ON THE EPISTLE OF JAMES — — — — CHAPTER 1 Epistolary Salutation (1:1) 1. θεοῦκαὶκυρίουἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , “ of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Cf. the similar language of 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4. In 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13 θεοῦ seems to refer to Christ, and this is possible in James, but is made unlikely by the absence of the article. Titus 1:1 δοῦλοςθεοῦἀπόστολοςδὲἸησοῦΧριστοῦ seems to be inspired by the same motive as James 1:1; both phrases call attention to the fact that the loyalty to Christ does not diminish the service due to God. δοῦλος . In the O. T. “ servant” is regularly used for “ worshipper” (e.g. Psalms 34:22); and the corresponding verb is used also of the worship of heathen gods (e. g. 1 Kings 9:6). Names compounded with ‘ abd and the name of God, or of a god, are found in Hebrew, and were common among the Phœ nicians, Aramæ ans, and Arabs (EB, art. “ Names,” § 37). In particular the prophets are called Jahveh’ s servants (e.g. Amos 3:7), and the term is applied as a title of distinction to such worthies as Moses (e.g. 1 Kings 8:53), David (e.g. 2 Samuel 3:18), and many others. The “ servant of Jahveh” of Is. 42-53 presents, however, a different problem, and is translated παῖςκυρίου . In the N.T. δοῦλοι is used in the sense of “ attached worshippers” in Luke 2:29, Acts 4:29, Acts 16:17, Revelation 1:1. Paul describes himself as δοῦλοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ in the address of Romans (Romans 1:1) and (with the inclusion of Timothy) in Philippians (Philippians 1:1 δοῦλοιΧ .Ἰ .), and a similar expression is found in Jude vs. 1 and 2 Peter 1:1; cf. Titus 1:1 δοῦλοςθεοῦ . It is not a term of special humility, nor is it to be understood as involving a claim to the rank of a prophet or distinguished leader. The writer simply declares himself to belong to Christ as his worshipper, and so commends himself to readers who are also Christians. Note that Paul uses this form of description in the address of Romans and Philippians only, two epistles in which he is consciously striving to avoid the assumption of personal authority and to emphasise the give and take of an equal comradeship in faith. The immediate origin of this use of δοῦλος is Semitic. A few Greek analogies are collected in Elsner, Observationes sacrae, 1720, on Acts 16:17; cf. Reitzenstein, Hellenist. Mysterienreligionen, 1910, pp. 66, 78. The use of δοῦλος has no bearing on the question of the identity of the author. ταῖςδώδεκαφυλαῖς , the Christian church conceived as the true Israel, inheriting the rights of the ancient people of God. The conception of the tribes of the Hebrew people as twelve in number, both at first in the nomadic and later in the settled condition, arose very early, but seems at all times to have been a theory rather than a fact of observation. It may have had an astronomical origin, like some other sacred uses of the number twelve. In Canaan the tribes came to indicate mainly a territorial division, although the theory of an original hereditary classification was maintained. In and after the exile much stress was laid on the idea of the twelve tribes, as is to be observed in the pictures of the past presented by the priest code and the writings of the chronicler, as well as in Ezekiel’ s ideal state (e.g. Genesis 35:22-26, Num_2, Ezra 6:17, Ezekiel 48:1-7, Ezekiel 48:23-35). In later Jewish literature they are frequently referred to. Faithful Israelites within and without Palestine claimed and valued their membership in a tribe (Tobit, Tob. 1:1; Judith, Jude 1:8:2; Anna, Luke 2:36; Paul, Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5; cf. Letter of Aristeas, § § 32, 39, 46, 47-59, six scholars ἀφ ʼ ἑκάστηςφυλῆς ). The “ twelve tribes” denoted the whole commonwealth of Israel, and a strong sentiment was associated with the phrase. Cf. Ecclus. 44:23; Ass. Mos. 2:4 f.; Apoc. Baruch 1:2, 62:5, 63:3, 64:3, 77:2, 78:4, 84:3; Acts 26:7 τὸδωδεκάφυλονἡμῶν ; on Test. XII Patr. Benj. 9:2, cf. Charles, in HDB, “ Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” ; the conception is implied in the plan of the Testaments. In Clem. Rom. 31:4, 55:6 the emphasis on the salvation of the whole Jewish nation resident in various parts of the dominions of Ahasuerus is unmistakable. The reunion of the twelve tribes in Palestine was a part of the Jewish Messianic hope. See references in Schü rer, GJV3, ii, pp. 537 f. This aspect of the hope is suggested in Orac. Sibyll. ii, 171 ἡνίκαδὴδεκάφυλοςἀπ ʼ ἀνατολίηςλαὸςἥξει (of uncertain date and origin), cf. iii, 249, λαὸςὁδωδεκάφυλος . The expectation lies at the basis of Mat 19:28, and appears again in the eschatological sealing of twelve thousand from each tribe in Revelation 7:4 ff., and in the twelve gates of the twelve tribes in Revelation 21:12 ff., where, however, the conception and phraseology are derived from Ezekiel 48:30-35. The term “ twelve tribes” thus stands for the integrity of the nation Israel, as it once actually existed, and as it still abides in idea and spiritual fellowship and common hope. The precise designation “ the twelve tribes,” αἱδώδεκαφυλαί , is found only a few times in the O.T., Exodus 24:4, 28:21, 39:14; Joshua 4:5; cf. Ecclus. 44:23. More common, and with essentially the same meaning, are “ the tribes,” αἱφυλαί , and “ all the tribes,” πᾶσαιαἱφυλαί . To all these expressions, which give the sense of “ all Israel,” πᾶςἸσραήλ (cf. Ezra 6:17), a limiting genitive is always added unless it is clearly implied in the immediate context. This is usually “ of Israel” (Exodus 24:4), but other genitives occur: “ of the children of Israel” (Ezekiel 47:13), “ of Jacob” (Ecclus. 48:10), “ thy” (Deuteronomy 18:5), “ your” (Joshua 23:4), “ their” (Ezekiel 45:8), “ the Lord’ s” (Psalms 122:4), “ of thine inheritance” (Isaiah 63:17). The same rule, that a genitive of nearer definition is necessary, holds good in later usage. Thus Acts 26:7 τὸδωδεκάφυλονὑμῶν , Revelation 7:4 ἐκπάσηςφυλῆςυἱῶνἸσραήλ , 21:12, Clem. Rom. 55:6, Protevangelium Jacobi, 1:1, 3. Cf. the similar expressions resulting from the familiar barbarism of the LXX by which σκῆπτρον is used for φυλή , Test. XII Patr. Nephth. 5 τὰδώδεκασκῆπτρατοῦἸσραήλ , Clem. Rom. 31:4 τὸδωδεκάσχηπτροντοῦἸσραήλ . The only known cases where an expression like αἱδώδεκαφυλαί is used by itself of the nation Israel are the passages Orac. Sibyll. ii, 171 δεκάφυλοςἀπ ʼ ἀνατολίηςλαός , and iii, 249 λαὸςὁδωδεκάφυλος . These are highly poetical allusions, and do not point to any common prose usage at variance with the rule. See Zahn, Einleitung, i, § 3, note 4. The Christian church, according to the fundamental and universal N. T. view, stands as the successor of the Jewish ἐκκλησία . Cf. Matthew 16:18, where μουτὴνἐκκλησίαν seems to be used in contrast with the ἐκκλησίατοῦἸσραήλ , Matthew 21:43, 1 Peter 2:9 ἒθνοςἅγιον , λαὸςεἱςπεριποίησιν , Galatians 3:7-9, Galatians 3:29, Galatians 3:6:16 τὸνἸσραὴλτοῦθεοῦ , Philippians 3:3 ἡμεῖςγάρἐσμενἡπεριτομή . Hence the attributes of the nation Israel may be applied directly to the church. Cf. Galatians 3:7-9, where descent from Abraham is so ascribed to all believers, Colossians 2:11, etc. This is one of the fundamental thoughts of Luke and Acts; as well as of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where everything pertaining to the old national religion is shown to belong also (only in the reality, not the shadow) to the new religion. So Barn. 4:6, 13 f., where the covenant is shown to belong to the new people. See Zahn, Einleitung, 1, § 3, note 9. The conception of the new Israel as made up of a symbolical twelve tribes is in accord with this underlying principle of the apostolic age and presents in itself no difficulty. Revelation 21:12, where no thought of any Jewish-Christian particularism is present, approaches closely to such a use. The positive reasons for assuming this meaning are discussed below. A symbolical use of δώδεκαφυλαί somewhat different from that of Jam 1:1 is found in Hermas, Sim. 9, 17, where of twelve mountains, from which come the stones used to build a tower (i. e. the church), it is said: δώδεκαφυλαίεἰσιναἱκατοικοῦσαιὅλοντὸνκόσμον . To them the Son of God has been preached through the apostles, while these twelve tribes are themselves further explained as δώδεκαἔθνη with highly diverse characteristics. Here the twelve tribes, or nations, plainly signify all the nations of the world. The unusual designation is doubtless chosen in order to indicate that as these have now become the field of God’ s redemptive activity, they have come into the place of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. The whole world is the new δωδεκάφυλον of the Christian dispensation. ἐντῇδιασπορᾷ . διασπορά means “ scattering,” “ dispersion” (either act or state); cf. Jeremiah 15:7, Daniel 12:2 (LXX), Test. XII Patr. Asher, 7, 1 Peter 1:1. Hence, with the article, ἡδιασπορά is used concretely of the Jews so dispersed, or even of the districts in which they were dispersed. Thus Deuteronomy 30:4, Nehemiah 1:9, Judith 5:19, John 7:35, of either the dispersed or the land of dispersion; Psalms 147:2, Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 49:2 Macc. 1:27, Ps. Sol. 8:34, of the dispersed. Here it is more naturally taken of the state of dispersion, although the other view is possible. With the article the expression means “ in the well-known state of dispersion,” not merely “ in dispersion” in the abstract sense. Cf. Psa_139, tit. (Cod. A) and in contrast Jeremiah 15:7 διασπερῶαὐτοὺςἐνδιασπορᾷ , Test. XII Patr. Asher, 7 ἔσεσθεἐνδιασπορᾷ , 1 Peter 1:1 ἐκλεκτοῖςπαρεπιδήμοιςδιασπορᾶς . The noun διασπορά (Deuteronomy 28:25) is used but a few times in the O. T. It is not a regular representative of any one Hebrew word, and is never used to translate any of the derivatives of ג ּ ָ ל ָ ה . The verb διασπείρω is more common (cf. also the simple σπείρω , Zechariah 10:9), especially in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; it represents a number of Hebrew verbs, most frequently some form of פ ּ ו ּ ץ (30 times out of 58). διασκορπίζω (in literary use chiefly late, see Lex.) is often used in much the same sense as διασπείρω to refer to the dispersion of Israel, but tends to denote more violent action, as the scattering of a discomfited foe (e. g. Psalms 59:11, Jeremiah 51:20-23). διασκορπισμός , found but five times, remained a descriptive word, and did not attain to the technical significance of διασπορά . σκορπίζω is less common and weaker; σκορπισμός is found but once (in Aq. Sym. Theod. Jeremiah 25:34 [32:20]). The more common noun to denote the Jewish exile is ἀποικία , in eight cases ἀποικεσία , a word peculiar to LXX (L. and S.), to which corresponds the factitive verb ἀποικίζειν . The noun means “ emigration,” “ colony,” “ body of colonists,” with a range of meaning parallel to that of διασπορά ; it is used as a technical term to denote the captivity or the captives, usually representing ג ּ ו ֹ ל ָ ה , “ exile,” e. g. Ezra 4:1 υἱοὶτῆςἀποικίας , Jeremiah 29:1, Jeremiah 29:4, Jeremiah 29:22, Jeremiah 29:31. ἀποικία seems to be synonymous with μετοικία (μετοικεσία Matthew 1:11), which is less common, but represents about the same group of Hebrew words. παροικία , “ sojourn,” “ residence as a stranger,” is used a few times to represent ג ּ ו ֹ ל ָ ה ֽ , Ezra 8:35 υἱοὶτῆςπαροικίας , 1 Ezr 5:7 ἐκτῆςαἰχαλωσίαςτῆςπαροικίας , where the parallel translation of Ezr 2:1 has αποικίας . In Ecclesiasticus prol. τοῖςἐντῇπαροικίᾳ , it is used in the same sense. It refers to the “ sojourn” from the point of view of the land of temporary residence, while ἀποικία refers to the same fact from the point of view of the home land from which those sojourning abroad are absent. αἰχμαλωσία , “ captivity,” represents in the main the group of words derived from ש ׁ ָ ב ָ ה . Of the words here considered, αἰχμαλωσία is obviously the most limited in application, referring to the captivity proper; ἀποικία and μετοικία are applicable to any portion, as well as to the whole, of the body of Jews residing in foreign parts; διασπορά can only be used with reference to the general scattering of Jews. Thus the αἰχμαλωσία was (e. g.) in Babylon; the Jews in any one place could be called ἀποικία (Jeremiah 29:1, etc.); while ἡδιασπορά means the scattered state, or the scattered section, of the Jewish nation. Thus διασπορά , always standing in contrast with the idea of visible unity of the nation, calls attention, usually with a certain pathos, to the absence of that unity, whereas ἀποικία might refer to a colonisation wholly free from such associations. This is especially marked in 2 Macc. 1:27 ἐπισυνάγαγετὴνδιασπορὰνἡμῶν , ἐλευθέρωσοντοὺςδουλεύονταςἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν . Here ἀποικία would have been weak. Accordingly διασπορά is the appropriate word in James 1:1. The statement sometimes made (e. g. Carr, Camb. Gk. Test. pp. xxx, 10; less unguardedly Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, i, pp. 6 f. 9; Mayor3, p. 137) that ἡδιασπορά , “ when used without any qualifying words,” means the Eastern Hebrew-speaking part of the dispersion, seems to be wholly without foundation. The dispersion of the Jews over the world began through capture in war and emigration for trade as early as the ninth century b.c. (cf. 1 Kings 20:34). The forced emigration of many thousands from both the northern and southern kingdom to Assyria and Babylonia, the voluntary settlement in the Greek period of large numbers of Jews in Alexandria and other Egyptian cities, and in Cyrenaica, the planting of Jewish communities of traders and peaceful residents in Antioch and other places of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, and the colony of Jews in Rome (partly owing its origin to the captives brought thither by Pompey in 63 b.c. and afterward liberated), as well as those in other cities of Italy, had created by the first century after Christ a vast Jewish population dispersed in all parts of the civilised world, and perhaps amounting to 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 souls. For a representative list of diaspora Jews, cf. Acts 2:9-11; see also Philo, In Flaccum, 7, and Legat. ad Caium, 36. EB, art. “ Dispersion” (H. Guthe); Schü rer, GJV, § 31; Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, ch. II. Although perhaps the majority of Jews in the diaspora had thus come to reside abroad through voluntary emigration undertaken out of motives of private interest, and although, apart from occasional disturbances with their neighbours and oppression from the governments, the situation of the Jews seems to have been one of privilege and prosperity, yet the dispersion is uniformly represented by Jewish writers as a grave misfortune destined to be ended by the divine intervention. The cause of this was partly the fact that the first large emigration was the forced removal in the captivities, so that the tradition became established that exile was an evil, to be followed, when the punishment was over, by return (cf. Isaiah 40:1f.). This traditional feeling seems to be reflected in Ps. Sol. 9:2 ἐνπαντὶἔθνειἡδιασπορὰτοῦἸσραὴλκατὰτὸῥῆματοῦθεοῦ · ἵναδικαιωθῇς , ὁθεός , ἐντῇδικαιοσύνῃσουἐνταῖςἀνομίαιςἡμῶν . But the view was confirmed by the attitude of Palestinian Judaism, as it came to lay increasing emphasis on a national ritual purity, which could not be preserved in unclean lands, and on a restoration of national glory in Palestine under the Messiah, in which all faithful Jews would share. The dispersion was an evil because it interfered with the consummation of τὰἀγαθὰἸσραὴλἐνσυναγωγῇφυλῶν (Ps. Sol. 17:44). These ideal interests must have been powerfully reinforced by practical motives springing from the actual danger, observed ever since the beginning of the exile, that Jews exposed to the corrupting influences of foreign life would relax their strictness of morals, indulge in heathen abominations, and lose their religion— and their souls. (Ezekiel 14:1-11, Daniel 1:8; note the disappearance of the ten tribes in the Assyrian captivity, attested, e. g., by Jos. Ant. 11, 5:2). In times of foreign oppression and distress the desire for restoration of the dispersed must have been strengthened by the sense of weakness felt by the pious community in Palestine , suffering the lack of the help, both moral and material, which might be afforded by the return of the Jews of the diaspora. It then seemed evident that the glory of Israel could be finally manifested only through the concentration in the Holy Land of the power and wealth of the sons of Israel, now scattered among the nations. So, e. g., Tob. 13:4 f. ταῖςδώδεκαφυλαῖςταῖςἐντῇδιασπορᾷ . For the whole phrase there are two possible interpretations: (1) “ To the dispersed People of God,” i. e. the Christian church at large; (2) “ To the Jews, residing in the dispersion.” Many different applications of these two senses, separately or in combination, will be found in the commentaries. The second interpretation given above is almost always qualified by a limitation to Christian Jews. This suits the general character of the epistle, but is in no way suggested by the phrase itself, and cannot be regarded as legitimate. In this phrase, ταῖςἐντῇδιασπορᾷ applies not to a part but to the whole of ταῖςδώδεκαφυλαῖς , and the only possible meaning is that all the twelve tribes are “ in the dispersion.” It is not legitimate, although common in the commentaries, to take the phrase as meaning “ those tribes (of the twelve) which are in the dispersion” , or “ those persons from the twelve tribes who are residing in the dispersion” (as if τοῖςἀπὸτῶνδώδεκαφυλῶνδιασπαρεῖσιν , so Ps.-Euthal. in his argumentum, Migne, Patrologia græ ca, vol. 85, col. 676). The permissibility of the first interpretation has already been shown. According to it the Christian church is here not merely designated as the new Israel, but is further described by ἐντῇδιασπορᾷ as now dispersed in an alien world. For the ideas on which this latter conception rests the N. T. furnishes abundant illustration. It includes, perhaps, the suggestion of a temporary state with the hope of a future reunion. It is simpler to take ταῖςἐντῇδιασπορᾷ thus as a mere further description of the church than to suppose (with Zahn, Einleitung, i, p. 53, and § 3, note 6) that it is added in order specifically to distinguish the new twelve tribes (the Christians), which were all in the dispersion, from the old (the Jews), which were partly in the home land of Israel. Other characteristics would have lain far nearer to hand if this had been the direct purpose. The new Israel has a heavenly metropolis (Galatians 4:26 ἡδὲἄνωἸερουσαλήμ … ἥτιςἐστὶνμήτηρἡμῶν , Hebrews 12:22 προσεληλύθατεΣιὼνὄρεικαὶπόλειθεοῦζῶντος , Ἰερουσαλὴμἐπουρανίῳ ), where is the seat of its commonwealth (Philippians 3:20). But for the present it sojourns in exile, 1 Peter 1:1 ἐκλεκτοῖςπαρεπιδήμοιςδιασπορᾶς , 1:17 τὸντῆςπαροικίαςὑμῶνχρόνον , 2:11 ὡςπαροίκουςκαὶπαρεπιδήμους ; cf. also John 17:14-18. The contrast with the old Israel is explicitly drawn out in Hebrews 13:14 οὐγὰρἔχομενὧδεμένουσανπόλιν , ἀλλὰτὴνμέλλουσανἐπιζητοῦμεν . The idea is intimately connected with the phraseology, though not with the real meaning, of certain O. T. passages, Psalms 39:12, ὅτιπάροικοςἐγώεἰμιἐντῆγῆκαὶπαρεπίδημοςκαθὼςπάντεςοἱπατέρεςμου , Psalms 119:19, Leviticus 25:23, 1 Chronicles 29:15, Genesis 47:9. The interpretation of the conception of men as strangers and sojourners, given by Philo, De cherub. 34, is not parallel to the Christian idea in James, but it shows how the O. T. passages attracted attention and could lend themselves to such use. The thought of Hermas, Sim. i, resembles Philo, not James. In early Christian thought the idea gained great prominence. Cf. the classical expression in Ep. ad Diognetum 5 πατρίδαςοἰκοῦσινἰδίας , ἀλλ ʼ ὡςπάροικοι . μετέχουσιπάντωνὡςπολῖται , καὶπάνθ ʼ ὑπομένουσινὡςξένοι . πᾶσαξένηπατρίςἐστιναὐτῶν , καὶπᾶσαπατρὶςξένη ; also 2 Clem. Romans 5:1, Romans 5:5, Romans 5:6; and note the usage by which the church, or the Christians, in any locality are said not to reside but to “ sojourn” there, Polyc. Phil. inscr. τῇἐκκλησίᾳτοῦθεοὕτῇπαροικούσῃΦιλίππους ; Mart. Polyc. inscr.; Euseb. H. e. iv, 23; Ep. eccl. lugd. et vienn. in Euseb. H.e. v, 1:3. The emphasis on this mode of thought in later times is familiar, and reaches its classical expression in the great poem of Bernhard of Cluny, De contemptu mundi. From this usage seems to have arisen the ecclesiastical sense of the word παροικία , that is, “ the body of (Christian) aliens” in any place, and so parochia, “ parish.” The earliest cases of this use of the noun are Mart. Polyc. inscr., Irenæ us in Eus. H. e. v, 24:15, and Apollonius in Eus. H. e. v, 18:9. παροικία in the sense of the local body of Christians thus took a different turn of meaning from διασπορά , which in this Catholic epistle refers to the whole church; but the metaphor underlying the derived sense is the same in both cases, and up to a certain point the development was parallel. Each takes one side of the meaning of ἐκκλησία . See Lightfoot, note on Clem. Rom. inscr. The words, then, mean: “ To that body of Twelve Tribes, the new Israel, which has its centre in Heaven, and whose members, in whatever place on the earth they may be, are all equally away from home and in the dispersion!” This interpretation implies in the writer a mind capable of conceiving clearly and expressing tersely a strongly figurative expression, but that is not too much to ascribe to the author of this epistle. Cf. 1:17, 18, 23, 3:11, etc. It also assumes that the underlying conception was familiar to the readers. Of this “ symbolical” * interpretation of the address of the epistle important recent advocates have been Holtzmann, von Soden, Jü licher, and Zahn. The chief objection brought against it is that it is deemed inappropriate to the simple address of a letter. But, first, we have here not a real letter sent to a definite group of readers, but a literary form for a tract, or diatribe. And, secondly, even in a real letter the greeting (as distinguished from the outside address intended to guide the carrier) naturally contains not only expressions of affection but descriptive phrases intended to suggest the writer’ s relations and attitude to the person addressed, and to some extent even the thoughts with which the letter was to be occupied. This may be seen in all the epistles of Paul, and in the epistles of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp. The same concern is not absent from the greetings and subscriptions of modern letters. In opposition to the interpretation here defended, the view of the address most widely held adopts the second of the two interpretations referred to above, taking ταῖςδώδεκαφυλαις as if merely equivalent to τοῖςἸουδαίοις . The serious grammatical difficulties involved are usually ignored. The phrase is then (in part arbitrarily) limited so as to mean, “ to extra-palestinian Jewish Christians” (Beyschlag). Inasmuch as the phrase itself is notably unlimited, this exegetical procedure seems too violent to be permissible. Moreover, if this were the meaning, we should expect to find, as we do not, in the epistle itself some specific allusion to the distinctive circumstances of readers so carefully limited in the address; in fact (see Introduction), the epistle best suits conditions in Palestine. This is felt by Beyschlag, who suggests, wholly without warrant, that διασπορά may refer to everything outside of Jerusalem. The various forms of this view of the address, intended to obviate one or another of the difficulties under which it labours, require highly artificial and improbable hypotheses. No kind of early, or of ingenious, dating can bring us to a time when a writer addressing Jewish Christians in distinction from unbelieving Jews would have addressed them as “ the twelve tribes,” if by the term he meant “ the Jews” ; and if the term is here used for “ the People of God,” then the limitation to Jewish Christians is not contained in it. To suppose, on the other hand, a time when Christian believers still regarded themselves as full members of the commonwealth of Israel, and had not yet broken their social and religious connection with it (so, e. g., B. Weiss, Einleitung2, p. 398) gives no aid whatever in understanding the phrase itself. No time after the crucifixion is known to us when a Christian teacher could expect a respectful hearing for a didactic tract from both converted and unconverted Jews in the dispersion at large, or would have felt such responsibility for the general moral instruction of all diaspora Jews alike as this writer shows. The promptness of the separation of Christians and Jews in the diaspora is illustrated by all the mission narratives of Acts. Nor can even the unsupported guess of a current limitation of the term ἡδιασπορά to Southern Syria or Babylonia or elsewhere overcome the difficulty that the epistle itself nowhere hints at conditions in any way peculiar to or characteristic of any such district. On the view of Harnack, that the address was a later addition by a different hand, see Introduction, pp. 47 f. Under such a view the spurious address might have no definite meaning or might have the meaning advocated above. Spitta, who takes the phrase in the literal sense, “ To the Jews in the dispersion,” avoids some of the difficulties by regarding the epistle as originally Jewish and not Christian, but he misses the grammatical structure explained above, and has likewise no reason to give for the inexplicable limitation to the diaspora. The “ symbolical” interpretation alone will account for that. χαίρειν scil. λέγει (cf. 2 John, vv. 10, 11); the ordinary opening salutation of a Greek letter, like Latin salutem, shown by the countless papyrus letters preserved to have been current in Greek letters of all periods; cf. Acts 15:23, Acts 23:26, and examples in Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 209-216; Witkowski, Epistolae græ cae privatae, 1907; J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, 1903, pp. 276 f.; Milligan, Thessalonians, 1908, pp. 127 f. See also G. A. Gerhard, “ Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des griechischen Briefes,” in Philologus, lxiv, 1905, pp. 27-65; Dziatzko, “ Brief,” in Pauly-Wissowa, RE; F. Ziemann, De epistularum græ carum formulis sollemnibus (Diss. phil. Halenses, xviii), 1911. It was in common use among Greek-speaking Jews; Esther 16:1 (= 8:13), 1 Ezr 6:7; Ezra 6:1 Macc. 10:25, 12:6, 2 Macc. 1:1, 10, 3 Macc. 7:1, Ep. Arist. 41 (ed. Thackeray), (other references in Spitta, ad loc.). The writer does not here show influence from Pauline epistolary forms. The ordinary greeting of a Hebrew or Aramaic letter seems to have resembled, as among other peoples, the salutation of daily life. Thus (Aramaic) Daniel 4:1 (3:98) ש ׁ ְ ל ָ מ ְ כ י ׄ ן י ִ ש ׂ ְ ג ּ ֵ א εἰρήνηὑμῖνπληθυνθείη , 6:25; Ezra 4:17, Ezra 5:7 ש ׁ ְ ל ָ מ ָ א ב ֹ ל ּ ָ א εἰρήνηπᾶσα (cf. 1 Ezr 6:7 χαίρειν as a translation of the same original). The Peshitto has ܝ ܠ ܡ ܖ for χαίρειν in James 1:1. The same formulas appear in the three Aramaic circular letters of Rabban Gamaliel (first or second century after Christ; texts in G. Dalman, Aramä ische Sprachproben, 1896; preserved in the Mishna, jer. Sanh. 18 d and elsewhere) ש ׁ ִ ל ָ מ ְ ב י ן י ִ ש ׁ ִ ג ּ ֵ א , and in the N. T. χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνηπληθυνθείη , 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:2, Jude 1:2 ἔλεοςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνηκαὶἀγάπηπληθυνθείη . In 2 Macc. 1:1 εἰρήνηνἀγαθήν and καὶρειν are combined, but the characteristic N. T. enlargements, e. g. χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνηἀπὸθεοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνκαὶκυρίουΙͅησοῦΧριστοῦ , Philippians 1:2, 1 Peter 1:2 are probably not due to a combination of the Greek and Hebrew greetings, but to the influence of the priestly benediction, Numbers 6:24-26; cf. J. C. T. Otto, “ Ueber den apostolischen Segensgruss,” in Jb. f. deutsche Theol. 1867, pp. 678-697. For similar (probably Jewish) expansion cf. the letter to the nine and one-half tribes in Apoc. Bar. 78:2: “ Thus saith Baruch the son of Neriah to the brethren carried into captivity: mercy and peace” (cf. Galatians 6:16). See Zahn, Einleitung, i, § 6, note 7. In this general connection the following verses from the epitaph of Meleager, Anthol. græ ca, vii, 419 (Brunck, i, p. 37), are worth quoting: ἀλλ ʼ εἰμὲνΣύροςἐσσί , Σαλάμ , εἰδ ʼ οὖνσύγεΦοῖνιξ , Αὔδονις , εἰδ ʼ Ἔλλην , Χαῖρε , τὸδ ʼ αὐτὸφρᾶσον . I. ON CERTAIN (1:2-2:26) The paragraphs of chs. 1 and 2 are held together by the common underlying purpose of denouncing shams and emphasising various aspects of reality in religion. (See Introduction, supra, pp. 3-5). The first half of this division (1:2-18) treats of matters relating to the development of character, the second half (1:19-2:26) of topics pertaining to religious instruction and public worship. 2-4. The moral use of Trial. Out of trial comes steadfastness and steadfastness makes perfect. The epistle begins as a didactic essay, and plunges at once into the subject without the introductory paragraph of congratulation, good wishes, assurance of prayerful interest in the person addressed, etc., which is a characteristic standing feature in Greek letters, both Christian and secular; cf. the papyrus letters referred to above, pp. 127 f., together with Romans 1:8 ff., 1 Corinthians 1:4 ff., 2 Corinthians 1:3 ff., Ephesians 1:3 ff., Philippians 1:3 ff., Colossians 1:3 ff., 1 Thessalonians 1:2 ff., 2 Thessalonians 1:3 ff., 2 Timothy 1:3 ff., Philemon 1:4 ff., 1 Peter 1:3 ff., 2 John 1:4, 3 John 1:2-4. It is noticeable that those N. T. “ epistles” which have most the character of literary works rather than letters lack this opening paragraph. Thus 1 Timothy and Titus (which for other reasons also are recognised as containing less genuine matter than 2 Timothy), Hebrews, 1 John, Jude, Revelation, and perhaps 2 Peter (where this purpose, however, may be intended by 1:3 ff.). The spurious epistles of Plato and others, which are literary pieces and not real letters, have likewise for the most part nothing corresponding to the opening paragraph common in letters of daily life. 2. πᾶσανχαράν . πᾶσαν , “ all,” is here used, not to denote strict completeness of extension, but as an intensifying adjective, in the sense either of “ full,” “ supreme” (summus) or (less naturally) of “ nothing but,” “ unmixed” (merus, Ger. lauter). Cf. Eur. Med. 453, πᾶνκέρδοςἡγοῦζημιουμένηφυγῇ . πᾶς in the singular means (1) “ every,” “ every kind of” , having this sense only with anarthrous nouns, e.g. Philippians 4:21 πάνταἅγιον , Matthew 4:23 πᾶσαννόσονκαὶπᾶσανμαλακίαν , Colossians 4:12 ἐνπαντὶθελήματιτοῦθεοῦ ; (2) “ whole,” “ entire” (ὅλος , totus). In this sense it is used (a) with the article, and in either the attributive or predicate position, Matthew 8:34 πᾶσαἡπόλις , Acts 20:18 τὸνπάνταχρόνον ; (b) with anarthrous nouns, e. g. Plato, Leges 708 B ξυνάπασαπόλις , “ a whole city.” The rule is that the noun lacks the article in cases where without πᾶς it would not have had it. (3) From this sense of “ whole,” is derived the meaning “ full,” “ complete,” and so “ utter” (summus). In this sense it is used with abstract nouns in cases where the idea of quantity or extension is not present, and is found both with and without the article. Thus Plato, Leges 646 B εἰςἅπασανφαυλότητα , “ into utter degradation” (Jowett); Lege s952 A πασῃσπουδῇμανθάνειν , “ with all (complete) zeal” ; Respub. 575 Αἐνπάσῃἀναρχίᾳκαὶἀνομίᾳ , “ in all (complete) anarchy and lawlessness” ; Thuc. i, 86:2 τιμωρητέαπαντὶσθένει , “ with full strength,” iv, 11:3 προθυμίᾳπάσῃχρώμενοικαίπαρακελευσμῷ ; Polyb. i, 39:3 εἰςπᾶσανἦλθονἀπορίαν , i, 15:6 τῆςπάσηςἀλογίαςπλήρη , iii, 77:4 ἐντῆπάσῃφιλανθρωπίᾳ , iv, 27:2 τῆςπάσηςγέμεικακοπραγμοσύνης , xi, 4[7]2 τῆςπάσηςἀλογιστίαςἐστὶσημεῖον , “ a proof of complete folly” ; Epict. iii, 5:10 χάρινσοιἔχωπᾶσαν . The Hebrew ב ּ ֹ ל , whose meanings had a development in general like those of πᾶς , does not appear to have advanced to this usage. 2 Macc. 2:22 τοῦκυρίουμετὰπάσηςἐπιεικείαςἵλεωγενομένουαὐτοῖς is one of the very few cases of this sense in the Apocrypha.* In the N. T. this usage is common, especially in Paul, where πᾶς becomes a favourite intensifying adjective. Thus Acts 4:29 μετὰπαρρησίαςπάσης , 5:23, 17:11 μετὰπάσηςπροθυμίας , 20:19, 23:1 πάσῃσυνειδήσειἀγαθῇπεπολίτευμαι , 28:31, Romans 7:8, Romans 15:13 πληρώσαιὑμᾶςπάσηςχαρᾶςκαὶεἰρήνης , 15:14, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 8:7 πάσῃσπουδῇ , 9:8 πᾶσαναὐτάρκειαν (notice the various senses of πᾶς exemplified in this verse) 12:12, Ephesians 1:8 ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳκαὶφρονήσει , 4:19, 5:9, Philippians 1:9, Philippians 2:29 μετὰπάσηςχαρᾶς , Colossians 1:9-11. Colossians 1:28 ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳ , 3:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 1 Timothy 1:15 and 4:9 πάσηςἀποδοχῆςἄξιος , 2:11, 5:2, 6:1, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 2:15, Titus 2:3:2, 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Peter 2:5:10, 2 Peter 1:5 σπουδὴνπᾶσαν . In some of these instances, as would be expected, it is not easy to decide certainly between the meaning “ full” and the meaning “ each” or “ every.” It is evident that this usage is a Greek and not in any degree a Semitic idiom. This sense is the probable one in James 1:2. (4) Still another use of πᾶς is found in cases where the word, through its position in the sentence, becomes translatable by “ unmixed,” “ wholly,” “ only,” merus, tantummodo, Ger. lauter. Thus Plato, Phileb. 27 E, 28 Αοὐγὰρἂνἡδονὴπᾶνἀγαθὸνἦν … hellip; οὐδέγ ʼ ἂνλύπηπᾶνκακόν ,† Protag. 317 B ἐγὼοὖντούτωντὴνἐναντίανἅπασανὁδὸνἐλήλυθα , “ the entirely opposite course,” Thuc. vi, 37:2 ἐνπάσῃπολεμίᾳΣικελίᾳ , Jos. Ant. 4 5.1 διὰπάσηςἐρήμουῥέων , “ flowing through nothing but desert.” In Proverbs 11:23 ἐπιθυμίαδικαίωνπᾶσαἀγαθή , the Hebrew א ַ ך ְ , tantummodo, is translated by πᾶσα ,‡ and the sense is “ The desire of the righteous is solely good” (i.e. both in its character and in its results). The Latin omnis is used in this same way, as Cic. N. D. ii, 21, nulla in cœ lo nec fortuna nec temeritas, nec erratio nec varietas inest: contraque omnis ordo, veritas, ratio, constantia. This method of heightening the effect of the noun is, in many cases, closely akin to the sense discussed under (3) and can be fully distinguished from that only in extreme instances. It is likely that the Greek writer was often, perhaps usually, not conscious of the distinction which our analysis reveals. See Schleusner, Lexicon in Nov. Test. s. v. πᾶς (Glasgow, 1824, pp. 358 f.); Krü ger, Griechische Sprachlehre fü r Schulen, i, § 50, 11, Anm. 7-13; also Stephanus, Thesaurus, s. v πᾶς (especially ed. Hase and Dindorf, Paris, 1831-65, vol. vi, col. 568). χαράν “ joy,” i.e. “ occasion of joy” (cf. Luke 2:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:19), a predicate accusative, the sentence with ὅταν suggesting the real object of ἡγήσασθε . Probably an allusion is intended to χαίρειν , v. 1. The writer sets forth one notable source of joy. For similar use of the greeting, cf. Tob. 5:10 εἶπεναὐτῷ · χαίρεινσοιπολλὰγένοιτο . καὶἀποκριθεὶςΤωβεὶθεἶπεναὐτῷ · τίμοιἔτιὑπάρχειχαίρειν ; Ps.-Plato,* Epist. viii, 352 ΒΠλάτωντοῖςΔίωνοςοἰκείοιςτεκαὶἑταίροιςεὖπράττειν · ἃδ ʼ ἂνδιανοηθέντεςμάλισταεὖπράττοιτεὄντωςπειράσομαιταῦθ ʼ ὑμῶνκατὰδὐναμινδιεξελθεῖν . This paronomasia is possible only in Greek, and is a strong argument against the theory of a Semitic original. Cf. Zahn, Einleitung, i, § 6, note 6. The Peshitto has ܚ ܕ ܘ ܐ which obliterates the play on words. ἡγήσασθε . The aorist is perhaps used because the writer is thinking of each special case of πειρασμός . For the distinction, often significant, between present and aorist, in commands and in prohibitions, see Winer, § 43. 3, § 56. I b, Buttmann, § 139. 6, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 173 f. ἀδελφοίμου . So 2:1, 14, 3:1, 10, 12, 5:12, 19; ἀδελφοί alone 4:11, 5:7, 9, 10; ἀδελφοίμουἀγαπητοί 1:16, 19, 2:5. Like the Hebrew א ָ ח , “ brother,” ἀδελφός was used by Jews (and apparently by Jews alone) to mean “ fellow countryman,” cf. Exodus 2:11, Deuteronomy 15:3, Judith 7:30, Tob. 2:2, 2 Macc. 1:1, Matthew 5:47, Acts 13:26. Philo, De caritate, 6 (ii, p. 388), explains ἀδελφός as meaning οὐμόνοντὸνἐκτῶναὐτῶνφύνταγονέωνἀλλὰκαὶὃςἀστὸςἢκαὶὁμόφυλοςᾖ , cf. Philo, De septenario, 9 init. By Christians the word was used of fellow members in the new Israel, John 21:23, Acts 1:15, Romans 1:13, Romans 16:14, Ephesians 6:21, Philippians 2:25, Hebrews 3:12, 1 Peter 5:12, 2 Peter 1:10, Revelation 1:9. This usage, characteristic of the early Christians, is to be deemed a natural out-growth of the Jewish usage, doubtless stimulated and confirmed, but not originated, by such sayings of Jesus as Mark 3:35, Matthew 23:8, cf. Luke 22:32. It would also be made easier to some Gentile Christians through such usages as that of the technical language of the Serapeum of Memphis, where ἀδελφός denoted a fellow member of the religious community. See Deissmann, Bibel-studien, 1895, pp. 82 f., and the references there given; also letters in Witkowski, Epistolae græ cae privatae, 1907; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Test. 1914, s. v. ἀδελφός . As an address, ἀδελφοί , with or without the additional words, is common in the O. T., e. g. Judges 19:23, 1 Samuel 30:23, 1 Chronicles 28:2, Judith 7:30, Tob. 7:3, cf. Apoc. Bar. 78:2, 80:1; and still more in the N. T., e. g. Romans 7:4, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 1 John 3:13; cf. Clem. Romans 1:1 , Romans 1:4:7, Romans 1:2 Clem Romans 1:1, Romans 10:1, Romans 14:1, Ign. Eph., 16:1, Hermas. Vis. 3, 10:3, 4, 1:5, 8, Ep. Barnab. 2:10, and see Goodspeed’ s Index patristicus for other references. It is especially characteristic of the speeches in Acts 1:16; Acts 2:29; Acts 3:17; Acts 6:3; Acts 7:2; Acts 7:26; Acts 13:15; Acts 13:26; Acts 13:38; Acts 15:7; Acts 15:13; Acts 22:1; Acts 23:1; Acts 23:5-6; Acts 28:17; and it may be suspected that it belonged to the homiletical style of the synagogue and was brought thence into Christian hortatory language. It is a form appropriate to a member of a strictly defined society, such as the Jewish or the Christian brotherhood, addressing other members whom he recognises as equals. This character distinguishes the Christian parenetic literature from the O. T. Wisdom-literature. In the latter the conventional form is “ My son,” υἱέ (Proverbs 1:8 and passim), or τέκνον (Ecclus. 2:1 and passim), and the situation is conceived to be that of an old man bequeathing his accumulated wisdom to his child or pupil. Cf. Toy on Proverbs 1:8. πειρασμοῖς , “ trials.” On the uniformly neutral meaning of Hebrew נ ִ ס ּ ָ ה , “ try,” “ test.” see Driver on Deuteronomy 6:16. This holds for πειράω , πειράζω , πειρασμός in LXX (including Apocrypha), except Ecclus. 2:1, 33:1. In the N. T. (1) the noun πειρασμός , “ trial” (which in secular writers is known only in Dioscur. Præ f. 5 τοὺςἐπὶτῶνπαθῶνπειρασμούς , “ experiments on diseases” ), has clearly the meaning “ affliction,” that being one of the most common tests of character. Luke 22:28, Acts 20:19 μετὰπἁσηςταπεινοφροσύνηςκαὶδακρύωνκαὶπειρασμῶν , cf. Ecclus. 2:1, 33:1, Luke 8:13 (cf. Mark 4:17), Hebrews 11:37, 1 Peter 1:6. See E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 71 f., Harnack, “ Zwei Worte Jesu,” in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. Preuss. Akademie, 1907, pp. 942-947, both of whom give this meaning to πειρασμός in the Lord’ s Prayer, Matthew 6:13. (2) The whole group of words is used to refer to temptation to sin, since that, primarily an assault, is at the same time a test. This development of the meaning accords with the secular use of πειράω , πειράζω , which may be illustrated from the derivative πειρατής , “ pirate,” i. e. “ attacker.” Thus in James 1:14 the words are flatly used in the sense “ seduce to evil.” So Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:6:13; the name ὁπειράζων for Satan, Matthew 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 3:5, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 1 Corinthians 7:10:13, 1 Timothy 6:9, etc.; cf. the Jewish prayer in Berachoth, 60 b, translated by Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2, p. 128. That both meanings can be employed by the same writer in neighbouring contexts may be illustrated by the use of the English “ trial” in its several senses. In the passage before us πειρασμοῖς evidently means “ trials,” i. e. adversities, which befall us from without and against our will. According to James (vv. 13 ff.) “ temptations” spring mainly from within and could not be a subject for rejoicing. There is no reason, however, to think especially of religious persecution; what James has in mind is the strain put upon faith in Providence and in a good God by the fact that God permits his people to fall into distress of various kinds and to be oppressed by grievous poverty. The people here addressed are not a missionary outpost among the heathen; nothing in the epistle (not even 2:7 and 4:7 ff.) implies the situation revealed by 1 Peter 4:12 ff. They appear to be largely poor and struggling people, subject to the hardships of the poor, cf. 1:10, 2:1 ff. 6. Note the prevalent eagerness to have, implied in 4:1-3. περιπέσητε , “ fall in with,” “ encounter,” ordinarily used of unwelcome encounters, as with robbers (Luke 10:30), misfortunes, sicknesses (Proverbs 11:5, Proverbs 11:2 Macc. 6:13); see references in Lexx, Wetstein, and Heisen, pp. 258 f. ποικίλοις , “ divers.” The classical and higher literary use employed ποικίλος in senses naturally derived from its original meaning of “ many-coloured,” “ variegated” ; thus it meant “ complex,” “ elaborate,” “ diversified,” “ intricate,” “ subtle,” “ ambiguous,” “ unstable,” nearly always in contrast with “ simple” (Schmidt, Synonymik, iv, pp. 361 f.). In classical writers hardly any clear case can be found of the looser meaning, “ various,” “ divers,” παντοδαπός , in which the word appears in later and less cultivated use, so Matthew 4:24, Mark 1:34, Luke 4:40, Hebrews 2:4, 1 Peter 1:6, 1 Peter 1:3 Macc. 2:6, ποικιλαιςκαὶπολλαῖςἐδοκίμασαςτιμωρίαις , 4 Macc. 7:4, 17:7 μητέραἑπτὰτέκνωνδι ʼ εὐσέβειανποικίλαςβασάνουςμέχριθανάτουὑπομείνασαν , 18:21. Hermas offers many cases of this meaning; see Goodspeed, Index, and note especially Mand. 4, 2.3 πολλαὶκαὶποικίλαι , Mand. 10, 1.5 χερσοῦνταιἀπὸτῶνἀκανθῶνκαὶβοτανῶνποικίλων , Sim. vii, 4 θλιβῆναιἐνπάσαιςθλίψεσιποικίλαις . So Ep. ad Diogn. 12:1 ποικίλοιςκαρποῖςκεκοσμημένοι , Mart. Polyc. 2:4. For non-christian use, cf. Aelian, V. h. ix, 8 ὁδὲ … πολλαῖςκαὶποικίλαιςχρησάμενοςβίουμεταβολαῖς , Synes. Ep. 114. The popular weakening of the strict sense of the word, and its employment merely to give greater fulness to the phrase, is seen at its extreme in 2 Timothy 3:6, Titus 3:3, Hebrews 13:9, where ποικίλος seems wholly superfluous. The use here in James is probably of that general type, with little or no emphasis; it is less probable that the word is used here to intensify the idea of πειρασμοῖς , “ trials however various,” implying number and severity. 