Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 4:15 - 4:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_4:15. After the reason has been given in Jam_4:14 why it was wrong to speak as in Jam_4:13, this verse tells us how we ought to speak.
ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς ] is closely connected with οἱ λέγοντες , Jam_4:13, so that Jam_4:14 forms a parenthesis: Ye who say, To-day, etc., instead of saying, ἐὰν ὁ κύριος κ . τ . λ .
According to the reading ζήσομεν καὶ ποιήσομεν (instead of the Rec. ζήσωμεν καὶ ποιήσωμεν ), it is most natural to refer καὶ ζήσομεν not to the protasis (as Tischendorf punctuates it), but to the apodosis (Lachmann and Buttmann; so also Wiesinger and Lange); for, first, it is grammatically more correct[210] to make only the conjunctive ΘΕΛΉΣῌ dependent on ἘΆΝ , and to take the two indicatives together; and, secondly, from this construction the striking thought results, that not only the doing, but also the life, as the condition of the doing, is dependent on the will of God: it is accordingly to be translated: If the Lord will, we shall both live and do this or that. Correctly Wiesinger: “It appears to be more suitable to the sense to take ἐὰν ὁ κ . θελ . as a single condition, and not to complete it by a second.” On the other hand, most expositors retain the reading of the Rec., but they construe it differently. De Wette refers καὶ ζήσωμεν to the protasis, and takes the second ΚΑΊ as belonging to the apodosis: “If the Lord will and we live, we shall,” etc.; so also Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, and in general most expositors (also Winer, see critical remarks; on the contrary, Al. Buttmann, p. 311 [E. T. 362], prefers the indicative). Schneckenburger, indeed, refers ΚΑῚ ΖΉΣΩΜΕΝ to the protasis, but he connects it more closely with ἘᾺΝ ΘΕΛΉΣῌ : si Deo placet ut vivamus tum faciemus (similarly Grotius and Hottinger), which, however, cannot be linguistically justified. Bornemann (in Winer and Engelhardt’s N. krit. Journ. VI. 1827) commences the apodosis with καὶ ζήσωμεν , and explains it: “Let us seek our sustenance.”
Winer correctly observes that this explanation (which Brückner erroneously ascribes to this commentary) lacks simplicity, and is not supported by Biblical usage.[211] Bouman and others (see critical notes) refer ΖΉΣΩΜΕΝ naturally to the protasis, and ΠΟΙΉΣΟΜΕΝ to the apodosis. The meaning which this reading, unsupported by authorities, gives appears to be suitable, but yet is not correct, for it would be more correct to have said: ἘᾺΝ ΖΉΣΩΜΕΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς ΘΕΛΉΣῌ .
The indicative is to be preferred to the conjunctive in the apodosis, as a reciprocal call to definite action corresponds less with the context than the resolution to do something.
[210] The indicative future after ἐάν is only found with absolute certainty in Luk_19:40. See Al. Buttmann, p. 192 [E. T. 222].
[211] The opinion which Winer, in ed. 5, p. 331 f. [see E. T. 357], has expressed, that perhaps no apodosis is to be assumed, James only intending to say that we should always resolve never to speak decidedly, he has in later editions correctly relinquished.