圣经注释书

CHAPTER 4

Jam 4:1. Before μάχαι, πόθεν is to be repeated, after A B C א, etc. (Lachm. Tisch.).

Jam 4:2. After καὶ πολεμεῖτε, οὐκ ἔχετε is to be read, according to almost all testimonies (A B G K, etc.); only a few min. insert δέ (the reading of Rec.); several others (C א, etc.) read καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε; recommended by Griesbach, guaranteed by Reiche; the insertion of the particle is explained from endeavouring more closely to connect the following with what goes before.

Jam 4:4. Instead, of the Rec. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες, after G K, etc., A B, several vss. Bede have only μοιχαλίδες (Lachm. Tisch.); א, pr. read only μοιχαλίδες, but corrected μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλ. Theile, Lange, Brückner (also Reiche) correctly consider the simple feminine as the original reading; otherwise de Wette, Bouman, and others.

Tisch. 7 remarks: loco identidem considerato non possum quin teneam etiamnum lectionem jam in ed. anni 1841 a me defensam; see on this the exposition. א has a τούτου after κόσμου, and instead of the genitive τοῦ Θεοῦ the dative τῷ Θεῷ.

Jam 4:5. On the pointing of this verse, see exposition.

Instead of the Rec. κατῴκησεν, after G K, all min. vss. Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede (Tisch.), Lachm. has, after A B א, etc., adopted κατῴκισεν.

Jam 4:7. A B א, very many min. etc., have, after ἀντίστητε, the particle δέ (Lachm.), which is wanting in G K, many min. etc. (Rec. Tisch.); probably the δέ was omitted to give to the sentence an independent form; so also Lange; Bouman otherwise: δέ fulciendae orationis caussa inculcatum est.

Jam 4:10. The article τοῦ is to be omitted before κυρίου, according to the testimony of A B K א, etc.

Jam 4:11. Instead of καὶ κρίνων, Rec. after G K (Reiche, Bouman), etc., is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read ἢ κρίνων, according to the testimony of A B, several min. vss. etc.

Jam 4:12. After A B א, many min., almost all vss., the words καὶ κρίτης are, with Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. etc., to be added to ὁ νομοθέτης; they are wanting in the Rec. (after G K, etc.); so also, according to the testimony of almost all authorities, the particle δέ is to be added after σύ.

Instead of the Rec. ὃς κρίνεις, after G K, etc. (Bouman), ὁ κρίνων is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read, after A B א, several min.; also recommended by Griesbach; and instead of the Rec. τὸν ἕτερον, likewise with the same editors, τὸν πλησίον is to be read, after A B א, etc.

Jam 4:13. The Elz. ed. reads σήμερον ἢ αὔριον (thus in B א, Lachm.); but A G K, very many min. etc., have the reading adopted by Tisch.: σήμ. καὶ αὔριον, which must be considered genuine, as ἤ appears to be a correction for the sake of simplification.

The Rec. (ed. Steph.) has the conjunctives πορευσώμεθα, ποιήσωμεν, ἐμπορευσώμεθα, κερδήσωμεν, after G K, several min. etc. In A the two first verbs are in the conjunctive; in א only the first verb, the others in the indicative; B, very many min. Vulg. and other vss. have only the indicative; so Lachm. and Tisch. The conjunctive appears to be a correction.

ἕνα, following ἐνιαυτόν, is omitted by Lachm.; the omission is, however, too slightly attested by B א, Vulg. etc., and, besides, is easily explained as the statement of time here expressed by ἕνα appeared unsuitable.

Jam 4:14. Before τῆς αὔριον Tisch. reads, after G K א, the article τό (Rec.); Lachm., after A, τά; Buttmann, after B, has omitted the article; he has also omitted the words γάρ and ἡ after ποία, according to his statement after B (which Tisch. has not remarked), so that his reading is: οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον ποία ζωὴ ὑμῶν; see exposition.

After ἀτμίς Lachm., according to A, Vulg., has omitted the particle γάρ; it is, however, probably genuine, and only removed from the text as interrupting the sense.

Instead of the Rec. ἐστίν (after G, etc.), which is defended by Reiche and Bouman, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted ἐστε; attested by A B K, very many min.; the change into ἐστίν is easily explained. In א the words ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε are entirely awanting.