3. τὸδοκίμιον , “ test,” “ proof,” here of the act of proving. The word more properly refers to the means of testing (κριτήριον , cf. Proverbs 27:21 δοκίμιονἀργυρίῳ , and references in Lex. and Mayor), but this does not give an adequate sense here, although adopted by Mayor and some older commentators. In the similar passage 1 Peter 1:7, τὸδοκίμιον cannot well mean “ proof” ; δοκίμιον is there a neuter adjective from δοκίμιος = δόκιμος , “ proved,” “ good.” See Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 1897, pp. 86 ff. In other usage also the word makes a natural advance from the idea of “ test” to that of “ purification” (as with metals) or of “ training” (as Herodian, ii, 10:6 δοκίμιονδὲστρατιωτῶνκάματοςἀλλ ʼ οὐτρυφή . τῆςπίστεως . τῆςπίστεως ] om B3 ff syrhcl. The evidence against the words raises a bare suspicion that they were added by conformation to 1 Peter 1:7. To omit them does not alter the general sense. The word πίστις clearly means in James that fundamental attitude of the man’ s soul by virtue of which he belongs to the people of God, cf. 1:6, 2:1, 5, 14. It is taken for granted that the natural effect of πειρασμοί is to imperil persistence in faith. See Introduction, p. 40. κατεργάζεται , “ works,” “ achieves” ; the force of κατα - is “ perfective.” See Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 111 ff., Sanday on Romans 7:15. Cf. Romans 5:3 ἡθλίψιςὑπομονὴνκατεργάζεται . χατεργάζεται is found only eleven times in LXX; while in the N. T., apart from this instance and 1 Peter 4:3, it occurs only in Paul (twenty times). ὑπομονήν , “ steadfastness,” “ staying-power,” not “ patience.” On the distinction, cf. Lightfoot on Colossians 1:11, Trench, Synonyms, § liii. ὑπομένω , ὑπομονή have in classical Greek a considerable range of meanings springing from the root-meaning “ stay” and including “ endurance,” “ firmness,” “ submission,” “ patience,” etc. In the Greek O. T. ὑπομονή is used chiefly for Hebrew מ ִ ק ְ ו ֶ ה , ת ּ ִ ק ְ ו ֶ ה , “ hope,” “ expectation,” e. g. Psalms 71:5 ὅτισὺεἷἡὑπομονήμου , κύριε · κύριοςἡἐλπίςμουἐκνεότητόςμου . So Theodotion, Job 17:15, translates ת ק ו ח once by ὑπομονή , while Aquila repeatedly substitutes ὑπομονή in this sense for ἐλπίς of LXX. This meaning is found by some in 2 Thessalonians 3:5, Revelation 1:9, Revelation 3:10, but the passages are all capable of different explanation. In Ecclus. 2:14, 17:24, 41:2 ὑπομονή occurs in the sense “ patience,” 38:27 “ diligence,” 16:13 ὑπομονὴνεὐσεβοῦς , “ the constancy of the pious.” In the last sense ὑπομονή and ὑπομένω are found many times in 4 Maccabees, where the virtue of religious constancy in spite of adversity and even torture is celebrated in the great instances of Eleazar and of the mother of the seven sons. It is there associated with ἀνδρεία (1:11, 15:30) and κακοπάθεια (9:8) and is the product of ἐλπίς (17:4). Cf. Test. XII Patr. Joshua 2:7 πολλὰἀγαθὰδίδωσινἡὑπομονή (the whole section is noteworthy), 10:1 ὁρᾶτεοὖν , τέκναμου , πόσακατεργάζεταιἡὑπομονή , 10:2, Ps. Sol. 2:40. ὑπομονή , meaning “ constancy,” was thus a virtue highly prized by the Jews and frequently exemplified by cases from their history beginning with that of Abraham, notably those mentioned in 4 Maccabees. It is, indeed, a characteristic Jewish virtue of all time, and the Christian emphasis on it is a part of the inheritance from Judaism. Chrysostom calls it βασιλὶςτῶνἀρετῶν . But heathen writers show that the virtue was also admired in the Greek and Roman world. The word ὑπομονή is hardly ever used for the virtue in general (yet cf. Plut. Apophth. lacon. Agesil. 2), but it is not uncommon with reference to the endurance of specific hardship. See the quotations given by Trench, especially Cicero’ s definition of the Roman quality patientia in De invent. ii, 54 patientia est honestatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ac difficilium voluntaria ac diuturna perpessio. In the N. T. ὑπομονή is chiefly used in this sense of unswerving constancy to faith and piety in spite of adversity and suffering. Thus Luke 8:15, Luke 21:19 ἐντῇὑπομονῇὑμῶνκτήσεσθετὰςψυχὰςὑμῶν , Romans 15:4 f., 2 Peter 1:6, Hebrews 10:36, Hebrews 12:1, Revelation 2:2, Revelation 2:3, Revelation 2:19. The noun and its verb occur but rarely in the Synoptic Gospels, and not at all in John, but are characteristic of the vocabulary of Paul and the apostolic age. 1 Peter 2:20, where ὑπομένω is twice used in the sense of “ endure uncomplainingly and patiently,” is an exception to the more usual emphasis on loyal “ firmness.” In James 1:3 ὑπομονή means, then, not “ uncomplaining patience” (so, e. g., Spitta), nor merely “ endurance” as a single act or concrete state, but rather that permanent and underlying active trait of the soul from which endurance springs— “ constancy,” or “ steadfastness,” thought of as a virtue. Cf. 5:11, where the meaning is the same, and 1:12. A closely similar thought is found in Romans 5:3 f. καὶκαυχώμεθαἐνταῖςθλίψεσιν , εἰδότεςὅτιἡθλίψιςὑπομονὴνκατεργάζεται , γάζετραι , ἡδὲὑπομονὴδοκιμήν , ἡδὲδοκιμὴἐλπίδα , ἡδὲἐλπὶςοὐκαταισχύνει . It is not necessary, however, to assume literary dependence. For the rhetorical figure of climax, cf. 1:14 f., Romans 10:14, 2 Peter 1:5 ff., Wisd. 6:17 ff.; see Blass-Debrunner, § 493, for other references. On joy in trial, cf. 2 Macc. 6:12-17, 4 Macc. 7:22, 11:12, Matthew 5:11 f., Acts 5:41, 1 Peter 1:6 f.; on the whole theory of punishment as chastening, cf. Psalms 66:10 ff., Wisd. 11:9, Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12, Judith 8:25-27. On affliction as a test to be expected in the life of the pious, cf. Ecclus. 2:1-5, Judith 8:25, 1 Peter 4:12, 2 Timothy 3:12. Spitta’ s contention that James has in 1:2-4 the case of Abraham already in mind is not made out. Abraham was indeed one of the great examples of constancy in faith in spite of searching trial, cf. Judith 8:25-27, 1 Macc. 2:52, Ecclus. 44:20, 4 Macc. 6:14, 22, 9:21, 13:12, 14:20, 16:19 f. 17:6, 18:20, 23, Jubilees 17, 19, Pirke Aboth, v. 4. But there is no reason whatever for assuming in our verse reference to any specific case of constancy. 4. δέ , “ and,” not “ but.” This verse turns to remoter, but essential, consequences of πειρασμοί . ἔργοντέλειονἐχέτω . We must not rest satisfied with constancy, but must see that it produces those further fruits which make up completeness of character. The thought, here very summarily expressed, is the same as in Romans 5:3 f., 2 Peter 1:5-7. For the phrase cf. John 17:4 τὸἔργοντελειώσας . The constancy here referred to is constancy in faith, from which completed character may be expected to spring. This is closely similar to the characteristic Pauline doctrine of faith working itself out (or, made effective) in love, Galatians 5:6, Romans 6:1-23, cf. v. 22 νυνὶδὲἐλευθερωθέντεςἀπὸτῆςἁμαρτίας … ἔχετετὸνκαρπὸνὑμῶνεἰςἁγιασμόν . This inclusive and fundamental thought well fits its position at the opening of the tract. “ To have a perfect work” is taken by many to mean “ be perfected,” in respect either to duration until the end or to other completeness. The verse would then urge merely that the constancy which trials produce be made by voluntary effort a perfect constancy. This is a less natural meaning for the phrase itself, and it gives a weaker sense than the interpretation “ produce its full and proper fruits,” which is, moreover, supported by the analogy of Rom 5:3f., 2 Peter 1:5-7. τελειοικαὶὁλόκληροι . A perfect and complete character is recognised as the aim of the whole process. τελειος , “ finished,” “ perfect,” is a favourite word of James, thus 1:17, 25, 3:2, cf. 2:22. The idea of “ maturity,” “ adult growth,” either physical (Hebrews 5:14, 1 Corinthians 14:20) or spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 13:11, Colossians 1:28, Colossians 4:12), does not seem present in James’ s use, which is rather akin to that of Mat 5:48, Matthew 19:21. For the use of τέλειος , referring to the natural aim of moral effort, the O. T. use of ת ּ ָ מ ִ י ם , “ perfect,” “ innocent,” and ש ׁ ָ ל ֵ ם , “ perfect,” “ single-(minded),” laid ample foundation. So ת ּ ָ ם , ת ּ ָ מ י ם , of Noah, Genesis 6:9; Job 1:1; Deuteronomy 18:13, Psalms 18:26, Psalms 37:37, and often; ש ל ם , 1 Kings 8:61, 1 Kings 11:4. A similar Greek use grew out of the simple meaning of the word, cf. Philo, Leg. all. ii, 23 (of Moses in contrast to the ordinary immature man), and other passages quoted by Mayor, also the Stoic sayings in Stobæ us, Anthol. ii, 7, 11, g, πάνταδὲτὸνκαλὸνκαὶἀγαθὸνἄνδρατέλειονεἶναιλέγουσιδιὰτὸμηδεμιᾶςἀπολείπεσθαιἀρετῆς , ii, 7, 5, b 8 (ed. Heeren, 2, p. 117). See HDB, “ Perfection,” and J. Weiss, Erster Korintherbrief, 1910, pp. 73-75. As τέλειος means “ complete” in the sense of “ perfect,” “ finished,” so ὁλόκληρος means “ complete in all its parts,” no part being wanting or inadequate. The distinction is well illustrated by Trench, Synonyms, § xxii. ὁλόκληρος is not common with a moral application, cf. 4 Macc. 15:17 τὴνεὐσέβειανὁλόκληρον , Wisd. 15:3 ὁλόκληροςδικαιοσύνη . It was customary to use the two words together merely to give a fuller phrase, as here, cf. Colossians 4:12, τέλειοικαὶπεπληροφορημένοι . Many examples of such use of τέλειος and ὁλόκληρος in combination, drawn from Philo, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, etc., will be found in Mayor, Trench, Spitta, and Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 312 ff. Compare English “ meet and right,” “ good and sufficient,” German “ klipp und klar, ” etc. 5-8. Divine aid to this perfectness is gained through Prayer. But blessings come only in answer to the prayer of steadfast loyalty in faith. The external connection is made here by λείπεται ; cf. vv. 1, 2 χαίρειν , χαράν , v. 4 τέλειον , τέλειοι , vv. 5, 6 αἰτείτω , etc. The main topic of the section is prayer (not wisdom), the point being that real prayer requires unwavering faith. The marked resemblance between these verses and Hermas, Mand. 9, shows that behind both lie current homiletical language and ideas. 5. σοφία (cf. James 3:13, James 3:15, James 3:17) is not to be taken in the popular Stoic sense of “ Science,” ἐπιστήμηθείωνκαὶἀνθρωπίνωνκαὶτῶντούτωναἰτιῶν (references in Lightfoot on Colossians 1:9), which is reflected in Paul’ s use, e. g. 1 Corinthians 1:20, 1 Corinthians 1:22 Ἕλληνεςσοφίανζητοῦσιν , 2:1, 4, 6, 3:19, and (with reference to the Christian substitute for the world’ s wisdom) 1 Corinthians 1:30, 1 Corinthians 2:6 f. 1 Corinthians 2:3:18, Ephesians 1:8, Ephesians 3:10, Colossians 2:3, ἐνᾧεἰσὶνπάντεςοἱθησαυροὶτῆςσοφίαςκαὶγνώσεωςἀπόκρυφοι . It is rather “ Wisdom,” the supreme and divine quality of the soul whereby man knows and practises righteousness.* Of this Hebrew idea of wisdom Solomon was the great exemplar,† cf. 2 Chronicles 1:10-12, Wisd. 7:7 ff. 8:7, 9:10-18, and of this Proverbs (e. g. ch. 2, see Toy on Proverbs 1:2-4), Ecclesiasticus (cf. ch. 1, especially vv. 14-20, 51:13-22), and the Wisdom of Solomon treat. Abundant passages in this literature refer to this wisdom as coming from God, and him alone, Proverbs 2:6 κύριοςδίδωσινσοφίαν , καὶἀπὸπροσώπουαὐτοῦγνῶσιςκαὶσύνεσις , Ecclus. 1:1 πᾶσασοφίαπαρὰκυρίου , 39:5, 6, 51:17, Wisd. 8:21, 9:6 τῆςἀπὸσοῦσοφίαςἀπούσηςεἰςοὐδὲνλογισθήσεται . The basis of the passage in James is thoroughly Jewish. πᾶσινδιδόντος . God’ s readiness to give is a motive to prayer. On the idea of God as ready and desirous to give to all, cf. Psalms 145:15-19, Ps. Son 4:13-15, Test. XII Patr. Gad 7:2, Philo, De cher. 34, Leg. alleg. i, 13 ὅτιφιλόδωροςὢνὁθεὸςχαρίζεταιτὰἀγαθὰπᾶσικαὶτοῖςμὴτελείοις , Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:7:7, Matthew 5:11. ἁπλῶς . Properly means “ simply,” but here clearly shown by what follows to have a moral sense, “ graciously,” “ bounteously,” “ generously.” The adverb is found only here in the N. T., but the noun ἁπλότης is not uncommon. In Romans 12:8 ὁμεταδιδοὺςἐνἁπλότητι , 2 Corinthians 8:2, 2 Corinthians 8:9:11, 2 Corinthians 8:13 τῇ … ἁπλότητιτῆςκοινωνίαςεἰςαὐτούς , Jos. Antiq. 7, 13:4 τῆςἁπλότητοςκαὶτῆςμεγαλοψυχίας , it means “ liberality,” “ generosity,” “ single-minded attention to the gift with no thought of self” ; cf. Ecclus. 20:14, “ The gift of a fool shall not profit thee; for his eyes are many instead of one” ; also Plut. De adulat. p. 63 F, τὸδὲτοῦκόλακοςἔργονοὐδὲνἔχειδίκαιον , οὐδ ʼ ἁπλοῦν , οὐδ ʼ ἐλευθέριον . Sanday, on Romans 12:8, quotes the important passages from Test. XII Patr. Issach. in which the various qualities of the single-minded man are set forth; note especially Issach. 3:8, on generosity, and see also Charles’ s valuable notes in his English translation, 1908, pp. 102-105. The adverb ἁπλῶς itself is used in this sense by Hermas, Mand. ii, 4 and 6. For various unacceptable senses given to ἁπλῶς here, see Beyschlag, and for full references, see Hort, ad loc. μὴὀνειδίζοντος describes God’ s giving as full and free, in contrast to the meanness which after a benefaction calls it unpleasantly to the mind of the one benefited. That this disagreeable trait of human nature was prominent in ancient times is attested, e. g. by Ecclus. 41:22 μετὰτὸδοῦναιμὴὀνείδιζε , 18:15-18, 20:14-16 (cf. also, for a slightly different aspect, 29:22-28), Plut. De adulat. p. 64 A, πᾶσαὀνειδιζομένηχάριςἐπαχθὴςκαὶἄχαρις , Schol. on Eur. Orest. 1238 ὀνείδη , τῶνεὐεργεσιῶντὰςὑπομνήσεις ; see further Wetstein and Mayor. 6. ἐνπίστει , cf. 5:15. Explained by μηδὲνδιακρινόμενος as meaning “ in constancy of faith.” “ Faith” is the fundamental religious attitude, not an incidental grace of character, and the words mean here more than “ in confidence that he will receive his request.” ὁδιακρινόμενος is a man whose allegiance wavers, not one tormented by speculative intellectual questionings, which do not fall within James’ s horizon. This is indicated by v. 7, which shows (as Beyschlag well remarks) that the kind of waverer whom James has in mind fully expects to receive some benefit from God. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ CHAPTER 2 1-7. To court the rich and neglect the poorin the house of worship reverses real values. In 2:1-7 the thought of the supreme importance of conduct, stated in 1:26-27, is further illustrated by an instance from a situation of common occurrence. With this instance the writer connects his reply to two excuses or pretexts (vv. 8-13, 14-26), which are perversions of true religion, and in so doing he is led to enter upon broader discussions. Ch. 2 is more original and less a repetition of current Jewish ideas than any other part of the epistle. 1. ἀδελφοίμου , marking transition to a new topic, cf. 1:19, 2:14, 3:1, 5:7, and see note on 1:2. ἐνπροσωπολημψίαις “ with acts of partiality.” προσωπολημψία (found also Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, Polyc. Phil. 6), together with the cognate words προσωπολημπτεῖν (James 2:9), προσωπολήμπτης (Acts 10:34), ἀπροσωπόλημπτος (ecclesiastical writers), ἀπροσωπολήμπτως (1 Peter 1:17, Clem. Romans 1:3, Barn. 4:12), is a compound formed from the LXX translation of the O. T. phrase נ ָ ש ׂ ָ א פ ָ נ ִ י ם , λαμβάνεινπρόσωπον , Leviticus 19:15, Psalms 82:2, etc. (For an analogous compound, cf. ἐμοσχοποίησαν , Acts 7:41). These words were of course used only among persons acquainted with the Greek O. T., that is, Jews and Christians. This group of expressions has had a history not unlike that of English “ favour,” “ favouritism,” etc., and, having often had originally an innocent sense, came in the O. T. to mean “ respect of persons” in the sense of improper partiality. The early uses related chiefly to partiality on the part of a judge. In later use any kind of improper partiality might be meant, whether judicial favouritism or, as here, selfish truckling to the powerful. For the meaning of the Hebrew expression, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, s. v. נ ָ ש ׂ ָ א , p. 916; cf. Lightfoot on Galatians 2:6, and, for some similar O. T. expressions, Mayor on James 2:1. The plural denotes the several manifestations of favouritism; cf. Winer, § 27, 3; Hadley-Allen, § 636; cf. 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:20, 1 Peter 4:3. ἐν denotes the state, or condition, in which the act is done; here the acts with which the action of the main verb is accompanied. Cf. 2 Peter 3:11 ὑπάρχεινἐνεὐσεβείαις , Colossians 3:22 ὑπακούετε … μὴἐνὀφθαλμοδουλίαις , James 1:21 ἐνπραΰτητι . Warnings against contempt of the poor are common in the O. T., cf. Leviticus 19:15, Proverbs 22:22, Ecclus. 10:23, etc. μὴἔχετε . Not interrogative (R.V. mg., WH.), but imperative (A.V., R.V. text), as is better suited to the gnomic style of the epistle (cf. 1:2, 22, 3:1, 4:11, etc.), and to the following context. The question “ Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord?” would express doubt whether a faith accompanied by this fault is true faith in Jesus Christ at all. But this makes a weak and unnatural opening to the paragraph, is too subtle and indirect for so straightforward a writer, and does not suit so well the transition to the following sentence with γάρ . This writer (e. g. in vv. 5, 6, 7) uses the question-form rather in argument than in exhortation. Note, too, the directness with which his other paragraphs open, e. g. 1:2, 5, 3:1, 5:7. Moreover, such a surprisingly drastic denial that the readers were Christian believers would require a clearer form of statement. ἔχετετὴνπίστιν . Cf. 2:14, 18, 3:14, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:22, Luke 17:6, Acts 14:9, Romans 14:22, 1 Timothy 1:19, Philemon 1:5. ἔχω is used in its natural sense, with reference to “ having” an inner quality. This is a Greek usage, see L. and S. s. v. ἔχω A. I. 8. Cf. τηρεῖντὴνπίστιν , 2 Timothy 4:7, Revelation 14:12. For the whole phrase, cf. Herm. Mand. v, 2:3 τῶντὴνπίστινἐχόντωνὁλόκληρον . τὴνπίστιν . The “ subjective” faith, not the later idea of a body of doctrine to be believed; so throughout this epistle, 1:3, 6, 2:5, 14-26, 5:15. Faith in Jesus Christ is the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian. See A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament2, 1896. τοῦκυρίου . Objective genitive, cf. Mark 11:22, Galatians 2:16; Hermas, Sim. vi, 1:2, etc. The view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube, 1891, and James Drummond, Epistle to the Galatians, 1893, p. 91, that these genitives after πίστις are subjective, not objective, is unnatural, and seems disproved by both Mark 11:22 and Galatians 2:16. See Sanday on Romans 3:22. Hort paraphrases: the faith “ which comes from Him and depends on Him,” but this is unnecessary. τῆςδόξης . “ Glory” is the majesty and brightness of light in which God dwells, and which belongs also to the Messiah; see Sanday on Romans 3:23, G. B. Gray, art. “ Glory,” in HDB; A. von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1900. The interpretation now most commonly given for this difficult expression is probably right. τῆςδόξης is genitive of characteristic , limiting the whole preceding phrase τοῦκυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , i. e. “ our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.” The expression is a not altogether happy expansion of ὁκύριοςτῆςδόξης (1 Corinthians 2:8), cf. ὁθεὸςτῆςδόξης , Psalms 29:3, Acts 7:2, ὁπατὴρτῆςδόξης , Ephesians 1:17. By its solemnity the writer may intend to emphasise the inconsistency between the great privilege of Christian faith and this petty discrimination between rich and poor. No convincing objection can be made to this interpretation, although there is no complete parallel to it. Among the other interpretations the following deserve mention: (1) ταῖςπροσωπολημψίαιςτῆςδόξης , “ partiality arising from your own opinion,” or “ partiality arising from external glory” (admiratio hominum secundum externum splendorem, Michaelis). But the separation of the words is too great, and the meaning “ glory” for δόξα in this context too obvious, to permit this interpretation, and it is now held by no one. (2) τὴνπίστιντῆςδόξης , “ faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Pesh.), or “ Christ-given faith in the glory” (i. e. the glory which we are to receive, Romans 8:18), or “ the glorious faith in Christ.” But the last two of these are forced, and the first involves too strange an order of words to be acceptable, in spite of such partial analogies as Acts 4:33, 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Cf. Buttmann, § 151, III; Winer, § 61, 4; for many illustrations of hyperbaton from LXX and secular authors, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 768 ff. (3) Various interpretations separate off some part of the phrase τοῦκυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , which is then connected with τῆςδόξης , and the two together taken as in apposition with the rest of the phrase. The least objectionable of these is perhaps that of Ewald, “ our Lord, Jesus Christ of glory” ; but this division is unnecessary, and it seems impossible that the writer should not have meant to keep together the whole of the familiar designation. (4) A.V. and R.V. supply τοῦκυρίου , and translate “ the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.” There are abundant parallels for this latter phrase, but none for such a singular omission. (5) Bengel, Mayor, Hort, WH. mg., and others take τῆςδόξης as in apposition to the preceding and as referring to Christ (perhaps as the Shekinah) under the title of “ the Glory.” But the evidence that this is a possible use of ἡδόξα (see the full note of Mayor3, pp. 79 ff., cf. Luke 2:31, Ephesians 1:17, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:3) is inadequate. (6) Spitta and Massebieau think the words ἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ an interpolation by the Christian editor. This would leave the expression “ the Lord of glory,” referring, as in Enoch, to God. Beyschlag’ s answer to this, that an interpolator would not have broken the phrase τοῦκυρίουτῆςδόξης , is not quite satisfactory, since the natural words to follow τοῦκυρίου are ἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . But the interpolation is not sufficiently obvious to justify itself apart from the general theory to which it belongs. See the long note in Mayor. 