Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 1:11 - 1:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_1:11. A further expansion of the image. The aorists ἀνέτειλε , ἐξήρανε , etc., do not precisely stand for the present (Grotius, Piscator, Hottinger, and others), but represent the occurrence in a concrete manner as a fact which has taken place, by which the description gains in vividness (comp. Isa_40:7), which is still more vividly portrayed by the simple succession of finite verbs. See Winer, p. 248 [E. T. 346, 347] and p. 417 [E. T. 590]; A. Buttmann, p. 175. It is only confusing to convert ἀνέτειλε … ἐξήρανε into ἀνατείλας or ἐὰν ἀνατέλλῃ … ἐξήρανε .
By the word καύσων is often in the LXX. (comp. besides Eze_17:10; Eze_19:12, Hos_13:15 : Jer_18:17; Jon_4:8; where ἄνεμος or πνεῦμα is added, particularly Job_27:21; Hos_12:1) meant the hot east wind ( ÷ÈãÄéí ), which, blowing over the steppes of Arabia, is very dry and scorching to vegetation (see Winer’s Reallexicon: word, Wind); here, however, as in Isa_49:10 ( ùÑÈãÈá closely united with ùÑÆîÆùÑ ), Sir_18:16 (comp. also Sir_43:3, where it is said of the sun: καὶ ἐναντίον καύματος αὐτοῦ τίς ὑποστήσεται ), Mat_20:12, Luk_12:55, it has the meaning “heat, burning” (against Grotius, Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger, Winer, Wahl, Lange, Bouman, and others), as the parching effect is attributed not to the καύσων as something different from the sun, but to the sun itself.[59] It is arbitrary to explain it as if it were written: ἨΓΈΡΘΗ ΓΆΡ , ἍΜΑ Τᾷ ἈΝΑΤΕῖΛΑΙ ΤῸΝ ἭΛΙΟΝ , Ὁ ΚΑΎΣΩΝ ; as Gebser says: “the burning wind rising with the sun is the image.” Laurentius incorrectly understands by the sun “Christ,” and by the rising of the sun “the day of the Lord;” thus the whole is an image of the judgment destroying the rich, yet so that the individual parts are to be retained in their appropriate meaning.[60]
ΚΑῚ ἘΞΉΡΑΝΕ Κ . Τ . Λ .] The same expressions in Isa_40:7.
ἘΚΠΊΠΤΕΙΝ , i.e. not simply the withering (Isa_28:1; Isa_28:4, LXX.), but the actual falling off of the flower, is a consequence of the blighting of the plant.
ἡ εὐπρέπεια ] the opposite of ἈΠΡΈΠΕΙΑ is used in the classics chiefly of external appearance; in the N. T. it is an ἍΠ . ΛΕΓ .
ΤῸ ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ = ôÌÈðÄéí , Psa_104:30; comp. Luk_12:56; Mat_16:3 : species externa. ΑὐΤΟῦ refers, not as the first ΑὐΤΟῦ , to ΤῸΝ ΧΌΡΤΟΝ , but ΤῸ ἌΝΘΟς , on which the emphasis rests (comp. Jam_1:10, de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman).[61]
ΟὝΤΩ ] thus quickly, thus entirely (Wiesinger); ΚΑΊ is not purely superfluous (Wiesinger), but, referring back to the image, heightens the comparison.
Ὁ ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟς … ΜΑΡΑΝΘΉΣΕΤΑΙ ] It is to be observed that here also Ὁ ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟς and not Ὁ ΠΛΟῦΤΟς is the subject. ΜΑΡΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ , in the N. T. an ἍΠ . ΛΕΓ ., is found in the LXX. as the translation of éÈáÅùÑ , Job_15:30; in the same meaning in the Wisdom of Solomon Jam_2:8. The figurative expression is explained by what goes before.
ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ΠΟΡΕΊΑΙς ΑὙΤΟῦ ] not “on his journeys” (Laurentius, Piscator, Herder), also not “on his journeyings of fortune” (Lange); but = ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ὍΔΟΙς ΑὐΤΟῦ , Jam_1:8 (comp. Pro_2:8, LXX.). The prominent idea is that the rich man, overtaken by judgment, perishes in the midst of his doings and pursuits, as the flower in the midst of its blossoming falleth a victim to the scorching heat of the sun. Luther’s translation: “in his possession,” is explained from the false reading ΠΟΡΊΑΙς . See critical notes.
[59] Neither the article before καύσωνι , nor the observation that “with the rising of the sun and the development of its heat the vegetation is not forthwith imperilled,” forms a valid reason against this explanation (against Lange).
[60] That “with the sun of a finished revelation was developing the hot wind of the law, which scorched the glory of Israel” (Lange), is a remark which is here the more inappropriate, as according to it the sun and the hot wind are indicated as two different powers opposed to each other.
[61] Lange, on the other hand, observes “that a fallen flower is still to lose its beauty” cannot be imagined; but is it then to be imagined that the grass when it is withered and the flower has fallen from it is still to lose its beauty?