Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολή

IN several codd. the superscription is more fully expressed, whilst to ἐπιστολή the word καθολική is added, and to Ἰακώβου the words τοῦ ἀποστόλου, also τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου, and in one τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Θεοῦ.

CHAPTER 1

Jam 1:3. Instead of Rec. τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως, after A B* C G K א, etc., several vss. (Lachm. Tisch. 7), Buttm. reads, after B** some min. etc., τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν without τῆς πίστεως. The addition τῆς πίστεως, it is true, is suspicious, as it may be derived from 1 Peter 1:7 (de Wette), but the testimonies for its genuineness are too important to declare it spurious.

Instead of δοκίμιον there is also the reading δοκιμεῖον, and in three min. δοκίμον.

Jam 1:7. Instead of ὁ ἄνθρωπος, Buttm. reads simply ἄνθρωπος, a reading which Tisch. 7 leaves entirely unnoticed.

The same is also the case in respect of ἀδελφός, Jam 1:9; א has the article in both places.

Jam 1:11. B omits after προσώπου the demonstrative αὐτοῦ.

Instead of πορείαις, A, 40, 89, 98, ed. Colinaei, read πορίαις, a reading on which Theile rightly remarks: familiari librariis τοῦ ει et ι permutationi debetur; there is no word πορία = εὐπορία in the Greek language. Codex 30 apud Mill. reads εὐπορίαις evidently as an interpretation. The conjecture: ἐμπορίαις, which has been proposed by Hammond, Castalio, and Junius, is arbitrary.

Jam 1:12. Instead of ἀνήρ, A, some min. and vss. read ἄνθρωπος; an unnecessary change.

After ἐπηγγείλατο the Rec. has ὁ κύριος, after G K, etc. (instead of which some min. and vss. read ὁ Θεός; C: κύριος), which, however, after A B א, etc., is to be regarded as an insertion (Lachm. Tisch. de Wette, Wiesinger; on the other hand, Theile, Reiche, Bouman, Lange consider ὁ κύριος as the correct reading).

Jam 1:13. א alone reads ὑπό instead of ἀπό.

The article τοῦ before Θεοῦ is, according to almost all authorities, to be obliterated as spurious.

Jam 1:19. Instead of the Rec. ὥστε, after G K, several min. and vss. B C (א: ἴστω, corrected ἴστε), several min. Vulg. and other vss. read ἴστε: A: ἴστε δέ; Lachm. has adopted the reading ἴστε; Tisch. now (7) reads ὥστε; whilst Theile, Lange (ἴστε δέ) consider the reading ἴστε as the original, de Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, Bouman have rejected it from internal reasons; as, however, on a careful consideration (see exposition), no internal reasons exist against its genuineness, and the external testimonies are for it, it merits the preference.

Instead of ἔστω, Rec., after G K, etc. (Tisch. 7) Lachm., reads ἔστω δέ, after B C, א. Codex A has καὶ ἔστω (Lange).

Jam 1:20. The Rec. οὐ κατεργάζεται (Tisch.), after C* G K, et al.; Lachm. has adopted οὐκ ἐργάζεται, after A B C*** א, et al.; de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman consider the compound, and Lange the simple verb, as the correct reading. On the distinction of these modes of reading, see exposition.

Jam 1:22. Μόνον, which the Rec., after A C G K א, many min., places before ἀκροαταί, stands after it in B, some min. etc.; so read Lachm. and Tisch. It is possible that the reading of the most of the codd. is a correction, because one united μόνον according to its meaning with μή; still the Rec. must be regarded as the original reading from authorities.

Jam 1:25. Οὗτος, which the Rec., after G K, many min. and vss., has before οὐκ ἀκροατής (Tisch. 7), is wanting in A B C א, etc.; Lachm. has omitted it; it is difficult to consider it genuine, for not only is the testimony of the most weighty authorities against it, but also the addition from the following οὗτος is not difficult to be explained from the want of a connecting particle after παραμείνας; whilst de Wette hesitates, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange are for its retention.

Jam 1:26. After εἰ a δέ is found in C (Lachm.), which, however, appears to be inserted only for the sake of a closer connection of the verse with the preceding.

The words ἐν ὑμῖν after εἶναι are to be obliterated (after A B C א, with Tisch. Lachm. Reiche, and others).

Jam 1:27. Tisch., after C** G K, etc., has omitted the article τῷ before Θεῷ; the weightiest authorities, A B C* א, corrected, etc., however, are in favour of its retention (Lachm.).

Jam 1:1. Address and greeting. James calls himself a “servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Oecumenius correctly: Θεοῦ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς, κυρίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ; some expositors have incorrectly taken Θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου together as applied to Ἰησ. Χρ. There is here no combination of the Old and New Testaments in this conjunction (against Lange). It is to be observed that in the apostolic addresses our Lord’s name is always given in full: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.