2. γάρ explains the warning by pointing out that respect of persons is easily recognisable as sin. γάρ introduces οὐδιεκρίθητεκτλ ., v. 4. εἰσέλθῃ , cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23-25. συναγωγήν means “ meeting,” and it is not necessary here to distinguish between the “ meeting” as an occasion and as an assembled body of persons. It is the proper word for a Jewish religious meeting, but is occasionally used, chiefly by writers having some Jewish or Syrian connection, for a Christian meeting; cf. Herm. Mand. xi, 9 ὅτανοὖνἔλθῃὁἄνθρωποςὁἔχωντὸπνεῦματὸθεῖονεἰςσυναγωγὴνἀνδρῶνδικαίων ; Ign. Polyc. 4:2; Iren. Hæ r. iv, 31:1, 2; Epiph. Hæ r. xxx, 18 συναγωγὴνδὲοὗτοι [the Ebionites] καλοῦσιτὴνἑαυτῶνἐκκλησίαν , καὶοὐχὶἐκκλησίαν . The Christian Palestinian Aramaic dialect used a single word [כ נ י ש ׁ ת א ] as well for “ synagogue” as for “ church.” In view of this wide-spread occasional use, no trustworthy inference as to the place of writing of the epistle, still less any conclusion as to its Jewish-Christian authorship, or as to the nationality of the persons addressed, can be drawn from the occurrence of this word here. The material is fully collected and well discussed by Zahn, Einleitung, i, § 4, note 1; Harnack in his long note on Hermas, Mand. xi, 9; Schü rer, GJV, ii, § 27, notes 11 and 12. The meaning “ place of meeting,” “ meeting-house,” natural if this were a Jewish synagogue, is wholly unlikely for a Christian writing. The only parallel to be adduced would be the inscription (from a locality not far from Damascus) ΣυναγωγὴΜαρκιωνιστῶν , κώμΛεβάβωντοῦκυκαὶςρἸηΧρηστοῦ , προνοίᾳΠαύλουπρεσβ , τοῦλχ͵ἔτους , Le Bas-Waddington, Inscript. grecques et lat. iii, no. 2558. The date is a.d. 318-319. χρυσοδακτύλιος , cf. Luke 15:22, also Genesis 38:18, Genesis 38:25, 41:42, Isaiah 3:21; and see note in Mayor3, p. 83, and “ Ring,” in EB, HDB, and Dictt. Antt. for details of the custom of wearing rings. For similar description of a rich gentleman, cf. Epictet. i, 22:18 ἥξειτιςγέρωνπολιὸςχρυσοῦςδακτυλίουςἔχωνπολλούς , Seneca, Nat. quæ st. vii, 31 exornamus anulis digitos, in omni articulo gemmam disponimus. χρυσοδακτύλιος is found only here, but is correctly formed, cf. χρυσόχειρ in the same sense, χρυσοστέφανος , χρυσοχάλινος , etc. ἐνἐσθῆτιλαμπρᾷ , cf. Luke 23:11. The term λαμπρός seems here to refer to elegant and luxurious, “ fine,” clothes (cf. Revelation 18:14), but it can also be used of freshness or cleanness (Revelation 15:6) without reference to costliness, and sometimes (Acts 10:30) appears to mean “ shining.” Its natural opposite in all these senses is ῥυπαρός , “ dirty,” “ shabby,” as below, cf. Philo, De Joseph. 20, ἀντὶῥυπώσηςλαμπρὰνἐσθῆταἀντιδόντες . Mayor gives other instructive references. See also Lex.. s. vv. λαμπρός and ῥυπαρός . For the same construction as vv. 2, 3, cf. vv. 15-16. 3. ἐπιβλέψητε , “ look,” i. e. with favour, “ have regard.” ἐπιβλέπειν has this sense also in Luke 1:48, Luke 9:38, apparently through the influence of the LXX usage; cf. 1 Samuel 1:11, 1 Samuel 9:16, Psalms 25:16, Psalms 69:16, Job 3:3, Judith 13:4, etc. The development of this sense in an appropriate context is a natural one; but in classical usage only Aristotle, Eth. Nic. iv, 2, p. 1120, is cited. εἴπητε . Doubtless the speaker is one of the dignitaries of the congregation, cf. τὸὑποπόδιόνμου . κάθου . This form of the imperative , found uniformly in O. T. and N. T., was doubtless in ordinary colloquial use, as is attested by its occurrence in comic writers of the fifth and fourth centuries b.c. and in post-classical usage. See Lex. s. v. and Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 3, note 3. καλῶς . Usually explained as meaning “ in a good seat,” “ comfortably.” But the usage does not fully justify this (see Mayor’ s citations), and some polite idiom in the sense of “ please,” “ pray,” is to be suspected. In various Greek liturgies the minister’ s direction to the worshipping congregation, στῶμενκαλῶς , presents the same difficulty and suggests the same explanation. See F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western, vol. i, Oxford, 1896, pp. 43, 49, 383, 471. The Syrian liturgies sometimes merely carry this over, “ Stō men kalō s, ” but also render by, “ Stand we all fairly,” ibid. pp. 72, 74, 104. On the Jewish custom of distinguished places in the synagogue, cf. Matthew 23:6, Mark 12:39, Luke 11:43, Luke 20:46, and see “ Synagogue,” in EB and HDB A noteworthy commentary on these verses is offered by a passage found in various ancient books of church order. Its oldest form is perhaps that in the Ethiopic Statutes of the Apostles (ed. Horner, 1904, pp. 195 f.): “ And if any other man or woman comes in lay dress [i. e. in fine clothes], either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place (for them) the lover of brothers or of sisters, having risen, will leave place for them. “ … And if a poor man or woman either of the district or of the (other) districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be respecting the person of man but of God.” See also the Syriac Didascalia apostolorum, 12; Apostolic Constitutions, ii, 58; E. v. d. Goltz, “ Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlicher Gemeindeordnungen,” in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuss. Akademie, 1906, pp. 141-157. There is no sufficient indication that the passage is dependent on James. στῆθι , in contrast to κάθου . στῆθιἢκάθουἐκεῖ ] B ff. στῆθιἢκάθου ] sah. στῆθιἐκεῖἢκάθου ] A 33 minn Cyr vg Jer Aug syrhcl. στῆθιἐκεῖἢκάθουὧδε ] א C2KLP minn boh syrpesh. στῆθιἐκεῖκαὶκάθου ] C*. The reading of B ff makes the rough words an invitation to stand or to take a poor seat. So the Sahidic, which thus on the whole supports B ff. The readings of A al and א al seem to be different emendations, both due to the wish to make στῆθι explicit and so to create a better parallelism. But since the indefinite ἐκεῖ does not in itself imply any disrespect to the visitor, the effect is to lessen rather than intensify the rudeness of στῆθι , and the product is a weaker text than that of B ff (sah). The text of B ff is thus on both external (see p. 85) and internal grounds to be preferred. ἢκάθουἐκεῖὑπὸτὸὑποπόδιόνμου , i. e. in a humble place. This is a sorry alternative to standing. Cf. Deuteronomy 33:3 ὑπόσε , “ at thy feet,” Luke 8:35, Luke 10:39, Acts 22:3 παρὰτοὺςπόδας . These persons who come into the meeting are visitors, who may be won for the church, and the treatment of them at this critical moment reveals the real feeling of the members toward the relative worth of the different classes in society. The visitors seem clearly distinguished from the members of the congregation; and nothing indicates, or suggests, that they are members of sister churches. They are undoubtedly outsiders, whether Jews or Gentiles. ὑπό ] B3 P 33 minn have emendation to the easier ἐπί . 4. οὐ ] Omitted by B ff minn. The repetition of — ΟΥΟΥ might suggest either the insertion or the omission of the word in transcription. The attestation and the greater intrinsic vigour of the sense speak for the omission. KLP minn read καὶοὐ , the καί being added to indicate the apodosis. διεκρίθητε . “ Ye have wavered,” “ doubted,” i. e. “ practically, by your unsuitable conduct, departed from and denied the faith of v. 1, and thus fallen under the condemnation pronounced in 1:6-8 against the δίψυχος .” Cf. 1:6 and note, 3:17 ἀδιάκριτος ; and, for the mode of argument, 1:8 δίψυχος , 4:8 ἁμαρτωλοί , δίψυχοι . Of the various meanings proposed for διεκρίθητε this one, which is common in the N. T. although not attested in secular Greek, yields in the present context the best sense, being especially recommended by the allusion to the “ waverer” of 1:6. Cf. Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23, Romans 14:23, James 1:6, and the kindred sense “ hesitate” in Acts 10:20, Romans 4:20. Other interpretations which have been given are classified as follows by Huther, whose elaborate note, as reproduced with additions by Beyschlag, pp. 103 f., should be consulted for the history of the exegesis. διακρίνεσθαι = (1) separare; (2) discrimen facere; (3) judicare; (4) dubitare . Under each of these senses several interpretations are possible according as the verb is taken as an affirmation or a question, and under several of them a choice between an active and passive meaning is possible. Most of the interpretations are too remote from the natural suggestion of the context, or any natural meaning of the verb, to be worth considering, and none suits on the whole so well as the interpretation given above. The renderings of A.V., “ Are ye not then partial?” and R.V. mg., “ Do ye not make distinctions?” are based on (2), the verb being given an active sense. This corresponds to the view of Grotius and others, and is perhaps not impossible, even with the passive aorist, but at best it would be unusual, it runs counter to all N. T. usage, and it gives an inherently weak and tautologous sense. To R.V. text, “ Are ye not divided?” no objection from the ordinary meaning of the verb can be brought, but it is less idiomatic and pointed than the rendering “ waver.” κριταὶ means “ judges” ; it cannot mean “ approvers” (as Wetstein takes it). κριταὶδιαλογισμῶνπονηρῶν , “ judges with evil thoughts,” gen. of quality. Evidently, like διεκρίθητε , this describes in language already familiar an admittedly wrong attitude. There is a play on words in διεκρίθητε , κριταί , which cannot be imitated in English, and which goes far to account for the introduction of κριταί into a context to which the idea of “ judging” in any proper sense is foreign. That προσωπολημψία is the characteristic sin of the bad judge may also have had its influence. The sentence must be taken to mean: “ You have passed judgments (i. e. on rich or poor) prompted by unworthy motives.” For διαλογισμῶνπονηρῶν , cf. Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, and Psalms 56:5. διαλογισμός is in Biblical usage a general word which includes purpose as well as deliberation. See Lightfoot on Philippians 2:14; Hatch, Essays, p. 8. 5-7. The poor are the elect heirs of God, whereas the rich are your persecutors. These verses are intended to reinforce the exhortation of v. 1 by pointing out how peculiarly heinous in the readers’ case is partiality in favour of the rich. 5. ἀκούσατε , as in diatribes, cf. Bultmann, Stil der paulinischen Predigt, p. 32, with foot-notes. ἀδελφοίμουἀγαπητοί , inserted here for emphasis, cf. 1:16, 3:12. ὁθεὸςἐξελέξατο . Election is a Jewish idea, cf. e. g. Deuteronomy 4:37, Ps. Sol. 9:9; see Sanday, Romans, pp. 244 f. 248 ff. τοὺςπτωχοὺςτῷκόσμῳ , “ the poor by the standard of the world,” τῷκόσμῳ is dative of reference, or “ interest,” cf. Acts 7:20 ἀστεῖοςτῷθεῷ , 2 Corinthians 10:4, see Hadley-Allen, § 771; Winer, § 31, 4, a. Cf. 1 Timothy 6:17 f., on which Schö ttgen quotes ע ו ל ם ע נ י י , Baba bathra 8, 2; ע ש ׁ י ר ב ע ל ם , ibid. 4, 1. Others (Weiss, etc.) take τῷκόσμῳ as naming the possession which the poor lack. But the poor lack not “ the world” but the world’ s goods. The election of the poor to privileges is not here said to be due to any merit of their poverty, but, in fact, poverty and election coincide. This does not deny that an occasional rich man may have become a Christian, nor affirm that all the poor have been chosen, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:26-28, Matthew 19:23-26. τῷκόσμῳ ] Bא AC. ἐντῷκόσμῳ ] minn. ἐντούτῳτῷκόσμῳ ] min1. τοῦκόσμου ] A2C2KLP minn. τοῦκόσμουτούτου ] minnpauc. om min1. The reading of the older uncials easily accounts for all the others. πλουσίουςἐνπίστει , “ rich in the sphere of faith,” “ in the domain where faith is the chief good” ; i. e. rich when judged by God’ s standards. Cf. Luke 12:21, 1 Corinthians 1:5, 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 6:18, Ephesians 2:4; and rabbinical “ rich in the law” (i. e. learned), Wajjikra r. 33 on Proverbs 29:13 (Wetstein), Tanchuma 34, 3 (Schö ttgen on 1 Timothy 6:17). The contrast of poor and rich in different spheres is a natural one. See quotations in Mayor3, p. 86, and Spitta, p. 63; cf. Revelation 2:9, Test. XII Patr. Gad 7:6. Other modes of analysis of the meaning of ἐνπίστει do not affect the general sense of the phrase, but they seem less adapted to the context. Thus: (1) “ rich by reason of faith” ; (2) “ rich in having an abundance of faith,” cf. Ephesians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 1:5, 1 Timothy 6:18. This unduly limits the range of the “ riches.” κληρονόμουςτῆςβασιλείας . This expression corresponds to Matthew 25:34, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, 1 Corinthians 6:15:50 , Galatians 5:21, as well as to κληρονομεῖνζωὴναἰώνιον in Matthew 19:29, Matthew 25:34, Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25, Luke 18:18 (cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, i, pp. 102-104; E. Tr. pp. 125-127. “ Heirs” are persons who are appointed to receive the inheritance. The kingdom is here thought of as still future . The kingdom is not further described, nor does James use the term again, and it is possible to say of the term here only that it denotes the great blessing which God offers to his chosen, being thus practically equivalent to salvation. Cf. Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:10, Luke 12:31 f. See Westcott’ s note on Hebrews 6:12 for the history of the use of the term κληρονόμος . βασιλείας ] AC read ἐπαγγελ [ε ]ίας . ἧςἐπηγγείλατοτοῖςἀγαπῶσιναὐτόν . On the expression, cf. 2 Timothy 4:18, Ep. ad Diogn. 10. Cf. 1:12, τὸνστέφανοντῆςζωῆςκτλ ., with note. Life and the kingdom are practically identical. ἐπηγγείλατο does not refer to any one specific occasion, and hence is better translated “ has promised.” Cf. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of N. T. Greek, § 46, § 52. The “ promise” was implicit in the very conception of the kingdom. 6. ἠτιμάσατε , “ dishonoured,” i. e. by your truckling to the rich. On ἀτιμάζειν , cf. Proverbs 14:21 ὁἀτιμάζωνπένηταςἀμαρτάνει , 22:22, Ecclus. 10:23, Acts 5:41. A.V. “ despised” is a possible translation (cf. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Otium norv. iii .2), 1899, p. 236, for good examples), but the context (v. 3) makes the R.V. “ dishonoured” preferable. τὸνπτωχόν , generic. Mayor well recalls 1 Corinthians 11:22 for another case of dishonour to the poor in early Christian life. καταδυναστεύουσιν , “ oppress,” cf. Wisd. 2:10, Amos 8:4, Jeremiah 7:6, Ezekiel 18:12. For examples of such oppression, cf. James 5:4, James 5:6, and references in Spitta, p. 64, notes 9, 10, and 11; also Lucian, Nec. 20. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ . Ἐπειδὴπολλὰκαὶπαράνομαοἱπλούσιοιδρῶσιπαρὰτὸνβίονἁρπάζοντεςκαὶβιαζόμενοικαὶπάντατροποντῶνπενήτωνκαταφρονοῦντεςκτλ . αὐτοί , “ Is it not they who,” etc. Similarly, v. 7. On αὐτός in nominative as personal pronoun with no intensive force, cf. Lex. s. v. αὐτός , II, 2. ἕλκουσιν , so Acts 16:19, of “ dragging” into court, cf. Luke 12:58 κατασύρεινπρὸςτὸνκριτήν , Acts 8:3 , Acts 17:6; a usual meaning, see Lex. This does not seem to refer to religious persecution, which was at least as likely to proceed from the side of the poor as of the rich, but to other oppression, with legal action, arising from the ordinary working of social forces in an oriental community and having to do with wages, debts, rents, and the like. Many think, indeed, of religious persecution (as Acts 6:12). But this is not naturally suggested by καταδυναστεύουσιν (instead of which we should in that case expect διώκουσιν , cf. Matthew 5:10, Luke 21:12, Acts 7:52, Galatians 1:13). Nor is it made necessary by βλασφημοῦσιν , which seems to refer to a different act of hostility and is properly so punctuated by WH. εἰςκριτήρια , “ before judgment-seats,” “ into courts,” cf. Sus. 49. On established courts throughout Palestine, see EB, “ Government,” § § 30, 31; Schü rer, GJV, § 23, II. 7. βλασφημοῦσιν . Blasphemy is injurious speech, especially irreverent allusion to God and sacred things. For blasphemy from the Christian point of view, i. e. against Christ, cf. Acts 13:45, Acts 13:18:6, Acts 13:26:11, 1 Timothy 1:13, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Justin, Dial. § 117 ὄνομαβεβηλωθῆναικατὰπᾶσαντὴνγῆνκαὶβλασφημεῖσθαιοἱἀρχιερεῖςτοῦλαοῦὑμῶνκαὶδιδάσκαλοιεἰργάσαντο , Pliny, Ep. x, 97.5; Polyc. Mart. 9:3 λοιδόρησοντὸνΧριστόν . Cf. Hermas, Sim. ix, 19.1 (of apostates). On blasphemy against God by the rich among the Jews, cf. Enoch 5:4, 94:8 f. and other passages collected by Spitta, p. 65. It is not natural to take this of “ those who profess to know God but by their works deny him” (Mayor), cf. Titus 1:16; Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4.Romans 2:24 (Isaiah 52:5) τὸγὰρὄνοματοῦθεοῦδι ʼ ὑμᾶςβλασφημεῖταιἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν , and the cognate passages, 2 Peter 2:2, 1 Timothy 6:1, Clem. Romans 1:1, Romans 1:2 Clem. Rom_13, etc., are all of a different tenor, although the language is similar; the verb is there in the passive, and the blasphemy comes from the discredit which is thrown upon the Christian religion by the faults of those who profess it. τὸκαλὸνὄνοματὸἐπικληθὲνἐφ ʼ ὑμᾶς . This means the name of Christ, to whom his followers belong, cf. 1 Peter 4:14-16. Cf. 2 Samuel 12:28, Amos 9:12, Isaiah 4:1, Isaiah 4:2 Macc. 8:15 ἔνεκατῆςἐπ ʼ αὐτοὺςἐπικλήσεωςτοῦσεμνοῦκαὶμεγαλοπρεποῦςὀνόματοςαὐτοῦ , 4 Ezra 10:22 et nomen quod nominatum est super nos profanatum est, etc. For more references, see Mayor3, p. 88, Spitta, p. 65. In all these passages the reference is to Israel, dedicated to God by receiving his name. This idea was naturally transferred to the Christians, with a reference in their case to the name of Christ. Cf. Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4, τὸὄνομακυρίουτὸἐπικληθὲνἐπ ʼ αὐτούς , and other cases of the use of ὄνομα in Hermas, Sim. viii, ix, and xi, given in Heitmü ller, Im Namen Jesu, 1903, p. 92. The phrase does not necessarily refer to baptism, nor to any definite name by which Christians were known. See Harnack’ s note on Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4. 6-7. It is very evident that “ the rich” here are not Christians. Those who maintain the opposite are driven to give to βλασφημοῦσιν the meaning rejected above. The rich are plainly neighbours who do not belong to the conventicle but may sometimes condescend to visit it. No word, however, hints that the two classes do not worship the same God, and the whole tone of the passage seems to imply a less complete departure from the dominant religion of the community than would have been the case in Rome or any heathen city. If the whole surrounding population were heathen, the argument would have to be differently turned. Contrast the tone of Php 2:15 ff., Ephesians 4:17-19, Colossians 3:7, 1 Corinthians 6:1-9. A settled and quiet state of things is indicated, in which the normal relations of the different classes of society prevail. The sense of missionary duty is not prominent. The situation is thus that of a sect of some sort living in a community whose more powerful members, though worshipping the same God as the sect, do not belong to it. 8-11. The law of Love is no excuse for respect of persons. The cancelling of one precept by another is not permissible, for the whole law must be kept. The royal law is therefore not a license to violate other parts of the law. These verses are a reply to a supposed excuse, viz. that the Christian is required by the law of love to one’ s neighbour to attend to the rich man. This excuse by the pretext of “ love” is parallel to the excuse by the pretext of “ faith,” vv. 14-26. Cf. also 1:13, 26. Like Matthew 5:17 ff., this passage is opposing a wrong and self-indulgent use of the principle that the law of love covers the whole law. 8. εἰμέντοι , “ if now,” “ if indeed.” The particle μέντοι , besides its common adversative force, “ but,” “ nevertheless” (so Proverbs 5:4, Proverbs 5:16:25, 26, Proverbs 5:22:9, 26:12, John 4:27, John 4:7:13, John 4:12:42, John 4:20:5, John 4:21:4, 2 Timothy 2:19), has a “ confirmative” meaning, as a strengthened μέν , hardly to be translated. In such cases it indicates an implied contrast, which appears in the present instance in the correlative δέ of v. 9. Cf. Jude 1:8, and see Kü hner-Gerth, Grammatik der griech. Sprache3, § 503, 3, g. νόμονβασιλικόν , “ the royal law.” νόμος means the Law of God, as known to the readers through the Christian interpretation of the O. T. The article is probably omitted because νόμος is treated as a quasi-proper noun, as in 2:11, 12, 4:11; cf. λόγος , James 1:22, James 1:23. Most take the “ royal law” to be identical with the γραφή (legum regina) quoted immediately. But νόμος is not used in the sense of εντολή , and it is therefore better to take βασιλικόν as a decorative epithet describing the law as a whole, of which the following precept is a part. The expression κατὰτὴνγραφήνκτλ . implies, indeed, that the perfect observance of this precept covers the observance of the whole law, as in Mark 12:31, Romans 13:8, Galatians 5:14, cf. Leviticus 19:18, John 15:12. It is thus not necessary to make an unnatural distinction between νόμος here and in v. 9. βασιλικόν , i. e. “ supreme.” Cf. Philo, De justitia, 4 βασιλικὴνδὲεἴωθενὀνομάζεινΜωυσῆςὁδὸντὴνμέσην , De congress. erud. grat. 10; 4 Macc. 14:2. The term either goes back to the tradition that kings are supreme sovereigns, or else is drawn from the use of βασιλεύς to mean the Roman emperor. At the same time there may be here an allusion to the Stoic conception of the wise as “ kings,” parallel to the lurking allusion in 1:25 to the conception of the wise as alone “ free.” The Law of Christians is alone fit for “ kings.” Cf. the similar application of the word βασιλικός in Clem. Al. Strom. 