Notes on the Old and New Testaments

§ 1. The Antiquity and Reason of the Term General or Catholic applied to these Epistles.

The seven Epistles embraced in the New Testament between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation are denoted by the term General or Catholic (fcaSoAticai). This word does not occur in the New Testament except in the inscriptions to these Epistles; and these inscriptions are no part of the inspired writings, and are of no authority, as it is evident that the writers themselves would not affix this title to them. Indeed, the term is not applied with strict propriety to the Second and Third Epistles of John; but those Epistles are ranked under the general appellation because they were usually annexed to his First Epistle in transcribing, partly because they were the work of the same author, and partly because they were so small that there might otherwise be danger of losing them. — Michaelis. The Greek word catholic (icaSoXiKai), applied to these Epistles, means general, universal; and it was given to them because they were not addressed to particular churches or individuals, but to Christians at large. Even the Epistles of Peter, however, as well as the Second and Third of John, had originally a definite direction, and were designed for certain specified churches and Christians as really as the Epistle to the Romans or Corinthians. See 1 Pet. i. 1. There is, therefore, no good reason for retaining the title now, and it is omitted in the editions of Tittman and Hahn. It was, however, early applied to the Epistles, and is found in most of the editions and versions of the New Testament. Thus Eusebius, having given an account of James, called the Just, and our Lord's brother, says, "Thus far concerning this James, who is said to be the author of the first of the Epistles called catholic." In another place he says, "That, in his Institutions, Clement of Alexandria had given short explications of all the canonical Scriptures, not omitting those which are contradicted — I mean the Epistle of Jude, and the other catholic Epistles." John's First Epistle is several times called catholic by Origen. So Athanasius, Epiphanius, and other Greek writers mention the seven Epistles under the term catholic. — Lardner, Works, vi., 158, ed. London, 1829; compare Hug's Introd., ch. iii., § 151. "The didactic writings of the apostles were separated into two collections: the one comprising the Epistles of Paul, and bearing generally the title airoaroKoQ (apostle); the other containing the Epistles of the rest of the apostles, with the title jcaSo- XiKai iTri<TTo\ai (catholic epistles), or jcaSoAiKai t7r«rroAai t&v cnr6aro\wv {catholic epistles of the apostles). " — Hug. Hug supposes that the appellation was given to them to designate them as a class of Biblical writings, comS prising the writings of all the apostles except those of Paul. The Gos- pels and the Acts, he supposes, comprised one class by themselves; the Epistles of Paul a second; and these seven Epistles, under the title of general or catholic, a third, embracing the writings of all the apostles, Paul excepted. In the course of time, however, the signification of the term became changed, and they were called catholic because they were not addressed to any church in particular. — Introd., p. 605, 606, ed. And., 1836. At all events, this last is the sense in which the word is used by Theodoret, and by subsequent commentators. On this point, see also Koppe, New Test., ix., 1, sen.; Noesselt, In conjecturis ad historiam catholicoz Jacobi epistoloz; Opiisc.Fasc, ii., 303, seq.; and Bertholdt, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in sdmmtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften des A. und N. T., i., 216, seq.

It may be added that the term "canonical" was given to these Epistles about the middle of the sixth century by Cassiodorus, and by the writer of the prologue to these Epistles, ascribed to Jerome, though not his. The reason why this appellation was given is not known. — Lardner, Works, vi., 160.

§ 2. The Canonical Authority of these Epistles.

"Before the fourth century," says Hug, Introd., p. 606, "in which, for the first time, undeviating unanimity in all the churches in respect to the canon was effected, Christian writers with perfect freedom advocated or denied the authenticity of certain writings of the New Testament. Individual fathers admitted or rejected certain books, according as their judgment dictated. Besides the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, this was the case, as is well known, in regard to several of the catholic Epistles, viz., that of James, the Second and Third of John, the Second of Peter, and that

of Jude. " It is of some importance here to inquire what bearing this fact should have on the question of the canonical authority of these Epistles, or the question whether they are to be regarded as constituting a part of the inspired writings. Some general remarks only will be made here; a more particular examination will be proper in considering the evidences of the genuineness of the several Epistles. See the Introduction to James, to Second Peter, to Second and Third John, and to Jude.

The facts in the case, in regard to these disputed Epistles, were these:

(1.) They were always circulated under the names of the respective authors whose names they bear, and, by established custom, were subjoined to the other Biblical books, though they had not universally the estimation which was given to the others.

(2.) In most of the churches these Epistles were made use of, as Eusebius testifies, equally with the other Scriptures.

(3.) There was supposed by many to be a want of positive historical testimony in their favor, at least of the evidence which existed in favor of the other books of the New Testament.

(4.) It was not supposed that there was any positive testimony against the genuineness of these writings. The sole ground of doubt with any of the fathers was that there were not the same historical vouchers for their genuineness which there were for the other books.

(5.) They were never regarded as books that were certainly to be rejected. Those who entertained doubts in regard to them did not argue against their genuineness, but only expressed doubts in respect to their canonical authority.

(6.) Even these doubts were in time removed, and after the fourth century these Epistles were every where received as a part of the genuine inspired writings. The progress "of investigation removed all doubt in the Church, and they were allowed a place among the undisputed writings of the apostles as a part of the Word of God.

In regard, therefore, to the influence which this fact should have on the estimate which we form of their genuineness and canonical authority, Ave may observe —

(1.) That the settled and established voice of antiquity is in their favor. That opinion became at length harmonious, and was the more valuable from the fact that there ever had been any doubts. The general judgment of the Church now in their favor is the result of long and careful inquiry; and an opinion is always more valuable when it is known to have been the result of long and careful investigation.

(2.) The facts in regard to these Epistles showed that there was great caution in the early Christian Church about admitting books into the canon. None were received without examination, none where the evidence was not supposed to be clear. The honest doubts of the early Christian fathers were stated and canvassed, and passed for what they were worth; and the greatest care was taken to remove the doubts when any existed. No books were admitted into the canon by a mere vote of a synod or council, or by any ecclesiastical body. The books which were admitted were received because there was evidence that they were genuine which satisfied the Church at large, and they were recognized as canonical by common consent.

(3.) It has been observed above that there never was any positive evidence against the authority and genuineness of the disputed books. But, as Hug has remarked (p. 607), even the negative argument loses much of its force when its character is considered. JSuch is their brevity that it was less easy to establish their authority, or to demonstrate their authorship by any internal evidence, than in regard to the longer Epistles. It happened, also, from the brevity of the Epistles, that they were less frequently quoted by the early fathers than the longer ones were, and hence it was more difficult to demonstrate that they were early received. But it is clear that this arose, not from any thing in the Epistles which was calculated to excite suspicion as to their origin, but from the nature of the case. On the supposition that they are genuine, and were early regarded as genuine, this difficulty would be as "great as on the supposition that they are not. But if so, the difficulty is manifestly of no force. On this whole subject the reader may find all that is necessary to be said in the Prolegomena of Koppe in Epistolas Catholicas; see also Hug's Introd., § 151, 152.

§ 1. TJte Question who was the Author of this Epistle.

There have been more difficult questions raised in regard to the Epistle of James than perhaps any other portion of the New Testament. Those questions it is of importance to examine as fully as is consistent with the design of these Notes; that is, so far as to enable a candid inquirer to see what is the real difficulty in the case, and what is, so far as can be ascertained, the truth.

The first question is, Who was the author? It has been attributed to •one of three persons: to James "the Elder," the son of Zebedee, and brother of John; to James " the Less," son of Alpheus or Cleopas; and to a James of whom nothing more is known. Some have supposed, also, that the James who is mentioned as the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19) was a different person from James the son of Alpheus.

There are no means of determining this point from the Epistle itself. All that can be established from the Epistle is — (1) that the name of the author was James, ch. i. 1; (2) that he professed to be a "servant of God," ch. i. 1; (3) that he had been probably a Jew, and sustained such a relation to those to whom he wrote as to make it proper for him to address them with authority; and (4) that he was a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, ch. ii. 1; v. 8.

There are two persons, if not three, of the name of James mentioned in the New Testament. The one is James the son of Zebedee — 'Matt. iv. 21; Mark iii. 17; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 13, et al. He was the brother of John, and is usually mentioned in connection with him — Matt. iv. 21; xvii. 1; Mark v. 37; xiii. 3, et al. The name of their mother was Salome. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 56 with Mark xv. 40. He was put to death by Herod Agrippa about A.D. 41 — Acts xii. 2. He was called the major, or the elder, to distinguish him from the other James, the younger, or the less (Mark xv. 40); called also, in ancient history, James the Just.

The other James was a son of Alpheus or Cleopas — Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Acts i. 13; Luke xxiv. 18. That Alpheus and Cleopas was the same person is evident from the fact that both the words are derived from the Hebrew ^S^H — hhalphay. The name of the mother of this James was Mary (Mark xv. 40); and James and Joses and Simon and Judas are mentioned as brethren — Matt. xiii. 55. There is also a James mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; and Gal. i. 19, as a " brother of our Lord." On the meaning of this expression, see Notes on Gal. i. 19.

It has been a question which has been agitated from the earliest times whether the James which is mentioned as the son of Alpheus and the James who is mentioned as the " Lord's brother " were the same or different persons. It is not necessary for the purposes of these Notes to go into an examination of this question. Those who are disposed to see it pursued mayconsult Hug's Introd., § 158, and the works there referred to; Neander's History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, ii., 2, seq., Edinb. ed.; and Michaelis's Introd., iv., 271, seq. The question, says Neander, is one of the most difficult in the apostolic history. Hug supposes that James the son of Alpheus and James the brother of the Lord were the same. Neander supposes that the James mentioned by the title of the "Lord's brother" was a son of Joseph, either by a former marriage or by Mary, and consequently a "brother" in the stricter sense.

