Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - James 2:1 - 2:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Footnotes:
Jam_2:1. Lange: My brethren, do not practise the faith in our lord Jesus, the Christ of glory [the Messiah in His glory exalted above Judaistic expectations] with respectings of persons [personal considerations, partialities.]
[… hold not ye the faith … [the Lord] of glory in respecting of persons.—M ]
Jam_2:2. åἰò ôὴí . A. G. K., Tischendorf; omit ôὴí B. C. Sin. al. Lachmann [Alford—M.], an important variation, showing that the reference is not to particular synagogues.
Jam_2:2. [2 ÷ñõóïäáêôýëéïò =golden-ringed.—M.]
Lange: For if there had entered into your common assembly ( óõíáãùãÞ )a man with a gold fingerring, in a clean splendid garment, but there had also entered a poor man in an unclean garment.
[For if there come into your place of assembly a man with golden rings, etc.—M.]
Jam_2:3. ἐðéâëÝøçôå äὲ . B. C. K. Tischendorf [Alford], is more expressive than êáὶ ἐðéâëÝøçôå A. G. Lachmann.
Jam_2:3. The omission of áὐôῷ A. B. C. Sinait. keeps the expression more general and gives it more dogmatical colouring [than its insertion, Rec. K. L. Vulg. and al.—M.]
Jam_2:3. ὧäå inserted in C.** G. K., is omitted by A. B. C.*—The addition of ôῶí ðïäῶí in A. Vulg. [Syr.—M]. Lachmann, seems to be exegetical and intensive, but may have been dropped owing to a moderation in expression.
Lange: And ye were looking upon [made a looking up, a demonstration of] him who wore the clean splendid garment and should say [to him] [thou], sit thou here on the best place, but should say to the poor, [thou] keep standing here [on the standing place], or sit [here] under [down at] my footstool.
Jam_2:4. êáὶ omitted before ïὐ by A. B. C. Sinait, may have been objected to in the apodosis as a striking form, Lange: Did ye not then separate [divide] among ourselves, and become judges according to evil considerations?
[Did ye not distinguish (invidiously) among ourselves etc.—M.]
Jam_2:5. Rec. reads ôïῦ êüóìὀõ ôïýôïõ ; [A.** C.** K. L. ôïῦ êüóìïõ —M.]; ôῷ êüóìῳ A.* B. C.* Sin. etc. The variations seem to be exegetical illustrations.
Jam_2:5. For âáóéëåßáò [A. and] Sin.; read ἐðáããåëßáò .
Lange: … hath not God also chosen the poor [according to the world), who are rich in faith, heirs, of the [glorified Messiah—] kingdom …
Jam_2:6. [For ὑ ìῶí A. Sinait, read ὑìᾶò .—M.]
Lange: … [But] is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not just they, who drag you to the courts of judgment?
[Is it not they that drag you into courts of justice?—M.]
Jam_2:7. Lange: Is it not just they who blaspheme that fair [glorius] name, which hath been made to you a surname?
[ … that glorious name, which was invoked over you?—M.]
Jam_2:8. Lange: If indeed ye fulfil [complete under the New Testament] the royal law [the law of the kingdom] according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye act beautifully [conformable to the beautiful name of Christ as Christians].
[If, however, ye fulfil etc.—M.]
Jam_2:9. Lange: But if ye practise respect of persons, ye practise sin, convicted by the [very] law as transgressors.
[But if ye respect persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.—M.]
Jam_2:10. ôçñÞóç and ðôáßóῃ , the most authentic readings. So [A. B. C. Sinait.—M.] Lachmann, Tischendorf.
Lange: For whosoever should observe … in one thing [commandment] the same hath become guilty of all.
[For whosoever shall have kept etc.—M.]
Jam_2:11. A. B. C. Sin. have the Present ìïé÷åýåéò , öïíåýåéò .
Jam_2:12. [… as those about to be judged by the law of liberty.—M.]
Jam_2:13. ἀíÝëåïò not ἀíßëåùò , is the true reading. So A. B. C. [K. Alford—M.] Lach., Tisch. On the form, itself and variations of spelling it see Huther.
Jam_2:13. êáὶ before êáôáêáõ÷ , found only in minuscule codd; äὲ after êáôáêáõ÷ , is probably also a stylistic insertion; the variations êáôáêáõ÷Üóèù in A. [Vulg.;— ÷áóèå C.**M.];— ÷ᾶôå are exegetical efforts to render the text more easy.— ἔëåïò instead of ἔëåïí supported by A. B. Tischend. [Alford.—M.]
