Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 5

Jam 5:4. Instead of εἰσεληλύθασιν the form εἰσελήλυθαν is, with Tisch. and Lachm., to be preferred (on this form see Ph. Buttm. Ausführl. Gr. Gr. § 87, 8, Note 5, and Winer, p. 70 f. [E. T. 93]).

Jam 5:5. The ὡς of the Rec. (after G K, etc.) before ἐν ἠμέρᾳ is, according to the testimonies of A B א, to be regarded as an explanatory addition, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be left out; so also Wiesinger, Lange, Brückner; Reiche and Bouman, however, judge otherwise.

Jam 5:7. The Rec. after the second ἕως has the particle ἄν (so in א and many min.). Tisch. has omitted it, as, according to his statement, it is not found in A B G K, etc.; Lachm. has retained it (according to Tischendorf’s note: ex errore); so also Buttmann, who adduces no authority for its omission. Already Griesbach regarded ἄν as suspicious. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted ὑετόν; it is in A G K, etc., but is wanting in B א, etc.; its addition is easily explained, particularly as in the LXX. it is never wanting with πρώϊμος καὶ ὄψιμος.

Jam 5:9. The address ἀδελφοί, in A B, etc. (Lachm. Tisch.), stands before, in G א, etc. (Rec.), after κατʼ ἀλλήλων; in K, etc., it is entirely wanting. Instead of κατακριθῆτε the simple verb κριθῆτε is, with Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be read, according to almost all authorities; so also the article ὁ before κριτής (which in the Rec. is wanting, against almost all authorities) is to be adopted.

Jam 5:10. The address according to the Rec. is ἀδελφοί μου (G K, א, etc.); in A B, etc., μου is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.); its correct position is after λάβετε, not after κακοπαθείας.

Instead of κακοπαθείας, א alone reads καλοκαγαθίας.

Before τῷ ὀνόματι, B א, etc., have the preposition ἐν (Lachm.): a correction apparently for the sake of simplification.—א alone omits τῷ.

Jam 5:11. It is difficult to decide whether we are to read, with the Rec. and Tisch., ὑπομένοντας (G K, etc.), or, with Lachm. and Wiesinger, ὑπομείναντας (A B א, etc.); yet the reading of the Rec. appears to have arisen from an endeavour to generalize the reference of the idea: Bouman certainly judges otherwise.

The Rec. εἴδετε, after B* (teste Majo) K א, etc., Oecumenius (Lachm.), is as a correction to be changed for the more difficult reading ἴδετε, attested by A B G, etc. (Tisch.).

After ἐστιν the Rec. has ὁ κύριος, according to A B (in B, however, the article is wanting) א, several min. vss. etc. (Lachm.); Griesbach regarded it as suspicious, and Tisch. has omitted it, after C K, many min. etc.; the omission can easily be explained from the fact that κυρίου directly precedes (so also Lange; Bouman wavers).

Jam 5:12. The reading εἰς ὑπόκρισιν (Ed. Steph., after G K, etc.) has probably arisen from the original ὑπὸ κρίσιν, these two words being taken as one, and then a preposition placed before them.

Jam 5:14. The αὐτόν after ἀλείψαντες is wanting in B; it was omitted as being self-evident.

Lachm. and Tisch. have, after A and some min., left out the article τοῦ before κυρίου; yet G K א, many min. etc., attest its genuineness; in B also κυρίου is wanting; nevertheless Buttmann has received it, but without the article.

Jam 5:16. The reading of the Rec. is ἐξομολογεῖσθε ἀλλήλοις τὰ παραπτώματα, καὶ εὔχεσθε κ.τ.λ. (Tisch.); instead of which A B read ἐξομολογεῖσθε οὖν ἀλλήλοις τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ προσεύχεσθε κ.τ.λ. (Lachm.); for οὖν also K א, several min. Vulg. etc. testify: accordingly οὖν is to be considered as genuine; yet precisely this οὖν might mislead one to find in this verse an extension of the thought going before, and on this account to change the new expressions with the preceding, and thus, instead of παραπτώματα, to put again ἁμαρτίας, and instead of εὔχεσθε, for which also א testifies, and to put again προσεύχεσθε, whereas the opposite change cannot be well explained.

