Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - James 1:19 - 1:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Jam_1:22-27. Epistle for 5th Sunday after Easter)
The clemency which shuns fanaticism and conforms to the clemency of the Father in heaven.
Jam_1:19. Know however, my beloved brethren.—The connection indicated by the reading ὥóôå (see App. Crit.) deduces from the clemency of God the exhortation that the Christian also should exhibit corresponding clemency. But that reading makes this verse dependent on what precedes, as if it were simply an application, which is not correct. On the contrary we have here the beginning of a new leading thought, viz.: the guarding of Christians against the temptation of fanatical zeal by fully yielding to the spirit of meekness and liberty in Christianity. Hence the reading ἴóôå is also preferable on internal grounds. Huther’s observation is correct: “Jam_1:18, connects primarily with the exhortation to hear—and then with the further exhortation in Jam_1:22 to be not only hearers but doers of the word.” “But the hearing here insisted upon must evidence itself as decided, (according to Mat_13:23) as a full and unreserved yielding to the word of truth and consequently as the foundation and not as the contrast of doing. Semler takes ἴóôå as an Indicative; non ignoratis istud carmen Sir. Jam_1:11, but apart from the difference in expression there and here, the indicative sense weakens without reason the energetical tone of the exhortation. Huther remarks that ἴóôå answers to the ìὴ ðëáíᾶóèå Jam_1:16, which view is further confirmed by the use of the same address: ὰäåëöïὶ ìïõ ἀãáðçôïß here and there; of also Jam_2:5. [But it is not necessary to connect the ἴóôå taken indicatively with the exhortation at all: it therefore cannot weaken its energetical tone, on the contrary it strengthens it by its very abruptness. Adopting the indicative sense of ἴóôå I connect it therefore with the preceding, as follows: Ye know it, my beloved brethren, but let every man, etc.; or paraphrasing: Ye know that these things are so, but possessed of this very knowledge let every man, etc. ἴóôå is used in this sense in Eph_5:5; Heb_12:17.—M.].
Also let every man.— êáß (see App. Crit.) indicates that the conduct of man should be in conformity to the conduct of God. It remains to be ascertained in what sense we are to take this sentence. Laurentius and al. make it a general direction; Gebser, Wiesinger and al. give it a distinct reference to “the word of truth;” Huther, Theile and al., say that the general direction had primarily the specific aim of inculcating upon Christians the right conduct also in respect of the word of truth. But all this hardly does full justice to the double antithesis in the words: slow to speak, slow to wrath. The Apostle indicates the point in which Christ and Christian religiousness should evidence itself as humanity, but true humanity also as piety—even the centre of faith and humanity as contrasted with inhuman and impious conduct. Hence the express declaration: ðᾶò ἄíèñùðïò . It is a fundamental law of humanity, which is here described by the antithesis ôá÷ýò and âñáäýò (found in Philo, but in no other place of the New Testament, and expressed by Rückert thus: “thou hast two ears and one mouth.”)—Being swift to hear denotes entire readiness, constancy and thoughtfulness of hearing (Mat_13:23) and shows that such real hearing contains the germ of obedience to the truth, just as real “tasting and seeing” involves the experience “that the Lord is good.” Being slow to speak of course does not exclude all speaking but rash, immature, thoughtless and immoderate talking ( ëáëåῖí ), especially dogmatical speaking Jam_3:1, although the expression is not confined to it (Pott and al.). The Apostle demands cautious, thoughtful speaking, a speaking flowing from an inward calling and therefore a weighty speaking. Being slow to wrath applies in like manner to anger, which is consequently not absolutely disallowed (as Hornejus has truly remarked). Eagerness in speaking by warmth leads one easily to eagerness of passion [Alford: The quick speaker is the quick kindler.—M.]. Huther justly rejects the reference of this wrath to God (Calvin, Bengel, Gebser: “impatience towards God on account of persecution”). For in that case James ought not to have allowed any slowness to wrath. Huther capitally explains this wrath of “carnal zeal aiming at the mastering of our neighbour, the fruit of which is not åἰñÞíç but ἀêáôáóôáóßá Jam_3:16; the caution is directed against Christians, who—as did the Pharisees in respect to the law—instead of using the Gospel for their own sanctification, were abusing it in gratifying their love of condemnation and quarrelsomeness.” Thus our exhortation in its particular direction is addressed not only to the Jewish Christians but to all the twelve tribes, whose ancestors in fanaticism, Simeon and Levi (Genesis 34), disapproved by their father (Gen 34:49), were afterwards mentioned as patterns worthy of imitation (Judith 9).
The wrath of man not a suitable organ of the righteousness of God.