It is remarked by Michaelis that James may have been called "the Lord's brother," or mentioned as one of his brethren, in one of the following senses: (l.)That the persons accounted as the "brethren of the Lord" (Matt. xiii. 55, et at.) were the sons of Joseph, not by Mary the mother of Jesus, but by a former wife. This, says he, was the most ancient opinion, and there is nothing improbable in it. If so, they were older than Jesus. (2.) It may mean that they were the sons of Joseph by Mary, the mother of Jesus. Comp. Notes on Matt. xiii. 55. If so, James was an own brother of Jesus, but younger than he. There is nothing in this opinion inconsistent with any statement in the Bible; for the notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not founded on the authority of the Scriptures. If either of these suppositions were true, however, and James and Judas,' the authors of the Epistles which bear their names, were literally the brothers of Christ, it would follow that they were not apostles; for the elder apostle James was the son of Zebedee, and James the younger was the son of Alpheus. (3.) A third opinion in relation to James, Joses, Simon, and Judas is that they were the sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother who had died without children, and to whom, therefore, Joseph, by the Mosaic laws, was obliged to raise up issue. This opinion, however, is entirely unsupported, and is Avholly improbable; for (a) the law which obliged the Jews to take their brothers' widows applied only to those who were single (Michaelis); and (6) if this had been an instance of that kind, all the requirements of the law in the case would have been satisfied when one heir was born. (4.) It might be maintained that, according to the preceding opinion, the brother of Joseph was Alpheus, and then they would be reckoned as his sons; and in this case the James and Judas who are called the brothers of Jesus would have been the same as the apostles of that name. But in that case Alpheus would not have been the same as Cleopas, for Cleopas had a wife — the sister of Joseph's wife. (5.) A fifth opinion, and one which was advanced by Jerome, and which has been extensively maintained, is that the persons referred to were called "brethren" of the Lord Jesus only in a somewhat lax sense, as denoting his near kinsmen. See Notes on Gal. i. ]9. According to this, they would have been cousins of the Lord Jesus, and the relationship was of this kind: James and Judas, sons of Alpheus, were the apostles, and consequently Alpheus was the father of Simon and Joses. Further, Alpheus is the same as Cleopas, who married Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus (John xix. 25), and consequently the sons of Cleopas were cousins of the Saviour.

Which of these opinions is the correct one it is impossible now to determine. The latter is the common opinion, and perhaps, on the whole, best sustained; and if so, then there were but two Jameses referred to, both apostles, and the one who wrote this Epistle was a cousin of the Lord Jesus. Neander, however, supposes that there were two Jameses besides James the brother of John, the son of Zebedee, and that the one who wrote this Epistle was not the apostle, the son of Alpheus, but was, in the stricter sense, the "brother" of our Lord, and was trained up with him. — Hist, of the Planting of Christianity, ii., 3, seq.

It is a circumstance of some importance in showing that there was but one James besides the James who was the brother of John, and that this was the apostle, the son of Alpheus, that after the death of the elder James (Acts xii. 1) no mention is made of more than one of that name. If there had been, it is hardly possible, says Hug, that there should not have been some allusion to him. This, however, is not conclusive; for there is no mention of Simon or Bartholomew or Thomas after that time.

There is but one serious objection, perhaps, to this theory, which is that it is said (John vii. 5) that "his brethren did not believe on him." It is possible, however, that the word "brethren" in that place may not have included all his kinsmen, but may hav^e had particular reference to the larger portion of them who were not believers (ver. 3), though it might have been that some of them were believers.

On the whole, it seems probable that the James who was the author of this Epistle was one of the apostles of that name, the son of Alpheus, and that he was a cousin of our Lord. Entire certainty on that point, however, can not be hoped for.

If the author of this Epistle was a different person from the one who resided at Jerusalem, and who is often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, then nothing more is known of him. That James was evidently an apostle (Gal. i. 19), and perhaps, from his relationship to the Lord Jesus, would have a special influence and authority there.

Of this James little more is certainly known than what is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Hegesippus, as quoted by Neander, says that from childhood he led the life of a Nazarene. He is described by Josephus (Archceol., xx., 9), as well as by Hegesippus and Eusebius, as a man eminent for his integrity of life, and as well meriting the appellation or surname which he bore among the Jews, of p^E — tsaddik, Gr. diicaiog, the Just. IleJs mentioned as one who set himself against the corruptions of the age, and who was thence termed the bulwark of the people — E2 bs3> — inpiox) tov Xaov. His manner of life is represented as strict and holy, and such as to command in an eminent degree the confidence of his countrymen the Jews. Hegesippus says that he frequently prostrated himself on his knees in the Temple, calling on God to forgive the sins of his people, praying that the divine judgments on the unbelievers might be averted, and that they might be led to repentance and faith, and thus to a participation of the kingdom of the glorified Messiah. — Meander, Planting of Christianity, p. 10.

In the New Testament James appears as a prominent and leading man in the Church at Jerusalem.. In later times he is mentioned by the ecclesiastical writers as "Bishop of Jerusalem; " but this title is not given to him in the New Testament, nor is there any reason to suppose that he filled the office which is now usually denoted by the word bishop. He appears, however, from some cause, to have had his home permanently in Jerusalem, and, for a considerable portion of his life, to have been the only apostle residing there. As such, as well as from his near relationship to the Lord Jesus, and his own personal worth, he was entitled to and received marked respect. His prominence, and the respect which was shown to him at Jerusalem, appear in the following circumstances: (t.)In the council that was held respecting the rules that were to be imposed on the converts from the Gentiles, and the manner in which they were to be regarded and treated (Acts xv.), after the other apostles had fully delivered their sentiments the views of

James were expressed, and his counsel was followed — Acts xv. 13-29. (2.) When Peter was released from prison, in answer to the prayers of the assembled Church, he directed those whom he first saw to "go and show these things to James, and to the brethren" — Acts xii. 17. (3.) When Paul visited Jerusalem after his conversion, James is twice mentioned by him as occupying a prominent position there. First, Paul says that when he went there on the first occasion he saw none of the apostles but Peter, and "James the Lord's brother" — Gal. i. 18, 19. He is thus mentioned as one of the apostles, and as sustaining a near relation to the Lord Jesus. On the second occasion, when Paul went up to Jerusalem fourteen years after, he is mentioned, in enumerating those who gave to him the right hand of fellowship, as one of the "pillars" of the Church; and among those who recognized him as an apostle he is mentioned first — "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that wras given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship " — Gal. ii. 9. (4.) When Paul went up to Jerusalem after his visit to Asia Minor and to Greece, the whole matter pertaining to his visit was laid before James, and his counsel was followed by Paul — Acts xxi. 18-24.

The leading points in the character of James seem to have been these: (1.) Incorruptible integrity; integrity such as to secure the confidence of all men, and to deserve the appellation of "the Just." (2.) An exalted regard for the rites and ceremonies of the ancient religion, and a desire that they should be respected every where and honored. He was more slow in coming to the conclusion that they were to be superseded by Christianity than Paul and Peter were (comp. Acts xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 12), though he admitted that they were not to be imposed on the Gentile converts as absolutely binding— Acts xv. 19-21, 24-29. Repeated intimations of his great respect for the laws of Moses are found in the Epistle before us, thus furnishing an internal proof of its genuineness. If he were educated as a Nazarene, and if he always resided with the Jews, in the very vicinity of the Temple, this is not difficult to be accounted for, and this might be expected to tinge his writings. (3.) The point from which he contemplated religion particularly was conformity to the law. He looked at it as it was intended, to regulate the life and to produce holiness of deportment, in opposition to all lax views of morals and low conceptions of holiness. He lived in a corrupt age, and among a corrupt people — among those who sought to be justified before God by the mere fact that they were Jews, that they had the true religion, and that they were the chosen people of God; and who, in consequence, were lax in their morals, and comparatively regardless of the obligations to personal holiness. He therefore contemplated religion, not so much in respect to the question how man may be justified as to the question to what kind of life true religion will lead us; and his great object was to show that personal holiness is necessary to salvation. Paul, on the other hand, was led to contemplate it mainly with reference to another question — how man may be justified; and it became necessary for him to show that men can not be justified by their own works, but that it must be by faith in the Redeemer. The error which Paul particularly combats is an error on the subject of justification; the error which James particularly opposes is a practical error on the influence of religion on the life. It was because religion was contemplated by these two writers from these different points of view, and not from any real contradiction, that the apparent discrepancy arose between the Epistle of James and the writings of Paul. The peculiarity in the character and circumstances of. James will account for the views which he took of religion; and, keeping this in mind, it will be easy to show that there is no real contradiction between these writers. It was of great importance to guard against each of the errors referred to; and the views expressed by both of the apostles are necessary to understand the nature and to see the* full development of religion.