Jam 5:18. The Rec. ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν is found in B G K, almost all min. etc. (Tisch.); A, on the contrary, has ἔδωκεν ὑετόν (Lachm.); so also א, but with τόν before ὑετόν. It is possible that this change was occasioned by the following ἐβλάστησεν τὸν καρπόν.

Jam 5:19. Tisch. has omitted the pronoun μου after ἀδελφοί, yet the most important authorities, A B K א, etc., attest its genuineness.—א alone has, instead of the simple τῆς ἀληθείας, the combination τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας.

Jam 5:20. The reading γινώσκετε in B is occasioned by the address ἀδελφοί. Instead of the Rec. ψυχήν, after G K, many min. (Tisch.) Lachm. and Buttm. have adopted ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. This αὐτοῦ is found in A א, some min. vss. etc. B has it, probably by an error of the scribe, not after ψυχήν, but after θανάτου.

B has as subscription Ἰακώβου; A: Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολή; others differently.

Jam 5:1. That here the same persons are meant as in chap. Jam 4:13, and not others, has already been observed on that passage: by ἄγε νῦν, the ἄγε νῦν of that passage is again resumed.[214]

οἱ πλούσιοι] see chap. Jam 1:10, Jam 2:6-7; the expression is not to be taken in a symbolical, but in its literal meaning (against Lange).

κλαύσατε ὀλολύζοντες κ.τ.λ.] κλαύσατε is not here to be understood, as in chap. Jam 4:9, of the tears of repentance (Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, de Wette, and others), for there is no intimation of a call to repentance. Correctly Calvin: falluntur qui Jacobum hic exhortari ad poenitentiam divites putant; mihi simplex magis denuntiatio judicii Dei videtur, qua eos terrere voluit absque spe veniae.[215] James already sees the judgment coming upon the rich, therefore the call κλαύσατε; that for which they should weep are the ταλαιπωρίαι which threatened them.[216]

The imperative is not here used instead of the future (Semler: stilo prophetico imperat, ut rem certissimam demonstret, flebitis; Schneckenburger: aoristus imperativi rem mox certoque eventuram designat), but is to be retained in its full force. The imperative expresses not what they will do, but what they shall even now do, because their ταλαιπωρίαι are nigh. The union of the imperative κλαύσατε with the participle ὀλολύζοντες is not an imitation of the frequent combination of the finite verb with the infinite absolute of the same verb in the Hebrew (Schneckenburger), since here two different verbs are united together (de Wette, Wiesinger); also ὀλολύζειν has not the same meaning as κλαίειν, but, as expressive of a more vehement affection, is added for the sake of strength. ὀλολύζειν frequently in the O. T., Isaiah 13:6; Isaiah 14:31; Isaiah 15:3 (ὀλολύζετε μετά κλαυθμοῦ), and in other places, and indeed chiefly used in reference to the impending divine judgment (Isaiah 13:6 : ὀλολύζετε, ἐγγὺς γὰρ ἡμέρα κυρίου). Calvin: est quidem et suus poenitentiae luctus, sed qui mixtus consolatione, non ad ululatum usque procedit.

ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν] for your miseries, i.e. the miseries destined for you, namely, the miseries of the judgment; see Jam 5:3 : ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις; Jam 5:7 : ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου. Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Mill, Benson, Michaelis, Stier, Lange, Bouman refer this to the then impending destruction of Jerusalem; they are so far right, as the destruction of Jerusalem and the last judgment had not as yet been distinguished in representation;[217] but it is incorrect to refer it to the judgment itself, rather than to the miseries which will precede the advent of Christ; or with Hottinger, to find here only a description of the inconstancy of prosperity.

ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις] not sc. ὑμῖν (Luther: your misery which will come upon you; so also de Wette, Lange, and others), but the impending, already threatening miseries; comp. Ephesians 2:7.

[214] Whilst de Wette, Wiesinger, and others understand by the rich here addressed Christians, Stier has correctly recognised that such are here addressed “who are outside of the Christian church,” namely, those already mentioned in chap. Jam 2:6-7, who practise violence on you, the confessors of the Lord of glory. His remark is also striking: “To them James predicts as a prophet, and entirely in the style of the old prophets, the impending judgment.”

