Commentari biblici

Jam 2:1-13 take up again the subject of the rich and poor which was commenced in Jam 1:9-11.

Jam 2:1. μὴ … ἔχετε: the imperative, which is also found in all the versions, seems more natural and more in accordance with the style of the Epistle than the interrogative form adopted by WH.—ἐν προσωπολημψίαις: the plural form is due to Semitic usage, like ἐξ αἱμάτων in John 1:13; cf. Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25.—τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Κυρίου …: the mention of the “faith of Christ” is brought in in a way which shows that this was a matter with which the readers were well acquainted. The phrase must evidently mean the new religion which Christ gave to the world, i.e., the Christian faith.—τῆς δόξης: the intensely Jewish character of this Epistle makes it reasonably certain that the familiar Jewish conception of the Shekinah is what the writer is here referring to. The Shekinah (from the root שׁכן “to dwell”) denoted the visible presence of God dwelling among men. There are several references to it in the N.T. other than in this passage, Matthew 9:7; Luke 2:9; Acts 7:2; Romans 9:4; cf. Hebrews 9:5; so, too, in the Targums, e.g., in Targ. Onkelos to Numbers 6:25 ff. the “face (in the sense of appearance or presence) of the Lord” is spoken of as the Shekinah. A more materialistic conception is found in the Talmud, where the Shekinah appears in its relationship with men as one person dealing with another; e.g., in Sola, 3b, it is said that before Israel sinned the Shekinah dwelt with every man severally, but that after they sinned it was taken away; cf. Sota, 17a, where it is said: “Man and wife, if they be deserving, have the Shekinah between them”; so, too, Pirqe Aboth., iii. 3: “Rabbi Chananiah ben Teradyon [he lived in the second century, A.D.] said, Two that sit together and are occupied in words of Torah have the Shekinah among them” (cf. Matthew 18:20); see further Oesterley and Box, Op. cit., pp. 191–194. The Shekinah was thus used by Jews as an indirect expression in place of God, the localised presence of the Deity. “In the identification of the Shekinah and cognate conceptions with the incarnate Christ, ‘a use is made of these ideas,’ as Dalman says, ‘which is at variance with their primary application’. It marks a specifically Christian development, though the way had certainly been prepared by hypostatising tendencies” (Box, in Hastings’ DC[55]., ii. 622a). That Christ was often identified with the Divine Shekinah may be seen from the examples given by Friedländer, Patristische und Talmudische Studien, pp. 62 ff. If our interpretation of δόξα here is correct, it will follow, in the first place, that the meaning of the phrase … Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης is free from ambiguity, viz., “… Have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Shekinah” (literally “the glory”); this is precisely the same thought that is contained in the words, “… who being the effulgence of his glory … (Hebrews 1:2-3). And, in the second place, this rendering shows that the words are an expression of the Divinity of our Lord; cf. Bengel’s note: “τῆς δόξης: est appositio, ut ipse Christus dicatur ἡ δόξα”. [Since writing the above the present writer finds that Mayor, p. 78, refers to Mr. Bassett’s comment on this verse, where the same interpretation is given, together with a number of O.T. quotations; it seems scarcely possible to doubt that this interpretation is the correct one.]

[55]CG Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1907–1908)

Jam 2:2. εἰς συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν: as the Epistle is addressed to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion no particular synagogue can be meant here; it is a general direction that is being given. In the N.T. the word is always used of a Jewish place of worship; but it is used of a Christian place of worship by Hermas, Mand., xi. 9.… εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων … καὶ ἔντευξις γένηται πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων. Harnack (Expansion … i. 60) says: “I know one early Christian fragment, hitherto unpublished, which contains the expression: Χριστιανοί τε καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι Χριστὸν ὁμολογοῦντες”. This latter may well refer to a place of worship in which converted Gentiles and Jewish-Christians met together. And this is probably the sense in which we must understand the use of the word in the verse before us. The Jewish name for the synagogue was בית הכנסת (“house of assembly”); according to Shabbath, 32a, the more popular designation was the Aramaic name בית עמא (“house of the people”); Hellenistic Jews used the term προσευχή = οἶκος προσευχῆς as well as συναγωγή.—ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος, etc.: Cf. Sir 11:2, μὴ αἰνέσῃς ἄνδρα ἐν κάλλει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ βδέλυξῃ ἄνθρωπον ἐν ὁράσει αὐτοῦ. For ἀνήρ see note on Jam 2:7. χρυσοδακτύλιος does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. nor in the Septuagint; cf. Luke 15:22. λαμπρᾷ, probably in reference to the fine white garment worn by wealthy Jews.—πτωχὸς ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι: ῥυπαρός occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in Revelation 22:11 (cf. 1 Peter 3:21) and very rarely in the Septuagint, see Zechariah 3:3-4; in the Apoc. of Peter we have, in § 15, … γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες ῥάκη ῥυπαρὰ ἐνδεδυμένοι …—There is nothing decisive to show whether the rich man or the poor man (presumably not regular worshippers), who are thus described as entering the Synagogue, were Christians or otherwise; on the assumption of an early date for the Epistle they might have been either; but if the Epistle be regarded as belonging to the first half of the second century non-Christians are probably those referred to; but it would be futile to attempt to speak definitely here, for a good case can be made out for any class of worshipper.