How long James lived, and when and how he died, is not certainly known. It is agreed by all that he spent his last days in Jerusalem, and thai he probably died there. On the subject of his death there is a remarkable passage in Josephus, which, though its genuineness has been disputed, is worth transcribing, as, if genuine, it shows the respect in which he was held, and contains an interesting account of his death. It is as follows: "The emperor

[Roman] being informed of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we said before, was made highpriest, was haughty in his behavior, and was very ambitious. And, moreover, he was of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we have also observed before, are, above all other Jews, severe in their judicial sentences. This, then, being the temper of Ananus, he, thinking he had a fit opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinus was yet on the road, calls a council. And, bringing before them James, the brother of him who is called Christ, and some others, he accused them as transgressors of the laws, and had them stoned to death. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also reckoned most skillful in the -laws, were offended at this proceeding. They therefore sent privately to the king [Agrippa the younger], entreating him to send orders to Ananus no more to attempt any such things." — Ant., b. xx. A long account of the manner

of his death, by Hegesippus, is preserved in Eusebius, going much more into detail, and evidently introducing much that is fabulous. The amount of all that can now be known in regard to his decease would seem to be that he was put to death by violence in Jerusalem a short time before the destruction of the Temple. From the well-known character of the Jews, this account is by no means improbable. On the subject of his life and death the reader may find all that is known in Lardner, Works, vi., 162-195; Bacon's Lives of the Apostles, p. 41 1-433; and Neander, Hist, of the Planting of the Christian Church, ii., 1-23, Edinburgh edition.

The belief that it was this James, the son of Alpheus, who resided so long at Jerusalem, who was the author of this Epistle, has been the common, though not the unanimous opinion of the Christian Church, and seems to be supported by satisfactory arguments. It must evidently have been written either by him or by James the Elder, the son of Zebedee, or by some other James, the supposed literal brother of our Lord.

In regard to these opinions we may observe —

I. That the supposition that it was written by some third one of that name "wholly unknown to fame" is mere hypothesis. It has no evidence whatever in its support.

II. There are strong reasons for supposing that it was not written by James the Elder, the son of Zebedee and brother of John. It has been indeed ascribed to him. In the old Syriac version, in the earlier editions, it is expressly attributed to him. But against this opinion the following objections may be urged, which seem to be conclusive: (1.) James the Elder was beheaded about the year 43 or 44; and if this Epistle were written by him, it is the oldest of the writings of the New Testament. It is possible, indeed, that the Epistle may have been written at as early a period as that, but the considerations which remain to be stated will show that it has sufficient internal marks to prove that it was of later origin. (2.) Before the death of James the Elder the preaching of the Gospel was chiefly confined within the limits of Palestine; but this Epistle was written to Christians " of the dispersion " — that is, to those who resided out of Palestine. It is hardly credible that, in so short a time after the ascension of our Lord, there were so many Christians scattered abroad as to make it probable that a letter would be sent to them.

(3.) This Epistle is occupied very much with a consideration of a false and perverted view of the doctrine of justification by faith. It is evident that false views on that subject prevailed, and that a considerable corruption of morals was the consequence. But this supposes that the doctrine of justification by faith had been extensively preached; consequently that considerable time had elapsed from the time when the doctrine had been first promulgated. The perversion of a doctrine so as to produce injurious effects seldom occurs until some time after the doctrine is first preached, and it can hardly be supposed that this would have occurred before the death of James, the son of Zebedee. See these reasons stated more at length in Benson.

III. There are strong probabilities, from the Epistle itself, to show that it was written by James the Less. (1.) His position at Jerusalem, and his eminence among the apostles, as well as his established character, made it proper that he should address such an Epistle to those who were scattered abroad. There was no one among the apostles who would command greater respect from those abroad who were of Jewish origin than James. If he had his residence at Jerusalem; if he were in any manner regarded as the head of the Church there; if he sustained a near relation to the Lord Jesus; and if his character were such as has been commonly represented, there was no one among the apostles whose opinions would be treated with greater respect, or who would be considered as having a clearer right to address those who were scattered abroad. (2.) The character of the Epistle accords with the wellknown character of James the Less. His strong regard for the law; his zeal for incorruptible integrity; his opposition to lax notions of morals; his opposition to all reliance on faith that was not productive of good works, all appear in this Epistle. The necessity of conformity to the law of God and of a holy life is every where apparent, and the views expressed in the Epistle agree with all that is stated of the early education and the established character of James. While there is no real contradiction between this Epistle and the writings of Paul, yet it is much more easy to show that this is a production of James than it would be to prove that it was written by Paul. Comp. Hug, I?itrod., § 150.

§ 2. To Whom was the Epistle written?

The Epistle purports to have been written to " the twelve tribes scattered abroad," or the "twelve tribes qfthe dispersion" — iv ry £ia<j7ropq, ch. i. 1. See Notes on 1 Pet. i. 1, and Notes on ch. i. 1 of this Epistle. No mention of the place where they resided is made; nor can it be determined to what portion of the world it was first sent, or whether more than one copy were sent. All that can be conclusively determined in regard to the persons to whom it was addressed is, (1) that they were of Jewish descent, as is implied in the phrase " to the twelve tribes" (ch. i. 1), and as is manifest in all the reasonings of the Epistle; and (2) that they were Christian converts (ch. ii. ]). But by whose labors they were converted is wholly unknown. The Jewish people who were "scattered abroad" had two central points of union — the dispersion in the East, of which Babylon was the head, and the dispersion in the West, of which Alexandria was the head. — Hua, § 156. Peter wrote, his Epistles to the latter (1 Pet. i. 1), though he was at Babylon when he wrote them (1 Pet. v. 13), and it would seem probable that this Epistle was addressed to the former. Beza supposed that this Epistle was sent to the believing Jews dispersed all over the world; Grotius, that it was written to all the Jews living out of Judea; Lardner, that it was written to all Jews, descendants of Jacob, of every denomination, in Judea and out of it. It seems plain, however, from the" Epistle itself, that it was not addressed to the

Jews as such, or without respect to their being already Christians, for (a) if it had been, it is hardly conceivable that there should have been no arguments to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and no extended statements of the nature of the Christian system; and (b) it bears on the face of it evidence of having been addressed to those who were regarded as Christians (ch. ii. 1; v. 7, 11, 14). It may be difficult to account for the fact, on any principles, that there are no more definite allusions to the nature of the Christian doctrines in the Epistle, but it is morally certain that if it had been written to Jews as suck by a Christian apostle there would have been a more formal defense and statement of the Christian religion. Compare the arguments of the- apostles with the Jews in the Acts, passim. I regard the Epistle, therefore, as having been sent to those who were of Jewish origin, but who had embraced the Christian faith, by one who had been himself a Jew, and who, though now a Christian apostle, retained much of his early habits of thinking and reasoning in addressing his own countrymen.

§ 3. Where and When the Epistle was written.

There are no certain indications by which it can be determined where this Epistle was written, but, if the considerations above suggested are well founded, there can be little doubt that it was at Jerusalem. There are indeed certain internal marks, as Hug has observed (Introd., § 155), pertaining to the country with which the writer was familiar, and to certain features of natural scenery incidentally alluded to in the Epistle. Thus his native land was situated not for from' the sea (ch. i. 6; iii. 4); it was blessed with valuable productions, as figs, oil, and wine (ch. iii. 12); there were springs of saline and fresh water with which he was familiar (ch. iii. 11); the land was much exposed to drought, and there were frequently reasons to apprehend famine from the want of rain (ch. v. 17, 28); there were sad devastations produced, and to be dreaded, from a consuming, burning wind (ch.i. 11); and it was a land in which the phenomena known as " early and latter rains " were familiarly understood (ch. v. 7). All these allusions apply well to Palestine, and were such as would be employed by one who resided in that country, and they, may be regarded as an incidental proof that the Epistle was written in that land.

There is no way of determining with certainty when the Epistle was written. Hug supposes that it was after the Epistle to the Hebrews, and not before the beginning of the tenth year of Nero, nor after the accession of Albinus — that is, the close of the same year. Mill and Fabricius suppose it was before the destruction of Jerusalem, and about a year and a half before the death of James. Lardner supposes that James was put to death about the year G2, and that this Epistle was written about a year before. He supposes also that his death was hastened by the strong language of reprehension employed in the Epistle. It is probable that the year in which it was written was not far from A.D. 58 or 60, some ten or twelve years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

§ 4. The Canonical Authority of the Epistle.

On the question generally respecting the canonical authority of the disputed Epistles, see the Introd. to the Catholic Epistles, § 2. The particular proof of the canonical "authority of this Epistle is contained in the evidence that it was written by one of the apostles. If it were written, as suggested above (§ 1), by James the Less, or if it be supposed that it was written by James the Elder, both of whom w.ere apostles, its canonical authority will be admitted. As there is no evidence that it was written by any other James, the point seems to be clear.

But there are additional considerations, derived from its reception in the Church, which may furnish some degree of confirmation of its authority. These are: (a) It was included in the old Syriac version, the Peshita, made either in the first centuiy or in the early part of the second, thus showing that it 'was recognized in the country to which it was probably sent; (//) Ephrem, the Syrian, in his Greek works, made use of it in many places, and attributed it to James, the brother of our Lord (Hug); (c) it is quoted as of authority by several of the fathers: by Clement of Rome, who does not indeed mention the name of the writer, but quotes the words of the Epistle (James iii. 13; iv. 6, 11; ii. 21, 23); by Hermas, and by Jerome. See Lardner, vi., 195-199, and Hug, § 161.

§ 5. The Evidence that the Writer was acquainted with the Writings of Paul; the alleged Contradiction between them; and the Question how they can be reconciled.

It has been frequently supposed, and sometimes affirmed, that this Epistle is directly contradictory to Paul on the great doctrine of justification, and that it was written to counteract the tendency of his writings on that subject. Thus Hug strangely says: " In this Epistle Paul is (if I may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted so flatly that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some of his doctrines and opinions " (§ 157). It is of importance, therefore, to inquire into the foundation of this charge, for if it be so, it is clear that either this Epistle or those of Paul would not be entitled to a place in the sacred canon. In order to this investigation, it is necessary to inquire to what extent the author was acquainted with the writings of Paul, and then to ask whether the statements of James are susceptible of any explanation which will reconcile them with those of Paul.