The Rec. ἔπειτα δέ is a correction of the more difficult ἔπειτα καί, attested by A B K א, etc.; G has ἔπειτα δὲ καί.

Jam 4:15. Buttmann reads θέλῃ instead of θελήσῃ, against the testimony of all authorities.

The indicative ζήσομεν … ποιήσομεν (Lachm. Tisch., after A B א, etc.) is to be preferred to the Rec. ζήσωμεν … ποιήσωμεν (after G K, etc.), not only according to authorities, but on account of the thought (Wiesinger, Lange). In some mss. and vss. ζήσωμεν … ποιήσομεν is found; this reading is incorrectly defended by Fritzsche (Leipz. Lit. Z., and Winer and Engelhardt’s neues krit. Journ. V. 1826), Theile, Reiche, Bouman, and others; Winer, p. 256 [E. T. 357], prefers to read both times the conjunctive; see exposition.

Jam 4:16. Instead of καυχᾶσθε, א alone has κατακαυχᾶσθε.

Instead of the form ἀλαζονείαις (B** K, Lachm. Tisch. 2, Buttm.), Tisch. 7 has adopted the form ἀλαζονίαις (A B* G).

Jam 4:1. The section beginning with this verse is in close connection with what goes before, pointing to the internal reason of the disorders in the congregations referred to. The sudden transition is to be observed from the sentiment directly before expressed, that righteousness prospers only in peace, to the impressive question: πόθεν πόλεμοι κ.τ.λ.] an answer to which follows in a second question “appealing to the conscience of the readers” (Wiesinger).

πόλεμοι … μάχαι] synonymous terms, only to be distinguished by the first denoting the general condition, and by the second the single phenomena (Wiesinger, Lange, Bouman: πόλεμος = vehementior dimicatio, μάχη = minus aperta concertatio); correctly Laurentius: non loquitur apostolus de bellis et caedibus, sed de mutuis dissidiis, litibus, jurgiis et contentionibus. Several expositors, as Pott, Schulthess, Schneckenburger, arbitrarily limit these πόλεμοι to contentions between teachers; according to de Wette and Wiesinger, contentions concerning meum and tuum are to be understood; but in what follows the object is not stated, but the cause of the contentions and dissensions among the readers.[186]

The repetition of ΠΌΘΕΝ is explained from the liveliness of the emotion with which James speaks.

ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ] among you.

The demonstrative οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν emphatically points to what follows; Bouman: graphica rei significatae est informatio, qua primum intento tanquam digito monstrantur, deinde diserte nominantur ΑἹ ἩΔΟΝΑΊ; Michaelis incorrectly assumes this as a separate question = ΟὐΚ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ, John 18:36. By ἘΚ ΤῶΝ ἩΔΟΝῶΝ ὙΜῶΝ the internal reason of these dissensions is disclosed. ἩΔΟΝΑΊ is here by metonymy = ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑΙ; they are lusts directed to earthly riches; not “a life of sensual indulgence as realized lusts” (Lange).

ΤῶΝ ΣΤΡΑΤΕΥΟΜΈΝΩΝ ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΜΈΛΕΣΙΝ ὙΜῶΝ] The lusts have their seat—as it were their encampment (Wiesinger)—in the members (see on chap. Jam 3:2);[187] they, however, do not rest there, but according to their nature wage war (στρατεύονται). Estius (with whom Bouman agrees) incorrectly explains it: cupiditates, tanquam milites, membris vestris, ut armis utuntur ad opera peccati, by which ἐν is falsely understood. Calovius, Baumgarten, and de Wette, after 1 Peter 2:11 and Romans 7:23, supply κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς or τοῦ νοός; but if James had meant the fight of the lusts against the soul or the’ reason, he would have more plainly expressed it. Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange, and others (Brückner comprehends both) understand it of the strife of the desires against each other; but this is evidently a foreign thought. According to Wiesinger, “the strife arises and is carried on because the ἐπιθυμεῖν has as its opponent an οὐκ ἔχειν … οὐ δύνασθαι ἐπιτυχεῖν, against which it contends.” But it is better to refer the στρατεύεσθαι to everything which hinders the gratification of the desires. As in what follows ἐπιθυμεῖτε refers to αἱ ἡδοναί, and φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε to the idea στρατεύεσθαι, James appears chiefly to have intended the opposing strivings of others against which the ἡδοναί contend. From this internal war arose the πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι.[188]

[186] According to Lange, James has in view all the hostile dissensions of the Jewish people (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Alexandrians, Samaritans) and of the Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc.).