[215] “Wiesinger indeed concedes the point to Calvin, but only in words; for “the design of James, as in the case of the prophets of the O. T., is certainly nothing else than that of moving them by such a threat if possible yet to turn.” If James has this design in these words, he has certainly not indicated it.

[216] That James by this intends the end of the Roman Empire (Hengstenberg), is proved neither from the Epistle of Peter, nor from Revelation 18, nor from any other indications in this Epistle.

[217] Wiesinger: “The question whether James thought on the destruction of Jerusalem or on the advent of Messiah is an anachronism; for to him both of these events occur together.”

Jam 5:2. Description of the judgment destroying all riches: ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπεν] In a prophetical manner the future is described as having already taken place (Hottinger, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, and others). By πλοῦτος is not here—as Estius, Raphelius, Wolf, Semler, Gebser, Bouman on account of σέσηπεν think—to be understood such things (fruit, etc.) as undergo literal rottenness, but is to be understood generally; and σέσηπε as a figurative expression denotes generally the destruction to which riches is abandoned. The explanation of Calvin is incorrect: hic immensa divitum rapacitas perstringitur, dum supprimunt, quicquid undecunque possunt ad se trahere, ut inutiliter in area computrescat (similarly Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, Bengel, Theile[218]); James “does not here intend to give the natural result of covetousness, and thus the reason of the judgment, but the effect of the judgment breaking forth” (Wiesinger).[219] James describes the reason from Jam 5:4 and onwards.

The verb σήπω, to cause to rot, in the passive and second perfect to corrupt, is in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ., but often occurs in the LXX.; comp. Job 33:21; Job 40:7; as here in a general sense (= φθείρεσθαι) it is found in Sir 14:19.

καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ.] The general idea πλοῦτος is here and in what follows specialized.

σητόβρωτος] moth-eaten, in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ., does not occur in the classics, but in Job 13:20, LXX.: ὥσπερ ἱμάτιον σητόβρωτον; comp. Isaiah 51:8. σκωληκόβρωτος in Acts 12:23 is similarly formed.

[218] Theile, who takes the preterite in its literal sense, thus explains the passage: divitiae a vobis coacervatae perierunt nulla vestra aliorumque utilitate … atque ideo vos coram judice perdent. Ita causa additur istarum calamitatum perferendi, gravi oppositione eorum quae per absurda et impia ipsorum avaritia jam facta sunt eorumque, quae pro justa Dei retributione adhuc fient.

[219] In agreement with his explanation of πλούσιοι, Lange understands also τλοῦτος in a symbolical sense, namely, the externalized Judaistic righteousness—“connected, of course, with worldly prosperity.” His assertion is also incorrect, that here not the last judgment, but “the natural immanent judgments of sinners” are meant.

Jam 5:3. Continuation of the description of the judgment: ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος] a further specification of riches. κατίωται] in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ. (Sir 12:10), equivalent to the simple verb, only in a stronger signification. Correctly Hornejus: loquitur populariter, nam aurum proprie aeruginem lion contrahit; so in the Epistle of Jeremiah 11, where it is said of gold and silver images: οὐ διασώζονται ἀπὸ ἰοῦ; see also in the same, Jeremiah 5:23. With too minute accuracy, Bretschneider justifies the use of the verb here, that we are to think on gold and silver vessels which are alloyed with copper (similarly Bouman). It is no less incorrect, with Pott, to weaken the idea κατίωται, that it is to be understood only of amisso auri et argenti splendore, de mutato auri colore ex flavo in viridem; against this is ὁ ἰός directly following. Wiesinger thinks that because κατίωται is here used figuratively, it is a matter of indifference that rust does not affect gold; but the ideas must suit each other in the figurative expression. The verb is rather here to be justified by the fact that since rust settles on metals generally, James in his vivid concrete description did not scrupulously take into consideration the difference of metals, which, however, is not to be reckoned, with de Wette, as a “poetical exaggeration.”[220]

καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν (namely, τοῦ χρυσοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀργύρου), εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται] Most expositors agree with the explanation of Oecumenius: καταμαρτυρήσει ὑμῶν, ἐλέγχων τὸ ἀμετάδοτον ὑμῶν; accordingly, “The rust which has collected on your unused gold and silver will testify to your hardness, and that to your injury = κατʼ ὑμῶν.” But since the preceding κατίωται describes the judgment overtaking earthly glory, ἰός can only be understood with reference to it; correctly Wiesinger: “the rust is a witness of their own destruction; in the destruction of their treasures they see depicted their own.”[221] Augusti superficially explains it: “will convince you that all riches are transitory.” After their riches are destroyed, the judgment seizes upon themselves; therefore καὶ φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν. The subject is ὁ ἰός, “the corroding rust seizes also them, and will eat their flesh” (Wiesinger). The figurative expression, although bold and peculiar, is not unsuitable, since ἰός is considered as an effect of judgment. φάγεται] is not the present (Schneckenburger), but in the LXX. and N. T. the ordinary future for ἔδεται; see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Sprach. § 114 [E. T. 58], under ἐσθίω; Winer, p. 82 [E. T. 110]. The object τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν belonging to φάγεται is neither = ὑμᾶς (Baumgarten), nor yet in itself indicates “bloated bodies” (Augusti, Pott: corpora lautis cibis bene pasta); also Schneckenburger lays too much stress on the expression, explaining it: emphatice, quum ejusmodi homines nihil sint nisi σάρξ. According to usage, αἱ σάρκες denotes the fleshy parts of the body, therefore the plural is also used with reference to one individual; comp. 2 Kings 9:36 : καταφάγονται οἱ κύνες τὰς σάρκας Ἰεζάβελ; further, Leviticus 26:29; Jdt 16:17; Revelation 19:18; Revelation 19:21; in definite distinction from bones, Micah 3:2-3. It is to be remarked that in almost all these passages the same verb is united with the noun.[222] The context shows that what is spoken of is not “the consuming of the body by care and want” (Erasmus, Semler, Jaspar, Morus, Hottinger, Bouman), but the punishment of the divine judgment (Calvin, Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others). The words ὡς πῦρ may be united either with what goes before or with what follows. Most expositors prefer the first combination; yet already A, the Syriac version (where ὡς is wanting), and Oecumenius in his commentary put a stop after ὑμῶν. Grotius, Knapp, and Wiesinger, considering this construction as correct, accordingly explain it: tanquam ignem opes istas congessetis; Wiesinger states as a reason for this, that without the union with ὡς πῦρ the words ἐθησαυρίσατε κ.τ.λ. give too feeble a meaning. But this is not the case, since the chief stress rests on ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (so also Lange); also James could not well reckon riches as a fire of judgment. Besides, in the O. T. the judgment is frequently represented as a devouring consuming fire, which was sufficient to suggest to James to add ὡς πῦρ to φάγεται; see Psalm 21:10, LXX.: καταφάγεται αὐτοὺς πῦρ; Isaiah 10:16-17; Isaiah 30:27 (ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ ὡς πῦρ ἔδεται); Ezekiel 15:7; Amos 5:6.[223] The sentiment is: After the judgment has overtaken the wealth of the rich, it will attack themselves. Kern gives the sentiment in an unsatisfactory manner: “The destruction of that which was everything to the rich will punish him with torturing sorrow, as if fire devoured his flesh.” That the ΤΑΛΑΙΠΩΡΊΑΙ already draw near is said in Jam 5:1, and James by the words ἘΘΗΣΑΥΡΊΣΑΤΕ ἘΝ ἘΣΧΆΤΑΙς ἩΜΈΡΑΙς indicates that the judgment is close at hand, so that this time is the last days directly preceding the judgment; accordingly, the heaping up of treasure appears as something so much the more wicked. Estius, Calvin, Laurentius, and others incorrectly supply to the verb the word ὀργήν in accordance with Romans 2:5 (comp. Proverbs 1:18). The object to be supplied to ΘΗΣΑΥΡΊΖΕΙΝ, which is often used absolutely (comp. Luke 12:21; 2 Corinthians 12:14; Psalm 38:7), is contained in the verb itself, and also follows from what has preceded. The preposition ἘΝ is not used instead of ΕἸς, and ἜΣΧΑΤΑΙ ἩΜΈΡΑΙ are not the last days of life (Wolf: accumulavistis divitias extremae vitae parti provisuri; Morus: cumulastis opes sub finem vitae vestrae), but the last times which precede the advent of Christ (Jam 5:7), not merely the final national judgment (Lange). Jachmann most erroneously takes the sentence as interrogative: Have ye collected your (spiritual) treasures on the day (i.e. for the day) of judgment, in order to exhibit them?