6, 18, p. 825; 7, 12, p. 876, and the other passages quoted by Mayor3, p. 90; also 1 Peter 2:9. See Knowling’ s good note, p. 49, Zahn, Einleitung, 1, § 6, note 1, and for the Stoic paradox the references in Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen4, III, 1, p. 256, note 5. As in 1:25, so here, the attribute of the law is decorative and suggestive only; it is not meant specifically to distinguish the true law from some other inferior one. The interpretation of βασιλικόν as “ given by the King” (God or Christ) has nothing to recommend it. Equally little has Calvin’ s ingenious reference to “ the king’ s highway,” “ plana scilicet, recta, et œ quabilis.” τὴνγραφήν , i. e. “ passage of Scripture” (Leviticus 19:18); cf. Mark 12:10, John 19:24, Lightfoot on Galatians 3:22. τὸνπλησίον . Properly “ neighbour,” in LXX for Hebrew ד ֵ ע ַ , “ friend” , “ fellow countryman,” or “ other person” generally, and so, under the influence of the teaching of Jesus (Luke 10:25-37), equivalent to ὁἕτερος (cf. especially Romans 13:8, Romans 13:10, 15:2). 9. ἁμαρτίανἐργάζεσθε , cf. 1:20 and note. Such conduct is sin, directly forbidden by the law, and hence cannot be excused as a fulfilment of the royal law. ἐλεγχόμενοιὑπὸτοῦνόμου . Cf. Leviticus 19:15 οὐλήμψῃπρόσωπονπτωχοῦοὐδὲθαυμάσειςπρόσωπονδυνάστου , ἐνδικαιοσύνῃκρινεῖςτὸνπλησίονσου , Deuteronomy 1:17, Deuteronomy 16:19. 10. ὅστις … τηρήσῃ , with ἄν omitted. Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 307, Blass-Debrunner, § 380. τηρήσῃ ] Bא C minn ff vg boh. τηρήσει ] KLP minnpler ff vg boh. πληρώσει ] A minn. πληρώσαςτηρήσει ] 33. τελέσει ] minn, cf. v. 8. The future is probably an emendation called out by the absence of ἄν . The same thing has happened to πταίσῃ , for which KLP minnpler have πταίσει . The synonyms, and the conflation in 33, are interesting. πταίσῃ , in sense of “ sin,” Romans 11:11, James 3:2, cf. Deuteronomy 7:25. See M. Aur. Anton. vii, 22 ἴδιονἄνθρωπονφιλεῖνκαὶτοὺςπταίοντας , Maximus Tyr. Diss. 26 τίςδὲἀνὴρἀγαθὸςὡςδιελθεῖνβίονἀπταίστως ; ἐνἑνί , “ in one point,” neuter, since νόμος is not used of single precepts. πάντωνἔνοχος . πάντων is neuter, and the genitive, as in classical Greek, denotes the crime. This is a rhetorical, way of saying that he is a transgressor of “ the law as a whole” (παραβάτηςνόμου , v. 11), not of all the precepts in it. For similar emphasis on the several individual precepts which make up the law, cf. Matthew 5:19, and especially Test. XII Patr. Aser 2:5-10 (Charles’ s translation): “ Another stealeth, doeth unjustly, plundereth, defraudeth, and withal pitieth the poor: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. He who defraudeth his neighbour provoketh God, and sweareth falsely against the Most High, and yet pitieth the poor: the Lord who commandeth the law he setteth at nought and provoketh, and yet he refresheth the poor. He defileth the soul and maketh gay the body; he killeth many, and pitieth a few: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Another committeth adultery and fornication, and abstaineth from meats, and when he fatteth he doeth evil, and by the power of his wealth overwhelmeth many; and notwithstanding his excessive wickedness he doeth the commandments: this, too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Such men are hares; for they are half clean, but in very deed are unclean. For God in the tables of the commandments hath thus declared.” The roots of this verse evidently lie in rabbinical modes of emphasising the importance of certain special precepts and of every precept. Thus Shemoth rabba 25 fin., “ The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts” ; Shabbath, 70, 2, “ If he do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all severally.” Schö ttgen and Wetstein give many sayings of similar tenor from rabbinical writings of various dates. Augustine, Ep. 167 ad Hier., draws a comparison with the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices. The Stoic doctrine is that virtue is an indivisible whole, a man is either virtuous or vicious. The wise (or virtuous) is free from fault, the foolish (or vicious) does no right act; hence ἴσατὰἁμαρτήματακαὶτὰκατορθώματα . The character of every act depends on the controlling inner purpose and disposition. See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen4, III, i, pp., 251-263, with abundant references. This doctrine has plainly nothing to do with that of James. 11. μὴμοιχεύσῃς … μὴφονεύσῃς . Exodus 20:13, Exodus 20:15, Deuteronomy 5:17 f.. This order, in which the seventh commandment is mentioned before the sixth, is perhaps due to the order found in the LXX (Cod. B, not AF) of Exo_20. So Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, Philo, De decal. 12, 24, 32, De spec. leg. iii, 2; but not so Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:27. C minnpauci syrhcl arm have conformed the text to the usual order by putting murder first. In the following sentence this is done by minnpauci arm. οὐμοιχεύεις . οὐ follows the regular N. T. usage in present simple conditions. Cf. Buttmann, § 148; Burton, § 469; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 170 f.; Winer, § 55, 2, c (where it is said that εἰοὐ makes the negative emphatic). Here, since the negative belongs only to a part of the protasis and not to the rest , οὐ is in any case necessary. 12-13. General exhortation to remember the Judgment, which is the sanction of the law; together with special inculcation of the precept of mercy, violated by their respect of persons. 12. λαλεῖτε , ποιεῖτε , cf. 1:19, 23-25, 26, a section which seems to be in mind in this summarising exhortation. The collocation is very common, e. g. Test. XII Patr. Gad 6:1, cf. Acts 1:1, Acts 7:22 ἐνλόγοιςκαὶἔργοιςαὐτοῦ (and commentaries), 1 John 3:18, and Lex. s. v. ἔργον , 3. διὰνόμουἐλευθερίας , “ under the law of liberty.” Cf. 1:25; διά here indicates the “ state or condition in which one does or suffers something” ; see Lex. s. v. διά , A. I. 2; cf. e. g. Romans 2:12 διὰνόμουκριθήσονται . 13. γάρ introduces the reason why the sin of respect of persons will be punished with special severity. It involves a breach of the law of mercy, and that has as its consequence unmerciful punishment. ἀνέλεος . Found only here for the usual ἀνηλεής , ἀνελεής , but regularly formed from the noun ἔλεος ; see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. L minnpermu read ἀνίλεως . On the thought, cf. Matthew 5:7, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 7:1, Matthew 18:23-35, Psalms 18:25, Psalms 18:26, Ecclus. 28:2 ff., Test. XII Patr. Zab. 5 and 8. Jer. Baba q. viii, 10, “ Every time that thou art merciful, God will be merciful to thee; and if thou art not merciful, God will not show mercy to thee,” Rosh hash. 17 a, “ To whom is sin pardoned? to him who forgives injury.” κατακαυχᾶταιἔλεοςκρίσεως , “ mercy boasts over (or against)judgment.” ἔλεος is human mercy shown in practise, κρίσεως is God’ s condemnatory judgment, cf. James 5:12, John 5:24. This gives the converse of the previous sentence. As the unmerciful will meet with no mercy, so a record of mercy will prevent condemnation. Cf. 5:20 and Ecclus. 3:30, 40:17, Tob. 4:9-11. The doctrine (and need) of God’ s forgiving mercy is here assumed in regular Jewish fashion. On the great importance ascribed to mercy as a virtue in Jewish thought, see Bousset, Religion des Judentums2, pp. 162 f. The contrast of God’ s opposing attributes of mercy and justice does not seem to be in mind here. The contrast of ἔλεος and κρίσις is a natural one, and is found in both Greek and Jewish sources, cf. Diog. Laert. ii, 3:9, references to Bereshith r. in Wetstein, and the references in Spitta, p. 70, note 6. κατακαυχᾶται is found elsewhere only in James 3:14, Romans 11:18, Zechariah 10:12, Jer_50[27]11 κατεκαυχᾶσθεδιαρπάζοντεςτὴνκληρονομίανμου , 50[27]38. It does not occur in secular writers. 1 Corinthians 15:55 well illustrates the meaning of this word. κατακαυχᾶται ] B א Kñ minnpler ff m vg Aug boh. κατακαυχάσθω ] A 33 minnpauc. κατακαυχᾶσθε ] C2 syrpesh. κατακαυχᾶσθε is insufficiently attested and is probably due to an error. κατακαυχάσθω is the harder reading, but the group A 33 points to an emendation. ἔλεοςκρίσεως ] CKL minn read ἔλεονκρίσεως . Since the accusative yields no sense, this must have been understood as τὸἔλεον , attested by Ps.-Herodian, Epimerismoi, ed. Boissonade, 1819, p. 235, and not found elsewhere. 14-26. Neither does the possession of Faith give any license to dispense with good works This touches another case of substitution of a sham for the reality; cf. 1:22-25, 26 f. 2:8 f.. As an excuse, faith is worth no more than love. The fundamental idea of a warning against sham is common enough to all moralists. The special interest here is that James makes his contrast not between, e. g., sayings and doings, but between two terms important in Christian thought, viz., faith and works, and that in the course of his argument he uses other theological terms and reveals an acquaintance with many diverse theological conceptions and modes of thought. 14. Faith, if it does not lead to good works, is impotent to save τίὄφελος , cf. v. 16, 1 Corinthians 15:32, and Ecclus. 20:30, 41:14, Job 21:15. ὄφελος is found in LXX only once (Job 15:3). Cf. τίγὰρὄφελος (note absence of the article, as here), Philo, De poster. Cain. 24, Quod deus immut. 33, De agric. 30; Teles (ed. Hense), p. 27 τίοὖνὄφελοςτὸοὕτωςἔχειν ; τίὄφελος was a common expression in the vivacious style of the moral diatribe. See Bultmann, Stil der paulinischen Predigt, p. 33. ὄφελος ] BC 102; cf. v. 16 (sine τό , BC), 1 Corinthians 15:32 (sine τό , DFG). τὸὄφελος ] א AC2KL minnfere omn, probably emendation. ἀδελφοίμου . Marks a new paragraph, cf. 2:1, etc. πίστιν . Introduced without the article as a new idea; cf. ἡπίστις , 5:15, and 1:3, 4, 15. Cf. 1:3, 6, 2:1, 5, 14-27, 5:15. Faith (cf. especially 2:1) is here assumed to be the fundamental attitude of the Christian adherent, which makes him a Christian. No ground exists for thinking that this assumption was, or could be, doubted by any one. All Christians (cf. πιστοί , “ believers,” Acts 16:1, 2 Corinthians 6:15, 1 Timothy 5:16) have faith, and James uses the term, without any attempt at the formation of an exact psychological concept of the contents of faith, merely as the ordinary term familiar to all for a well-known inner state. The cases of the demons, Abraham, and Rahab all present an analogy to Christian faith which, while inadequate, is yet valuable for argument— the more so that Abraham and Rahab were recognised on all hands to have been “ justified.” λέγῃ , “ say,” in presenting his claim to be approved of men and of God. Son 1:13 μηδεὶςλεγέτω , cf. 2:8. This word is not to be too much emphasised, as if it meant “ pretend,” and as if doubt were seriously thrown on the man’ s actual possession of faith. The inadequate and empty “ faith” which produces no works may be hardly worthy of the name, but it is not necessarily a deliberate hypocrisy. The contrast is not between saying and doing , as it was in 1:22 between hearing and doing; it is rather between mere adherence to Christianity and conduct, or between church-membership and life . ἔργα , cf. 1:25. ἔργα seems here a recognised term for “ good deeds.” Cf. Matthew 5:16, Matthew 23:3, Romans 2:6, John 3:20, Titus 1:16, etc., etc., where τὰἔργα means “ conduct,” which is made up of an infinite number of separate ἔργα . For the use of the word in moral relations, cf. Proverbs 24:12 ὃςἀποδίδωσινἑκάστῳκατὰτὰἔργααὐτοῦ , Psalms 62:12, Apoc. Bar. 51:7 “ saved by their works,” 4 Ezra 7:35, Pirke Aboth, iii, 14; iv, 15, and many other passages referred to by Spitta, pp. 72-76. On the expression ἔργαἔχειν , πίστινἔχειν , cf. 4 Ezra 7:77, Ezra 8:32, 13:23 “ even such as have works and faith toward the Almighty,” Apoc. Bar. 14:12 (the righteous) “ have with them a store of works preserved in treasuries.” The ἔργα here do not appear as specifically ἔργανόμου ; the word merely denotes conduct as contrasted with faith. This contrast cannot be original with this writer (cf. 4 Ezra 9:7, 13:23). The contrast of faith and works will appear wherever faith is held to be the fundamental characteristic of the true members of the religious community, while at the same time a body of laws regulating conduct is set forth as binding. It is inevitable that by some, whether in practise or in theory, the essential underlying unity of the two absolute requirements will be overlooked and one or the other regarded as sufficient. This will always call out protests like that of James, who represents the sound and sensible view that not one only but both of these requirements must be maintained. In the discussions of the Apostle Paul the contrast is the same in terms, but its real meaning is different and peculiar. Paul’ s lofty repudiation of “ works” has nothing but the name in common with the attitude of those who shelter their deficiencies of conduct under the excuse of having faith. Paul’ s contrast was a novel one, viz. between the works of an old and abandoned system and the faith of a newly adopted one. His teaching was really intended to convey a doctrine of forgiveness. Our author, on the other hand, with nothing either of Paul’ s subtlety or of his mystical insight into the act of faith and glorification of faith’ s contents, is led to draw the more usual contrast between the faith and works which are both deemed necessary under the same system. Hence, while faith is the same thing with both— an objective fact of the Christian life, the works of which they speak are different— in one case the conduct required by the Jewish law, in the other that demanded by Christian ethics. That the two in part coincided does not make them the same. One was an old and abandoned failure, impotent to secure the salvation which it was believed to promise, the other was the system of conduct springing from and accompanying a new life. But this distinction, while it makes plain that James is not controverting what Paul meant, yet does not insure the full agreement of James and Paul, for Paul, although he would have heartily admitted the inadequacy of a faith which does not show itself in works, would never have admitted that justification comes ἐξἔργων . James has simply not learned to use Paul’ s theology, and betrays not the slightest comprehension of the thought of Paul about faith and the works of the Law. The contrast between reliance on membership in the religious community and on conduct is as old as Amos and the Hebrew prophets, and comes out in the words of John the Baptist, and of Jesus in the Synoptics and John. All that James adds to these is the term “ faith,” to denote the essential element in the membership, and then an elaborate discussion in which the terms and instances of later Jewish theology are freely employed. The use (see below) of the same formula which Paul seems to have created indicates that Paul had preceded James, but it is plain that James had made no study of Paul’ s epistles, and these formulas may have come to his knowledge without his having read Paul’ s writings, which, we must remember, the Book of Acts does not even mention. See Introduction, supra, pp. 35 f. μὴδύναταιἡπίστιςσῶσαιαὐτόν ; cf. 1:21 (and note) 4:12, 5:15, 20. This question is presented as if it admitted of but one answer, and that a self-evident one. 15-17. Illustration from the emptiness of words of charity as a substitute for deeds This is not, like the closely similar verses, 2:2 f., a concrete instance of James’ s contention, but a little parable; for another parable to the same purport, cf: 2:26. The illustration is abruptly introduced, as in 3:11, 12. The comparison has itself a moral significance, and the same thought is found in other literature, e.g. Plautus, Epid. 116 f. nam quid te igitur rettulit beneficum esse oratione si ad rem auxilium emortuomst? 15. ἐάν ] Bא 33 69 minn ff m. ἐὰνδέ ] ACKL minnpler vg syrpesh. hel. ἐὰνγάρ ] sah. γυμνοί , “ naked,” in the sense of “ insufficiently clad” ; cf. Job 22:6 “ stripped the naked of their clothing,” Isaiah 20:2, Isaiah 20:3, 58:7, John 21:7 , Matthew 25:36 ff., Acts 19:16; see references in L. and S. The plural after singular subjects connected by ἤ is in accord with the occasional usage of good Greek writers. See Hadley-Allen, § 608; Blass-Debrunner, § 135. Buttmann and Blass ascribe the plural here to the fact that the two nouns are of different genders, but this is not the case in all the examples from secular Greek. ἐφημέρουτροφῆς , “ food for the day,” “ the day’ s supply of food.” The word ἐφήμερος is not in the O. T., but this whole phrase is found in Diod. iii, 32; Dion. Hal. viii, 41; Aristides, xlix, ed. Dindorf, p. 537. It is an expression natural to secular Greek, and used here, much like the English “ daily bread,” to describe the poor person’ s need as urgent; cf. Philo, In Flacc. 17 πένητέςἐσμενκαὶμόλιςτὸἐφήμερονεἰςαὐτὰτὰἀναγκαῖαπορίζεινδυνάμεθα , Ps.-Plutarch, An vitios. p. 499 C προσαίτησινἐφημέρου Other extracts may be found in Mayor3, p. 97, and Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, 1899, pp. 236 f. 16. ὑπάγετεἐνεἰρήνῃ , “ good bye,” a Jewish expression; cf. Acts 16:36, Mark 5:34, Luke 7:50, Judges 18:6, 1 Samuel 1:17, 1 Samuel 1:20:42, 2 Samuel 15:9; cf. J. Friedmann, Der gesellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformeln in talmudischer Zeit, Berlin, 1914, p. 34. θερμαίνεσθεκαὶχορτάζεσθε . The context requires that these be taken as passive; and, indeed, in order to say “ warm and feed yourselves” it would be necessary in the late usage of the N. T. to use the active with a reflexive pronoun, ὑμᾶςαὐτούς , ἑαυτούς ; cf. e. g. 1:22 παραλογιζόμενοιἑαυτούς . Cf. Blass-Debrunner, § 310. That θερμαίνειν was commonly used of the effect of warm clothes is shown by Job 31:20, Haggai 1:6, but also by Plut. Quœ st. conviv. vi, 6, p. 691 D, and a curious passage (quoted by Wetstein) in which Galen (De vir. medic. simpl. ii) criticises the common neglect of writers to observe the distinction between that which warms and that which merely keeps off the cold. δῶτε , plural after τις , which is treated as a kind of collective. See Hadley-Allen, § 609 a; Krü ger, § 58, 4, A. 5. τὰἐπιτήδεια , “ the necessaries of life.” Not elsewhere in the N. T.; occasionally in LXX, but with no corresponding Hebrew word. ὄφελος ] sine tov BC*; cf. v. 14. 17. οὕτως , making the application of the parable, cf. Luke 15:10, Luke 17:10. ἐὰνμὴἔχῃἔργα , cf. vv. 18, 20, 26 ἡπίστιςχωρὶς [τῶν ] ἔργων . Faith is said to “ have” works, perhaps in the sense of “ attendance or companionship” (Lex.. s. v. ἔχω I, 2, c). νεκρά , cf. v. 26. The two things which are opposed are not faith and works (as with Paul) but a living faith and a dead faith. The dead faith is also called ἀργή (v. 20); cf. 1:26 μάταιος . It is not denied that faith can exist without works, but it is the wrong kind of faith. On the figurative use of νεκρός for “ inactive and useless,” Romans 6:11, Romans 7:8, Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 9:14, cf. Epict. Diss. iii, 23:28 καὶμὴνἂσνμὴταῦτα (sc. a conviction of sin) ἐμποιῇὁτοῦφιλοσόφουλόγος , νεκρόςἐστικαὶαὐτὸςκαὶὁλέγων . καθ ʼ ἑαυτήν , “ in itself” (R.V.), strengthens νεκρά , “ inwardly dead” ; not merely hindered from activity, but defective in its own power to act; see 2 Macc. 13:13, Acts 28:16, Romans 14:22, and secular references in Lex. s. v. κατά , II, 1, e, cf. Genesis 30:40, Genesis 43:31. Of the various renderings proposed the only other one deserving mention is that of Grotius and others, who give it this meaning of “ by itself,” “ alone” (ff sola), but interpret, “ faith without works is dead, being alone.” This involves a tautology, and in strictness would require the addition of the participle οὖσα . 18. A possible rejoinder in behalf of the censured persons, and its refutation. Supposed bringer of excuses: “ One has pre-eminently faith, another has pre-eminently works.” James: “ A live faith and works do not exist separately.” ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις . An objection or defense suggested, as in 1:13, 2:8-11. For the half-dialogue form, cf. Romans 9:19, Romans 9:11:19, 1 Corinthians 15:35 ἀλλὰἐρεῖτις , 4 Macc. 2:24, Ep. Barn. 9:6, and innumerable passages in the Greek moralists. See Introduction, supra, p. 12. The future here “ denotes a merely supposable case” (Lat. dicat), Winer, § 40, b, p. 280; Buttmann, § 139, 18; Viteau, Grec du N. T., Le verbe, § 43. Cf. Hebrews 11:32. In reply to the censure upon those who rely on faith and neglect conduct, it is here suggested that one person has faith , another works, doubtless not in either case with perfect exclusiveness but in pre-eminent degree. This is a defense which suggests antinomianism, but includes a curious tolerance. While obviously weak— a weaker position, indeed, than downright antinomianism— it has a certain plausibility, and very likely fairly expresses the underlying unformulated philosophy of not a few persons. The objector’ s words are contained in one sentence; then James replies with δεῖξόνμοικτλ . This sentence is evidently from the point of view of vv. 14-17, and is intended flatly and comprehensively to deny that faith and works are separate gifts, like, for instance, prophecy and healing.