Δοῦλος] is here an official appellation, which, however, belongs not only to the apostles, but to every possessor of an ecclesiastical office received from the Lord; comp. particularly Php 1:1 : Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος, δοῦλοι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and Judges 1:1. In this name the consciousness is expressed that the office is a service in which not our own will, nor the will of other men, but only of God or of Christ, is to be fulfilled. Oecumenius: ὑπὲρ πᾶν δὲ κοσμικὸν ἀξίωμα οἱ τοῦ κυρίου ἀπόστολοι τό δοῦλοι εἶναι Χριστοῦ καλλωπιζόμενοι, τοῦτο γνώρισμα ἑαυτῶν βούλονται ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ λέγοντες καὶ ἐπιστέλλοντες καὶ διδάσκοντες.

Ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ] A designation of the people of Israel living outside of Palestine, and dispersed among the Gentiles. On αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί it is to be observed, that although this appellation of the people of Israel after the exile does not occur in the Apocrypha, yet the people who returned were still regarded as the twelve tribes (1Es 7:8-9); as the people of the twelve tribes are the covenant people, to whom the promises given to the patriarchs refer; from which it is to be explained that in the N. T. the number twelve is particularly emphasized (Matthew 19:28; Revelation 7:4-8; Revelation 21:12), and that James designates by this name the people to whom the promise was fulfilled. On τῇ διασπορᾷ, see Deuteronomy 30:4; Nehemiah 1:9; Psalm 147:2; 2Ma 1:27 (Jeremiah 15:7); John 7:35; Winer’s Realwörterbuch, article “Zerstreuung.” Whether this designation is to be understood in a literal or symbolical sense, see Introduction, sec. 2. Laurentius, Hornejus, Hottinger, Pott, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, Neander, Guericke, Schmid (bibl. Theol.), Wiesinger, and others correctly consider the Epistle as addressed to Jewish Christians; only it is to be observed that with the early composition of the Epistle these are not here to be considered as contrasted with the Gentile Christians. Had the author been conscious of such a contrast, it would have been elsewhere indicated in the Epistle itself.

χαίρειν] sc. λέγει; see 1Ma 10:18; 1Ma 10:25; 1Ma 15:16; 2Ma 1:1; and in the N. T. Acts 15:23; Acts 23:26 (2 John 1:11). It is to be observed that this very form of greeting, elsewhere not used in the N. T. Epistles, occurs in the writing proceeding from James, Acts 15:23 (Kern); the pure Greek form of greeting is more fully: χαίρειν καὶ ὑγιαίνειν καὶ εὖ πράττειν, 2Ma 9:19.

Jam 1:2. James begins with the hortative words: πᾶσαν χάραν ἡγήσασθε] esteem it complete joy. πᾶσα χάρα, complete joy = nothing but joy. Luther: “Esteem it pure joy.” Many old expositors incorrectly explain πᾶσα = μεγίστη, summum, perfectum gaudium;[35] it is more correct to resolve the adjective here by the adverb ΠΆΝΤΩς, ὍΛΩς (Carpzov), with which the explanation of Theile coincides: rem revera omnique ex parte laetam. The meaning is: the ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ are to you a joy which is entire joy, excluding all trouble. See Hom. Od. xi. 507. πᾶσαν ἀληθείην μυθήσομαι, i.e. “of Neoptolemus I will declare to thee the whole truth” (i.e. nothing but the truth, which excludes all falsehood).

χαρά, a metonymy = gaudendi materia, res laeta; see Luke 2:10.

It is not improbable that James by this exhortation to joy refers to the ΧΑΊΡΕΙΝ in Jam 1:1; comp. Jam 1:5; Jam 1:19 (Wiesinger).

The address ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ ΜΟΥ (or ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ alone, Jam 4:11, Jam 5:7; Jam 5:9; Jam 5:19; also ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ ΜΟΥ ἈΓΑΠΗΤΟΊ, Jam 1:16; Jam 1:19, Jam 2:5), which is James’ constant form, expresses the consciousness of fellowship, namely, the fellowship in nationality and belief (Paraeus), with the readers.[36]

ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις] περιπίπτειν involvit (a) notionem adversi, (b) notionem inviti atque inopinati (Theile); it is synonymous with ἐμπίπτειν (see Luke 10:30 compared with Luke 1:36), but has a stronger meaning: to fall into something, so that one is entirely surrounded by it; thus in the classics it is particularly used of misfortune: συμφοραῖς, Plato, Leg. ix. 877e; ζημίαις καὶ ὀνείδεσι, Isocrates, i. 39.

By ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ are commonly here understood the ΘΛΊΨΕΙς, which are prepared for Christians on account of their faith by an unbelieving world (comp. Luke 8:13 : ΚΑῚ ἘΝ ΚΑΙΡῷ ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟῦ ἈΦΊΣΤΑΝΤΑΙ; in connection with Matthew 13:21 : ΓΕΝΟΜΈΝΗς ΘΛΊΨΕΩς Ἢ ΔΙΩΓΜΟῦ ΔΙᾺ ΤῸΝ ΛΌΓΟΝ, ΕὐΘῪς ΣΚΑΝΔΑΛΊΖΕΤΑΙ); and undoubtedly James had these in view. Yet there is nothing in the context which necessitates us to such a limitation; rather the additional epithet ΠΟΊΚΙΛΟΙ justifies us to extend the idea, and to understand by it all the relations of life which might induce the Christian to withdraw from the faith, or to become wavering in it. When Lange explains ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ specially of “the allurements and threats by which the Gentiles on the one side, and the fanatical Jews on the other, and also the Ebionites, who were already in the field, sought to draw the readers to their side,” he founds this particular statement on his erroneous view of the tendency of the Epistle. To refer the idea only to inward temptations (Pfeiffer) is the more erroneous, as it is even questionable whether James had these in view at all.

