Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - James 5:7 - 5:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Further address to the brethren. Final theme: viz. exhortation to endurance in long-suffering patience unto the coming of the Lord, Jam_5:7-8.
Jam_5:7. Be patient therefore, brethren.— ἀäåëöïß is the turning-point in the Apostle’s address. He now turns primarily to the Christian section of his readers without excluding however the further design of the address for all Jews capable of conversion in contrast to the aforementioned incorrigible ðëïýóéïé . ìáêñïèõìåῖí literally to have great courage, to be magnanimous, branches out into the ideas to be long-suffering or forbearing towards the erring, applicable both to Divine and human long-suffering, and to be patient in the endurance of suffering, but also with the lateral idea of patiently hoping for endurance under apparent danger, here under the experience of worldly and human wrong, Heb_6:12. Hence ìáêñïèõìßá is distinguished from ὑðïìïíÞ in Col_1:11. And here also the term is obviously chosen instead of ὑðïìÝíåéí Jam_1:12, because the Apostle desires to lay stress on the endurance of the Jewish-Christian under the wrongs of the old situation of the world, by which the Judaists suffered themselves to be drifted into revolution.
Unto the coming of the Lord.—The Lord is Christ, as in ch, Jam_2:1, and the ðáñïõóßá denotes His eschatological advent according to the entire evangelical and apostolical system of doctrine (consequently not the coming of God unto judgment distinct and separate from the advent of Christ, as held by Augusti, Theile, de Wette). But this involves no reason for identifying this ðáñïõóßá with the judgments announced in Jam_5:1. nor must we, on the other hand, limit the coming of Christ to the last and concluding event of His epiphany. The coming of Christ is the epiphany (manifestation) of Christ with all its antecedent interpositions, be they universal or individual, the greatest of which is the destruction of Jerusalem, as the type of all subsequent comings.
Behold the husbandman waiteth.—Cf. Jam_3:18; Sir_6:16; 2Ti_2:6.
For the precious fruit of the earth.—Which is well worth waiting for. In this the husbandman is a symbol for believers, as also in that he confides the seed to the earth; to invisibleness, to seeming death and the grave. Joh_12:24.—
Being patient over it.— ìáêñïèõìåῖí probably denotes here his persevering hope of the seemingly buried seed. It is the preciousness of the fruit (which, although invisible, he sees in expectation), that gives him long-enduring, faith-like courage. He calculates on it. [ ἐðß is very graphic; it depicts him, as it were, sitting over it in the confident expectation of its appearing.—M.].
Until it shall have received.—That is, the fruit in its seed, not the husbandman (Morus).
The early and the latter rain.—That is with reference to the climate of Palestine: the autumnal rain before sowing, the spring rain before harvest, Deu_11:14; Deu_11:2; Jer_5:24, etc. See Winer, R. W. B. Article “Witterung.” [The early rain ðñþúìïò îåֹøֶä éåֹøֶä began to fall about the middle of October, became more continuous in November and December and turned into snow in January and February. The latter rain ὄøéìïò , îַìְ÷åùׁ fell in March and lasted to about the middle of April. Thunder-gusts were not uncommon from January to March.—The singular exposition of the early and the latter rain given by Oecumenius may prove suggestive: ðñþúìïò ὑåôüò , ἡ ἐí íåüôçôé ìåôὰ äáêñýùí ìåôÜíïéá . ὅøéìïò , ἡ ἐí ôῇ ãÞñᾳ —M.].
Jam_5:8. Be ye also patient.—As is the husbandman. It is assumed that the seed has been sown among them. Their patience, indeed, is sorely tried, hence:
Establish your hearts.—1Th_3:13; 1Pe_5:10. It is here understood that this must be done by seeking refuge in prayer to the Lord, who giveth strength, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Jam_1:5-6 etc.
Because the coming of the Lord is nigh.—Literally: it has already drawn nigh in its coming nigh. It is not a fixed nearness but a constant drawing nearer and that, not in the sense of a chronological definition, but in the sense of a religious expectation and assurance, which does not calculate the time and the hour, or rather looks at time in the spirit of the Lord before whom a thousand years are as one day (2Pe_3:8). In the Apostle’s sense of the expression, it could be said and may be said at all times: the coming of the Lord is nigh.
Jam_5:9. Murmur not, brethren, against one another.—There is no reason why this should be limited to the mutual forbearance among “Christians” (Huther). Here again all the dissensions among the Jews must be taken into consideration. As James had already denounced their quarrels, so he now feels anxious to stop the very sources of these quarrels. Huther admits that James refers to a “gemitus accusatorius” (Estius, Calvin), but denies that it amounts to a “provocatio ultionis” (Theile and al.). But the second cannot be separated from the first; the legalism of the Old Testament, moreover, as contrasted with the thorough fidelity of the N. T. intercession, exerted as yet a powerful influence over the minds of the Jewish-Christians and might easily bias them in that direction. The believing Jews were peculiarly exposed to that temptation by the oppressive and irritating treatment they received at the hands of the rich. Huther rightly remarks that impatience in affliction has the tendency of making men irritable. [It is of course difficult to determine whether the reference is to Christians only or to those who were open to conviction, or to all whom it might concern. As the exhortation states a general moral duty, it is perhaps best to give it the widest, possible application. In this sense the note of Hornejus (in Huther) will be found useful: “Quos ad manifestas it gravissimas improborum injurias fortiter ferendas incitarat, eos nunc hortatur, ut etiam in minoribus illis offensis quæ inter pios ipsos sæpe sub-nascuntur, vel condonandis vel dissimulandis promti sint. Contingit enim ut qui hostium et improborum maximas sæpe contumelias et injurias æquo animo tolerant, fratrum tamen offensas multo leniores non facile ferant.”—M.].
That ye be not judged.—According to Mat_7:1, because murmuring against one another is also judging. [The reference is to final condemnation.—M.].
Behold, the Judge standeth before the doors.—(Mat_24:33). Before the door. The Judge i.e. Christ. Theile sees here a reference to the disposition of the Judge to punish the oppressors and to avenge the oppressed; Huther, on the other hand, says it is intended to caution the suffering against the suspension of love and to hold out to them the promise of speedy deliverance. But it is pretty certain that the love of justice, purified from every unholy admixture, may also expect the just recompense of evil, and that the two ideas, therefore, go together. Wiesinger’s remark is excellent: “Ye may with perfect calmness leave the judgment to Him and therefore ye ought not to expose yourselves to the danger of the judgment.” Cf. Php_4:5. [Seeing Christ will speedily execute judgment, do not murmur against one another; murmuring against one another is a species of judging and condemning, ye are brethren, not accusers and judges of one another; invading the prerogative of the Judge renders you liable to judgment and condemnation. Love, requite evil with good and leave the judgment in the hands of Christ.—The reader is referred to the Introduction for the remarkable incident recorded by Hegesippus that the religious sects at Jerusalem were wont to ask St. James “which is the Door of Jesus?” Wordsworth says: “The words of St. James ‘Behold the Judge standeth at the doors’ perhaps became current among them. Perhaps those words may also have excited the question put in a tone of derision, ‘which is the Door of Jesus?’ at what Door is He standing? By what Door will He come? Show Him to us and we will go out to meet Him.—This supposition is confirmed by the reply of St. James, ‘why do ye ask me concerning the Son of Man? He sitteth in heaven, and will come in the clouds of heaven.’ ”—For other interpretations of that saying “Which is the Door of Jesus?” see Bp. Pearson on St. Ignatius, ad Philadelph. 9, áὐôὸò ὤí èýñá ôïῦ ðáôñὸò , with reference to Joh_10:7-9; Valesius and al. on Euseb. II. 23; Lardner, Hist. of Apostles, James 16; Credner, Einleit. 2, p. 580; Gieseler, Church Hist. § 31; and Delitzsch on Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 673.—M.].
Encouragement thereto. Examples of patient suffering, Jam_5:10-11.
Jam_5:10. Take, my brethren, as an example.— ὑðüäåéãìá , example or pattern= ðáñÜäåéãìá , representation, related to ὑðïãñáììüò , writing-copy (copy-head) perhaps also attestation, and ôýðïò , the original pattern or beginning of a thing.
Of affliction and patience.— êáêïðÜèåéá , ἅðáî ëåã . in N. T. although not exactly=to suffer wrong (Hottinger), or=to suffer absolutely, denotes suffering evil or affliction, which easily suggests suffering wrong. [But, as Alford remarks, the word is strictly objective and is found parallel with îõìöïñÜ and the like. Cf. Jam_5:13, Mal_1:12; 2Ma_2:26-27; and Thucyd. 7:77, ἐëðßäá ÷ñὴ ἔ÷åéí , ìÞäὲ êáôáìÝøáóèáé ὑìᾶò ἄãáí áὐôïýò , ìÞôå ôáῖò åõìöïñáῖò , ìÞôå ôáῖò ðáñὰ ôὴí ἀîßáí íῦí êáêïðáèåßáéò (spoken by Nicias to the suffering Athenian army in Sicily): so Isocr. p. 127. c. ìçäὲ ìéêñὰí ïἴåóèáé äåῖí ὑðåíåãêåῖí êáêïðÜèåéáí —M.].
The prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord.—Cf. Mat_5:12. The addition characterizes them as servants of the Lord, who endured wrong for His sake.—Who spoke.—In a pregnant sense as frequently in the prophets.
In the name of the Lord.—(Lange: “in virtue of the name of the Lord”). Huther makes ôῷ = ἐí ôῷ , claiming as much for Mat_7:22. But there the sense is modified and here also this peculiar expression has probably to be so explained that the name of the Lord, i.e. the fundamental thought of the revelation of the Old Testament, gave impulse to their speaking. [But this seems a forced construction and since B. and Cod. Sin. actually supply ἐí there is really no reason why ôῷ should not be taken= ἐí ôῷ .—M.].
Jam_5:11. Behold, we count happy.—(Mat_5:10-11). This saying is not only a subjective judgment of James but a reference to the fixed judgment recognized in the theocratic congregation and more particularly in the Christian Church. On this account also the reading ôïὺò ὑðïìåßíáíôáò is preferable to ὑðïìÝíïíôáò . This embraces of course also the prophets just referred to (Grotius etc.), yet not them only but besides them also the most honoured sufferers. Hence we have “ye have heard of the patience of Job,” Eze_14:14; Eze_14:20; Tob_2:12-14.—Although his patience was at first shaken by the great temptation. The Jewish Christians had heard of him not only by means of the lessons which were read in the synagogue, but the name of Job was popularly honoured among them.
The end of the Lord.—We have here once more James’ uniformly significant ôÝëïò , the import of which is wholly misunderstood if the passage is made to denote with Huther, Wiesinger and many others: “the termination which the Lord gave” (of the Lord, Genitive of the causal subject). We therefore return confidently to the exposition of Augustine, Bede, Wetstein and al. “the end of the Lord is the completing of Christ.” It is objected that the context does not warrant such a construction. But the context speaks in the Plural, not in the Singular of those who did suffer. The final clause of the verse “for very compassionate is the Lord and merciful,” it is supposed, ought to be restricted to the mercy of God, which gave so happy a termination to the sufferings of Job. But was Job’s restitution, according to the idea of the book, merely an act of mercy? On the other hand the supposition that Christ the Lord, pursuant to His compassion, entered upon His passion and thus showed the endurance of patience, conforms exactly to the biblical idea (1Pe_2:21; 1Pe_4:1; Heb_2:10), and this idea is actually prefigured in the book of Daniel (Dan_3:25). Huther, moreover, thinks it improbable, that James should have connected the example of Christ immediately with that of Job. But he did thus connect the example of Abraham with that of Rahab. There the antithesis was: Abraham, the father of believing Jews, Rahab a degraded Gentile woman; the antithesis here is: the great sufferer of the Old Testament, the Great Sufferer of the New. This abandonment of the ancient interpretation of our passage we cannot regard otherwise than as a consequence of the disparaging views held with respect to this Epistle. Besides James could hardly extol to the Jewish Christians the glorious gain of patience in suffering without adverting also to the example of Christ (cf. 1Pe_2:21 etc.). This might have struck some of his readers as almost amounting to a denial. And why does he employ the term ôÝëïò , by which he understands principial completion, and generally that of the New Testament? Why does the verb ἠêïýóáôå not suffice him and why does he in contrast with it, use the Imperative ἴäåôå “look at the completion of the Lord?” But the Lord, like Job, went through suffering to glory, and that in the highest sense; and He was moved thereto by His infinite compassion, His love, which is also designed to coöperate with the patience of Christians. And this ἴäåôå seems to be the culminating point of the Apostle’s missionary saying addressed to those Jews who were as yet unbelieving: “the end of the Lord, look at it;” while the common exposition: “The end, which the Lord gave, see (i.e. know, learn from it) that the Lord is ðïëýóðëáã÷íïò etc.” (Huther), is not only very flat, but also forced.—For very pitiful is the Lord. Rendering ὅôé for, appears to Huther unsubstantiated by what goes before, but nothing can be more simple than the thought: “look at the end of the sufferings of Christ, for that He suffered need not excite astonishment, it is a consequence of His pity. ðïëýóðëáã÷íïò occurs here only; it is formed after øá çֶñֶã (Wiesinger), the Lxx. use instead ðïëõÝëåïò , 6 Paul and Peter åὔóðëáã÷íïò (Eph_4:32; 1Pe_3:8).
Conditions of this patience. Shunning of seditious movements. A hallowed disposition. The healing of their sicknesses. Liberation of the conscience by means of confession of sins. Exhortation to intercession. The example of Elias. Jam_5:12-18.
Jam_5:12. But before all things, my brethren, do not swear (conspire).—We cannot admit the view of Kern and Wiesinger that the connection of the Epistle breaks off at this point or that the dehortation contained in this verse has no other connection with what goes before than that which arises from the conduct of the readers. The fundamental idea which connects this verse with Jam_5:11 and Jam_5:13 etc., is the allaying of the fanatical excitement which was constantly growing among the Jews and was threatening through the influence of the Judaists to deprive the Jewish Christian Churches of their Christian composure. The history of the banding together of more than forty men against the life of St. Paul (Act_23:12-21) proves the bias of judaistic zealots to enter into conspiracies; subsequently towards the outbreak of the Jewish war they were doubtless of more frequent occurrence. We have employed in our translation an ambiguous word [Verschwörung, of which we have no current equivalent in English, i.e. an ambiguous equivalent; the German words denotes 1, to, bind one-self by an oath; 2, to enter into a Conspiracy. Conjuration is the nearest English representative of Verschwörung, but the sense of conspiracy attached to it, although current in the days of Sir Thomas Elyot (+1546), is now obsolete.—M], in order to intimate this meaning. To be sure we take it textually in the sense that all swearing accompanied by hypothetical imprecations or the giving of a pledge is conspiracy. See Comm. on St. Mat_5:34 etc. Hence James, like Christ (Mat_5:34), defines this swearing as swearing by heaven, by the earth, or by any other oath ( ὅñêïò ) connected with a hypothetical curse. The Greek construction ὀìíýåéí with the Accusative brings out the unseemly character of such swearing by or appeal to a created object as a witness or avenger, with greater distinctness than the Hebrew construction of the same verb with ἐí . Oecumenius, de Wette, Neander, and al. understand the prohibition to apply to swearing in general, as in Mat_5:33 with reference to or for the ideal condition of the Church. On the other hand Calvin, Wiesinger and many others refer the prohibition to light and trifling oaths in common life. With this must be connected the remark of Huther that swearing by the name of God is not mentioned; had he intended this swearing, he ought to have mentioned it in express terms because it is not only commanded in the law in contradistinction to other oaths (Deu_6:13; Deu_10:20; Ps. 63:12), but also foretold in the prophets as a token of men’s future conversion to God (Isa_65:16; Jer_12:16; Jer_23:7-8). But it follows also from this contradistinction that the oath in virtue of its N. T. completion was designed to be stripped of the formulæ of cursing and imprecation which always involve the pledging of things over which man has no control. To be sure, the stress lies here not only on this idealizing of the oath but also on the total setting aside of the abuse of oaths in the reality of social life. This attitude of James respecting abitrary oaths and his recommendation of the anointing with oil mentioned in the sequel, show that he was free from all Essene prejudice, for the Essenes were wont to administer to novices the vow of their order with a strong oath, although they rejected all other swearing, and so in like manner the anointing with oil.