Lange: For the judgment is merciless to him who did not practise mercy, and mercy boasteth [triumphantly] against the judgment [thus Christian mercy triumphantly excels the judging legalistic spirit of Judaism.]
[For the judgment [will be] merciless to him who wrought not mercy. Mercy boasteth [triumpheth] over judgment.—M.]
Jam_2:14. Ôß ôὸ ὄöåëïò , Tischend. following the majority of Codd. Lachmann: ôß ὄöåëïò . So also in Jam_2:16.
Lange: … [what profit doth it bring] if any man were to say that he hath faith, but were to have no works. Faith [in such a case] surely cannot save him?
[… can his faith [ ἡ ðßóôéò ] save him ?—M.]
[Jam_2:15. ἐὰí äὲ the most authentic reading; omit äὲ B. Sinait.—M.]
Lange: But if a brother or sister were naked and bare and destitute of daily food.
Jam_2:16. ὦóéí after ëåéðüìåíïé in A. G. Lachmann, is unimportant as to sense. Sin. [B. C. K. Syr. Tischend. Alford.—M.] omit it.
Lange: And one of you should say to them: Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, but ye were not to give to them those things which are needful to the body what would that profit?
[And some one from among you say to them … but ye give them not the necessaries of the body, what is the profit ?—M.]
Jam_2:17. ἔ÷ç ἔñãá [A. B. C. K. Tischend. Alf.—M.], is the most authentic and most emphatic reading.
Lange: So also faith, if it has not works, is dead for itself.
[So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself ( êáè ’ ἑáõôÞí .—M.]
Jam_2:18. ÷ùñὶò A. B. C. Sin. Lachmann, Tischend. [ ἐê Rec. K. L.—M.]
Jam_2:18. óïõ after ἔñãùí omitted by A. B. [Tischend. Alford.—M.]
Jam_2:18. ìïõ after ἔñãùí wanting in Vulg. Syr. B. C. It seems to have originated in the parallelism of this sentence with the one preceding it according to its rejected readings.
Jam_2:18. B. C. ìïõ after ðßóôéí [A. K. L. insert it.—M.]
Lange: But some one will say [to a man of such faith]: thou hast faith and I have works: show me thy faith without the works [how canst thou do it?] and I will show thee my faith out of [by] the works.
[Nay, some one will say … show me thy faith without [apart from] the works, and I will show thee my faith by [out of ἐê ] my works.—M.]
Jam_2:19. Different readings, Rec. with G. èåὸò åἷò ἐóôé ; A. Sinait. Lachmann, åἶò ἐóôéí ὁ èåüò ; B. Tischend. [Alford]: åἷò ὁ èåüò ἐóôéí . The strongest emphasis of A is also the most probable.
Lange: Thou believest [the article of the law and of doctrine] that God is one: that thou doest well therein; the evil spirits [the demons] also believe that and shudder.
Jam_2:20. íåêñÜ A. C.**G. K. [Rec. Vulg. Copt.—M.], opposed by ἀñãÞ in B. C* etc.; the latter more probable (Lachm. and Tischend. support it) because the former seems to have been occasioned by Jam_2:17.
Lange: But wilt thou know it, O empty man! that faith without works is useless [inefficient]?
[… that faith without [apart from] the works is useless [bootless. Alford]?—M.]
Jam_2:21. Lange:… justified [proved righteous] by works [out of works] when he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar of sacrifice [Genesis 22]?
[… When he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar.—M.]
Jam_2:22. [ óõíÝñãåé A. Sinait.—M.]
Lange: Thou seest that his faith was energetically joined with his works [was manifested as one with his works] and that faith was completed by works [out of works].
[Thou seest that faith was working together with his works and that by [ ἐê ] works faith was made complete.
Jam_2:23. Lange: And thus also was fulfilled … righteousness [in justification proper Gen_15:6.]
Jam_2:24. ôïßíõí wanting in A. B. C. Sin. [Tisch. Alf—M.] etc.
Lange: Ye see [therefore] that by [out of] works man is justified [proved righteous as man] etc.
Jam_2:25. êáôáóêüðïõò , C. G. seems to be taken from Heb_11:31.
Lange:… and sent them forth by another way.
Jam_2:26. [ ÷ùñὶò ἔñãùí , B. Sinait.—M.]
Lange: For as the body without spirit etc.
§
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Caution against partiality in Christian Church-life, that is against Ebionitizing demeanour. The parable of such demeanour. Jam_2:1-4.