Jam 2:3. ἐπιβλέψητε: “look upon with admiration,” the exact force of the word is conditioned by the context; it quite expresses the Hebrew פנה אל, the meaning of which varies according to the context, e.g., in Psalm 25:16 (Sept. Psa 24:16) it is “to look graciously,” in Deuteronomy 9:27, “to look sternly”.—σὺ κάθου ὦδε καλῶς: the reference is to the kind of seat rather than to its position; chairs, or something corresponding to these, were provided for the elders and scribes (cf. Matthew 23:6; Mark 12:39; Luke 11:43), and would no doubt have been offered to persons of rank who might enter, while the poorer men would sit on the floor, which is indeed clearly implied by the words ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν μου. The official who directed people to their seats was called the חזן (Chazzan) i.e., the man who “had charge”; we read of the existence of this official in the Synagogue within the Temple precints in Jerusalem (Yoma, vii. 1).

Jam 2:4. οὐ διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς: “Are ye not divided among yourselves”? The Peshiṭtâ uses the word אתפלג, the same as that used in Luke 11:17. “Every Kingdom divided against itself.” The reference in the verse before us might be to the class distinctions which were thus being made, and which would have the effect of engendering envy and strife, and thus divisions.—κριταί: the Peshiṭtâ has the interesting rendering מפר̈שנא (instead of the usual word for “judge” דינא), which comes from the root meaning “to divide”.—διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν: Cf. Matthew 15:19, ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἔρχονται διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί: genitive of quality, “judges with evil surmisings,” viz., of breaking up the unity of the worshippers by differentiating between their worldly status; the writer is very modern! διαλογισμοί is generally used in a bad sense, cf. Luke 5:21-22; Romans 1:21.

