Lange Commentary - James 1:1 - 1:11

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - James 1:1 - 1:11


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES

___________

I. INTRODUCTION

THE SALUTATION OF THE SERVANT OF GOD AND OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST TO THE TWELVE TRIBES IN THE DISPERSION. REFERENCE TO THE VARIEGATED TEMPTATIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE EXPOSED, AND TO THE JOYFUL DESIGN OF THE SAME: THEIR CONSUMMATION

Jam_1:1-11

1James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. 2My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into 3divers temptations. Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting 5nothing. If any of you lack Wisdom , 12 let him ask of God that giveth to all menliberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering: for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the 7wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of 8the Lord. A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways Let the brother of low 9degree rejoice in that he is exalted. But the rich, in that he is made low: because10 as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun is no sooner risen 11with a burning heat but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. Introduction. Analysis. The address and salutation; Jam_1:1.—Reference to temptation as a proof of endurance tending to joy: Jam_1:2-4.—The means of endurance, wisdom; hence deficiency in wisdom to be met by the prayer of undoubting faith; Jam_1:5-6.—Caution against instability; Jam_1:6-7.—Particular advice to the lowly and to the rich (in their own opinion); Jam_1:8-10.—The fate of the rich; Jam_1:11.

Jam_1:1. Address and Salutation. James, (on James, see Introduction above) servant of God, applied in the widest sense to Christians in general (1Pe_2:16; Eph_6:6), denotes in the narrower sense, in the official use of the word, apostolical men (Php_1:1); but here the word in its fullest weight signifies not only the head of the church at Jerusalem, but also the Apostle whose special work lay among the Jewish Christian and the Jewish Dispersion (of which Jerusalem was the centre). Rom_1:1; Tit_1:1. [Oecumenius: ὑðἑñ ðᾶí äὲ êïóìéêὸí ἀîßùìá ïἱ ôïῦ êõñßïõ ἀðüóôïëïé ôὸ äïῦëïé åἶíáé ÷ñéóôïῦ êáëëùðéæüìåíïé , ôïῦôï ãíþñéóìá ἑáõôῶí âïýëïíôáé ðïéåῖóèáé , êáὶ ëÝãïíôåæ , êáὶ ἐðéóôÝëëïíôåò êáὶ äéäÜóêïíôåò s.—M.].

Of God and of the Lord.Of God not the attribute of Jesus Christ, as some expositors have rendered, but God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ represented as wielding one dominion (cf. Joh_17:3); thereby James also wisely takes together the old Testament and the New. The Apostolical and Christian office is one service; however not service rendered to man but service rendered to God and Jesus Christ with undivided consciousness, obedience and operation. [Oec. èåïῦ ìÝí , ôïῦ ðáôñüò . êõñßïõ äὲ , ôïῦ õἱïῦ .” Bengel: “videri potuisset, si Jesum sæpe appellaret, id ex ambitione facere, cum esset frater Domini. Atque eo minus novit Christum secundum carnem.” It is certainly remarkable that James mentions Christ only here and in Jam_2:1, while in his speeches (Acts 15, 21) he does not name Him at all.—M.]

To the twelve tribes in the dispersion.—That is, in their Christian calling, and in being called to Christ. To Jewish Christians primarily (so Laurentius, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Neander and others), but, secondarily also to the Jews, as far as their adoption of Christianity had not yet been given up (sofern sie noch nicht aufgegeben sind als werdende Christen). See Introduction. As yet all were treated as the theocratico-ideal unity of the people of Israel called to (the reception of) the faith. of course they are distinguished from the Gentile Christians (against Huther; see Wiesinger).

The twelve tribes ( ôὸ äùäåêÜöõëïí Act_26:7) Mat_19:28; Rev_7:4-8, etc. The dispersion, see Deu_30:3; Neh_1:9; Ps. 167:2; Joh_7:35, etc.

Greeting. ÷áßñåéí , the Greek form of salutation ( ÷áßñåéí sc. ëÝãåé 1Ma_10:18; 2Ma_9:19); used also in the Apostolical decree Act_15:23 (to which Huther, following Kern, rightly calls attention). The Hebrew ùָׁìåֹñ Isa_48:22 etc. Cf. the forms of salutation used by the other Apostles; as here, they always correspond with the fundamental ideas of the several Epistles. James desires to preserve to his brethren the true joy and to become instrumental in their securing it. Hence ÷áßñåéí of Jam_5:1 relates to ÷áñÜ Jam_5:2, which we seek to express in the translation, “Salutation of joy (Freudegruss).” [See above in Appar. Crit. Jam_5:1.—M.].