[220] Lange strangely thinks that it is here intended to bring out the unnatural fact that the princes of Israel are become rebellious and companions of thieves: “It is as unnatural for gold and silver to be eaten up with rust, as for the glory of Israel to be as corrupted as the glory of other nations corrupts, which may be compared to base metals.”

[221] Stier incorrectly understands by rust “the guilt of sin which cleaves to mammon.”

[222] Although σάρκες in itself indicates only flesh according to its separate parts, yet the expression is here chosen in order to name in a concrete manner that which is carefully nourished by the rich. According to Lange, αἱ σάρκες are “the externals of religious, civil, and individual life;” and the thought of James is that “the rotten fixity described as rust in its last stage transforms itself in the fire of a revolutionary movement!”

[223] Pott: Aerugo describitur, quasi invadat membra divitum, eaque quasi, ut metallum, arrodat atque consumat et quidem … ὡς πῦρ, tanquam flamma membra quasi circumlabens carnemque lento dolore depascens.

Jam 5:4. Description of the sins of the rich to the end of Jam 5:6, by reason of which they become liable to the judgment. The first sin mentioned is their injustice toward those who work for them.

ἰδού] an interjection often occurring in the N. T. to draw attention to the object in question.

τῶν ἐργατῶν] emphatically put first; comp. the proverb: ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὑτοῦ (1 Timothy 5:18). τῶν ἀμησάντων (ἀμᾷν = θερίζειν, in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ.) τὰς χώρας ὑμῶν] χώρα = fields, as in Luke 12:16; John 4:35.

In the following words, expositors conjoin ἀφʼ ὑμῶν with ἀπεστερημένος (ἀποστερέω, to keep back, Plato, Gorg. 519c, so also LXX. Malachi 3:5; Sir 34:26); whilst they either explain ἀπό = ὑπό, or, as Wiesinger, retaining the distinction of the prepositions, observes, that “not the direct origin, but the proceeding of the act of robbery from them is indicated” (comp. Winer, p. 332 [E. T. 464]; Al. Buttmann, p. 280 [E. T. 326]). But it would be more suitable to join ἀφʼ ὑμῶν to κράζει (so also Lange); the kept back hire crieth from the place where it is; comp. Genesis 4:10 : φωνὴ αἵματος … βοᾷ … ἐκ τῆς γῆς; Exodus 2:23 : ἀνέβη ἡ βοὴ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων. The chief stress is put on ὁ ἀπεστερημένος; the same kind of conjunction as in chap. Jam 4:14. The injury of our neighbour, by diminished payment or withholding of the wages due to him, was expressly forbidden in the law; comp. Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14; Jeremiah 22:13; particularly also Malachi 3:5 : ἔσομαι μάρτυς ταχὺς ἐπὶ … τοὺς ἀποστεροῦντας μισθὸν μισθωτοῦ; comp. also Job 31:38-39; Tob 4:14; Ecclus. 34:27 (ἐκχέων αἵμα ὁ ἀποστερῶν μισθὸν μισθίου).

κράζει] Calvin: vindictam quasi alto clamore exposcit; comp. Genesis 4:10.

In the following words it is stated that the cry has been heard by God; comp. on this expression, particularly Psalm 18:7; Isaiah 5:9 : ἠκούσθη εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαὼθ ταῦτα; besides Genesis 18:21; Genesis 19:13; Exodus 2:23 f., Exodus 3:9, Exodus 22:22 f.; 2 Samuel 22:7, and other passages. By the designation of God as κυρίου σαβαώθ, His power as the Lord of the heavenly hosts is emphasized; the reference occurring in the O. T. likewise to the earthly hosts is here evidently not admissible (against Lange); it is the transference of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת, often occurring in the LXX., particularly in Isaiah; in other places the LXX. have κύριος παντοκράτωρ, 2 Samuel 5:10; 2 Samuel 7:27, or κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων, Psalm 24:10.