(1.) There is undoubted evidence that the author was acquainted with the writings of Paul. This evidence is found in the similarity of the expressions occurring in the Epistles of Paul and James: a similarity such as would occur not merely from the fact that two men were writing on the same subject, but such as occurs only where one is acquainted with the writings of the other. Between two persons writing on the same subject, and resting their opinions on the same general reasons, there might be indeed a general resemblance, and possibly there might be expressions used which would be precisely the same. But it might happen that the resemblance would be so minute and particular, and on points where there could be naturally no such similarity, as to demonstrate that one of the writers was familiar with the productions of the other. For example, a man writing on a religious subject, if he had never heard of the Bible, might use expressions coincident with some that are found there; but it is clear also that he might in so many cases use the same expressions which occur there, and on points where the statements in the Bible are so peculiar, as to sho*v conclusively that he was familiar with that book. So also a man might show that he was familiar with the Rambler or the Spectator, with Shakespeare or Milton. Such, it is supposed, are the allusions in the Epistle of James, showing that he was acquainted with the writings of Paul. Among these passages are the following:

i. 3. Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

i. 2. Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.

Rom. v. 3. Knowing that tribulation worketh patience.

Rom. v. 3. We glory in tribulations also.

i. G. He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed.

i. 12. When he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life.

i. 15. When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and siu,when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

i. IS. That we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

i. 21. Lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, etc.

i. 22. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, etc.

ii. 5. Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith? etc.

1 Cor. i. 7. Ye come behind in no gift. Eph. iv. 14. Tossed to and fro, carried about with every wind of doctrine.

2 Tim. iv. S. There is laid up for mc a crown of righteousness.

Rom. vii. 7, 8. I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But siu, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

Rom. viii. 23. Ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit.

Col. iv. 8. But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications out of your mouth.

Rom. ii. 13. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers, etc.

Coi\ i. 27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise, etc.

These passages will show that James was acquainted with the writings of Paul, and that he was familiar with his usual method of expressing his thoughts. These allusions are not such as two men would be likely to make who were total strangers to each other's mode of speaking and of writing.

It may be added here, also, that some critics have supposed that there is another kind of evidence that James was acquainted with the writings of Paul than that which arises from mere similarity of expression, and that he meant to refer to him, with a view to correct the influence of some of his views. Thus Hug, in the passage already referred to (§ 157), says, "In this Epistle the apostle Paul is (if I may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted so flatly that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some of his doctrines and opinions. All that Paul has taught respecting faith, its efficacy in justification, and the inutility of works, is here directly contravened." After citing examples from the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle of James in support of this, Hug adds, "The Epistle was therefore written of set purpose against Paul, against the doctrine that faith procures man justification and the divine favor." The contradiction between James and Paul appeared so palpable to Luther, and the difficulty of reconciling them seemed to him to be so great, that for a long time he rejected the Epistle of James altogether. He subsequently, however, became satisfied that it was a part of the inspired canon of Scripture.

(2.) It has been, therefore, an object of much solicitude to know how the views of Paul and James, apparently so contradictory, can be reconciled; and many attempts have been made to do it. Those who wish to pursue this inquiry to greater length than is consistent with the design of these Notes may consult Neander's History of the Planting of the Christian Church, ii., 1-23, 228-239, and Dr. Dwigtit's Theology, Sermon lxviii. The particular consideration of this pertains more appropriately to the exposition of the Epistle (see the remarks at the close of ch. iii.), but a few general principles may be laid down here which may aid those who are disposed to make the comparison between the two, and which may show that there is no designed and no real contradiction, («) The view which is taken of any object depends much on the point of vision from which it is beheld — the stand-point, as the Germans say; and in order to estimate the truthfulness or value of a description or a picture it is necessary for us to place ourselves in the same position with him who has given the description or who has made the picture. Two men painting or describing a mountain, a valley, a waterfall, or an edifice, might take such different positions in regard to it that the descriptions which they give would seem to be quite contradictory and irreconcilable unless this were taken into the account. A landscape, sketched from the top of a high tower or on a level plain; a view of Niagara Falls, tj^ken above or below the falls — on the American or Canada side; a view of St. Paul's, taken from one side or another — from the dome or when on the ground — might be very different; and two such views might present features which it would be scarcely possible to reconcile with each other. So it is of moral subjects. Much depends on the point from which they are viewed, and on the bearings and tendencies of the doctrine which is the particular subject of contemplation. The subject of temperance, for example, may be contemplated with reference, on the one hand, to the dangers arising from too lax a view of the matter, or, on the other, to the danger of pressing the principle too far; and in order to know a man's views, and not to do injustice to him, it is proper to understand the particular aspect in which he looked at it, and the particular object which he had in view.

(6) The object of Paul — the " stand-point " from which he viewed the subject of justification, on which point alone it has been supposed that he and James differ — was to show that there is no justificatipn before God except by faith; that the meritorious cause of justification is the atonement; that good works do not enter into the question of justification as a matter of merit, or as the ground of acceptance; that if it were not for faith in Christ it would not be possible for man to be justified. The point which he opposes is that men can be justified by good works, by conformity to the law, by dependence on rites and ceremonies, by birth or blood. The aim of Paul is not to demonstrate that good works are not necessary or desirable in religion, but that they are not the ground of justification. The point of view in which he contemplates man is before he is converted, and with reference to the question on what ground he can be justified; and he affirms that it is only by faith, and that good works come in for no share in justification as a ground of merit.

(c) The object of James— the "stand-point" from which he viewed the subject — was to show that a man can not have evidence that he is justified, or that his faith is genuine, unless he is characterized by good works or by holy living. His aim is to show, not that faith is not essential to justification, and not that the real ground of dependence is not the merit of the Saviour, but that conformity to the law of God is indispensable to true religion. The point of view in which he contemplates the subject is after a man professes to be justified, and with reference to the question whether his faith is genuine; and he affirms that no faith is of value in justification but that which is productive of good works. By his own character, by education, by the habits of his whole life, he was accustomed to look on religion as obedience to the will of God; and every thing in his character led him to oppose all that was lax in principle and loose in religion. The point which he opposed, therefore, was that meve faith in religion, as a revelation from God, a mere assent to certain doctrines, without a corresponding life, could be a ground of justification before God. This was the prevalent error of his countrymen; and while the Jews held to the belief of divine revelation as a matter of speculative faith, the most lax views of morals prevailed, and they freely indulged in practices entirely inconsistent with true piety, and subversive of all proper views of religion. It was not improper, therefore, as Paul had given prominence to one aspect of the doctrine of justification, showing that a man could not be saved by dependence on the works of the law, but that it must be by the work of Christ, that James should give due prominence to the other form of the doctrine, by showing that the essential and necessary tendency of the true doctrine of justification was to lead to a holy life, and that a man whose life was not conformed to the law of God could not depend on any mere assent to the truth of religion, or any speculative faith whatever. Both these statements are necessary to a full exposition of the doctrine of justification; both are opposed to dangerous errors; and both, therefore, are essential in order to a full understanding of that important subject.

(d) Both these statements are true. ( 1.) That of Paul is true, that there can be no justification before God on the ground of our own works, but that the real ground of justification is faith in the great sacrifice made for sin. (2.) That of James is no less true, that there can be no genuine faith which is not productive of good works, and that good works furnish the evidence that we have true religion and are just before God. A mere faith, a naked assent to dogmas, accompanied with lax views of morals, can furnish no evidence of true piety. It is as true that where there is not a holy life there is no religion as it is in cases where there is no faith.

It may be added, therefore, that the Epistle of James occupies an important place in the New Testament, and that it could not be withdrawn without materially marring thte proportions of the scheme of religion which is there revealed. Instead, therefore, of being regarded as contradictory to any part of the New Testament, it should rather be deemed indispensable to the concinnity and beauty of the whole.

Keeping in view, therefore, the general design of the Epistle, and the point of view from which James contemplated the subject of religion; the general corruptions of the age in which he lived in regard to morals; the tendency of the Jews to suppose that mere assent to the truths of religion was enough to save them; the liability which there was to abuse the doctrine of Paul on th% subject of justification, it will not be difficult to understand the general- drift of this Epistle, or to appreciate its value. A summary of its contents, and a more particular view of its design, will be found in the Analyses prefixed to the several chapters.

This chapter comprises two general classes of subjects; the statement in regard to the first of which is complete, but the second is only commenced in this chapter, and is continued in the second. The first is the general subject of temptation and trial (ver. 1-15); the second is the nature of true religion — the statement that all true religion has its origin in God, the great source of purity and truth, and that it requires us to be docile and meek; to be doers of the "Word; to bridle the tongue, and to be the friends of the fatherless and the widow. Ver. 16-27.

I. The general subject of temptation or trial. Ver. 1-15. It is evident that those to whom the Epistle was directed were, at that time, suffering in some form; or that they were called to pass through temptations, and that they needed counsel and support. They were in danger of sinking in despondency; of murmuring and complaining, and of charging God as the author of temptation and of sin. This part of the chapter comprises the following topics:

2. The subject of temptations or trials. They were to regard it, not as a subject of sorrow, but of gladness and joy, that they were called to pass through trials; for, if borne in a proper manner, they would produce the grace of patience, and this was to be regarded as an object worth being secured, even by much suffering, ver.