Jam_1:20. For the wrath of man worketh not.—Our verse gives the reason of the preceding one, but contrasts the two modes of conduct, the right one there and the wrong one here. We attach importance to the distinction that in the former verse reference is made to the wrath of man in general and here to the wrath of man sexually. Thomas perceives in the expression an antithesis between the man and the child, Bengel one between man and woman but neither does conform to or satisfy the historical significance of our expression. We agree with Huther that this sentence must not be referred to the state of being righteous before God (Gebser, Grashof), and with Wiesinger that it must not be to the personal doing of men which is well-pleasing to God (so Huther following Luther— äéêáéïóýíç = ôὸ äßêáéïí a meaning of frequent occurrence in both Testaments); but we cannot stop with Wiesinger at the interpretation of Hofmann that “the wrath (zeal) of man is unable to effect in others (i.e., as a zeal of conversion) the righteousness of God, i.e., that “state of being righteous” [Rechtsbeschaffenheit], which God begets by this word of truth. For James evidently has respect to the fanatical delusion of wrath, which imagines to administer and work out in the world the righteousness of God especially with reference to unbelievers by passionate words and deeds, in that it only gives reality to its unamiable ebullitions. Such was specifically the Judaistic delusion, which begot Ebionism and the Jewish war and which also found afterwards its expression in Mohammedanism and even in the Christian crusades, in the ecclesiastical persecutions of heretics and also in several fanatical heretics (Eudo de Stella, Thomas Münzer, etc.). But that the subjects of this delusion at the same time believe that their wrath (zeal) is the true way of converting men, that thus they are doing a work well-pleasing to God and that thus they will become righteous before God are features which, although we cannot set them aside, must remain subordinate to the leading idea of passionate ebullitions in majorem gloriam Dei, i.e., here justitiæ Dei. Our translation would be more strongly expressed by the reading êáôåñãÜæåôáé than by the better authenticated ἐñãÜæåôáé ; but the latter taken in a pregnant sense, does also give the force of the former.
Shunning the temptation to unholy and hypocritical wrath (zeal) by means of true sanctification, negatively and positively.
Jam_1:21. Wherefore removing etc.—James bidding his readers purify themselves from the false zeal for their imaginary Jewish purity sounds like an oxymoron; for it is just their kind of zeal for purity which he characterizes as impurity and their imaginary piety as inhuman maliciousness. But true purifying is to him sanctification, that is, it is on the one hand the result of a negation (putting off impurity, etc.), and on the other, the result of a positive act, viz., the full receiving of the word of truth. However the two acts do not absolutely succeed one another (remove and receive), but with the removing of impurity (take note of the Participle) the real appropriating of the evangelical word of God is to take place. The negative element, however, has here a conditional precedence, repentance before faith (Mar_1:15); hence it is here subordinated by the Participle to the positive element on which it depends (cf. Rom_13:12; Eph_4:22-23). But the Participle must also be noted as enforcing constancy in purifying.— ἀðïèÝìåíïé we cannot translate “putting off,” for the reference is not figuratively to the putting off of filthy garments and to the opposite putting on of clean ones. The antithesis is: to remove, do away with; and to acquire, appropriate (see Eph_4:25 and other passages).
All filthiness (impurity).— ῥõðáñßá (in the New Testament only here) is doubtless a stronger expression than ἀêáèáñóßá (Rom_6:19). It denotes filth in a religious, theocratical sense like the filthy garment Jam_2:2, like ῥýðïò 1Pe_3:21, and ῥõðáñüò and ῥõðáñåýåéí Rev_22:11. To take the word in a general sense of moral uncleanness (Calvin and al.), is inadequate; still less apposite are the specific renderings “avarice” (Storr), “whoring” (Laurentius), “intemperance” (Heisen); but least of all its reduction to an attribute of the following êáêßá (Huther: putting off all uncleanness and abundance of malice; similarly. Theile, Wiesinger and al.). It is sufficiently manifest that James sees in the carnal wrath (zeal) exerted in the interest of piety an antithesis, viz., impurity towards God (on the Atheistical in the heart of fanaticism see Nitzsch System, p. 39), and malice towards man.