On ποικίλοις, see 2 Corinthians 6:4 ff; 2 Corinthians 11:23 ff. The adjective does not allude to the different sources from which the ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ sprung, but is to be referred to their manifold forms. In a far-fetched manner, Lange finds in ΠΟΙΚΊΛΟΙς, according to its original meaning, “an allusion to the manifold-dazzling glitter of colours of the Jewish-Christian and Jewish temptations, in which they might even represent themselves as prophetic exhortations to zeal for the glory of God.”

Inasmuch as the Christian has to rejoice not only in the πειρασμοῖς, but on account of them, Oecumenius strikingly observes: τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν λύπην καὶ τοὺς πειρασμοὺς τούτους καὶ ἐπαινετοὺς οἶδε καὶ χαρᾶς ἀξίους· δεσμὸς γὰρ οὗτοί εἰσιν ἀῤῥαγής, καὶ αὔξησις ἀγάπης καὶ κατανύξεως … οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐκτὸς γυμνασίων οὔτε κοσμικῶν οὔτε τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν στεφάνων ἀξιωθῆναι. With reference to joy in ΘΛΊΨΕΙς, see Matthew 5:11-12; Acts 4:23 ff; Acts 5:41; Romans 5:3; also Sir 2:1 ff.; particularly comp. the parallel passage 1 Peter 1:6.

[35] Winer (p. 101 [E. T. p. 138]) explains πᾶσα χαρά “all (full) joy.” This would signify such a joy as wants nothing; which, however, does not suit the context.

[36] Incorrectly Semler: Hoc nomen praecipue de doctoribus intelligo.

Jam 1:2-12. Exhortation in reference to the endurance of temptations.

Jam 1:3. γινώσκοντες] whilst ye may know (“in the consciousness,” de Wette). The participle, when closely connected with the imperative, participates in its meaning; see author on 2 Timothy 2:23; comp. 1 Corinthians 15:58; Colossians 3:24; Colossians 4:1; Hebrews 10:34, and other passages. It is neither simply the imperative: Luther, “and know ye,” nor simply a confirmation, so that it may be rendered by γινώσκετε γάρ (Pott).

ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν (τῆς πίστεως). τὸ δοκίμιον (only here and in 1 Peter 1:7) = τὸ δοκιμεῖον, is properly the means of proving: quo quid exploratur (Pott); quo rei, quae sub examen vocatur, manifestatur sinceritas eaque probatur omne id intrinseca virtute possidere, quod extrinsecus specie ac nomine prae se fert (Heisen): thus = κριτήριον; so in Dionysius Halicarnassus, rhetor. 11: δεῖ δὲ ὥσπερ κανόνα εἶναι καὶ στάθμην τινὰ καὶ δοκίμιον ὡρισμένον πρὸς ὅ τις ἀποβλέπων δυνήσεται τὴν κρίσιν ποιεῖσθαι; yet generally to the idea of proving is attached that of purification and verification. Theile = probamentum; thus Herodian, ii. 10, 12: δοκίμιον δὲ στρατιωτῶν κάματος ἀλλʼ οὐ τρυφή; and the LXX. Proverbs 27:21 : δοκίμιον ἀργυρίῳ καὶ χρυσῷ πύρωσις; comp. Proverbs 17:3; Psalm 12:7; Sir 2:5. Many expositors, as Semler, Pott, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, adhere to the import of means, whether of proof or of purification and verification,[37] whilst they understand thereby the above-mentioned ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΊ. In this case ΤῸ ΔΟΚΊΜΙΟΝ stands for ΤΟῦΤΟ ΤῸ ΔΟΚΊΜΙΟΝ (Pott); but the necessity of supplying ΤΟῦΤΟ is decisive against this interpretation; besides, ΔΟΚΊΜΙΟΝ in 1 Peter 1:7 cannot have that meaning. In that passage ΔΟΚΊΜΙΟΝ is = the verification effected by proof; see author in loco: and thus it is probable that this import is also here to be retained (Oecumenius = τὸ κεκριμένον, τὸ δεδοκιμασμένον, τὸ καθαρόν); τὸ δοκίμιον then is = ΔΟΚΙΜΉ in Romans 10:4. The distinction, that in that passage ΔΟΚΙΜΉ is designated as the effect, but in this as the cause of ὑπομονή, is not against this view, for, as Tirinus well says: duae res saepe sibi invicem sunt causa.[38] Most expositors, both ancient and modern, however, explain δοκίμιον here by exploratio, probatio, proof in an active sense; thus Didymus, Bede, Calvin, Laurentius, Beza, Piscator, Paraeus, Serarius, Paes, Hornejus, Baumgarten, de Wette, Kern, Wiesinger, Lange, etc. Then is valid what Bede says in reference to Romans 5:4 : Verborum differentia non sensuum in his sermonibus esse probatur Apostolorum, since there θλῖψις, here proof by θλῖψις, is named as the cause of ὑπομονή. Though there is nothing against this idea, this explanation is wanting in linguistic accuracy.[39] The meaning is, in essentials, the same, whether we read τῆς πίστεως or not; for the δοκίμιον of Christians consists in nothing else than that of their faith, by which they are Christians.

