Simplicity Simple
Simplicity Simple [1]
Simple, Simplicity ( ἁπλοῦς, ἁπλότης; the latter does not occur in the Gospels; the former only in Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34).
The words ἁπλοῦς, ‘simple,’ and ‘single’ spring from the one root (Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol . p. 156). It appears in Greek in ἕν (= σμεν), ἅμα, and as ἁ in ἅπαξ and ἁπλους; in Lat. in semel, simul, simplex , and similis ; in English in same, simple , and single . The basal meaning, therefore, is oneness, sameness (cf. ‘one and the same’); the fundamental contrast is between one and more than one; and only in similis and its derivatives does it branch out into the idea of likeness . In medicines it yields the antithesis: simple or pure v . mixed or adulterated; in other realms, that of single or double—as of a road, the sole of a shoe, etc. The former, transferred to the moral sphere, gives the idea of purity, genuineness ; the latter, that of singleness, openness, frankness, straightforwardness, simplicity, candour, artlessness . The antithesis in the former is impurity, adulteration ; in the latter, double-mindedness, duplicity, hypocrisy , etc. The two conceptions really flow together in guilelessness, sincerity .
These meanings are found throughout the classical and Nt periods. A third appears in Isoc. and Arist., where the word sometimes descends to silliness or folly , as in English. But this is never so in Lxx Septuagint or Nt (see Liddell and Scott, Cremer, and Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , s.v .). Of the meanings given above, ‘singleness’ almost exhausts the thought of simplicity in the Gospels. But ‘guilelessness’ is so close to it that it must also be briefly treated. Other English senses of the word, as well as the idea of purity above, do not properly come under this head in the Gospels.
1. The leading passage is Matthew 6:22. In that chapter Jesus expounds the first great commandment touching our duty to God, as in Matthew 7:1-12 He enforces the second, which concerns our duty to man (cf. Mark 12:29-31). The form of the teaching was determined by Pharisaism, which serves as a dark foil for the truth. Outwardly religious, the Pharisees were essentially worldly. Professing ostentatiously to be servants of God and shepherds of the people, they were oppressors of the people and servants of their own selfish ambitions. Thus they lived a double life, loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. Over against their worldliness, with its doubleness and hypocrisy, Jesus sets before us the obligation to obey and please God in everything as our supreme duty ( Matthew 6:1-18), while in Matthew 6:19-32 He meets our unbelieving fear that such a course would bring loss and bankruptcy, by assuring us that we may well trust our Heavenly Father’s care. It is all summed up in Matthew 6:33 f. in the command to seek first God’s Kingdom and righteousness, and in the promise that He will give all needful earthly good, so that we need not worry. That this singleness of aim is the main thought, is clear from the illustration He employs in Matthew 6:22. The ‘single’ eye is that which looks at one object alone, and sees that clearly; as contrasted with it, the ‘evil’ eye is that which (not ‘sees double,’ but) endeavours to look at two objects at the same time (and the context suggests two in opposite directions), and therefore sees neither clearly. The natural antithesis to ἁπλοῦς would have been διπλοῦς, instead of which πονηρός is used, both to turn attention sharply from the physical to the moral which it was meant to illustrate, and, by avoiding the thought of ‘seeing double,’ which διπλοῦς in itself would naturally suggest, to make it easier to think of the unusual attempt to see things in opposite directions, and so pass to the common moral experience of cherishing, as objects of ambition, things that are diametrically opposed. Accordingly, πονηρός must be interpreted as ‘evil’ in this particular sense. For the double aim to serve God and mammon is evil, both in its very nature, as being really a rejection of the sole sovereignty of God, and in its results, as leading inevitably to the double life with its darkness and doom. Such a life is only apparently possible. Really it is impossible; a choice must be made. We cannot serve God and mammon. Pharisees could not believe, because they sought glory from one another rather than the glory that comes from God ( John 5:44; cf. John 12:42 f.). Life becomes simple when we accept God’s will as our law and His Kingdom as the object of our endeavour. And that life leads to the blessings here mentioned. It floods the whole being with light. It means, as surely as God cares for birds and flowers ( Matthew 6:22), that He will care for our temporal needs better than any man can care for himself, though he be rich, cultured, and powerful as King Solomon ( Matthew 6:25-32). Moreover, it ensures imperishable treasures in heaven ( Matthew 6:19).