Jam_2:1. My brethren, do not practise.—The Apostle does not, as is generally supposed, pass from the doctrine of charity to a particular example of charity. If this were so, the example would be ill-chosen, for respect of persons does not violate primarily the duty of charity but the law of justice and equality. He rather passes on to a new form of the temptation.
This clause is not (as Schneckenburger and Kern take it) interrogative, not because the fact in question is beyond all doubt (Huther), for the interrogative form would express this more definitely (is it not so that ye, etc.), but because the form of a warning exhortation makes it imperative. The interrogative construction is inadmissible not only because of the analogy in Jam_1:16 but also on account of the parable which shows the form of the temptation to which they were exposed.
Do not practise:— ἔ÷åéí denotes not only, “do not hold your faith as if it were shut up in ðñïóùðïëçøßáéò ” (Huther); still less, “do not detain your faith” ( êáôÝ÷åôå Grotius), but still stronger “do not hold, cherish it in this form.” The faith of fanaticism is not only allied with particularisms but the particularisms constitute its very glory. The Plural ðñïóùðïëçøßáé points to the ever returning and diversified occurrences of this kind.
The faith in our Lord Jesus, the Christ.—Different constructions: 1. The faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ (de Wette, Wiesinger, and al.; reference to 1Co_2:8). This construction is inadmissible on account of the position of ôῆò äüîçò . 2. äüîá taken in a different sense from its ordinary signification=opinion (Calvin: the knowledge of Christ obscured by the respect paid to wealth). Wholly inadmissible, because this mode of expression would be most remarkable and because the faith of Christ itself could not be thus disfigured. 3. ôïῦ êõñßïõ etc. Genitive of the subject: the faith, derived from our Lord Jesus Christ, on the glory (Huther). 4. Bengel: ôῆò äüîçò is in apposition to Christ ut ipse Christus dicatur ἡ äüîá . Gloria. Luk_2:32; Eph_1:17 etc. Christ, the glory not sufficiently developed, although the idea that Christ is the Schechinah would otherwise be quite suitable. 5. Laurentius unites äüîçò with ×ñéóôïῦ , Christus gloriæ, but Huther objects that this construction would require the Article before ×ñéóôïῦ . This would however occasion an error as if a twofold Christ were conceivable. In German however we have to emphasize the Article, as far as it is in ôῆò äüîçò . The sense is plain: faith in the Christ of glory is incompatible with estimating persons according to carnal respects. See the analogous idea 2Co_5:16 and Eph_2:16-17. Christ in virtue of His exaltation has also acquired the êõñéüôçò of the unbelieving Jews. See Mat_26:64; Rom_9:5. [But on the whole it seems best, because it is the least forced construction, to govern ôῆò äüîçò by êõñßïõ , see 1Co_2:8.—M.]
Jam_2:2. For if there had entered; ãÜñ gives the reason not of the whole exhortation as such, but of the reference (connected with it) to the glory of Christ, which Luther has made prominent in his free translation; Do not suppose that faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord of glory, suffers respect of persons. The construction which makes the antecedent extend to the end of Jam_2:4 and then makes the consequent begin (Michaelis, Herder etc.) has been justly set aside by Huther; Jam_2:4 is the consequent. The reference of the following exhortation to misconduct in worship has led to the opinion that James is primarily addressing the Church-wardens (Grotius etc). We have already shown that this view over against the grand prophetico-symbolical expression of the Apostle is inadequate The misconduct to which James refers is so general and important as to preclude the literal acceptation of what follows. In the first place it cannot be assumed that such a grievance as that of assigning bad places to the poor had spread throughout the entire Jewish Christian dispersion and in the second, it is even more improbable that James should have received reliable information concerning a disorder so universally prevalent. The ἐÜí also and the Aorist indicate a relation which has become historical and is still in course of development.
Into your common-assembly.—Schneckenburger and al. interpret the Jewish synagogue, Huther, the place of the Christian assembly, de Wette, with reference to Heb_10:25, the religious assembly. But the Article indicates that the one synagogue of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion is meant, that is their religious community symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship. The symbol is the more appropriate in that it characterizes the family-bias to union in Judaism. The reference to civil judicial assemblies, which Herder and al. find here, is altogether unfounded. We have endeavoured to bring out in the translation the uniting element of Christianity.
If there had entered a man.—The Aorist not only aids the imagination by its picturesque force but indicates the historical fact that believers with Judaistic pretensions had already entered the Church.
With a gold finger-ring.—The character of the parables delineating and censuring on the one hand the factious conduct of the Jewish Christians towards the Judaizers proper and on the other towards the Gentile Christians, comes out in the most decided manner. According to Wiesinger and Huther our text gives only an example instar omnium for the representation of that sinful ðñïóùðïëçøßá , while many older commentators see in it only a figure of the preference of the rich to the poor, and these are the common views. These views give only rise to the question whether the rich and the poor are to be considered members of the Christian commonwealth (Knapp, Theile, de Wette), or unbelievers or hospites (Pott, Kern, Schneckenburger). Wiesinger, in support of the former view, alleges that the Epistle being addressed to Christian readers, the oppressive disparities between rich and poor should be taken as introcongregational (Jam_4:1; Jam_2:13-15; Jam_5:1); Huther, in support of the latter, that the rich are distinguished from the brethren etc.; Weiss (Deutsche Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenschaft, 1854, No. 51) makes the rich a non-Christian, the poor a Christian. Schwegler is altogether wrong in making the rich the Gentile Christian and the poor the Jew, for it would follow from this that the Jewish Christians did exhibit partiality towards the Gentile Christians. But he is on the right track in that he sees in the Epistle a reflection of the circumstances of the time. Now we hold that the rich here and throughout the Epistle is not less symbolical than the rich in the Gospel (Mat_19:24 etc.) and just so the poor. But the attributes of the rich indicate whereof he is proud. He is in the first place a ÷ñõóïäáêôýëéïò (the word ἅðáî ëåã .). That rings with the ancients, especially among the Jews (as a signet-ring) were highly esteemed is evident from Gen_41:42; Est_3:10; Est_8:2; Luk_15:22. Received as a gift it denotes the prerogative of representing the donor; in the parable of the prodigal doubtless the restoration to the filial state. But the man with the gold ring cannot be any other than the Judaist priding himself in and boasting of his covenant-right and sonship (which to the humble was indeed a veritable gold-ring see Romans 9), as a ÷ñõóïäáêôýëéïò , a gold-finger-ring-wearer by profession. He is further described by wearing a splendid garment ( ëáìðñüò ) which according to Rev_15:6 involves in particular the idea of purity and connected therewith denotes the Jewish pretensions to purity and holiness or glory. In like manner the garment of the poor, that is, of the Gentile Christian, is not stained in the ordinary sense but from a religious point of view, as is proved by the ῥõðáñüò Zec_3:3-4. In Rev_22:11 also it denotes the opposite of the Holy in a symbolical sense. According to the Jewish conception of purity the Gentile Christians had entered the Church in such a garment; but that James notwithstanding accords to them the wedding-garment is evident from Jam_2:25. Raphelius on ëáìðñüò , “nullum certum colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum, seu rubrum sit, seu alius generis.”
Jam_2:3. And ye were looking upon.— ἘðéâëÝðåéí is emphatic (Pott). Upon the ὁ öïñῶí ôὴí ἐóèῆôá , also very significant, he who wears that and carries himself in wearing it. Instead of experiencing disgust at the spectacle of vanity which manifestly looks out of that proud dress, they suffer themselves to be deceived by that glitter, which in their estimate should have been valueless, and to be awed by the haughty claims to it. This rich man is first looked at, contemplated in astonishment, then complimented, he also stands first; meanwhile the eye is averted from the poor man, who is furthermore despatched in a hurry. “The difference of speech to the one and to the other strongly marks the contrast; they are first distinguished by óý — óý , then êÜèïõ and óôῆèé , ὦäå and ἐêåῖ , êáëῶò and ὑðὸ ôὸ ὑðüäéüí ìïõ are opposites” (Huther). The addition “or sit thou here, etc,” as allowing him to be seated, is intended to modify the hardness of the word “keep standing there,” but becomes a further humiliation, “sit here under my footstool.” This means certainly “down at my footstool.” but the expression involves contempt; as it were under one’s feet. Not on the footstool. The Judaist either wanted to acknowledge the Gentile Christian merely as hospes in the Church, or to concede to him at most an inferior right of communion. As the reading ἐðß [for ὑðü B**—M.] indicates a tendency to soften the harshness of the expression, a similar tendency may have omitted ôῶí ðïäῶí before ìïõ .