But let your yea be yea.—[Winer: Grammar, p. 92, the Imperative ἤôù for ἔóôù (which in the N. T. is also the usual form) 1Co_16:22; Jam_5:12; (Psa_104:31; 1Ma_10:31, cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 6, 275; Acta Thom. 3, 7), Buttman I. 529; only once in Plato, Rep. 2, 361, d. See Schneidel p. 1. According to Heraclides (in Eustath. p. 1411, 22), the flexion is Doric. The other imper. form ἴóèé occurs in Mat_2:13; Mat_5:25; Mar_5:34; Luk_19:17; 1Ti_4:15 (Buttmann I. 257).—M.]. The exhortation corresponding to the prohibition. Here we find two opposing interpretations; 1. Let your yea and nay agree with your consciousness of positive or negative facts, i.e. let it be according to truth (Theophylact, Calvin and al.); 2. Let your yea be a simple yea, your nay a simple nay (Estius, Neander, Huther). We think that the two ought to be connected together from the nature of the case (see Comm. on Mat_5:34 etc.), but that the choice of the expression in Matthew along with actual truthfulness gives prominence to the assurance, while here James rather intones the perfect composure whereby the soul contents itself with the simple declaration.
That ye fall not under judgment.—On the reading åἰò ὑðüêñéóéí see Appar. Crit.; on the expression see 2Sa_22:39; Psa_18:39. The context requires a judgment of condemnation and this is to be dreaded not only on account of the formal, wicked carelessness with which such oaths are uttered (which carelessness moreover leads to hypocrisy) but also on account of the mutinous and perilous acts or steps by which they are frequently sealed.
Jam_5:13. Is any among you in affliction?—In opposition to the reprehensible sealing of excited frames of mind by such imprecatory swearing, the Apostle exhorts them to calmness of disposition and points out the means of accomplishing it. Its way was under all circumstances by a religious elevation of the mind. In the case of affliction (for the rendering: “does any among you suffer?” strikes us as too weak) the depression of the mind is to be raised by prayer; in the case of prosperity the mind is to be guarded against wantonness by the sacrifice of prosperity, by thanksgiving, by the singing of psalms or songs of praise ( øÜëëåéí 1Co_14:15). Cf. Jam_1:9-10. Huther thinks that the connection of this exhortation with the one preceding it cannot be substantiated. The connection is manifestly the Christian regulation of different mental conditions.
Jam_5:14. Is any sick among you?—Here is the culminating point of the question whether the language of James is to be uniformly taken in a literal sense, or whether it uniformly bears a figurative character. The literal construction involves these surprising moments: 1. The calling for the presbyters of the congregation in the Plural; 2. the general direction concerning their prayer accompaning unction with oil; 3. and especially the confident promise that the prayer of faith shall restore the sick apart from his restoration being connected with the forgiveness of his sins. Was the Apostle warranted to promise bodily recovery in every case in which a sick individual complied with his directions? This misgiving urges us to adopt the symbolical construction of the passage, which would be as follows: if any man as a Christian has been hurt or become sick in his Christianity, let him seek healing from the presbyters, the kernel of the congregation. Let these pray with and for him and anoint him with the oil of the Spirit; such a course wherever taken, will surely restore him and his transgressions will be forgiven him. This symbol, explained in the Epistles of Ignatius as containing the direction that the bishop, the centre of the congregation should be called in, may be founded on a wide-spread Jewish Christian custom of healing the wounds of the sick by prayer accompanying the application with oil. Most remote from the mind of the Apostle is the Roman Catholic tradition of extreme unction; for the reference here is to the healing of the wounds of the sick conducing to their recovery, but not to a ritual preparation of him for death; not any more here than in Mar_6:13. Cf. Huther’s note, p. 196.
Let him call to himself (summon, call for).—In the case of bodily sickness it is self-evident that this must be done by others than the sick man. [ ðñïóêáëåóÜóèù does not necessarily mean that the sick man is to call in person on the elders of the Church, it leaves the manner of his appeal undefined, he might call on them in person or summon them to his side by the intervention of others. To summon in the sense of sending for seems to be the most approved meaning. Cf. the Lexica.—M.].
The elders of the Church.—We must neither reduce the Plural to the Singular in the sense: “let him summon one of the presbyters” (Estius, Wolf), nor assert confidently that ἐêêëçóßá denotes here the particular congregation to which the sick man belongs, although the latter is probable. The main point is that ἡ ἐêêëçóßá , as a local congregation did represent from the beginning the whole Church and that consequently the presbyters could be sent for primarily from the most specific ecclesiastical district but also from a more distant sphere. [If I understand Lange’s allusion, I doubt whether his inference is sustained by the facts of the case. Interloping was not sanctioned in the primitive Church. The Apostles uniformly insist upon order and decency in the conduct of Church government. A sick man, connected with a particular ecclesiastical organization would send, of course, for the presbyters connected with it;. where no such organization existed, he would send for those presbyters to whom access might most easily be had.—M.].
And let them pray over him; i. e. not only for him, nor only literally as standing over his bed, but with reference to effecting his salvation (Act_19:13). [Bengel: “Qui dum orant, non multo minus est quam si tota oraret ecclesia.”—M.].
Anointing him with oil.—Many commentators assume, with reference to the Jewish custom, that the oil was here intended to coöperate as a medium of cure, cf. Jeremiah 8, 22; Jer_46:11; Luk_10:34. The disciples also used to connect this medium with their miraculous cures, Mar_6:13. See this Comment, in loco. Now in so far as the reference here implied lies to an apostolical method of effecting cures, we must doubtless think also of the organic connection of intercession with oil, i. e. of the spiritual effect accompanying that produced on the medium of the body. Huther (in opposition to Meyer) dissolves this connection without sufficient reason, by observing that the oil as such was only refreshing to the body. What such a refreshing amounts to, is not very clear; the chief point is that the two were to be united in one act, which was performed in the name of the Lord (Christ). But Huther rightly remarks that James did not prescribe anointing, but assumed the observance of the usage. He prescribes prayer in connection with that usage and the anointing as an anointing in the name of the Lord, which latter particular must not be referred to prayer only (Gebser), nor to both acts (de Wette), but solely to the act of anointing (Huther). In the literal acceptation of the precept, prayer would be the medium of the miraculous cure, which was then to be performed in the name of the Lord (i. e. not pursuant to His command, but in the power and limitation of His name). Schneckenburger adds that the presbyters had the ÷Üñéóìá ἰáìÜôùí (1Co_12:9). Huther calls this an arbitrary assumption and says that moreover nothing is said here of the ÷Üñéóìá . But the ÷Üñéóìá has at all times been the conditio sine qua non of ministerial efficiency and in the Apostolical church the office of presbyter did not involve the charisma, but rather those who had the respective charisma were generally ordained as presbyters (see 1Co_12:9; 1Co_12:30). Huther also sets aside without sufficient reason the connection between miraculous gifts and gifts of natural experience to which Pott, after his manner, calls attention: “quia uti omnino prudentissimi eligebantur, sic forte etiam artis medicæ peritissimi erant.
Jam_5:15. And the prayer of faith.—Not faith in general, but miraculous faith as a special charisma of the Christian spirit (see 1Co_12:9-10). Prayer characterized by such faith, not in general: the prayer which faith offers. Grotius and al. rightly assume that this faith implies identity of purpose on the part of the presbyters who intercede, and on that of the sick for whom intercession is made, for it is in this faith that the sick summons the presbyters (cf. the Gospels); Wiesinger and Huther arbitrarily limit this prayer to the act of the presbyters only.
Shall help (heal) the sick.—Shall savingly restore him to health. Lyra, Schneckenburger and al. understand corporeal and spiritual healing, de Wette, Wiesinger and al. corporeal only, because the forgiveness of sins is separately stated afterwards [Alford—M.]. Nevertheless we feel that we cannot give up the oneness of the two moments, seeing that the sequel doubtless adverts to the possibility of particular sins and that, as already stated, the concrete apostolical spiritual-corporeal cure seems to be here uniformly the symbol of a spiritual-social cure of the wounds and infection of the judaistic confusion.
And the Lord shall raise him up.—The Lord i. e. Christ. As is His wont to raise men spiritually-bodily, not only from the bed of sickness but also from the sickness. This ἐãåßñåéí however is not only the causality of the preceding óþæåéí , but also holds out the prospect of the positive exaltation of life which has been effected by the óþæåéí as the deliverance from peril of death.
And though he have committed sins.—This denotes an enhanced state of distress. Supposing that he even ( êἄí ) have committed sins, as ðåðïéçêþò , as one who is as yet burdened with the guilt of those sins (Plural). The presumption is not so much that these sins were the cause of the respective sickness (Huther), but they made the sickness a severe one and one difficult to cure; this would again import a spiritual meaning.
It shall be forgiven him; that is, his having committed sins. “Even in case that.” (Huther.) Forgiven not only in the social sense (i. e. by the presbyters (Hammond), not only in respect of his spiritual life, but the continuation, the curse of his guilt shall also be removed in respect of his life-situation. Huther wants to connect êἄí with the preceding clause: “The Lord shall raise him up, even if he have committed sins—(for) it shall be forgiven him.” In point of language êἄí is to favour his construction (but see on the other hand 1Jn_2:1); but in point of matter such a construction would greatly weaken the passage. The general and unconditional character of the assurance of renewed health, which is here expressed, has created much surprise. Hottinger expresses it more forcibly than any other commentator: “si certus et constans talium precum fuisset eventus, nemo umquam mortuus esset.” Grotius supplies the condition: “nisi nempe aliter ei suppeditat ad salutem æternam.” But Huther maintains against Wiesinger that there is no need of any restrictions and believes that the difficulty is removed by the consideration that James conceived the coming of Christ to be immediately impending; that consequently he did not consider the death of believers to be necessary, but viewed it only in the light of an evil which might be averted by believing intercession. Thus a second gross error would have paralyzed or covered the first. We rather opine that this very difficulty, as well as the whole character of the Epistle constrains us to adopt the symbolical interpretation. James assumes the existence of the custom of anointing the sick accompanied with prayer as a method of cure very generally prevalent in Jewish Christian Churches. This custom, traces of which are also found in ancient Judaism (see Wiesinger, p. 204), he now turns into a symbol of a spiritual cure, which he recommends to those who were infected with the spirit of Judaism and revolutionary Chiliasm, as a remedy for their spiritual healing. This construction is also favoured by the next verse. [As the reasoning of Lange may not appear conclusive but rather doubtful to many readers of this work, I subjoin an outline of the subject which may prove valuable for reference.—The opinion of Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, a disciple of John and a martyr, is very valuable and sheds light on the whole question. He says (ad Philipp. c. 5), “Let the presbyters be tender-hearted, merciful to all, converting the erring (see Jam_5:19), visiting all who are sick ( ἐðéóêåðôüìåíïé ðÜíôáò ἀóèåíåῖò ); not neglecting the widow or orphan or needy (see Jam_1:27), and providing always what is good in the sight of God, abstaining from all respect of persons (see Jam_2:1; Jam_2:9), not sharp in judgment, knowing that we are all sinners” (see Jam_3:2). The reference to James in brackets warrants the presumption that Polycarp was familiar with our Epistle, and the extract shows that at that early day the duty of visiting the sick had been devolved on the presbyters.—The direction that the sick should summon the presbyters (Plural) accords with the practice of our Lord who sent forth His Twelve Apostles and seventy disciples two and two (Mar_6:7; Luk_10:1).—The direction would hardly have been given, if it could not be complied with. James, as bishop of Jerusalem, presided over elders there (Act_21:18) and his language warrants the conclusion that presbyters had been ordained in the principal cities.—Without discussing the question who these presbyters were, the second order of the ministry or the first, the great fact remains that the visitation of the sick is an important part of ministerial activity, and that it is the duty of the sick (whether in body or in soul) to summon their spiritual advisers to their side. This is an important consideration, for in large parishes and especially in large cities weeks may sometimes elapse before the report of a parishioner’s sickness reaches their ears; if the sick are not visited under those circumstances, they must not blame their minister for remissness if they have failed to inform him of their sickness and to summon him to their side.
Our passage establishes the fact that anointing the sick with prayer accompanying it was practised in the Apostolic Church. The Apostles in virtue of the extraordinary and miraculous powers delegated to them by Christ, healed many, after having anointed them with oil. Cf. Act_6:13 with Mat_10:1-8 and Luk_9:1-6. The miraculous gift of healing continued for some time in the Church. See 1Co_12:8-9. James refers to this miraculous power of healing, which in its application however was not absolute, but dependent on the will of God; although applied in faith by the anointing presbyter and received in faith by the sick man, anointing did not heal him if he recovered his health, but prayer charged with faith, and this implies that the matter of the sick man’s cure was referred to the will of God, who did what was best for the sick, (Wordsworth), whether that was restoration to health or a Christian death.
The practice of anointing with oil with a view to recovery from sickness was continued in the Eastern and Western Churches, even after the Church had lost the miraculous gift of healing. It is continued in the Eastern Church for this purpose to this day, but the Church of England and other Reformed communions have abandoned the practice, because they perceived that the effect mentioned by St. James, viz. his recovery did not ordinarily ensue from the anointing with oil, and that the miraculous gift of healing as well as other miraculous gifts granted to the Apostles, had been removed from the Church.
The Church of Rome however retains the practice of anointing the sick with oil but perverted the design for which it had been instituted (viz: recovery from sickness), into that of a sacrament conveying grace to the soul, the sacrament of extreme unction, which is certainly one of the most audacious perversions of Scripture on record. See Alford and Wordsworth. Wordsworth: “The Apostle St. James had enjoined the practice with a view to the recovery of the sick; as Cardinal Cajetanus allows, in his note on the passage, where he says: “Hæc verba non loquntur de Sacramentali unctione extremæ unctionis,” but the Church of Rome prescribes, in the Councils of Florence (A.D.1438) and Trent (1551), that the anointing should not take place except where recovery is not to be looked for (Council of Trent, Sess. 14, “qui tam periculose decumbunt ut in exitu vitæ constituti videantur”), and therefore she calls this anointing “extreme unction,” and “sacramentum exeuntium,” and she regards it as a sacrament conveying grace to the soul. Thus, on the one hand, the Greek Church is a witness by her present practice, that the anointing was designed with a view to bodily recovery; and the Roman Church, on the other hand, is a witness, that the miraculous effects on the body, which were wrought in primitive times through the instrumentality of those who anointed the sick, and which accompanied that unction, have ceased.“—See this whole subject discussed in my article “An account of Extreme Unction,” Princeton Review, Vol. XXXVII. No. 2, April, 1865.—M.].
