Commentaires bibliques

CHAPTER 2

Jam 2:2. The genuineness of the article τήν before συναγωγήν (Rec. after A G K א, corr. Tisch.) is, since B C א, pr. omit it (Lachm.), at least doubtful.

Jam 2:3. Instead of the Rec. καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε, after A G א, several vss. Oecumenius, Bede (Lachm.), Tisch. has, after B C K, etc., adopted ἐπιβλέψητε δέ; which reading is the original cannot be determined.

The αὐτῷ of the Rec. (after G K) is already rightly omitted by Griesb.; A B C א, etc., do not have it; it was inserted for the completion of the expression (against Reiche). In the second clause of the verse the Rec., after C** G K א, reads στῆθι ἐκεῖ ἢ κάθου ὧδε; in A C* ὧδε is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.); B reads στῆθι ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ. The latter reading is recommended by the sharper contrast of στῆθι to the preceding κάθου; but it is also possible that in this lies the reason of its origin; if ἐκεῖ belongs to στῆθι, ὧδε after κάθου could be easily inserted, partly from the preceding κάθου ὧδε καλῶς, partly to introduce the antithesis to ἐκεῖ; but, on the other hand, the original ὧδε might also be omitted as superfluous (on account of the following ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπ.). Nothing can with certainty be decided.

For the addition of μου before τῶν ποδῶν, adopted by Lachm., only A and the Vulg. chiefly speak. Almost all other authorities are against it.

Jam 2:4. According to the Rec. this verse commences with καὶ οὐ διεκρίθητε (thus G K, etc., Tisch. 7); in A B** C א, many min. and vss. καί is wanting (Lachm. Tisch. 2); οὐ is also wanting in the original text of B: the omission of καί may indeed be more easily explained than its insertion, on account of which Reiche and Bouman consider it as genuine; but the most important authorities are against it; the reading in B is to be considered as a correction (Buttmann).

Jam 2:5. τοῦ κόσμου (τούτου) is a reading evidently explanatory (against Reiche, Bouman), instead of τῷ κόσμῳ, whose genuineness is, moreover, attested by A* B C* א; the same also with the reading ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.

Jam 2:10. Instead of the reading τηρήσει … πταίσει, attested almost only by G K, the conjunctives τηρήσῃ … πταίσῃ are to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch. (against Reiche and Bouman). Jam 2:11. The Rec. εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, φονεύσεις δέ, found only in K, several min. Theoph., Tisch. and Lachm. read the present μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις; thus A C א; according to Tisch. also B, but according to Buttm. B has μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις. Reiche and Bouman retain the Rec. as the original reading.

Jam 2:13. The Rec. ἀνίλεως (after G, etc.) is, after A B K א, very many min. Oecumenius, to be changed with the certainly entirely unusual form ἀνέλεος (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.); in the mode of writing this word there is, however, great variation, the forms ἀνήλεος, ἀνίλεος, ἀνείλεος, ἀνήλεως, ἀνήλιος occurring in different MSS. It is surprising that no MS. has the classical form ἀνηλεής or ἀνελεής.

According to the Rec. κατακαυχᾶται is connected with the preceding by καί, which, however, is found only in min.; A, some min. etc., have instead of it, after κατακ. the particle δέ (Lachm. ed. min.), which, however, appears only to have been inserted to avoid the asyndeton. There are many variations of κατακαυχᾶται; A has κατακαυχάσθω; C**: κατακαύχασθε, readings which owe their origin to the difficulty of the thought.

Instead of ἔλεος (after κατακαυχᾶται), Rec., after A B (ed. Mai) א, etc. (Lachm. Tisch. Buttm.), C G K and B (apud Bentley), and many min. have the form ἔλεον, a nominative form which occurs indeed in the classics, but not in the N. T.

Jam 2:14. Instead of the Rec. τί τὸ ὄφελος, attested by A C** G K א, almost all min. Theoph. Oecumenius, Lachm. has adopted τί ὄφελος, after B C. On the distinction, see exposition.

Whether after the Rec. we are to read, with Tisch., λέγῃ τις, or, with Lachm., τις λέγῃ, cannot with certainty be decided; B G K א attest the former, A C the latter reading; yet the latter appears to be a correction.

Jam 2:15. After ἐάν the particle δέ is omitted in B א; since its later insertion is not easy to be explained, the Rec. is to be retained as the correct reading. After λειπόμενοι Lachm. (after A G, etc.) reads ὦσιν, which, however, is a later addition.

Jam 2:16. Also here Lachm., after B C**, has omitted the article τό before ὀφελος.

Jam 2:17. Instead of the Rec. ἔργα ἔχῃ, ἔχῃ ἔργα is to be read, with Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. etc., after almost all authorities.

Jam 2:18. The Rec. ἐκ τῶν ἔργων is attested by too few authorities (G K, some min.) to be considered as genuine; Griesb. has consequently correctly adopted χωρὶς τῶν ἔργ., attested by A B C א, etc. Almost all recent critics and interpreters, also Bouman, retain χωρὶς as the original reading; Reiche and Philippi certainly judge otherwise. With the reading ἐκ falls also the pronoun σου after ἔργων, which Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly omitted; it is wanting in A B א, several min. vss. etc., whilst C G K, etc., have it.

Also after τὴν πίστιν Tisch., after B C א, etc., has rightly omitted the pronoun μου (A G K, Lachm.); it appears to be added in order to bring more prominently forward the contrast to the first τὴν πίστιν σου.

Jam 2:19. The Rec. is ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστι; so G. In the most important MSS., however, εἷς stands first; so in A B C א in favour of this reading is also the line of thought; yet the difference is found that ἐστιν in A א precedes (Lachm.), and in B C follows ὁ Θεός (Tisch.); which reading is the original cannot be decided, yet the former appears to be a correction. B omits ὁ before Θεός.

Jam 2:20. Instead of the Rec. νεκρά, after A C** G K א, several min. vss. Theoph. Oecumenius, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ἀργή, after B C* etc., which is preferred by Wiesinger, Brückner, Lange; whereas Reiche and Bouman prefer the Rec. It is possible that, in order to avoid the frequent repetition of νεκρά (see Jam 2:17; Jam 2:26), the word ἀργή = ἀεργη, as corresponding to χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, was substituted; but it is also possible that the reference to that verse occasioned the displacement of ἀργή; it is difficult to arrive at a sure decision.

Jam 2:24. The particle τοίνυν after ὁρᾶτε is already correctly omitted by Griesbach, being wanting in A B C א, etc.

Jam 2:25. Instead of ἀγγέλους, C G, etc., have κατασκόπους, which, however, is evidently borrowed from Hebrews 11:31.

Jam 2:1. In close connection with the thought contained in chap. Jam 1:27, that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love.

After the impressive address ἀδελφοί μου, he first expresses the exhortation with reference to that conduct, that their faith should not be combined with a partial respect of persons. Schneckenburger regards the clause as interrogative, remarking: interrogationis formam sensus gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern); incorrectly, for although the interrogation with μή may not always require a negative answer, yet it is only used when the interrogator, with every inclination, to regard something as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case; comp. Winer, p. 453 f. [E. T. 641]; Schirlitz, p. 366. This is inadmissible here, as the fact mentioned in what follows, the προσωποληψία of the readers, was undoubtedly true. μὴ … ἔχετε is thus imperative, as Jam 1:16, Jam 3:1.

The plural προσωποληψίαις is used because the author thinks on individual concrete instances in which the general fault manifested itself (Hornejus: multiplex illud malum in vita est); comp. Colossians 3:22; 2 Peter 3:12. For the explanation of προσωποληψία (only here and in Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25), foreign to classical Greek, see Matthew 22:16; Luke 20:21; Galatians 2:6 (see Meyer in loc.); from the O. T. Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17, and other places (the verb προσωποληπτέω, Jam 2:9; the adjective, Acts 10:34). The phrase ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχειν τ. πίστιν is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as ἔχειν τινα ἐν ὀργῇ, ἐν αἰτίαις, ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει (Romans 1:28), for James intends not to reproach his readers, that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith free from προσωποληψία. Also ἔχειν does not stand for κατέχειν, whether in the meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius: detinere velut captivam et inefficacem); but ἔχειν ἐν expresses the relation of internal connection thus: Have not your faith, so that it is as it were enclosed in προσωποληψίαις, i.e. combined with it. Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a distinction of persons according to their external relations.

