성경 주석서

ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ[52]

[52] Inscr. + επιστολη BKP, curss., om. א επιστολη καθολικη του αγιου αποστολου ιακωβου L, Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli Vulg. (Epistulae Catholicae VulgA), επ. του απ. ιακωβου Pesh.

Jam 1:1. Ἰάκωβος: A very common name among Palestinian Jews, though its occurrence does not seem to be so frequent in pre-Christian times. Some noted Jewish Rabbis of this name lived in the earliest centuries of Christianity, notably Jacob ben Ḳorshai, a “Tanna” (i.e., “teacher” of the Oral Law) of the second century. The English form of the name comes from the Italian Giacomo. θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: Only Κυρίου here can refer to Christ; in Galatians 1:1 the differentiation is made still more complete … διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. On the other hand, in John 20:28, we have ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. But the disjunctive use of καὶ in the words before us does not imply a withholding of the divine title from our Lord, for the usage of Κύριος in the N.T., especially without the article, when connected with Χριστός, is in favour of its being regarded as a divine title, see e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:1-3, etc. Hellenistic Jews used Κύριος as a name for God; the non-use of the article gains in significance when it is remembered that ὁ Κύριος, “Dominus,” was a title given to the early Roman Emperors in order to express their deity, cf. Acts 25:26, where Festus refers to Nero as ὁ Κύριος. The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (containing, as generally conceded, the dialect which our Lord spoke), as well as the Peshittâ, read “Our Lord,” the expression used in the Peshiṭta in Matthew 8:25, Κύριε, σῶσον, ἀπολλύμεθα, and in Matthew 20:33, Κύριε, ἵνα ἀνοιγνῶσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν; both instances of divine power being exercised. Χριστοῦ: the use of this title, applied to Jesus without further comment, speaks against an early date for the Epistle; in a letter written to Jews during the apostolic age it is inconceivable that the Messiah should be referred to in this connection without some justification; Jewish beliefs concerning the Messiah were such as to make it impossible for them to accept Jesus as the Messiah without some teaching on the subject; this would be the more required in the case of Jews of the Dispersion who could not have had the same opportunities of learning the truths of Christianity as Palestinian Jews. The way in which the title is here applied to our Lord implies that the truth taught was already generally accepted. The absence of the article also points to a late date. δοῦλος: Generally speaking, to the Jew δοῦλος (עֶבֶד), when used in reference to God, meant a worshipper, and when used with reference to men a slave; as the latter sense is out of the question here, δοῦλος must be understood as meaning worshipper, in which case the deity of our Lord would appear to be distinctly implied. ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ: the “twelve tribes” was merely a synonym for the Jewish race (ἔθνος Ἰουδαίων), but there was a real distinction between the Jews of the Dispersion and the Palestinian Jews. The latter were for the most part peasants or artisans, while the former, congregated almost wholly in cities, were practically all traders (cf. Jam 4:13). In each case there was a restricted circle of the learned. The connection of the Diaspora-Jews with Palestine became less and less close, until at last it consisted of little more than the payment of the annual Temple dues; with very many one visit in a lifetime to Jerusalem sufficed, and this was of course entirely discontinued after the Destruction, when the head-quarters of Jewry became centred in the Rabbinical academy of Jabne. From the present point of view, it is very important to bear in mind, above all, two points of difference between Palestinian and Diaspora-Jews, (1) Language, (2) Religion. (1) Among the former, Aramaic had displaced Hebrew; Aramaic was the language of everyday life, as well as of religion (hence the need of the Methurgeman to translate the Hebrew Scriptures in the Synagogues); among the latter Greek was spoken. It is not necessary to insist upon the obvious fact that this difference of language brought with it a corresponding difference of mental atmosphere; the Jew remained a Jew, but his way of thinking became modified. (2) Their contact with other peoples brought to the Diaspora-Jews a larger outlook upon the world; at the same time, they could not fail to see the immeasurable superiority of their faith over the heathen cults practised by others. This resulted on their laying greater stress on the essentials of their faith; the ethical side of their religion received greater emphasis, the spirituality of belief became more realised, and it therefore followed of necessity that universalistic ideas grew, so that proselytism became, at one time, a great characteristic among the Diaspora-Jews; Judaism contained a message to all peoples, it was felt; and thus the particularistic character of Palestinian Judaism found no place among the Diaspora-Jews. But, at the same time, the Bible of these Jews, which exercised an immense influence upon their thought and literature, was Hebraic in essence though clothed in Greek garb; hence that extraordinarily interesting phenomenon, the Hellenistic Jew. In view of what has been said it is interesting to note that two outstanding characteristics of the Epistle before us are: Hebraic thought and diction expressed in Greek form, and the emphasis laid on ethics rather than on doctrine. The meaning of διασπορά is quite unambiguous, and there is no justification for restricting it to the Eastern Dispersion; it includes the Jews of Italy, Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor and, above all, Egypt, as well as of Asia. For further details see Esther 3:8; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:30; Esther 10:1; Acts 2:9-11; Syb. Orac., iii. 271; Josephus, Antiq. XIV., vii. 12; Contra Ap., i. 22, etc., etc. χαίρειν: Cf. Acts 15:23; Acts 23:26, the only other occurrences of this form of salutation in the N.T. “Historically there is probably no ellipsis even in the epistolary χαίρειν” (Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek (1), p. 180). It is of interest to note that in the Epistle inspired by St. James (Acts 15:23) this form of salutation is used; it would, however, be precarious to draw deductions as to authorship from this, for the use of the infinitive for the imperative is quite common in Hellenistic Greek; as Moulton says: “We have every reason to expect it in the N.T., and its rarity there is the only matter of surprise” (Ibid.). The Peshiṭtâ and Syrlec have the Jewish form, Shalôm.