πίστις is here not used objectively = id cui fides habetur, ipsa Jesu Christi doctrina (Pott), but subjectively, assured confidence in the gospel, whose contents are Jesus Christ, as the necessary foundation of Christian conduct.

κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν] κατεργάζεσθαι is distinguished from ἐργάζεσθαι in that it expresses the actual accomplishment (Meyer on Romans 1:27).

ὑπομονή is faithful endurance (μένειν) under (ὑπο) the temptations (πειρασμοῖς). Baumgarten: “enduring constancy;” Theile: “stedfastness,” perseverantia, quod majus est quam patientia.[40] The importance of ὑπομονή for Christians is evident from Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:13; comp. also Jam 5:7 ff. On the connection of ὑπομονή with ἐλπίς, see Cremer under the words ἐλπίς and ὑπομονή.

[37] Theile: Calamitates, quae natura sua virtutis πειρασμοί, eam sub examen discrimenque vocant, accedente demum hominis strenua opera ejusdem virtutis fiunt δοκίμιον eam purgantes, firmantes, commonstrantes.

[38] Wiesinger incorrectly maintains: “It is an erroneous idea that verification (τὸ δεδοκιμάσθαι) produces ὑπομονή” (so also Rauch in his Review); for the Christian always obtains more ὑπομονή, in which only he can reach the goal of perfection, not because he is tried, but because he stands the test and is thus verified.

[39] Cremer (see δοκίμιον) is hardly right when he maintained that “the means of proof are not only, e.g., the touchstone itself, but also the trace of the metal left thereon, therefore τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως (Jam 1:3) is the result of the contact of πίστις with πειρασμοῖς;” for we are to consider the πειρασμοί not as a touchstone, but as a test by fire. However, Cremer explained the whole idea correctly by “the verification of faith.” His remark on δοκιμή is to be noted: that in it we are not to distinguish between the active and passive signification; that it has rather a reflex sense, either the having proved true or the proving true.

[40] Cicero, de inv. ii. 54: Patientia est honestatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ac difficilium voluntaria ac diuturna perpessio; perseverentia est in ratione bene considerata stabilis et perpetua permansio. Schneckenburger strikingly observes: Si submissionem (τὸ ὑπο …) urgeas, patientiam ac tolerantiam malorum, sin τὸ μένειν, constantiam et firmitatem, perseverantiam ac calamitatum ferendarum fortitudinem ab illecebris desciscendi inconcussam hoc vocabulo habebis expressam.

Jam 1:4. The verification of faith effected by the πειρασμοί produces ὑπομονή, and on this account temptations should be to the Christian an object of joy, as it depends on them that ὑπομονή is of the right kind. This is indicated in this verse. Oecumenius rightly observes: σκόπει οὐκ εἶπε τὴν ὑπομονὴν ὁριστικῶς, ὅτι ἔργον τέλειον ἔχει, ἀλλὰ προστακτικῶς ἐχέτω· οὐ γὰρ προϋποκειμένην ἀρετὴν ἐξαγγέλλει, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐγγινομένην, ὡς χρὴ γίνεσθαι νομοθετεῖ.

ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω] The emphasis is not placed on ἔργον,—that ὑπομονή has an ἔργον is understood of itself,—but on τέλειον (Wiesinger). James wishes that the ἔργον of ὑπομονή among Christians be τέλειον, in order that they may be τέλειοι: as he, moreover, strongly emphasizes τέλειον εἶναι. In explaining the thought, de Wette confounds the abstract (ὑπομονή) with the concrete (ὁ ὑπομένων), and understands by ἔργον τέλειον “the active virtue which the patient man must perfectly have.” This explanation of de Wette agrees in essentials with the explanations of Erasmus, Calovius, Morus, Pott, Augusti, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, according to which ἔργον τέλειον is distinguished from ὑπομονή, and the moral activity which the Christian has to exercise with his ὑπομονή indicated. Thus Erasmus: quemadmodum in malis tolerandis fortis est et alacris, ita in bonis operibus exercendis sibi constet. Pott: perseverantiae fructus sit perfectum virtutis studium. This interpretation is, however, incorrect; it not only gives rise to unjustifiable changes of meaning, as that of ὑπομονή into ὁ ὑπομένων, or of ἐχέτω into παρεχέτω (Pott), or into κρατείτω (Schulthess), but gives also a thought which with the following ἵνα κ.τ.λ. would be tautological. Most expositors (even Brückner,[41] in opposition to de Wette) refer ἔργον τέλειον to ὑπομονή itself; ἔργον = work, realization (Wiesinger); comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:3 : τὸ ἔργον τῆς πίστεως; for the ὑπομονή of the Christian is not only a suffering, but even more a doing. This doing is to be τέλειον, that is, not only, as many interpreters explain, enduring to the end (Luther: “patience is to continue stedfast to the end;” Calvin: haec vera crit patientia, quae in finem usque durabit; similarly Jerome, Serarius, Salmero, Estius, Gomarus, Piscator, Piraeus, Hornejus, Carpzov, Semler, Hottinger, etc.), but complete, and that not only in respect of its internal condition,—so that it is wanting in no essential points of true ὑπομονή,—but also in respect of its activity (Lange[42]), so that it in no way yields to the ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟῖς, which yielding occurs when a man by the temptations is determined to something which does not correspond with the principle of faith. Bouman: Haec ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ consummatum opus habet, quando ita se gerit, in quo habitat, homo, ut universam per vitam et animum et linguam et pedes regat ac moderetur. That ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ in this manner has an ἜΡΓΟΝ ΤΈΛΕΙΟΝ is necessary, in order that Christians may be perfect and entire, which as Christians they should be. This James indicates in the following words: ἽΝΑ ἮΤΕ ΤΈΛΕΙΟΙ ΚΑῚ ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟΙ] ἽΝΑ is not here ἘΚΒΑΤΙΚῶς (which Baumgarten and Pott regard as possible), but ΤΕΛΙΚῶς, in order that. De Wette and Wiesinger incorrectly refer it to the future judgment.