De Wette’s opinion is incorrect, that πίστιν ἔχειν here is to be understood of “the management of the concerns of faith.”

Faith is more exactly described as ἡ πίστις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης]. Most expositors (particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, de Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger) take τοῦ κυρίου as a genitive of object, and make τῆς δόξης, as a second genitive (besides ἡμῶν), dependent on κυρίου; thus: “the faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ.” Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory (comp. 1 Corinthians 2:8; Psalm 29:3 : ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης), nor the dependence of two genitives (ἡμῶν and τῆς δόξης) on one substantive (κυρίου), see Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238], has anything against it; yet this construction cannot be held to be correct, because the name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which follows τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend on κυρίου; if James had intended such a combination, he would have written either τὴν πίστιν Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης, or τ. π. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης, Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ.[110] It is evidently an entire mistake to construct τῆς δόξης with προσωποληψίαις, whether it be taken as = opinio (Calvin: dum opum vel bonorum opinio nostros oculos perstringit, veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Heisen: quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make τῆς δόξης depend on Χριστοῦ; thus Laurentius, who explains it the Christus gloriae = gloriosus; so also Bouman; also Lange: “the Messiah exalted in His glory above Judaistic expectations.” Decisive against this construction are—(1) the close connection of Ἰησοῦ and Χριστοῦ, as when those two names are so directly united as here, Χριστοῦ is purely nomen proprium; (2) the N. T. mode of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after Χριστοῦ by a genitive dependent on it; also in this case the article τοῦ before Χριστοῦ would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions) τῆς δόξης was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on τὴν πίστιν, and τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰ. Χρ. as the genitive of the subject, in the sense: “faith in the glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christ,—founded on Him,” namely, τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς, Romans 8:18. This construction, although grammatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler, with Bengel, to regard τῆς δόξης as in apposition with Ἰησοῦ Χρ.; still the idea δόξης is too indefinite. The passages cited by Bengel, Luke 2:32, Ephesians 1:17, 1 Peter 4:14, Isaiah 40:5, are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justification of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite τῆς δόξης as a genitive of quality, not with Χριστοῦ only, but with the whole expression τοῦ κυρ. ἡμ. Ἰησ. Χρ., by which δόξα is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus Christ which belongs to Him, the exalted One. Similar expressions are ὁ οἰκονόμος (Luke 16:8), ὁ κριτής (Luke 18:6), τῆς ἀδικίας. At all events, τῆς δόξης is added in order to mark the contrast between the προσωποληψία paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ.

[110] The genitive, indeed, not unfrequently is separated from the word which governs it; see Php 2:10; Romans 9:21; and Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238]; but in that case the intervening word is never in apposition with the preceding idea, with which it is completely concluded.

Jam 2:2-3. In these verses the conduct of the readers, which occasioned the exhortation of James (Jam 2:1), is described; hence the confirming γάρ. Both verses together form the protasis, on which Jam 2:4 follows as the apodosis; whilst they in form appear by their connection with δέ (according to the Rec. by και) as co-ordinate sentences, in thought Jam 2:2 is subordinate to Jam 2:3; Jam 2:2 assigning the circumstances under which the conduct described in Jam 2:3 occurred.

Hammond, Homberg, Baumgarten, Michaelis, and Herder assign even Jam 2:4 to the protasis; but incorrectly, as in that case the conjunctive would be required in that verse as in Jam 2:2-3. As regards the matter itself, the fault is not directed against the rulers of the congregation,—the presbyters and deacons (Grotius, Pott, Schulthess, Hottinger),—but, as the address ἀδελφοί μου (Jam 2:1) shows, it is entirely general. It was not the custom in the time of James for the deacons to point out places to those who entered their assemblies (Constit. Apost. ii. 56, 58).

The instance (ἐάν) which James states is, as regards the matter, not a hypothetical assumption, but a fact; and certainly not to be regarded as a solitary instance which only once took place, but as something which often occurred, that even in their religious assemblies the rich were treated with distinction, and the poor with disdain. It is not surprising that James in the description employed the aorist, since he generally uses that tense to represent that which is habitually repeated as a single fact which has taken place; see chap. Jam 1:11; Jam 1:24.