All out-flowing (communication of life) of malice.—Huther: ðåñéóóåßá , foreign to classical Greek, denotes in the New Testament “abundance,” really superabundance. The substantive and the corresponding verb ðåñéóóåýåéí signify in the New Testament the overflowing of a fulness of life, on the one hand as a development of life (a passing over into the life which continues to procreate itself Mat_5:20; Rom_15:13, etc.), on the other hand as a communication of life (a passing over upon others, Rom_5:15; Rom_5:17; 2Co_8:2; Jam_5:15, etc.). Here the word is evidently used in the latter sense. This follows also from the proper definition of the term êáêßá , which here is not synonymous with ðïíçñßá (1Co_5:8)=vitiositas (Semler, Theile and al.), but according to the connection as the opposite of ἐí ðñáàôçôé , as Eph_4:31; Col_3:8; Tit_3:3; 1Pe_2:1. A more specific idea, namely the inimical disposition towards one’s neighbour, which we express by “animosity” (Pott)! Huther.—(Wiesinger: ὀñãÞ , Rosenmüller: morositas; Meyer: malice). The overflowing of maliciousness is therefore the malicious, hateful communication which passes from the fanatical wrath (zeal) of the propagandists on those whom they influence, according to Mat_23:15; Rom_2:24 and according to ecclesiastical history, especially the history of the persecution of the Donatists, the Paulicians and the Camisards, etc. The definition of ðåñéóóåßá = ðåñßóóùìá (Bede); outgrowth, efflorescence (Schneckenburger, de Wette);=the remnant surviving from former times (Gebser and al.= ðåñßóóåõìá ), are thus set aside. [Alford joins ῥõðáñßáí with ðåñéóóåßáí , as belonging to the Genitive êáêßáò and remarks that “it seems better for the context, which concerns not the putting away of moral pollution of all kinds, but only of that kind, which belongs to êáêßá . And thus taken it will mean that êáêßá pollutes the soul and renders it unfit to receive the ἔìöõôïò ëüãïò . It is very possible that the agricultural similitude in ἔìöõôïò may have influenced the choice of both these words, ῥõðáñßá and ðåñéóóåßá . The ground must be rid of all that pollutes and chokes it, before the seed can sink in and come to maturity; must be cleaned and cleared. ðåñéóóåßá , if the above figures be allowed, is the rank growth, the abundant crop.”—M.].
Receive (acquire, appropriate) in meekness.—In meekness, in virtue of a meek disposition, and not only with meekness. Meekness stands first in a pregnant sense. In meekness acquire, i.e. a meek demeanour, the opposite of wrathfulness, exhibited towards their brethren of different opinions is not only the condition, the vital element of the reception of the Gospel on the part of the Jews but also of the right appropriation of the same on the part of the Jewish Christians. Although the word denotes not directly the docilis animus (Grotius, similarly Calvin and al.), yet the first condition and proof of the same. The reference, to be sure, is not to meekness as the fruit of the reception of the word (Schneckenburger), although the morally calm and gentle spirit engendered under the influence of Christianity must be manifested in its highest perfection as its fruit. Want of meekness destroys the power of the Gospel (Mat_18:23, etc.); the fourth and the seventeenth centuries prove this in a remarkable manner Receive. äÝîáóèå is emphatic and denotes the right attitude under right hearing with right doing. The rooting and growing of Paul is here strikingly described as a fuller making one’s own [appropriation], because the Jewish-Christians were in great danger of again losing their own (property) and the Jews were on the point of losing their ancient title to it (cf. 1Th_1:6).
The word implanted in [and among] you.—This word is the objective Gospel (Huther: neither “innate or connate reason” [Oecumenius], nor the inner light of the mystics, for äÝ÷åóèáé forbids that) as in Jam_1:18, but in its subjective form of life, as the spiritual and vital principle in believers or as the seed of regeneration (1Pe_1:23). In this form it is implanted in believers but likewise implanted as a principle of conversion in the Jews as a whole; the latter meaning must not be not passed over. Hence the äÝîáóèå is relevant both with reference to the first reception and the further appropriation of it. In consequence of the difficulty arising from the idea of receiving a word already implanted, Calvin made ἔìöõôïò proleptic and explained it “ita suscipite, ut vere inseratur;” and others similarly. But the word received subjectively does not thereby cease to be objective and to be received. [It is doubtful whether Lange’s solution of the difficulty will stand the ordeal of logical analysis. There is no such double sense in ἔìöõôïò . Nor is the more clearly expressed exposition of Alford more satisfactory. He sees in ἔìöõôïò an allusion to the parable of the sower and makes “the ëüãïò ἔìöõôïò =the word which has been sown, the word whose attribute and ἀñåôÞ it is to be ἔìöõôïò , and which is ἔìöõôïò , awaiting your reception of it to spring up and take up your being into it and make you new plants.” His exposition is open to the same objection that something which is already sown in another soil can be implanted in us, if he understands by ëüãïò ἔìöõôïò the word written or preached. Adhering however to the real meaning ἔìöõôïò =innate, ôὸ ἐí öýóåé (Hesych.) we may remove all difficulty. Then the ëüãïò ἔìöõôïò is=the innate Word, that is, the Word which has been born in our nature, i.e. Christ. So Wordsworth who produces much illustrative matter of the use of ἔìöõôïò and thus sums up the whole: While it is true, that Christ by his Incarnation is properly said to be ἔìöõôïò innate, born in us, and to be indeed Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in our flesh, God dwelling forever in the nature of us all; or, if we adopt the other sense of ἔìöõôïò , while it is true, that Christ is indeed grafted in us as our Netzer or Branch (see Mat_2:23), yet will not this avail for our salvation, unless we receive Him by faith. We must be planted in Him and He in us by Baptism (Gal_3:27), we must dwell in Him and He in us, by actual and habitual communion with Him in the Holy Eucharist, we must, abide and bring forth fruit in Him, by fervent love and hearty obedience. Christ, who is the Branch (Zec_6:12), is engrafted on the stock of our nature; but a scion grafted on a tree will not grow unless it is received and take root in the stock; so His Incarnation will profit us nothing, unless we receive Him in our hearts and drink in the sap of His grace and transfuse the life-blood of our wills into Him, and grow and coalesce with Him and bring forth fruit in Him.”—M.].