3. If in their trials they felt that they had lacked the wisdom which they needed to enable them to bear them in a proper manner, they had the privilege of looking to God, and seeking it at his hand. This was a privilege conceded to all, and if it were asked in faith, without any wavering, it would certainly be granted. Ver. 5-7.

4. The importance and value of stability, especially in trials; of being firm in principle, and of having one single great aim in life. A man who wavered in his faith would waver in every thing. Ver. 8.

5. An encouragement to those who, in the trials which they experienced, passed through rapid changes of circumstances. Whatever those changes were, they were to rejoice in them as* ordered by the Lord. They were to remember the essential instability of all earthly things. The rich especially, who were most disposed to murmur and complain when their circumstances were changed, were to remember how the burning heat destroys the beauty of the flower, and that in like manner all worldly splendor must fade away. Ver. 9-11.

6. Every man is blessed who endures trial in a proper manner, for such an endurance of trial will be connected with a rich reward — the crown of life. Ver. 12.

7. In their trials, however; in the allurements to sin which might be set before them; in the temptations to apostatize, or to do any thing wrong, which might be connected with their suffering condition, they were to be careful never to charge temptation, as such,on God. They were never to allow their minds to feel for a moment that he allured them to sin, or placed an inducement of any kind before them to do wrong. Every thing of that kind — every disposition to commit sin — originated in their own hearts, and they should never allow themselves to charge it on God. Ver. 13-15.

II. The nature of true religion. Ver.

1. It has its origin in God, the source of every good gift, the Father of lights, who has of his own will begotten us again, that he might raise us to an exalted rank among his creatures. He, therefore, should be regarded not as the author of sin, but as the source of all the good that is in us. Ver.

2. Religion requires us to be meek and docile; to lay aside all disposition

JAMES, a servant a of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve b tribes which are scattered c abroad, greeting. 2 My brethren, count it all joyd

to dictate or prescribe, all irritability against the truth, and all corruption of heart, and to receive meekly the ingrafted Word. Ver. 19-21.

3. Religion requires us to be doers of the Word, and not hearers only. Ver. 23-25.

4. Religion requires us to bridle the tongue, to set a special guard on our words. Ver. 26.

5. Religion requires us to be the ^friends of the fatherless and the widow, and to keep ourselves unspotted from the world. Ver. 27.

1. James, a servant of God. On the meaning of the word servant in this connection, see Notes on Romans i. 1. Comp. Notes on Philem. 16. It is remarkable that James does not call himself an apostle; but this does not prove that the writer of the Epistle was not an apostle, for the same omission occurs in the Epistle of John, and in the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, to the Thessalonians, and to Philemon. It is remarkable, also, considering the relation which James is supposed to have borne to the Lord Jesus as his "brother" (Gal. i. 19; Introd., § 1), that he did not refer to that as constituting a ground of claim to his right to address others; but this is only one instance out of many, in the New Testament, in which it is regarded as a higher honor to be the "servant of God," and to belong to his family, than to sustain any relations of blood or kindred. Comp. Matt. xii. 50. It may be observed also (comp. the Introd., § 1) that this term is one which was peculiarly appropriate to James, as a man eminent for his integrity. His claim to respect and deference was not primarily founded on any relationship which he sustained; on any honor of birth or blood; or even on any external office, but on the fact that he was a '•'■servant of God. ' ' H And of the Lord Jesus Christ. The "servant of the Lord Jesus" is an appellation which is often given to Christians, and particularly to the ministers of religion. They are his servants, not in the sense that they are slaves, but in the sense that they voluntarily obey his will, and labor for him, and not for themselves. T[ To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad. Gr.,"The twelve tribes which are in the dispersion," or of the dispersion {kv tij Siaa-Tropa). This word occurs only here and in 1 Pet. i. 1, and John vii. 35. It refers properly to those who lived out of Palestine, or who were scattered among the Gentiles. There were two great "dispersions:" the Eastern and the Western. The first had its origin about the time when the ten tribes were carried away to Assyria, and in the time of the Babylonian captivity. In consequence of these events, and of the fact that large numbers of the Jews went to Babylon, and other Eastern countries, for purposes of travel, commerce, etc., there were many Jews in the East in the times of the apostles. The other was the Western " dispersion," which commenced about the time of Alexander the Great, and which was promoted by various causes, until there were large numbers of Jews in Egypt and along Northern Africa, in Asia Minor, in Greece proper, and even in Rome. To which of these classes this Epistle was directed is not known; but most probably the writer had particular reference to those in the East. See the Introd., §2. The phrase "the twelve tribes" was the common term by which the Jewish people were designated, and was in use long after the ten tribes were carried away, leaving, in fact, but two of the twelve in Palestine. Comp. Notes on Acts xxvi. 7. Many have supposed that James here addressed them as Jews, and that the epistle was sent to them as such. But this opinion has no probability; for (1.) had this been the case, he would not have been likely to begin his Epistle by saying that he was a " servant of Jesus Christ," a name so odious to the Jews; and (2.) if he had spoken of himself as a Christian, and had addressed his countrymen as himself a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, though regarding them as Jews, it is incredible that he did not make a more distinct reference to the principles of the Christian religion; that he used no arguments to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah; that he did not attempt to convert when yc fall into clivers temptations;

8 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh a patience.

4 But let patience * have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

them to the Christian faith. It should be added, that at first most converts were made from those who had been trained in the Jewish faith; and it is not improbable that one in Jerusalem, addressing those who were Christians out of Palestine, would naturally think of them as of Jewish origin, and would be likely to address them as appertaining to the " twelve tribes." The phrase "the twelve tribes" became also a sort of technical expression to denote the people of God — the Church. TI Greeting. A customary form of salutation, meaning, in Greek, to joy, to rejoice; and implying that he wished their welfare. Compare Acts xv. 23.

2. My brethren. Not brethren as Jews, but as Christians. Comp. chap. ill. If Count it all joy. Kegard it as a thing to rejoice in; a matter which should afford you happiness. You are not to consider it as a punishment, a curse, or a calamity, but as a fit subject of felicitation. Comp. Notes on Matt. v. 12. 1 When ye fall into divers temptations. On the meaning of the word temptations, see Notes on Matt, iv. 1. It is now commonly used in the sense of placing allurements before others to induce them to sin, and in this sense the word seems to be used in vs. 13, 14 of this chapter. Here, however, the word is used in the sense of trials, to wit, by persecution, poverty,.calamity of any kind. These can not be said to be direct inducements or allurements to sin, but they try the faith, and they show whether he who is tried is disposed to adhere to his faith in God, or whether he will apostatize. They so far coincide with temptations, properly so called, as to test the religion of men. They differ from temptations, properly so called, in that they are not brought before the mind for the express purpose of inducing men to sin. In this sense it is true that God never tempts men. Vs. 13, 14. On the sentiment in the passage before us, see Notes on 1 Pet. i. 6, 7. The word divers here refers to the various kinds of trials which they might experience— sickness, poverty, bereavement, persecution, etc. They were to count it a matter of joy that their religion was subjected to any thing that tried it. It is well for us to have the reality of our religion tested, in whatever way it may be done.

3. Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. Patience is one of the fruits of such a trial, and the grace of patience is worth the trial which it may cost to procure it. This is one of the passages which show that James was acquainted with the writings of Paul. See the Introd., § 5. The sentiment expressed here is found in Rom. v. 3. See Notes on that verse. Paul has carried out the sentiment farther, by showing that tribulation produces other effects than patience. James only asks that patience may have its perfect work, supposing that every Christian grace is implied in this.

4. But let patience have her perfect work. Let it be fairly developed; let it produce its appropriate effects without being hindered. Let it not be obstructed in its fair influence on the soul by murmurings, complaining, or rebellion. Patience under trials is fitted to produce important effects on the soul, and we are not to hinder them in any manner by a perverse spirit, or by opposition to the will of God. Every one who is afflicted should desire that the fair effects of affliction should be produced on his mind, or that there should be produced in his soul precisely the results which his trials are adapted to accomplish. If That ye may be perfect and entire. The meaning of this is explained in the following phrase — "wanting nothing;" that is, that there may be nothing lacking to complete your character. There may be the elements of a good character; there may be sound principles, but those principles may not be fully carried out so as to show what they are. Afflictions, perhaps more than any thing else, will do this, and we should therefore allow them to do all that they are adapted to do in developing

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let I all men liberally, and upbraideth him ask of God, that giveth to not; and * it shall be given him.

what is good in us. The idea here is that it is desirable not only to have the elements or principles of piety in the soul, but to have them fairly carried out, so as to show what is their real tendency and value. Compare Notes on 1 Pet. i. 7. On the word perfect, as used in the Scripture, see Notes on Job i. 1. The word rendered entire (oXo/cXjjjoot) means whole in every part. Comp. Notes on 1 Thess. v. 23. The word occurs only in these two places. The corresponding noun (oXoKXtipla) occurs in Acts iii. 15, rendered perfect soundness. If Wanting nothing. "Being left in nothing;" that is, every thing being complete, or fully carried out.