Jam_1:4. Reference to the temptation and its design. All joy. ðᾶóá ÷áñÜ , not as some of the older expositors render “the highest joy,” but all joy, joy throughout ( ὅëùò Carpzov., Huther; entire joy) unless indeed the joy, as an all-sided one, is to correspond with the ðïéêßëïéò ðåéñáóìïῖò [“all sorts of joy,” “all conceivable joy,” Alford; “rem revera omnique ex parte Iætam,” Theile.—M.]. But this òáñÜ is not mere gaudendi materia (Huther): rather, they are to convert the objective substance of joy into subjective riches of joy. ἡãÞóáóèå is therefore emphatic. [The repetition at the beginning of a Verse or sentence, of the last word in the one preceding, called by grammarians duadiplosis is characteristic of the style of James; e.g. ÷áßñåéí , ÷áñÜí Jam_1:1 and following; ὑðïìïíÞí , Jam_1:3; ëåéðüìåíïé , Jam_1:4; äéáêñéíüìåíïò , Jam_1:6; compare also Jam_1:13; Jam_1:19; Jam_1:21-22; Jam_1:26.—M.].

My brethren.—Primarily used to denote community of faith, but here also community of theocratic nationality (see Jam_1:16; Jam_1:19; Jam_2:5; Jam_4:11; Jam_5:7; Jam_5:9; Jam_5:19). [Wordsworth remarks that “this address is very suitable in an Epistle like the present, characterized by the language of stern rebuke; inspired like the reproof of St. Stephen, by the Spirit of Love. James, ‘the Lord’s brother,’ having the Spirit of the Lord, addresses even them as ‘brothers.’ ”—M.].

When ye fall into divers temptations.—These ðåéñáóìïß are the chief motive of the Epistle. And certainly they are not only in a general sense the èëßøåéò which an unbelieving world prepares for believers (Luk_8:13; Mat_13:21 (Huther); nor are they parallel to 1Pe_1:6. Still less are they in essential antithesis to ðåéñÜæåóèáé Jam_5:13 (as Wiesinger thinks), the antithesis is at the most that of objective incitement and its corresponding subjective irritability. It is a very definite, concrete idea, the elements of which may be gathered in part from the circumstances of the time (see Introduction), and in part from the Epistle itself. The Jewish Christians were then tempted, on the one hand by the hatred of the pagans, on the other by the national fanaticism of the Jews (an alternate odium generis humani), and their ever-rising chiliastic desire of rebellion; they were tempted to participate in the antipathy to the pagans and to transfer it to the Gentile-Christians, to sympathize with the visionary Jewish national sentiment and thus to be again surprised by the old legal service. They were tempted to Ebionitism, which was already germinating (James 2), and beyond it to zealotry (James 3), to insurrection, (James 4), and to apostasy (James 5). The temptation came therefore from every side and took the most variegated shapes of alluring and threatening, while their hereditary Judaistic lust presented a counter-impulse (Jam_1:13). Thus the one great ðåéñáóìüò resolved itself into the ðåéñáóìïὶ ðïéêßëïé . Now since the adjective ðïéêßëïò denotes not only the diverse, but primarily the variegated, it probably contains an allusion to the manifold-dazzling glitter of colours in which the Jewish-Christian and Jewish temptations presented themselves and whereby they might even appear in the guise of Divine revelations and prophetical warnings urging them to be zealous for the honour of God. Into the midst of such temptations they had fallen; on all hands they were surrounded by them (on ðåñéðßðéåéí consult the Lexica and Huther), [ ðåñéðßðéåéí to fall into the midst of anything, so as to be wholly surrounded by it. Luk_10:30; Act_27:41. So ὅóôéò ἄí ôïéáýôáéò îõìöïñáῖò ðåñéðÝóῃ Plato, Legg. 9, 877. c; ìåãÜëïéò ἀôõ÷Þìáóéí ὑð Áἰôùëῶí , êáὶ ìåãÜëáéò óõìöïñáῖò ðåñéðåóüíôåò Polyb. p. 402, Jam_1:5; ðáíéêῷ ðåñéðåóüíôåò , Ib. p. 670, l. 6; ëῃóôᾶéò ðåñéÝðåóå Diog. Laert. 4, 50; êáêïῖò , 2Ma_10:4, etc.—M.]. The design of every affliction of believers to turn by proof ( äïêéìÞ ) into spiritual joy (Act_4:23; Rom_5:3, etc.) was consequently in an eminent degree peculiar to this great temptation. But this temptation did doubtless bring many an inconstant Jewish-Christian to ruin before the Jewish war, as did that under Bar Cochba.