The words εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν] show that it is an entrance into the religious assemblies of the congregation that is here spoken of. It cannot be inferred from the usual signification of the word συναγωγή that a Jewish synagogue is here meant (Semler, Schneckenburger, Bouman); opposed to this is ὑμῶν; besides, the Christians would certainly not have the right to show seats to those who entered into such a place of worship; but, on the other hand, by συναγωγή here is not to be understood the religious assembly (de Wette). The whole description, both εἰσέλθῃ and the pointing out of seats, shows that συναγωγή denotes the place where the Christian congregation assembled for worship.[111] That James calls this by the word which was appropriate for Jewish places of worship, cannot be regarded in his mouth as anything surprising. Hammond, Baumgarten, Storr, Herder, and others most arbitrarily understand by συναγωγή the judicial assemblies of the congregation and their elders. According to Lange, the name of the Jewish place of worship is here a symbol “of the religious fellowship of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion;” this opinion is not less unjustifiable than the view connected with it, that “a literal understanding of what follows cannot be thought of.”

The rich man is here described as ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ, and the poor man as πτωχὸς ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι, the difference between them being represented to the eye in their clothing.

χρυσοδακτύλιος] a purely ἅπ. λεγ. = χρυσόχειρ (Lucian, in Tim.: πόρφυροι καὶ χρυσόχειρες περιέρχονται; in Nigrin.: τῶν δακτυλίων πλῆθος ἔχων). On λαμπρός, used of clothes, see, on the one hand, Luke 23:11 (comp. with Matthew 27:28), and, on the other hand, Revelation 15:6. Raphelius: nullum certum colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum sen rubrum seu album sit, seu alius generis. The counterpart of the ἐσθὴς λαμπρά is the ἐσθ. ῥυπαρά of the poor man.

ῥυπαρός] in its proper meaning only here in N. T.; in Zechariah 3:3-4, it is also used of garments. Are Christians or non-Christians meant by these incomers? Most expositors consider them to be Christians only, whether they belonged to the congregation or came there as ξένοι (guests). But the following reasons decide against this view:—1. They are distinguished by James from the brethren addressed, and are not indicated as brethren, which yet, particularly in reference to the poor (Jam 2:5), would readily have suggested itself as a strong confirmation of their fault. 2. In Jam 2:6-7, the rich are evidently opposed to Christians (ὑμῶν, ὑμᾶς, ἐφ ̓ ὑμᾶς), and reprimanded for their conduct towards Christians (not merely toward the poor), which if rich Christians had been guilty of, would certainly have been indicated as an offence against their Christian calling. That those who were not Christians might and did come into the Christian religious assemblies is a well-known fact; see 1 Corinthians 14:22-23. The view of Weiss (Deutsch. Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissensch. etc., 1854, No. 51), that the rich man was not a Christian, but that the poor man was a Christian, is supported by no feature in the description; in that case James would certainly have indicated the dissimilarity of relation; then “must Jam 2:5 ff. bring it forward as the gravest offence, that the brother chosen by God is slighted for the sake of the rich who were not Christians” (Wiesinger[112]).

[111] The word συναγωγή occurs in the N. T. in both meanings; usually it designates the religious place of meeting of the Jews; but that it also denotes the assembly, Acts 13:43 shows; see also Revelation 2:9. In the Apocrypha of the O. T. it has only the last meaning, and, indeed, in a general sense; see Wahl, Clav. Apocryph. συναγωγή.

[112] Lange considers the mode of expression symbolical; by the rich man is meant the Jewish Christian, who, as wearing a gold ring, boasts of his covenant rights; and by the poor man is meant the Gentile Christian. According to Hengstenberg, the meaning is precisely the reverse. Both opinions are unjustified.

Jam 2:3 describes the conduct of the church toward the two incomers. Many ancient expositors understand this as a figurative representation of the preference which was generally given in the congregation to the rich; this is arbitrary. The whole description points rather to something which James has actually in view; but in reprimanding this, he condemns partiality generally, which certainly showed itself in many other ways. By the descriptive words ἐπιβλέψητε … τὴν λαμπράν, which precede εἴπητε (in reference to the poor there is only εἴπητε), is indicated in a lively manner the admiring look at the external glitter; ἐπιβλέπειν, emphatice sumendum est (Pott); the rich man is characteristically described as ὁ φορῶν τὴν ἐσθ. τ. λαμπράν; the splendid garment is that which attracts the eye, the character of the man is entirely overlooked; φορεῖν, a secondary form of φέρειν, is also in Matthew 11:8 used of garments; by the article before λαμπράν this idea is strengthened as the chief idea.

