Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 1:17 - 1:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_1:17. The sentiment in this verse, introduced by Jam_1:16, is designed for the complete rejection of ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι ; the good comes from God, therefore πειράζεσθαι cannot come from God. The idea of the good is indicated by two synonymous expressions: δόσις ἀγαθή and δώρημα τέλειον . By δόσις , which has here not an active, as in Php_4:5 (Bouman, Lange), but a passive signification (as frequently in classical Greek and in the Apocrypha), and by δώρημα , the same thing is indicated—in contrast to ἰδία ἐπιθυμία , Jam_1:14—as something given and presented, which thus proceeds not from man himself. By δώρημα τέλειον the idea already contained in δόσις ἀγαθή is heightened, δώρημα more definitely indicating the gift ( δόσις ) as a free present (which Gunkel incorrectly denies; see Rom_5:16, where δώρημα is parallel with χάρισμα ), and τέλειον the idea of the good ( ἀγαθή ) as morally perfect[75] It is arbitrary to refer the two expressions to different gifts, and by δόσις to understand the gifts of the kingdom of nature or of the present life, and by ΔΏΡΗΜΑ those of the kingdom of grace or of the future life. Also ἈΓΑΘΉ is not, with Didymus, to be restricted to the idea of the useful. Several interpreters (Raphelius, Stolz, Rosenmüller, Bengel, Augusti, Pott, Hottinger, and others) put an exclusive force on Πᾶς , as if it were = non nisi, “nothing but;” but the thought is weakened thereby. James designs to say not only—in contrast to the derivation of πειράζεσθαι from God—that only good (thus not evil) gifts come from Him, but likewise that good gifts all come only from God (thus from none else) (Stier); πᾶς is accordingly to be taken in its usual meaning; but ἈΓΑΘΉ and ΤΈΛΕΙΟΝ are to be emphasized. Schneckenburger arbitrarily explains it as if James had written: ΠᾶΣΑ ΔΌΣΙς ΚΑῚ ΠᾶΝ ΔΏΡΗΜΑ ἌΝΩΘΕΝ ΚΑΤΑΒΑῖΝΟΝ ΤΈΛΕΙΌΝ ἘΣΤΙ .[76]
ἄνωθεν ] = οὐράνοθεν (Act_14:17; Act_26:13; ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ , Joh_6:32-33), is put first for the sake of emphasis.
ἐστι καταβαῖνον ] are not, with Wolf, Bengel, Kern, Bouman, and others, to be separated, so that ἐστι is to be joined to ἄνωθεν , and καταβαῖνον is added as an epexegesis; but to be united, and are put instead of καταβαίνει , only that by the participle the quality of the verbal idea is more brought out; see chap. Jam_3:15; so also Wiesinger and A. Buttmann, p. 266 [E. T. 310]; Winer, p. 311 [E. T. 438], and Schirlitz, p. 317, on the other hand, regard the expression as entirely equivalent to καταβαίνει .
The expression καταβαῖνον is explained from ἄνωθεν . The explanation of Laurentius: non cadens, sed descendens, quia ordinarie bona sua dona dat, is far-fetched.
ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων ] an epexegesis to the preceding. By τὰ φῶτα is to be understood neither spiritual light, whether knowledge (Hornejus), or joy (Michaelis), or goodness, wisdom (Wolf: omnis perfectio, bonitas, sapientia et prosperitas), or something similar, nor the spirits of light (Schol. ap. Matt.: ἤτοι τῶν ἀγγελικῶν δυνάμεων · ἢ τῶν πεφωτισμένων ἀνθρώπων ; Lange: “the whole series of organs of revelation from Abraham to Christ, as the representatives of all good spirits”). Nor is there here any allusion to the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (Heisen); but by it are meant, as almost all modern expositors recognise, the heavenly bodies (see LXX. Psalms 135 :(136)7; Jer_4:23) = φωστῆρες , LXX. Gen_1:14. God is designated as the πατήρ of these, because He is their Creator and Preserver. This designation, for which Job_38:28 cannot be appealed to, is surprising, as it is without analogy either in the O. or N. T. (otherwise with profane writers and Philo). It has, however, its ground in this, that James considers the light of the heavenly bodies as a reflection of the essential light of God. Since God is the Father of light, the symbol of the holy ones (Wiesinger), so He Himself must be light, and thus nothing dark (consequently not πειράζεσθαι ), but rather only all that is light, can proceed from Him. As the Father of lights, God, however, outshines these: their light is changing; His, on the contrary, is without change. The following words: with whom there is no variation nor shadow (in consequence) of change, express this idea; i.e., whilst with the stars a παραλλαγή or τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα occurs, there is nothing similar to this with God.[77] According to Grotius, with whom various expositors agree, these expressions are termini technici of astronomy. But, in opposition to this, it is to be observed that παραλλαγή never occurs as an astronomical term (see Gebser in loco), and the astronomical signification of τροπή = solstitium, solstice ( ΤΡΟΠΑῚ ΘΕΡΙΝΑΊ and ΧΕΙΜΕΡΙΝΑΊ ; comp. Wis_7:18 : ΤΡΟΠῶΝ ἈΛΛΑΓΆς ), is not here suitable, as the sun is not mentioned specially, nor is an ἈΠΟΣΚΊΑΣΜΑ effected by the solstice. James here uses not the language of astronomy, but that of ordinary life (Wiesinger).