Jam_1:3. Since ye know that the proof of your faith worketh endurance.—The Participle ãéíþóêïíôåò explains ἡãÞóáóèå and indicates by way of encouragement the manner how they might turn the heart-grief of the proof into joy (hence neither “and know” (Luther), nor “for you know” Pott). Ôὸ äïêßìéïí (found only here and 1Pe_1:7) may mean the medium of proof (the proper signification of äïêéìåῖïí , which occurs as a different reading of this passage, also as opposed to äüêéìïí ), but also proof ( äïêéìÞ ) as the result of the test. Huther following Oecumenius insists upon the latter sense, Wiesinger with Semler, Theile and others, the former. And rightly so, although in 1Pe_1:7 the word signifies proof; for this äïêßìéïí is designed to effect the endurance consequent upon äïêéìÞ . Wiesinger rightly cites Rom_5:3-4, where èëßøéò effects ὑðïìïíÞ , etc. Huther says that then we ought to have ôïῦôï ôὸ äïêßìéïí . But the temptation and the proof are not purely identical. The tempting element of the proof emanates from the evil one, while the proving element of the proof comes from God. Temptation is proof under the aggravating coöperation of evil incitement to evil. This settles also the objection that temptations may result in failure (of proof); for temptation as a test ever contemplates proof on condition of good behaviour, It explains also, how in the concrete manner of the Scriptures proof may be described as temptation (but with reference to existing difficulties in the proof, Genesis 22), and temptation as proof. On êáôåñãÜæåóèáé , to work, effect, see Rom_5:3 and other passages; ὑðïìïíÞ manifestly denotes here endurance.—Baumgarten, Theile, Wiesinger, Huther: The ìÝíåéí ὑðü standing one’s ground in temptation. Schneckenburger remarks that if ὑðü be emphasized we get the idea of patientia ac tolerantia malorum, if ìÝíåéí , that of constantia, firmitas, perseverantia.

Jam_1:4. But let endurance have a perfect work.—Wiesinger: The emphasis is on ôÝëåéïí . The majority of commentators understand the perfect work as the perfecting of ὑðïìïíÞ itself. So Huther, Wiesinger: the proof of ὑðïìïíÞ (cf. 1Th_1:3). Huther: ὑðïìïíÞ is not only passive but also active. This active ὑðïìïíÞ is not only to persevere unto the end (Luther: Let patience abide firm unto the end: similarly Calvin, Jerome and many others); ὑðïìïíÞ is to be deficient in nothing, neither in joy (Bengel) nor in any essential point; especially, wisdom, confidence, etc.—But James evidently contemplates not only inward demeanour but also and chiefly the outward exhibition of the same, which he deplored to see manifoldly omitted. Hence that interpretation is right, which distinguishes the perfect work, viz., the accomplishing of endurance, as the proof of endurance from endurance itself. So Erasmus, de Wette and others; but these commentators err in limiting this outward proof of endurance to something general, viz.: the exhibition of morality, etc. (see Huther). But James in his Epistle looks at a definite object. The ἔñãïí ôÝëåéïí by which the Jewish Christians were to verify their endurance consisted according to James 2 in the unreserved acknowledgment of their Gentile Christian brethren, and according to James 3, 4, 5 in their open rupture with judaistic faith-pride and fanaticism. Yes, James cherished the hope of gaining the Jewish Christians and along with them even the Jews themselves, to a greater or less extent, for this perfect work of submitting to the practical results of the Christian life. But if the more general sense is preferred, we have the meaning that Christian endurance must evidence itself in the full carrying out of the practical consequences of the Christian faith. An ἔñãïí ôÝëåéïí of the ὑðïìïíÞ in our day would consist in the thorough acknowledgment of Christian humanism and the thorough renunciation of the spirit of sectarianism and fanaticism. ̓ Å÷Ýôù is decidedly emphatic. To this endurance must hold, this it must receive, acquire and this it must have to show. It is therefore at once= êñáôåßôù (Schulthess) and ðáñå÷Ýôù (Pott).

That ye may be perfect and entire; ἵíá decidedly expresses the word [used in the telic sense.—M.], and is explained by Jam_2:22. ÔÝëåéïé and ὁëüêëçñïé are not altogether synonymous (Huther), although the LXX. use both for úָּîִéí . The former expression denotes perfection in the sense of completed development or vitality, the latter perfection in its completed manifestation. [Alford defines ὁëüêëçñïò as “that in which every part is present in its place,” and cites Plato, Tim., p. 44, c. and Corp. Inscrip. 353, 26.—M.]. But it denotes here specifically: If you want to become entire Jews and close the entire Jewish development, you must become entire Christians; but if you want to sustain the character of entire Christians you cannot dispense with the mark of perfect fraternization with the Christians, also with Gentile-Christians, and that of being opposed to the world, and also to the judaistic world. For the ôÝëåéïò is one who has reached his ôÝëïò , the ὁëüêëçñïò one, cui totum est, quod sorte obtigit (Wahl=nulla parte mancus). The Jew was by origin a symbolic êëῆñïò ; as a Christian he was to become a real êëῆñïò and thus ὁëüêëçñïò . The primary reference here is manifestly neither to moral perfection in general (Huther), nor to perfection hereafter, but to the rudimental [German: principiell] perfection of the faith of Christians as Christians; but the expression of James involves also the rule of absolute Christian perfection.