5. If any of you lack wisdom. Probably this refers particularly to the kind of wisdom which they would need in their trials to enable them to bear them in a proper manner, for there is nothing in which Christians more feel the need of heavenly wisdom than in regard to the manner in which they should bear trials, and what they should do in the perplexities, disappointments, and bereavements that come upon them; but the language employed is so general that what is here said may be applied to the need of wisdom in all respects. The particular kind of wisdom which we need in trials is to enable us to understand their design and tendency; to perform our duty under them, or the new duties which may grow out of them; to learn the lessons which God designs to teach, for he always designs to teach us some valuable lessons by affliction; and to cultivate such views and feelings as are appropriate under the peculiar forms of trial which are brought upon us; to find out the sins for which, we have been afflicted, and to learn how we may avoid them in time to come. We are in great danger of going wrong when we are afflicted; of complaining and murmuring; of evincing a spirit of insubmission, and of losing the benefits which we might have obtained if we had submitted to the trial in a proper manner. So in all things we "lack wisdom." We are short-sighted; we have hearts prone to sin; and there are great and important matters pertaining to duty and salvation on which we can not but feel that we need heavenly guidance. H Let him ask of God. That is, for the specific wisdom which he needs; the very wisdom which is necessary for him in the particular case. It is proper to bear the very case before God; to make mention of the specific want; to ask of God to guide us in the very matter where we feel so much embarrassment. It is one of the privileges of Christians that they may not only go to God and ask him for that general wisdom which is needful for them in life, but that whenever a particular emergency arises, a caso of perplexity and difficulty in regard to duty, they may bring that particular thing before his throne with the assurance that he will guide them. Compare Psa. xxv. 9; Isa. xxxvii. 14; Joel ii. 17. TI That giveth to all men liberally. The word men here is supplied by the translators, but not improperly, though the promise should be regarded as restricted to those who ask. The object of the writer was to encourage those who felt their need of wisdom to go and ask it of God, and it would not contribute any thing to furnish such a specific encouragement to say of God that he gives to all men liberally whether they ask or not. In the Scripture the promise of divine aid is always limited to the desire. No blessing is promised to man that is not sought; no man can feel that he has a right to hope for the favor of God who does not value it enough to pray for it; no one ought to obtain it who does not prize it enough to ask for it. Comp. Matt, vii. 7, 8. The word rendered liberally (cbr\d>s) means, properly, simply; that is, in simplicity, sincerity, reality. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, though the corresponding naun occurs in Rom. xii, 8; 2 Cor. i. 12; xi. 3, rendered simplicity; in 2 Cor. viii. 2; ix. 13, rendered liberality and liberal; in 2 Cor. ix. 11, rendered bountifulness; and in Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22, rendered singleness, s'cil., of the heart. The idea seems to be that of openness, frankness, generosity; the absence of all that is sordid and contracted; the manifestation of gener-

G But a let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

ous feeling and liberal conduct. In a higher sense than in the case of any man, all that is excellent in these things is to be found in God; and we may therefore come to him feeling that in his heart there is more that is noble and generous in bestowing favors than in any other being. There is nothing that is stinted and close; there is ho partiality; there is no withholding of his favor because we are poor, and unlettered, and unknown. TI And upbraideth not. Does not reproach, rebuke, or treat harshly. He does not coldly repel us, if we come and ask what we need, though we do it often and with importunity. Comp. Luke xviii. 1-7. The proper meaning of the Greek word is to rail at, reproach, revile, chide; and the object here is probably to place the manner in which God bestows his favors in contrast with what sometimes occurs among men. He does not reproach or chide us for our past conduct; for our foolishness; for our importunity in asking. He permits us to come in the most free manner, and meets us with a spirit of entire kindness, and with promptness in granting our requests. We are not always sure, when we ask a favor of a man, that we shall not encounter something that will be repulsive, or that will mortify us; we are certain, however, when we ask a favor of God, that we shall never be reproached in an unfeeling manner, or meet with a harsh response. T[ And it shall be given him. Compare Jer. xxix. 12, 13. ' ' Then shall ye call upon me, and go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with your whole heart." See also Matt. vii. 7, 8; xxi. 22; Mark xi. 24; 1 John iii. 22; v. 14. This promise in regard to the wisdom that may be necessary for us, is absolute, and we may be sure that if it be asked in a proper manner it will be granted us. There can be no doubt that it is one of the things which God is able to impart; which will be for our own good; and which, therefore, he is ever ready to bestow. About many things there might be doubt whether if they were granted they would be for our real welfare, B and therefore there may be a doubt whether it would be consistent for God to bestow them; but there can be no such doubt about wisdom. That is always for our good, and we may be sure, therefore, that we shall obtain that, if the request be made with a right spirit. If it be asked in what way we may expect he will bestow it on us, it may be replied, (1.) That it is through his Word— by enabling us to see clearly the meaning of the sacred volume, and to understand the directions which he has there given to guide us; (2.) By the secret influences of his Spirit (a) suggesting to us the way in which we should go, and (&) inclining us to do that which is prudent and wise; and (3.) By the events of his Providence, making plain to us the path of duty, and removing the obstructions which may be in our path. It is easy for God to guide his people; and they who "watch daily at the gates, and wait at the posts of the doors" of wisdom (Prov. viii. 34), will not be in danger of going astray. Psa. xxv. 9.

6. But let him ask in faith. See the passages referred to in ver. 5. Comp. Notes on Matt. vii. 7, and on Heb. xi. 6. We can not hope to obtain any favor from God if there is not faith; and where, as in regard to the wisdom necessary to guide us, wre are sure that it is in accordance with his will to grant it to us, we may come to him with the utmost confidence — the most entire assurance that it will be granted. In this case, we should come to God without a doubt that if we ask with a proper spirit, the very thing that we ask will be bestowed on us. We can not in all other cases be so sure that what we ask will be for our good, or that it will be in accordance with his will to bestow it, and hence we can not in such cases come with the same kind of faith. We can then only come with unwavering confidence in God that he will do what is right and best, and that if he sees that what we ask will be for our good, he will bestow it upon us. Here, however, nothing prevents our coming with the assurance that the very thing which we ask will be conferred on us. H Nothing wavering, (jmjoti/ diaxpivojJLt-

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

9 Let the brother of low degree x rejoice in that he is exalted.

10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass a he shall pass away.

i/os.) "Doubting or hesitating as to nothing, or in no respect." See Acts xx. 20; xi. 12. In regard to the matter under consideration, there is to be no hesitancy, no doubting, no vacillation of the mind. We are to come to God with the utmost confidence and assurance, 1 For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, etc. The propriety and beauty of this comparison will be seen at once. The waves of the sea have no stability. They are at the mercy of every wind, and seem to be driven and tossed every way. So he that comes to God with unsettled convictions and hopes is liable to be driven about by every new feeling that may spring up in the mind. At one moment, hope and faith impel him to come to God; then the mind is at once filled with uncertainty and doubt, and the soul is agitated and restless as the ocean. Comp. Isa. lvii. 20. Hope on the one hand, and the fear of not obtaining the favor which is desired on the other, keep the mind restless and discomposed.

7. For let not that man think that he shall obtain any thing from the Lord. Comp. Heb. xi.6. A man can hope for favor from God only as he puts confidence in him. He sees the heart, and if he perceive that there is no belief in his existence, or his perfections— no real trust in him— no reliance on his promises, his wisdom, or his grace, it can not be proper that he should grant an answer to our petitions. This will account sufficiently for the fact that there are so many prayers unanswered; that we so frequently, go to the throne of grace, and are sent empty away. A man that goes to God in such a state of mind should not expect to receive any favor.

8. A double-minded man. The word here used, di\l/vxos, occurs only here and in chap. iv. 8. It means, properly, one who has two souls; then one who is wavering or inconstant. It is applicable to a man who has no settled principles; who is controlled by passion; who is influenced by popular feeling; who is now inclined to one opinion or course of conduct, and now to another. ^ Is unstable in all his ways. That is, not merely in regard to prayer, the point particularly under discussion, but in respect to every thing. From the instability which the wavering must evince in regard to prayer, the apostle takes occasion to make the general remark concerning such a man that stability and firmness can be expected on no subject. The hesitancy which he manifests on that one subject will extend to all; and we may expect to find such a man irresolute and undetermined in all things. This is always true. If we find a man who takes hold of the promises of God with firmness; who feels the deepest assurance when he prays that God will hear prayer; who always goes to him without hesitation in his perplexities and trials, never wavering, we shall find one who is firm in his principles, steady in his integrity, settled in his determinations, and steadfast in his plans of life — a man whose character we shall feel that we understand, and in whom we can confide. Such a man eminently was Luther; and the spirit which is thus evinced by taking firmly hold of the promises of God is the best kind of religion.

9. Let the brother of low degree. This verse seems to introduce a new topic, which has no other connection with what precedes than that the apostle is discussing the general subject of trials. Comp. ver. 2. Turning from the consideration of trials in general, he passes to the consideration of a particular kind of trials— that which results from a change of circumstances in life, from poverty to affluence, and from affluence to poverty. The idea which seems to have been in the mind of the apostle is that there is a great and important trial of faith in any reverse of circumstances; a trial in being elevated from poverty to riches, or in being depressed from a state of affluence to want. Wherever a change occurs in the external circumstances of life; there a man's religion is put to the test, and there he should feel that God is trying the reality of his faith. The phrase "of low degree" (ja-Kti.- i/ds) means one in humble circumstances; one of lowly rank or employment; one in a condition of dependence or poverty. It stands here particularly opposed to one who is rich, and the apostle doubtless had his eye, in the use of this word, on those who had been poor. If Rejoice, marg. glory. Not because, being made rich, he has the means of sensual gratification and indulgence; not because he will now be regarded as a rich man, and will feel that he is above want; not even because he will have the means of doing good to others. Neither of these was the idea in the mind of the apostle, but it was that the poor man that is made rich should rejoice became his faith and the reality of his religion are now tried; because a test is furnished which will show, in the new circumstances in which he is placed, whether his piety is genuine. In fact, there is almost no trial of religion which is more certain and decisive than that furnished by a sudden transition from poverty to affluence, from adversity to prosperity, from sickness to health. There is much religion In the world that will bear the ills of poverty, sickness, and persecution; or that will bear the temptations arising from prosperity, and even affluence, which will not bear the transition from one to the other, as there is many a human frame that could become accustomed to bear either the steady heat of the equator or the intense cold of the North, that could not bear a rapid transition from the one to the other. See this thought illustrated in the Notes on Phil. iv. 12. If In that he is exalted. A good man might rejoice in such a transition because it would furnish him the means of being more extensively useful; most persons would rejoice because such a condition is that for which men commonly aim, and because it would furnish them the means of display, of sensual gratification, or of ease; but neither of these is the idea of the apostle. The thing in which we are to rejoice in the transitions of life is that a test is furnished of our piety; that a trial is applied to it which enables us to determine whether it is genuine. The most important thing for us is to know whether we are true Christians, and we should rejoice in every thing that will enable us to settle this point.