Jam 2:5. Ἀκούσατε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί: This expression, which one would expect to hear rather in a vigorous address, reveals the writer as one who was also an impassioned speaker; cf. in the same spirit, the frequent ἀδελφοί, and especially, ἄγε νῦν, Jam 4:13, Jam 5:1.—ἐξελέξατο: a very significant term in the mouth of a Jew when addressing Jews; cf. Deuteronomy 14:1-2, Υἱοί ἐστε Κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν … ὅτι λαὸς ἅγιος εἶ Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ σου, καὶ σὲ ἐξελέξατο Κύριος ὁ θεός σου γενέσθαι σε αὐτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον … cf. Acts 13:17; 1 Corinthians 1:27. There is an interesting saying in Chag. 9b where it is said that poverty is the quality most befitting Israel as the chosen people.—πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ: i.e., poor in the estimation of the world; the reading τοῦ κόσμου or ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ loses this point; cf. Matthew 10:9; Luke 6:20.—πλουσίους ἐν πίστει: “Oblique predicate” (Mayor). In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gad. vii. 6 we read: “For the poor man, if, free from envy, he pleaseth the Lord in all things, is blessed beyond all men” (the Greek text reads πλουτεῖ which Charles holds to be due to a corruption in the original Hebrew text which reads יְאֻשַּׁר = μακαριστός ἐστι). See, for the teaching of our Lord, Matthew 6:19; Luke 12:21. Πίστις is used here rather in the sense of trust than in the way in which it is used in Jam 2:1.—κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας: the Kingdom must refer to that of the Messiah, see Jam 5:7-9, and Matthew 25:35, δεῦτε οἱ εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός μου κληρονομήσατε τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, but not Matthew 5:3 which treats of a different subject. It is of importance to remember that the Messianic Kingdom to which reference is made in this verse was originally, among the Jews, differentiated from the “future life” which is apparently referred to in Jam 1:12, … λήμψεται τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς, ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. There was a distinction, fundamentally present, though later on confused, in Jewish theology, between the “Kingdom of Heaven” over which God reigns, and that of the Kingdom of Israel over which the Messiah should reign. An integral part of the Messianic hope was the doctrine of a resurrection (cf. Isaiah 24:10; Daniel 12:2). This first assumed definite form, apparently, under the impulse of the idea that those who had suffered martyrdom for the Law (Torah) were worthy to share in the future glories of Israel. In the crudest form of the doctrine the resurrection was confined to the Holy Land—those buried elsewhere would have to burrow through the ground to Palestine—and to Israelites. And the trumpet-blast which was to be the signal for the ingathering of the exiles would also arouse the sleeping dead (cf. Berachoth, 15b, 4 Ezra 4:23 ff.; 1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16). According to the older view, the Kingdom was to follow the resurrection and judgment; but the later and more widely held view was that a temporary Messianic Kingdom would be established on the earth, and that this would be followed by the Last Judgment and the Resurrection which would close the Messianic Era. This was to be followed by a new heaven and a new earth. In the eschatological development which took place during the first century B.C. Paradise came to be regarded as the abode of the righteous and elect in an intermediate state; from there they will pass to the Messianic Kingdom, and then, after the final judgment they enter heaven and eternal life. In our Epistle there are some reflections of these various conceptions and beliefs, but they have entered into a simpler and more spiritual phase. That the reference in the verse before us is to the Messianic Kingdom seems indubitable both on account of the mention of the “Lord Jesus Christ” (Messiah) with which the section opens, showing that the thought of our Lord was in the mind of the writer, and because of the mention of the “Kingdom,” and also on account of the direct mention of the coming of the Messiah as Judge, later on in Jam 5:7-9. And if this is so then we may perhaps see in the words ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο a reference to Christ.

Jam 2:6. ἠτιμάσατε: Cf., though in an entirely different connection, Sir 10:23, οὐ δίκαιον ἀτιμάσαι πτωχὸν συνετόν (δίκαιον is absent in the Hebrew); the R.V. “dishonoured” accurately represents the Greek, but the equivalent Hebrew word would be better rendered “despised” which is what the A.V. has. “Dishonouring” would imply the withholding of a right, “despising” would be rather the contempt accorded to the man because he was poor. There can be little doubt that it is the former which is intended here, but the idea of the latter must also have been present.—οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν: the rich here probably refer to wealthy Jews, though it does not follow that “there could have been no question of rich Jews if the city and the temple had fallen” (Knowling), for the Epistle was addressed to Jews of the Dispersion, the bulk of whom were not affected, as far as their worldly belongings were concerned, by the Fall of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the possibility of the reference being to rich Jewish-Christians, or Gentile-Christians, cannot be dismissed off-hand, for on the assumption of a late date for the Epistle it is more likely that these would be meant. The writer is taxing his hearers both with bad treatment accorded to the poor, as well as pusillanimity with regard to the rich. The word καταδυν. only occurs once elsewhere in the N.T., Acts 10:38, … πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου; but fairly frequently in the Septuagint, e.g., Amos 8:4; Wis 2:10; Wis 15:14. The accusative ὑμᾶς, which is the reading of א1A, etc., is in accordance with the frequent usage of the Septuagint, where καταδυν. often takes an accusative instead of the genitive.—αὐτοὶ: “The pronoun αὐτὸς is used in the nominative, not only with the meaning ‘self’ when attached to a subject, as in classical Greek, but also when itself standing for the subject, with a less amount of emphasis, which we might render ‘he for his part,’ or ‘it was he who,’ as in the next clause; it is disputed whether it does not in some cases lose its emphatic force altogether, as in Luke 19:2; Luke 24:31” (Mayor). ἕλκουσιν: See Matthew 10:7; Matthew 10:18. Cf. Acts 16:19, … ἐπιλαβόμενοι τὸν Παῦλον καὶ τὸν Σίλαν εἵλκυσαν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας.—κριτήρια: Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 6:4, either Jewish (cf. the Peshiṭtâ rendering בית דינא) tribunals or Gentile ones.