[187] Incorrectly Laurentius: Per membra hic intellige non tantum externa membra, sed et internos animi affectus. Still more strangely Lange explains τὰ μέλη as “the members of individuals and the members of the people.”

[188] Comp. Plato, Phaedr. xv.: καὶ γὰρ πολέμους καὶ στάσεις καὶ μάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο παρέχει ἢ τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἱ τούτου ἐπιθυμίαι; consult also Cicero, de fin. bon. i. 13.

Jam 4:2 describes in a lively manner the origin of these external strifes. The stages are ἐπιθυμεῖτε … φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε … μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε; the second succeeds the first because it is without result, and the third the second for the same reason.

ἐπιθυμεῖτε] here in a bad sense referring to τῶν ἡδονῶν, Jam 4:1. It is evident that the object to be thought on is worldly possessions; James does not mention the object, because he only required to express “the covetous impulse” (de Wette). It is unsatisfactory to think only on the desires of individuals. James rather describes the conduct of the churches to whom he writes; these, discontented with their low position in the world, longed after earthly power to which, as the church of God, they thought they had a claim. This striving made them consider persecution as a reproach; on the contrary, James exhorts them to count it as a joy (chap. Jam 1:2). This also produced among them that respect of persons toward the rich of the world for which James blames them. This was also the source of internal division; the affluent in the church despising the poor instead of imparting to them of their wealth, and only striving after an increase of their riches; whilst the poor grudged the rich their possessions, and accused them of being the children of the world. Thus in these churches occurred the same strife which prevailed among the Jews, and was the source of factions among them.

By καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε] the uselessness of ἐπιθυμεῖν is expressed, and also the motive to φονεύειν καὶ ζηλοῦν is assigned; it is unnecessary here, with Gebser, Hottinger, de Wette, to explain ἔχειν = to receive; it rather means: to have, to possess. The meaning is: from the desire follows not the possession, namely, of what is desired.

φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε] As here the external action is not yet described, but the internal disposition, φονεύειν cannot here be taken in its literal meaning, as Winer (p. 417 [E. T. 589]), Lange, Bouman think. Many expositors, as Carpzov, Pott, Morus, Augusti, Gebser, Schneckenburger, and others explain it adverbially: “even to murder and killing;” but the position of the words contradicts this explanation; if the idea ζηλοῦτε was to be strengthened by φονεύετε, it must be placed first. Other expositors, as Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Hornejus, Laurentius, Benson, Schulthess, Hottinger, and others, solve the difficulty by the conjectural reading φθονεῖτε; but this reading has not the slightest support in authorities. Nothing remains, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, than to explain φονεύειν here, with Estius, Calovius, also de Wette (who, however, wavers), according to 1 John 3:15, of internal hatred,[189] and “to justify this word by the boldness of the expression prevailing in this passage; comp. πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι, στρατεύεσθαι, μοιχοί (more correctly ΜΟΙΧΑΛΊΔΕς),” Wiesinger. It is true that then an anti-climax would seem to occur; but this is only in appearance, as in point of fact ΖΗΛΟῦΝ (hostile zeal already ready to break out in word and action) presupposes internal ΦΟΝΕΎΕΙΝ.[190]

καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν] namely, that for which you hate and envy. What follows on this are πόλεμοι, therefore James closes with μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε, in which likewise the answer to the question πόθεν πόλεμοι, πόθεν μάχαι is contained (Wiesinger). With οὐκ ἔχετε, which does not stand in the same relation to μάχεσθε κ.τ.λ. as καὶ οὐ δύν. ἐπιτυχεῖν does to φον. κ. ζηλ.,[191] James resumes the foregoing ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΤΕ and Οὐ ΔΎΝΑΣΘΕ ἘΠΙΤΥΧΕῖΝ, in order to assign the reason of this “not having,” etc.; the reason is ΔΙᾺ ΤῸ ΜῊ ΑἸΤΕῖΣΘΑΙ ὙΜᾶς, thus the want of prayer.[192] That prayer for earthly things is heard, is not an opinion peculiar to James, but a divine promise; in which only this is to be observed, that the prayer must be no ΚΑΚῶς ΑἸΤΕῖΣΘΑΙ; see the following verse.