The contrast is sharply expressed in the different address to the one and to the other; already they are distinguished from one another by σὺ … σύ, and then κάθου and στῆθει, ὧδε and ἐκεῖ, καλῶς and ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν μου, are opposed. The form κάθου (instead of κάθησο) is foreign to classical Greek; see Winer, p. 75 [E. T. 98].

καλῶς refers to comfort (Wiesinger); it is not = honorifice (Wahl); and still less is it to be resolved into “Be so good as” (Storr). A place is pointed out to the rich man, where he can be comfortably seated, whilst to the poor man it is said stand there. The second clause, separated from the first by ἤ, is not a special address, but the two clauses form one saying, whilst after ἤ a thought is to be supplied, as “If thou wilt rather sit;” by the addition of these words the depreciation of the poor is yet more strongly marked.

ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιον] means not under, but below my footstool (Wiesinger), by which the floor is pointed out as the fitting place for the poor to sit (Bouman). “The expression involves contempt: as it were under one’s feet. Not on the footstool” (Lange). The word ὑποπόδιον (not unicum, as Wiesinger asserts) belongs only to the later classics. Often in N. T., and also in LXX.

Jam 2:4 forms the apodosis to Jam 2:2-3, and rebukes what is blameable in the conduct described. Expositors greatly differ in the explanation of this verse, according as they explain the verb διεκρίθητε, and understand οὐ as a pure negation, or as an interrogative particle. It is best to take διεκρίθητε, in form indeed passive, in meaning as the aorist middle, as in Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23, Romans 4:20, and to give to the verb here the same meaning which it has constantly in the usage of the N. T.; so that it denotes the doubt, which consists in the assertion of thoughts at variance with faith; see on chap. Jam 1:6. But then the sentence must be taken as interrogative: Did you not then doubt among yourselves? i.e., Have ye not fallen into a contradiction with your faith (Jam 2:1), according to which external glory and riches are nothing, whilst ye by your conduct have attached a value to them? To this question the second is added, to which the preceding οὐ is also to be referred: and became ye not (thus) judges of evil thoughts? This second question indicates the direct consequence of διακρίνεσθαι. James calls them κριταί, because in their conduct they expressed their judgment on the rich and poor. The genitive διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν is not the genitive of object,[113] but of quality. διαλογισμοί is here, as predominantly in the N. T. in malam partem (see especially Luke 5:21-22), thoughts of doubt ana unbelief; the bad meaning is here heightened by πονηρῶν.

[113] Elsner: iniquas istas cogitationes approbastis; Bengel: judices approbatores, malarum cogitationum i. e. divitum, foris splendentium, sed malis cogitationibus sentientium.

Other explanations are as follow:—

(1) διακρίνεσθαι = separare: then the sentence is interrogative; ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = ἐν ἀλλήλοις (Gebser, Schulthess, Semler, Erasmus Schmid, etc.); the verb being either passive: nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti ac separati? or middle: nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos? “Do you not separate, divide yourselves among yourselves?” (Lange).

(2) διακρίνεσθαι = discrimen facere. (a) The verb active—(α) interrogative: nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos? (Laurentius, Grotius, Wolf, Hottinger, Knapp). In this explanation ἐν ἐαυτοῖς = ἐν ἀλλήλοις; Schneckenburger, however, explains ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = in animis vestris; but then the meaning: discrimen facere, would pass into an act of the judgment, “statuere.” (β) Negative: “Then partly ye would not have distinguished (according to a sound judgment) among yourselves, and partly also ye would have judged after an evil manner of thinking (thus an error of the understanding and of the heart)” (Grashof).—(b) The verb passive: dupliciter peccatis, primo: inter vos ipsos non estis discriminati h. e. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia (Oeder).

