightings cease. When the passions cease
to war, those who have hitherto been swayed by their passions will
cease to war also. But those whom St. James addresses are as yet very
far from this blessed condition.
"Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight
and war." In short, sharp, telling sentences he puts forth the items
of his indictment; but it is not easy to punctuate them
satisfactorily, nor to decide whether "ye kill" is to be understood
literally or not. In none of the English versions does the punctuation
seem to bring out a logical sequence of clauses. The following
arrangement is suggested for consideration: "Ye lust, and have not; ye
kill. And ye covet, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war." In this way
we obtain two sentences of similar meaning, which exactly balance one
another. "Ye lust, and have not," corresponds with, "Ye covet, and
cannot obtain," and "ye kill" with "ye fight and war;" and in each
sentence the last clause is the consequence of what precedes. "Ye
lust, and have not; _therefore_ ye kill." "Ye covet, and cannot
obtain; _therefore_ ye fight and war." This grouping of the clauses
yields good sense, and does no violence to the Greek.
"Ye lust, and have not; therefore ye kill." Is "kill" to be understood
literally? That murder, prompted by avarice and passion, was common
among the Christian Jews of the Dispersion, is quite incredible. That
monstrous scandals occurred in the Apostolic age, especially among
Gentile converts, who supposed that the freedom of the Gospel meant
lax morality, is unquestionable; but that these scandals ever took the
form of indifference to human life we have no evidence. And it is
specially improbable that murder would be frequent among those who,
before they became Christians, had been obedient to the Mosaic Law.
St. James may have a single case in his mind, like that of the
incestuous marriage at Corinth; but in that case he would probably
have expressed himself differently. Or again, as was suggested above,
he may in this section be addressing the whole Jewish race, and not
merely those who had become converts to Christianity; and in that case
he may be referring to the brigandage and assassination which a
combination of causes, social, political, and religious, had rendered
common among the Jews, especially in Palestine, at this time. Of this
evil we have plenty of evidence both in the New Testament and in
Josephus. Barabbas and the two robbers who were crucified with Christ
are instances in the Gospels. And with them we may put the parable of
the man "who fell among robbers," and was left half-dead between
Jerusalem and Jericho; for no doubt the parable, like all Christ's
parables, is founded on fact, and is no mere imaginary picture. In the
Acts we have Theudas with his four hundred followers (B.C. 4), Judas
of Galilee (A.D. 6), and the Egyptian with his four thousand
"Assassins," or _Sicarii_ (A.D. 58); to whom we may add the forty who
conspired to assassinate St. Paul (v. 36, 37; xxi. 38; xxiii. 12-21).
And Josephus tells us of another Theudas, who was captured and put to
death with many of his followers by the Roman Procurator Cuspius Fadus
(c. A.D. 45); and he also states that about fifty years earlier, under
Varus, there were endless disorders in Judæa, sedition and robbery
being almost chronic. The brigands inflicted a certain amount of
damage on the Romans, but the murders which they committed were on
their fellow-countrymen the Jews (_Ant._ XVII. x. 4, 8; XX. v. i).[75]
In either of these ways, therefore, the literal interpretation of a
"kill" makes good sense; and we are not justified in saying, with
Calvin, that "kill in no way suits the context." Calvin, with Erasmus,
Beza, Hornejus, and others, adopts the violent expedient of correcting
the Greek from "kill" (φονεύετε) to "envy" (φθονεῖτε), a reading for
which not a single MS., version, or Father can be quoted. It is
accepted, however, by Tyndale and Cranmer and in the Genevan Bible,
all of which have, "Ye _envy_ and have indignation, and cannot
obtain." Wiclif and the Rhemish of course hold to the _occiditis_ of
the Vulgate, the one with "slay," and the other with "kill."
But although the literal interpretation yields good sense, it is
perhaps not the best interpretation. It was pointed out above that "ye
kill" balances "ye fight and war," and that "wars and fightings"
evidently are _not_ to be understood literally, as the context shows.