2. The passage in Lk. ( Luke 11:34-36) is to the same effect. That wicked generation forms the background ( Luke 11:29). Some of them had charged Jesus with being in league with Beelzebub ( Luke 11:15; Mt. calls them ‘Pharisees,’ Matthew 12:24; Mk. ‘scribes,’ Mark 3:32). In refuting that charge, He declares that it is by the finger of God He casts out demons, and that therefore in Him the Kingdom of God has come near to them ( Luke 11:20). The man who is not with Him is against Him ( Luke 11:23), and therefore against God. None such can be blessed, but only those who hear God’s word and keep it ( Luke 11:28). Then to the thronging multitudes He points out the sin of that generation ( Luke 11:29). He is a sign to them, as Jonah was to Nineveh. But inasmuch as He is superior to Jonah and all who have gone before Him ( Luke 11:31-32), and His light has not been hidden, but conspicuous ( Luke 11:33), He has, with unparalleled clearness, presented to men God’s claim upon themselves. Then, with a swift turn to personal warning and appeal (shown in the singular pronoun), He declares to each of them that, if he strives to lead the double life, he will inevitably be guilty of refusing God’s claim, and so will sink into darkness and condemnation; but if, with single-eyed devotion, he heeds God’s message and claim, he shall be filled with light and blessedness.
3. Very similar to this is the thought in Matthew 11:16-30, though the word ἁπλοῦς is not employed. The upbraided cities, with much formal religion, were yet devoted to mammon and had no real heart for God. Hence their darkened judgment, as shown by their inability to understand John or Jesus, and hence their inevitable doom. Over against these worldly ‘wise and understanding’ people Jesus sets the ‘babes’—those who, less wise in their generation than the children of the world (cf. Luke 16:8), cry out in their need and helplessness not for the world’s prizes, but for the One they must have, even the Father. Their cry the Father answers; to all such the Son gives rest. The same idea is expressed pointedly in Luke 10:20 (‘rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven’) and Luke 10:42, where the one thing needful is to listen to Him. This passage ( Matthew 11:16-30) shows how easily the transition is made from ‘singleness of aim to ‘childlike guilelessness.’ In the eyes of the world this may seem foolishness, but in Jesus’ thought it is wisdom ( Matthew 11:19). It is a mark of those in His Kingdom ( Matthew 18:3 ff., Mark 10:15, Luke 18:15-17). Apart from these, there are only two or three passages that properly belong here. One is Matthew 10:16. The English ‘harmless,’ based on a false derivation of ἀκέραιος, is unfortunate. It should be ‘guileless’ or ‘simple ‘as in the Lat. and many English versions. Prudence alone may lead to trickery; simplicity alone, to silliness. The Apostles are to be both prudent and guileless. Nathanael is already an illustration of it—it constitutes the true spiritual Israelite ( John 1:48).
Such is the gospel conception of the simple life—a life of trustful obedience to the will of God. It will manifest itself in various ways:—in unequivocal speech ( Matthew 5:37); in healthy independence of the opinion of men ( Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:5 etc., John 5:41); in judgments based on principle and reality rather than on appearance or custom—as about the Sabbath ( Mark 2:23 to Mark 3:6) and the two anointings ( Luke 7:36-50, Mark 14:3-9); in righteousness ( Matthew 6:33), calm ( Matthew 12:19; Matthew 11:29) courage ( Matthew 14:4), etc. It is indeed the very root of all virtue, the very heart of the Christian life. It underlies all Christ’s teachings. To exhaust it in all its implications would be to exhaust the Gospels.
Jesus Himself is in this, as in all other matters, the incarnation, the living illustration, of His own teachings. His first recorded utterance strikes that note ( Luke 2:49 Authorized Version); it reappears on the threshold of His public career ( Matthew 3:15), repeatedly in the course of His ministry in conversations with disciples or controversies with opponents ( John 4:34; John 6:38; John 8:29; John 8:42-47; John 9:4), and even in His prayer to the Father toward its close ( John 17:4). And, as we study His conduct and character as He moves in the midst of friends and foes, we can see how unfailingly that life of single-hearted devotion to God is marked by insight and wisdom; courage and calm; stedfastness and consistency; beauty and strength; loyalty, patience, and heroism; righteousness, truth, and love; grace, majesty, and blessedness. It cuts a straight path through all the shams and sophistries of men, and rises victorious over all weakness and worry, all waywardness and wickedness.
Literature.—Of the Comm. those of Broadus and J. A. Alexander on Matthew give the best exposition. Bengel on Matthew 6:22 shows his usual insight, though he has tripped on 10:16. See also Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, artt. ‘Simple,’ ‘Simplicity.’ We may add, for the benefit of any who are interested in modern discussion of ‘the Simple Life’: Wagner, The Simple Life ; W. J. Dawson, The Quest of the Simple Life ; M‘Leod, The Culture of Simplicity ; and Letters on the Simple Life , republished from the Daily Graphic . Some of these are as instructive by their contrasts to, as in their agreements with, the Nt conception. See also R. F. Horton, The Commandments of Jesus (1898), 63; Phillips Brooks, New Starts in Life (1896), 158; S. A. Brooke, The Gospel of Joy (1898), 161; G. H. Morrison Sunrise (1901), 124.