James, in his graphic style, instead of the general word labourer, mentions specially the reapers, not on account of their multitude (de Wette), but because their laborious work in the sweat of their brow most strongly represents the work which is worthy of wages. Thus Calvin not incorrectly observes: quid est indignius quam eos, qui panem ex suo labore nobis suppeditant, inedia et fame conficere? It is more remote to explain it thus: “because selfish hard-heartedness is here most sharply stated, when even the joy of the harvest does not induce them to give to the poor their hardly-earned portion” (Brückner).[224]

[224] Here also Lange comes in with his symbolical interpretation, understanding by the harvest “the time when the theocratic seed of God in Israel has ripened unto the harvest of God,” and by the reapers “the apostles and first Christians.”

Jam 5:5. A second sin of the rich, namely, their luxurious and gluttonous life, which forms a sharp contrast to the toilsome life of the labourers.

ἐτρυφήσατε … ἐσπαταλήσατε] synonymous terms: τρυφᾶν, in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ, in the LXX. Nehemiah 9:25; Isaiah 66:11 (Isaiah 57:4). σπαταλᾷν, only here and in 1 Timothy 5:6; in the LXX. Ezekiel 16:49; Amos 6:4, and other places. Hottinger thus states the distinction between them: τρυφᾷν deliciarum est et exquisitae voluptatis; σπαταλᾶν luxuriae atque prodigalitatis; comp. the description of the rich man in Luke 16:19. These and the following verbs are in the aorist, not “because the conduct of the rich is described as viewed from the day of judgment” (1st ed. of this commentary; similarly also Wiesinger), for “this does not suit the present ἀντιτάσσεται” (Gunkel), but because James will mark the present conduct as a constant occurrence. The addition ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] forms a sharp contrast to the preceding εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαώθ. Whilst the Lord in heaven hears the complaints of the unjustly oppressed, the rich on earth enjoy their lusts, undisturbed by the wrath of God, which shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Romans 1:18).

ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν] does not add a new idea to the preceding, but brings forward the fact that the rich in their luxurious living find the satisfaction of the desires of their heart. Luther’s translation: “Ye have pastured your heart,” does not sufficiently correspond to the idea τρέφειν; something bad is evidently denoted by it. Since τρέφειν is literally “to make firm, thick,” it is best here to render it by “to satiate.” Other expositors translate it by “to fatten; “Lange, by “to make fat.” τὰς καρδίας is equivalent neither to τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν nor to ὑμᾶς; comp. Acts 14:17, and Meyer on that passage;[225] Winer, p. 141 [E. T. 195].

ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς] corresponds to the preceding ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. These last times are designated by James with reference to the rich as ἡμέρα σφαγῆς, the day of slaughter, because the sentence of death, which they have incurred, will be directly executed, upon them at the approach of the παρουσία of Christ (comp. Jam 5:7) and the judgment; so also Wiesinger, Brückner, Lange, only the latter arbitrarily understands by the day of slaughter, the day of Israel’s judgment, comprehending the time from the death of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem. This designation of the day of judgment is also found in the O. T., particularly Jeremiah 12:3, LXX.: ἅγνισον αὐτοὺς εἰς ἡμέραν σφαγῆς αὐτῶν; Jeremiah 25:34. By the reading ὡς before ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφ. a comparison occurs, namely, with the beasts who are to be slaughtered, so that Pott after ὡς directly supplies θρέμματα. De Wette explains it: “Ye have pastured your hearts as in the day of slaughter; i.e. according to the comparison with beasts, who on the day on which they are to be slaughtered feed carelessly and devour greedily;” so also Bouman. But the idea “carelessly and greedily” is introduced; also the comparison is unsuitable, since beasts on the day of slaughter do not eat more greedily than on other days. Other expositors, as Wolf, Augusti, Hottinger, and others, take ἐν as equivalent to εἰς; Hottinger: corpora vestra aluistis, tanquam pecora, quae saginari solent ad mactationem; but this change of prepositions is arbitrary. Several expositors, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Laurentius, Bengel, and others, understand by ἡμέρα σφαγῆς the day of sacrifice; Calvin: addit similitudinem, sicut etc., quia solebant in sacrificiis solemnibus liberalius vesci. quam pro quotidiano more; the meaning then is: tota vita vestra est quasi perpetuum epulum ac festum continuum (Laurentius); but that expression never elsewhere occurs in this signification. Had James thought on the sacrificial feast or the like, he would have expressed it more definitely; besides, by this explanation the reference to the judgment is entirely awanting, and only the luxurious life is described; but this contradicts the character of the whole section, for if James, from Jam 5:4 onwards, assigns the reason of ταλαιπωρίαι, he does this not without an earnest pointing to the judgment and its nearness.

