Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 4:5 - 4:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_4:5-6. The views of expositors differ widely in the interpretation of these verses. At first sight the words following λέγει appear to be a quotation from the O. T. which James has in view. That of the older and some of the more recent expositors assume this to be the case, although they differ from each other, some combining πρὸς φθόνον directly with λέγει , but others including it in the quotation Against this explanation, however, is the circumstance that the words supposed to be here quoted nowhere occur in the O. T. Such a passage has accordingly been sought for, where a similar thought is expressed, but almost every expositor has fixed upon a different passage. Many expositors seek to remove the difficulty by supposing that James does not here quote any single definite passage, but only a sentiment contained in the O. T. generally, or in several of its expressions. Opposed to this idea, however, is, first, the uncertainty whether James will confirm by it the statement contained in what precedes or in what follows; and secondly, the formula of quotation pointing to a definite passage, particularly as λέγει is not = λαλεῖ . But, moreover, the clause μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν is against the view here indicated, since these words cannot be reckoned as part of the quotation, because James only afterwards quotes the O. T. passage from which they are derived; but, also, they cannot be considered as a statement of James not belonging to the quotation, because δέ closely connects them to what directly precedes.
REMARK.
The various O. T. passages which have been conjectured are as follows:
Gen_4:7 (Rauch); Gen_6:3; Gen_6:5 (Grotius); Gen_8:21 (Beza, Ernest Schmid); Num_11:29 (Witsius); Psa_37:1; Psa_73:3 (Lange); Psa_119:20 ff. (Clericus); Pro_21:10 (Michaelis); Son_8:6 (Coccejus); from the Apocrypha Wis_6:12 (Wetstein), and others. Benson supposes that James has in view the N. T. passage, Mat_6:24; Stäudlin, that he has in view that passage and also Gal_5:17; Storr, the latter passage only; and Bengel, 1Pe_2:1 ff. Semler thinks that the passage is here cited from the “Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs;” and Gabler, that the words are borrowed from a lost prophetical book. In recent times, Engelhardt (Remarks on Jam_4:5-6, in the Ztschr. f. d. Luth. Theol., by Delitzsch and Guericke, 1869, Part II.) has expressed the opinion that Isa_63:8-11, Psa_132:12-13, and Hos_1:2; Hos_1:1-5, form the groundwork of these words of James. Wolf, Heinsius, and Zachariae refer the words to the thoughts contained in what follows; Theile, de Wette, Brückner (also first edition of this commentary), to the thoughts contained in what precedes—that the friendship of the world is enmity with God.
If the words πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ κ . τ . λ . do not form the quotation belonging to ἡ γραφὴ λέγει , it is to be assumed that James here already had in view the scripture adduced after διὸ λέγει in Jam_4:6, but that he did not yet state it, because the sentiment expressed in those words obtruded itself upon him in confirmation of οὐ κενῶς (Wiesinger). πρὸς φθόνον cannot, as Gebser and others suppose, be united with λέγει ; for if one takes it to be equivalent to de invidia or contra invidia, there is this against it, that in what goes before there is no mention of envy; or if it is taken adverbially, then it appears as an appendage dragging after οὐ κενῶς , which would be added the more unsuitably, because, as de Wette correctly remarks, it cannot be perceived what meaning can be attached to the assurance that the scripture does not speak enviously. Most expositors rightly refer it to ἐπιποθεῖ , which, without the addition, would be too bare; it is added to this idea as an adverbial and more exact statement = in an envious, jealous manner, for the sake of strengthening it. It is linguistically incorrect to explain πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν = ἐπιθυμεῖν κατὰ φθόνον , Gal_5:17 (thus Luther: “the spirit lusteth against envy;” Bengel, Stier; also Lange: “the spirit longeth over against and in opposition to envy”), since πρός , although it may be used in a hostile relation (Luk_23:12; Act_6:1), yet does not in itself express a hostile reference. The explanation of many ancient and some recent expositors (Bede, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hottinger, Gabler, Bouman, and others), taking πρὸς φθόνον = ad invidiam, is also unsuitable; for, on the one hand, ἐπιποθεῖν is not = proclivem esse, and, on the other hand, it is contradicted by the connection in which there is not the slightest allusion to envy. With the correct explanation of πρὸς φθόνον , τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν ( κατῴκισεν ) ἐν ὑμῖν is either subjective, “the Spirit of God,” or objective, “the spirit of man.” In the first case ἐπιποθεῖ has no object. De Wette, Brückner (so also Schneckenburger and some of the other expositors) supply ἡμᾶς as the object. Engelhardt, on the contrary, will supply no object, thinking “the supposed translation of the verb ÷ÄðÌÅà is conclusive against an object;” but ÷ÄðÌÅà requires an object no less than ἐπιποθεῖν , as it is, as well as the other, a relative (not an absolute) verb. By this interpretation ἐν ὑμῖν is to be understood of Christians, in whom the Holy Spirit (according to Engelhardt: “by the covenant of baptism”) has taken up His abode. In the second case, the subject is not expressed. Wiesinger supplies ὁ Θεός . There is no difficulty in this completion, the less so as the preceding ἡ γραφή , which, in connection with λέγει , is personified (comp. Gal_3:8, προιδοῦσα ἡ γραφή ), points to God, with whom it is, as it were, identified. This second explanation would deserve the preference before the first, as it is not apparent why James here, instead of simply God, should name the Holy Spirit, whom he has not elsewhere mentioned in his whole Epistle, and because the specification of an object belonging to ἐπιποθεῖ , which is essentially required for the thought, can scarcely be wanting. Certainly, in this second interpretation, ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν added to πνεῦμα is difficult, not so much on account of the formation of the expression, as because this addition appears to be a very unimportant remark. But it is otherwise with the reading κατῴκισεν , as then the relative clause marks “the right of propriety as the ground of explanation of envious love” (Wiesinger). According to this view, the passage is to be explained: Or think you that the scripture says in vain—(rather God) enviously desires the spirit which He has made to dwell in us, but He gives the greater grace—wherefore it says, etc.
It is yet to be remarked that δοκεῖν has the same meaning as in chap. Jam_1:26; κενῶς , that is, without contents, corresponding to the truth; comp. κενοὶ λόγοι , Eph_5:6 (Plato, Lach. 196b). The adverbial import of πρὸς φθόνον is justified by the usage of the Greek language; see Pape’s Wörterb.: the word πρός ; Winer, p. 378 [E. T. 529]; Buttmann, p. 292 f. [E. T. 340]. The verb ἐπιποθεῖν is also elsewhere in the N. T. construed with the accusative. The idea that God cherishes an “envious and loving longing” (Wiesinger) after the spirit of man, corresponds to the circle of ideas in the O. T., from which also the preceding μοιχαλίδες is to be explained.
REMARK.
The principal objections of Engelhardt—that the two members of the 5th and 6th verses are not in congruity, and that the scripture adduced in Jam_4:6 does not prove the thought expressed in Jam_4:4—are solved by the observation that the friendship of the world, in which man opposes himself to the will of God, is pride, and that those to whom God gives grace are none other than the humble, who disdain to be the arrogant friends of the world. It is erroneous when Engelhardt denies that an emphasis rests on οὐ κενῶς , so that the grammatical construction forbids to make the idea πρὸς φθόνον κ . τ . λ . intervene as a contrast to κενῶς ; the asyndeton form is, besides, wholly suitable to James’ mode of expression; moreover, Engelhardt on his part finds himself constrained to supply a transitionary thought before μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν . That James does not quote the scripture intended by him directly after the first λέγει , but defers it because he wished to emphasize that it was not vain and empty, may well surprise us, but it is to be explained from the liveliness peculiar to James. Moreover, in Rom_11:2-4, although not in the same, yet in a similar manner, the passage quoted is separated from the form of quotation: τί λέγει ἡ γραφή , and in such a manner that the formula itself is taken up again by an ἀλλά , referring to the intervening remark, before the intended passage. When Engelhardt thinks that the words in consideration are to be recognised as the quotation, because they are words which do not elsewhere occur in James, apart from this being anything but conclusive, it is, on the contrary, to be observed that πνεῦμα understood of the human spirit already occurs in chap. Jam_2:26, and that the words πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν do not occur in the passages of the O. T. which James, according to Engelhardt’s opinion, had in view.