Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 1:21 - 1:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_1:21. James infers ( διό ) from the thought in Jam_1:20 the exhortation ἐν πραΰτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον , with evident reference to ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας (Jam_1:18). He places before this exhortation the participial clause: ἀποθέμενοι … κακίας ] laying aside all filthiness and abundance of wickedness, i.e. all filthy and abundantly prevalent wickedness. The word ῥυπαρία ( ἅπ . λεγ . in the N. T.) is here figurative (synonymous with ἀκαθαρσία in Rom_6:19 and other places), as ῥυπαρός and ῥυπαρεύω , Rev_22:11 ( ῥυπαρός occurs in its literal sense in chap. Jam_2:2 : ῥύπος in 1Pe_3:21). Several interpreters (Calvin, Rosenmüller, Baumgarten, Hornejus, Bouman, Lange, and others) take it here as standing alone, equivalent to moral uncleanness (see 2Co_7:1 : πᾶς μολυσμὸς σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ), either generally “every immoral disposition,” or specifically as avaritia (Storr), or scortatio (Laurentius), or vitia intemperantiae, gulae et lasciviae (Heisen), or “filth in a religious theocratical sense” (Lange); but it is better to join ῥυπαρίαν with κακίας (Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others), so that the ethical judgment of the author on the κακία is thereby expressed (comp. Act_15:20; Rev_17:4), equivalent to πᾶσαν κακίαν ῥυπαράν , or less exactly ῥυπαίνουσαν τὸν ἄνθρωπον (Schol. on Matt.); only the idea is more strongly brought forward by the substantive than by the adjective. The word περισσεία , united to ῥυπαρίαν by the copulative καί (not as Schneckenburger thinks exegetical; in the cited passages, Joh_1:16 and 1Co_3:5, the position of καί is entirely different), foreign to classical Greek, has in the N. T. the signification abundance, properly: “abundance flowing over the measure,” which Lange incorrectly renders “outflow, communication of life;” see Rom_5:17; 2Co_8:2; 2Co_10:15. Nevertheless the word has been here taken in a meaning corresponding to ῥυπαρία , and has been explained as = περίσσωμα excrementum (Beza, Piscator, Erasmus, Schmid, and others), or also growth (Lösner, Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger, de Wette). But both meanings are arbitrary. The defenders of the second explanation indeed appeal to the passage in Philo, de vict. off. p. 854 B: περιτέμνεσθε … τὰς περιττὰς φύσεις (fortasse ἐμφύσεις , de Wette) τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ; but from this passage it does not follow that περισσεία can be explained de ramis in vite vel arbore abundantibus falceque resecandis (Lösner). It is equally unjustifiable when Küttner, Michaelis, Augusti, Gebser, Bouman, and others explain περισσεία κακίας as “ κακία surviving from earlier times,” and thus take περισσεία as synonymous with περίσσευμα (Mar_8:8). Against all these arbitrary views Theile, Wiesinger, Brückner correctly retain the word in the same sense which it has elsewhere in the N. T., so that περισσεία κακίας is the abundance of κακία , i.e. the abundantly existing κακία ; only ἐν ὑμῖν is hardly to be supplied as if James had only his readers specially in view (Theile: quod lectoribus peculiare erat).
Κακία is not here synonymous with πονηρία (1Co_5:8) = vitiositas (Semler, Theile, and others), but, according to the context, in contrast with ἐν πραΰτητι , as in Eph_4:31, Col_3:8, Tit_3:3, 1Pe_2:1, a more special idea, namely, the hostile disposition toward our neighbour which we call malignity (Cremer: malevolence, as social faultiness). Wiesinger inaccurately takes it as equivalent to ὀργή , as that is only one of the proofs of κακία ; incorrectly Rosenmüller = morositas.[94] On ἀποθέμενοι , comp. Eph_4:25; 1Pe_2:1; Heb_12:1.[95] The participle precedes as a subordinate thought to δέξασθε , because in consequence of man’s sinful nature room can only be made for the good by the rejection of the bad. Also, where similar sentences are co-ordinate, the exhortation to ἀποτίθεσθαι precedes; comp. Rom_13:12, Eph_4:22-23, and also the exhortation of Christ: μετανοεῖτα καὶ πιστεύετε , Mar_1:15.
In the positive exhortation: ἐν πραΰτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον ] ἐν πραΰτητι emphatically precedes, in contrast to the κακία from which flows ὀργή . πραΰτης (= πραότης ) denotes a loving, gentle disposition toward our neighbour; comp. 1Co_4:21, 2Ti_2:25, Tit_3:2, and other passages; the opposite is ὀριλότης (Pape’s Gr. Wörterb.); incorrectly Calvin: hoc verbo significat modestiam et facilitatem mentis ad discendum compositae. ἐν πραΰτητι does not therefore mean docili animo (Grotius, Rosenmüller, Hottinger), nor “with a modest disposition, which recognises the good deeds of Christianity” (Gebser). Also ἐν πρ . δέξασθε is not a pregnant construction, as if the sense were: monet … illo λόγῳ duce πραΰτητα exerceant (Schneckenburger); but James exhorts to the reception of the word ἐν πραΰτητι , in contrast to those who hear the word in order to use it as a weapon of hatred (condemning others).
