Jam_1:9-10. James subjoins to the idea that the doubter should not think that he should receive anything, the exhortation to the lowly brother;
δέ
non solum apponendo, sed opponendo gravius hortatur (Theile). At first view the natural sense is, with de Wette, Wiesinger, and most expositors, to take
ὁ
ἀδελφός
as the general idea, which is specified by
ὁ
ταπεινός
and
ὁ
πλούσιος
. According to this view,
ταπεινός
is not equivalent to
ταπεινὸς
τῇ
καρδίᾳ
, Mat_11:29, but, in opposition to
πλούσιος
, must be taken in its proper sense: afflictus, particularly poor; on the other hand,
ὁ
πλούσιος
is the earthly rich, equivalent to opulentus, fortunatus, affluens rebus externis. The exaltation (
τὸ
ὕψος
), in which the brother of low degree is to glory, can naturally only be the heavenly dignity, which the Christian by his faith in Christ possesses, and whose future completion is guaranteed to him by the promise of the Lord; and, corresponding to this, by
ταπείνωσις
is to be understood the lowliness, which “belongs to the rich man as a Christian through Christ” (Wiesinger), which is essentially the same with his exaltation. There is nothing against this idea in itself; the same oxymoron would be contained in the expression, were we to say, according to 1Co_7:22 : “the
δοῦλος
rejoices in his
ἐλευθερία
, and the
ἐλεύθερος
in his
δουλεία
.” But the context is against this explanation: not only because the distinction of Christians into rich and poor would be here introduced quite unexpectedly, but also because Jam_1:2; Jam_1:12 show that the connection of the ideas in this section is the reference to the
πειρασμοί
which Christians have to endure. Several expositors have assumed this reference in the idea
ταπεινός
; thus, among moderns, Theile, whilst to the explanation of Morus: carens fortunis externis omninoque calamitosus, he adds:
πειρασμῶν
περιπεσών
, Jam_1:2;
δεδιωγμένος
ἕνεκεν
δικαιοσύνης
, Mat_5:10;
πάσχων
διὰ
δικαιοσύνης
, 1Pe_3:14; but by this the simple contrast between
ταπεινός
and
πλούσιος
is destroyed; for then
ὁ
πλούσιος
must be taken as the rich Christian who had not suffered persecution, which would be evidently meaningless. If, on the other hand, the rich man who shares the lot of persecution with the poor is to be understood (as Laurentius explains it: dives, sc. frater, qui ipse erat una cum paupere fratre in dispersione, direptionem bonorum suorum propter Christi evangelium passus; similarly Erasmus, Hornejus, and others), such a reference is not to be found in the idea
ταπεινός
in itself; if one puts it into the idea
ταπείνωσις
, so that by this is to be understood the suffering condition of persecution, in which the
πλούσιος
is placed, or by which he is threatened (Gebser: “he rejoices in his lowliness, into which he may be brought by persecution”), then there is no reason to find in
ταπεινός
the idea of poverty expressed. Thus, then, in this view the train of thought, referring it to
πειρασμοί
, becomes indistinct and confused; and yet this reference is required by the context. But also what directly follows is against the idea of considering the
πλούσιος
as well as the
ταπεινός
as a Christian (
ἀδελφός
); for, apart from the fact that such a rich man would require no such pressing intimation of the perishableness of riches as is contained in the following clauses, it is carefully to be observed that in the words
ὅτι
…
παρελεύσεται
, and in Jam_1:11 :
οὕτω
καὶ
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., the subject is
ὁ
πλούσιος
and not
ὁ
πλούτος
, as that explanation would render necessary; Winer: dives non habet, quo glorietur, nisi ab humilitate sua, nam divitiae mox periturae sunt; so also de Wette, Theile, Wiesinger, and others. This change of the subject is evidently unjustifiable. James says, not of riches, but of the rich man,
παρελεύσεται
,
μαρανθήσεται
, which evidently is only valid of the rich man who forms a contrast to
ταπεινὸς
ἐν
Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ
. Brückner, in order to avoid the change of subject, explains it of “the rich man according to his external relations;” but this reference is not only arbitrarily introduced, but it weakens the train of thought. That such a bad sense should be given by the author to the idea
ὁ
πλούσιος
, is evident both from chap. Jam_2:6-7, where he represents the
πλούσιοι
as the persecutors of the Christians, and from chap. Jam_5:1-6, where they are threatened with condemnation; besides, the word is elsewhere used in the sacred Scriptures in a bad sense; comp. Luk_6:24-26; Isa_53:9, where
òÈùÒÄéø
is parallel with
øùÑòÄéí
; Sir_13:3 :
πλούσιος
ἠδίκησε
…
πτωχὸς
ἠδίκηται
; Sir_17:18 :
τί
κοινωνήσει
λύκος
ἀμνῷ
;
οὕτως
ἁμαρτωλὸς
πρὸς
εὐσεβῆ
…
τίς
εἰρήνη
πλουσίῳ
πρὸς
πένητα
. If
ὁ
πλούσιος
stands in relation of contrast to
ὁ
ἀδελφὸς
ὁ
ταπεινός
, then the Christian condition cannot be understood by
ταπείνωσις
, or scarcely with Bouman: animi, nihil sibi arrogantis, modestia; but only the destruction described in the following words:
ὄτι
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., into which the rich man on account of his pride has fallen; comp. Luk_6:24-26.[56] The verb to be supplied is neither
αἰσχυνέσθω
(Oecumenius, Estius, and others) nor
ταπεινούσθω
, but
καυχάσθω
(comp. Winer, p. 548 [E. T. 777]). This certainly does not appear suitable, but the expression of James has its peculiar pointedness in this, that the
ταπείνωσις
, to which the rich man is devoted, is indicated as the only object of his boasting.[57] To this irony (if it be called so)—which already the author of the commentary on the Lamentations in Jerome’s works, and after him Lyra, Thomas, Beza, and others have recognised in our passage—less objection is to be taken, as this was so natural to the deeply moral spirit of James, in opposition to the haughty self-confidence of the rich man opposed to the lowly Christian.
For a more exact explanation of these two verses, the following remarks may suffice. The connection of Jam_1:9 with the preceding is as follows: let the brother of low degree glory amid his temptations in his exaltation (Gunkel). The idea
καυχᾶσθαι
is neither exhausted by laetari, Ἀ̓
ΓΑΛΛΙᾶΣΘΑΙ
, 1Pe_1:6, Mat_5:12 (Gebser), nor by commemorare, praedicare (Carpzov); it indicates rather glorying, proceeding from the confident assurance of superiority; Theile: notio gloriandi involvit notas 1 gaudendi, 2 confidentiae, 3 externe expressi.
Ὁ
ἈΔΕΛΦΌς
, according to the above explanation, refers only to
Ὁ
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΌς
, not to
Ὁ
ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟς
, which rather forms the contrast set over against that idea. By
Ὁ
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΌς
is not indicated a kind of
ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ
, but is the characteristic mark of true Christians. It is incorrect to take
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΌς
here as entirely equivalent to
ΠΤῶΧΟς
; it goes beyond the idea of
ΠΤῶΧΟς
, indicating the Christian according to his entire lowly condition in the world, which also is not inapplicable to him who is perhaps rich in worldly wealth, especially as these riches have no true value for him. Comp. moreover, 1Co_1:26 :
Οὐ
ΠΟΛΛΟῚ
ΔΥΝΑΤΟΊ
,
Οὐ
ΠΟΛΛΟῚ
ΕὐΓΕΝΕῖς
.
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΌς
is the Christian, in so far as he is despised and persecuted by the world (
ΤΕΤΑΠΕΙΝΩΜΈΝΟς
ΚΑῚ
ΚΑΤΗΣΧΥΜΜΈΝΟς
, Psa_74:21, comp. 1Co_1:27), is inwardly distressed (
ἘΝ
ΠΑΝΤῚ
ΘΛΙΒΌΜΕΝΟς
,
ἜΞΩΘΕΝ
ΜΑΧΑΊ
,
ἜΣΩΘΕΝ
ΦΌΒΟΙ
, 2Co_7:5), and walks in humility before God; the opposite of all this is comprehended in
ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟς
. On
ὝΨΟς
, Theile rightly remarks: sublimitas … non solum jam praesens sed etiam adhuc futura cogitari potest =
ΖΩΉ
illa, quae in coelis perficienda in terris jam est. Incorrectly, de Wette understands by this “present exaltation;” as little also does
ὝΨΟς
indicate only “the stedfast courage of the Christian” (Augusti); and still less is it equivalent to divitiae, as Pott thinks, who finds only the thought here expressed:
Ὁ
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΌς
dives sibi videatur.