In nothing deficient; ëåßðåóèáé means primarily to stay behind, to be inferior to another, but also to be wanting, deficient in a thing (Jam_1:5). The latter sense is advocated by Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, Huther with reference to Jam_1:5 and 1Co_1:7, the former by Storr, Augusti and others, whose view we consider correct notwithstanding the modified sense of the word in Jam_1:5. For the opposite of having reached the end, or of being ôÝëåéïò is just the having stayed behind. The decay consequent upon quiescence and retrogression, the very characteristics of Ebionitism developed at a later period, and of Nazarite-Christianity, is the primary idea which corresponds with the connection of the. whole Epistle. The Jewish people itself became most emphatically the ëåéðüìåíïé of the world’s history. James with a prophet’s eye foresaw all this growing (werdend) decay. It springs indeed from a guilty deficiency in spiritual things or at least from a deficiency that might have been avoided, a point to which James refers immediately after. The sequel moreover shows that he sees in a perfect outward proof of life the full expression of character.

VJames Jam_1:5-6. Wisdom a condition of endurance; prayer for wisdom in undoubting faith.

But if any of you; åἰ äὲ points hypothetically, and with reference to individuals, to a manifold probable or rather perceptible deficiency in general. Deficiency of wisdom has the form of the Judaistic and Ebionite element.

Deficient in wisdom. Óïößáò without the Article acknowledges in a forbearing manner this lack of wisdom, supposing the deficiency to exist only in part. Oecumenius defines wisdom as ôὸ áἴôéïí ôïῦ ôåëåßïõ ἔñãïõ , Huther as the insight of the problem of life as a whole as well as in its particular phases, which incites us to work. The reference here is not only to the Proverbs of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus the Son of Sirach. The New Testament stadium of theocratical insight was objectively wisdom manifested in person (Mat_11:19), and therefore subjectively the right perception of the signs of the time and the christological fulfilment of the theocracy in the Church as well as in the faith of individuals. The distinct relation of this want of wisdom to the temptations (Calvin) cannot be denied with Huther, although, wisdom, to be sure, must not be identified with endurance. As it is a fundamental condition of the same, so it is also one of the chief modes of its exhibition according to Jam_3:17.

Let him ask from the God.—See Mat_20:20; Act_3:2; 1Jn_5:15. The further definition shows how important it is that real prayer must be free from the admixture of any conception which obscures the holiness and goodness of God. The Judaizer did also pray, but his conception of the Deity was a Jewish God, partial, legal and measuring His blessings according to merit. The position of the words ôïῦ äéäüíôïò èåïῦ (Cod. A. ôïῦ èåïῦ ôïῦ äéäüíôïò ) gives prominence to the idea that God is a giving God (Huther). See Jam_1:17. Wiesinger: “Who is known to give.” The sense is: a giving comprehending every thing that is good, hence no object is indicated. (Gebser and al).

To all.—Huther with Calvin and others supply ôïῖò áἰôïῦóéí ; but God’s giving in the most general sense may not be measured by man’s asking, although He is wont according to the measure of asking and beyond asking to give good gifts and even the Holy Spirit. [Any and every qualification of ðᾶóéí reflects on the graciousness of the Giver.—M.].

Sincerely. ἁðëῶò occurs only here in the New Testament. Huther [and Alford—M.] renders simply and sees in it an exclusive reference to the gift (nothing else is added to it with reference to Wis_16:27), but the reference is not to the quality of the gift, but to the mode of giving; on this account the definition candide, sincere (Kerne, Theile and others), is preferable. Sincere (pure) giving is opposed to calculated giving which according to the view of the law, is at once suspicious and half compulsory. It refers indirectly to the source of benignitas (Bede and al.) and also to the liberality of giving (affluenter, Erasmus and al.) [Wordsworth explains: “who giveth ἁðëῶò , liberally, that is, sinu laxo, expanding the lap of his bounty and pouring forth its contents into your bosom. Cf. 2Co_8:2; 2Co_9:11 and the use of the word ἁðëïῦí , dilatare, by the LXX. in Isa_33:23; and therefore the word ἁðëῶò is rendered affluenter here by the Vulgate, and copiously by the Syriac version.”—M.].

And upbraideth not with it.—Negative explanation of the preceding or of that which is consequent upon God’s sincere giving. Wiesinger also explains ìὴ ὀíåéäßæïíôïò with Luther: “and upbraideth none with it” with reference to Sir. 41:28: ìåôὰ ôὸ äïῦíáé ìὴ ïíåßäéæå ; Sir_20:15; Sir_18:17 (see Huther’s note from Cicero). Huther disputes this exposition; Semler and al. interpret ὀíåéäßæåéí : qualemcunque reprehensionem. But then James would utter an untenable sentiment, because God notwithstanding those who ask, in various ways covers men with confusion. The expression also would be too brief in that sense; it is only intelligible if we take it with what goes before as one idea. But the exposition “to put those who ask to shame with a refusal” (Morus, Augusti and al.), is certainly unfounded; although it is less far-fetched than that of Huther; he who afterwards upbraids with his gifts is equally disposed to be hard beforehand and according to circumstances to send away the asker (without claims). “The side-look on the rich, Jam_1:10; Jam_5:9,” also, which Huther and Wiesinger detect here, cannot be sustained because it has first of all to be determined whom James means by the rich. The conception of a èåïῦ ὀíåéäßæïíôïò would certainly agree with the religious views of said rich and then also indirectly with their behaviour.

And it (wisdom) shall be given to him.—There is not sufficient reason for taking äïèÞóåôáé (with Huther and Wiesinger) impersonally: it will be given to him. See Mat_7:7-11; Luk_11:13; 1Ki_3:9-12.

Jam_1:6. But let him ask in faith.—James having objectively defined real prayer as the worship of the true God of revelation, now also defines it subjectively as prayer in faith. See Jam_5:15; Sir_7:10; Joh_16:23. It certainly follows (according to Wiesinger) from the appended negative definition that ðßóôéò here designates first of all undivided confiding, full and firm heart-trust. Such trust is only possible as a looking up to the God of free grace according to revelation; Huther therefore rejects without reason the exposition of Calvin: “fides est quæ, del promissionibus freta, nos impetrandi, quod petimus, certos reddit,” as one which lacks sufficient intimations; even the still closer definition of some of the older expositors, “ ðßóôéò ̓ Éçóïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ ” would seem to be included implicite. That is, while Wiesinger rightly observes that ðßóôéò both with James and Paul denotes the mind’s moral attitude to God, yet with James this very attitude presupposes a looking up to “the giving God” according to revelation. Hence the ìçäὲí äéáêñéíüìåíïò excludes at once subjective wavering and doubting the certainties of evangelical salvation, because the attempt of fixing the heart outside of the sphere of revelation (in the case of Christians outside of the name of Jesus) would be pure fanaticism. A similar conjoining of “faith and not doubting” also in an objective sense, occurs in Rom_4:20; cf. Rom_14:23; Mat_21:21; Mar_11:24. James’ conception of faith as given here is consequently his full conception of faith; it is only in such an energy of praying and doing that faith is to him vital, but without it dead. Äéáêñßíåóèáé =being at discord with oneself, being divided in oneself, and hence doubting must be still further defined as inward false discriminating, judging and deciding, and in this root it is joined with false discriminating and judging, Jam_2:5. The hard and austere mind on the one hand produces a bard and austere conception of God, and on the other a hard and austere deportment. Huther: “While ðßóôéò is ‘yes,’ and ἀðéóôôßá ‘no,’ äéáêñßíåóèáé is the union of yes and no, yet so that the preponderance lies with ‘no.’ ” That is, where äéáêñßíåóèáé has become habitual, a governing trait of character; this is the force of the Participles. But Huther (after Calvin) also mentions the possibility of doubting alongside of honest, yet weak faith (see Note p. 48).

Caution against wavering. Jam_1:6-7.

Jam_1:6. For he that doubteth is like a wave of the sea.—̓́ Åïéêå occurs only here and Jam_1:24 in the New Testament. Huther sees in the ãÜñ of Jam_1:7 the repetition of the ãÜñ in Jam_1:6. That is, he thinks that James gives only one reason, not two and that the figurative description of him that doubteth Jam_1:6, is only intended to bring out a clearer exhibition of the fickle mental constitution of the doubter. But “this apparently helpless disunion” assumes another form if we take Jam_1:6 not only as a colouring but as a declaration that the doubter falls under foreign, anti-divine influences. The sea, according to the Old Testament, is the figure of the constrained (unfrei) life of nations, floating hither and thither in pathological sympathies (Ps. 46:93; Dan_7:3; Isa_57:20; Rev_13:1). James was doubtless conscious of this theocratic influence at a time, when “the waves of the sea” already began to roar. The symbolical figure of the wind (Eph_4:14; cf. Jam_2:2) however, must be put in the background, because it is only expressed in verbs. But even here we can hardly fail to recognize an allusion to a restless spiritual commotion (Geistesleben) tossing the sea of nations, especially because ἀíåìßæåóèáé is an ἅðáî ëåã ., not found elsewhere (in classical Greek we have ἀíåìïῦóèáé , to be moved by the wind), and ̔ ñéðßæåóèáé also occurs only here in the New Testament. On the different derivations of the word, see Huther, Note 2, p. 48; viz.: from ñéðßò , a bellows or fan, or from ̔ ñéðÞ , rush (of the wind) or storm. The latter derivation seems to lie nearest. These expressions are therefore not altogether synonymous (Huther). Bengel makes the former to denote motion from without and the latter motion from within. But both, the wind and the storm come from without; the inner element is here expressed by the sea-nature of the wave. According to Theile, the former indicates the cause, the latter the effect. But the two denote two different relations of degree: the sea in waves, the sea in billows; the breeze, the storm, the excitement of spirits, the rebellious commotion (vide bellum Jud.). From these considerations it seems to follow that the first ãÜñ has a more limited signification; it pronounces the äéáêñéíüìåíïò incompetent to pray aright, because he is governed by the evil influences of the world. The second ãÜñ , on the other hand, bears in a wider sense upon that man’s faithless relation to God. We cannot indeed conveniently render ãÜñ twice by for and repeat it therefore intensiter by ‘also.’ Calvin makes it=ergo, Huther=namely, that is to say (nämlich), Pott, a particle of transition. The lively figure is charged with prophetico-symbolical matter.

Jam_1:7. Also let not that man think [or as I should prefer to render “Nor let that man think.” Ìὴ ãÜñ as an elliptic phrase denotes absolute denial and an Imper. or Optat. verb is then always supplied; here the context, on any interpretation that may be adopted, involves absolute denial and the nor has intensive force; the meaning is “let not that man by any means think” or “let that man by no means think.”—M.]. The second ãÜñ has particular reference to the doubter’s deficiency of faith in God, which is involved in his worldly dependence. Sure, he seeks to supply that deficiency of faith by superstitious or fanatical delusions, but he deceives himself with these delusions. He must become conscious of the nothingness of these delusions before matters can mend with him. The severe handling of false praying is a very ancient characteristic of exhortations to repentance according to Isa_1:15; Luk_18:11, this passage and the Reformation.

That man, the one who doubts and has fallen into human weakness. [Alford sees in these words a certain slight expression of contempt.—M.].

That he shall receive any thing.—He receives nothing; see Jam_4:3 where another reason is specified why he does not receive any thing. [The reference is to the things for which he prays; there are many things, temporal blessings, which he does receive.—M.].

From the Lord.—The reference is of course to God, as in Jam_1:12; Jam_4:10, etc., but there is a reason for the use of êýñéïò instead of èåüò ; James means Jehovah, the living covenant-God, who has now fully revealed himself in Christ. For details, see Wiesinger. [Alford quotes Hofmann, who remarks that where the Father is not expressly distinguished from the Son by the context, the Godhead in its unity is to be understood by ὁ èåüò ; and the same may be said of ὁ êýñéïò —M.].

Jam_1:8. A two-minded man.—The connection of this sentence with that which precedes it, is variously-explained. The expositions of Pott: “væ homini inconstanti,” and of Baumgarten who wants to join äßøõ÷ïò with ëÞìøåôáé may be passed over. Winer, Wiesinger and Huther [also Wordsworth—M.] take it in apposition with the former verse and as explanatory of the figure Jam_1:6, and render “he, a two-minded man.” But the explanation of a figure and especially of one so thoroughly self-explanatory would not suit the style of our Epistle. Although the necessity of the Article before ἀíÞñ (Schnecken-burger), if the latter exposition is given, is unfounded, the exposition itself runs into a feeble tautology. Hence we agree with Luther and many expositors in taking ἀíὴñ äßøõ÷ïò as the subject and ἀêáôÜóôáôïò as the predicate and the omission of the copula (is) as elevating the sententious weight of the proposition. Huther says that this would make the thought too abrupt. But in the masculine gender it is this formal abruptness which elevates the sentence, while in point of matter the connection is perfect. The doubter is delineated first as to how he stands to the world (a wave), then as to how he stands to God (a visionist, a man of conceits), and lastly as to how he stands to and by himself. And here it is noteworthy that James speaks of man in the masculine gender, probably not only on account of his proverbial character, but because the dangers against which James cautions his readers, are more especially dangers which threaten the Jewish male-world. The äßøõ÷ïò is not the same as the äéáêñéíüìåíïò (so Luther and al.). According to Huther this word “characterizes the inward being of the doubter.” To be sure, the inward being, not however as the ground of doubting (Huther, Kern, Wiesinger), but as the result of doubting. For two-mindedness is forthwith mentioned as the ground in relation to the manner how the doubter proceeds. Two-mindedness indeed lies already germ-like in doubt itself, but it is doubtfulness which develops wavering and irresoluteness, wherein man has, as it were, two souls, the one touched by God, the other occupied by the world. He is false in both directions, false to God and false to the world by his double reservation, just as he is false to himself by the reservation of his egotism over against his piety and vice versa. But this makes him not forthwith a consummate liar and hypocrite; “he has not only, as it were, two souls in conflict with each other” (Huther), but as yet his enthusiasm glows psychically now for God and now for the world in two changing forms of the psychical life. The word äßøõ÷ïò is admirably formed after the analogy of äßãëåóóïò and similar words; it appears to occur nowhere prior to this Epistle (see also Jam_4:8), but besides the analogies just mentioned, it has its type in the Hebrew áְּìֵá åָìֵá (see also Jesus Sir. I, 28), and has been adopted by Clemens Rom. and other church authors (see Huther p. 51). [Alford proposes to make the whole sentence predicate and all to apply to ὁ ἄíèñùðïò ἐêåῖíïò . On the whole, however, we give the preference (with Wiesinger, Huther and Wordsworth) to the certainly most grammatical construction of taking ἀíὴñ äßøõ÷ïò in opposition with Jam_1:6; not as an explanation but as an expansion of the figure in Jam_1:6. This construction is by no means in conflict with the abrupt and predicative style of James, for the transition from the figure of the wave of the sea to the two-minded man is certainly bold, if not abrupt, there is indeed a transition from a physical to a psychical illustration; the word äßøõ÷ïò , itself, used here for the first time in Greek literature, by its novelty would arrest attention and thus in the language of Lange, “elevate the sententious weight of the proposition.”—M.].