Jam 1:2. Πᾶσαν χαράν: Cf. Php 2:29, μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς: the rendering in Syrlec, which is rather a paraphrase than a translation, catches the meaning admirably: בכל חדוא הוו חאדין אח̈י, “With all joy be rejoicing my brethren.” ἡγήσασθε: the writer is not to be understood as meaning that these trials are joyful in themselves, but that as a means to beneficial results they are to be rejoiced in; it is the same thought as that contained in Hebrews 12:11 : πᾶσα μὲν παιδεία πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν οὐ f1δοκεῖ χαρᾶς εἶναι ἀλλὰ λύπης, ὕστερον δὲ καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν τοῖς διʼ αὐτῆς γεγυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσιν δικαιοσύνης. ἀδελφοί μου: this term of address was originally Jewish; in Hebrew, אח is used, in the first instance, of those born of the same mother, e.g., Genesis 4:2, etc.; then in a wider sense of a relative, e.g., Genesis 14:12, etc.; and in the still more extended meaning of kinship generally, e.g., of tribal membership, Numbers 16:10; as belonging to the same people, e.g., Exodus 2:11; Leviticus 19:7, and even of a stranger (גֵּר) sojourning among the people, Leviticus 19:34; it is also used of those who have made a covenant together, Amos 1:9; and, generally, of friends, 2 Samuel 1:26, etc.; in its widest sense it was taken over by the Christian communities, whose members were both friends and bound by the same covenant (cf. the origin of the Hebrew word for “covenant,” בּרית, from the Assryo-Babylonian Biritu which means “a fetter”). This mode of address occurs frequently in this Epistle, sometimes the simple ἀδελφοί without μου (Jam 4:11, Jam 5:7; Jam 5:9-10), sometimes with the addition of ἀγαπητοί (Jam 1:16; Jam 1:19, Jam 2:5). πειρασμοῖς: in Jam 1:12 ff. πειρασμός obviously means allurement to wrong-doing, and this would appear to be the most natural meaning here on account of the way in which temptation is analysed, though the sense of external trials, in the shape of calamity, would of course not be excluded; “it may be that the effect of external conditions upon character should be included in the term” (Parry). It is true that the exhortation to look upon temptations with joy is scarcely compatible with the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation” (Matthew 6:13; Luke 11:4) or with the words, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation” (Matthew 26:41; Luke 22:40; see too Mark 14:38; Luke 22:46; Revelation 3:10); but, as is evident from a number of indications in this Epistle, the writer’s Judaism is stronger than his Christianity, and owing to the Jewish doctrines of free-will and works, a Jew would regard temptation in a less serious light than a Christian (see Introduction § iv.). Most pointedly does Parry remark: “There is a true joy for the warrior when he meets face to face the foe whom he has been directed to subjugate, in a warfare that trains hand and eye and steels the nerve and tempers the will …”; this is precisely the Jewish standpoint; while the Christian, realising his sinfulness and inherent weakness, and grounded in a spirit of humility, reiterates the words which he has been taught in the Lord’s Prayer. This passage is one of the many in the Epistle which makes it so difficult to believe that it can all have been written by St. James.—περιπέσητε: the connection in which this word stands in the few passages of the N.T. which contain it supports the idea that in πειρασμοῖς external trials are included (Luke 10:30; Acts 27:41).—ποικίλοις: Cf. 1 Peter 1:6., ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς, Pesh. adds πολλοῖς, cf. 3Ma 2:6, ποικίλαις καὶ πολλαῖς δοκιμάσας τιμωρίαις