[225] Meyer: “The heart is filled with food, inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, the pleasant feeling of satisfaction, is in the heart.”

Jam 5:6. The third sin, the persecution of the just, by which the ungodliness of their disposition is most strongly indicated. By δίκαιος is not meant Christ (Oecumenius,[226] Bede, Grotius, Lange), for, on the one hand, there is nothing in the context to indicate this, and, on the other hand, the present ἈΝΤΙΤΆΣΣΕΤΑΙ, is opposed to it; also, if this were the case, the perfect must be put instead of the aorist, as here only one deed is mentioned, not, as before, a repetition of deeds. Wiesinger, in an unsatisfactory manner, explains ΤῸΝ ΔΊΚΑΙΟΝ by the innocent. Not merely the unjust conduct of the πλούσιοι founded on covetousness is here intended to be described, but the reason of persecution is implied in the expression ΤῸΝ ΔΊΚΑΙΟΝ itself; comp. Wisd. of Song of Solomon 2:12-17; as also 1 John 3:12. The singular is to be taken collectively, and the expression absolutely, as in Jam 5:16. Several expositors assume that the verbs ΚΑΤΕΔΙΚΆΣΑΤΕ, ἘΦΟΝΕΎΣΑΤΕ, are not meant in their literal sense; but evidently without reason. ΚΑΤΕΔΙΚΆΣΑΤΕ shows that here primarily judges are meant; yet the accusers, if these are to be distinguished from them, are not to be considered as excluded, since their accusation points to nothing else than to a sentence of condemnation.[227] The asyndeton sharpens the climax, which is contained in the addition of the second verb to the first. Bouman directs attention to the paronomasia between κατεδικάσατε and δίκαιον.

οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται] opposes the calm patience of the just to the violence of the wicked: he doth not resist (comp. Acts 18:6; Romans 13:4; Jam 4:6). Schneckenburger: οὐκ ἀντιτ. sine copula et pronomine ponderose additur. The present is explained from the fact that in what goes before not a single instance, but the continued conduct of the rich is described, and opposed to this is placed the similarly continued conduct of the δίκαιοι. Lange, by the reference of τὸν δίκαιον to Christ, misinterprets the force of the present, arbitrarily attributing to the verb the meaning: “He stands no longer in your way; He does not stop you (in the way of death); He suffers you to fill up your measure.”

It is unnecessary to supply in thought ὅς or γάρ; also οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται is not to be converted into οὐ δύναται ἀντιτάσσεσθαι (Pott). For the correct construction there is no reason, with Bentley, for conjecturing ὁ κύριος instead of οὐ, or, with Benson, to take the sentence as interrogative, and to supply ὁ κύριος. The object of the addition of the clause is not so much the more strongly to mark the violent conduct of the rich, as rather by implication to point to the proximity of the vengeance of God, who interests Himself in the suffering just, as is definitely asserted in the previous verses. With this verse are to be compared, besides the already cited passage in Wis 2:12-17, particularly Amos 2:6-7; Amos 5:12 (καταπατοῦντες δίκαιον), Amos 8:4, which testify for the correctness of the explanation here given.

[226] Oecumenius, indeed, says: ἀναντιῤῥήτως τό, ἐφον. τ. δικ., ἑπὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ἀναφέρεται; but he thinks that James likewise understands by this: τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς τὰ ὅμοια παρὰ τῶν Ἰοιδαίων παθόντας; and he closes with the remark: ἴσως δε καὶ προφητικῶς τὸ περὶ ἐαυτὸν ὑπεμφαίνει πάθος.