ΠΑΡΑΛΛΑΓΉ is to be understood quite generally, variation. James adds to this general idea, in order to bring prominently forward that the essential light of God is not, as is the case with the stars, obscured by anything, the more definite idea τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα . ἀποσκίασμα has not an active (de Wette: “casting a shadow”), but a passive signification, being shaded (so Brückner); and τροπῆς assigns the reason ( ἈΠΟΣΚΊΑΣΜΑ quae oritur e ΤΡΟΠῇ , Schneckenburger): thus the shadowing of the stars, which is effected by their changeable position:[78] for that James has founded his idea in a change in the stars themselves is not probable.[79] Luther’s translation: “the change of light and darkness” (similarly Stolz: “changing obscuration”), is only justified if it were said ΤΡΟΠῊ ἈΠΟΣΚΙΆΣΜΑΤΟς . Deviating entirely from the above explanation, the Greek interpreters take ἈΠΟΣΚΊΑΣΜΑ = ἼΧΝΟς ; Oecumenius: ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟῦ · ΟὐΔῈ ΜΈΧΡΙς ὙΠΟΝΟΊΑς ΤΙΝῸς ὙΠΟΒΟΛΉ ; Suidas: ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟῦ · ἈΛΛΟΙΏΣΕΩς ΚΑῚ ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛῆς ἼΧΝΟς · ΚΑῚ ὉΜΟΊΩΜΑ ΦΑΝΤΑΣΊΑς ; and following them several recent writers; Morus: ne tantillum mutationes; Rosenmüller: no shadow of change; so Hensler and others. But in this signification ἈΠΟΣΚΊΑΣΜΑ never elsewhere occurs; also the here essential idea of obscuration (Bengel: ἀποσκίασμα , opponitur luminibus) would be lost.
The form ἔνΙ (besides here in the N. T. in 1Co_6:5; Gal_3:28; Col_3:11) is not, with Buttmann, II. 375; Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 96]; Schirlitz, 171, and others, to be taken as a peculiar form of ἘΝ , but is the abbreviation of ἜΝΕΣΤΙ (A. Buttmann, p. 64 [E. T. 72]); comp. 1Co_6:5 : ΟὐΚ ἜΝΙ ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ ΣΟΦῸς ΟὐΔῈ ΕἾς (see Meyer in loco). ἔνι , however, is not, with Pott, to be explained as precisely equivalent with ἘΣΤΙΝ , yet the meaning of the preposition ἘΝ is so weakened, as the verb could be construed with any other preposition, as here with the preposition ΠΑΡΆ , which here, as frequently in the N. T., stands for “what spiritually belongs to another, is in another’s possession;” Demosthenes, de cor. p. 318, 13: εἰ δʼ οὖν ἐστι καὶ παρʼ ἐμοί τις ἐμπειρία τοιαύτη .
[75] Whilst de Wette finds the emphasis only in the adjectives, Theile correctly remarks: Et substantiva et adjectiva differunt ita, ut posterius priore sit definitius ideoque majus. So also Wiesinger and Brückner. Lange by δώρ . τέλ . understands “the gift of God completed in Christianity;” and by δόσ . ἀγ . “everything which served to prepare this completed gift, especially in the old covenant.”
[76] On the accidental hexameter which the words πᾶσα … τέλειον form, see Winer, p. 564 [E. T. 798].
[77] Flatt (Spicil. observatt. ad ep. Jacobi): Auctor siderum nitidorum ipsis etiam nitidior et nitoris, nullis unquam tenebris interrupti, majori constantia fulgens. Similarly it is said of Wisdom: ἔστι γὰρ αὕτη εὐπρεπεστέρα ἡλίου , καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἄστρων θέσιν , φωτὶ συγκρινομένη εὑρίσκεται προτέρα , Wis_7:29.
[78] Incorrectly Lange explains the expression: “of the obscuration of the earth effected by the diurnal phenomenal revolution of the sun, moon, and stars.” And the proper idea which James has in view is, according to Lange, that God “makes no revolution with the Old Testament which would cast a night-shadow on the New, nor does He suffer the New Testament to cast a night-shadow on the Old!!”
[79] Without reason, Baumgarten, Schneckenburger, and others assume that James here alludes to the astrological superstitions of the Jews.