Lange Commentary - James 4:4 - 4:17

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - James 4:4 - 4:17


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

VIII. SIXTH ADMONITION

EXHORTATION TO REPENTANCE ADDRESSED TO THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS AND THE JEWS IN REFERENCE TO THEIR BEING ON THE WAY TO APOSTASY. THEY ARE ADDRESSED AS (RELIGIOUS) ADULTERERS AND ADULTERESSES, AS APOSTATES. THEIR FRIENDSHIP OF THE WORLD, WHICH IS THE CAUSE OF THEIR IMPENDING APOSTASY, THEY WERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS ENMITY OF GOD, TO REPENT OF IT AND TO RETURN FROM THEIR WORLDLY RUNNING AND WANDERING TO THE QUIETNESS OF A CONDUCT MARKED BY HUMILITY AND RESIGNATION TO THE DIVINE WILL

Jam_4:4-17

4     Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of 5God. Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? 6But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. 7Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded. 9Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. 10Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. 11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a Judges 12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? 13Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It Isaiah 24 even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. 15For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. 16But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. 17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Analysis:—Reproach of the impending apostasy, Jam_5:4.—Exhortation to a better and higher aim, Jam_4:5-6.—The characteristics of their conversion to God on theocratic fundamental ideas (the new allegiance of the people of God, their purification, penitential mourning, and humiliation according to their situation) Jam_4:7-10.—Renovation of their conduct towards the brethren, Jam_4:11-12.—Dissuasion from their restless, gain-seeking and self-willed wandering through the world in consideration of the approaching storm of judgment Jam_4:13-15.—Reproof of their false security and forewarning of their conscience, Jam_4:16-17.

Reproach of the impending apostasy.

Jam_4:4. Ye adulteresses, know ye not.—The fact, that the majority of commentators are in favour of the Text. Rec. the authorities to the contrary notwithstanding, and that they consequently read; “ye adulterers and adulteresses,” is rightly accounted for by Huther, who says that it arises from their taking the term in a literal sense, “which is expressly done by Augusti, Lachmann and Winer.” But we can hardly conceive any thing more extravagant than to suppose that James would brand all Jewish Christians as literal adulterers and adulteresses. It is however in perfect keeping with the symbolical language of the Old Testament that James here describes the Judaistic bias to apostasy from the living God of revelation, Psa_73:27; Isa_57:3; Eze_23:27; Hosea; Mat_12:39; Mat_16:4; 2Co_11:2; Rev_2:22. The wonder is that t this passage has not led commentators to learn the symbolical character of the whole Epistle, and more particularly the symbolical character of the rich in James 2 and James 5. The only suprising part of this exposition is the occurrence of the feminine adulteresses, a term which Theile considers to be not altogether fitting, which Wiesinger calls singular as applied to individuals, while Huther remarks that the term should be referred to Churches. Besides it is noteworthy that symbolical adultery according to the usage of the Old Testament and according to the figure itself is feminine inasmuch as it describes the apostasy of the Lord’s bride. To this must be added that the Apostle is not addressing now the Jewish Christian Churches in particular, but Judaism in general, such as, in the preceding section, he saw it sundered into the most diverse factions. The Plural probably denotes this disruption, not only the several synagogues but also the several factions.

Know ye not.—From your theocratical calling to the covenant with God as opposed to the ungodly world, and from your teaching and knowledge.

That the friendship of the world:—That is befriending and alliance with an ungodly world (Jam_1:27; cf. 1Jn_2:15), not merely inclination to wordly goods (Theile and al.), nor worldly desires (Laurentius), nor both of these together (de Wette). The world is personified in this antithesis; it is idolatry depicted as a whole, the vanity of mankind deifying itself and deified (i.e., ungodliness showing itself in its propensity for the impersonal) connected with the whole visible world frustrated by it. The Judaistic friendship for the world, which must be taken chiefly in an active sense, consisted just in the chiliastic desire of enjoying a worldly glory which at the best was only dyed hierarchically pious (in sensual enjoyment, honour and dominion cf. Matthew 4). It is to be noticed that this vain worldliness concealed itself under the garb of a pious fleeing from the world (the hatred of heathenism, even of Gentile-christian, pretended uncleanness).

Is enmity of God.—Here also the predominant active sense must be held fast “on which account the majority of commentators interpret it straightway by ἔ÷èñá åἰò èåüí (Rom_8:7)” Huther. Lachmann following the inimica of the Vulgate, has even adopted the reading ἐ÷èñὰ [which, however, is also the reading of the Cod. Sin.—M.], which greatly weakens the weight of the idea.

Whoever therefore shall be minded to be a friend of the world.—Inference drawn from what precedes. Ὅò âïõëçèῇ . The difficulty which has been found in this expression, because it seems to involve an intentional choice of evil, is set aside if we distinguish between a formal and a material intention. The Apostle certainly could not suppose his readers to have the formal intention of surrendering to the world. But it was very different with the material intention of taking a direction in worldliness which involved the friendship of the world. But this was precisely the case with the rebellious chiliasm of the Jews, even with the worldly-mindedness of Judaistic Christians. And in this sense the term certainly lays stress both on the conscious intention (Baumgarten) and on the antithesis of their doing which had already become a reality. Whosoever is devoted to the world, although as yet only in his heart (not, as Wiesinger, who for the present is only inclined that way), has stood up as the enemy of God, because our attitude to God is determined by the attitude of our heart. The Lord looketh at the heart. Huther’s laying stress on the construction that the world must be taken here as an aggregate of persons, because öéëßá then consists in a reciprocity, seems to be an expedient beside the mark. That the world is represented as an aggregate of persons stands to reason; but the question is whether the persons are to be honoured as persons or dishonoured as impersonal things as a means of selfishness. However he rightly observes that êáèßóôáôáé here as in Jam_3:6, must not be weakened, but denotes “he takes the attitude.” We render “he stands up,” or “appears,” because this brings out the as yet inward character of his attitude. [On the whole “is constituted” seems to be the best rendering of the term in English; it does not touch the inward or the outward attitude in particular but involves either and this seems really to be the Apostle’s meaning. It is immaterial whether the man’s purpose be latent, uttered in words or manifest in deeds, in any case he is constituted an enemy of God.—M.].

Exhortation to a better and higher aim, Jam_4:5-6.

Jam_4:5. Or do ye fancy that the Scripture saith in vain.—This passage is one of the most difficult in the New Testament; we must therefore refer the reader to the Commentaries for a full discussion of the question (see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, p. James 193: Huther, Wiesinger, etc.). We have first to set aside the really desperate expositions which aim at improving the text (see Huther’s note p. 166) and then the connection of ðñὸò öèüíïí with what goes before. The Scripture saith against envy (du Mont), or: Think ye that the Scripture speaks in vain and enviously ( ðñὸò öèüíïí adverbially, Gebser)? But in that case ðñὸò öèüíïí ought to precede ëÝãåé . We consider the exposition of Beza, Grotius and al.: “The spirit of man has a natural bias to envy” as underrated by Huther. In that case the words have to be connected with what the Scripture says of the envy of Cain, and similar passages. But that exposition is inadmissible, for 1. The spirit is described as having taken up its abode in us and consequently distinguished from ourselves, 2. ìåßæïíá ê . ô . ë . would be without a subject. The first difficulty, indeed, would be obviated if we could take ðíåῦìá in the sense of ðíåῦìá öèüíïõ according to Wisd, 2, 24.= äéÜâïëïò . Huther undervalues the similar exposition of Semler ad. Jam_5:7, saying, “because of its strangeness we make room for Semler’s note on this passage: Jacobus, Paulus, Petrus, Judas uno quasi ore id confirmant, opus esse, ut Romanis et sic (!) Deo se subjiciant” and further on: “ ôῷ äéáâüëῳ , qui per ðíåῦìá öèüíïõ vos suscitat adversus magistratum romanum.” But the want of a subject to ìåἰæïíá deters us from adopting this exposition somewhat as follows: even the Holy Scripture testifies that there has come among us a spirit which excites that envy which is the specific attribute of that love of the world which causes the wars and fightings described above (see the book of Jonah). Less tenable is the exposition which makes the spirit to denote the Divine Spirit but takes the respective words interrogatively, as follows, “num ad invidiam proclivis est Spiritus Sanctus? minime” (so Gabler and similarly Bede, Calvin and al.). Where the citation from Holy Writ introduces the subject, we hardly expect an interrogative sentence. The interpretation of de Wette, Huther and al. is at present urged more than any other. Huther: “Or do ye think that the Scripture speaks in vain? (No) the Spirit, that has taken His abode in us, enviously desires us, but gives (so much the) more grace; therefore He saith,” etc.—The parentheses abundantly show how very forced is this interpretation, which is also advocated by Schneckenburger and al. Our objections to it are as follows: 1. The anthropomorphism “that the Spirit of God loves us even unto envy” is too strong. The reference to æῆëïò , the jealousy of God in the conjugal relation He sustains to His people, is allowable but æῆëïò is not öèüíïò , which is uniformly mentioned in Holy Scripture as a source of evil. To this must be added 2. The postulated supplements and the defective antithesis “but He gives so much the more grace,” etc. But this mode of expression at first sight grows even more dark, if we understand with Wiesinger ôὸ ðíåῦìá as the object of the human spirit, supplying ὀ èåüò as the subject: Divine Love enviously desires the object of its Love, that is, the human spirit from God (i.e., aus Gott=emanating from God—M.], which turns either to God or to the world. If we bear in mind that èåüò had been named immediately before, the envious loving remains in the first place, and then appears as a loving which is only directed to the Spirit. This applies also to the similar interpretation of Theile, who supplies however ἡ ãñáöÞ instead of ὁ èåüò . However, even if we wished to retain the interpretation of Wiesinger or Huther we should be obliged to go back to the passage Exo_20:5. The jealousy of God would be expressed in His visiting the iniquity of idolatry (=adultery) on the children of the third and fourth generation, and the antithesis “but showing mercy unto thousands, etc.,” would be adequately expressed in ìåßæïíá äὲ äßäùóé ÷Üñéí . With reference to the citation in question, we have the following conjectures which we give in brief from Huther: Gen_6:8; Gen_6:5 (Grotius), Gen_8:21 (Erasmus, Beza, etc.), Num_11:29 (Witsius), Deu_5:9 (Schneckenburger), Deu_32:21 (Heisen), Psa_119:20 (Clericus), Pro_21:10 (Michaelis), Son_8:6 (Coccejus), Wisdom of Son_6:12 (Wettstein). Others again have gessed at passages from the New Testament, at some lost passage in the prophets, at a passage in the Apocryphal book called the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs or at a collective statement of different passages of Holy Scripture. Huther denies the fact of a citation altogether and believes the reference to be to a statement of James and that ἡ ãñáöὴ ëÝãåé adverts either to the idea immediately preceding or to the citation introduced with äéὸ ëÝãåé in Jam_5:6 : ὁ èåüò , etc. After all the interpretations given, that of Luther (Gomarus, Bengel and al.) still continues to possess much weight, viz., “the spirit lusteth against hatred=invidia,” (cf. Gal_5:17); in favour of which may be produced the following passages: Psa_37:1, etc.; Psa 5:34, etc.; Psa_73:3, etc. Huther can hardly dispute successfully that ðñὸò öèüíïí in point of language may be equivalent to êáôὰ öèüíïõ and that ἐðéðïèåῖí may be taken in the sense of ἐðéèõìåῖí . But we still want the subject for ìåßæïíá äὲ ê . ô . ë . and we are driven to recognize it in ðíåῦìá itself. Then it is the Divine Spirit in believers on the one hand, mediating in them a longing going beyond the love of the world (Rom_8:23-26), and on the other also a grace which is beyond all longing, praying and understanding (1Co_2:9; Eph. 3:22). We therefore construe the passage with reference to Psa_37:1 and Psa_73:3 as follows: “over against and opposed to envy (which is really at the bottom of your worldliness and is the very soul of your wars, fightings and insurrections) the Spirit who took abode among us, utters a higher longing ( ἐðéðïèåῖ emphatic), and not in vain; for the self-same Spirit mediates also the grace which goes even beyond our longing in Him.” The Jews in consequence of the envy of their worldliness became unbelieving with-respect to Christianity (Act_13:45; Act_22:22), and rebellious toward the Romans; but the spirit which lived and acted in the true theocrats from Abel to Asaph (Psalms 73) and from him and the prophets to the Christians, coming in contact with it [envy?—M.] was longing beyond it and its objects for the immortal. And as envy shows itself in the proud whom God opposes, so that longing shows itself in the humble to whom He gives grace. We therefore give our sense of this passage by way of paraphrase. The friendship of the world of which envy is really the soul, and the friendship of God, of which the longing of the Spirit is really the soul are incompatibles and inimically opposed to each other. This may be proved from Scripture. For as to our relation to God it says not without reason that the strong longing of the Divine Spirit, who took up His abode in us (who united with our spirit, is the spirit of prayer, of our yearning for heavenly riches; while as the Spirit of Divine consolation and peace He mediates for us a grace which is even greater than our longing), bids defiance to and is opposed to envy which is the truest form of the spirit of the world. But as to the relation of God to ourselves, the Scripture saith: God resists the haughty and proud who are at one with the spirit of envy, while He gives grace to the humble who are at one with the poor in spirit. On the meaning of ðñüò =in relation or in proportion to, or against, in opposition to cf. the Lexica. The sentence, more clearly defined, would read thus: ðñὸò ôὸ ðïèåῖí ôïῦ öèüíïõ ἐðéðïèåῖ ôὸ ðíåῦìá .—The Comparative “greater (more) grace” must consequently not be referred to the antithesis: what the friendship of the world does give (Bede, Gebser and al.), or “eo majorem, quo longius recesseris ab invidia” (Bengel), or according to an obscure thought: as compared with the case that the ðñὸò öèüíïí ἐðéðïèåῖí did not take place (Wiesinger, de Wette, Huther).