[189] Stier in his exposition remarks: “James means hatred, but he speaks of killing and murdering, namely, in a spiritual sense, in order to designate hatred as an attack on one’s neighbour;” his translation: “ye smite” (instead of Luther’s: “ye hate”), is not, however, justified by this.

[190] The explanation of Oecumenius is peculiar, but not to be justified: φονεύειν φησὶ τοὺς τὴν ἑαυτῶν ψυχὴν ἀποκτιννύντας ταῖς τολμηραῖς ταύταις ἐπιχειρήσεσι, διʼ ἃ; καὶ ὁ τρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν αὐτοῖς πόλεμος.

[191] Accordingly, not a comma is to be put after πολεμεῖτε, but a full stop; thus Tischendorf and Lachmann. Stier incorrectly explains it: “it thus remains at the close as at the beginning, Ye have not.”

[192] In this passage the exposition of Lange reaches almost the climax of arbitrariness. He here assumes a fourfold gradation—(1) desiring; (2) murdering and envying; (3) fighting and warring; (4) asking and not receiving; and corresponding to these—(1) not having; (2) not receiving; (3) an increased not having; (4) an increased not receiving. The first stage denotes Judaism full of chiliastic worldly-mindedness up to the time of the N. T.; the second, the attitude of the Jews toward the Christians; the third, the Jewish war; and the fourth, Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Jam 4:3. James apparently again resumes the last expression, whilst he now grants αἰτεῖτε to his readers; but as he designates this their asking as κακῶς αἰτεῖσθαι, he does not consider it as an actual prayer, so that the foregoing declaration is nevertheless true. It is therefore inaccurate to resolve αἰτεῖτε into “or even if you ask.”[193]

On the interchange of middle and active forms, see Winer, p. 229 [E. T. 321]. The middle form naturally suggested itself in Jam 4:2, prayer for others being not the point under consideration; but in the next clause, as James wished to lay stress on the active side—of prayer in antithesis to ΛΑΜΒΆΝΕΙΝ—he used the active form. “Egotistical praying for oneself” (Lange) is incorrectly understood by the middle.

καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε] emphasizes the uselessness of their asking, the reason of which is assigned by the following: ΔΙΌΤΙ ΚΑΚῶς ΑἸΤΕῖΣΘΕ. ΚΑΚῶς finds its explanation in the following ἽΝΑ; your prayer is therefore evil, because it has no other object than ΔΑΠΑΝᾷΝ ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ἩΔΟΝΑῖς. Incorrectly Gebser: “for your prayer must implore only for true heavenly blessings.” The discourse is here rather of the temporal condition; this, James observes, continues with you a poor and depressed one, because ye ask for a better one only in order to be able to indulge your lusts.

ΔΑΠΑΝᾷΝ] to expend, spend (Mark 5:26); here, in a bad sense, to squander, to lavish. Suidas: λαμπρῶς ζῆν καὶ σπαθᾷν; the object to the transitive verb is “that for which you pray.” ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ἩΔΟΝΑῖς ὙΜῶΝ] not with, but in your lusts. Wahl incorrectly explains δαπανᾷν ἐν = sumtum ponere in aliqua re, i.e. τιθέναι τὰ χρήματα ἔν τινι; this meaning combines ΔΑΠΑΝᾷΝ with ΕἸς. The sense is not “for the gratification of your lusts” (Baumgarten), but governed by your lusts.

[193] Semler very strangely paraphrases it: scio, quosdam vel publieis precibus (et exsecrationibus, iii. 9) eam in rem parcere, mala omnia preeari imperatori et magistratui Romano.

Jam 4:4. μοιχαλίδες] The Rec. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες has not only the most important authorities against it, but is also easily explained, because the term was taken in its literal sense, which is expressly done by Augusti, Jachmann, and Winer. The context, however, proves that the literal meaning is not here to be retained. If the idea is used in a figurative sense, according to the view which prevails in Psalm 73:27 (Isaiah 57:3 ff.; Ezekiel 23:27), Hosea 2:2; Hosea 2:4, and other passages of the O. T. (comp. also Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4; as also 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 2:22), and as the context requires, then every reason for a distinction of sex ceases. Theile, Lange, Brückner have therefore correctly declared for the reading μοιχαλίδες. Theile’s opinion: non minus recte singuli homines scorta dicuntur, quam totum genus atque universa aliqua gens scortum, is so far inappropriate, as the expression μοιχαλίδες used “of individuals in the church of God is certainly singular” (Wieseler); it is here to be referred not to individuals, but to the churches to whom James writes (not “the Jewish factions into which Judaism was sundered,” Lange); so also Brückner. These, according to the conduct described by James, had fallen away from God, and therefore James, full of moral indignation, addresses them with these certainly severe words.