If then, "ye fight and war" means "ye quarrel, and dispute, and
intrigue, and go to law with one another," ought not "ye kill" to be
explained in a similar way? Christ had said, "Ye have heard that it
was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall
kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That
every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the
judgment" (Matt. v. 21, 22). And St. John tells us that "every one who
hateth his brother is a murderer" (1 John iii. 15). "Every one who
hateth" (πᾶς ὁ μισῶν) is an uncompromising expression, and it
covers all that St. James says here. Just as the cherished lustful
thought is adultery in the heart (Matt. v. 28), so cherished hatred is
murder in the heart.
But there is an explanation, half literal and half metaphorical, which
is well worth considering. It has been pointed out how frequently
St. James seems to have portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in his
mind. We read there that "the bread of the needy is the life of the
poor: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood. He that taketh
away his neighbour's living slayeth him (φονεύων); and he that
defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a blood-shedder" (xxxiv. 21,
22). If St. James was familiar with these words, and still more if he
could count on his readers also being familiar with them, might he not
mean, "Ye lust, and have not; and then, to gratify your desire, you
deprive the poor of his living"? Even Deut. xxiv. 6 might suffice to
give rise to such a strong method of expression: "No man shall take
the mill or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man's life
to pledge." Throughout this section the language used is strong, as if
the writer felt very strongly about the evils which he condemns.
While "ye lust, and have not, and thereupon take a man's livelihood
from him," would refer specially to _possessions_, "Ye covet (or envy)
and cannot obtain, and thereupon fight and war," might refer specially
to _honours_, _posts_, and _party advantages_. The word rendered
"covet" (ζηλοῦτε) is that which describes the thing which love never
does: "Love _envieth_ not" (1 Cor. xiii. 4). When St. James was
speaking of the wisdom from below (iii. 14-16) the kind of quarrels
which he had chiefly in view were party controversies, as was natural
after treating just before of sins of the tongue. Here the wars and
fightings are not so much about matters of controversy as those things
which minister to a man's "pleasures," his avarice, his sensuality,
and his ambition.
How is it that they have not all that they want? How is that there is
any need to despoil others, or to contend fiercely with them for
possession? "Ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not,
because ye ask amiss." _That_ is the secret of these gnawing wants and
lawless cravings. They do not try to supply their needs in a way that
would cause loss to no one, viz. by prayer to God; they prefer to
employ violence and craft against one another. Or if they do pray for
the supply of their earthly needs, they obtain nothing, because they
pray with evil intent. To pray without the spirit of prayer is to
court failure. That God's will may be done, and His Name glorified, is
the proper end of all prayer. To pray simply that our wishes may be
satisfied is not a prayer to which fulfilment has been promised; still
less can this be the case when our wishes are for the glorification of
our lusts. Prayer for advance in holiness we may be sure is in
accordance with God's will. About prayer for earthly advantages we
cannot be sure; but we may pray for things so far as they are to His
glory and for our own spiritual welfare. Prayer for earthly goods,
which are to be used as instruments, not of His pleasure, but of ours,
we may be sure is not in accordance with His will. To such a prayer we
need expect no answer, or an answer which at the same time is a
judgment; for the fulfilment of an unrighteous prayer is sometimes its
most fitting punishment.
St. James is not blaming his readers for asking God to give them
worldly prosperity. About the lawfulness of praying for temporal
blessings, whether for ourselves or for others, there is no question.
St. John prays that Gaius "in all things may prosper and be in health,
even as his soul prospereth" (3 John 2), and St. James plainly implies
that when one has temporal needs one _ought_ to bring them before God
in prayer, only with a right purpose and in a right spirit. In the
next chapter he specially recommends prayer for the recovery of the
sick. The asking amiss consists not in asking for temporal things, but
in seeking them for a wrong purpose, viz. that they may be squandered
in a life of self-indulgence. The right purpose is to enable us to
serve God better. Temporal necessities are often a hindrance to good
service, and then it is right to ask God to relieve them. But in all
such things the rule laid down by Christ is the safe one, "Seek ye
_first_ the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these
things shall be added unto you." A life consecrated to the service of
God is the best prayer for temporal blessings. Prayer that is offered
in a grasping spirit is like that of the bandit for the success of his
raids.
[74] See the volume on the _Pastoral Epistles_ in this series, pp.
264, 265.
[75] If φονεύετε is taken with what follows, it is best to render
φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε "Ye act as Assassins and Zealots," referring both
words to the fanatics who a little later killed James himself, and
were the hasteners of the downfall of Jerusalem.