Jam_5:16. Confess therefore your sins (transgressions) to one another.—This injunction is general: it is the generalization of the preceding sentence. Cajetanus rightly observes: “nec hic est sermo de confessione sacramentali;” but the clause implies also the fact that James knew nothing of such a confessio, or he would have said: “Confess your sins to the presbyters,” of whom he had just been speaking. As to the sins here referred to, Huther understands sins in general as violation of the Divine law, in opposition to Wolf, who explains them as offences against one another, Mat_18:15. Bengel: “Ægrotus et quisquis offendit, jubetur confiteri; offensus, orare.” But the particular sins which are meant here, at least primarily, may be gathered from the whole Epistle; the reference is to the whole Judaistic movement which in so many respects had made them sick and feeble. But the thought has also the more general import that the confession of certain known transgressions is at once an unburdening of the conscience and a furtherance of prayer in the case of those who are thus drawn into the Christian fellow-feeling of guilt and thus also the preliminary condition both of forgiveness and of spiritual (and often even of bodily) healing. How many a germinating madness and suicide, how many a heart-languor and disorder which vexes the members and weighs down the body was to be obviated by this mutual effect of confession and intercession! But James had more particularly in view the hurts which were then troubling Israel. Both the confession and the intercession were to be mutual.
That ye may be healed.—This healing is understood spiritually by Grotius and al., spiritually and corporeally by Schneckenburger and al., corporeally only by de Wette, Huther and al. As nothing is said here of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of healing implies evidently also spiritual healing: but the idea “that ye may be healed theocratically” is probably predominant. “It is to be remembered that the prayer of the presbyters does not exclude the common intercession of Christians and that the efficacy attributed to the latter is not less than that attributed to the former.” Huther. [This is one of the passages adduced by the Latin Church for the necessity of confessing sins to a priest. Alford cites Corn.-a-Lapide’s exegesis as a specimen of the way in which the Romish doctrine is deduced. “Alterutrum, id est, homo homini, similis simili, frater fratri confitemini, puta sacerdoti, qui licet officio sit superior, natura tamen est par, infirmitate similis, obligatione confitendi æqualis.”—M.].
The prayer. … availeth much.—A saying of the power of genuine prayer designed to encourage them to adopt the recommendations previously set forth, i.e. both mutual confession of sins and mutual intercession. The great efficacy of such intercession is still further brought about by the position of ðïëý etc. and by the gnomic and asyndetical structure of the sentence. Of a righteous man, of a öַãִּé÷ in the theocratic sense, i.e. not one “in a state of righteousness” as Hofmann expresses it, for “the state of righteousness” denotes an ontological, passive condition, while in the case of the theocratically righteous every thing turns on actuality, on the living faith, on the living God and His word of life. The species of these righteous men is the same in the Old Testament and in the New; they are men of living, energetic faith (Romans 4), although the righteous man of the New Testament has the advantage of an objective as well as of a subjective ôåëåßùóéò . Hence Elias may here be held up to the Christians as the pattern of a real man of prayer.
Inwardly effectual (working).— ἐíåñãïõìÝíç causes not little difficulty and has given rise to a great variety of opinions among commentators. A main point to be determined is whether ἐíåñãïõìÝíç ought to be taken as an epithet to äÝçóéò , as the majority of commentators take it, or as a pure participial definition of the verb ἰó÷ýåé (so Pott, de Wette, Huther, who are however at variance with respect to the sense). Pott: “Prayer is able to work much” or “prayer is able to work much and worketh much.” de Wette: “if it becomes energetic.” Huther: “In its energy” or “in its working.” But all this is rather tautological unless it be made to denote a theurgic operation, which is inadmissible. The adjectival construction may be taken passively or actively, or in the most literal sense as a middle, as a kind of Hithpael. Prayer may be considered passively as coänimated by the prayer of him for whom it is offered (Oecumenius), as moved by the Holy Spirit, inspired (Michælis), as penetrated by faith (Carpzov), as animated and attended by impulse to work [Werktrieb, so Calvin and Gebser], Taken actively the idea of ἐíåñãïõìÝíç coincides more or less with ἐíåñãÞò or ἐíåñãüò (see Luk_22:44 ἐêôåíÞò ). So Luther: “if it is earnest;” Vulgate; “assidua,” and similarly many others. Of the other hand, Huther contends that this construction is contrary to N. T. usage, while Wiesinger maintains that this usage may be substantiated and refers to the proofs supplied by Wahl. We believe that the N. T. middle ἐíåñãÝïìáé (Rom_7:5; 2Co_1:6; 2Co_4:12; Gal_5:6; Eph_3:20; Col_1:29; 1Th_2:13; 2Th_2:7) denotes according to the Hebrew and Christian conception a passivo-active working, i.e. a working set in motion by a previously experienced impulse. This in malam partem applies to the lusts in the members (Rom_7:5), to the mystery of iniquity (2Th_2:7), in bonam partem to the subjective óùôçñßá (2Co_1:6), to the subjective ðßóôéò (Gal_5:6), to the vital energy in believers (Eph_3:20), to the energy of Christ in believers (Col_1:29), to the word of God appropriated by men (1Th_2:13); in both respects, to death and life (2Co_4:12). The Active however is used with reference to God Eph_1:11; Php_2:13; Gal_2:8; 1Co_12:6; of His Spirit 1Co_12:11; also of Satan Eph_2:2. It follows from this clearly marked usage of the word that we must also take äÝçóéò with the predication ἐíåñãïõìÝíç as indicating an efficiency effected or an impulse impelled. The idea doubtless imports the full tension of the praying spirit under its absolute obedience (yielding to) to the Divine impulse. And in this respect there is here an allusion to the idea of the miraculously potent prayer which works the ἐíåñãÞìáôá . [The Apostle’s idea expressed in plain words, seems to be that prayer in order to lead to outward effects, must work inwardly in grateful adoration of and fervent love and humble resignation to God; otherwise prayer is only a hollow, unmeaning and inefficacious uttering of words. Luther in his terse language hits the point, when he says in some place that “he who prays must feel that he is a beggar.” Absolute submission to the will of God is of course the very soul of prayer, and the true Christian never engages in prayer without the pious sentiment: “Not my will, but Thine be done.” Wordsworth remarks: “The martyrdom of St. James himself affords a beautiful comment on these words, especially where it is related that after he had been cast down by his enemies from the pediment of the Temple and they were stoning him, he fell on his knees and prayed for them, and some, who stood by, said, adopting the very words of this Epistle—“Hold, what do ye? åὔ÷åôáé ὑðὲñ ὑìῶí ὁ äßêáéïò ,” “the Just man is praying for you.” See Introduction.—M.].
Jam_5:17. Elias was a man of like passions.— ὁìïéïðáèÞò does not exactly signify that Elias had the capacity of suffering, or his real sufferings (Laurentius, Schneckenburger), but “of like condition and nature” (Wiesinger and Huther) is hardly adequate in point of sense. In Act_14:15 there is certainly an implied emphasis on the dependence and restraints of human nature as contrasted with the Being of God. Moreover in Wis_7:3 the reference to the earth imports not so much equality of kind as equality of condition. In the case of Elias the term “like passions” or liability to being affected, points at least to his capacity of suffering and temptability.
And he prayed a prayer [with prayer].—Analogous to the Hebrew idiom of producing intensification by placing the Infinitive of the verb in juxtaposition with the Indicative, or by connecting the latter with the noun Gen_2:17 úָּîåּú îåֹú Considering that Huther himself observes that this form serves to bring out the verbal idea, it is difficult to account for his opposition to the exposition of Wiesinger and al., that the prayer of Elias was an earnest prayer. [Huther, I presume, objects to the introduction of a new word. The prayer of Elias was genuine prayer, prayer charged with ἐíÝñãåéá .—M.].
That it might not rain.— âñÝ÷åéí is impersonal. [The gen. of the intent. See Winer, p. 343.—M].
And it did not rain in the land [on the earth].—Considering the O. T. colouring of the whole Epistle we may be allowed to translate ἐðὶ ôῆò ãῆò with Grotius and al. “in the land,” but Huther retains Luther’s rendering “on earth,” Schneckenburger compares this weighty saying with Gen_1:3 : “fiat lux et facta est lux.” But there remains the important difference that here the reference is not to an authoritative command (Machtspruch).
[Three years and six months.—Wordsworth: equal to 42 months or 1260 days, a chronological period of suffering. See Rev_11:3.—M.].
Jam_5:18. And the heaven gave rain.—A personifying, vivid mode of expression, reminding us of the prophetic style, Hos_2:21-22.
And the earth brought forth her fruit.—This was really the immediate purpose of the prayer. âëáóôÜíù [properly an intransitive verb, but used transitively—M.], a transitive verb: it let spring up, i.e. it put, brought forth. An application of what is related 1Ki_17:1; 1Ki_18:1; 1Ki_18:42 etc. The positive announcement of the drought may have led James to draw the reasonable inference that Elias had prayed for it, although we have no record to that effect, and tradition had probably anticipated his inference. Such a completion is however very different from a discrepancy (Huther). The second apparent difference is as follows: in 1Ki_18:1, Elijah is said to have foretold and to have been instrumental in bringing about the return of rain in the third year, while our passage affirms that it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Seeing that Luk_4:25 and the tract Jalcut Simeoni give the same duration, it would seem that that space of time was the uniform Jewish tradition. The explanation lies manifestly in the fact that 1 Kings 18 specifies the real famine according to its duration. But it stands to reason that the famine did not begin until one year after the announcement of the drought, viz. after the failure of the early and the latter rain. During the first year the people were still living on the harvest of the preceding year. Jewish tradition consequently added one year to the period of time mentioned in a general way in 1 Kings in order to mark the whole period between the two announcements of Elijah. Benson’s solution of the difference is somewhat different but not very clear. He says: “accuratior serioris traditionis computatio, ducitur a tempore non pluviæ primum cessantis, sed ultimum ante siccitatem eadentis, quam dimidio fere anno distare in promptu est.” That is, the first year of the drought is not added to the famine of about two and a half years’ du