σύ , κἀγώ . The pronouns do not refer to James and the objector, but are equivalent to εἷς , ἕτερος , “ one,” “ another,” and are merely a more picturesque mode of indicating two imaginary persons. Very much the same is true of “ thou” and “ I” in the second half of the verse, where James has no idea of emphasising his own superior uprightness. σύ cannot be made to refer to James (1) because James is contending not for faith but for works, and (2) because James’ s personality has up to this point been so little prominent , that some clear indication of such a direct contrast between him and the objector would be expected, at least ἐρεῖτιςἐμοί instead of ἐρεῖτις . For a similar usage cf. the quotation from Bion in a fragment of the Cynic Teles (ed. Hense2, pp. 5 f., from Stobæ us, Anthol. iii, 1, 98 [Mein. v, 67]), μὴοὖνβούλουδευτερολόγοςῶντὸπρωτολόγουπρόσωπον · εἰδὲμὴ , ἀνάρμοστόντιποιήσεις . σὺμὲνἄρχειςκαλῶς , ἐγὼδὲἄρχομαι , φησὶ , καὶσὺμὲνπολλῶν , ἐγὼδὲἑνὸςτουτουῒπαιδαγωγὸςγενόμενος , καὶσὺμὲνεὔποροςγενόμενοςδίδωςἐλευθερίως , ἐγὼδὲλαμβάνωεὐθαρσῶςπαρὰσοῦοὐχὑποπίπτωνοὐδὲἀγεννίζωνοὐδὲμεμψιμοιρῶν . Teles (c. 230 b.c.), quoting his predecessor Bion, is urging that every man must play the part that Fortune assigns him, and says: “ If, then, you are a second-class actor, don’ t envy the rô le of the first-class player. If you do, you will commit blunders. You are a ruler, I am a subject (says [Bion]); you have many under you, I, as a tutor, but this one; and you grow prosperous and give generously, while I cheerfully receive from you without fawning or degrading myself or complaining.” It is to be noted that in the first sentence from Teles σύ is the man with the inferior actor’ s part, while in the rest of the passage σύ is the more prosperous man, in contrast to the speaker, who modestly presents himself as the representative of lesser worldly fortune. This is not unlike the way in which James (see below) fails to preserve strictly the rô les of his fragmentary dialogue. On the “ ideal” second person in Greek , see Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, ix, 1900, p. 41, with many examples. ἔχεις . To be taken as an affirmation not a question. ἔχεις and ἔχω are manifestly parallel. πίστιν means πίστινχωρὶςτῶνἔργων , or, at least, with a minimum of ἔργα . ἔργα is ἔργα with a minimum of πίστις . δεῖξον , “ show,” “ prove,” “ demonstrate,” cf. James 3:13. Here begins the reply addressed to the objector. James replies, first, by a challenge to the objector to produce a case of faith standing by itself without accompanying works. This challenge rests on the assumption that such a “ dead” faith is really no faith at all. James, however, does not pursue that aspect of the matter, but proceeds, secondly , with the converse of the first challenge, in the form of an offer to show that any case of works supposed to stand by themselves without underlying faith is merely deceptive and really implies a co-existent faith. On the form of expression, by challenge and offer, cf. Theoph. Ad Autol. i, 2 δεῖξόνμοιτὸνἄνθρωπόνσουκἀγώσοιδείξωτὸνθεόνμου , Epictet. i, 6.43 ἐγώσοιδείξω … σὺδ ʼ ἐμοὶδείκνυε and other references in Bultmann, p. 33. χωρίς ]Bא ACP minn ff vg boh sah syrpesh. hel arm. ἐκ ] KL minnlonge plu. An unfortunate conformation to the following clause, which spoils the sense. It is interesting that in the English A.V. the influence of the Vulgate (sine) led to the rendering “ without,” which is not a correct translation of the Received Greek Text, which reads ἐκ . χωρὶςτῶνἔργων ] CKL minnpler add σου , doubtless part of the same emendation which produced ἐκ . κἀγώσοιδείξω . “ From the very existence of righteous conduct the fact of faith can be demonstrated, for without faith I could not do the works.” Note the elegant construction of this sentence in which the chiastic order πίστιν — ἔργων , ἔργων — πίστιν well corresponds to the natural emphasis. κἀγώσοιδείξω ] Bא minn. κἀγὼδείξωσοι ] ACKL minn vg. A weakening conformation to order of preceding δεῖξόνμοι . ἐκτῶνἔργωνμου ] ff vg syrhcl omit μου , by a conformation to their text of the preceding clause. πίστιν 3° ] Bא C 33 minn ff. πίστινμου ] AKLR minnpler vg boh sah syrpesh. hel. Conformation to τὴνπίστινσου . The interpretations of this difficult verse are very numerous and for the most part highly subtle and unsatisfactory. The interpretation presented above, which was given by Pott in Koppe’ s Novum Testamentum3, 1816, and by H. Bouman, Commentarius perpetuus in Jacobi epistolam, Utrecht, 1865, differs from others in taking σύ and ἐγώ in the defense as referring merely to two representatives of different types of religion, not to the writer of the epistle and the objector himself. Thereby one of the chief difficulties of the exegesis is overcome, namely, the difficulty that σύ and ἐγώ in the objection (v. 18 a) do not suit well the corresponding ἐμοί , μου , and σου , σοι , in the retort of James (v. 18 b). With any other mode of interpretation it seems impossible to gain a satisfactory sense from the passage. The interpretations are divided into two main groups, according as ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις is taken (1) as interposing a reply in defense of the tendency censured in vv. 14-17, or (2) as introducing the reinforcement of an ally who adds his word in the same contention as that of James. I. τις as an objector. This interpretation (which I adopt) finds its support chiefly in the argument used above, that this is the only natural meaning of the phrase ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις in such a context. Under this view the words introduced by ἐρεῖ will not extend beyond ἔχω , v. 18 a, for δεῖξονκτλ . is evidently spoken in the interest of James’ s main contention. As to how the words (18 a) can express an objection, and what that objection is, opinions have been various. The first and most obvious difficulty in this view has always been that the objector seems to declare that James has faith, while the objector himself has works. That would reverse their respective parts, and the difficulty has been met in three ways. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ II. ON THE TEACHER’ S CALLING (3:1-18) CHAPTER 3 Ch. 3 relates to the Teacher and Wise Man. That the two are treated as substantially identical is significant. It is interesting to compare the directions for leaders of the Christian community given in the Pastoral Epistles or in the Didache. The main thought in vv. 1-12 is the greater responsibility of teachers and the extremely dangerous character of the instrument which they have to use. In vv. 9-12 the noble possibilities of the tongue are presented as a motive for checking its lower propensities. This passage naturally connects itself with 1:19 f. 26, 2:12. In vv. 13-18 the discussion springs from the same abhorrence of sham which gives rise to so much of ch. 1 (vv. 6-8, 22-27), and controls the thought throughout ch. 2. 1-3. Against overeagerness to be teachers; in view of the great responsibility involved, and of the difficulty of controlling the tongue. 1. μὴπολλοὶδιδάσκαλοιγίνεσθε , “ Do not many of you become teachers.” πολλοί is to be regarded either as subject or as in apposition with the proper subject ; διδάσκαλοι is predicate; cf. Hebrews 7:23. πολλοί ] L by a not unusual corruption reads πολλύ . This does not point to a reading πολύ , and has no relation to the mistranslation of m nolite multiloqui esse (cf. Matthew 6:7). διδάσκαλος means rabbi (cf. Matthew 23:8, Luke 2:46, John 1:38, John 1:20:16, John 1:3:10; see references in Lex.. s. vv. διδάσκαλος and ῥαββί ), and the teachers here referred to, if in Jewish Christian churches, would naturally have occupied a place not unlike that of rabbis in the synagogues. This would apply both to the dignity of the position and to a part of the duties of the rabbis. Among Christians the term was used both for a teacher resident in a church (Acts 13:1, Antioch) and for a travelling missionary (Didache 11:1 f. 13:2, 15:2). Nothing in the text indicates whether James’ s reference was limited to one or the other of these classes. The position of teacher was the function of a specially gifted person, not a standing office, and it was plainly possible for a man who believed himself competent for the work to put himself forward and take up the activities of a teacher. James is himself a teacher (λημψόμεθα , v. 1), and points out the moral dangers of the teacher’ s life, with special insistence on the liability to opinionated disputatiousness (vv. 13-18). A good concrete impression of the nature of the meetings at which they spoke may be gathered from 1Co_14. The Epistle of James itself will give an idea of one of the types of early Christian “ teaching.” Teachers were important from the earliest times (Acts 13:1, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) and were found in the Christian churches of many lands. The references of this epistle would seem applicable in any part of the world and during any part of the period which is open for the date of the epistle. An interesting expansion of this exhortation of James found in the first pseudo-clementine Epistle to Virgins, i, 11, is probably from Palestine or Syria in the third century, and vividly illustrates the same situation even at that late time (text in Funk, Patres apostolici, vol. ii; Eng. transl. in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1886, vol. viii). On teachers in the early church, see articles in DD.BB., and especially Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 21906, pp. 279-308; Eng. transl. 21908, i, pp. 333-366, where a great amount of interesting material is collected and discussed. ἀδελφοίμου , introducing a new section, cf. 1:2, 19, 2:1, 14, 5:7, 12. εἰδότες , “ for you know,” presenting a motive. μεῖζονκρίμα , “ greater condemnation” ; cf. Mark 12:40 (Luke 20:47) οὗτοιλήμψονταιπερισσότερονκρίμα , Romans 13:2. The teacher’ s condemnation (or, as we should say, his responsibility) is greater than that of others because having, or professing to have, clear and full knowledge of duty, he is the more bound to obey it, cf. Luke 12:47 f. λημψόμεθα , i. e. at the last day. Notice that James includes himself as a διδάσκαλος . The Vulgate (sumitis) and the Bohairic version have altered this to the second person. To this warning no good earlier or Jewish parallel has been produced. The sayings about the dangers of speech apply, indeed, to the teacher, but they are in most cases of an entirely general cast. 2-12. The Hellenistic associations of the following passage, vv. 2-12, are shown in the references in the notes. The more striking parallels have been effectively put together by J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes, 1909, pp. 45-53. Geffcken thinks that James here betrays dependence on a written tract on calumny, or some such subject, which he has adapted and expanded. This is not impossible, but the infelicities in the sequence of James’ s thought in the passage, on which Geffcken’ s theory rests, are not quite sufficient to prove anything more than dependence on ideas which had been worked out for a different purpose by others, and were familiar commonplaces of popular moral preaching. 2. πολλὰγὰρπταίομενἅπαντες . This gives the reason for the warning of v. 1. All men stumble, and of all faults those of the tongue are the hardest to avoid. Hence the profession of teacher is the most difficult mode of life conceivable. On the universality of sin, cf. Romans 3:9-18, 1 John 1:8, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Ecclus. 19:16, 2 Ezr 8:35, and the similar observations of Greek and Latin writers collected by Wetstein, Schneckenburger, and Mayor, e. g. Seneca, De clem. i, 6 peccavimus omnes, alii graviora alii leviora. The besetting danger of sins of speech and of the misuse of the tongue was clearly seen and often mentioned by ancient moralists. Noteworthy O. T. passages (among many others) are Proverbs 15:1-4, Proverbs 15:7, Proverbs 15:23, Proverbs 15:26, Proverbs 15:28, Ecclus. 5:11-6:1, 22:27, 28:13-26. εἰοὐ , see note on 2:11. οὗτος , cf. 1:23. τέλειοςἀνήρ , cf. 1:4 and note. Used of moral perfection, “ blameless,” cf. Matthew 5:48, Matthew 19:21, Colossians 1:28, Colossians 4:12, Wisd. 9:6, Genesis 6:9, Ecclus. 44:17. The same Hebrew word ת ּ ָ מ ִ י ם , used in the same sense, is translated in Genesis 6:9 by τέλειος , in Genesis 17:1 by ἄμεμπτος . δυνατόςκτλ . Expands the idea of τέλειος . χαλιναγωγῆσαι , “ hold in check,” cf. 1:26 and note. ὅλοντὸσῶμα , i. e. the whole man. The contrast of the tongue and the body, as of a part and the whole, has led here to a mode of expression which seems to imply that sin does not exist apart from the body. But the writer shows himself to be fully aware that sin resides in the inner man, although on the whole its more conspicuous manifestations are prominently connected with the body. The body is thought of as providing the man with his organs of expression and action. It is a natural and popular, not a philosophical or theological, mode of expression. Cf. v. 6 ἐντοῖςμέλεσιν , 4:1, Romans 8:13. 3. It is with men as with horses: control their mouth and you are master of all their action. ἰδέ , “ behold,” introduces an illustration, cf. ἰδού vv. 4, 5, 5:4, 7. On ἰδέ , ἰδού , see Moulton’ s Winer, pp. 318 f. note 5; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 11, note. ἰδέ ] CR minnplus 40 sah syrhcl arm. ἰδού ] minnut vid pauo. εἰδὲγάρ ] א * syrpesh. εἰδέ ] BAKL minn25 ff vg boh (if). Of these readings ἰδού (cf. 3:4, 5, 5:4, 7) and the addition of γάρ may be at once rejected as emendations; the latter, however, is significant because it implies that εἰδέ was understood as equivalent to ἰδέ . As between ἰδέ and εἰδέ , the external evidence is strong for the latter, although P when it departs from KL is an excellent witness. But in this instance the variant reading is likely to be due to a misspelling and not to deliberate emendation, whereas the excellence of B’ s text depends solely on its freedom from emendation, not in any accuracy of spelling. In such a case “ intrinsic evidence” from the sense is the only guide; and this speaks strongly for ἰδέ , which is therefore to be accepted. τῶνἵππων . Depends on τοὺςχαλινούς , but is put first because it contains the new and emphatic idea. χαλινός is used of the “ bridle” proper , of the “ bit,” and, as perhaps here, of the whole bridle, including both. The figurative use of “ bridle” in English does not extend in the same degree to “ bit,” and hence “ bridle” (A.V., R.V.) is preferable as the English translation here. βάλλομεν , “ put,” cf. Philo, De agric. 21 χαλινὸνἐμβαλόντες ; Xen. De re equestr. vi, 7; ix, 9; Ael. V. h. ix, 16 ἵππῳἐμβάλλεινχαλινόν . If εἰδέ is read (with WH.), καὶ has to be taken as introducing the apodosis, as often in Hebrew. μετάγομεν , “ guide,” “ direct” . Cf. Philo, De opif. mundi, (29) 88 (the charioteers) ᾗἂνἐθέλωσιναὐτὰἄγουσιτῶνἡνιῶνἐνειλημμένοι ; Aristippus in Stobæ us, Anthol. (ed. Hense), iii, ch. 17, 17 κρατεῖἡδονῆςοὐχὁἀπεχόμενοςἀλλ ʼ ὁχρώμενοςμὲνμὴπαρεκφερόμενοςδέ , ὥσπερκαὶνεὼςκαὶἵππουοὐχὁμὴχρώμενοςἀλλ ʼ ὁμετάγωνὅποιβούλεται . The comparison turns on the importance which the tongue has because control over the whole creature can be exercised through it, as through the horse’ s mouth. The smallness of the member hardly comes into consideration here. 4-12. The dangers of the tongue 4-6. The tongue, though small, is as powerful as a little rudder on a great ship, and as dangerous as a little fire in a great forest. 4. καὶτὰπλοῖα , “ ships also,” like horses. The article is generic. The parallel of ship and horse is emphasised by the repetition of μετάγειν , a repetition characteristic of Jam 1:13 f. 2:14, 16, 2:21, 25. σκληρῶν , “ harsh,” “ stiff” ; hence here of winds, “ strong” ; the adjective heightens the contrast with the little rudder. For the phrase, cf. Dio. Chrys. De regno. iii, p. 44 κλύδωνοςἀγρίουκαὶχαλεποῦὑπὸἀνέμωνσκληρῶνμεταβαλλομένου , Proverbs 27:16 σκληρὸςἄνεμος (where the difference from the Hebrew is instructive), and other references in Wetstein, Mayor, and Schneckenburger. ὁρμή , “ impulse,” “ desire.” Used in N. T. only here and Acts 14:5, and not in this sense in O. T., but common in classical Greek writers. See Trench, § lxxxvii, and see L. and S. for full references, e. g. Xen. Anab. iii, 2:9 μιᾷὁρμῇ ; Plato, Phil. 35 D, where ὁρμή is parallel to ἐπιθυμία .. Others take this of the pressure of the steersman on the helm, but without any sufficient reason. τοῦεὐθύνοντος , “ the one who directs it.” Cf. Philo, De conf. ling. 23 φιλεῖγὰρἔστινὅτεχωρὶςἡνιόχωντεκαὶκυβερνητῶνβερντῶνὅτεπλοῦςκαὶὁδρόμοςεὐθύνεσθαι ; also Proverbs 20:24, Ecclus. 37:15. The twin figures of the control of horse and of ship are frequently found together in later Greek writers, as the following passages show. In some of the instances the point of the comparison is the smallness of the instrument which controls so great a body. James is evidently acquainted with the forms of current Greek popular thought. In the following the figures of ship and horse are characteristically combined: Plutarch, De aud. poetis, 12, p. 33 F “ Τρόποςἐσθ ʼ ὁπείθωντοῦλέγοντος , οὐλόγος · ” καὶτρόποςμὲνοὖνκαὶλόγος · ἢτρόποςδιὰλόγου , καθάπερἱππεὺςδιὰκαλινοῦκαὶδιὰπηδαλίουκυβερνήτης . Plutarch, De genio Socratis, 20, p. 588 E. Aristippus, in Stobæ us, Anthol. iii (ed. Hense), 17, 17 (quoted supra). Philo, De opificio mundi, 29 μάρτυρεςδ ʼ ἡνίοχοικαὶκυβερνῆται · οἱμὲνγὰρὑστερίζοντεςτῶνὑποζυγίωνκαὶκατόπιναὐτῶνἐξεταζόμενοιᾗἂνἐθέλωσιναὐτὰἄγουσιτῶνἡνιῶνἐνειλημμένοικαὶτότεμὲνἐφιέντεςπρὸςὀξὺνδρόμοντότεδ ʼ ἀναχαιτίζοντες , εἰφορᾷτοῦδέοντοςπλείονιθέοι · οἱδ ʼ αὖκυβερνῆταιπρὸςτὸτῆςνεὼςἔσχατονχωρίονπρύμνανπαρελθόντεςπάντωνὡςἔποςεἰπεῖνεἰσινἄριστοιτῶνἐμπλεόντων , ἅτετῆςνεὼςκαὶτῶνἐναὐτῇτὴνσωτηρίανἐνχερσὶταῖςαὑτῶνἔχοντες . Philo, Leg. alleg. iii, 79; De agricult. 15; De confus. ling. 23; In Flacc. 5. For the figure of the ship’ s rudder, cf. Lucretius, De rer. nat. iv, 863-868 quippe etenim ventus subtili corpore tenuis trudit agens magnam magno molimine navem, et manus una regit quanto vis impete euntem atque gubernaclum contorquet quolibet unum, multaque, per trocleas et tympana, pondere magno commovet atque levi sustollit machina nisu. The often-quoted passage from Ps.-Aristotle, Mechanica, 5, is not apt. since there the rudder is mentioned not as a literary figure, but as one example of the principle of the lever. For the figure of the horse, cf. Sophocles, Antig. 477 f. σμικρῷχαλινῷδ ʼ οἶδατοὺςθυμουμένους ἵππουςκαταρτυθέντας . 5. μεγάλααὐχεῖ is equivalent to μεγαλαυχεῖ , “ be haughty,” which has here been separated into its component parts in order to make a good parallel to μικρὸνμέλοςἐστίν . The phrase is here used in the sense not of an empty boast, but of a justified, though haughty, sense of importance; cf. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 94. The usual associations, however, of μεγαλαυχεῖν are bad, as here. A boasting compatible with proper humility would probably be expressed by καυχᾶσθαι . Cf. Zephaniah 3:11, Ezekiel 16:50, Eccles. 48:18, 2 Macc. 15:32, 4 Macc. 2:15. Perhaps the alliteration μικρόν , μέλος , μεγάλα is intentional, cf. v. 7. μεγάλααὐχεῖ ] BAC*P ff vg boh. μεγαλαυχεῖ ] א C2KL minn. This seems to be emendation to a more familiar word. 5b-6. The tongue is as dangerous as a fire. Cf. Ecclus. 28:12, 22. ἡλίκον , “ how small.” ἡλίκον ] Bא A2CP vg. ὀλίγον ] A*C2KL minnomn vid ff m syrutr boh sah. Emendation. ἡλίκην , “ how much.” For the double question, cf. Mark 15:24, Luke 19:15, and see Winer, § 66. 5. 3. ὕλην . The abundant references in ancient literature to forest fires, sometimes with direct reference to the smallness of the spark which leads to vast destruction, and the repeated use of this comparison in ethical discussions make it likely that ὕλην here means “ forest” rather than “ fuel.” In Homer, Il. ii, 455 ἠὒτεπῦρἀΐδηλονἐπίφλέγειἄσπετονὕλην the comparison is to describe the glitter of the armour of a great host; in the similar verse Il. xi, 155, it is the rout of a fleeing army. Pindar, Pyth. iii, 36-37 πολλὰντ ʼ ὄρειπῦρἐξἑνὸς σπέρματοςἐνθορὸνἀΐστωσενὕλαν . Euripides, Ino, fragm. 411 μικροῦγὰρἐκλαμπτῆροςἸδαῖονλέπας πρήσειενἄντις . Ps.-Phocylides, Poema admonitorium, 144 ἐξὀλίγουσπινθῆροςἀθέσφατοςἀθεταιὕλη . Philo, De decal. 32, M. p. 208 [ἐπιθυμία ] οἷαφλὸξἐνὕλῃνέμεταιδαπανῶσαπάντακαὶφθείρουσα . The above quotations refer to a forest fire. The following are significant in using with similar purpose the figure of a great conflagration in a city or in general. Philo, De migr. Abr. 12, M. p. 455 σπινθὴργὰρκαὶὁβραχύτατοςἐντυφόμενος , ὅτανκαταπνευσθεὶςζωπυρηθῇ , μεγάληνἐξάπτειπυράν . Seneca, Controversiarum excerpta, v, 5, nesciebas quanta sit potentia ignium … . Diogenes of Oinoanda (Epicurean philosopher, second century after Christ), fragm. xxxviii, 3 (ed. William, Leipzig, 1907, p. 46) καὶσπινθῆριμεικρῷπάνυτηλικόνδεἐπεξάπτεταιπῦρ , ἡλίκονκαταφλέγειλιμέναςκαὶπόλεις . Among Hebrew writers, Isaiah 9:18, Isaiah 10:18, Psalms 83:14 use the figure of a forest fire; and Ecclus. 11:32 uses the figure of the small spark which kindles “ a heap of many coals.” The tongue is compared with a fire in Psalms 120:3 f., and in Midrash, Leviticus rabba, 16: R. Eleasar in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: “ What fires it [the tongue] kindles!” (see Schö ttgen, Horae hebraicae, pp. 1021 f.). But the specific parallels make it seem plain that this comparison is drawn from a standing simile of current Greek popular philosophy. 6. καὶἡγλῶσσαπῦρ sc. ἐστιν . This applies the comparison made in the preceding sentence. ἡγλῶσσα 2o] P minnpler syrhcl c. * prefix οὕτωςκαί ; L min prefix οὕτως . Conformation to v. 5. ὁκόσμοςτῆςἀδικίας . As the text stands, no satisfactory interpretation is possible for this phrase in this context. For the expression taken by itself “ the iniquitous world” is the most probable sense. ἀδικίας is then genitive of quality, cf. 1:23, 25, 2:12, Luke 16:8, Luke 16:9, Luke 16:18:6, Enoch 48:7, “ this world of iniquity.” On κόσμος , cf. James 1:27, James 2:5, James 4:4, and see note on 1:27. Other meanings have been suggested; on the history of the exegesis, see Huther’ s and Mayor’ s notes. Thus Vg translates “ the whole of evil,” universitas iniquitatis. But the sense “ the whole” for ὁκόσμος is attested only Proverbs 17:6 ὅλοςὁκόσμοςτῶνχρημάτων ; and, moreover, the meaning does not suit our passage well. Another interpretation is “ the ornament of iniquity.” This is capable in itself of an intelligible sense, as referring to the use of rhetorical arts by designing speakers (Wetstein: malas actiones et suadet et excusat), but that seems foreign to the circle of thought in which the writer is here moving. This sense was, however, a favourite one with Greek interpreters. From Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. iv, 10, who gives it as one possible meaning, it is taken into Cramer’ s Catena, p. 21, and it is also found in “ Œ cumenius,” on vv. 2-4, and in Matthä i’ s scholia (ἐπικοσμεῖγὰρῤήμασινἐσθ ʼ ὅτεἀδικίαν .) As the text stands, κόσμος cannot easily be connected with what precedes, whether as appositive of πῦρ or as a second predicate, parallel to πῦρ and after ἐστιν understood, for neither of these constructions yields a recognisable sense. If connected with what follows, a colon being put after πῦρ instead of a comma, we get the best sense of which the passage seems capable, viz.: “ The tongue stands as (i. e. represents) the unrighteous world among our members; it defiles the whole body, itself having direct connection with hell” (so E.V.). ὁκόσμος is then taken as predicate after καθίσταται . So the free Latin version in the Speculum: ita et lingua ignis est: et mundus iniquitatis per linguam constat in membris nostris quae maculat totam corpus. Even this interpretation, however, is awkward and unsatisfactory, and it is probable that the text is corrupt. The context calls for some word in place of ὁκόσμος which should yield the meaning “ productive of,” or “ the tool of,” or “ representative of” wickedness. The phrase would then aptly explain in what way the tongue is in fact a fire. The Peshitto inserts ὕλη after ἀδικίας and thus makes of ὁκόσμοςτῆςἀδικίας an independent sentence parallel to ἡγλῶσσαπῦρ ; “ the wicked world is a forest.” This is a possible conjecture; it seems to rest on no Greek evidence. A simpler and better conjecture, often made, is to exclude ὁκόσμοςτῆςἀδικίας from the text altogether as a gloss. Spitta, following others, conjectures that ἡγλῶσσαπῦρὁκόσμοςτῆςἀδικίας is all a gloss. He holds that the words were written as the title of 3:1-4:12 (which form the Euthalian chapter), and then wrongly introduced from the margin into the text, while, as a result of this interpolation the words ἡσπιλοῦσαὅλοντὸσῶμα were also added. These are appropriate to the idea of ὁκόσμος (cf. 1:27), but not to that of a fire; and are not very naturally suggested by the idea of the tongue, breaking the forcible simplicity of the original context which Spitta thus reconstructs. Exegesis by leaving out hard phrases is an intoxicating experience. καθίσταται , “ presents itself” ; see on 4:4. ἡσπιλοῦσα , “ which defileth,” “ staineth” ; justifying the preceding statement. The tongue defiles the body by lending itself to be the organ of so many sins. Cf. 1:27 ἄσπιλονἀπὸτοῦκόσμου , Test. XII Patr. Aser 2:7 [ὁπλεονεκτῶν ] τὴνψυχὴνσπιλοῖκαὶτὸσῶμαλαμπρύνει . ἡσπιλοῦσα ] א boh read (by emendation) καὶσπιλοῦσα . ὅλοντὸσῶμα , cf. v. 3, which is here in mind. φλογίζουσα , “ setting on fire,” “ kindling” ; cf. v. 5 ἀνάπτει .This returns to the figure of fire and completes the interrupted application of that comparison. σπιλοῦν and φλογίζειν are each used a very few times in the Bible, and are not common (φλογίζειν being mainly poetical) in secular Greek. τὸντροχὸντῆςγενέσεως , “ the wheel of nature.” τῆςγενέσεως ] א minn vg syrpesh add ἡμῶν ; probably emendation. The grammarians distinguish between τρόχος , “ course,” and τροχός , “ wheel,” but in view of the derived senses of the latter word the distinction is unimportant. γένεσις is here to be taken (cf. 1:23 and note) as substantially equivalent to κτίσις , “ creation.” As a spark can set a great forest fire, so the tongue kindles the whole world into flame. The description of nature as a “ wheel” is made comprehensible by some of the parallels given below under 2 (a). Here it is used to suggest the continuousness, and so the far-reaching vastness, of the damage done, but the whole phrase is native to other contexts, and the writer’ s idea is not to be too precisely defined. Of course, what is actually enkindled by the tongue is mankind and human society, in which the evil results of wrong speech are manifest and universal; the actual phrase is more inclusive, but in such a rhetorical expression the exaggeration is pardonable. For full accounts of the various commentators’ guesses at the exact meaning, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 819-880 (with great collections of illustrative material, mostly not apt); D. J. Pott, Novum Test. grœ ce, editio Koppiana, Gö ttingen, 1810, vol. ix, pp. 317-329; Huther, ad loc. Much material is given in Mayor3, ad loc. pp. 114-116; Windisch, ad loc.; and Hort, St. James, pp. 72-74, 106 f. The only critical discussion of the evidence is that of Hort, whose own interpretation, however, is impossible to accept, being based on Ezekiel 1:15-21. The translations are as follows: syr the successions of our generations, which run like wheels. boh the wheel of the birth. ff rotam nativitatis. vg rotam nativitatis nostrae. m rotam geniturae. Cf. Priscillian, ed. Schepss, p. 26 (deus) sciens demutationem firmamenti et distruens rotam geniturae reparatione baptismatis diem nostrae nativitatis evicit. The phrase rota geniturae is here used in the sense of astrological fatalism, and is equivalent to ὁτροχὸςτῆςἀνάγκης . The relation of m to Priscillian’ s text of James makes it probable that in this version of James rota geniturae was intended to have that sense, and hence geniturae substituted for an earlier nativitatis. The interest of the phrase lies not so much in the determination of its exact meaning as in the fact that it cannot be accounted for from Jewish modes of expression and implies contact with (though not understanding of) Greek thought. It does not, however, betray knowledge of any particular system of thought (Orphic or other), or any closer contact with Hellenism on the part of the writer of the epistle than can be inferred from other ideas and expressions which he uses. This is true in spite of the occurrence in Greek writers of the exact phrase ὁτροχὸςτῆςγενέσεως and its equivalent ὁκύκλοςτῆςγενέσεως . The two characteristics of the wheel which mainly attracted the attention of the ancients were (1) its constant change of position and (2) its circular figure and motion. In tracing the meanings it should be noticed that “ wheel” and “ circle” are frequently used with little or no distinction. 1. That any revolving motion is full of change caused the wheel to be a symbol of the changeableness of human fortune, now up, now down. Thus τροχὸςτὰἀνθρώπινα · ἤτοιεὐμετάβολα was a proverb (Leutsch and Schneidewin, Corpus parœ miographorum, ii, Gö ttingen, 1851, p. 87, with many references, cf. also ii, p. 223 (Macarius Chrysoc. cent. viii, 58); and from Cicero’ s time the wheel became a regular attribute of Fortune. So Anacreon, iv, 7 τροχὸςἄρματοςγὰροἷαβίοτοςτρέχεικυλισθείς . Orac. sibyll. ii, 87 (Ps.-Phocyl. 27) κοινὰπάθηπάντων · βίοτοςτροχός · ἄστατοςὄλβος . Herodotus, i, 207 ὡςκύκλοςτῶνἀνθρωπήιωνἐστὶπρηγμάτωνπεριφερόμενοςδὲοὐκἐᾷαἰεὶτοὺςαὐτοὺςεὐτυχέειν . For other illustrations, see Gataker’ s notes on Marcus Aurelius, ix, 28; Mayor3, pp. 116-118; Hort, St. James, p. 107. But nothing in James (not even 1:10, 4:14) indicates that the writer had in mind here this aspect of the “ wheel of nature.” 2. Another aspect of the turning of a wheel is that it goes round and round on its own axis, making no real progress and finding no given termination of its motion; or, to state the same thing from a different point of view, that its figure is circular, and so continuous, returning on itself, without beginning and without end. Hence arose various derived senses for both “ wheel” and “ circle.” Thus the rhetoricians and grammarians speak of the “ circle of the period,” much as we might say the “ rounded period,” and of the closed “ circle” of an argument; a verse beginning and ending with the same word was called a “ circle,” and so was a continuous series of myths .* For instance, Ocellus Lucanus (neo-pythagorean), Libellus de universi natura, i, 15 (Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum grœ corum, i, p. 394), ἥτεγὰρτοῦσχήματοςἰδέακύκλος · οὗτοςδὲπάντοθενἴσοςκαὶὅμοιος . διόπερἄναρχοςκαὶἀτελεύτητος . In physiology the continual cycle of breathing in and out is described by Plato (Tim. 79 B) as οἷοντροχοῦπεριαγομένου (cf. also Galen, De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, p. 711). More important to be considered here are the following uses: (a) In general, “ wheel” and “ circle” are used of the round of human life, the cycle of successive generations which endlessly are born and disappear; and the same mode of thought was applied to the whole universe, all parts of which are subject to endless succession of formation and decay.† Thus Euripides, Ino, fragm. 415, fragm. 419, ed. Nauck (in Plutarch, Consol. ad Apollonium, 6, p. 104 B): κύκλοςγὰραὑτὸςκαρπίμοιςτεγῆςφυτοῖς , θνητῶντεγενεᾷ · τῶνμὲναὔξεταιβίος , τῶνδὲφθίνειτεκαὶθερίζεταιπάλιν . A good statement of the same idea is that of Plutarch (Consol. ad Apollonium, 10, p. 106 E) in a neighbouring context to that in which he cites the above fragment (p. 104 B). He refers to the doctrines of Heraclitus, and compares the progress of the generations— our grandparents, our parents, ourselves— to the continuous flow of a river , while in the opposite direction flows the corresponding river of death . But here the contrast of γένεσις and φθορά shows that γένεσις has its proper sense of “ coming into being,” not the meaning which we have to assume for it in James. Simplicius (c. 500 a.d.) Comm. in Epicteti enchiridion, ed. Didot, ch. 8, p. 42, uses the phrase “ the endless circle of becoming” (ὠφέλιμος … τῷἀπεράντῳτῆςγενέσεωςκύκλῳ , διὰτοῦτοἐπ ʼ ἄπειρονπροϊόντι , διὰτὸτὴνἄλλουφθορὰνἄλλουγένεσινεἷναι ), and similarly, ed. Didot, ch. 27, p. 76 (quoted by Hort, St. James, p. 73).* These passages well illustrate that conception of the circle itself which is probably the basis of James’ s use of τροχός , but in them γένεσις means not “ nature,” in the sense of ἡκτίσις , but “ becoming,” “ origination,” as the context shows. Thus the close similarity of expression to that of James turns out to be mainly accidental, and the passages are not directly available for the interpretation of the phrase in the epistle. In accordance with this general method of thought Isidore of Pelusium († c. 440), Ep. ii, 158, interprets the phrase in James to mean “ time” and says ὄτιτὸντροχὸντὸνχρόνονἐκάλεσεδιὰτὸτροχοειδὲςκαὶκυκλικὸνσχῆμα , εἰςἑαυτὸνγὰρἀνελίττεται .† His general interpretation is on the right track, but the phrase in the epistle does not mean “ time.” (b) In connection with the Orphic and Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls to new bodies after death, the term “ wheel,” or “ circle,” was naturally used to describe the unending round of death and rebirth. Metempsychosis, which in its primitive Thracian form had been a means of gaining after death a full life, such as was inconceivable apart from a body, became for Greek religious thought a form of purifying punishment, from whose dismal cycle salvation could come only from the god and to those alone who had pursued the ascetic practises of the “ Orphic life.” ‡ To “ cease from the Wheel and breathe again from ill” (κύκλουτ ʼ ἂνλήξαὶκαὶἀναπνεύσαικακότητος , Orph. fragm. 226, Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. v, p. 330 B) was the goal of the religious life of the Orphic initiate, and in the ritual a wheel seems to have played a part. “ The first article in the creed or confession of the Orphic soul is κύκλουδ ʼ ἐξέπτανβαρυπενθέοςἀργαλέοιο , ‘ I have flown out of the sorrowful weary wheel.’ ” * This Orphic round of birth, death, reincarnation, over and over again repeated, is described as “ the wheel of fate and birth” † and “ the circle of birth” .‡ The phrase “ compulsory circle” is also found in a statement of the kindred transmigration doctrine attributed to Pythagoras.§ But the phrases, although almost identical with that of Jam 3:6, do not throw any light upon it. To think of the tongue as enflaming the “ wheel” of metempsychosis is nonsense; and, on the other side, nothing could be more opposed to James’ s robust doctrine of moral responsibility than the idea of a fatalistic circle. It is therefore impossible to draw the inference that the author of the epistle had direct contact with Orphic mysteries and ideas. The resemblance of language may well be a mere accident, and even if we suppose that he had picked up and misused a chance phrase, that would be fully accounted for by acquaintance with Cynic popular preachers, or Stoic-cynic writers of diatribes, who must have given currency to such catch-words incidentally to their satirical attacks on the ideas which the phrases conveyed. || (c) Similar expressions are used of fatalistic necessity. So Philo, De somn. ii, 6, p. 664, κύκλονκαὶτροχὸνἀνάγκηςἀτελευτήτου . In the magic literature are found such expressions as κύκλατῆςἀνάγκης ; see O. Gruppe, Griech. Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, 1906, p. 1086, note 1. In this connection it may be observed that γένεσις in later philosophical use means “ necessity” (for instances, see Clementine Recognitions, viii, 2, 4, 6, 7, etc.). But this whole field of fatalistic thought is diametrically opposed to everything that James held dear. ὑπὸτῆςγεέννης . Gehenna, a term elsewhere used in the N. T. only in the Synoptic Gospels, here means the place of punishment of the wicked. It was naturally associated with fire, cf. Matthew 5:22, Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:45, and see HDB, “ Gehenna.” Observe the sudden intrusion of a purely Jewish idea into a notably Greek context. 7-12. The tongue is untamable; its use in blessing God gives no security against its abuse later for cursing men; this is wrong and contrary to nature. 7. γάρ , explains how the extreme statement of v. 6 is justified. The dreadful character of the tongue comes from its untamableness. θηρίωντεκαὶπετεινῶνἑρπετῶντεκαὶἐναλίων , “ beasts and birds, reptiles and fishes.” Cf. Deuteronomy 4:17, Deuteronomy 4:18, 1 Kings 4:33, Acts 10:12, Acts 11:6, which all, like the present passage, have more or less direct reference to Genesis 1:20, Genesis 1:24, Genesis 1:26. ἐναλίων , i. e. fishes. This word is not found elsewhere in the Bible, but is common in secular Greek, both poetry and late prose. δαμάζεταικαὶδεδάμασται , “ is from time to time, and has actually been, tamed.” Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, ii, p. 276. τῇφύσειτῇἀνθρωπίνῃ . The dative is used in the sense of “ in subjection to.” The term itself means “ human kind” (cf. L. and S. s. v. and references in Wetstein), and is used here instead of the more natural τοῖςἀνθρώποις in order to make a little play with πᾶσαφύσις . The control of animals by man was a familiar Hebrew observation, cf. Genesis 1:28, Genesis 9:2, Psalms 8:6-8, Ecclus. 17:4; it was also a common subject of Greek and Roman comment and moralising, see references in Mayor. 8. οὐδεὶςδαμάσαιδύναται . Notice the alliteration with δ , cf. v. 5, and 4 Macc. 15:31, where κ is repeated six times. ἀνθρώπων . Belongs with οὐδείς ; alludes to ἀνθρωπίνῃ . This is not meant to be, as Augustine (De nat. et grat. ch. 15) and others since have thought, in contrast with the divine power which can do all things, but is a popular way of saying that complete control of the tongue is not to be expected; cf. v. 2 τέλειοςἀνήρ . The Pelagian interpretation, which took this as a question, in order to avoid a proof-text for universal sinfulness, is unacceptable because opposed to the context. ἀκατάστατονκακόν , “ a restless, forthputting, evil” ; best taken as nominative absolute; cf. Mark 12:38. ἀκατάστατος is the opposite of δεδαμασμένος ; see on 1:8, and cf. 3:16 ἀκαταστασία . Cf. Hermas, Mand. ii, 3 πονηρὰἡκαταλαλιά , ἀκατάστατονδαιμόνιόνἐστιν . ἀκατάστατον ] CKL minnpler m syrutr Cyr read ἀκατάσχετον ; more commonplace, hence probably an emendation. ἰοῦθανατηφόρου , “ deadly poison,” probably with allusion to the poison of the serpent’ s tongue. Cf. Psalms 140:3, quoted in Romans 3:13. Cf. Lucian, Fugit. 19 ἰοῦμεστὸναὐτοῖςτὸστόμα . The figure of poison was a common one among the Greeks, used for various hateful things (references in Mayor). 9. Continues thought of v. 8. Even good use of the tongue now gives no security against misuse later. ἐναὐτῇ , “ by it,” cf. Romans 15:6. This might be the Hebraistic instrumental ἐν (see Blass, § 41. 1, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 11 f., 61 f., 104), but is more probably an extension of Hellenistic usage for which good parallels are found only in very late, Byzantine, writers (see Stephanus, Thesaurus, ed. Hase and Dindorf, s. v., coll. 963 f.). This twofold use of the tongue is frequently mentioned. Philo, De decal. xix, p. 196 οὐγὰρὅσιον , δι ʼ οὗστόματοςτὸἱερώτατονὄνομαπροφέρεταίτις , διὰτούτουφθέγγεσθαίτιτῶναἰσχρῶν . Plutarch, De garrulitate, 8, p. 506 C ὅθενὁΠιττακὸςοὐκακῶς , τοῦΑἰγυπτίωνβασιλέωςπέμψαντοςἱερεῖοναὐτῷ , καὶκελεύσαντοςτὸκάλλιστονκαὶτὸχείριστονἐξελεῖνκρέας , ἔπεμψενἐξελὼντὴνγλῶτταν , ὡςὄργανονμὲνἀγαθῶν , ὄργανονδὲτῶνκακῶντῶνμεγίστωνοὖσαν . Substantially the same story is told in Levit. rabba, 33 pr. on Proverbs 18:21 (Schö ttgen, Horae heb. i, p. 1024) of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who sent his servant to market to buy first good and then bad food, and found himself both times supplied with tongues. See other references in Mayor and Windisch, and cf. the passages in which δίγλωσσος occurs, Proverbs 11:13, Ecclus. 5:9, 14, 6:1, 28:13, Orac. Sib. iii, 37. εὐλογοῦμεν . Doubtless with reference both to the Jewish custom of adding “ Blessed be He,” whenever the name of God was mentioned (cf. Romans 1:25, Romans 1:9:5, 2 Corinthians 11:31), and to other liturgical ascriptions of praise. For the latter, cf. 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3, Psalms 145:21, and the Shemone Esre (Schü rer, GJV, § 27, Anhang). τὸνκύριονκαὶπατέρα . Both words refer to God. See on 2:1; cf. 1:27. The expression has no complete parallel; cf. 1 Chronicles 29:10, Isaiah 63:16, Matthew 11:25, Ecclus. 23:1, 4. καταρώμεθα , cf. Job 31:30, Psalms 10:7, Psalms 62:4, Psalms 109:28, Luke 6:28, Romans 12:14. Test. XII Patr. Benj. 6 ἡἀγαθὴδιάνοιαοὐκἔχειδύογλώσσαςεὐλογίαςκαὶκατάρας . τοὺςκαθ ʼ ὁμοίωσινθεοῦγεγονότας . Cf. Genesis 1:26, Genesis 9:6, Ecclus. 17:3, Wisd. 2:23. Cf. Bereshith r. 24 (Wetstein), quoted by Hort. 10. οὐχρή . Used only here in N. T. 11-12. The contrary example of springs and trees. What takes place with the tongue would be impossible in nature. For the same thought, cf. Enoch 2-5:4. 11. ἡπηγή . πηγή has the article as the representative of its class; see Winer, § 18. 1. βρύει , “ gush.” “ Send forth” (E.V.) is an exact, but prosaic, rendering of this mainly poetical word, which is not used elsewhere in O. T. or N. T. It means “ teem,” “ be full to bursting,” and is ordinarily used intransitively, with dative or genitive, of the swelling buds of plants and so, figuratively, of various kinds of fulness. Here the context shows that the thought is of the gushing forth of the water. τὸγλυκὺκαὶτὸπικρόν . Cognate accusatives, as in Justin Martyr, Dial. 114 πέτρας … ζῶνὕδωρβρυούσης . Mayor gives many other references, in some of which, as here, the cognate accusative occurs. γλυκύ means “ fresh,” πικρόν , “ brackish.” Cf. Exodus 15:23-25 , Jeremiah 23:15. This occurrence is prophesied as a portent in 4 Ezra 5:9 in dulcibus aquis salsae invenientur. “ Only in the times of the End, in the days of the sinners, when all nature reverses its order and shows itself ripe for destruction, does such a phenomenon appear” (Spitta, p. 104). 12. ἀδελφοίμου . Here inserted to add emphasis, not, as more often, to mark a transition; Son 1:16; Son 2:5. συκῆ , ἐλαίας , ἄμπελος . The fig, the olive, and the vine are the three characteristic natural products of warm countries about the Mediterranean. For the figure, cf. Matthew 7:16, Matthew 7:12:33; Plutarch, De tranquill. anim. p. 472 F τὴνἄμπελονσῦκαφέρεινοὐκἀξιοῦμενοὐδὲτὴνἐλαίανβότρυς ; similarly, Seneca, Ep. 8725, De ira ii, 106; Epict. Diss. 2, 2018. οὔτε seems to be an error for οὐδέ , but the constant interchange of these words in the Mss. by textual corruption makes it hard to be sure that good ancient writing did not exercise more freedom in the use of them than the grammarians would sanction; see Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, p. 172. ἁλυκόν , sc. ὕδωρ , “ salt water” ; i. e. a salt spring. There were salt springs or brine-pits on the shore of the Dead Sea, and the hot springs of Tiberias are described as bitter and salt; see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1856, ii, p. 384. γλυκὺποιῆσαιὕδωρ , sc. δύναται (as is shown by the parallel first half of the verse). No application of these illustrations is made, and James turns abruptly to another aspect of the matter. The passage well illustrates his vividness and fertility of illustration, as well as his method of popular suggestiveness, rather than systematic development of the thought. οὔτεἁλυχὸνγλυχύ ] BAC minn. οὕτωςοὔτε [οὐδὲ א minn] ἁλυκὸνγλυκύ ] א C2 minn ff vg syrpesh boh Cyr. οὕτωςοὐδεμίαπηγὴἁλυκὸνκαὶγλυκύ ] KLP minnpler syrhcl c.* . 13-18. The true Wise Man’ s wisdom must be meek and peaceable; such wisdom alone comes from above, and only peaceable righteousness receives the divine reward. 13. The Wise Man must by a good life illustrate the meekness which belongs to true wisdom. τίς . For similar rhetorical questions, see Psalms 33:12, Psalms 107:43, Isaiah 50:10, Ecclus. 6:34, etc. These short interrogative sentences (frequent in Paul) are characteristic of the diatribe; Bultmann, pp. 14 ff. It is not necessary here, although it would be possible, to take τίς in the sense of ὅστις . See Buttmann, § 139 (Thayer’ s translation, p. 252); Blass, § 50. 5; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 93; Winer, § 25. 