οὐκ οἴδατε, ὅτι] points the readers to their own conduct.

ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου] By κόσμος expositors understand either worldly goods (Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger) or worldly desires (Didymus, Laurentius), or both of these together (de Wette, Stier); and by ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, the inclination of the heart diverted toward worldly things. But it is more correct to take κόσμος in the same sense as in chap. Jam 1:27 (see explanation of that passage), and to understand ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου of reciprocal friendship; yet so that active conduct toward the world here predominates. The Christian who aims at worldly glory conforms himself (contrary to the admonition in Romans 12:2) to the world, attaching himself to its pursuits, and is thus inclined to it with his heart, his endeavour at the same time being to be esteemed and not despised by the world. The explanation of Piscator: amicitia cum impiis, is in essentials correct. The term φιλία (ἅπ. λεγ. in N. T.) does not suit the usual explanation.[194]

ἜΧΘΡΑ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ] expresses as ΦΙΛΊΑ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ a reciprocal relation; yet here also the active reference predominates, on account of which most expositors explain it directly by ἜΧΘΡΑ ΕἸς ΘΕΌΝ (Romans 8:7), although Pott gives also the explanation: ad ejusmodi agendi rationem nos abripit, quae Deo displicet, nosque privat amore divino. Lachmann, following the translation of the Vulgate: inimica, has adopted the reading ἐχθρὰ, by which, however, the peculiar force which consists in the opposition of the two substantives is removed.

From the judgment here expressed concerning the ΦΙΛΊΑ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ, James infers the sentiment that follows: ΟὖΝ, therefore.

ὃς ἂν οὖν βουληθῇ κ.τ.λ.] By the usual explanation of ΦΙΛΊΑ Τ. ΚΌΣΜΟΝ, and of the corresponding ΦΊΛΟς ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ, ΒΟΥΛΗΘῇ is at all events disconcerting. Whilst some expositors urge that by it designed and conscious intention is designated (Baumgarten), and others oppose it to the actual deed,[195] and find the idea expressed that even the simple inclination to the love of the world (de Wette: “whosoever has perchance willed to love the world”) effects ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ,[196] Schneckenburger, on the contrary, says: verbi ΒΟΥΛΗΘῇ cave premas vim. With each of these explanations the expression retains something strange, which also is not removed by distinguishing, with Lange, the “formal” and the “material intention,” and understanding ΒΟΥΛΗΘῇ only of the latter. But it is different as soon as ΚΌΣΜΟς is considered not as an aggregate of things but of persons, since then ΦΙΛΊΑ, as above remarked, consists in a reciprocity. The meaning is: Whosoever, although a Christian, giving himself up to the pursuits of the world, will live in friendship with it, and thus will be not despised but esteemed and loved by it, has directed to it his wish (βουληθῇ)[197]—he (thereby) is constituted an enemy of God; ἐχθρὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ] is likewise used in the sense of reciprocal relation, although here the passive meaning predominates.

ΚΑΘΊΣΤΑΤΑΙ] has here the same meaning as in chap. Jam 3:6 (so also Lange); it is generally rendered incorrectly = ἘΣΤΙ; inaccurately by Theile = fit, sistitur; by Schneckenburger = stands there as; by Bouman = constituitur divino in judicio.

[194] According to Lange, the friendship with the world consisted “in the chiliastic desire of the enjoyment of a worldly glory which was only coloured with hierarchical piety.”

[195] Laurentius states this opposition in the most definite terms: non si tantum est inimicus Dei, qui est ipso opere amicus mundi, sed etiam ille, qui cum non possit, vult tamen … et sic voluntate implet, quod ipso opere non potest.

[196] Similarly also Wiesinger: “James brings under the same judgment not only the decided and expressed love to the world, but even the inclination to step into such a relation to the world.”

