Theré is, at bottom, an intimate connection between the doctrine of the good and evil ‘‘ tendency,’ dealt with above, and the doctrine of works; for it was by man’s free-will that the good tendency was put into action which resulted in the accomplishment of good works ; and it was by man’s free-will that the evil tendency was resisted, and this constituted per se a mitzvah ; cf. Kiddushin, 39 Ὁ, 40a, where it is taught that the desire to do a mitzvah (1.6., the calling of the good Yetser into action) is reckoned as though it were actually accom- plished ; and the temptation to do a sinful act (1.ε., the motion of the evil Yetser) if resisted likewise constitutes a mitzvah. It was, per- haps, almost inevitable that the danger would arise of taking merit for good deeds, 7.e., for exercising the good tendency, while repu- diating responsibility for the often involuntary assertion of the evil tendency ; that, however, the danger did arise does not admit of doubt ; it was naively illogical, for while the exercise of the good tendency, resulting in good works, was regarded as solely due to human initiative—such a thing as “ prevenient grace” did not come into account, cf. Eph. ii. 8-10—the evil tendency came to be looked upon as a human misfortune, and not of the nature of guilt in man, cf. Jas. i. 13, where this is combated.
These facts should be taken into consideration in seeking to realise the significance of some passages in our Epistle; thus, in i. 2-4, 12, we have Jewish teaching pure and simple, and the fact goes to substantiate the opinion that these verses, at all events, must be very early ; one could not conceive them in the mouth of St. Paul, cf. 1 Cor. x. 18, Rom. ii. 4, whose teaching on this subject, though apparently more developed, is really fully in accordance with that of Christ :1 on the other hand, we have in ii. 10 (‘‘ For whoso- ever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all”) a principle which is certainly not that of normal Jewish teaching. On the very important section, ii. 14-26, see the notes in the Commentary, and what has been said above. Lastly, in v. 19, 20, we have again a thought which is especially Jewish ; that a man should be able to “ cover a multitude of sins”’ by virtue of his good deed is directly anti-Christian, because it makes the forgiveness of sins a matter which a man can effect, and thus wholly antagonistic to the doctrines of Grace and Atonement. On
the word “to cover,” the English equivalent for the Hebrew 19 see Church and Synagogue, April 1908, pp. 43-45.
1 As an example of this see the writer’s article, “‘ The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard,” in the Expositor, April, 1908.