(3) διακρίνεσθαι = judicare. (a) The verb active—(α) interrogative: nonne judicastis, deliberastis ipsi? “Are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong this is?” (Augusti). (β) Negative: non discrevistis justa dubitatione, considerantia et aestimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non minus, quam diviti (Bengel). Luther combines this rendering with that under James 2 : “And ye do not well consider, but ye become judges, and make an evil distinction.” Here also comes in the explanation of Oecumenius: τὸ διακριτικὸν ὑμῶν διφθείρατε, μηδεμίαν συζήτησιν ποιήσαντες πότερον τιμητέον … ἀλλʼ οὕτως, ἀδιακρίτως, καὶ ἐν προοωποληψίᾳ τὸν μὲν ἐτιμήσατε … τὸν δὲ ἠτιμάσατε.—(b) The verb passive—(α) interrogative: Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati h. e. convicti estis? Paraeus; so also Bouman: nonne igitur in vestris ipsorum jam judicati estis animis? (β) Negative: et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra (Heisen). Differently Cajetanus: haec faciendo non estis judicati in vestibus et divitiis et paupertate; laying the chief stress on ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.

(4) διακρίνεσθαι = dubitare, to entertain doubts. (a) Interrogative: et non dubitastis apud vosmet ipsos? et facti estis iniqui judices? “Should you not yourselves have entertained doubts? Should you actually have passed evil-minded judgments?” (Theile). (b) Negative: non dubitastis apud animum, ne subiit quidem haec cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, certo apud vos statuistis id jure ac bene fieri.

All these explanations are untenable, because they proceed upon a meaning of διακρίνεσθαι foreign to the usage of the N. T. Besides, several require arbitrary completions, and many do not correspond to the context. Brückner, de Wette, and Wiesinger have also here correctly maintained the meaning to doubt. De Wette: “Have you not then become doubtful in your faith?” Wiesinger: “Have you not forsaken the law of faith, which recognises only one true riches?” With the reading of B (omitting οὐ) the thought is the same; the interrogative (οὐ), however, serves for the heightening of the thought, the readers themselves being thereby charged to pronounce the judgment. The καί of the Receptus stands as in Mark 10:26, Luke 10:29, 1 Corinthians 5:2, with the question suddenly introduced. Or, since in the N. T. no other passage is found where καί is placed before a question forming the apodosis of a protasis beginning with ἐάν (on 2 Corinthians 2:2, see Meyer), it is to be explained from the fact that one would make Jam 2:4 a part of the protasis; see above.

Jam 2:5. With this verse the proof of the reprehensibleness of the conduct found fault with commences: James showing that the conduct toward the poor is in contradiction with the mercy of God directed to the poor, and that the conduct toward the rich is in contradiction with their conduct toward Christians. The impressive exhortation to attention precedes ἀκούσατε with the address ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί; see chap. Jam 1:16; Jam 1:19. The proof itself (as in Jam 2:4) is expressed in a lively manner in the form of a question: Has not God chosen those who are the poor of the world (i.e. accounted as such) to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him?

The verb ἐξελέξατο is to be retained in its usual acceptation, in that which it has in 1 Corinthians 1:27. Wiesinger, without sufficient reason, will understand it here as equivalent to “God has so highly honoured the poor;” and Lange incorrectly maintains that “the word here rather signifies calling with reference to ethical good behaviour to the divine revelation.”

The correct reading: τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ, is to be explained in the same manner as the expressions ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ, Acts 7:20, and δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ, 2 Corinthians 10:4 (see Meyer on these passages, and Winer, p. 190 [E. T. 265]; Al. Buttmann, p. 156 [E. T. 179]). The world esteems those as poor who possess no visible earthly riches. Wiesinger prefers to explain the dative as the dative of reference, thus “poor in respect of the world;” yet the former explanation, which also Brückner and Lange adopt, in which ὁ Θεός and τῷ κόσμῳ form a sharp contrast, is more appropriate, and more in correspondence with the meaning of the word κόσμος with James. In the Receptus πτωχοὺς τοῦ κόσμου the genitive is to be understood as in the expression τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου, etc., 1 Corinthians 1:27; see Meyer in loco.