τέλειοι and ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟΙ are synonymous terms; ΤΈΛΕΙΟς is properly “that which has attained its aim,” ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟς “that which is complete in all its parts, is entire.” Both expressions are found in the LXX. as the translation of תָּמִים (Genesis 6:9; Ezekiel 15:5); besides this verse, ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟς in the N. T. only occurs in 1 Thessalonians 5:25 (ὉΛΟΚΛΗΡΊΑ, Acts 3:16).[43] It is true that both τέλειος (in the LXX. and in the classics) and ὁλόκληρος (particularly in Philo, but not in the LXX.) are used with special reference to sacrifice; to which, however, there is here no allusion (against Kern). Still more arbitrary is the interpretation of Storr: qui superiores e certamine discedebant.

ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι] the negative expression added for strengthening the two positive expressions; as in Jam 1:5 : ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος, and in Jam 1:6 : ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος. As regards the expression itself, ἐν μηδενί is not to be taken, with de Wette, as a supplement to λειπόμενοι, as the supplement to this verb is always in the genitive; therefore the expression has been correctly translated by Wiesinger and in this commentary, not by wanting nothing, but by wanting in nothing (which Lange has overlooked). The question, however, occurs, can λειπόμενοι be explained as = wanting? This idea is not contained in the verb by itself, and therefore can hardly be attributed to it when it stands absolutely, as here. It is therefore safer to take λείπεσθαι in its usual meaning, and thus, with Lange, to explain λειπόμενοι by coming short of, namely, short of the goal marked out to the Christian. It is incorrect, with Pott, to say: tota loquendi ratio ab iis qui cursu … relinquuntur et seperantur (so also Lösner, Krebs, Storr, Augusti); for although the verb in classical writers has often this reference, yet there is here no mention of a relation to others, and accordingly the appeal to Polybius, p. 1202, ed. Gronov.: ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους εὐνοίᾳ παρὰ πολὺ τἀδελφοῦ λειπόμενος, does not suit. According to the meaning here given, λειπόμενοι forms a strong contrast to τέλειοι.

[41] “Nothing else can be meant than the perfect work of endurance, particularly as different stages of this are conceivable.”

[42] Lange here arbitrarily understands by ἔργον τέλειον specially: “the unreserved acknowledgment of their Gentile-Christian brethren, the open rupture with Jewish pride of faith and fanaticism.”

[43] A limitation of this idea to moral perfection is not required by the context. Lange has the following strange remark: “The Jew was a symbolical κλῆρος of the household; as a Christian he was to become a real κλῆρος, and thus ὁλόκληρος.”

Jam 1:5. εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας] is chiefly connected with ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι. εἰ is not = quoniam, quandoquidem (Estius, Laurentius), but the thought is hypothetical; εἴ τις = ὅστις; see Wahl on the word εἰ.

λείπεται σοφίας is to be explained as κτεάνων λειφθεὶς καὶ φίλων, in Pindar i. 2. 11, “without wealth and friends,” properly “left behind of, or falling short of;” accordingly without wisdom. Usually the meaning wanting, lacking, is given to λείπομαι, which, however, is not linguistically justified. James by σοφία, as Wiesinger correctly observes, does not mean “an arbitrary part of Christian perfection,” but the essential foundation of Christian conduct, τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ τελείου ἔργου (Oecumenius); for σοφία is here the living insight, rooted in the πίστις, i.e. the insight compelling to action in what is the Christian’s duty, both in whole and in its particular parts, especially in the πειρασμοῖς (Jam 1:2) (comp. the praise of wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon, in the Wisdom of Solomon, and in the Book of Ecclesiasticus). Wisdom can only be given by God (κύριος δίδωσι σοφίαν καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ γνῶσις καὶ σύνεσις, Proverbs 2:6), and as a divine χάρισμα it has an impress definitely distinguishing it from the wisdom of the world; see chap. Jam 3:15; Jam 3:17.[44] The connection does not constrain us, with Bouman and others, to conceive the idea of σοφία only in reference to the πειρασμοί (Jam 1:2), and to understand by it only the doctrine concerning the Christian conduct in the πειρασμοῖς, expressed in Jam 1:2 (Calvin: Sapientiae nomen ad circumstantiam praestantis loci restringo, acsi dicerete. si haec doctrina ingenii vestri captu altior est, petite a Domino, ut vos Spiritu suo illuminet), or that conduct itself. The idea of σοφία is rather to be understood in its completeness (Theile, de Wette, Kern, Wiesinger). The reason why James here mentions it is because it was especially necessary to the Christian in his πειρασμοῖς; Brückner: “James thinks here of wisdom (in itself of a more general acceptation), inasmuch as it is necessary rightly to estimate and rightly to resist the trial, in order that it might not be converted into an internal temptation, instead of being the path to perfection.”[45]