Which is able to save your souls.—The idea of individual salvation is allied here with that of the national deliverance of the Israelites as in Joh_10:28. Hence stress is here laid not only on the salvation of the soul but also on the salvation of the life and ôὰò øõ÷ὰò ὑìùí is stronger than simply ὑìᾶò . [Alford says: “It is the øõ÷Þ which carries the personality of the man; which is between the ðíåῦìá drawing it upwards and the óÜñî drawing it downwards; and is saved or lost, passes into life or death, according to the choice between these two. And the ëüãïò ἔìöõôïò , working through the ðíåῦìá and by the Divine ðíåῦìá , is a spiritual agency, able to save the øõ÷Þ ”—M.]. It is able (cf. Rom_1:16, äýíáìéò èåïῦ ), but you are unable, incompetent for the carrying out of your judaistic plans of salvation. [Calvin: “Magnificum cœlestis doctrinæ encomium, quod certam ex ea salutem consequimur. Est autem additum, ut sermonem illum instar thesauri incomparabilis et expetere et amare et magnificare discamus. Est ergo acris ad castigandam nostram ignaviam stimulus, sermonem cui solemus tam negligenter aures præbere, salutis nostræ esse causam. Tametsi non in hunc finem servandi vis sermoni adscribitur quasi aut salus in externo vocis sonitu inclusa foret, aut servandi munus Deo ablatum alio transferretur. Nam de sermone tractat Jacobus qui fide in corda hominum penetravit: et tantum indicat, Deum salutis auctorem evangelio suo earn peragere.”—M.].
But you will really appropriate the word by becoming doers of the word and by ceasing to remain hearers only, Jam_1:22-24.
Jam_1:22. But become ye doers of the word.— ãßíåóèå =be ye (Huther against Wiesinger, Theile and al.) who render=became ye. Huther refers to Mat_6:16; Mat_10:16 and other passages. We take it with Wiesinger, of course not in the sense of Semler, as if the word indicated perpetuam successionem horum exercitiorum, but in the sense of a perfect development of their Christian life. This demand on the Jewish Christians and the Jews was the cause of the martyrdom of Simon, the brother of James under the reign of Trajan; it was also the cause of the early martyrdom of James, not long after he wrote this Epistle, and this is just his idea of the deed, the doing and the work, as it here for the first time takes a distinct shape: you must become wholly consistent Christians, if Christianity is to effect your salvation. As the warning against apostasy forms the negative side of his Epistle, so this exhortation to consistency constitutes its positive side. For the word is more clearly defined in Jam_1:18; Jam_1:21 as the Gospel. They must become doers of the same in respect of its organic unity: this cannot be done by isolated acts, but only by one general act of practical life. Cf. Jam_4:11; Rom_2:13. The ðïéçôÞò , who as such is the real ἀêñïáôÞò , is contrasted with the ìüíïí ἀêñïáôÞò . To the theocracy in its practical direction the ἀêñïáôÞò as such is insufficient, while the Greek school understood by ἀêñïáôÞò per se a praiseworthy hearer. Cf. Mat_7:21; Luk_11:28; Joh_13:17.
As those who ensnare themselves.—See James 5:26; Col_2:4; Gal_4:3; 1Jn_1:8; ðáñáëïãßæåóèáé —to reckon beyond the mark, to reason falsely, to use fallacies,—in its practical tendency becomes deceiving, cheating and ensnaring by fallacies. Thus the “hearer only” deceives and ensnares himself. Huther refers ðáñáëïãéæïìÝíïé to ãßíåóèå in opposition to Gebser and Schneckenburger who connect it with ἀêñïáôáé ; but the latter are right, because the imaginary merit of hearing is the fallacy whereby they deceive themselves and thus properly ensnare themselves.
Jam_1:23. For [because] if any is a hearer.—Demonstration of the preceding by means of a simile, which is not, however, a mere figure.
Is like to.—The ïὖôïò emphatically repeated.
A man.—There must be some good reason for the recurrence of the specific man (sexual) and not only of man in general. Huther ought not to have despatched as curious the exposition [of Paes—M. ] “viri obiter tantum solent specula intueri” [muliebri autem est curiose se ad speculum componere.—M.]. The exposition of the word ἀíÞñ is connected with that of êáôáíïåῖí which according to Rosenmüller, Pott and al. is here used in the secondary sense of hasty observation, but is disputed by Wiesinger and Huther. Now it is correct that in Luk_12:24; Luk_12:27; Act_7:31-32; Act_11:6, the word denotes attentive contemplation or consideration. Primarily it signifies simply, to observe, perceive, contemplate, understand, and if the expression is opposed, as is the case here, by the more important contemplation ðáñáêýôåéí , and we have in narrative form the statement, that the man observed himself, went away and forthwith forgot etc., the reference is only to a somewhat imperfect, momentarily-sufficient self-contemplating, such as before the mirror is rather peculiar to man than to woman. It is moreover to be borne in mind that the ideas “to hear the word,” and “to contemplate oneself in a mirror” do not exactly coincide; it is only in the moment of a knowledge of oneself, of an incipient repentance that the word, which per se however is a mirror throughout, becomes efficient as a mirror. The countenance or ðñüóùðïí , although it need not denote the whole figure (so Pott and Sckneckenburger), is not necessarily confined to the face (so Huther); the addition ôῆí ãåíÝóåùò renders the word more expressive. ÔÝíåóéò denotes according to Wiesinger and Huther only the sphere of sensuous perception as distinguished from the ethical sphere, the face, such as a man has by natural birth. That is, James is again made to remind his readers that he only refers to a figure. We consider such an interposed explanation of the figure here also not only superfluous but inappropriate to symbolical diction, for what is the real meaning of ôñï÷ὸò ôῆò ãåíÝóåùò Jam_3:6? According to Wiesinger, to be sure, “the wheel revolving from a man’s birth;” but that would be an unintelligible expression and the exposition of Grotius and al. “cursus naturæ” has more in its favour. For life is also a genesis in a higher degree, and the fluctuating ðñüóùðïí is just the signature of the stages and states through which this genesis runs. This would also enable us to fix the reference of áὐôïῦ here to ãÝíåóéò (Huther), as opposed to its reference to the general idea (Wiesinger). The Jews, as Jewish-Christians, for a while attained self-knowledge, in that they saw [knew, recognized—M.] themselves in the mirror of the Gospel according to their national and individual course of development, and thus they saw also the maculas of this development and appearance, hence the allusion to this circumstance (Wolf) must not be rejected with Huther. In a more general sense, ðñüóùðïí etc., can neither denote the natural corruption of man per se (Pott), nor the ideal form of the new man (Wiesinger). To stop at the figure itself (with Huther) would be tantamount to making the figure unmeaning. But it simply signifies the image of the inner man’s appearance as to his sinful condition modified now this way, now that way by his actual conduct. On the mirrors of the ancients see the respective article in Winer.
Jam_1:24. For he observed himself.—The narrative form represents as in Jam_1:11, an incident quickly accomplished in the rapid succession of the fleeting stages of its brief duration. The åὐèÝùò ἐðåëÜèåôï is the most important point, as Huther remarks, but each separate stage has a meaning of its own. The stage of self-knowledge in the mirror of the word, believing hearing, is followed by speedy departing, the averting of the mind from the objective fulness and depth of the word (not only from what had been heard subjectively, as Huther explains); the departing is attended by the forgetting of the mirror-image, i.e., the loss of self-knowledge conscious of the necessity of salvation which would have impelled the man to the consequence of Christian renovation of life. The loss accruing from such a course, is referred to by James in James 5:26, but especially in James 5. [The Perfect ἀðåëÞëõèåí standing between the Aorists êáôåíüçóåí and ἐðåëÜèåôï is striking and imports that the departing denotes a permanent neglect and disuse of the mirror.—M.].
The real doer of the word according to his marks of distinction: his being absorbed in the contemplation of the free-making word, his constancy, the blessedness.