Jam 2:7. βλασφημοῦσιν: for the force of the word cf. Sir 3:16, ὡς βλάσφημος ὁ ἐγκαταλιπὼν (the Greek is certainly wrong here, the Hebrew has בוזה, “he that despiseth”) πατέρα. Cf. Romans 2:24, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ διʼ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Isaiah 52:5); the word in the N.T. is sometimes general in its application, of evil speaking with regard to men (in the Apoc. of Peter the phrase, οἱ βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης occurs twice, 7, 13); at other times, specifically with reference to God or our Lord.—τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς: the name here (especially in view of καλόν) must be “Jesus” (Saviour), for the Jews would not be likely to have blasphemed the name of “Christ” (Messiah); in Acts 4:10-12 it is also the name of “Jesus,” concerning which St. Peter says: Neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. τὸ ἐπικλ. ἐφ. ὑμ. is a Hebraism, in Amos 9:12 we have: יאשׁר נקרא שׁמי עליהם which the R.V. renders (incorrectly): “which are called by my name,” it should be: “Over whom my name was called,” as rendered by the Septuagint, excepting that it repeats itself unnecessarily, ἐφʼ οὒς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπʼ αὐτούς. The Peshiṭtâ, too, has, שמא טבא דאתקרי so that the R.V. rendering here is incorrect, though the margin has “which was called upon you”. The idea which the phrase expresses is very ancient; a possession was known by the name of the possessor (originally always a god), this was the name which was pronounced over, or concerning, the land; in the same way, a slave was known under the name of his master, it was the name under whose protection he stood. And so also different peoples were ranged under the names of special gods; this usage was the same among the Israelites, who stood under the protection of Jahwe—the name and the bearer were of course not differentiated. This, too, is the meaning here; it does not mean the name that they bore, or were called by, but the name under whose protection they stood, and to which they belonged Parallel to it was the marking of cattle to denote ownership. (See, in reference to what has been said, Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Samuel 12:28; Jeremiah 7:10). In the passage before us there is not necessarily any reference to Baptism, though it is extremely probable that this is so; Mayor quotes Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, πρὶν φορέσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ νεκρός ἐστιν· ὅταν δὲ λάβῃ τὴν σφραγῖδα (baptism) ἀποτίθεται τὴν νέκρωσιν καὶ. ἀναλαμβάνει τὴν ζωήν. Resch (op cit. p. 193) quotes a very interesting passage from Agathangelus, chap. 73, in which these words occur: … καὶ εἰπὼν ὅτι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπικέκληται ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ ναὸς τῆς θεότητός μου. In the passage before us, the omission of all mention of the name, which would have come in very naturally, betrays Jewish usage; as Taylor truly remarks (Pirqe Aboth., p. 66): “A feeling of reverence leads the Jews to avoid, as far as possible, all mention of the Names of God. This feeling is manifested … in their post-canonical literature, even with regard to less sacred, and not incommunicable Divine names. In the Talmud and Midrash, and (with the exception of the Prayer Books) in the Rabbinic writings generally, it is the custom to abstain from using the Biblical names of God, excepting in citations from the Bible; and even when Elohim is necessarily brought in, it is often intentionally misspelt …” It should be noted that this phrase only occurs once elsewhere in the N.T., and there in a quotation from the O.T., quoted by St. James in Acts 15:17.

Jam 2:8. μέντοι: “nevertheless” there is a duty due to all men, even the rich are to be regarded as “neighbours,” for the precept of the Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18), applies to all men.—νόμον βασιλικόν: “There is no difficulty in the anarthrous νόμος being used (as below, Jam 4:11) for the law of Christ or of Moses on the same principle that βασιλεύς could be used for the King of Persia, but the addition of an anarthrous epithet should not have been passed over without comment, as it has been by the editors generally” (Mayor). The reference is to the Torah, as is obvious from the quotation from Leviticus 19:18, and therefore βασιλικόν—if this was the original reading—must refer to God, not (in the first instance) to Christ; the Peshiṭtâ reads: “the law of God”.—τελεῖτε: in Romans 2:27 we have the phrase νόμον τελεῖτε.—τὴν γραφήν: cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3 κατὰ τὰς γραφάς. On a papyrus belonging to the beginning of the Christian era, the phrase κατὰ τὴν γραφήν is used in a legal sense in reference to a contract, i.e., something that is binding (Deissmann, Neue Bibelst., p. 78). When used in reference to the Torah, as here, it was of particular significance to Jews who, as the “people of God” were bound by the Covenant.—καλῶς ποιεῖτε: Cf. Acts 15:29; 2 Peter 1:19.