Jam_1:4. The verification of faith effected by the
πειρασμοί
produces
ὑπομονή
, and on this account temptations should be to the Christian an object of joy, as it depends on them that
ὑπομονή
is of the right kind. This is indicated in this verse. Oecumenius rightly observes:
σκόπει
οὐκ
εἶπε
τὴν
ὑπομονὴν
ὁριστικῶς
,
ὅτι
ἔργον
τέλειον
ἔχει
,
ἀλλὰ
προστακτικῶς
ἐχέτω
·
οὐ
γὰρ
προϋποκειμένην
ἀρετὴν
ἐξαγγέλλει
,
ἀλλὰ
νῦν
ἐγγινομένην
,
ὡς
χρὴ
γίνεσθαι
νομοθετεῖ
.
ἡ
δὲ
ὑπομονὴ
ἔργον
τέλειον
ἐχέτω
] The emphasis is not placed on
ἔργον
,—that
ὑπομονή
has an
ἔργον
is understood of itself,—but on
τέλειον
(Wiesinger). James wishes that the
ἔργον
of
ὑπομονή
among Christians be
τέλειον
, in order that they may be
τέλειοι
: as he, moreover, strongly emphasizes
τέλειον
εἶναι
. In explaining the thought, de Wette confounds the abstract (
ὑπομονή
) with the concrete (
ὁ
ὑπομένων
), and understands by
ἔργον
τέλειον
“the active virtue which the patient man must perfectly have.” This explanation of de Wette agrees in essentials with the explanations of Erasmus, Calovius, Morus, Pott, Augusti, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, according to which
ἔργον
τέλειον
is distinguished from
ὑπομονή
, and the moral activity which the Christian has to exercise with his
ὑπομονή
indicated. Thus Erasmus: quemadmodum in malis tolerandis fortis est et alacris, ita in bonis operibus exercendis sibi constet. Pott: perseverantiae fructus sit perfectum virtutis studium. This interpretation is, however, incorrect; it not only gives rise to unjustifiable changes of meaning, as that of
ὑπομονή
into
ὁ
ὑπομένων
, or of
ἐχέτω
into
παρεχέτω
(Pott), or into
κρατείτω
(Schulthess), but gives also a thought which with the following
ἵνα
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. would be tautological. Most expositors (even Brückner,[41] in opposition to de Wette) refer
ἔργον
τέλειον
to
ὑπομονή
itself;
ἔργον
= work, realization (Wiesinger); comp. 1Th_1:3 :
τὸ
ἔργον
τῆς
πίστεως
; for the
ὑπομονή
of the Christian is not only a suffering, but even more a doing. This doing is to be
τέλειον
, that is, not only, as many interpreters explain, enduring to the end (Luther: “patience is to continue stedfast to the end;” Calvin: haec vera crit patientia, quae in finem usque durabit; similarly Jerome, Serarius, Salmero, Estius, Gomarus, Piscator, Piraeus, Hornejus, Carpzov, Semler, Hottinger, etc.), but complete, and that not only in respect of its internal condition,—so that it is wanting in no essential points of true
ὑπομονή
,—but also in respect of its activity (Lange[42]), so that it in no way yields to the
ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟῖς
, which yielding occurs when a man by the temptations is determined to something which does not correspond with the principle of faith. Bouman: Haec
ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ
consummatum opus habet, quando ita se gerit, in quo habitat, homo, ut universam per vitam et animum et linguam et pedes regat ac moderetur. That
ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ
in this manner has an
ἜΡΓΟΝ
ΤΈΛΕΙΟΝ
is necessary, in order that Christians may be perfect and entire, which as Christians they should be. This James indicates in the following words:
ἽΝΑ
ἮΤΕ
ΤΈΛΕΙΟΙ
ΚΑῚ
ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟΙ
]
ἽΝΑ
is not here
ἘΚΒΑΤΙΚῶς
(which Baumgarten and Pott regard as possible), but
ΤΕΛΙΚῶς
, in order that. De Wette and Wiesinger incorrectly refer it to the future judgment.
τέλειοι
and
ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟΙ
are synonymous terms;
ΤΈΛΕΙΟς
is properly “that which has attained its aim,”
ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟς
“that which is complete in all its parts, is entire.” Both expressions are found in the LXX. as the translation of
úÌÈîÄéí
(Gen_6:9; Eze_15:5); besides this verse,
ὉΛΌΚΛΗΡΟς
in the N. T. only occurs in 1Th_5:25 (
ὉΛΟΚΛΗΡΊΑ
, Act_3:16).[43] It is true that both
τέλειος
(in the LXX. and in the classics) and
ὁλόκληρος
(particularly in Philo, but not in the LXX.) are used with special reference to sacrifice; to which, however, there is here no allusion (against Kern). Still more arbitrary is the interpretation of Storr: qui superiores e certamine discedebant.
ἐν
μηδενὶ
λειπόμενοι
] the negative expression added for strengthening the two positive expressions; as in Jam_1:5 :
ἁπλῶς
καὶ
μὴ
ὀνειδίζοντος
, and in Jam_1:6 :
ἐν
πίστει
,
μηδὲν
διακρινόμενος
. As regards the expression itself,
ἐν
μηδενί
is not to be taken, with de Wette, as a supplement to
λειπόμενοι
, as the supplement to this verb is always in the genitive; therefore the expression has been correctly translated by Wiesinger and in this commentary, not by wanting nothing, but by wanting in nothing (which Lange has overlooked). The question, however, occurs, can
λειπόμενοι
be explained as = wanting? This idea is not contained in the verb by itself, and therefore can hardly be attributed to it when it stands absolutely, as here. It is therefore safer to take
λείπεσθαι
in its usual meaning, and thus, with Lange, to explain
λειπόμενοι
by coming short of, namely, short of the goal marked out to the Christian. It is incorrect, with Pott, to say: tota loquendi ratio ab iis qui cursu … relinquuntur et seperantur (so also Lösner, Krebs, Storr, Augusti); for although the verb in classical writers has often this reference, yet there is here no mention of a relation to others, and accordingly the appeal to Polybius, p. 1202, ed. Gronov.:
ἐν
τῇ
πρὸς
Ῥωμαίους
εὐνοίᾳ
παρὰ
πολὺ
τἀδελφοῦ
λειπόμενος
, does not suit. According to the meaning here given,
λειπόμενοι
forms a strong contrast to
τέλειοι
.
[41] “Nothing else can be meant than the perfect work of endurance, particularly as different stages of this are conceivable.”
[42] Lange here arbitrarily understands by
ἔργον
τέλειον
specially: “the unreserved acknowledgment of their Gentile-Christian brethren, the open rupture with Jewish pride of faith and fanaticism.”
[43] A limitation of this idea to moral perfection is not required by the context. Lange has the following strange remark: “The Jew was a symbolical
κλῆρος
of the household; as a Christian he was to become a real
κλῆρος
, and thus
ὁλόκληρος
.”