Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2:8 - 2:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_2:8-9. With these verses James meets the attempt which his readers might perhaps make to justify their conduct toward the rich with the law of love; whilst he, granting to them that the fulfilment of that law is something excellent, designates προσωποληπτεῖν directly as a transgression of the law. This explanation, which among ancient expositors, particularly Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Laurentius, Hornejus, and among the moderns Hottinger, Theile, Wiesinger have recognised as the correct one, is justified both by the particle μέντοι and by the phrase καλῶς ποιεῖτε .
μέντοι has in the N. T., where besides the Gospel of John it only elsewhere occurs in 2Ti_2:19 and Jud_1:8, always the meaning yet, nevertheless; but this meaning is not here suitable, as Jam_2:8 contains no contrast to what goes before.[120] It is therefore to be retained in its original classical meaning, assuredly, certainly, and points out that James grants something to his readers, having, however, in view the contrast which he expresses in the following εἰ δὲ κ . τ . λ .[121] This is also indicated by the expression καλῶς ποιεῖτε (see Jam_2:19), which is evidently too feeble for an earnest enforcement of the law of love. Wiesinger correctly observes that the hypothetical dilemma carries in itself unmistakably an ironical character.[122] James calls the law ἀγαπήσεις κ . τ . λ ., which is cited from Lev_19:18, νόμον βασιλικόν , because it is the most excellent of all laws, ceterarum legum quasi regina (Knapp; so also Theile, Wiesinger, de Wette, Bouman, and others), inasmuch as all other laws are contained in it; see Rom_13:8-10; Gal_5:14 (1Ti_1:5; Mat_22:39). It is far-fetched to explain the attribute βασιλικόν , because it was given by God the great King (Raphelius, Wetstein, Wolf, Baumgarten), or by Christ (Grotius), or because it applies to kings (Michaelis), or quia reges facit (Thomas; Lange combines all these explanations); also Calvin’s remark is to be rejected as too artificial: regia lex dicitur, ut via regia, plana scilicet, recta et aequabilis, qui sinuosis diverticulis vel ambagibus tacite opponitur.
νόμος is here (see also Jam_2:9), as in Jer_31:33 (Heb_8:10; Heb_10:16), used of a single commandment, instead of ἐντολή (which Lange wrongly denies). The expression τελεῖν νόμον is found only here and in Rom_2:27; it is a stronger expression than τηρεῖν νόμον (Jam_2:10).
κατὰ τὴν γραφήν ] is not to be combined with βασιλικόν , nor is the mode of τελεῖν thereby stated, but it is the simple formula of citation.
[120] Brückner finds the contrast in love being the reverse of partiality; but μέντοι does not simply express the opposite, but the adversative meaning of the particle in the N. T. is of this nature, that it only occurs when the sharp contrast to an “although” is to be filled up or expressed; it is arbitrary to explain it as equivalent to “on the contrary.”
[121] Some interpreters explain μέντοι here, contrary to linguistic usage, as equivalent to igitur.
[122] When de Wette, against this explanation, says: “How could those blamed appeal to this law for their partiality?” it is to be observed that they seek thereby to justify only their conduct to the rich, by which certainly they leave their conduct to the poor unjustified.