Jam_2:4. Did ye not then separate among yourselves.—The comments on this passage are wide apart. Some plead ïὐ as a declaration, others as a question. 1. Those who take it declaratorily: then, partly ye would not have distinguished (according to sound judgment) among yourselves, partly ye would have judged after an evil manner of thinking (Grashof); or, “then ye are not any longer distinguished among yourselves, i.e., godly and ungodly” (Oeder); or, “then ye have not rightly judged among yourselves” (Oecumenius, Bengel); or, “then ye have not yet judged yourselves” (Heisen); “not yourselves but your garments” (Cajetan). But the construction is decidedly in favour of the interrogative form, particulary the hypothetical form and the brevity of the consequent. Hence 2, interrogatively: a. äéáêñßíåóèáé =to doubt in the sense of having scruples concerning a thing. “Ye had no scruples, etc.?” (Theile). b. to doubt in the literal sense: “have ye not become doubters in your faith? or similarly (de Wette, Wiesinger, Huther); c. the verb=to judge: do ye then not judge among yourselves?” (Augusti); or the Verb passive: “Do ye not condemn yourselves? (Paraeus). d. to make difference; did ye not make differences (in a bad sense) among yourselves?” (Grotius, Knapp and al.). This interpretation passes into e. to separate, to divide in a Passive or Middle sense. But the Middle sense lies nearest: do ye not separate, divide yourselves in or among yourselves? (Semler, Gebser, Schneckenburger). We hold with Schneckenburger that the beginning of dissension in the Church primarily takes rise in the minds of those factious Christians. They are also at schism in themselves‚ which schism although it begins with doubting (Jam_1:6) means more than doubting, as is the case in our time with those confessional zealots [confessional=pertaining to a confession, used in German almost as the synonyme of denomination—M.], who suspend the communion of the Lord’s Supper with other Evangelicals while they are willing otherwise to hold fraternal intercourse with them. Creating dissensions reacts on the zealots themselves so that they become divided in themselves. Wiesinger and Huther allege in favour of their exposition that äéáêñßíåóèáé in the New Testament constantly signifies to doubt, which it does in many passages. But the Middle of our verb occurs in our sense in Jude 5, 22 and the transition from the Active (Act_15:9) to the Middle lay quite near, êáß intensifies the question. We have endeavoured in our translation to bring out the paronomasia of êñéôáß and äéáêñßèçôå [In German: zerschieden and Schiedsrichter.—M.]. From the evil schism in the heart springs evil judging in the life. Richter: after (according to) evil considerations (motives), not the evil, etc. That is, according to the motives of national preferences, claims and prejudices, outward position, etc.
Reference to the faith of the poor in a symbolical sense as well as to the faith of the sick Jam_2:5-7.
Jam_2:5. Listen, my beloved brethren.—The painful earnestness of the Apostle’s mind in view of the dangerous symptoms he had described may be seen in his animated exhortation, his lively address (see Jam_1:16) and his questions.
Did not God choose the poor?—Cf. 1Co_12:26. Huther: “poor to the world” [Germ. for the world.—M.]. Wiesinger: “poor as regards the world.” In the latter sense reference may be made to the analogous ôῷ ðíåýìáôé Mat_5:3. But that condition of poverty as to the Spirit, simultaneously expresses a longing for the Spirit. But such an element would be out of place here, hence the sense “to the world” is more appropriate. These persons whom you call poor, because they are Gentile Christians, are rather poor to the world according to their relation to the world; but to you they ought to be rich, seeing they are rich in faith. The fact that the Ebonites afterwards called themselves poor as regards this world, presents no obstacle to this exposition. Their usus loquendi was doubtless rather formed after the pattern of James than vice versa, just as the Gnostics did probably borrow many of their expressions from Paul, not Paul from them. [But the sense “poor as regards the world” is after all at least as good as that given by Lange; it is general, and there is no reason why even Lange’s interpretation may not be included in it: the Dative of reference here simply shows that these persons were poor with reference to the world objectively or subjectively or both.—M.].