ΑἸΤΕΊΤΩ ΠΑΡᾺ Κ.Τ.Λ.] the same construction in Matthew 20:20; Acts 3:2; 1 John 5:15.

ΤΟῦ ΔΊΔΟΝΤΟς ΘΕΟῦ] instead of ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΤΟῦ ΔΊΔΟΝΤΟς, as Codex A reads. By the selected order of the words here, not only is the idea of giving emphatically placed near to the request, but also the participle almost becomes an attributive adjective; God is indicated as the Giver absolutely. Accordingly—as Baumgarten, Gebser, and others correctly remark—no definite object as ΤῊΝ ΣΟΦΊΑΝ (Bouman) is to be supplied.

ΠᾶΣΙΝ and ἉΠΛῶς are added as a more detailed statement; ΤΟῖς ΑἸΤΟῦΣΙΝ is from the context to be supplied to ΠᾶΣΙΝ (Calvin, Estius, Piscator, Laurentius, etc.); or, better still, ΟἾς ΔΊΔΩΣΙ. The adverb ἉΠΛῶς, only here in the N. T., is either to be understood as an ethical additional statement of ΔΊΔΟΝΑΙ = ἘΝ ἉΠΛΌΤΗΤΙ (Romans 12:8) (so Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Theile, Bouman, uncertainly Wiesinger), or = simply, without further ceremony (so de Wette).[46] In the latter case it is prominently brought forward that God in the giving had only this in view. It is incorrectly rendered benigne (Bede, Vorstius, and others), affluenter (Erasmus, Grotius, and others), or as equivalent to συντόμως, καθάπαξ (Hesychius). By μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος—as καί shows

ἁπλῶς is not more closely defined, but a new point in the mode of the divine giving is added, and so that He does not reproach him to whom He gives, does not abuse him. ὀνειδίζειν is generally taken in the more special sense of upbraiding (Luther: “and upbraideth no man”); for which the expression in Demosthenes is appealed to: τὸ τὰς ἰδίας εὐεργεσίας ὑπομιμνήσκειν καὶ λέγειν μικροῦ δεῖν ὅμοιόν ἐστι τῷ ὀνειδίζειν; still more surely does Plutarch, de aud. 33, speak for this meaning: πᾶσα ὀνειδιζομένη χάρις ἐπαχθὴς καὶ ἄχαρις; also in Sir 18:18; Sir 20:15; Sir 41:22, the word appears to have this more special reference.[47] Still there is no proof that James did not take it in its more general sense. Semler: non tantum significat molestam commemorationem beneficiorem, sed etiam qualemcunque reprehensionem (so also Schneckenburger, de Wette).[48] It is incorrect to explain ὀνειδίζειν as equivalent to aliquem ignominose cum repulsa dimittere (Morus, Zachariae, Carpzov, Storr, Augusti, Stolz, Hottinger); the refusal of a petitioner may be considered as a ΚΑΤΑΙΣΧΎΝΕΙΝ of the same, but ὈΝΕΙΔΊΖΕΙΝ never occurs in this sense, not even in Sir 20:15. The reason why James subjoins the particular statement ἉΠΛῶς Κ.Τ.Λ. is by it to encourage to ΑἸΤΕῖΝ (Zwinglius: ut mentes alliciat, ut ad hunc unum in omni necessitate adcurrant); perhaps also with “a side glance to the rich” (Jam 1:10, chap. Jam 5:9 ff.), who do not give ἉΠΛῶς, and when they do give, give only ὈΝΕΙΔΊΖΟΝΤΕς (Wiesinger).

ΚΑῚ ΔΟΘΉΣΕΤΑΙ ΑὐΤῷ] impersonal: “it shall be given him;” namely, what he asks; here, wisdom. It is erroneous directly to supply Ἡ ΣΟΦΊΑ to ΔΟΘΉΣΕΤΑΙ as the subject (Lange), because James here evidently wishes to emphasize the relation of the giving to the asking, and accordingly the object is suppressed; comp. on this thought particularly 1 Kings 3:9-12 (2 Chronicles 1:10-12).

[44] The Etymologicum magnum thus gives the distinction between σοφία and γνῶσις: γνῶσις μέν ἐστι τὸ εἰδέναι τὰ ὄντα· σοφία δὲ καὶ τὸ τὰ ὄντα γινώσκειν, καὶ τὸ τὰ γνωστὰ πράττειν.

[45] Lange, indeed, defends the explanation of Calvin, but he interprets the idea of σοφία differently from Calvin, defining it as “the right perception of the signs of the times, and of the christological fulfilment of the theocracy in the church as well as in the faith of individuals.”

