Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2:1 - 2:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_2:1. In close connection with the thought contained in chap. Jam_1:27, that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love.
After the impressive address ἀδελφοί μου , he first expresses the exhortation with reference to that conduct, that their faith should not be combined with a partial respect of persons. Schneckenburger regards the clause as interrogative, remarking: interrogationis formam sensus gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern); incorrectly, for although the interrogation with μή may not always require a negative answer, yet it is only used when the interrogator, with every inclination, to regard something as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case; comp. Winer, p. 453 f. [E. T. 641]; Schirlitz, p. 366. This is inadmissible here, as the fact mentioned in what follows, the προσωποληψία of the readers, was undoubtedly true. μὴ … ἔχετε is thus imperative, as Jam_1:16, Jam_3:1.
The plural προσωποληψίαις is used because the author thinks on individual concrete instances in which the general fault manifested itself (Hornejus: multiplex illud malum in vita est); comp. Col_3:22; 2Pe_3:12. For the explanation of προσωποληψία (only here and in Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25), foreign to classical Greek, see Mat_22:16; Luk_20:21; Gal_2:6 (see Meyer in loc.); from the O. T. Lev_19:15; Deu_1:17, and other places (the verb προσωποληπτέω , Jam_2:9; the adjective, Act_10:34). The phrase ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχειν τ . πίστιν is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as ἔχειν τινα ἐν ὀργῇ , ἐν αἰτίαις , ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει (Rom_1:28), for James intends not to reproach his readers, that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith free from προσωποληψία . Also ἔχειν does not stand for κατέχειν , whether in the meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius: detinere velut captivam et inefficacem); but ἔχειν ἐν expresses the relation of internal connection thus: Have not your faith, so that it is as it were enclosed in προσωποληψίαις , i.e. combined with it. Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a distinction of persons according to their external relations.
De Wette’s opinion is incorrect, that πίστιν ἔχειν here is to be understood of “the management of the concerns of faith.”
Faith is more exactly described as ἡ πίστις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης ]. Most expositors (particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, de Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger) take τοῦ κυρίου as a genitive of object, and make τῆς δόξης , as a second genitive (besides ἡμῶν ), dependent on κυρίου ; thus: “the faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ.” Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory (comp. 1Co_2:8; Psa_29:3 : ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης ), nor the dependence of two genitives ( ἡμῶν and τῆς δόξης ) on one substantive ( κυρίου ), see Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238], has anything against it; yet this construction cannot be held to be correct, because the name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , which follows τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν , so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend on κυρίου ; if James had intended such a combination, he would have written either τὴν πίστιν Ἰησ . Χριστοῦ , τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης , or τ . π . τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης , Ἰησ . Χριστοῦ .[110] It is evidently an entire mistake to construct τῆς δόξης with προσωποληψίαις , whether it be taken as = opinio (Calvin: dum opum vel bonorum opinio nostros oculos perstringit, veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Heisen: quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make τῆς δόξης depend on Χριστοῦ ; thus Laurentius, who explains it the Christus gloriae = gloriosus; so also Bouman; also Lange: “the Messiah exalted in His glory above Judaistic expectations.” Decisive against this construction are—(1) the close connection of Ἰησοῦ and Χριστοῦ , as when those two names are so directly united as here, Χριστοῦ is purely nomen proprium; (2) the N. T. mode of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after Χριστοῦ by a genitive dependent on it; also in this case the article τοῦ before Χριστοῦ would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions) τῆς δόξης was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on τὴν πίστιν , and τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ . Ἰ . Χρ . as the genitive of the subject, in the sense: “faith in the glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christ,—founded on Him,” namely, τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς , Rom_8:18. This construction, although grammatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler, with Bengel, to regard τῆς δόξης as in apposition with Ἰησοῦ Χρ .; still the idea δόξης is too indefinite. The passages cited by Bengel, Luk_2:32, Eph_1:17, 1Pe_4:14, Isa_40:5, are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justification of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite τῆς δόξης as a genitive of quality, not with Χριστοῦ only, but with the whole expression τοῦ κυρ . ἡμ . Ἰησ . Χρ ., by which δόξα is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus Christ which belongs to Him, the exalted One. Similar expressions are ὁ οἰκονόμος (Luk_16:8), ὁ κριτής (Luk_18:6), τῆς ἀδικίας . At all events, τῆς δόξης is added in order to mark the contrast between the προσωποληψία paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ.
[110] The genitive, indeed, not unfrequently is separated from the word which governs it; see Php_2:10; Rom_9:21; and Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238]; but in that case the intervening word is never in apposition with the preceding idea, with which it is completely concluded.