Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2:4 - 2:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_2:4 forms the apodosis to Jam_2:2-3, and rebukes what is blameable in the conduct described. Expositors greatly differ in the explanation of this verse, according as they explain the verb διεκρίθητε , and understand οὐ as a pure negation, or as an interrogative particle. It is best to take διεκρίθητε , in form indeed passive, in meaning as the aorist middle, as in Mat_21:21, Mar_11:23, Rom_4:20, and to give to the verb here the same meaning which it has constantly in the usage of the N. T.; so that it denotes the doubt, which consists in the assertion of thoughts at variance with faith; see on chap. Jam_1:6. But then the sentence must be taken as interrogative: Did you not then doubt among yourselves? i.e., Have ye not fallen into a contradiction with your faith (Jam_2:1), according to which external glory and riches are nothing, whilst ye by your conduct have attached a value to them? To this question the second is added, to which the preceding οὐ is also to be referred: and became ye not (thus) judges of evil thoughts? This second question indicates the direct consequence of διακρίνεσθαι . James calls them κριταί , because in their conduct they expressed their judgment on the rich and poor. The genitive διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν is not the genitive of object,[113] but of quality. διαλογισμοί is here, as predominantly in the N. T. in malam partem (see especially Luk_5:21-22), thoughts of doubt ana unbelief; the bad meaning is here heightened by πονηρῶν .
[113] Elsner: iniquas istas cogitationes approbastis; Bengel: judices approbatores, malarum cogitationum i. e. divitum, foris splendentium, sed malis cogitationibus sentientium.
Other explanations are as follow:—
(1) διακρίνεσθαι = separare: then the sentence is interrogative; ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = ἐν ἀλλήλοις (Gebser, Schulthess, Semler, Erasmus Schmid, etc.); the verb being either passive: nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti ac separati? or middle: nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos? “Do you not separate, divide yourselves among yourselves?” (Lange).
(2) διακρίνεσθαι = discrimen facere. (a) The verb active—( α ) interrogative: nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos? (Laurentius, Grotius, Wolf, Hottinger, Knapp). In this explanation ἐν ἐαυτοῖς = ἐν ἀλλήλοις ; Schneckenburger, however, explains ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = in animis vestris; but then the meaning: discrimen facere, would pass into an act of the judgment, “statuere.” ( β ) Negative: “Then partly ye would not have distinguished (according to a sound judgment) among yourselves, and partly also ye would have judged after an evil manner of thinking (thus an error of the understanding and of the heart)” (Grashof).—(b) The verb passive: dupliciter peccatis, primo: inter vos ipsos non estis discriminati h. e. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia (Oeder).
(3) διακρίνεσθαι = judicare. (a) The verb active—( α ) interrogative: nonne judicastis, deliberastis ipsi? “Are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong this is?” (Augusti). ( β ) Negative: non discrevistis justa dubitatione, considerantia et aestimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non minus, quam diviti (Bengel). Luther combines this rendering with that under James 2 : “And ye do not well consider, but ye become judges, and make an evil distinction.” Here also comes in the explanation of Oecumenius: τὸ διακριτικὸν ὑμῶν διφθείρατε , μηδεμίαν συζήτησιν ποιήσαντες πότερον τιμητέον … ἀλλʼ οὕτως , ἀδιακρίτως , καὶ ἐν προοωποληψίᾳ τὸν μὲν ἐτιμήσατε … τὸν δὲ ἠτιμάσατε .—(b) The verb passive—( α ) interrogative: Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati h. e. convicti estis? Paraeus; so also Bouman: nonne igitur in vestris ipsorum jam judicati estis animis? ( β ) Negative: et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra (Heisen). Differently Cajetanus: haec faciendo non estis judicati in vestibus et divitiis et paupertate; laying the chief stress on ἐν ἑαυτοῖς .
(4) διακρίνεσθαι = dubitare, to entertain doubts. (a) Interrogative: et non dubitastis apud vosmet ipsos? et facti estis iniqui judices? “Should you not yourselves have entertained doubts? Should you actually have passed evil-minded judgments?” (Theile). (b) Negative: non dubitastis apud animum, ne subiit quidem haec cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, certo apud vos statuistis id jure ac bene fieri.
All these explanations are untenable, because they proceed upon a meaning of διακρίνεσθαι foreign to the usage of the N. T. Besides, several require arbitrary completions, and many do not correspond to the context. Brückner, de Wette, and Wiesinger have also here correctly maintained the meaning to doubt. De Wette: “Have you not then become doubtful in your faith?” Wiesinger: “Have you not forsaken the law of faith, which recognises only one true riches?” With the reading of B (omitting οὐ ) the thought is the same; the interrogative ( οὐ ), however, serves for the heightening of the thought, the readers themselves being thereby charged to pronounce the judgment. The καί of the Receptus stands as in Mar_10:26, Luk_10:29, 1Co_5:2, with the question suddenly introduced. Or, since in the N. T. no other passage is found where καί is placed before a question forming the apodosis of a protasis beginning with ἐάν (on 2Co_2:2, see Meyer), it is to be explained from the fact that one would make Jam_2:4 a part of the protasis; see above.