By
ἘΝ
is not to be understood the condition in which (Schneckenburger), but, according to the prevailing linguistic usage of the N. T., the object upon which the glorying is to take place; comp. Rom_5:3.
The words
ὅτι
ὡς
ἄνθας
χόρτου
παρελεύσεται
announce wherein the
ΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΙς
of the rich consists. As regards the construction, it forms one simple sentence. Baumgarten incorrectly construes
ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ
with
Ὁ
ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟς
, and considers
ὍΤΙ
Ὡς
ἌΝΘΟς
ΧΌΡΤΟΥ
, sc.
ἐστι
, as a parenthesis, by which an epigrammatic sharpness is conveyed to the preceding sentence. The figure, which is further drawn out in Jam_1:11, is of frequent occurrence in the O. T., whilst with the quickly fading grass and its flower is not only man generally (comp. Job_14:2 :
ὭΣΠΕΡ
ἌΝΘΟς
ἈΝΘῆΣΑΝ
ἘΞΈΠΕΣΕΝ
; Psa_103:15 :
ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς
ὩΣΕῚ
ΧΌΡΤΟς
…
ὩΣΕῚ
ἌΝΘΟς
ΤΟῦ
ἈΓΡΟῦ
ΟὝΤΩς
ἘΞΑΝΘΉΣΕΙ
; Isa_40:6-7 :
ΠᾶΣΑ
ΣᾺΡΞ
ΧΌΡΤΟς
,
ΚΑῚ
ΠᾶΣΑ
ΔΌΞΑ
ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ
Ὡς
ἌΝΘΟς
ΧΌΡΤΟΥ
·
ἘΞΗΡΆΝΘΗ
Ὁ
ΧΌΡΤΟς
ΚΑῚ
ΤῸ
ἌΝΘΟς
ἘΞΈΠΕΣΕ
; comp. 1Pe_1:24), but also specially, as here the ungodly[58] (comp. Psa_37:2 :
ὩΣΕῚ
ΧΌΡΤΟς
ΤΑΧῪ
ἈΠΟΞΗΡΑΝΘΉΣΟΝΤΑΙ
,
ΚΑῚ
ὩΣΕῚ
ΛΆΧΑΝΑ
ΧΛΌΗς
ΤΑΧῪ
ἈΠΟΠΕΣΟῦΝΤΑΙ
; see also Psa_90:6), compared.
ἌΝΘΟς
is here, not as in Isa_11:1, LXX. translation of
ðÅöÌÆø
= germen, surculus (Hottinger), but the flower; however, the combination
öÄéõ çÈöÄéÉø
is not found in Hebrew; in Isa_40:7 it is
öÄéõ äÇùÒÈãÆä
.
Παρέρχεσθαι
, in the meaning of destruction, often occurs in the N. T. (so also in the Hebrew
òÈáÇø
); also in the classics: Soph. Trach. 69:
ΤῸΝ
ΠΑΡΕΛΘΌΝΤʼ
ἌΡΟΤΟΝ
.
[56] According to Lange, the expressions
ὁ
ταπεινός
and
ὁ
πλούσιος
are to be taken in a prophetico-symbolical sense, so that the first “designates the Jewish Christian and the Jew absolutely in their low oppressed theocratic condition as contrasted with the heathen world and the secular power, or still more exactly the theocrat, inasmuch as he deeply feels his condition;” the second, “again, designates the Jew and the Jewish Christian, inasmuch as he sees the hopeless situation of the Jewish people in a brilliant light, inasmuch as he is not only rich in the consciousness of his Jewish prerogatives, but also in chiliastic and visionary expectation,” etc. This interpretation requires no refutation.
[57] A similar connection is found in Php_3:19 :
ἡ
δόξα
ἐν
τῇ
αἰσχύνῃ
αὐτῶν
.
[58] Lange observes: “This is not here the image of the ungodly, but is to be understood as a historical figure with reference to the decay of the O. T. glory!”