Jam 1:3. γινώσκοντες: “recognising”; this seems to be the force of the word γιγνώσκω in Hellenistic Greek (see Lightfoot, Ep. to the Galatians, p. 171); if so, it comes very appositely after ἡγήσασθε.—τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως: according to instances of the use of the word δοκίμιον given by Deissmann (Neue Bibelstudien, pp. 187 ff.) it means “pure” or “genuine”; it is the neuter of the adjective used as a substantive, followed by a genitive; the phrase would thus mean: “That which is genuine in your faith worketh …”; this meaning of δοκίμιον makes 1 Peter 1:7 clearer and more significant; cf. Proverbs 27:21 (Sept.); Sir 2:1 ff. On πίστις see Jam 1:6.—κατεργάζεται: emphatic form of ἐργάζεται, “accomplishes”.—ὑπομονήν: the word here means “the frame of mind which endures,” as distinct from the act of enduring which is the meaning of the word in 2 Corinthians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 6:4. Philo calls ὑπομονή the queen of virtues (see Mayor, in loc.), it is one which has probably been nowhere more fully exemplified than in the history of the Jewish race.

Jam 1:4. ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω: “But let endurance have its perfect result”; the possibility of losing heart is contemplated, which would result in something being lacking; the words recall what is said in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joshua 2:7. “For endurance (μακροθυμία) is a mighty charm, and patience (ὑπομονή) giveth many good things”. Cf. Romans 5:3.—ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι: Cf. Matthew 5:48; Matthew 19:21; see Lightfoot’s note on the meaning of this word in Php 3:15, “the τέλειοι are in fact the same with πνευματικοί” (Ep. to the Philippians, p. 153). That in the passage before us it does not mean perfect in the literal sense is clear from the words which occur in Jam 3:2 (assuming that the same writer wrote both passages), πολλὰ πταίομεν ἄπαντες. “The word τέλειος is often used by later writers of the baptised” (Mayor).—ὁλόκληροι: Cf. Wis 15:3; in its root-meaning ὁλόκληρος implies the “entire lot or destiny,” so that the underlying idea regarding a man who is ὁλόκληρος means one who fulfils his lot; here it would mean ‘those who fully attain to their high calling’.—ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι: this is merely explanatory of ὁλόκληροι.

Jam 1:5. There is no thought-connection between this verse and what has preceded, it is only by supplying something artificially that any connection can be made to exist, and for this there is no warrant in the text as it stands (see Introduction III.). In Jam 1:4 ὑπομονή has as its full result the making perfect of men, so that they are lacking in nothing; when, therefore, the next verse goes on to contemplate a lacking of wisdom, there is clearly the commencement of a new subject, not a continuation of the same one. The occurrence of λειπόμενοι and λείπεται, which is regarded by some as a proof of connection between the two verses, denotes nothing in view of the fact that the subject-matter is so different; moreover, there is a distinct difference in the sense in which this word is used in these two verses; coming behindhand in what one ought to attain to is quite different from not being in possession of the great gift of wisdom; this difference is well brought out by the Vulgate rendering: “… in nullo deficientes. Si quis autem vestrum indiget sapientia …”—εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας Cf. Jam 3:13-17; the position assigned to Wisdom by the Jews, and especially by Hellenistic Jews, was so exalted that a short consideration of the subject seems called for, the more so by reason of the prominence it assumes in this Epistle. It is probable that the more advanced ideas of Wisdom came originally from Babylon; for, according to the Babylonian cosmology, Wisdom existed in primeval ages before the creation of the world; it dwelt with Ea, the god of Wisdom, in the depths of the sea (cf. Proverbs 8:22-30); Ea the creator was therefore guided by Wisdom in his creative work (see Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, pp. 29, 80); in Biblical literature Wisdom became the all-discerning intelligence of God in His work of Creation; as it was needed by God Himself, how much more by men! Hence the constant insistence on its need which is so characteristic of the book of Proverbs. This laid the foundation for the extensive Ḥokmah (or Wisdom) literature of the Hellenistic Jews, which exercised also a great influence upon the Jews of later times. Under the influence of Greek philosophy Wisdom became not only a divine agency, but also assumed a personal character (Wis 7:22-30). According to the Jerusalem Targum to Gen. i. 1 Wisdom was the principle whereby God created the world. Generally speaking, in the later Jewish literature Wisdom refers to worldly knowledge as distinct from religious knowledge which is all comprised under the term Torah (“Law”); and therefore Wisdom, unlike the Torah, was not regarded as the exclusive possession of the Jews, though these had it in more abundant measure, e.g., it is said in Kiddushin, 49 b: “Ten measures of wisdom came down from heaven, and nine of them tell to the lot of the Holy Land”. On the other hand, Wisdom and the Torah are often identified.—αἰτείτω: for the prayer for Wisdom, cf. Proverbs 2:3 f.; Wis 7:7; Wis 9:4; Sir 1:10; Sir 51:13; in the Epistle of Barnabas xxi. 5, it says: ὁ Θεὸς δῴη ὑμῖν σοφίαν … ὑπομονήν—παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς: there is an interesting parallel to this thought in the opening treatise of the Talmud, Berachoth, 58 b: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Who hast imparted of Thy wisdom to flesh and blood”; the point of the words “flesh and blood” is that the reference is to Gentiles as well as Jews, corresponding thus to the πᾶσιν in the words before us. The force of ἁπλῶς lies in its sense of “singleness of aim,” the aim being the imparting of benefit without requiring anything in return; the thought is the same as that which underlies Isaiah 55:1, Ho, every one that thirsteth … come, buy wine and milk without money and without price, i.e., it is to be had for the asking.—μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος: the addition of this is very striking; it is intended to encourage boldness in making petition to God; many might be deterred, owing to a sense of unworthiness, from approaching God, fearing lest He should resent presumption. The three words which express the method of Divine giving—πᾶσιν, ἁπλῶς, μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος—must take away all scruple and fear; cf. Hebrews 4:16, Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace.…—καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ: Cf. Matthew 7:7.

