The Pulpit Commentary — James — Section 36

false inference from St, Jamee'11 teaching in St. Jamee refers to her 11.11 an example of thie verse tbBt led the Judaizere of Acts xv. justification by ~orl'8 (ver. 25), The oppo- to l&y down the law "Except ye be oircum- sition, however, ie only nppa.rent: for: (1) oised after the customs of Moses ye cannot The two apoetlee use the word r,,.,,. in differ- be ERn•d "? "Whosoever shall keep the ent senses. In St. Pa.ul it always hae a whok Le.w, and yet offend in one point, he deprecia.tory sense, unless qualified by the is guilty of all," might seem to suggest enoh adjective 1tu>..?. or 1'')'a8u. The works whioh 11n inference: "To whom," se.ys St. Jamee he denies to have any she.re in justification himself, "we gave no oomme.ndment" (Acts are "legal works," not those which he xv. 2-1). (On the teaching of this tenth elsewhere denominates the "fruit of the vel"!'e there is an interesting letter of Augus- Spirit" (Gal. v. 22), which are the" works" tinc's to Jerome, which well repays study: of which St. Jamee speaks. (2) The word • Ep.' clin-ii.) .,,/,,..,.,. is also used ill different senses. In Yer. 11.-Do not commit adultery . , . do St. Paul it is wl1rm 81' &..,,n:,rijs /,,.p')'ouµ.lv-11 not kill. The order of the commandments (Gal. v. 6); in St. James it is simply an is remarkable; what is now the seventh is placed before the sixth. This appears to orthodox creed, "Even the dovile .,,,,,..,..6. over," (ver.19): it may, therefore, be bo.rren hnve been the usual order at that time. In of works of charity. (3) The apostles are this order our Lord quotes them in Luke writing against different errors and ten- xviii_ 20, and St. Paul in Rom. xiii. 9. Philo dencies : St. Paul against that of those also has the so.me order, and expressly com- who would impose the Jewish Law and the ments on it, drawing from it an argument rite of circumcision upon Gentile believers; for the heinousness of adultery (' Dec.,' xii. St. Jo.mes against "the self-complacent 24). In the Yatican Manuscript of the orthodoxy of the Pharieaio Christian, who, LXX. in Exod. xx. 13-15 the order is, se.tisfied with the possession of a pure " Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou monotheism and vaunting hie descent from shalt not steo.l. Thou shalt not kilL'1 But Abraham, needed to be reminded not to the Alexandrian Manuscript hBB the usual neglect tae still weightier matters of a self- order. which is also found in Matt. xi.x. 18 denying love" (Lightfoot on 'Galatians,' and Mark x. 19 (according to the correct p. 370). [The tendency of the Jews to rely reading). on their claim as " Abrahnm'e children " is Vere. 12, 13.-Conclusion of OU! suhject: rebuked by the Baptist (Matt. iii. 9) and i,oµ.os ,>..ev8ep,,n ( cf. eh. i 25). by our Lord (John viii. 39). So Justin Ver. 13.-A clear reminiscence of onr Martyr speaks of the Jews of his day: Ol Lord's teaching in the sermon on the mount >..c!.,,ovcru, OTI ,ct;.v a.µ.apTwll.ol 3',n, 8ecw Bi (Matt. vii. 1, etc. ; v. 7) : MaJCrf.p10, ol t>..rl,- ')'IVC:,crttwaw, ob µ.¾, >..o')'lcr71Tu, u~Tois a.µ.czp.,./uv µn11fs 0TL allTol EAETJe-/iCTovTa.L. :. A.,,E>..Eos is cer- ('Dial.,'§ 141).] (4) The apostles regarded tainly the right form of the word (tt, A, B. the new dispensation from different stand- C,K), not a.v,Aiws (Receptus with L), and the points. With St. Paul it is the negation of ,cal of the Textus Receptus is entirely want- law: "Yo are not under Law, but under ing in manuscript authority, and should be grace" (Rom. vi. 14). With St, James it deleted. The subject is ended by the abrupt is the perfection of Law. But, as Bishop declaration, almost like a cry of triumph, Lightfoot has pointed out," the ideas under- "Mercy glorieth age.inst judgment." lying these contradictory forms of expres- Vere. 14-26.-WAfil,ING AGAINST BESTING sion need not be essentially different." The COSTE'!(T WITH A MERE BARBEN OBTHODO:XY. mere ritual hBB no value for St. Ja.mes. Preliminary note : Tbis is the famous pBB- Apart from e.nything higher it is stemly sage which led to Luther's depreciation of denounced by him (eh. i. 26, etc.). The the whole Epistle, which he termed a "right gospel is in his view e. Law, but it is no strawy" one. At first eight it appe~, mere system of rules, " 'fouch not, taste indeed, diametrically opposed to the teachmg not, handle not;" it is no hard bondage, for of St. Paul; for: (1) St. Panl says (Rom. it is e. law of li"berty, which is in exact iii. 28)," We conclude that a man is justified accordance with the teaching of St, Paul, by faith apart from (xwpis) works of Law," that " where the Spirit of the Lord is, there wh.-reas St. James asserts (ver. 26) that is liberty" (2 Cor. ill. 17), But: (5) 'rhe •· faith without (xwpls) works is dead," and question now arises. Granting that St. that man is" justified by works and not by James does not contradict the doctrine of faith only" (ver. 24). (2) St. Paul spe!11rs St. Paul, is he not opposing Antinomio.n of Abraham as justified by faith (Rom. 1v.; perversions of it, e.nd writing with conscious cf. Gal. iii. 6, etc.); St. Jo.rues ea.ye that he reference to the teaching of the apostle of was justified by works (ver. 21). (3) St. the Gentiles, e.nd the misuse which some Paul, or the Pauliue author of the Epistle had made of it? To this question different to the Hebrews, appeals to the case of answers have been returned. "So long ae lla!J:;b as an instance of faith (Heb. x.i 31); our range of view is confined to the apostolio OH, II, 1-26.] 'l'IIE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES. 31