10. But the rich, in that he is made low. That is, because his property is taken away, and he is made poor. Such a transition is often the source of the deepest sorrow; but the apostle says that even in that a Christian may find occasion for thanksgiving. The reasons for rejoicing in this manner, which the apostle seems to have had in view, were these: (1) Because it furnishes a test of the reality of religion, by showing that it is adapted to sustain the soul in this great trial — that it can not only bear prosperity, but that it can bear the rapid transition from that state to one of poverty; and (2) because it would furnish to the mind an impressive and salutary illustration of the fact that all earthly glory is soon to fade away. I may remark here that the transition from affluence to poverty is often borne by Christians with the manifestation of amostlovely spirit, and with an entire freedom from murmuring and complaining. Indeed, there are more Christians who could safely bear a transition from affluence to poverty, from prosperity to adversity, than there are who could bear a sudden transition from poverty to affluence. Some of.the loveliest exhibitions of piety which I have ever witnessed have been in such transitions; nor have I seen occasion any where to love religion more than in the ease, the grace, and the cheerfulness with which it has enabled those accustomed long to more elevated walks to descend to the comparatively humble lot where God places them. New grace is imparted for this new form of trial, and new traits of Christian character are developed in these rapid transitions, as some of the most beautiful exhibitions of the laws of matter are brought out in the rapid transitions iu the laboratory of the chemist. If Because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. That is, since it is a fact that he will thus pass away, he should rejoice that he is reminded of it. He should, therefore, esteem it a favor that this lesson is brought impressively before his mind. To learn this effectually, though by the loss of property, is of more value to him than all his' wealth would be if he were forget-

11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also

shall the rich man fade away in his ways.

12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown a

ful of it. The comparison of worldly splendor with the fading flower of the field is one that is common in Scripture. It is probable that James had his eye on the passage in Isa. xl. 6-8. See Notes on that passage. Comp. Notes on 1 Pet. i. 24, 25. See also Psa. ciii. 15; Matt. vi. 28-30.

11. For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat. Isaiah (xl. 7) employs the word wind, referring to a burning wind that dries up the flowers. It is probable that the apostle also refers not so much to the sun itself, as to the hot and fiery wind called the simoom, which often rises with the sun, and which consumes the green herbage of the fields. So Rosenmiiller and Bloomfield interpret it. U It withereth the grass. Isa. xl. 7. It withereth the stalk, or that which, when dried, produces hay or fodder; the word here used being commonly employed in the latter sense. The meaning is that the effect of the hot wind is to wither the stalk or spire which supports the flower; and when that is dried up, the flower itself falls. This idea will give increased beauty and appropriateness to the figure— that man himself is blasted and withered, and then that all the external splendor which encircles him falls to the ground, like a flower whose support is gone. If And the grace of the fashion of it perisheth. Its beauty disappears. 1 So shall the rich man fade away in his ways. That is, his splendor, and all on which he prided himself, shall vanish. The phrase "in his ways," according to Rosenmiiller, refers to his counsels, his plans, his purposes; and the meaning is that the rich man, with all by which he is known, will vanish. AmanVways" — that is, his mode of life, or those things by which he appears before the world — may have somewhat the same relation to him which theflower has to thestalk on which it grows, and by which it is sustained. The idea of James seems to be, that as it is indisputable that the rich man must soon disappear, with all that hehas of pomp and splendor in the view of the world, it is well for him to be reminded of it by every change of condition; and that he should therefore rejoice in the providential dispensation by which his property is taken away, and by which the reality of his religion is tested. We should rejoice in any thing by which it can be shown whether we are prepared for heaven or not.

12. Blessed is the man that endurcth temptation. The apostle seems here to use the word temptation in the most general sense, as denoting any thing that will try the reality of religion, whether affliction, persecution, or a direct inducement to sin placed before the mind. The word temptation appears in this chapter to be used in two senses; and the question may arise why the apostle so employs it. Compare vs. 2, 13. But, in fact, the word temptation is in itself of so general a character as to cover the whole usage, and to justify the manner in which it is employed. It denotes any thing that will try or test the reality of our religion; and it may be applied, therefore, either to afflictions or to direct solicitations to sin; the latter being the sense in which it is now commonly employed. In another respect, also, essentially the same idea enters into both the ways in which the word is employed. Affliction, persecution, sickness, etc., may be regarded as, in a certain sense, temptations to sin; that is, the question comes before us whether we will adhere to the religion on account of which we are persecuted, or apostatize from it, and escape these sufferings; whether in sickness and losses we will be patient and submissive to that God who lays his hand upon us, or revolt and murmur. In each and every case, whether by affliction, or by direct allurements to do wrong, the question comes before the mind whether we have religion enough to keep us, or whether we will yield to murmuring, to rebellion, and to sin. In these respects, in a general sense, all forms of trial may be regarded as temptation. Yet in the following verse (13) the apostle would guard this from

of life, which a the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God can not be tempted with ■ evil, neither tempteth he any man:

abuse. So far as the form of trial involved an allurement or inducement to sin, he says that no man should regard it as from God. That can not be ii is design. The trial is what he aims at, not the sin. In the verse before us lie says that, whatever may be the form of the trial, a Christian should rejoice in it, for it will furnish an evidence that he is a child of God. If For when he is tried. In any way — if he bear the trial. 1 He shall receive the crown of life. See Notes on 2 Tim, iv. 8. It is possible that James had that passage in his eye. Comp. the Introd., | 5. 1 Which the Lord hath promised. The sacred writers often speak of such a crown as promised, or as in reserve for the children of God. 2 Tim. iv.8; lPet.v.4; Rev. ii.10; iii.ll; iv. 4. 1[ Those that love him. A common expression to denote those who are truly pious, or who are his friends. It is sufficiently distinctive to characterize them, for the great mass of men do not love God. Comp. Rom. i. 30. ™3. Let no man say when he is tempted, lam tempted of God. See the remarks on the previous verse. The apostle here seems to have had his eye on whatever there was in trial of any kind to induce us to commit sin — whether by complaining, by murmuring, by apostasy, or by yielding to sin. So far as that is concerned, he says that no one should charge it on God. He does nothing in any way with a view to induce men to do evil. That is only an incidental thing in the trial, and is no part of the divine purpose or design. The apostle felt evidently that there was great danger, from the general manner in which the word temptation was used, and from the perverse tendency of the heart, that it would be charged on God that he so arranged these trials, and so influenced the mind, as to present inducements to sin. Against this, it was proper that an inspired apostle should bear his solemn testimony: so to guard the whole subject as to show, whatever there might be in any form of trial that can be regarded as an inducement or allurement to sin, that that is not the thing which he contemplated in the arrangement, and that that docs not proceed from him. It has its origin in other causes; and if there were nothing in the corrupt human mind itself leading to sin, there would be nothing in the divine arrangement that would produce it. ^ For God can not be tempted with evil. Marg., evils. The sense is the same. The object seems to be to show, in regard to the whole matter of temptation, that it does not pertain to God. Nothing can be presented to 7ns mind as an inducement to do wrong, and as little can he present any thing to the mind of man to induce him to sin. Temptation is a subject which does not pertain to him. He stands aloof from it altogether. In regard to the particular statement here, that "God cannot be tempted with evil," or to do evil, there can be no doubt of its truth, and it furnishes the highest security for the welfare of the universe. There is nothing in him that has a tendency to wrong; there can be nothing presented from without to induce him to do wrong. (1.) There is no evil passion to be gratified, as there is in men; (2.) There is no want of power, so that an allurement could be presented to seek what he has not; (3.) There is no want of wealth, for he has infinite resources, and all that there is or can be is his (Psa. 1. 10, 11); (4.) There is no want of happiness, that he should seek happiness in sources which are not now in his possession. Nothing, therefore, could be presented to the divine mind as an inducement to do evil. K Neither tempteth he any man. That is, he places nothing before any human being with a view to induce him to do wrong. This is one of the most positive and unambiguous of all the declarations in the Bible, and one of the most important. It may be added that it is one which stands in opposition to as many feelings of the human heart as perhaps any other one. We are perpetually thinking — the heart suggests it constantly— that God does place before us inducements to evil, with a view to lead us to sin. This is done in many ways: (a) Men take such views of his decrees as if the doctrine implied that he meant that we should sin, and that it could not be

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own a lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and

sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.*

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

17 Every d good gift, and every

otherwise than that we should sin. (b) It is felt that all things are under his control, and that he has made his arrangements with a design that men should do as they actually do. (c) It is said that he has created us with just such dispositions as we actually have, and knowing that we would sin. (d) It is said that, by the arrangements of his providence, he actually places inducements before us to sin, knowing that the effect will be that we will fall into sin, when he might easily have prevented it. (e) It is said that he suffers some to tempt others, when he might easily prevent it if he chose, and that this is the same as tempting them himself. Now, in regard to these things, there may be much which we can not explain, and much which often troubles the heart even of the good; yet the passage before us is explicit on the point, and all these things must be held in consistency with that — that God does not place inducements before us with a vieuo that we should sin, or in order to lead us into sin. None of his decrees, his arrangements, or his desires are based on that, but all have some other purpose and end. The real force of temptation is to be traced to some other source — to ourselves, and not to God. See the next verse.