Δέξασθε (opp. to λαλῆσαι , Jam_1:19) corresponds to ἀκοῦσαι , but expresses more than that, namely: “the inner reception, the taking hold of it with the heart;” comp. 1Th_1:6. The object belonging to it: τὸν λόγον ἔμφυτον , can only be the same as what was called the λόγος ἀληθείας in Jam_1:18 (Wiesinger); it is neither “the reason innate in man “(Oecumenius: τὸν διακριτικὸν τοῦ βελτίονος καὶ τοῦ χείρονος · καθʼ ὃ καὶ λογικοὶ ἐσμὲν καὶ λεγόμεθα ; see Constit. Apost. viii. 12: νόμον δέδωκας ἔμφυτον ), nor the so-called inner light of the mystics, nor the gospel “in its subjective form of life” (Lange). The verb δέχεσθαι is opposed to these explanations. James designates the gospel a λόγον ἔμφυτον , inasmuch as it was no longer strange to the hearts of his readers as Christians; also because it was not merely transmitted (Hottinger: ἔμφυτος = traditus), but implanted.[96] The verb δέξασθε does not conflict with this, as the word by which the new birth is effected among Christians is to them ever proclaimed anew, and must by them be ever received anew, in order that the new life may be preserved and increased in them. It is therefore not necessary, against the use of language, to change the idea: verbum quod implantatum or insertum est, into: verbum quod implantatur or inseritur, or to assume here a prolepsis, as is undoubtedly the case in 1Co_1:8, Php_3:21 (see Meyer in loco), and 1Th_3:13 (Lünemann in loco), and with Calvin to explain it: ita suscipite ut vere inseratur (similarly Semler, de Wette,[97] and others). The mode in which the adjective is united with the substantive is opposed to a prolepsis, which would be only imaginable were it said: ΤῸΝ ΛΌΓΟΝ ἜΜΦΥΤΟΝ ΤΑῖς ΚΑΡΔΊΑΙς ὙΜῶΝ , or something similar.
For the strengthening of the exhortation expressed, James annexes to ΤῸΝ ἜΜΦΥΤΟΝ ΛΌΓΟΝ the clause ΤῸΝ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΟΝ ΣῶΣΑΙ ΤᾺς ΨΥΧᾺς ὙΜῶΝ , by which, on the one hand, the value of the ΛΌΓΟς is prominently brought forward, and, on the other hand, is indicated what result ought to arise from the hearing of the word. By the verb ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΟΝ not the freedom of the human will (Serrarius: quod potest salvare, ut arbitrii libertas indicetur), but the power of the word is emphasized; it is, as Paul says, δύναμις Θεοῦ εἰς σωτηρίαν πάντι τῷ πιστεύσντι (Rom_1:16). But if it has this power, man must receive it, and that in a right manner, so that it may prove its efficacy in him and save his soul. It is to be observed that James says this of his readers, whom he had previously designated as born again (Jam_1:18). Thus, according to James, Christians by the new birth do not as yet possess ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ (the future salvation), but its obtainment is conditioned by their conduct.
Instead of ΤᾺς ΨΥΧᾺς ὙΜῶΝ , James might simply have written ὙΜᾶς , but Schneckenburger correctly warns: cave pro mera sumas circumscriptione personalis; animi enim proprie res agitur; see chap. Jam_5:20.
[94] Meyer’s translation: malice (Rom_1:29), malicious disposition (Col_3:8), would also not be entirely suitable, but too special. How Luther has understood the idea cannot be determined from his translation wickedness (Boshcit); since he thus constantly renders κακία , it may be taken in a general or in a special sense; the word badness (Schlechtigkeit) does not occur with him.
[95] To the assertion of Lange, that ἀποθέμενοι is not to be rendered putting off, because the reference is not figuratively to the putting off of filthy garments, but removing; the passages Rom_13:12 ( ἀποθώμεθα … ἐνδυσώμεθα ) and Eph_4:22; Eph_4:24, and the etymology of the word are opposed.
[96] Lange incorrectly explains the ἐν ὑμῖν to be supplied to ἔμφυτον “in and among you,” referring it to the Jewish Christians and the Jews.
[97] De Wette expresses himself doubtfully: “Either the adjective is used proleptically, or, which I prefer, it is the word implanted by the second birth; but by this also, on account of δέξασθε , a prolepsis occurs, ‘receive the word of truth, that it may grow in you by that new birth.’ ” But opposed to this, it is to be observed that the word is not implanted by the second birth, but that the second birth is the fruit of the implanted word. In conclusion de Wette remarks: “It must be taken rather as a reference to the whole of Christendom than to individuals: the word implanted in us Christians.” But the individual is only a member of the church by having the word of God implanted in him. Brückner has given the correct explanation.