πλουσίους ἐν πίστει] is not in apposition with τοὺς πτωχοὺς (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Hottinger, Gebser, Bouman, Lange, and others),[114] but the completion of ἐξελέξατο, stating to what God has chosen the poor (Beza, Wolf, Morus, Knapp, Storr, Schneckenburger, Kern, Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others); see 2 Corinthians 3:6.

By ἐν πίστει, as in the expression πλούσιος ἐν ἐλέει, Ephesians 2:4 (see 1 Corinthians 1:5; 2 Corinthians 9:11; 1 Timothy 6:18), the object is not stated wherein they are rich (Luther: “who are rich in the faith”), but the sphere within which riches is imparted to them; similarly Wiesinger explains it: “rich in their position as believers.” James wished primarily to mark the contrast that the poor are appointed to be rich, namely, so far as they are believers; the context gives the more exact statement of their riches: riches in the possessions of the heavenly kingdom is meant; this the following clause indicates.

Calvin: non qui fidei magnitudine abundant, sed quos Deus variis Spiritus sui donis locupletavit, quae fide percipimus.[115]

The expression ἡ βασιλεία occurs also elsewhere, without the addition of ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ or similar terms, as a designation of the kingdom of God, e.g. Matthew 13:38. No stress rests on the article τῆς (= ἘΚΕΊΝΗς), as the relative Ἧς referred to it. The relative clause serves not for a more definite statement of the idea ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ, as if by it this βασιλεία was to be distinguished from another, but the statement ἘΞΕΛ.… ΚΛΗΡΟΝΌΜΟΥς Τ. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑς is confirmed, as a kingdom founded on the promise of God.

From the expressions ΚΛΗΡΟΝΌΜΟς and ἘΠΗΓΓΕΊΛΑΤΟ of the relative clause, it is evident that James considered here ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ as the future perfected kingdom of God, not “the joint participation in the ΥἹΟΘΕΣΊΑ of the Jews” (Lange). On Ἧς ἘΠΗΓΓΕΊΛΑΤΟ Κ.Τ.Λ. see the remark on Jam 1:12. The addition of this clause shows that with James faith and love to God are most closely connected.

James puts ΤΟῪς ΠΤΏΧΟΥς, to whom ΟἹ ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟΙ are opposed, as the object of ἘΞΕΛΈΞΑΤΟ. He accordingly (the article is not to be overlooked) divides men into these two classes, the poor and the rich, and designates, not the latter, but the former, as those whom God has chosen and appointed to be rich in faith,[116] namely, to be heirs of the kingdom; not as if all the poor received the κληρονομία, but his meaning is that those whom God has chosen belong to this class, whereas those belonging to the class of the rich had not been chosen. James did not require to point out the truth of this statement; the Christians, to whom he wrote, were a living testimony of it, for they all belonged to that class; and although some among them were πλούσιοι, yet, on the one hand, what Christ says in Matthew 19:23-26 holds good, and, on the other hand, 1 Corinthians 1:26-28 is to be compared.

With this divine choice the conduct of his readers stood in direct contradiction when they treated a poor man—thus one who belonged to the class of those chosen by God—contemptuously, and that on account of his poverty. What directly follows expresses this contradiction.

[114] If πλουσίους is taken as in apposition, then here riches in faith forms the reason of the choice; but by this the keenness of the thought contained in the oxymorum is entirely blunted: it is also arbitrary to separate the two ideas πλουσίους and κληρονόμους united by καί.

[115] Kern: ἐν πίστει indicates that it is faith itself which makes the Christian inwardly rich.

[116] It is to be observed that ἐξελέξατο does not here refer only to πλουσίους, as if πίστις were to be considered as the condition on which the πτωχοί were chosen to be rich, but to the combined expression πλουσίους ἐν πίστει, so that also πίστις is to be considered as an effect of the divine choice. The same view lies at the foundation of what Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:30 (see Meyer in loco) and elsewhere often expresses.

Jam 2:6. ὑμεῖς δέ] contrast to Θεός.

ἠτιμάσατε] contrast to ἐξελέξατο. The aorist is used with reference to the case stated in Jam 2:2-3, which is certainly of a general character (Wiesinger).[117]

ΤῸΝ ΠΤΩΧΌΝ, not = pauperem illum, but, to be understood generally, the poor man as such. That we are here specially to think on the Christian poor, is an incorrect supposition.

With οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι] James turns to the rich as the class opposed to the poor, in order to point out from another side than he had already done the reprehensibleness of the conduct denounced. Already from this opposition it is intimated that not the Christian rich, but the rich generally—not exactly only “the rich Gentiles or the Romans” (Hengstenberg)—are meant. This is also evident from what is said of them, and by which their conduct is designated as hostile to Christians (ὙΜῶΝ) who belong to the poor.[118] ΚΑΤΑΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΎΕΙΝ] only here and in Acts 10:38, frequently in the LXX. and Apocrypha (see particularly Wis 2:20), means “to use power against any to his hurt.” Related ideas are κατακυριεύειν and ΚΑΤΕΞΟΥΣΙΆΖΕΙΝ, Matthew 20:25. This exercise of power against the Christians might take place in various ways; what follows: ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΟῚ ἝΛΚΟΥΣΙΝ ὙΜᾶς ΕἸς ΚΡΙΤΉΡΙΑ, mentions one chief mode.

ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΟΊ] emphatically put first—even they (Theile).

ἕλκειν] indicates the violence of the conduct (so in the classics). The courts of judgment (ΚΡΙΤΉΡΙΑ, as in 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 6:4) may be both Gentile and Jewish; certainly not Christian. It is arbitrary, and not corresponding to the expression ἝΛΚΕΙΝ, to think here on a process quibus pauperes propter debita in judiciis vexabant (Hornejus; also de Wette and others).

Since James so strongly contrasts αὐτοί and ὙΜᾶς, the former cannot possibly be regarded as a part of the latter.

[117] According to Lange, the aorist is used to point to “the historical fact in which Judaizing Jewish Christians have already taken part with the Jews, namely, the dishonouring of the Gentile Christians.”

[118] If James had the Christian rich in view, he certainly would not have omitted to point to the contrast between their conduct to the poor and their Christian calling.

Jam 2:7. The description of the conduct of the rich is still continued; they not only do violence to Christians, but they even revile the holy name of Christ. Do they not (even) blaspheme that fair name which has been called upon you? The pronoun αὐτοί is put here as in Jam 2:6; incorrectly Theile = hi potissimum.

The expression τὸ ὄνομα ἐπικαλεῖται ἐπί τινα] is borrowed from the O. T., where it often occurs, and in the sense that one becomes the property of him whose name is called upon him; particularly it is said of Israel that the name of God was called upon them; see Deuteronomy 28:10 (where instead of ἐπί the dative is put); 2 Chronicles 7:14; Jeremiah 14:9; Jeremiah 15:16; Amos 9:12; see also Genesis 48:16; Isaiah 4:1. Accordingly, by the name which is called upon Christians is not meant the Christian name (Hensler: nomen fratrum et sororum), also not the name πτωχοί, but the name of Him only to whom they as Christians belong—the name of Christ (de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, and others); from which, however, it does not follow (as Wiesinger correctly observes) that James here alludes to the name Χριστιανοί.

By the addition of the attribute καλόν the shamefulness of βλασφημεῖν is still more strongly marked.

In support of the hypothesis that the rich are Christians, many expositors (also Brückner and Wiesinger) here arbitrarily explain βλασφημεῖν of indirect blasphemy, i.e. of such as takes place not by words, but by works; but βλασφημεῖν is never thus used in the Holy Scriptures; not one of the passages which Wiesinger cites proves that for which he adduces them; βλασφημεῖν always denotes blasphemy by word.[119]

This word also proves that the rich who are not Christians are here meant (thus also Lange, who, however, will understand particularly the Judaists); which is also evident, because James otherwise would rather have written τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφʼ αὐτούς instead of τὸ ἐπικλ. ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς.

By the thought in this verse James indicates that Christians, by showing partiality to the rich, not only acted foolishly, but were guilty of a violation of the respect due to the name of Christ.

[119] Were it here asserted that the blaspheming of the name of God or of Christ was occasioned by the wicked works of Jews or Christians, this would be indicated not by the active verb, but by the passive with διά; see Romans 2:24; Titus 2:5; 2 Peter 2:2; Isaiah 52:5. Moreover, even then blasphemy (namely, of the Gentiles) could only be expressed by words.