[197] In essentials Estius correctly says: Terribilis valde sententia adversus cos qui suas actiones et studia componunt ad gratiam humanam. Hoc enim vere est esse amicum hujus seculi.

Jam 4:5-6. The views of expositors differ widely in the interpretation of these verses. At first sight the words following λέγει appear to be a quotation from the O. T. which James has in view. That of the older and some of the more recent expositors assume this to be the case, although they differ from each other, some combining πρὸς φθόνον directly with λέγει, but others including it in the quotation Against this explanation, however, is the circumstance that the words supposed to be here quoted nowhere occur in the O. T. Such a passage has accordingly been sought for, where a similar thought is expressed, but almost every expositor has fixed upon a different passage. Many expositors seek to remove the difficulty by supposing that James does not here quote any single definite passage, but only a sentiment contained in the O. T. generally, or in several of its expressions. Opposed to this idea, however, is, first, the uncertainty whether James will confirm by it the statement contained in what precedes or in what follows; and secondly, the formula of quotation pointing to a definite passage, particularly as λέγει is not = λαλεῖ. But, moreover, the clause μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν is against the view here indicated, since these words cannot be reckoned as part of the quotation, because James only afterwards quotes the O. T. passage from which they are derived; but, also, they cannot be considered as a statement of James not belonging to the quotation, because δέ closely connects them to what directly precedes.

REMARK.

The various O. T. passages which have been conjectured are as follows:

Genesis 4:7 (Rauch); Genesis 6:3; Genesis 6:5 (Grotius); Genesis 8:21 (Beza, Ernest Schmid); Numbers 11:29 (Witsius); Psalm 37:1; Psalm 73:3 (Lange); Psalm 119:20 ff. (Clericus); Proverbs 21:10 (Michaelis); Song of Solomon 8:6 (Coccejus); from the Apocrypha Wis 6:12 (Wetstein), and others. Benson supposes that James has in view the N. T. passage, Matthew 6:24; Stäudlin, that he has in view that passage and also Galatians 5:17; Storr, the latter passage only; and Bengel, 1 Peter 2:1 ff. Semler thinks that the passage is here cited from the “Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs;” and Gabler, that the words are borrowed from a lost prophetical book. In recent times, Engelhardt (Remarks on Jam 4:5-6, in the Ztschr. f. d. Luth. Theol., by Delitzsch and Guericke, 1869, Part II.) has expressed the opinion that Isaiah 63:8-11, Psalm 132:12-13, and Hosea 1:2; Hosea 1:1-5, form the groundwork of these words of James. Wolf, Heinsius, and Zachariae refer the words to the thoughts contained in what follows; Theile, de Wette, Brückner (also first edition of this commentary), to the thoughts contained in what precedes—that the friendship of the world is enmity with God.