Jam_1:25. But he who became absorbed.—The pure antithesis of the former figure. Huther: “ ðáñáêýøáò corresponds with êáôåíüçóåí , ðáñáìåßíáò with ἀðåëÞëõèåí , and ïὐê ἀêñïáôὴò ἐðéëçóìïíῆò with ἐðåëÜèåôï .” The Participles have the effect of strengthening the already strong expressions, especially in the Aorist, while taken together they indicate: ãåíüìåíïò , that it is only by constancy that a man becomes a real doer of the word. This passage must not be construed as if James wanted to distinguish the doing of the word as something separate from the looking into and abiding in it. The ðáñáêýøáò and ðáñáìåßíáò , as such, is ðïéçôὴò ἔñãïõ ãåíüìåíïò . This has an important bearing on the right understanding of the passage and is also very—Pauline. Constant looking into the word of salvation by faith is preëminently the doing which is followed by outward proof. This construction therefore must not be altered by resolving ãåíüìåíïò into ãßíåôáé (Pott), or by saying with Wiesinger that right hearing and appropriating leads to doing and (thereby) to the blessedness of doing. Even Huther, who rejects Wiesinger’s exposition, does not strictly adhere to the full energy of the idea, for he says that the doing of the law is the necessary consequence of persevering looking into the same; although prominence must be given to the fact that he characterizes the consequence as necessary.— Ðáñáêýðôåéí to stoop aside, to stoop over a thing in order to examine it closely (Luk_24:12; Joh_20:5; Joh_20:11; 1Pe_1:12); to sink into it, to be absorbed in its contemplation. Schneckenburger thinks: perhaps ad imaginem speculi humi aut mensæ impositi adaptatum. But this is not the most fitting way to look into a mirror. The remaining, persevering in it, Wiesinger explains as appropriating. But it is just the remaining in the yielding oneself to the object by contemplating it, whereby the appropriating of it is effected. [One of the best illustrations of the force of ðáñáêýøáò is given by Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, p. 15, note: “It signifies the incurvation or bending of the body in the act of looking down into; as, for instance, in the endeavour to see the reflected image of a star in the water at the bottom of a well. A more happy and forcible word could not have been chosen to express the nature and ultimate object of reflection and to enforce the necessity of it, in order to discover the living fountain and springhead of the evidence of the Christian faith in the believer himself, and at the same time to point out the seat and region where alone it is to be found. Quantum sumus scimus. That which we find within ourselves, which is more than ourselves, and yet the ground of whatever is good and permanent therein, is the substance and life of all other knowledge.”—M.].
Into the completed law.—We translate completed because of the weighty adjective ôÝëåéïò , which here again makes prominent the N. T. completion of the O. T. (cf. the ôÝëåéïé and the ἔñãïí ôÝëåéïí Jam_5:4, and the ἁìáñôßá ἀðïôåëåóèåῖóá Jam_5:7; the Sermon on the Mount, the ðëçñïῦí Matthew 2, etc.). It is not therefore the lex naturalis (Schulthess), or in general the ëüãïò ἀëçèåßáò , inasmuch as it is the means of regeneration and the norm of the new life (Wiesinger, Huther: the norm of the new life), or on the one hand the O. T. law as simply perfect, or on the other the Gospel in a general sense; but it is the Gospel conceived as that completion of the law which transforms the outward, enslaving law into a new principle of life communicating itself to the inner man and absolutely liberating him. And just as the expressions of Paul: the law of the Spirit (Rom_8:2), the law of faith (Rom_3:27), always contain an oxymoron alluding to the higher unity of the antithesis: law and spirit, etc., so likewise in the expressions of James: the perfect law, the law of liberty, although an imitation of Pauline modes of expression is out of the question (Kern). The law as law made men servants (slaves); in its N. T. completion it makes them free. In the same sense it is also called the íüìïò âáóéëéêüò which is fulfilled by love (Jam_2:8), and again the law of liberty (Jam_1:12). The passages of the Old Testament, which speak of the glory of the law (Deu_33:2-3), or of its sweetness (Psa_19:8), denote the prophetical transition from the Sinaitical standpoint to the Evangelical, which was decidedly foretold by the prophets (Jer_31:33). Those who attribute to James an Ebionite glorification of the law, put him back behind Jeremiah or rather remove him even out of the Old Testament. But James had special reasons for calling the Gospel a law of (liberating) liberty inasmuch as his people were tempted to seek in their O. T. zeal for the law the means of chiliastico-revolutionary liberation (cf. Joh_8:32, etc.). The Gospel is moreover a law of liberty in that it asserts, along with the Christian’s liberty of faith, the liberty of conscience of those of a different mind and in this form also breaks the fetters of fanaticism.
Not a hearer unto forgetting.—Properly a hearer of forgetfulness ( ἐðéëçóìïíῆò , ἄðáî ëåã . in the N. T.), stronger than a forgetful hearer. The antithesis ðïéçôὴò ἔñãïõ brings out the idea that forgetfulness was, as it were, the object of hearing (“in futuram oblivionem”). The expression “doer of the work” (as follows from the construction as stated above) cannot signify here a work-activity separated from, or only clearly distinguished from faith, but it denotes the perseverance of the life of faith, which owing to its oneness of energy leads of its own accord to a consistent exhibition of corresponding outward deeds.
