Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 1:20 - 1:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_1:20 gives the reason of the exhortation βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν : for the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God. The preponderance of authorities decides against the reading κατεργάζεται , and in favour of ἐργάζεται . From the fact that δικαιοσύνην is twice in the N. T., namely Act_10:35 and Heb_11:33, joined with the simple verb, it does not follow that ἐργάζεται is a later correction (against de Wette, Wiesinger), especially as κατεργάζεσθαι is also found united with abstract substantives, as in Rom_1:27 with τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην , in Rom_2:9 with τὸ κακόν , and in Rom_7:18 with τὸ καλόν . With the reading ἐργάζεται ,—and also with κατεργάζεται , when this latter, as is frequently the case (see especially Rom_2:9-10), is synonymous with the former,
δικαιοσύνη is equivalent to τὸ δίκαιον , as is frequently the case in the O. and N. T.; see Act_10:35 above referred to, and the frequently occurring phrase: ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην , Gen_18:19; Isa_56:1; Mat_6:1; 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:7; 1Jn_3:10; Rev_22:11. Θεοῦ is added in contrast to ἀνδρός for the sake of a more exact statement, so that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is the righteousness willed by God[91] (similar to τὸ δίκαιον ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ , Act_4:19; Luther: “the wrath of man works not that which is right before God”); so Beza, Hornejus, Wolf, Bengel, de Wette, Bouman, and others correctly explain it. The opposite of δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ ἐργάζεσθαι is ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθαι , chap. Jam_2:9 (comp. Mat_7:1 : ἐργαζ . τὴν ἀνομίαν ; 1Ma_9:23 : ἐργαζ . τὴν ἀδικίαν ; also comp. Rom_2:10 : ἐργαζ . τὸ ἀγαθόν ; Gal_6:10). James was the more constrained to give prominence to this idea, as ὀργή itself and the words flowing from it were considered by the pharisaical disposition of Christians, against whom this warning is directed, and of whom it was said: ζῆλον Θεοῦ ἔχουσιν , ἀλλʼ οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν , Rom_10:2, as something that was pleasing to God. With the reading κατεργάζεται this verb may also be equivalent to effect, to bring about (as Jam_1:3). Gebser, Grashof, and others understand, in accordance with this view, by δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ : “the condition of justification before God;” but, on the one hand, an unsuitable thought is expressed by this, and, on the other hand, a mode of expressing the idea δικαιοσύνη τοῦ Θεοῦ , peculiar to Paul, is without ceremony ascribed to James. But as little is it to be justified when Wiesinger, following Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. ed. 1, p. 548 f.), finds expressed in the words of James, that “one by wrathful zeal effects not on others the δικ . Θεοῦ , i.e. that state of righteousness in which God begets men by His word of truth.”[92] Though δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ can denote the righteousness wrought by God, yet this idea is here unsuitable, since no man could entertain the opinion that his wrath could do what can only be effected by God. Also in this case James would only emphasize an impossibility of ὀργή , whereas he was required to bring prominently forward its rejection; moreover, on others is inserted into the text.[93] The same reasons are also decisive against the explanation of Brückner (“the wrath of man works not the righteousness which God accomplishes—this generally stated both in respect to the ἈΝΉΡ and in respect to others on whom one strives to work”), in which a twofold reference is arbitrarily assumed. Brückner correctly rejects the explanation of Lange, that James speaks against “the delusion of wrath, which imagines to administer and accomplish in the world the righteousness of God especially against unbelievers,” because there is no reference to this in the context; it is, moreover, linguistically unmaintainable, as ἘΡΓΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ does not mean “to administer and accomplish.”
ἈΝΔΡΌς stands here as in Jam_1:8; Jam_1:12; it forms a contrast neither to the child (Thomas: ira fortis et deliberate non dicit pueri, qui cito transit), nor to the woman (Bengel: sexns virilis maxime iram alit), nor to ἄνθρωπος , Jam_1:19 (Lange).
[91] It is true the expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ occurs not elsewhere in this sense; but this can be the less an objection to it, as the relation in which the genitive Θεοῦ is placed to δικαιοσύνη is not entirely opposed to the genitive of relation, as is evident if we designate the δικ . Θ . as that δικαιοσύνη which is actually so according to the determination of God.
[92] In the second edition (p. 628), Hofmann has indeed altered the words, but not the thought, in the explanation given in the first edition. When he defines the distinction in the use of the idea δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ , in Rom_1:17 and here, to consist in this, that Paul speaks of justification, in James of regeneration, the untenableness of his explanation is the more evident, for that ὀργή produces regeneration could occur to no one.
[93] Contrary to the Biblical use of language, Oecumenius explains the expression δικαιοσύνη as equivalent to ἕξις ἑν ψυχῇ κατʼ ἀξίαν ἐκάστῳ ἀκονεμητική . Pott wholly arbitrarily refers the verse to the teachers of the Christian religion, paraphrasing it: iratus nequit docere religionem christianum prout fas est Deoque probatur.—Several commentators (also Kern) to this verse cite Sir_1:21 : οὐ δυνήσεται θυμὸς ἄδικος δικαιωθῆναι ; but incorrectly, since δικαιωθῆναι has an entirely different meaning from κατεργάζεσθαι δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ .