Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 4:2 - 4:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_4:2 describes in a lively manner the origin of these external strifes. The stages are ἐπιθυμεῖτε … φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε … μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε ; the second succeeds the first because it is without result, and the third the second for the same reason.
ἐπιθυμεῖτε ] here in a bad sense referring to τῶν ἡδονῶν , Jam_4:1. It is evident that the object to be thought on is worldly possessions; James does not mention the object, because he only required to express “the covetous impulse” (de Wette). It is unsatisfactory to think only on the desires of individuals. James rather describes the conduct of the churches to whom he writes; these, discontented with their low position in the world, longed after earthly power to which, as the church of God, they thought they had a claim. This striving made them consider persecution as a reproach; on the contrary, James exhorts them to count it as a joy (chap. Jam_1:2). This also produced among them that respect of persons toward the rich of the world for which James blames them. This was also the source of internal division; the affluent in the church despising the poor instead of imparting to them of their wealth, and only striving after an increase of their riches; whilst the poor grudged the rich their possessions, and accused them of being the children of the world. Thus in these churches occurred the same strife which prevailed among the Jews, and was the source of factions among them.
By καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε ] the uselessness of ἐπιθυμεῖν is expressed, and also the motive to φονεύειν καὶ ζηλοῦν is assigned; it is unnecessary here, with Gebser, Hottinger, de Wette, to explain ἔχειν = to receive; it rather means: to have, to possess. The meaning is: from the desire follows not the possession, namely, of what is desired.
φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε ] As here the external action is not yet described, but the internal disposition, φονεύειν cannot here be taken in its literal meaning, as Winer (p. 417 [E. T. 589]), Lange, Bouman think. Many expositors, as Carpzov, Pott, Morus, Augusti, Gebser, Schneckenburger, and others explain it adverbially: “even to murder and killing;” but the position of the words contradicts this explanation; if the idea ζηλοῦτε was to be strengthened by φονεύετε , it must be placed first. Other expositors, as Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Hornejus, Laurentius, Benson, Schulthess, Hottinger, and others, solve the difficulty by the conjectural reading φθονεῖτε ; but this reading has not the slightest support in authorities. Nothing remains, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, than to explain φονεύειν here, with Estius, Calovius, also de Wette (who, however, wavers), according to 1Jn_3:15, of internal hatred,[189] and “to justify this word by the boldness of the expression prevailing in this passage; comp. πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι , στρατεύεσθαι , μοιχοί (more correctly ΜΟΙΧΑΛΊΔΕς ),” Wiesinger. It is true that then an anti-climax would seem to occur; but this is only in appearance, as in point of fact ΖΗΛΟῦΝ (hostile zeal already ready to break out in word and action) presupposes internal ΦΟΝΕΎΕΙΝ .[190]
καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν ] namely, that for which you hate and envy. What follows on this are πόλεμοι , therefore James closes with μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε , in which likewise the answer to the question πόθεν πόλεμοι , πόθεν μάχαι is contained (Wiesinger). With οὐκ ἔχετε , which does not stand in the same relation to μάχεσθε κ . τ . λ . as καὶ οὐ δύν . ἐπιτυχεῖν does to φον . κ . ζηλ .,[191] James resumes the foregoing ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΤΕ and Οὐ ΔΎΝΑΣΘΕ ἘΠΙΤΥΧΕῖΝ , in order to assign the reason of this “not having,” etc.; the reason is ΔΙᾺ ΤῸ ΜῊ ΑἸΤΕῖΣΘΑΙ ὙΜᾶς , thus the want of prayer.[192] That prayer for earthly things is heard, is not an opinion peculiar to James, but a divine promise; in which only this is to be observed, that the prayer must be no ΚΑΚῶς ΑἸΤΕῖΣΘΑΙ ; see the following verse.
[189] Stier in his exposition remarks: “James means hatred, but he speaks of killing and murdering, namely, in a spiritual sense, in order to designate hatred as an attack on one’s neighbour;” his translation: “ye smite” (instead of Luther’s: “ye hate”), is not, however, justified by this.
[190] The explanation of Oecumenius is peculiar, but not to be justified: φονεύειν φησὶ τοὺς τὴν ἑαυτῶν ψυχὴν ἀποκτιννύντας ταῖς τολμηραῖς ταύταις ἐπιχειρήσεσι , διʼ ἃ ; καὶ ὁ τρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν αὐτοῖς πόλεμος .
[191] Accordingly, not a comma is to be put after πολεμεῖτε , but a full stop; thus Tischendorf and Lachmann. Stier incorrectly explains it: “it thus remains at the close as at the beginning, Ye have not.”
[192] In this passage the exposition of Lange reaches almost the climax of arbitrariness. He here assumes a fourfold gradation—(1) desiring; (2) murdering and envying; (3) fighting and warring; (4) asking and not receiving; and corresponding to these—(1) not having; (2) not receiving; (3) an increased not having; (4) an increased not receiving. The first stage denotes Judaism full of chiliastic worldly-mindedness up to the time of the N. T.; the second, the attitude of the Jews toward the Christians; the third, the Jewish war; and the fourth, Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem.