αρήσεται πολλάς. With καλὸν ποιεῖν cf. Gal. vi. 9, τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ἐνκακῶμεν.--ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν: for the converse of this, namely, doing what is wrong in ignorance—in which case it is excusable—see Acts iii. 17, “‘ And now, brethren, I wot that in ignor- ance ye did it, as did also your rulers” ; τ Tim. i 13, “... howbeit, I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in un- belief”.—It is, however, quite possible that we have in these words the enuncia- tion of the principle that sins of omission
:6--ἰ7. V.1.
465
V. 1. ""ΑΓΕ νῦν οἱ ὃ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε] ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ ταῖς a iv. 13.
Am. vi.I° Prov. xi. 28; Luke vi. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 9
1κλανσονται 13.
are as sinful as those of commission; when our Lord says, “. . . these things ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone” (Matt. xxiii. 23), it is clear that the sins of omission are regarded as wilful sin equally with those of commission, cf. Matt. xxv. 41-45. There is always a tendency to reckon the things which are left undone as less serious than actually committed sin ; this was certainly, though not wholly so, in Judaism. It is exceptional when we read, for example, in 1 Sam. xil. 23, “ God for- bid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you”; asarule sins of omission are regarded as venial, ac- cording to the Jewish doctrine, and are not punishable. The conception of sin according to Rabbinical ideas is well scen in what is called the ‘Al Chét (i.e., “‘ For the sin,” from the opening words of each sentence in the great Widdui [‘‘ Confes- sion”] said on Yom Kippur [‘‘ the Day of Atonement”); in the long list of sins here, mention is made only of committed sins. In the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma, viii. 6) it is said that the Day of Atone- ment brings atonement, even without repentance, for sins of omission; in Pesikta, 7b the words in Zeph. i. 12. “1 will search Jerusalem with candles, and I will punish the men. . .,” are com- mented on by saying, ‘‘not by daylight, nor with the torch, but with candles, so as not to detect venial sins,” among these being, of course, included sins of omis- sion, Although this is, in the main, the traditional teaching, there are some ex- ceptions to be found, eg., Shabbath, 546 ; ‘** Whosoever is in a position to prevent sins being committed by the members of his household, but refrains from doing so, becomes liable for their sins. The same rule applies to the govenour of a town, or even of a whole country” (see ¥ewish Encycl., xi. 378). Having regard to the very Jewish char- acter of our Epistle, it is quite possible that in the verse before us the reference is to this subject of sins of omission. CuaPpTER V.—Chap. V. contains five distinct sections; of great interest is the fact that the first two—1-6, 7-11—deal respectively with Jewish and Christian Eschatology ; this subject will be dealt with presently ; ver. 12 is a short section