Rich in faith.—Not rich in the possession of much faith [nicht reich an Glauben. Germ.—M.], but they are rich in virtue of their faith. Still the stress lies not only on the general being rich, the result of the general condition of believing, but also on the particular measure of their being rich as contrasted with the false being rich of the Judaists. Who are rich in faith. Huther: Ðëïõóßïõò ἐí ðßóôåé not in apposition with ôïὺò ðôù÷ïýò (Erasmus, Baumgarten, etc.), but the complement of ἐîåëÝîáôï , stating whereto God did choose the poor (Beza, Wolf, Wiesinger, etc.). But taking James’ choosing as exactly synonymous with Paul’s we consider to be not proven. Here the word evidently signifies rather calling, with reference to ethical good behaviour to the Divine revelation. That is: “the decree (more definitely the election) of God is here viewed (indicated) in respect of temporal manifestation.” Wiesinger. Still an essential element of the idea of election is held fast. The nearer definition of the election lies in êáὶ êëçñïíüìïõò sc. åἶíáé . That is: Did not God choose these poor according to the world (from among the Gentiles) who prove themselves rich in faith, that they also may be heirs of the kingdom? Cf. Act_15:14, etc.; Ephesians 2.—It is to be borne in mind that only the poor to the world were also the “rich” among the Jews. But this characteristic was not enough here, while the correction “poor to the world, rich in faith” was sufficiently definite. James therefore here utters the same idea, on which Paul laid peculiar stress as the characteristic of his evangelization, Eph_3:3-6, etc.— êëçñïíüìïõò here, points not to the kingdom as future (so Huther), but as êáὶ êëçñïíüìïõò to the joint participation in the true õἱïèåóßá of the Jews.—
Heirs of the kingdom.—It is the kingdom of God, the real theocracy completed in the New Testament, progressing towards eschatological completion, not the latter only, as Huther maintains. James separates from this kingdom whatever is particularly Jewish, describing it as the kingdom, that peculiar kingdom which God has prepared for those who love Him. The common construction gives a proposition not limited like 1Co_1:26-28, and not sufficiently proven by Mat_19:23; Mat_19:26; viz.: “chosen the poor in this sense that those whom God did choose belong to this category, while those belonging to the category of the rich have not been chosen.” (Huther). It is impracticable to take the one expression literally, the other figuratively.
Jam_2:6. But ye dishonoured the poor (man).— äὲ denotes the antithesis of èåüò , ἠôéìÜóáôå the antithesis of ἐîåëÝîáôï , as Huther rightly observes. Still the Aorist is used, not only because reference is made to Jam_2:2-3, and because the case is general, but its historical force points to a historical fact, in which Judaizing Jewish Christians have already taken part with the Jews, viz.: the dishonouring of the Gentile Christians.
But is it not the rich?—These rich, who use violence towards themselves, i.e. the Christians, (cf. the expressions Mat_20:25). The reference here is not any more to the rich in general than before to the poor (both according to Huther). The populace took as much part in the persecution of the Christians as the nobility, the former indeed were conspicuous in it. Nevertheless it was with the Judaists who fancied themselves theocratically rich, that the impulses to the persecution of the Christians did then still originate. So e.g. the first persecution of the Apostles, the execution of Stephen. êáὶ áὐôïß , it is just they. All sympathizing of Christian ultras with judaistic Jews contained the germ of want of self-respect, as is the case nowadays with all sympathizing of the evangelical ultras with the ultramontanists and that of pietistic ultras with the confessionalists. Is it not just they who excommunicate you? one might ask in the latter cases.
Jam_2:7. Is it not just they who blaspheme that fair name?—Favouring those rich ones would involve not only want of self-respect but even a participation in the guilt of their blasphemous conduct in respect of the fair name. This blaspheming cannot be taken figuratively as if it did denote insult heaped on that fair name by the evil works of the Christian rich men themselves, as Huther rightly observes in refutation of the views of several commentators (also of Wiesinger, whose citations, e.g. Jer_52:5 : äἰ ὑìᾶò ôὸ ὄíïìá ìïõ âëáóöçìåῖôáé and similar ones, do not prove that âëáóöçìåῖí has the direct meaning “to dishonour”), nor can the reference be (according to Hensler) to the Christian name, for that is just the transfer of that name to them; the name of the poor is altogether out of the question. It is only the name of Christ to which reference is made, whether believers were already called ÷ñéóôéáíïß (which was the case, in part at least, Act_11:26), or not. The name of Christ was transferred to them as a surname denoting at once their peculiarity and to whom they belonged. [They were Christ’s ÷ñéóôïῦ , 1Co_3:23.—M.]. The expression is formed after the Hebrew model ùֵׁí ðִ÷ְøָà òַì (Deu_28:10; 2Ch_7:14; cf. Isa_4:1; Gen_48:16 and Act_15:14; Act_15:17). In virtue of the fact that once the name of Jehovah was called over Israel, Israel was described the people of Jehovah; in like manner Christians are now the Christian people (the people of Christ—M.] in virtue of the name of Christ. His name is called fair, in opposition to the insulting blaspheming; it is the fair, the glorious name êáô ’ ἐîï÷Þí ; the name of the Lord of Glory (Jam_2:1), in which is all salvation (Act_4:1; Php_2:10, Wiesinger). The Christian rich men could not any more be reproached with the sin of blaspheming the name of Christ ( âëáóöçìåῖí always denotes abusive language, Huther), than the non-Christian rich men in general (the names even of Pilate, Gallio, Agrippa, Festus and al. may here be called to mind); the reproach fitted solely, if the Judaists were the rich in a figurative sense; to them it was wholly applicable.