[Without reconsidering this bewildering conflict of opinions, the view which seems to harmonize best with the context and the line of James’ argument, is to take ðíåῦìá as the object, and understanding the Holy Spirit, to supply ὁ Èåüò as the subject and to render ðñὸò öèüíïí adverbially. “The (Holy) Spirit that He (God) planted in us, jealously desireth [us].” The expression is highly figurative and alludes to the conjugal relation between God and the soul of believers. The Spirit of God implanted in us, jealously desireth us, jealously desires us to break entirely with the world and to be wholly consecrated and devoted to God. Any temporizing with the world would be spiritual adultery.—Then as to the citation from Scripture referred to we hold with many commentators that James gives the general sense of Scripture without specifying a particular passage. Alford takes the same view.—M.].

Jam_4:6. This greater grace is the greater measure of the comforting and satisfying Spirit as related to the longing Spirit. äéὸ ëÝãåé , that is the same Scripture, not ôὸ ðíåῦìá . [But why not refer äéὸ ëÝãåé to ôὸ ðíåῦìá the Holy Spirit? He speaks in us and in the Holy Scriptures—M.]. äéὸ is very apposite: just as the Scripture speaks of our relation to God, so it speaks of God’s relation to us. The passage in question is Pro_3:34 LXX., which has however ὁ êýñéïò instead of ὁ Èåüò . [The same variation occurs in 1Pe_5:5.—M.]. ὙðåñÞöáíïé (not exactly equivalent to the ôὰ ὑøçëὰ öñïíïῦíôåò in Rom_12:16) are the same as the rich in Jam_5:1 etc. or in the Sermon on the Mount, Luk_6:24 etc. In like manner the ôáðåéíïß represent the poor, the lowly, the wretched in a symbolical sense, so much comforted in the Old Testament, or the poor in spirit, the suffering, the meek and the merciful of the Sermon on the Mount.

The characteristics of conversion to God required of the readers of the Epistle, or theocratic fundamental ideas.—The new allegiance of the people of God. Their approach, purification, penitential mourning and humiliation according to their situation. Jam_4:7-10.

Jam_4:7. Subject yourselves therefore to God.—Now follows a series of theocratic ideas in the process of the New Testament fulfilment or completion, which significantly reflect in consecutive order the several moments of Jewish conversion; a circumstance which seems to be not sufficiently noticed by Exegesis. Subject yourselves to God; become once more His real subjects, as the people of God, in opposition to your leaning to apostasy. This is the first and the whole, an exhortation not exclusively addressed to the decided ὑðåñÞöáíïé . Calvin emphasizes the circumstance that the reference is not to obedience to God in general, but to submissio in particular. Semler indeed maintained that they were exhorted “ut Romanis se subjiciant, et sic Deo,” but it is rather the reverse; they were first to subject themselves to God and then in consequence of it, to the power appointed to rule them. Their submission to the rule of the living God was moreover to exhibit itself in their humbly getting reconciled to the new order of things, the change of Judaism into Christianity, the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christianity and the existing rule of pagan Rome.

But resist the devil.—Not only because he is the enemy of God and the prince of this world, by the attractions of which they suffer themselves to be enticed, but especially because he is the demon of self-boasting and envy, who assumes the garb of an angel of light, and desires then by representing that his temptation to sedition is a call from God, Jam_1:13.—Being only half-decided and doubting make the tempter bold and strong, while resolute courage in God and resistance unmask him in his impotence; for real courage and real power come from God; the power of Satan is a lying phantom-power (Matthew 4). It is only in the self-temptation of man that the temptation of Satan can become efficient. [Huther quotes Hermas, Pastor, 2, 12.—“ äýíáôáé ὁ äéÜâïëò ðáëáῖóáé , ê ̇ áôáðáëáῖóáé äὲ ïὐ äýíáôáé , ἐὰí ïὖí ἀíôßóôῃò áὐôüí , íéêçèåὶò öåýîåôáé ἀðὸ óïῦ êáôῃó÷õììÝíïò .”—M.].

Draw nigh to God.—The allegiance of the people of God is followed by their drawing near to Him. ðָâַùׁ or ÷ָøַá in relation to God is a specifically theocratical idea. Exo_20:21; Exo_24:2; Lev_16:1; Eze_40:46; cf. Isa_29:13; Heb_7:19; hence the expression Korban, that which is consecrated or offered to God. Here drawing near is used in the N. T. real sense=convert yourselves. The particular although not the exclusive reference to prayer.

And He will draw nigh to you.—The antithesis “Resist the devil and he shall flee from you” corresponds to the antithesis “Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you.” (See 2Ch_15:2; Isa_57:15; Zec_1:3).

Jam_4:8. Cleanse the hands, ye sinners.—The first specifically theocratic act. The expression refers to the Levitical purifications, the negative part of Levitical repentance, separateness from the world. The prophets did already apply this symbolical purification to ethical purification or rather interpret it ethically according to its profound import. See Isa_1:15-16; Psa_18:21; Psa_24:4; “He that hath clean hands and a pure heart.” The hands are the organ and symbol of ethical actions. To cleanse the hands signifies therefore to repent (Pott), to become separate from evil works, especially from lovelessness and wrong. This summons does not begin the summons to conversion (Huther), for it is already implied in the words “Subject yourselves to God,” which branch out into two moments, the negative “to resist the devil,” and the positive “to draw nigh to God.” This approach to God, in its turn, branches out into purification and sanctification in the narrow sense.

Consecrate your hearts.—The real consecration of our life to God consists in the consecration of the heart, in its surrender to God (Psa_51:12; Psa_51:18-19; Pro_23:26; Jer_31:33; 1Pe_3:15 etc.). The words “ye sinners” relate to the cleansing of the hands, the words “ye double-minded” to the consecration of the heart. The term ἁãíßóáôå probably alludes more particularly to the unchastity of the heart, as the source of religious adultery. Wavering and unchastity are here alike, so are on the other hand simplicity or decision and chastity.—They are sinners in a particular sense according to theocratic ideas, as far as they are about to excommunicate themselves by their evil actions (Jam_2:3), to burden themselves with the ban of the real congregation of God (publicans and: sinners=those who are liable to the discipline of the synagogue); but the reason lies in this double-mindedness, their wavering (Jam_1:7-8), l their mischievous halting between God and the world, between Christianity and apostasy. Calvin’s note is almost superfluous: “non duo hominum genera designat, sed eosdem vocat peccatores et duplices ammo.” It is evident from Jam_4:6; Jam_4:8 that this exhortation to their own self-activity presupposes the grace of God as the source of strength.

Jam_4:9. Feel miserable and mourn.—Hardly limited to the mourning which introduces and accompanies the repentance of individuals; the type is found in the Old Testament extraordinary acts of penitence which in situations of uncommon offences and peril were performed to complete the ordinary acts of penitence, viz. purifications and consecrations or offerings, Exo_33:4; Jdg_2:4; Jdg_21:2; 1Sa_7:6 etc.—The verb ôáëáéðùñåῖí ( ἅðáî ëåã . in N. T.; the adjective form in Rom_7:24; Rev_3:17; the noun Rom_3:16; Jam_5:1), denotes primarily to go outwardly through hard work, to endure hardship or distress, then the inward sense of misery on account of outward or inward wretchedness. Grotius and Roman Catholic theologians apply it without reason to castigations. Jewish fasting and other castigations as symbols of penitential sorrow are indeed the type, but Christian penitential sorrow must not be changed back into legal symbolism.

Mourn and weep.—See Neh_8:9; Mar_16:10; Luk_6:25; Rev_18:15; Rev_18:19. The putting on of mourning-apparel or sitting in sackcloth and ashes (Grotius) can only be the type of the Gospel requirement of inward mourning (2Co_7:10).

Let your laughter be turned.—Isa_65:13; Luk_6:25. “James passes from the outward manifestation ( ãÝëùò - ðÝíèïò ) to the inward state ( ÷áñÜ êáôÞöåéá ).” Huther.— êáôÞöåéá , casting down of the eyes, literally and figuratively. Hence shame and humiliation, ἅðáî ëåã ., Luk_18:13.

Jam_4:10. Humble yourselves before the Lord.—The fundamental idea of the leadings of the Old Testament and the O. T. fundamental rule of piety and of the promises attached to it; it has met its fulfilment in the humiliation and exaltation of Christ and must be realized in the life of believers (Rom_6:4; Job_5:11; Eze_21:26; Mat_23:12; Luk_14:11; 1Pe_5:6; cf. Sir_2:17). As this humbling must be realized inwardly in the bowing of repentance before God ( ἐíþðéïí êõñßïõ ), and outwardly in the patient enduring of the humiliating state of servitude and lowliness ( ὑðὸ ôὴí ÷åῖñá ôïῦ èåïῦ , 1. pet. Jam_5:6) appointed by Him, so the exaltation also should begin with the inward consciousness of the exaltation, liberty and glory of the Divine Sonship [i. e. the state of being the children of God in Christ=Gotteskindschaft; õἱïèåóßá , adoption—M.] and come to its outward consummation in the future glory, of which we have however some antepast here on earth. êýñéïò does not exactly signify Christ (Grotius), nor èåüò as opposed to Christ (Huther and al.). James wants to see the living God of revelation recognized in Christ.

Renovation of their conduct towards the brethren. Jam_4:11-12.

Jam_4:11. Do not calumniate one another, brethren.—Huther thinks that this exhortation, couched in a milder form than the preceding and exhibiting a contrast in the address, ἀäåëöïß being opposed to ìïé÷áëßäåò , ἁìáñôùëïß , äßøõ÷ïé , intimates that James now addresses, at least primarily, another class of persons, namely those “who by the worldly ways of the former felt induced to do those things against which he exhorts them.” But Wiesinger takes a more correct view as the transition: “The connection is as follows: if they thus humble themselves before God, they must not deny humility in the judgment they pass on their brethren. He therefore exhorts them to put away imaginary superiority to others in judging them, which is really an arrogant usurping of the judicial functions of God. The end corresponds to the beginning. Worldly pride the source of strife, humble submission to God the end thereof.” He adds however “he refers particularly to the oppressed.” But really there is no reason to see here already a distinct transition from one class to another. Slander and judging were the very soul of their fanatical doings in relation to their brethren. In Jam_3:1 also he addresses the brethren, although the sequel contains the severest kind of reprimand. êáôáëáëåῖí found here and 1Pe_2:12; 1Pe_3:16. It denotes not only slandering (backbiting, Luther) but also evil contradiction, retorting.—

He that calumniateth or judgeth his brother.—The Participles êáôáëáëῶí and êñßíùí are stronger than the indicative: he, whose characteristic consists in that he calumniates his brother. Huther thinks that while êáôáëáëåῖí always includes êñßåéí =to condemn, the reverse holds not good. This would make the former the stronger expression, but we consider the latter to be so. êñßíåéí passes from a loveless and therefore from a hateful judging of one’s neighbour to a similar condemnation of him. Wiesinger says indeed that “the context affords not the slightest occasion to think here of quarrels among Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians,” but the spirit of the whole Epistle constrains us to think of it, although the word ἀëëÞëùí shows that the primary reference here is to the internal divisions of Judaism. James probably alludes more particularly to the expressions and accusations which the Jews as Judaists and unfree Jewish Christians were wont to bring against the believing and more believing Jews. This seems to follow from the sequel “He that calumniateth, etc., calumniateth the law.” Schneckenburger rightly observes that the epithet brother given to the slandered persons emphasizes the peculiarly reprehensible character of calumny. But the sequel shows that the Apostle, by the use of this word, still aims at something more. Íüìïæ designates here, as in Jam_1:25; Jam_2:9, etc., the Old Testament law in its New Testament fulfilment. Hence the idea of Huther is right that slandering and condemning one’s brother is really slandering and condemning the law itself, viewed as the law of the Christian life and more particularly as the law of love, for such conduct amounts to rejecting it as an unjust law; but the Apostle’s idea seems to be more comprehensive, viz., the condemnation of one’s brother from the standpoint of fanatical motives is a condemnation of the essential íüìïò according to its inmost evangelical import and especially as to its tendency of saving and not condemning. Thus the condemnation of one’s brother in all cases is not only without the law and contrary to the law, but it falls also upon the law itself. This was perfectly clear in the case where the Jews judged the Christians; they judged the whole revelation (Joh_5:45-46); but in the opposite case also, i. e., that is where Christians judged the Jews, judgment was passed on the heart-point of the law, viz.: the promise of grace. De Wette, who sees in the respective expression only a figurative, pointed speech indicating the disregard of the law, dilutes the idea. Surely Grotius, Baumgarten, Hottinger are not altogether wrong (as Huther thinks) in understanding íüìïò as the Christian doctrine and perceiving here the idea that whosoever burdens his neighbour with arbitrary commandments, pronounces upon the deficiency of the Christian doctrine and in so far sets himself up as its judge. For this is just the manner of those who condemn; occupying a false standpoint, in particular that of illiberal legalism, they set themselves up as judges over the word of revelation, which judges no man uncharitably and is unwilling that any man should be absolutely condemned and least of all he, who has taken his standpoint in that very word.

But if thou judgest the law, i. e., if thou settest thyself up condemningly over it.

Thou art not a doer of the law.—Although thou boastest, to be zealous and jealous of it to the highest degree.

But a judge. The question is does this mean 1, a judge who from another standpoint judges and condemns the law itself, that is a God-hostile adversary of the law, an out and out anomist [ ἄíïìïò , without law, a lawless man.—M.], which would require us to supply the Genitive íüìïõ after êñéôÞò (so Neander, Wiesinger and al.), or 2, does êñéôÞò denote absolutely the judge who administers the law in judging men? This interpretation is opposed by Huther to the former, with the remark that the former makes this sentence and the one preceding it tautological, that it dilutes the antithesis of doer and judge and that the sequel adverts not to a judging of the law but to a judging of men. As to tautology, it does not belong to the first interpretation, because we have then the climax, not doers but condemners of the law. The antithesis “observer and despiser of the law” is surely much stronger than that of “doer and guardian of the law.” Lastly the idea “condemner of the law” is substantiated with what goes before. But the relation is such that the anti-judge is also always pseudo-judge just as anti-Christ is also always Pseudo-Christ.

Jam_4:12. One is the Lawgiver and Judge.—He is One, which is emphatic, not only as contrasted with all men, of whom this is not true, but also in the unity of the Lawgiver and the Judge (Morus), which does not suffer to rise a contradiction between the spirit of the law and the spirit of the judgment such as it ought to exist if the judging of the Judaists were authorized. Now His power to judge has developed itself in the first place as the power to save or to render blessed and in the second as the power to destroy or to damn. The sequel therefore is not a further predicate: “He is able to save, etc.” (Luther), but states the characteristic, “He, who is able.” This intimates at least that the Judge is the God of the Gospel, who saves or damns men according to their belief or unbelief, Mar_16:16.—He manifests Himself in fact as this äõíÜìåíïò and thus establishes His exclusive prerogative to judge. Bengel: “Nostrum non est judicare, præsertim cum exequi non possimus.”

But who art thou.—Impotent before that judicial majesty and power of God, moreover as a sinner guilty of the judgment and in want of grace (see Rom_14:4).

That judgest.—Really who makest judging thy business: ὁ êñßíùí , with the Article to which Schneckenburger calls attention. But this word evidently serves to introduce the sequel, according to which a great judgment is impending on these judges.

Dissuasion from their restless, gain-seeking and self-willed wandering through the world in consideration of the approaching storm of judgment. Jam_4:13-15.

Jam_4:13. Well then, ye that say.—Huther, who is supported by many predecessors (Oecumenius, Bede, Sender, Pott, Hottinger and al.), thinks that James now addresses no longer members of the Christian Church, but the rich; viz., rich Jews, according to the forementioned explanation of the term rich. Gebser and al. contradict this view; Wiesinger holds that James addresses simply a particular class of his readers. But the Apostle’s address really avoids every definite outward classification. His Epistle is addressed to the twelve tribes by the hands of the Jewish Christian, i. e., primarily to these with the intent that they should use the Epistle for missionary purposes among their brethren. But as James looks upon Judaism as a solidary guilt and perverseness attaching to the whole people, although mostly to the unbelieving Jews, so all his exhortations and warnings are addressed through the Jewish Christians to all Jews. Still so that the centre of gravity in his address is continually progressing from the Jewish Christians to the Jews. With respect to this section of the Epistle, while it still describes a gain-loving, trafficking Jewish wandering through the world, of which the Jewish Christians as well as the Jews might readily become guilty, at least to some extent, yet it is evidently the transition to the subsequent prophetical lamentation over the rich, i. e., over the hardened part of the Jewish people, especially their leaders, and is consequently addressed more particulary to the Jews.—The interjection ἄãå íῦí (here and James 5; not found elsewhere in the New Testament), according to Theile=“age audite,” refers doubtless to the announcement of the judgment, which comes out quite clear in Jam_5:1, but is here darkly and menacingly alluded to. James is anxious to communicate to his readers his sorrowful forebodings of the judgment impending on his people. Grotius renders: “jam ego ad vos,” de Wette construes it as calling upon them to lay aside the respective fault, Huther as preparing for the êëáýóᾰ ̇ ôå in Jam_4:5.

Ye that say.— ïἱ ëÝãïíôåò , ye that are in the habit of using such presumptuous and worldly language.

To-day and to-morrow.—See Appar. Crit. êáὶ (according to Theile) certainly expresses greater confidence than. ; the plan the journey of the restless traders. Wiesinger understands “and to-morrow” of the different plans of journey of different persons, Huther thinks that it fixed the precise duration of the intended journey. But Jam_5:14 shows that “to-morrow” is also added for the purpose of resenting the false security of the project. “To-morrow” denotes therefore the undefined future subsequent to “to-day,” not only a second day; for at that time a two days’ journey did not take one very far.

We will journey; we shall journey, ðïñåõóüìåèá uttered with false, prophetical assurance.

To such and such a city.—A demonstrative pronoun instead of the name of the city, with the collateral idea that the goal is now one city, now another. [I have adopted the rendering this city, because “such and such,” “this or that” is a sense in which ὅäå is not used; at least the best Lexica do not give it, and I agree with Alford, that Winer p. 174, who refers to Plutarch. Sympos. I. 61 for this image of ὅäå = ôὸ äåῖíá , does not make his point, and that all that is necessary, is to suppose that ôÞíäå ôὴí ðüëéí expresses in general terms the city then present to the mind of the speaker.—M.].

And will work there one year.— ðïéåῖí with a definition of time may denote primarily one’s stay at a place; but it probably intimates also that the respective time is spent (Act_15:33; Act_20:3 etc.). But we take the verb “work” in the sense of “working in the conduct of business.” The definition one year again denotes not only the false security of the calculation, but also their restless, unsteady habits; then, they think, we move on or return.

And do business [and traffic—M.]. The hastily following êáὶ and the hastily following future are also pictorial expressions descriptive of their immoderate false security. Bengel: “Polysyndeton exprimit libidinem animi securi.” Huther assents to Kern’s note: “Traffic is introduced only by way of example as characterizing man’s doing calculated only with reference to earthly life and as contrasted with the life in God.” But it is doubtless an example illustrating the secular aspect of the chief tendency of the Judaism of that time as it already began to develop itself; and the Apostle with a prophet’s glance evidently, describes beforehand the fundamental trait of the diabolically excited world-liness of his people, as it afterwards became more and more developed.

Jam_4:14. Yes, ye that know not [whereas ye know not E. V. much more correct and idiomatic than Lange’s rendering—M.]. ïἵôéíåò , properly, “ye that are of such a kind.” [Alford: =“ut qui”—“belonging, as ye do, to a class which.”—M.].

What will be to-morrow.—Pro_3:28; Pro_27:1. The general idea that carnal security is here met by ignorance of the future and the transitoriness of life (Huther) has here also a prophetico-historical bearing. Hence not only: “Ye know not, as mortal men, whether you are still alive to-morrow,” but also “ye have no presentiment of what the next future has in reserve for you with our people.” It is to be remembered that these words were written by an aged Apostle a few years before that great catastrophe, which brought the greatest misery and death on many thousand people not only at Jerusalem (and James considered Jerusalem and Judea to belong also to the dispersion of the twelve tribes in the enlarged sense of the term), but previously also in many cities of the Roman Empire (Cæsarea, Scythopolis, Ascalon, Damascus, Alexandria; Josephus, de bello Judges 2, 18, 1-8;) 20, 2.

For what is your life?—Of what sort, ðïßá . It is not only fleeting and perishable physically, but as the spiritual life of the nation also it is affected with deadly disease and a deadly destiny.

A vapor, forsooth, ye are.—Better “For ye are a vapor.”—M.]. On ãὰñ see Appar. Crit. The reading ἐóôÝ is manifestly a stronger expression than ἐóôß , applied to their life. “They themselves are thereby described as a vapor, as it is also said of the ðëïýóéïò Jam_1:10 that he shall pass away as the flower of grass.” Huther. Does ἀôìßò denote vapor of fire (smoke, as in Act_2:19 in connection with êáðíïῦ ) or vapor of water, that is, a misty formation, or is there no definite reference designed? We feel inclined to take the former view; 1, on account of the familiar reference to Act_2:19; Joe_3:1-5; Joel 2, on account of the reference to fire in Jam_5:3; James 3, on account of the greater volatility of the vapor of smoke as compared with the vapor of water which in the shape of cloudy formation is apt to last longer and in reality does not vanish if it dissolves into rain. But the real tertium comparationis is certainly the volatility of vapor, presenting an affinity with the volatility of the shadow in Job_8:9; Psa_102:12; Psa_144:4. But in the last passage the figure also contains the idea of a breath and Psa_102:4 the figure of smoke. Our passage is probably more nearly related to the one named last.

And then (again).—Laying the emphasis on öáéíïìÝíç , appearing in splendid extension, say like an illuminated cloud, êáὶ might be rendered even: it not only decreases but even vanishes. But as objection may be raised to such an emphasis, Huther’s explanation of êáὶ is sufficient “as it appeared so it vanished.” Thus Israel as a nation, was soon to vanish from the rank of nations.

Jam_4:15. Instead of that ye ought to say.—These words connect with Jam_5:13, but the parenthesis Jam_5:14 has the import of a prolonged characterizing address.

If the Lord will, we shall live.—See Appar. Crit. According to the less authenticated reading of the Text Rec. ( êáὶ æÞóùìåí ), adopted by the majority of commentators, êáὶ æÞóùìåí is generally connected with the protasis. Luther: “If the Lord will and we live, we shall do this or that;” Erasmus, Calvin, de Wette. The second êáὶ then denotes the apodosis. Here the protasis is divided into two hypothetical ideas: if the Lord will and if we live. Grotius and al take the whole somewhat differently: “if the Lord will that we live, then the rest also will follow, then we shall do this or that;” but this really runs into the construction of Luther. Most impracticable is Bornemann’s construction, who adopting the Text Rec., makes êáὶ æÞóùìåí the apodosis in the sense: “let us make our livelihood.” The better sense also favours the more critically sustained reading. Not only our doing depends on the will of the Lord, but also, first of all, life itself. Hence if the Lord will, we shall live and then do this or that (Wiesinger, Huther.) [I prefer the reading æÞóïìåí and render “If the Lord will, we shall both live and shall do this or that,” for it is evident that the hypothesis controls both our living and doing. Our life is dependent on the will of God and our doing depends on our living. Cf. Winer, p. 301.—M.].

Reproof of their false security and forewarning of their conscience, Jam_4:16-17.

Jam_4:16. But now ye boast yourselves in.—But now, i.e. instead of their thinking and speaking. Instead of it ye boast yourselves etc., according to the preliminary allusion, Jam_5:15.

In your illusions.— Ἀëáæïíåßá denotes vaunting or bragging regarded in the light of illusion or deception.—But here we must lay more stress on the objective, vain, arrogant self-exaltation than on the boasting. The clause: “ye boast in your boastings” (de Wette), is rather tautological. Boasting being a joyous testifying of the ground of confidence, the sense is as follows: ye boast in a ground of peace, consisting in those vain illusions or castles in the air, which from their nature are multiform. Huther remarks that ἐí denotes not the object but the ground of their boasting; but in this boasting the ground is really made the object.

All boasting of such kind.—That is, grounded on haughtiness and self-illusion; whereas both James and Paul know a holy boasting (Jam_1:9—that is glorying) grounded on the most opposite qualities, not on self-exaltation in forgetfulness of God and departing from God but on self-abasement in reliance on God and resignation to God.

Jam_4:17. To him now who knoweth to do good.—This is not only a moral sentence used for the purpose of warning the readers but the concluding forewarning addressed to the Judaists, followed by the announcement of the judgments upon those who still persevere in their obduracy; the great turning-point in the Apostle’s argument like our Lord’s last address to the Jews Joh_12:35 (Matthew 23), or that of Paul, Act_28:23 etc. And first we have to note that the main stress lies not on êáëüí , as the sum-total of good, because this would require the Article (so Wiesinger), but on åἰäüôé with which êáëüí ê . ô . ë . must be connected. He therefore who, although he knows better, omits the good and moreover the doing of good which he knows to do, to him it is reckoned as sin. The reference here, however, is not primarily, that a single sin of omission is also sin, but the whole attitude of an impenitent religious knowledge, the whole self-contradiction of a hypocritical and unfruitful orthodoxism is here described as a wholesale sin of omission. As sin, according to Rom_1:21 began with a great central sin of omission, so it is also sealed with the great, all-embracing sin of omission of impenitence. But this proposition contains also the common doctrine of the single sin of omission. Now concerning this knowledge of good the question arises (according to Huther) whether James refers to the knowledge he had imparted to his readers by his exhortations (Estius), especially by the last (Grotius, de Wette and al.); or whether this knowledge describes one already existing in his readers, as Huther assumes, observing; “the uncertainty of human life is something so palpable that those who notwithstanding talk in their audacity as if it did not exist, as if their life were not dependent on God and contrary to their own knowledge do not that which is seemly but that which is unseemly and therefore is is so much the more sin unto them.” We consider this antithesis as confusing. It is surely assumed that the readers of the Epistle knew from the Old Testament the rudiments of doing good and that in this knowledge the Gospel had raised them to the full consciousness of the highest degree of doing good; but it is assumed with equal certainty that this word of the whole Epistle, as a fi