Jam 1:6. ἐν πίστει: πίστις, as used in this Epistle, refers to the state of mind in which a man not only believes in the existence of God, but in which His ethical character is apprehended and the evidence of His good-will towards man is acknowledged; it is a belief in the beneficent activity, as well as in the personality, of God; it includes reliance on God and the expectation that what is asked for will be granted by Him. The word here does not connote faith in the sense of a body of doctrine. This idea of faith is not specifically Christian; it was, and is, precisely that of the Jews; with these אמונה (Emûnah) is just that perfect trust in God which is expressed in what is called the “Creed of Maimonides,” or the “Thirteen principles of faith”; it is there said: “I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is the Author and Guide of everything that has been created, and that He alone has made, does make, and will make all things”. In Talmudical literature, which, in this as in so much else, embodies much ancient material, the Rabbis constantly insist on the need of faith as being that which is “perfect trust in God”; the měchûsarê ’amanah, i.e., “those who are lacking in faith,” (cf. Matthew 6:30, ὀλιγόπιστοι = קטני אמונה) are held up to rebuke; it is said in Sotah, ix. 12 that the disappearance of “men of faith” will bring about the downfall of the world. Faith therefore, in the sense in which it is used in this Epistle, was the characteristic mark of the Jew as well as of the Christian. In reference to αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστε: Knowling draws attention to Hermas, Mand., ix. 6, 7; Sim., Jam 1:4; Jam 1:3.—μηδὲν διακρινόμενος: διακρίνεσθαι means to be in a critical state of mind, which is obviously the antithesis to that of him who has faith; it excludes faith ipso facto; Cf. Matthew 21:21, If ye have faith and doubt not (μὴ διακριθῆτε) …; Aphraates quotes as a saying of our Lord’s: “Doubt not, that ye sink not into the world, as Simon, when he doubted, began to sink into the sea”.—ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης: a very vivid picture; the instability of a billow, changing from moment to moment, is a wonderfully apt symbol of a mind that cannot fix itself in belief. ἔοικεν occurs only here and in Jam 1:23 in the N.T., κλύδων only elsewhere in Luke 8:24.—ἀνεμιζομένῳ: a number of verbs are used in this Epistle ending in -ιζω, viz., ὀνειδίζω, ῥιπίζω, παραλογίζομαι, φλογίζω, ἐγγίζω, καθαρίζω, ἀγνίζω, ἀφανίζω, θησαυρίζω, θερίζω, στηρίζω, μακαρίζω; the word before us is one of the sixteen used in the Epistle which do not occur elsewhere in the N.T., nor in the Septuagint.—ῥιπιζομένῳ: from ῥιπίς a “fan”; it occurs here only in the N.T., but cf. Daniel 2:35 (Septuagint), καὶ ἐρρίπισεν αὐτὰ ὁ ἄνεμος; the word is not used in Theodotion’s version. With the verse before us cf. Ephesians 4:14.… κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας.

Jam 1:7. μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω, etc.: γὰρ almost in the sense of διὰ τοῦτο. The verb occurs very rarely, see John 21:25; Php 1:17. There is a ring of contempt in the passage at the idea of a man with halting faith expecting his prayer to be answered. ἄνθρωπος is used here in reference to men in general; ἀνήρ in the next verse is more specific; in this Epistle ἀνήρ occurs usually with some qualifying word.—τοῦ Κυρίου: obviously in reference to God the Father on account of the τοῦ διδ. Θεοῦ above.