True fidelity of the law or the fulfilling of the whole law in the royal commandment of love, as well as the damnable transgression of the whole law in sinning against this commandment, Jam_2:8-13.
Jam_2:8. If, indeed, ye fulfil the royal law.—The connection, by the introduction of ìÝíôïé , is difficult, but only, if doubts remain as to what precedes. James had just now reproved his readers for being partial to Judaists, proud of the law and fancying themselves rich, i.e. because they themselves were not free from legal onesidedness. The progress of the thought fully accords therewith: “The whole consistency of true fidelity to the law, to be sure, ye ought to exhibit, according to the commandment, thou shalt love, etc.; but your partiality is a breach of the law.” According to Huther and many others (Calvin, Theile etc.) James wants to meet the excuse of his readers that their respect of the rich was the outgoing of love; but surely no Jew could have thought of representing ðñïóùðëçøßá as love. Although in this case ìÝíôïé is rendered certainly (indeed, German freilich) the sense is different: igitur (Schneckenburger) and yet (de Wette) are also, set aside by our explanation. [Whichever particle be chosen, ìÝíôïé is clearly adversative.—M.].
The royal law.—The law denotes here not a single commandment (as Huther maintains with reference to Jer_31:33, Heb_8:10; Heb_10:16), for the commandment cited immediately afterwards embraces the whole law as completed in the New Testament. It is royal not only because it is supreme and the most excellent (so Wiesinger with reference to Philo, Plato and also Theile, Schneckenburger and al.). Although Christ, placing Himself on the Jewish stand-point calls it first and great, immediately afterwards He describes it as all-embracing and principial (Mat_22:39), and this New Testament conception of it is found also in Paul, Rom_13:8-10; Gal_5:14. Now if this principial [i.e. original, initial, elementary—M.] nature of the law and this its oneness, Mar_12:32, are inferred from the Oneness of God, the Giver of the Law, the explanation that it is called royal because it proceeds from God its Author, is not so far-feteched (Raphelius, Wetstein and al.), as Wiesinger supposes, who says that this is true in respect of the whole law; but this objection lacks point, inasmuch as the cited commandment is really the whole law; but it leads to the exposition that the “royal commandment is the commandment of Christ” (Grotius). Its applying to kings as well as to other men (Michaelis) its being a via regia (Calvin), are explanations which do not reach the fundamental idea; its making kings (Thomas) is less remote; but it is probably called here the law royal and the law of the kingdom, because of the authority of rich men and the contrast between rich and poor must completely vanish before the authority of the king. Before Christ, the Lord of Glory, who has comprehended all laws in this one law, the rich are low and the poor rich (Jam_2:1; Jam_1:9 etc.) Negatively, the law completed in the New Testament is a principle of perfect liberty (Acts 1:35), Positively it is a royal principle exacting perfect obedience to the Lord. Hence we have here once more the word ôåëåῖí conformably to the previously repeated allusions to the New Testament ôÝëïò . [But why not take íüìïí âáóéëéêüí in its plain and obvious sense, the law royal, “the law which is the king of all laws” (Alford)? This rendering (with reference to Rom_13:10) suits the context well.—M.]— êáôὰ ôὴí ãñáöÞí refers not only to ôåëåῖô e but to the whole sentence íüìïí âáóéëéêüí ôåëåῖôå for the íüìïò Exodus 20 in its higher royal form is already traced before-hand, Lev_19:18, while that discursive form of the law is referred to the ministration of angels (Gal_3:19).
Ye do well. (German: “ye act beautifully,”) —That is: conformably to the beautiful name, which those men blaspheme. Christianly beautiful, answering to the spiritual beauty or the glory of the name of Christ. Huther’s remark that here something is to be conceded, not without irony, to the opponents, lies outside of the context.
Jam_2:9. But if ye respect persons.— ðñïóùðïëçðôåῖí is ἅðáî ëåã . and admirably chosen by James to denote Judaizing Christianity. By such conduct they suppose to avoid sin, but he tells them: by this very thing ye are working sin ( ἐñãÜæåóèáé is stronger than ðïéåῖí , Mat_7:23, etc.).