[227] Wiesinger correctly observes that φονεύειν is here not to be explained according to Sir 31:21 : φονεύων τον πλησιον ὁ ἀφαιρούμενος τὴν ἐμβίωσιν; but he maintains without reason that the death of the just is not to be considered as the direct design of the πλούσεοι, but only as the result of their oppressions. Also de Wette thinks that the killing is not to be understood literally, but of extreme violence, deprivation of liberty, and the like. This interpretation is, however, occasioned by the assumption that the rich are Christians.

Jam 5:7. Exhortation to the brethren to patient waiting, on to Jam 5:11.

μακροθυμήσατε οὖν] μακροθυμεῖν; literally, to be long-suffering to those who do an injury; opposed to ὀξυθυμεῖν; see Meyer on Colossians 1:11. On its distinction from ὑπομένειν, see on 2 Timothy 3:11; here the meaning appears to run into that of ὑπομένειν; comp. the following μακροθυμῶν and Jam 5:8; but it is here well put, in order to exclude the feeling of disquieting doubt; comp. Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 6:15.

οὖν] refers to the preceding sentiment (also to that indicated in οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν), that the judgment is near (de Wette, Wiesinger[228]).

ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ] contrast to the ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟΙ.

Patience is to endure ἝΩς Τῆς ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑς ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ. On ἜΩς as a preposition, see Winer, p. 418 [E. T. 590]. As regards the meaning which ἜΩς here has, Schneckenburger correctly observes: non tempus tantum sed rem quoque indicat, qua Ἡ ΘΛῖΨΙς ΜΑΚΡΟΘΎΜΩς toleranda tollatur. By ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΝ, according to constant Christian usage, is to be understood the advent of Christ (Wiesinger, Brückner, Lange, Bouman), not the coming of God (Augusti, Theile, de Wette); although James by κύριος chiefly designates God, yet he also uses this name for Christ, chap. Jam 2:1.

The exhortation is strengthened by the reference to the patient waiting of the husbandman (the same figure in Sir 6:19). As he waits (ἘΚΕΔΈΧΕΤΑΙ) for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with reference to it, until it has received the early and latter rain, so should the Christian patiently wait for the precious fruit of his labour, for which he hopes. The καρπός is designated as ΤΊΜΙΟς, because it is its preciousness which occasions the ΜΑΚΡΟΘΥΜΊΑ. By ΜΑΚΡΟΘΥΜῶΝ ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤῷ, ἘΚΔΈΧΕΤΑΙ is more definitely stated, since that verb does not necessarily include in itself the idea here intended. On ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤῷ = in reference to the ΚΑΡΠΌς, comp. Luke 18:7.

Ὁ ΓΕΩΡΓΌς is not the subject of ΛΆΒῌ (Luther), but Ὁ ΚΑΡΠΌς (Stier).

The question whether we are here to read ἝΩς with or without ἌΝ (see critical remarks) cannot be answered from the usage of the N. T.; see Matthew 10:11, and, on the other hand, Luke 12:59. According to Tischendorf, the authorities are decisive for the omission of ἌΝ. See Al. Buttmann, p. 198 f. [E. T. 230 f.].[229]—(ὙΕΤῸΝ) ΠΡΏΪΜΟΝ ΚΑῚ ὌΨΙΜΟΝ] the autumnal and spring rains; see Deuteronomy 11:14; Jeremiah 5:26; Joel 2:23; Zechariah 10:1 : not “the morning and the evening rain” (Luther); see Winer’s Realwörterb. under “Witterung.”[230]

[228] Schneckenburger correctly observes: ad judicii divini propinquitatem respicit; but the remark is erroneous: neque cam infitias, si quis pariter versui 6 hunc jungat, ita ut exemplo τῆς μακροθυμίας ad eandem animi lenitatem usque servandam excitentur.

[229] It is peculiar that in the parallel sentences, Exodus 15:16, Jeremiah 23:20, at first ἕως stands and then ἕως ἄν.

[230] In a peculiar manner Oecumenius allegorizing says: πρώϊμος ὑετός, ἡ ἐν νεότητι μετἀ δακρύων μετάνοια· ὄψιμος, ἡ ἐν τῇ γήρᾳ.