14. But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust. That is, the fountain or source of all temptation is in man himself. It is true that external inducements to sin may be placed before him, but they would have no force if there were not something in himself to which they corresponded, and over which they might have power. There must be some "lust;" some desire; some inclination; something which is unsatisfied now, which is made the foundation of the temptation, and which gives it all its power. If there were no capacity for receiving food, or desire for it, objects placed before us appealing to the appetite could never be made a source of temptation; if there were nothing in the soul which could be regarded as the love of acquisition or possession, gold would furnish no temptation; if there were no sensual propensities, we should be in that quarter above the power of temptation. In each case, and in every form, the power of the temptation is laid in some propensity of our nature; some desire of possessing that which we do not now possess. The word rendered "lust" in this place (ETTi^rvjuia) is not employed here in the narrow sense in which it is now commonly used, as denoting libidinousness. It means desire in general; an earnest wish for any thing. See Notes on Eph. iv. 22. It seems here to be used with reference to the original propensities of ournature — thedesires implanted in us, which are a stimulus to employment— as the desire for knowledge, for food, for power, for sensual gratifications— and the idea is that a man may be drawn along by these beyond the prescribed limits of indulgence, and in the pursuit of objects that are forbidden. He does not stop at the point at which the law requires him to stop, and is therefore guilty of transgression. This is the source of all sin. The original propensity may not be wrong, but may be perfectly harmless—as in the case of the desire for food, etc. Nay, it may furnish a most desirable stimulus to action; for how could the human powers be called forth, if it were not for this? The error, the fault, the sin, consists in not restraining the indulgence where we are commanded to do it, either in regard to the objects sought, or to the degree of indulgence. H And enticed. Entrapped, caught; that is, he is seized by this power and held fast; or he is led along and beguiled until he falls into sin, as in a snare that springs suddenly upon him. 15. Then when lust hath conceived. Comp. Job xv. 35. The allusion here is obvious. The meaning is that when the desire which we have naturally is quickened, or made to act, the result is that sin is produced. As our desires lie in the mind by nature, as our propensities exist as they were created, they can not be regarded as sin, or treated as such; but when they are indulged, when plans of gratification are formed, when they are developed in actual life, the effect is sin. In the mere desire for happiness, for food, for raiment, there is no sin; it becomes sin when indulged in an improper manner, and when it leads us to seek that which is forbidden — to invade the rights of others, or in any way to violate the laws of God. The Rabbins have a metaphor which strongly expresses the general sense of this passage: "Evil concupiscence is at Uic beginning like the thread of a spider's web; afterward it is like a cart rope." — SanJiedrin, fol. 99. II It bringeth forth sin. The result is sin — open, actual sin. When that which is conceived in the heart is matured, it is seen to be sin. The design of all this is to show that sin is not to be traced to God, but to man himself; and in order to this, the apostle says that there is enough in the heart of man to account for all actual sin, without supposing that it is caused by God. The solution which he gives is that there are certain propensities in man which, when they are suffered to act themselves out, will account for all the sin in the world. In regard to those propensities themselves, he does not say whether he considers them to be sinful and blameworthy or not; and the probability is that he did not design to enter into a formal examination, or to make a formal statement, in respect to their moral nature. He looked at man as he is — as a creature of God — as endowed with certain animal propensities — as seen in fact to have strong passions by nature, and he showed that there was enough in him to account for the existence of sin without bringing in the agency of God, or charging it on him. In reference to those propensities, it may be observed that there arc two kinds, either of which may account for the existence of sin, but which are frequently both combined. There are, first, our natural propensities; those which we have as men, as endowed with an animal nature, as having constitutional desires to be gratified and wants to be supplied. Such Adam had in innocence; such the Saviour had; and such are to be regarded as in no respect in themselves sinful and wrong. Yet they may, in our case, as they did in Adam, lead us to sin, because, under their strong influence, we may desire that which is forbidden, or which belongs to another. But there are, secondly, the propensities and inclinations which we have as the result of the fall, and which are evil in their nature and tendency; which, as a matter of course, and especially when combined with the former, lead to open transgression. It is not always easy to separate these; and, in fact, they are often combined in producing the actual guilt of the world. It often requires a close analysis of a man's own mind to detect these different ingredients in his conduct, and the one often gets the credit of the other. The apostle James seems to have looked at it as a simple matter of fact, with a commonsense view, by saying that there were desires (tiriSvfiias) in a man's own mind which would account for all the actual sin in the world, without charging it on God. Of the truth of this, no one can entertain a doubt. T[ And sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. The result of sin, when it is fully carried out, is death — death in all forms. The idea is, that death, in whatever form it exists, is to be traced to sin, and that sin will naturally and regularly produce it. There is a strongsimilarity between this declaration and that of the apostle Paul (Rom. vi. 21 -23), and it is probable that James had that passage in his eye. See the sentiment illustrated in the Notes on that passage, and on Romans v. 12. Any one who indulges in a sinful thought or corrupt desire should reflect that it may end in death— death temporal and eternal. Its natural tendency will be to produce such a death. This reflection should induce us to check an evil thought or desire at the beginning. Not for one moment should we indulge in it, for soon it may secure the mastery and be beyond our control, and the end maybe seen in the grave, and the awful world of woe.

16. Do not err, my beloved brethren. This is said as if there were great danger of error in the point under consideration. The point on which he would guard them seems to have been in respect to the opinion that God was the author of sin, and that the evils in the world are to be traced to him. There was great danger that they would embrace that opinion, for experience has shown that it is a danger into which men are always prone to

perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom ° is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18 Of b his own will begat he

fall. Some of the sources of this danger have been already alluded to. See Notes on ver. 13. To meet the danger, he says that, so far is it from being true that God is the source of evil, he is in fact the author of all that is good: every good gift, and every perfect gift (ver. 17) is trom him.

17. Every good gift, and every perfect gift, The difference between good and perfect here it is not easy to mark accurately. It may be that the former means that which is benevolent in its character and tendency; the latter that which is entire— where there is nothing even apparently wanting to complete it; where it can be regarded as good as a whole, and good in all its parts. The general sense is that God is the author of all good. Every thing that is good on the earth we are to trace to him; evil has another origin. Comp. Matt. xiii. 28. ^ Is from above. From God, who is often represented as dwelling above— in heaven. U And cometh down from the Father of lights. From God, the source and fountain of light. Light in the Scriptures is the emblem of knowledge, of purity, and of happiness; and God is often represented as light. 1 John i. 5. See Notes on 1 Tim. vi. 16. There is, doubtless, an allusion here to the heavenly bodies, among which the sun is the most brilliant, ft appears to us to be the great original fountain of light, diffusing its radiance over all worlds. No cloud, no darkness seems to come from the sun, but it pours its rich effulgence on the farthest part of the universe. So it is with God. There is no darkness in him (1 John i. 5); and all the moral light and purity which there is in the universe is to be traced to him. The word Father here is used in a sense which is common in Hebrew (comp. Notes on Matt. i. 1; and Isa. ix. 6), as denoting that which is the source of any thing, or that from which any thing proceeds. If With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. The design here is clearly to contrast God with the sun in a certain respect. As the source of light, there is a strong resemblance. But in the sun there are certain changes. It does not shine on all parts of the earth at the same time, nor in the same manner all the year. It rises and sets; it crosses the line, and seems to go far to the south, and sends its rays obliquely on the earth; then it ascends to the north, recrosses the line, and sends its rays obliquely on southern regions. By its revolutions it produces the changes of the seasons, and makes a constant variety on the earth in the productions of different climes. In this respect God is not indeed like the sun. With him there is no variableness, not even the appearance of turning. He is always the same, at all seasons of the year, and in all ages; there is no change in his character, his mode of being, his purposes and plans. What he was millions of ages before the worlds were made, he is now; what he is now, he will be countless millions of ages hence. We may be sure that whatever changes there may be in human affairs, whatever reverses we may undergo, whatever oceans we may cross, or whatever mountains we may climb, or in whatever worlds we may hereafter take up our abode, God is the same. The word which is herercndcrcdvariableness^apaXXayi)) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means change, alteration, vicissitude, and would properly be applied to the changes observed in astronomy. See the examples quoted in Wetstein. The phrase rendered shadow of turning would properly refer to the different shade or shadow cast by the sun from an object in its various revolutions in rising and setting, and in its changes at the different seasons of the year. God, on the other hand, is as if the sun stood in the meridian at noonday, and never cast any shadow.

18. Of his own will. Gr., willing. PovknSth. The idea is that the fact that we are "begotten" to be his children is to be traced solely to his will. He purposed it, and it was done. The antecedent in the case on which all depended was the sovereign will of God. See this sentiment explained in the Notes on John i. 13. Comp. Notes on Eph. i. 5. When it is said, however, that he has done this by his mere will, it is not to be inferred that there was