If the words πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ κ.τ.λ. do not form the quotation belonging to ἡ γραφὴ λέγει, it is to be assumed that James here already had in view the scripture adduced after διὸ λέγει in Jam 4:6, but that he did not yet state it, because the sentiment expressed in those words obtruded itself upon him in confirmation of οὐ κενῶς (Wiesinger). πρὸς φθόνον cannot, as Gebser and others suppose, be united with λέγει; for if one takes it to be equivalent to de invidia or contra invidia, there is this against it, that in what goes before there is no mention of envy; or if it is taken adverbially, then it appears as an appendage dragging after οὐ κενῶς, which would be added the more unsuitably, because, as de Wette correctly remarks, it cannot be perceived what meaning can be attached to the assurance that the scripture does not speak enviously. Most expositors rightly refer it to ἐπιποθεῖ, which, without the addition, would be too bare; it is added to this idea as an adverbial and more exact statement = in an envious, jealous manner, for the sake of strengthening it. It is linguistically incorrect to explain πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν = ἐπιθυμεῖν κατὰ φθόνον, Galatians 5:17 (thus Luther: “the spirit lusteth against envy;” Bengel, Stier; also Lange: “the spirit longeth over against and in opposition to envy”), since πρός, although it may be used in a hostile relation (Luke 23:12; Acts 6:1), yet does not in itself express a hostile reference. The explanation of many ancient and some recent expositors (Bede, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hottinger, Gabler, Bouman, and others), taking πρὸς φθόνον = ad invidiam, is also unsuitable; for, on the one hand, ἐπιποθεῖν is not = proclivem esse, and, on the other hand, it is contradicted by the connection in which there is not the slightest allusion to envy. With the correct explanation of πρὸς φθόνον, τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν (κατῴκισεν) ἐν ὑμῖν is either subjective, “the Spirit of God,” or objective, “the spirit of man.” In the first case ἐπιποθεῖ has no object. De Wette, Brückner (so also Schneckenburger and some of the other expositors) supply ἡμᾶς as the object. Engelhardt, on the contrary, will supply no object, thinking “the supposed translation of the verb קִנֵּא is conclusive against an object;” but קִנֵּא requires an object no less than ἐπιποθεῖν, as it is, as well as the other, a relative (not an absolute) verb. By this interpretation ἐν ὑμῖν is to be understood of Christians, in whom the Holy Spirit (according to Engelhardt: “by the covenant of baptism”) has taken up His abode. In the second case, the subject is not expressed. Wiesinger supplies ὁ Θεός. There is no difficulty in this completion, the less so as the preceding ἡ γραφή, which, in connection with λέγει, is personified (comp. Galatians 3:8, προιδοῦσα ἡ γραφή), points to God, with whom it is, as it were, identified. This second explanation would deserve the preference before the first, as it is not apparent why James here, instead of simply God, should name the Holy Spirit, whom he has not elsewhere mentioned in his whole Epistle, and because the specification of an object belonging to ἐπιποθεῖ, which is essentially required for the thought, can scarcely be wanting. Certainly, in this second interpretation, ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν added to πνεῦμα is difficult, not so much on account of the formation of the expression, as because this addition appears to be a very unimportant remark. But it is otherwise with the reading κατῴκισεν, as then the relative clause marks “the right of propriety as the ground of explanation of envious love” (Wiesinger). According to this view, the passage is to be explained: Or think you that the scripture says in vain—(rather God) enviously desires the spirit which He has made to dwell in us, but He gives the greater grace—wherefore it says, etc.

It is yet to be remarked that δοκεῖν has the same meaning as in chap. Jam 1:26; κενῶς, that is, without contents, corresponding to the truth; comp. κενοὶ λόγοι, Ephesians 5:6 (Plato, Lach. 196b). The adverbial import of πρὸς φθόνον is justified by the usage of the Greek language; see Pape’s Wörterb.: the word πρός; Winer, p. 378 [E. T. 529]; Buttmann, p. 292 f. [E. T. 340]. The verb ἐπιποθεῖν is also elsewhere in the N. T. construed with the accusative. The idea that God cherishes an “envious and loving longing” (Wiesinger) after the spirit of man, corresponds to the circle of ideas in the O. T., from which also the preceding μοιχαλίδες is to be explained.

REMARK.

The principal objections of Engelhardt—that the two members of the 5th and 6th verses are not in congruity, and that the scripture adduced in Jam 4:6 does not prove the thought expressed in Jam 4:4—are solved by the observation that the friendship of the world, in which man opposes himself to the will of God, is pride, and that those to whom God gives grace are none other than the humble, who disdain to be the arrogant friends of the world. It is erroneous when Engelhardt denies that an emphasis rests on οὐ κενῶς, so that the grammatical construction forbids to make the idea πρὸς φθόνον κ.τ.λ. intervene as a contrast to κενῶς; the asyndeton form is, besides, wholly suitable to James’ mode of expression; moreover, Engelhardt on his part finds himself constrained to supply a transitionary thought before μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν. That James does not quote the scripture intended by him directly after the first λέγει, but defers it because he wished to emphasize that it was not vain and empty, may well surprise us, but it is to be explained from the liveliness peculiar to James. Moreover, in Romans 11:2-4, although not in the same, yet in a similar manner, the passage quoted is separated from the form of quotation: τί λέγει ἡ γραφή, and in such a manner that the formula itself is taken up again by an ἀλλά, referring to the intervening remark, before the intended passage. When Engelhardt thinks that the words in consideration are to be recognised as the quotation, because they are words which do not elsewhere occur in James, apart from this being anything but conclusive, it is, on the contrary, to be observed that πνεῦμα understood of the human spirit already occurs in chap. Jam 2:26, and that the words πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν do not occur in the passages of the O. T. which James, according to Engelhardt’s opinion, had in view.