[46] Both of these explanations come essentially to the same thing, for “he that giveth with simplicity will simply give; it will be a pure, unmingled giving, without any admixture” (Stier). Lange, without reason, maintains that in this commentary ἀπλῶς will refer not to the giving, but to the gift.

[47] In this sense exprobare is used in Latin, e.g. Cicero, de amic.: Odiosum sane genus hominum officia exprobantium.

[48] Eustathius: ὀνειδίζειν οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐεργεσίας ἀναφέρειν τοῖς εὐεργετημένοις … ἀλλὰ καὶ ἁπλῶς ἀνοστά τινα καὶ ἐπίμομφα λέγειν. The assertion of Lange is unfounded, that James, according to this exposition, would utter an untenable sentiment, “because God, notwithstanding those who ask, often inflicts injuries on men.” Lange has not considered that the passage treats only of asking.

Jam 1:6. A more particular statement how prayer must be made; αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει] With αἰτείτω the αἰτείτω in Jam 1:5 is resumed; δέ indicates the carrying out of the thought.

The prayer, if it is to be heard, must be a εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως, chap. Jam 5:15 (comp. Sir 7:10 : μὴ ὀλιγοψυχήσῃς ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ σου).

ἐν πίστει] that is, in the confident assurance of being heard; on what this is founded is not here expressed. The explanation of Calvin: fides est quae Dei promissionibus freta nos impetrandi, quod petimus, certos reddit (similarly Baumgarten), expresses what is in itself true, but is not here indicated by James. Some ancient commentators incorrectly supply to πίστει as a more definite statement Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

The object of the prayer (namely, τὴν σοφίαν) is not here named, where only the necessary condition of prayer is treated of. The remarks made by many expositors on the manner in which the Christian should ask for external good things are here inappropriate.

μηδὲν διακρινόμενος] expresses the same idea as ἐν πίστει, only in a negative form; μηδέν is here, as frequently, adverbial = on no account, nulla ratione. διακρίνεσθαι is, according to N. T. usage, to doubt; compare besides Acts 10:20; Acts 11:12 : particularly Matthew 21:21 : ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν καὶ, μὴ διακριθῆτε; Romans 4:20 : οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ; Romans 4:23; it is not = ἀπιστεῖν (Luke 24:21), or ἀπειθεῖν (John 3:36), but includes in it the essential character of ἀπιστία; while πίστις says “Yes” and ἀπιστία “No,” διακρίνεσθαι is the conjunction of “Yes” and “No,” but so that “No” has the preponderance; it is that internal wavering which leans not to πίστις, but to ἀπιστία. The deep-lying ground of it is pride, and so far Theophylact is right in saying διακρινόμενος δὲ ὁ μεθʼ ὑπεροψίας αἰτῶν, ὑβριστὴς ὁμολογουμένως, ὁ διακρινόμενος; whereas Oecumenius, in the words: λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ, ὅτι πῶς δύναμαι αἰτησαί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ λαβεῖν, ἡμαρτηκὼς τοσαῦτα εἰς αὐτόν, brings out a point which belongs not to διακρίνεσθαι, but to a yet weak faith.[49] Comp. with this passage Hermas James 29: tolle a te dubitationem et nihil omnino dubites petens aliquid a Deo.

The following words: Ὁ ΓᾺΡ ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟς Κ.Τ.Λ., are annexed to the preceding ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟς, more clearly explaining it (in figurative language) with reference to the exhortation ΑἸΤΕΊΤΩ Κ.Τ.Λ.; but the reason of this exhortation is given in Jam 1:7. The first ΓΆΡ, accordingly, has the meaning of namely, whereas the second has that of for. According to this interpretation, the relation of the thoughts expressed in Jam 1:6-7 is more correctly recognised than when we say that the first γάρ assigns the reason why we should pray nothing doubting, but that this thought is only brought to a conclusion in Jam 1:7 (Wiesinger, and so in the earlier edition of this commentary, where it is said that the sentence taken together would read: Ὁ ΓᾺΡ ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟς, ἘΟΙΚῺς ΚΛΎΔΩΝΙ … ΜῊ ΟἸΈΣΘΩ, ὍΤΙ ΛΉΜΨΕΤΑΊ ΤΙ Κ.Τ.Λ.). Lange incorrectly supposes that the first ΓΆΡ has a more limited meaning, whilst it declares the ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟς as incapable of praying aright; whereas the second ΓΆΡ refers in a wider sense to the unbelieving condition of the man to God, and therefore is to be rendered by also.

ἔοικε] only here in the N. T. and in Jam 1:23.

ΚΛΎΔΩΝ ΘΑΛΆΣΣΗς] only here in the N. T. and in Luke 8:24 (ΚΛΥΔ. ΤΟῦ ὝΔΑΤΟς); usually ΚῦΜΑ. The verb ΚΛΥΔΩΝΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ occurs in Ephesians 4:14; Isaiah 57:20, LXX. The point of comparison is contained in the subjoined words: ἈΝΕΜΙΖΟΜΈΝῼ ΚΑῚ ῬΙΠΙΖΟΜΈΝῼ] The verb ἈΝΕΜΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ is entirely an ἍΠΑΞ ΛΕΓ. occurring nowhere else, equivalent to ἈΝΕΜΟῦΣΘΑΙ, found in classical language (see Hegesippus James 6: ἉΛῸς ἨΝΕΜΩΜΈΝΗς) = agitated, i.e. agitated by the wind. The verb ῥιπίζεΙΝ (only here in N. T.) is also elsewhere used to denote the agitation or excitement of water by the wind; see Dio Chrysostom, xxxiii. p. 368 B: ΔῆΜΟς ἌΣΤΑΤΟΝ ΚΑΚῸΝ ΚΑῚ ΘΑΛΆΣΣῌ ΠΆΝΘʼ ὍΜΟΙΟΝ, ὙΠʼ ἈΝΈΜΟΥ ῬΙΠΊΖΕΤΑΙ; Philo, de mundo: πρὸς ἀνέμου ῥιπίζεται τὸ ὕδωρ. Heisen incorrectly explains ῬΙΠΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ as equivalent to calefieri et accendi; the word never has this meaning, although used of the kindling of fire.[50] The two expressions (which Lange incorrectly denies) are synonymous, and are placed together only for the sake of strengthening the idea. The opinion that ἀνεμίζ. refers to agitation coming from without, and ῥιπίζ. to agitation coming from within (Bengel), is without foundation; also the assertion that the former word denotes the cause and the latter the effect (Theile, Wiesinger) is not entirely correct, as ἀνεμίζεσθαι itself expresses the effect.

By this image the mind of the doubter is characterized as unsteady and wavering, to which a calm and sure rest is wanting.[51] Comp. Isaiah 57:20-21, LXX.: οἱ δὲ ἄδικοι κλυδωνισθήσονται καὶ ἀναπαύσασθαι οὐ δυνήσονται, οὐκ ἔστι χαίρειν (שָׁלוֹם) τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν.[52]

[49] As weak faith is to be distinguished from διακρίνεσθαι, so also is the doubt, of which the believer is conscious as a trial. Calvin strikingly remarks: Fieri quidem non potest in (hac) carnis infirmitate, quin variis tentationibus agitemur, quae sunt veluti machinae ad labefactandam nostram fiduciam: ita nemo reperietur, qui non sensu carnis suae vacillet ac trepidet. Sed oportet ejusmodi tentationes fide tandem superari, quemadmodum arbor, quae firmas radices jecit, quatitur quidem venti impulsu, sed non revellitur, quin potius suo loco stabilis manet.—Whilst the διακρινόμενος, according to the proper meaning of the term, will not believe, it is the longing of the tried to be confirmed in the faith.

[50] Theile correctly rejects this explanation, saying: “Hoc, quamquam undae spumantes ventis revera incalescunt Latinisque etiam ebullire aestusque dicuntur, longius tamen petitum est.”—The verb ῥιπίζειν comes either from ῥιπίς = (1) follis (a bellows); (2) flabellum, having the meaning both of kindling (the fire) and of fanning (for the sake of cooling); or from ῥιπή = vibration, which is also used of wind; thus ῥιπὴ Βορέαο, Il. xv. 171; ῥιπαὶ ἀνέμων, Sophocles, Ant. 137; also ῥιπή = storm, Pind. P. ix. 49. The original import of the German verbs schwingen, bewegen, is thus entirely equivalent to ἀνεμίζειν.

[51] “A doubtful petitioner offers not to God a steady hand or heart, so that God cannot deposit in it His gift,” Stier.

[52] Lange supposes that James has used these expressions with a conscious reference to the O. T. symbols, according to which the sea is “the emblem of the national life, agitated hither and thither in pathological sympathies,” whilst in his time “these waves of the sea” had already begun to roar.

Jam 1:7. μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω] On γάρ, see Jam 1:6; it is neither the simple particle of transition (Pott), nor equivalent to ergo (Calvin), nor is it to he explained, with Winer [E. T. 558], according to its derivation from γε and ἄρα, by thus indeed; but is the reason for the exhortation in Jam 1:6; hence for.

The warning: μὴ οἰέσθω, supposes the fancy of the doubter, that he will receive something from God in answer to prayer; similarly Matthew 3:9 : μὴ δόξητε.

ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος] refers back to ὁ διακρινόμενος. Although not in ἐκεῖνος (in itself), yet in the whole mode of expression, there is something disparaging.

By λήμψεται,[53] instead of δοθήσεται (Jam 1:5), is not intended to be indicated, that the fault of not being heard lies not with God but with man; rather he receives not, because God gives not.

τί naturally refers to what the doubter asks; thus scil. αἰτουμένων. The definite object (wisdom) above spoken of is not here meant; for the particular thought is founded on a general declaration. By κύριος Christ is not to be understood, but, as in chap. Jam 4:10, Jam 5:4; Jam 5:10, according to O. T. usage, God.

The designation of God as the Lord naturally suggested itself to James, because he was here speaking of the power of God manifested in giving or not giving; it is not, as Lange thinks, chosen in order to characterize God as “Jehovah the living covenant-God, who has now fully manifested Himself in Christ.”

[53] The form λήμψεται, for which MS. authorities decide, is not classical Greek; the lonic form is λάμψομαι.