The same shall be blessed.—See the beatitude Jam_5:12.
In his doing,—( ðïßçóéò in the N. T. ἄðáî ëåãüì ., occurs only, besides here, in Sir_19:20), not in his deed. In the ever diligent (efficient) energy which is the soul of his deeds. Schneckenburger: “ut ipsa actio sit beatitudo.”—The striving spiritual life-motion or the doing becomes a, festive spiritual life-motion, perfect joy. This factual becoming blessed lies according to circumstances in confession, and Rom_10:9-10 exhibits a near affinity with this passage. It is noteworthy that Paul also in that passage was particularly referring to Jewish Christians and that James above all things felt anxious that the Jews should confess Christ and that the Jewish Christians should make full and common cause with their Gentile brethren.
False and true religious service or zeal for religion and the glory of God. Jam_1:26-27.
Jam_1:26. If any man fancieth himself.— Äïêåῖí denotes primarily to suppose with reference to appearance and without any higher ground of certainty (Mat_24:44; hence 1Co_7:40, an expression of modesty), hence according to the connection also to imagine erroneously (Mat_6:7) or as here to be spiritually conceited, [ i.e., the man thinks, fancies that he is religious.—M.].
To be a religious man.— Èñῆóêïò is peculiar to James. The sense of the adjective is clear from Act_26:5 and Col_2:18. James has formed the adjective in a masterly manner: one who plumes himself (seeks his being in) on his pretended serving of God. The word certainly implies the exhibition of a presumed åὐóÝâåéá in external acts of religious worship (Huther), not exclusively however in the outward observance of religion, but in the permanent soldier or knight-service for glory of god. so the Jews supposed that they the servants of God among the nations (Rom_2:17), so did the Mohammedans and Crusaders at a later period and so the Jesuits suppose now. But at that time the Jewish Christians, conceited of their God-serving, in various ways separated themselves from intercourse with Gentile Christians and in preparing for the Jewish war, the Jews supposed they were making ready for “the glory of God.” [There is no one word in English which gives the exact meaning of èñῆóêïò and èñçóêåßá . The words religious and religion at one time were used in the sense of outward ceremonial worship. An example from Milton and another from the Homilies may prove serviceable. Some of the heathen idolatries Milton characterizes as being
——“adorned
With gay religions full of pomp and gold.”
Par. Lost. 61.
“Images used for no religion, or superstition rather, we mean of none worshipped, nor in danger to be worshipped of any, may be suffered.” Homily against Peril of Idolatry. See Trench, Synonymns of the N. T., p. 233. A propos of this èñçóêåßá , Coleridge (Aids to Reflection, p. 14) has these beautiful remarks: “The outward service of ancient religion, the rites, ceremonies and ceremonial vestments of the old law, had morality for their substance. They were the letter, of which morality was the spirit: the enigma, of which morality was the meaning. But morality itself is the service and ceremonial ( cultus exterior, èñçóêåßá ) of the Christian religion. The scheme of truth and grace that became ( ἐãÝíåôï ) through Jesus Christ, the faith that looks down into the perfect law of liberty, has light for its garment: its very robe is righteousness.”—M.].
Not bridling his tongue.—Not exempli causa (Rosenmüller); nor must we with the majority of commentators resolve the Participle into “although,” as Huther rightly remarks, adding: “James wants to censure those to whom zeal in talking was a sign of èñçóêåßá .” That is: those who by their fanatical zeal wanted to make good their pretensions of being the true soldiers of God. ×áëéíáãùãåῖí , an expression found only in profane authors’ of the later period has been added by James to the fund of N. T. language (cf. Act_3:2).
But deceiving his heart.—̓ Áðáôᾷí êáñäßáí áὐôïῦ is not exactly synonymous with ðáñáëïãßæåóèáé ἑáõôüí (Huther), but denotes the same act of self-deception in a much higher degree. From the inward self-deceit of the thoughts protrudes false zeal and this has the effect that the zealot completely deceives his heart by false self-excitement [échauffement and bad consequences). The fanatic, by false exaggerations outwardly, at last makes himself inwardly a false and bad character.
His religion (in the sense as defined above, his zeal for the imaginary cause of God) is vain.—The blinding effects of his blinding passion yield no fruit of blessing to himself and others and pass as follies (Quixotisms in a higher style) from history into the judgment.