Jam 4:6. The words μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν are explained from the fact that James already had in his view the passage of the O. T., afterwards quoted, from which these words are taken. The subject is the same as in the former sentence. The comparative does not express the comparison with the blessings which the world gives (Bede: majorem gratiam dat quam amicitia mundi; thus also Tirinus, Gebser, Pott, Winer, Schneckenburger, Kern), or after which those: invidi atque arrogantes, quos reprehendit, Jam 5:2-4 (Bouman), longed for; also it does not indicate “the greater measure of the comforting and satisfying Spirit as related to the longing Spirit” (Lange: “but he gives grace greater than the longing”), but “μείζονα suggests a comparison with a case in which there is no πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθ.” (Wiesinger, so also de Wette); incorrectly Bengel: eo majorem, quo longius recesseris ab invidia.

διό] = therefore, because it is so (de Wette). ἡ γραφή is to be supplied to λέγει. Kern incorrectly takes λέγει impersonally: it is said. The passage is Proverbs 3:34, and is verbally quoted according to the LXX., except that here, as also in 1 Peter 5:5, ὁ Θεός is put instead of κύριος. The ὑ̔περήφανοι are those who, whilst they in striving after high things (τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες, Romans 12:16) will be the friends of the world, are not ready to bear the reproach of Christ. That these are ἐχθροὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the scripture confirms by ἀντιτάσσεται.

Opposed to these are the παπεινοί, that is, the lowly, those who τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι, Romans 12:16, seek not the friendship of the world, but humbly bear the cross of Christ. That these are φίλοι τοῦ Θεοῦ the Scripture confirms by δίδωσιν χάριν.[198] Comp Sir 3:19-20.

[198] The difficulty of the passage has induced some expositors to have recourse to arbitrary emendations; thus Erasmus and Grotius explain the words from διὸ λέγει to χάριν as a gloss from 1 Peter 5:5. Hottinger (with whom Reiche agrees), on the contrary, is inclined to erase the words from μείζονα to λέγει, and to insert a δέ between ὁ and Θεός. Also Lücke, according to Gebser, considered those words a kind of gloss and error librarii to ἡ γραφὴ λέγει and τοῖς ταπ. δίδ. ver. 6, and that the context is to be thus construed: πρὸς φθόνον … ἐν ὑμῖε ἔ δοκεῖτε ὅτε κενῶς ἡ γρ. λέγει: ὁ Θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις κ.τ.λ.

Jam 4:7. From the sentiment expressed in the preceding, James infers (οὖν) several exhortations expressive of the duty of humility.

ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ Θεῷ] The exhortation is addressed to the ὑπερήφανοι: because God ἀντιτάσσεται them, they are to ὑποτάσσειν to God. In Schneckenburger’s explanation: plena obedientia vos Deo committite, ut sitis δοῦλοι Θεοῦ, obedientia is incorrectly emphasized. Calvin’s is better: subjectio ista, quam commendat, humilitatis est; neque enim generaliter hortatnr, ut pareamus Deo, sed requirit submissionem.[199]

ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ] This exhortation is closely joined to the preceding; submission to God means resistance to the devil. This requirement was so much the more appropriate, as the readers wished to be the friends of the κόσμος, whose ἄρχων is the devil.

καὶ φεύξεται ἀφʼ ὑμῶν] comp. Hermas, I. 2, mand. 12 (ed. Hefele, p. 380): δύναται ὁ διάβολος παλαῖσαι, καταπαλαῖσαι δὲ οὐ δύναται. ἐὰν οὖν ἀντίστῃς αὐτῷ, νικηθεὶς φεύξεται ἀπὸ σοῦ κατῃσχυμμένος. Calvin: Quamvis continuos insultus repetat, semper tamen exclusus discedit.

καί after the imperative commencing the apodosis; so also in Matthew 7:7 and frequently. 1 Peter 5:5-9 is to be compared with this passage, where upon the quotation of the same O. T. passage follow exhortations to humility before God, and to resistance to the devil.

[199] On account of its strangeness, we give here Semler’s remarks on this passage: Jacobus, Paulus, Petrus, Judas, uno quasi ore id confirmant, opus esse, ut Romanis et sic Deo se subjiciant (in which Lange finds no fault were it only said: ut Deo et sic Romanis); and afterwards: τῷ διαβόλῳ, qui per πνεῦμα φθόνου vos suscitat adversus magistratum Romanum; similar also, of course, Lange.