An (excited) seditious disturber of peace.—The ordinary rendering ‘unstable’ [E. V.] or inconstant (Luther and al.) does justice neither to the original nor to the connection. For firstly, the expression is already half settled by what precedes it as well as by the words “in all his ways;” for although the latter phrase may bear a good sense, it seems to be used here in a bad sense (Sir. II. 13 ἐðéâáßíåé ἐðὶ äýï ôñßâïõò ). Secondly, the expression, as the representative of ñòַֹø (Isa_54:11, LXX.), is too feeble in point of degree. And although, lastly, it may passively denote one driven about by the storm as well as actively a storming seditionary, Jam_3:16 ( ἀêáôáóôáóßá ) recommends here the use of the active signification. The wavering man, indeed, is exciting and seditious because he is ruffled and driven by the storm (of public excitement). The wave of the sea, related passively to the winds, strikes actively against “the rock.”

Particular advice to the lowly [in station—M.] and particular advice to the rich. Jam_1:9-10.

Jam_1:9. But let the brother, who is low, glory in his exaltation. Äὲ indicates a contrast of proper behaviour with what has just been described (Theile), [i.e. with äéøõ÷ßá —M.]. It directs the brother to turn the particular temptations to wavering into instruments of constancy. Commentators are divided with regard to ἀäåëöýò . De Wette and Wiesinger apply the term both to the more remote ðëïýóéïò and to the nearer ôáðåéíüò . Then ôáðåéíüò must not be taken spiritually according to Mat_11:29, but like ðëïýóéïò with regard to outward circumstances, while the exaltation in which the lowly is to glory, would denote his heavenly dignity. But Huther, representing the opposite view, remarks that that exposition conflicts with the connection, which forbids such a distinction of Christians into poor and rich; that the reference is rather to the ðåéñáóìïß ; that a Christian, moreover, as a rich man would hardly have required so urgent a reminder of the transitory nature of things temporal. But three things are here overlooked. 1. That the ðåéñáóìïß affect the rich in a higher degree than they do the poor; 2. That the Apostle, as we have seen in the Introduction, treats both of Jewish Christians (among whom were already rich men) and of Jews. Moreover he addresses, at the very beginning of the Epistle, the twelve tribes as his brethren. 3. The contrast between the poor and the rich had as yet not become prominent, but a contrast of those low in station [E. V. brethren of low degree—M.], and the rich. But that the low in station and the poor are, as brethren, nearer to James than the rich, becomes’ increasingly apparent as the Epistle runs on, especially in James 5. Primarily, the lowly and the rich are described as brothers, for James indicates also to the rich a means of deliverance. There is still a third view, represented by Morus and Theile, which comprises both ideas: those who are outwardly poor and persecuted for righteousness’ sake, Mat_5:19; 1Pe_3:14. Huther contests this union (p. 52), but afterward reaches about the same conclusion. We have first to remember, that the brother of low station is not identical with the poor in James 2. Glancing at the characteristics of that time, we find that it designates the Jewish Christian and the Jew absolutely in their low, oppressed theocratic condition as contrasted with the heathen world and the seculiar power; and still more particularly the theocrat, inasmuch as he deeply feels this condition. He is to glory in the dignity of his heavenly and royally-glorious vocation, i.e., to derive from it consolation and joy and to strengthen himself with it. But the rich, i.e., again the Jew and the Jewish Christian, inasmuch as he sees the hopeless situation of the Jewish people in a very different and brilliant light, inasmuch as he is not only rich in the consciousness of his Jewish prerogatives, but also rich in the chiliastic and visionary expectation of the Messianic or pseudo-Messianic restoration of his Jewish theocracy,—he is exhorted to glory in his humiliation, that is, to become reconciled with Christian or pious humility to all his theocratical humiliation, the full development of which in all its fearful magnitude is as yet impending (Jam_1:11), in order that he may find in this Divine judgment turned into deliverance, the source of rejoicing and exaltation and of real glorying.