Jam_1:27. Religion pure and unprofaned.—The two adjectives are not strictly synonymous (Theile, Huther), nor do they simply denote the contrast of the outward and the inward (Wiesinger and al.). The expression “pure” requires the Christian realization of the symbolical, theocratical purity; the sequel shows that it is to exhibit itself in the pious life of merciful love. The expression “unprofaned” (we supply this rendering in order to give more marked force to its literal meaning; the difference between ἀìßáíôïò and ἄóðéëïò also must be brought out in the translation) requires in the same sense real preservation of purity and purifying. The legal Jew became unclean by natural and pagan uncleannesses, the Christian must keep himself clean and cleanse himself from worldly-mindedness and vain worldly doings. Such a Divine service, therefore, denotes here the true life and work for the glory of God.—
Before the God and Father.—This again lays stress on the Christian conception of God, as in Jam_1:5; Jam_1:17 and ðáñὰ ôῷ èåῷ refers not only to the Divine judgment (Huther) but more especially to the attitude of the servant before the face and mouth of the commanding Lord. (Huther rightly observes concerning êáὶ ðáôñß “God in virtue of His love can only consider pure that religious service which is the expression of love.” [Chrysostom in Catena says: ïὐê åἶðåí ἐὰí íçóôåýçôå , ὅìïéïé ἐóôὲ ôῷ ðáôñὶ ὑìῶí , ïὐäὲí ãὰñ ôïýôùí ðáñὰ èåὸí ïὐäὲ ἐñãÜæåôáß ôé ôïýôùí ὁ èåüò ̇ ἀëëᾶ ôß ; ãßíåóèå ïἰêôéñìïíåò ὡò ὁ ðáôὴñ ὑìῶí ὁ ἐí ôïῖò ïὐñáíïῖò ̇ ôïῦôï èåïῦ ἔñãïí ἐᾶí ïὖí ôïῦôï ìὴ ἔ÷ῃò , ôß ἔ÷åéò ; ἔëåïí èÝëù , öçóß , êáὶ ïὐ èõóßáí .—M.].
To be careful of the orphans and widows.—We translate thus because it brings out the antithesis to be careful of worldly affairs, which James has doubtless before his mind’s eye, like Peter in his ἀëëïôñéïåðßóêïðïò 1Pe_4:15. Although the verb is frequently applied to visiting the distressed (Huther: Mat_25:36; Mat_25:43; Jer_23:2 etc.), it has also in this form a wider meaning (Theile: the species pro genere). The wider sense: to be careful of, to care for, to protect one, is directly brought out in Act_15:14; Heb_2:6 and elsewhere; Philo calls ἐðßóêåøéò providentia. “The ὀñöáíïß are named first as those in want of help, as in Deu_10:18; Job_29:12-13 etc.” Huther. This Divine service answers to the fatherhood of God; those who engage in it do His work in love and compassion, because He is a Father of the orphans and a Judge (a Protector of the rights of) the widows, Psa_68:6 and other passages. Now according to the book of Tobit it was the ideal of a true Israelite to protect the distressed among the captives of his people and Tob_1:6-7 we read that it was an integral part of the religious service of Tobit that every third year he gave the tithe to the strangers, the widows and the fatherless. In this manner the Israelite of the New Testament was called upon to help his poor people especially the distressed in their affliction. The state of affliction in its concrete form is most frequently and most touchingly exhibited in the distress of widows and orphans. In this direction we may have to seek the sense of keeping oneself unspotted from the world; and this probably explains the asyndeton of the two sentences (cf. Huther). They are not strictly coördinate, but the second is the reverse or the sequence of the first, its pure antithesis. Hence ἄóðéëïí comes emphatically first. Cf. 1Pe_1:19; 2Pe_3:14. The expression ought really to be resolved into two ideas, firstly, to keep oneself from the world, secondly to keep oneself unspotted from the world, that is, from the world is connected with the two elements of the sentence: to keep oneself unspotted. The ethical idea of êüóìïò is everywhere the personal totality of life converted into the Impersonal, i.e. mankind as to its ungodly bias. The peculiarity of this idea in James comes out more clearly in Jam_4:4. What heathenism was to the Jew, the antithesis of the holy people, to which it might apostatize by spiritual idolatry, such was to the apostolical mind, the ungodly doing of the world, whether manifested in Judaistic visionariness or in a heathen form. Oecumenius’s idea of the äçìþäçò êáὶ óõñöåôὸò ὄ÷ëïò , ὁ êáôὰ ôὰò ἐðéèõìßáò ôῆò ἀðÜôçò áὑôïῦ öèåéñüìåíïò was consequently not far from the image of the excited condition of the world, which was floating before the Apostle’s imagination; but the Judaistic ὄ÷ëïò assumed a prouder and more spiritual shape. This specific reference, of course does not exclude the more general. [Alford: “The whole earthly creation, separated from God and l