Convicted by the law.—The reference here is certainly to the specific prohibition of prosopolepsy [respect of persons—M.] Deu_16:19 and similar interdictions (Huther denies it), inasmuch as it formulates the commandment of love literally and at the same time in the light of it acquires a more general sense; that is, the law of love in its oneness, as applied to the question under notice, runs into an express prohibition of prosopolepsy. The very law therefore on which the Judaist plumes himself, convicts him as a transgressor. The choice of the word ðáñáâÜôçò has here, as in Rom_2:25, and like ðáñÜâáôçò Jam_5:14, a peculiar emphasis: the Judaistico-Ebionite transgression of the law as completed in the New Testament is, as it were, a second fall. Cf. Gal_2:18.
Jam_2:10. For whosoever shall have kept the whole law.—Hypothetical case, put so as to apply at once to the Jewish stand-point in its full consequence and to the Christian, without being ambiguous, because the full consequence of Judaism leads to Christianity. The uniform solidarity of the law is also acknowledged by the Jews; hence Rabbi Jonathan says; “quod si faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium est singulorum reus.” ἐí ἑíß is to be taken agreeably to the preceding. Not the one definite commandment of love (Oecumenius, Semler), which embraces the whole but any one point of the law. Since íüìïé is rarely used to denote the Mosaic commandments one might feel inclined to take ἑíß as a neuter (with Schneckenburger and Kern), but since the following ðÜíôùí , according to Huther and al., renders the construction difficult, it is better to assume James entering into the Jewish mode of view which he potentiates in saying that every separate ἐíôïëÞ has also the full force of a íüìïò . Wiesinger says that James takes the most favourable case in order to make his statement as convincing as possible. But James is hardly willing to yield this most favourable case to the reader. The point to be made is the demonstration of the absolute inviolability of the law. The ðôáßåéí may be understood as well of a slight offence as of a gross offence, the declaration holding good in either case; but the context seems to require the latter construction which is also favoured by the preposition ἐí . Whosoever offends in one point so as to fall, is preëminently a transgressor of all laws, i.e., he is an apostate. This sense follows more clearly from the sequel. Such an one is ἔíï÷ïò , i.e., held fast in guilt [Germ. arrested—M.] for satisfaction by the suffering of punishment. Each separate law becomes as it were a judge who arrests him.
Jam_2:11. For He who said.—The unity of all commandments lies primarily in the unity of the Lawgiver, Mar_12:32, This implies of course the One Spirit of all commandments according to which all commandments are included in each separate commandment and the one sense: the requirement of love and the one recompense.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.—Different explanations have been given of the selection of these two commandments. Baumgarten: Because their transgression was punished with death; Wiesinger: because the readers are nowhere charged with ìïé÷åýåéí (see for the contrary James 4), whereas ìὴ öïíåýóῃò has the commandment of love as its kernel, because these are the first duties under the law of love to one’s neighbour. However we have here once more to call attention to the symbolical character of this Epistle. To the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was at once the prohibition of religious apostasy to heathenism (which probably accounts for the transpositions Mar_10:19, etc. of which Huther makes mention), and the prohibition of murder at once that of lovelessness [coined from the German Lieblosigkeit, for want of a current English equivalent—M.] towards our neighbour. The sense therefore is probably as follows: the same God to whose commandment you appeal in your fear of intermingling with heathenism, has prohibited murder, of which you may become guilty by your hatred of men. We have no doubt that also 1Jn_3:15 refers primarily to Ebionite conduct towards Christian fellowship (Jam_2:19). The connection of the words with Mat_5:17-19 is clear.
Jam_2:12. So speak ye and so do ye.—Application drawn from what has gone before, but not a new section (Semler). Huther wants to connect ïὕôùò with what follows, not with what has gone before. But the double ïὕôùò as well as the anteposition of ëáëåῖôå refer strongly to what has gone before. The readers of the Epistle are charged not only after the manner of laymen to judge according to the anti-judaistic conception of the law, which had been laid down, but also to assert it in their respective spheres as witnesses of the truth (see James 3). Thus they were first to speak and to testify but then of course also to act accordingly.
As those about to be judged by the law of liberty.—This is not the explication but the reason of the preceding exhortation. The question comes up why here again James calls the New Testament the law of liberty as in Jam_1:25 and not, as above, the royal law? The law of liberty is the New Testament principle of the new life in the Gospel of Christ, which frees us from the restraint of the law. Conscious that according to their faithful or unfaithful conduct with reference to this law they are to be judged, true Jewish Christians and Israelites must cheerfully testify against Judaism and its legalism and exhibit Christian fellowship. It is true that this íüìïò , as such, admits least a non-observance