And here a general explanation must suffice for our passing on to the general import of the double antithesis: the low–in–station and the rich; the poor and the rich. For we hold the opinion that, after the type of the Old Testament and the Gospels, these expressions are throughout prophetico-symbolical, and that the common literal acceptation of this antithesis has unspeakably flattened the Epistle, weakened its purport and obscured its interpretation. Is it possible to suppose that in the time of James, in all the Jewish Christian congregations among all the twelve tribes the rich were in the habit of slighting the poor and that the unbelieving Jews were everywhere the rich? And that James was so reliably informed on that point, as to feel constrained to call all the twelve tribes to account for it? Such conduct, I should think, could not be generally charged on the Jews proper. The rich among the Jews, as a rule have at all times exhibited much sympathy with and regard for their poor. And this very regard is supposed to have been wanting in such fearful generality in the Apostolic age, at a time where even in Gentile-Christian congregations collections were made for their Jewish Christian brethren! Nor was this the only point on which James felt bound to reprimand, but it is still further supposed that he had to denounce the sexton-rudeness of assigning good seats to the rich and of allowing the poor either to stand or to sit on the bare floor, which rudeness had become prevalent throughout all the twelve tribes! If James, “the good, pious man” had only received a little more credit [for capacity—M.], i.e., the Apostolical spirit united with prophetico–symbolical style, doubtless more would have been found in his Epistle.

The brother must therefore be taken in a general sense, like Jam_1:2. The low (in station) is the Jewish Christian or the Jew who as such (not primarily as a private individual) felt his theocratic humiliation; this intimates, of course, that he was the more humble just as a being pinched in private affairs might also further such consciousness; this is quite analogous to the Old Testament and the Gospels. (Psa_74:21; 1Co_1:27).

Glory.—The stronger rendering for Peter’s (1Pe_1:6) ἀãáëëéᾶóèáé , analogous to Paul’s expression in 2Co_12:9. A real glorying or a rendering prominent by glorying, inasmuch as such glorying is in contrast with egotistic selfglorying; or also the condition of Divine grace and assistance.

In his exaltation; ἐí denotes the object in which they shall glory, as a foundation of their well-being. It is the glory, given now already in the form and inwardly manifest (see 1 Peter 1), the process of its development being diametrically opposite to the rich man’s flower. ̔́ Õøïò is therefore not=steadfast courage (Augusti), or only future exaltation (de Wette), but=sublimitas jam præsens, sed etiam adhuc futura (Theile, Huther).

Jam_1:10. But the rich in his humiliation. Here we must evidently repeat êáõ÷Üóèù . As to the irony contained in this clause (Thomas, Beza and al.), it is not much greater than that in the preceding sentence: let the lowly glory in his exaltation; for 1. such glorying emancipates from vain-glorying, 2. the rich also finds a source of comfort and praise in the full knowledge of his humiliation and its blessed import (see Mat_5:3).

Because as a flower of the grass.—An Old Testament figure applied to man in general, Job_14:2; Psa_103:15, to the ungodly with particular emphasis, Psa_37:2 (Psa_92:8). But here it is not to be explained with reference to the ungodly (so Huther), but as a historical figure with reference to the decay of the Old Testament glory, which in a surprising manner exhibits the realization of the law of the universal decay of human glory, even as foretold by Isa_40:6 etc. to which this passage doubtless has special reference. But in this decay there lay really concealed a consolation (just as in the universal decay of man), at which the thoughtful theocrat might well rejoice. The flower of the Old Testament glory was decaying, but the fruit-time of the Gospel of the New Testament had set in; “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people!” Hottinger has erroneously referred ἄíèïò to Isa_11:1, where the LXX. render ðֵöֶø by ἄíèïò . The words “flower of the field” (Isa_40:6) are changed into “flower of the grass” with reference to Jam_1:7 “the grass withereth and the flower fadeth.” So in the parallel-passage 1Pe_1:23-24.—

The fate of the rich. Jam_1:11.

Jam_1:11. For the sun rose (already).—This again is not only the colouring of the preceding, but considering the reference to Isa_40:6 etc., this passage contains an application to Jewish history perfectly intelligible to an Israelite. What Isaiah had represented as having been done in the Spirit, was now fulfilled in reality; the old theocratic glory of Israel had passed away with the crucifixion of Christ. Hence the Aorists ἀíÝôåéëå . etc., as symbolical expressions, must retain their literal force and neither be construed as used for the Present (Grotius and al.), nor as the mere representation of whatever repeats itself in one past fact (Huther). This historical style serves, of course, the purpose furnishing us with a lively picture in the rapid succession of the separate stages of the process of decay (Winer).

The sun with the burning heat (wind).—Grotius, Pott and al. distinguish ὁ êáýóùí , the hot, burning wind which accompanies the rising sun (or the arid East wind, ÷ָãִéí which coming from the desert of Arabia scorches the plains of Palestine) from the sun itself, referring to Eze_17:10; Eze_19:12; Hos_13:15 etc. Huther, however, applies the expression to the scorching heat of the sun and cites Isa_49:10, Mat_20:12; Luk_12:55. But in Isa_49:10 the heat of the sun is expressly distinguished from the sun, as a higher degree of the ordinary sunshine which oppresses Orientals, and the reference is to the relation of this incumbrance to men, so also in Mat_20:12, while in Luk_12:55 the sun is not mentioned