1. σοφός . The technical term for the Teacher (cf. v. 1); in Jewish usage one who has a knowledge of practical moral wisdom, resting on a knowledge of God. The words of James relate to the ideal to be maintained by a professional Wise Man and Teacher, not merely to the private wisdom of the layman. ἐπιστήμων , “ understanding,” with a certain tone of superiority, like our “ expert.” Cf. Ecclus. prol., Daniel 1:4 νεανίσκους … ἐπιστήμοναςἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳ . σοφός and ἐπιστήμων are used as synonyms in Deuteronomy 1:13, Deuteronomy 1:15, Deuteronomy 1:4:6, Daniel 5:12, cf. Philo, De prœ m. et pœ nis, 14 σοφὸνἄραγένοςκαὶἐπιστημονικώτατον . δειξάτωἐκτῆςκαλῆςἀναστροφῆςτὰἔργααὐτοῦἐνπραΰτητισοφίας , “ let him by his good life show that his works have been done in the meekness appropriate to wisdom.” The relation of the parts of the sentence must be interpreted by the aid of 2:18, δείξωἐκτῶνἔργωνμουτὴνπίστιν . The wise Man is here called on to prove not (as many commentators suppose) his wisdom , but his meekness. For Jewish examples of the tendency of learned discussion to excite passion, see J. Friedmann, Der gesellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformeln in talmudischer Zeit, 1914, pp. 58 f. It is better to take ἐνπραΰτητισοφίας in this way than as if it were used in deprecation of the possible ostentation implied in δειξάτω (“ Let him point to his good works, but let him do so with due meekness such as befits wisdom” ). This would have to be indicated more clearly, as by inserting ἀλλά before ἐν . The reason for rejecting the (at first sight simpler) interpretation, “ Let him prove his wisdom by his good life” , which many commentators have adopted, has been indicated above. It does not do justice to the text of v. 13 and does not give to “ meekness” the emphasis that is needed in order to prepare for v. 14. ἐνπραΰτητι , cf. 1:21 (of the hearer, as here of the teacher). “ Meekness” is the opposite of arrogance and of the qualities referred to in v. 14; see Trench, Synonyms, § lxii. Pirke Aboth, iv, 11, “ He that is arrogant in decision is foolish, wicked, and puffed up in spirit,” is a maxim which refers to this besetting danger of rabbis; see Taylor’ s Sayings of the Fathers2, p. 69, notes 13 and 14, with quotation from R. Jonah, and cf. Pirke Aboth, iv, 12, 14. 14. And if your heart enkindle with fierce, obstinate, and divisive zeal for your own views, do not let such passion come to expression. δέ , “ and,” in continuation of v. 13, not in contrast. WH.’ s period before εἰδέ is too strong a punctuation; a colon is sufficient. ζῆλονπικρόν , “ harsh zeal.” Because of ἐριθίαν this meaning for ζῆλον is better than the meaning “ jealousy” (in the ordinary sense of personal jealousy), and corresponds well to the general thought. The idea is of a fierce desire to promote one’ s own opinion to the exclusion of those of others. This sense of “ fanatical zeal” is not wholly foreign to Greek usage, but has been made specially common by the influence of the LXX, where ζῆλος stands in all cases for ק ִ נ ְ א ָ ה , “ jealous devotion to a cause,” “ fanatical ardour,” as ζηλοῦν does in nearly all cases for the verb ק ָ נ ָ א . It is the virtue of the religious “ zealot,” cf. 1 Kings 19:10, 1 Kings 19:14, Ecclus. 48:2 (Elijah), 1 Macc. 2:54, 58, 4 Macc. 18:12 (Phinehas), Philippians 3:6 (Paul), Galatians 1:14, Acts 21:20. But it also becomes the vice of the fanatic; and hence its special danger for the religious teacher. In secular use ζῆλος generally means “ heat,” as expressed in “ emulation,” “ rivalry” — whether good or bad; see below, note on 4:2. The Biblical sense brings it near to the Hellenic σπουδή , which, starting from another side , acquired a wide range of meanings including “ zeal” and “ rivalry.” See Trench, Synonyms, § xxvi, Lightfoot on Clem. Rom_3. Note the connection of ζῆλος and ἀκαταστασία in v. 16, and cf. Clem. Romans 3:2. ἐριθίαν , “ selfish ambition.” The word denotes the inclination to use unworthy and divisive means for promoting one’ s own views or interests, cf. Romans 2:8, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:20 (and Lightfoot’ s note), and references in Mayor, together with Hort’ s valuable note, ad loc. pp. 81-83; “ ἐριθία really means the vice of a leader of a party created for his own pride: it is partly ambition, partly rivalry” (Hort). ἐντῇκαρδίᾳὑμῶν has a certain emphasis, in contrast with κατακαυχᾶσθε . The meaning is: “ If you have these qualities in your heart, do not let them come to expression.” μὴκατακαυχᾶσθεκαὶψεύδεσθεκατὰτῆςἀληθείας . “ Do not boast and be arrogant, and thus prove false to the Truth.” That would be the natural fruit of the spirit of ζῆλος and ἐριθία in the heart; and it must be suppressed. κατακαυχᾶσθε (cf. note on 2:13) seems here to relate to the browbeating on the part of the Wise Man who haughtily forces his own views on others. Others connect μὴκατακαυχᾶσθε directly with κατὰτῆςἀληθείας , see Winer, § 54. 5, note (Thayer’ s transl. p. 470, note 3). The sense then would be: “ Do not boast over, and lie against, the truth.” But the idea of “ boasting over (or against) the truth” is out of place in the context, and is itself unnatural. κατακαυχᾶσθαικατάτινος is a construction which nowhere occurs. καὶψεύδεσθεκατὰτῆςἀληθείας . “ And thus play false against the truth,” i. e. by your conduct prove false to, and belie, the truth which you as a Wise Man profess to have and utter. Cf. 4 Macc. 5:34 οὐψεύσομαίσε , παιδευτὰνόμε , 13:18; see L. and S. s. v. for examples of ψεύδομαι with accusative, meaning “ prove false to” an oath, a treaty, a marriage, an alliance, a threat, a promise. See also Zahn, GnK, i, p. 792, note, and J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, p. 354, note, for examples of καταψεύδεσθαι , “ speak falsely to the injury of someone.” τῆςἀληθείας . Cf. 1:18 λόγῳἀληθείας , 5:19 πλανηθῇἀπὸτῆςἀληθείας . This means the Christian truth which the Wise Man knows— truth of both practical morals and religion. See the fuller discussion in the note on 5:19. The conduct here censured is contrary to and forbidden by this truth; hence, if the Wise Man is guilty of that conduct, he is false to the truth of which he is the representative. If the phrase ψεύδεσθεκατὰτῆςἀληθείας stood alone, a simpler interpretation would perhaps be “ do not lie, violating the truth” (cf. Ecclus. 4:25 μὴἀντίλεγετῇἀληθείᾳ , Test. XII Patr. Gad 5:1 λαλῶνκατὰτῆςἀληθείας ), but that would be alien to the context here, and it is in itself not wholly acceptable since it makes κατὰτῆςἀληθείας a mere redundancy. μὴκατακαυχᾶσθεκαὶψεύδεσθεκατὰτῆςἀληθείας ] א syrpesh read μὴκατακαυχᾶσθε [א c + κατὰ ] τῆςἀληθείαςκαὶψεύδεσθε . Doubtless an emendation due to the apparent incompleteness of κατακαυχᾶσθε alone. 15. αὕτηἡσοφία , “ that wisdom,” i. e. the professed wisdom which is accompanied by ζῆλοςπικρός , ἐριθία , κατακαύχησις , and lacks πραΰτης . ἄνωθενκατερχομένη , i. e. divine, from God, cf. 1:5, 17; cf. Philo, De prof. 30 σοφίανἄνωθενὀμβρηθεῖσανἀπ ʼ οὐρανοῦ , De congr. erud. grat. 7, De prœ m. et pœ n. 8; Hermas, Mand. ix, 11, xi, 5; and Schö ttgen, Horae hebraicae, ad loc., for many rabbinical instances of what was plainly a common Jewish expression. The phrase is contrasted with the following three adjectives. For the divine origin of true wisdom, cf. e.g. Proverbs 2:6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Wisd. 7:25, 9:4, 9 f., Ecclus. 1:1-4, 24:3ff., Enoch 42, Philo, as above, 1 Corinthians 1:19-6. ἐπίγειος , “ earthly,” cf. Philippians 3:19, Colossians 3:2, 1 Corinthians 15:47, John 3:31, John 8:23. ἐπίγειος seems to mean here “ derived from the frail and finite world of human life and affairs.” Cf. Philo’ s contrast of οὐράνιος and γήϊνος , Leg. all. i, 12, and the far-reaching dualism on which it rests. ψυχική , “ natural” , i. e. pertaining to the natural life which men and animals alike have; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:44-46, Jude 1:19. Cf. Revelation 8:9 (ψυχή of animals). See Philo, Leg. all. ii, 7 and 13, Quis rer. div. her. 11, and E. Hatch, Essays, p. 124, cf. pp. 115-120. The word was intelligible and familiar in this sense to Paul’ s readers, and does not imply later gnostic usage; see J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 1910, pp. 69 f., 371-373; R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910, pp. 42-47, 109, 112, 151 f. The curious resemblance to the gnostic designation of the two lower grades of men as χοϊκοί and ψυχικοί is probably not significant. Yet see Pfleiderer, Urchristentum2, ii, p. 546. Useful references will be found in Mayor. δαιμονιώδης , “ resembling,” or “ pertaining to” , an evil spirit, cf. 2:19, 1 Timothy 4:1. This word has been pointed out elsewhere only Sym., Psalms 91:6, and Schol. on Aristophanes, Ran. 293, φάντασμαδαιμονιῶδεςὑπὸἙκάτηςἐπιπεμπόμενον . These three words, “ earthly, sensual, devilish,” describe the so-called wisdom, which is not of divine origin, in an advancing series— as pertaining to the earth, not to the world above; to mere nature, not to the Spirit; and to the hostile spirits of evil, instead of to God. Hermas, Mand. ix, 2, xi, 8, show a variety of resemblances to this passage of James, but there is no evidence of literary dependence. The church speedily and permanently used this conception of Satanic origin to account for the gnostic “ wisdom” ; cf. e. g. Justin, Apol. i, 58. In James, however, it is not the substance, but the temper, of the “ wisdom” that makes it false. James is not attacking systems of false teaching. See Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geiste, pp. 13 f., 16-18, 20 ff. 16. γάρ . Introduces proof that v. 15 is true. “ For such a temper, even on the part of one who claims to be a Wise Man, leads to every evil.” ὅπου … ἐκεῖ . For this rhetorical turn, cf. 1 Corinthians 3:3 and Epict. Diss. iii, 22:61 (Mayor). ἀκαταστασία , “ disorder,” “ disturbance,” “ trouble.” Cf. 1:8, 3:8 ἀκατάστατος . The word seems to have something of the bad associations of our word “ anarchy,” and has to bear much weight in this sentence. Cf. Proverbs 26:28, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20 ζῆλος , ἐριθίαι , καταστασίαι ; and the similar list of evils, Galatians 5:20, which has ζῆλος , ἐριθίαι , διχοστασίαι ; Luke 21:9, Clem. Romans 1:3. See Hatch, Essays, p. 4: “ The political circumstances of Greece and the East after the death of Alexander had developed the idea of political instability, and with it the word ἀκαταστασία , Polyb. 1. 70. 1.” φαῦλον , “ vile,” see Trench, Synonyms, § lxxxiv. φαῦλος is found only ten times in the LXX, five instances being in Proverbs, the others in Job, Ecclesiasticus, and 4 Maccabees. 17. Cf. Wisd. 7:22-25. πρῶτονμὲνἁγνή , “ first pure,” i. e. “ undefiled,” free from any faults such as the ζῆλος and ἐριθία above mentioned. Nothing which shows itself as half-good, half-bad, can be accounted wisdom, Wisd. 7:25. See Trench, § lxxxviii and references in Lex.. s. v. ἅγιος . Cf. Philippians 4:8, 1 Peter 3:2. In the LXX ἁγνός is found eleven times, of which four instances are in Proverbs and four in 4 Maccabees. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 5. ἔπειτα introduces the following adjectives, which, thus grouped, stand over against ἁγνή , the quality from which they all proceed. εἰρηνική , “ peaceable,” cf. Matthew 5:9. ἐπιεικής , “ reasonable,” “ considerate,” “ moderate,” “ gentle” (E.V.). See Trench, Synonyms, § xliii: “ We have no words in English which are full equivalents of the Greek.” See Light-foot on Philippians 4:5, and Mayor’ s note, p. 131. This is a distinctively Greek virtue; the word ἐπιεικής and its derivatives are found but a few times in LXX, e. g. Psalms 86:5, Psalms 86:2 Macc. 9:27. In the N. T. 2 Corinthians 10:1, Philippians 4:5, 1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 3:2, 1 Peter 2:18, Acts 24:4. εὐπειθής , “ obedient,” “ ready to obey” ; here perhaps “ willing to yield,” the opposite of “ obstinate” (Philo, De fortitud. 3). Only here in the N. T. In O. T. only 4 Maccabees, and in strict sense of “ obedient.” μεστή , cf. Romans 1:29, Romans 1:15:14, 2 Peter 2:14. The word is not common in LXX. ἐλέους , “ mercy,” a compassion which leads to practical help, not the mere emotion of pity, cf. 2:13. See Trench, Synonyms, § xlvii; and Lex.. s. v. ἐλεεῖν . καρπῶνἀγαθῶν , i. e. good works, cf. Matthew 21:43, Galatians 5:22, Ephesians 5:9, Philippians 1:11. ἀδιάκριτος , “ undivided,” i. e. unwavering, whole-hearted, with reference to the evil situation described in vv. 9-10. Cf. 1:6 ὁδιακρινόμενος , 2:4 διεκρίθητε . Only here in N. T.; in O. T. cf. Proverbs 25:1 , and there the sense is doubtful. See Ign. Trall. 1:1 ἄμωμονδιάνοιανκαὶἀδιάκριτονἐνὑπομονῇἔγνωνὑμᾶςἔχοντας , Rom. inscr., Philad. inscr., Magn. 15; Clem. Alex. Pœ d. ii, 3, p. 190 ἀδιακρίτῳπίστει . The Latin translations (Vg. non judicans; Cod. Corb. sine dijudicatione) seem to have missed the meaning of this word, as have many interpreters. Thus Luther translates “ unparteiisch” ; so A.V., R.V. mg. “ without partiality.” ἀνυπόκριτος , “ without hypocrisy.” In O. T. only Wisd. 5:18, 18:16; in N. T. Romans 12:9, 2 Corinthians 6:6, 1 Timothy 1:5, 2 Timothy 1:5, 1 Peter 1:22, in sense of “ sincere.” Elsewhere only as adverb , e. g. 2 Clem. Romans 12:3. These characteristics of true wisdom are selected in pointed opposition to the self-assertive, quarrelsome spirit characteristic of the other sort. Apart from the fundamental ἁγνή they fall into three groups: εἰρηνική , ἐπιεικής , εὐπειθής · μεστὴἐλέουςκαὶκαρπῶνἀγαθῶν · ἀδιάκριτος , ἀνυπόκριτος . 18. καρπὸςδικαιοσύνης , “ the fruit of righteousness,” i. e. the reward which righteous conduct brings, cf. Hebrews 12:11 καρπὸνεἰρηνικὸνδικαιοσύνης , Philippians 1:11 πεπληρωμένοικαρπὸνδικαιοσύνης . That the expression “ fruit of righteousness” has the sense “ product of righteousness” is shown by those O. T. passages which seem to have given it its currency, and in which it is used with a variety of applications. Cf. Proverbs 3:9(LXX), 11:30 ἐκκαρποῦδικαιοσύνηςφύσεταιδένδρονζωῆς , i. e. “ righteousness brings long life,” 13:2 (LXX), Amos 6:12. In all these cases δικαιοσύνης indicates the source of the “ fruit.” Similarly Isaiah 32:17: “ And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence forever.” For the figure of sowing, cf. Proverbs 11:21 (LXX), ὁδὲσπείρωνδικαιοσύνηνλήμψεταιμισθόν , Hosea 10:12, Job 4:8, Test. XII Patr. Levi, 13:6, etc. ἐνεἰρήνῃσπείρεται , “ sown in peace,” and in peace only; i. e. a righteousness capable of gaining its due reward must be peaceable; cf. 1:20. The sower is, of course, the righteous man. For the slightly inaccurate expression “ sow the fruit, or crop” (instead of the seed), cf. Apoc. Bar. 32:1, “ Sow the fruits of the law,” Plutarch, De vitando œ re alieno, 4 σπείροντεςοὐχἥμερονκαρπόν , Antiphanes, Fab. inc. iv, 4 σπείρεινκαρπὸνχάριτος . τοῖςποιοῦσινεἰρήνην . To “ do peace” means not merely to conciliate opponents, but to act peaceably. It is the complete opposite of ζῆλος and ἐριθία . The interpretation of v. 18 here given may be paraphrased, with a change of figure, thus: “ The foundation which righteousness lays for eternal life can be laid only in peace and by those who practise peace.” This is equivalent to saying that righteousness includes peaceableness. Another common interpretation takes καρπὸςδικαιοσύνης as meaning “ the fruit which consists in righteousness.” The source will then be the true wisdom, of which righteousness is the product. The evidence for this would be Hebrews 12:11, where righteousness seems to be itself the fruit, and the parallelism of Jam 3:16, where the product of ζῆλος and ἐριθία is said to be ἀκαταστασία and πᾶνφαῦλονπρᾶγμα . Philippians 1:11, to which appeal is often made, is ambiguous, and cannot be taken as meaning that righteousness is the fruit except by giving to δικαιοσύνη its peculiar Pauline sense. But the O. T. passages referred to above create a strong presumption against this interpretation; the simple meaning of the phrase speaks against it; and, further, righteousness is more naturally thought of (apart from Pauline theology) as the condition of receiving divine reward, not as the reward itself. The general drift of the verse would be the same under either interpretation. Lex. J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1886. Mayor J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, 1892, 21897, 31910. Winer G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Thayer’ s translation, 21873. J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol I. Prolegomena, 1906, 31908. L. and S. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 71883. Vg Vulgate. Heisen H. Heisen, Novae hypotheses interpretandae epistolae Jacobi, Bremen, 1739. Pott D. J. Pott, in Novum Testamentum Grœ ce, editio Koppiana, Gö ttingen, 31816. * See Stephanus, Thesaurus, or Liddell and Scott, s. v. κύκλος . † Of a different order is the mechanical conception of the revolving universe, used with great ingenuity by Plato, e. g. Polit. 12-14, pp. 269-271; Leg. 10, 8, p. 898. * See also, for similar phrases, the index to Proclus Diadochus, In Platonis Timœ um comm. ed. Diehl, 1906, s. v. κύκλος . † This has gone into Cramer’ s Catena, pp. 20 f. ‡ See E. Rohde, Psyche3, 1903, ii, pp. 121-131, 133-136, 165, note 2, 217-219 f.; Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena (as cited below); Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 1829, ii, pp. 795-806. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ III. AND THE CONDUCT OF LIFE (4:1-5:20) CHAPTER 4 1-12. The cause of the crying evils of life is the pursuit of pleasure, an aim which is in direct rivalry with God and abhorrent to him. 1— 2b. Quarrels and conflicts are due to the struggle for pleasure and for the means of pleasure. The paragraph is written not so much to censure the quarrels as to set forth the evil results of aiming at pleasure; in nowise is it introduced in order merely to give an abstract analysis of the ultimate source of the quarrelling. Some have taken 4:1 ff. of difficulties between the teachers (cf. 1:19-21, 3:16), but this is not indicated in the text, and is an unnatural limitation. We have here, doubtless, a glimpse of the particular communities with which the writer was acquainted, but the exhortation assumes that all communities show substantially the same characteristics. The addition of ἐνὑμῖν , v. 1, recalls the thought from the ideal pictures in the preceding verse to the actual situation in the world— and even in the Christian church. Cf. Philo, De gig. 11: “ For consider the continual war which prevails among men even in time of peace , and which exists not merely between nations and countries and cities, but also between private houses, or, I might rather say, is present with every individual man; observe the unspeakable raging storm in men`s souls that is excited by the violent rush of the affairs of life; and you may well wonder whether any one can enjoy tranquillity in such a storm, and maintain calm amid the surge of this bellowing sea.” The opening of this paragraph and of the two following, 4:13-17, 5:1-6, lacks the usual ἀδελφοίμου . πόλεμοι , “ feuds,” “ quarrels” ; μάχαι , “ conflicts,” “ contentions.” The two words cover the chronic and the acute hostilities in the community. πόλεμος and μάχη are so frequently combined in Homer as to elicit comment from Eustathius more than once. See especially Eustathius on Il. i, 177. In later writers they became a standing combination; see references in Wetstein, e. g. Epict. Diss. iii, 13:9. Hence the combined phrase is naturally used here with no great distinction between the two terms. For πόλεμος used of private quarrel, cf. Test. XII Patr. Gad 5, Daniel 5:2, Sim. 4:8, Ps. Sol. 12:4, Jos. Antiq. xvii, 2:4, Ps.-Diog. Ep. 28, Clem. Rom. 46:5. For μάχη referring to private strife, cf. Nehemiah 13:11, Proverbs 17:1, Ecclus. 6:9, 27:14, 2 Timothy 2:23, 2 Timothy 2:24, 2 Corinthians 7:5, Plat. Tim. 88 A μάχαςἐνλόγοιςποιεῖσθαι , Epict. Diss. i, 11:18, ii, 12:14, iii, 12:12, iv.5:2. ἐκτῶνἡδονῶν , “ because you make pleasures your aim,” δουλεύοντεςἐπιθυμίαιςκαὶἡδοναῖςποικίλαις (Titus 3:3). Over against pleasure as the great end stands submission to God (v. 7). τῶνστρατευομένωνἐντοῖςμελεσιν , “ which are at war with one another, having their seat in your bodily members,” and which so bring about conflicts among you. The war is between pleasures which have their seat in the bodies of several persons, not between conflicting pleasures throwing an individual into a state of internal strife and confusion. Since the pleasures clash, the persons who take them as their supreme aim are necessarily brought into conflict. στρατευομένων makes the connection between ἡδοναί and πόλεμοι . By some interpreters the warfare is thought of as merely directed toward the winning of gratification, by still others as a war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11), or against the νοῦς (Romans 7:23; see passages from Philo cited by Spitta, p. 113, note), or against God. But it is entirely fitting, and makes much better sense, to understand it, as above, with reference to the natural activity of pleasures— necessarily conflicting with one another, and so leading to the outbreak of conflict. The point of James`s attack is pleasure as such, not lower physical pleasure as distinguished from higher forms of enjoyment. The passage from Plato, Phœ do, p. 66, often cited, and given below (p. 258), is therefore not an apt illustration here. Pleasure is not here equivalent to, nor used by metonymy for, ἐπιθυμία , “ desire.” But the two are of course closely related; e. g. Philo, De prœ m. et pœ n. 3 καταπεφρόνηκενἡδονῶνκαὶἐπιθυμιῶν , 4 Macc. 1:22 πρὸμὲνοὖντῆςἡδονῆςἐστὶνἐπιθυμία , 5:23; Stobæ us, ii, 7, 10 (ed. Wachsmuth, p. 88) ἡδονὴνμὲν [ἐπιγίγνεσθαι ] ὅταντυγχάνωμενὧνἐπεθυμοῦμενἢἐκφύγωμενἃἐφοβούμεθα . The underlying conception is the same as in James 1:14, although no explicit reference to ἡδονή is there made. On ἐντοῖςμέλεσιν , cf. 3:6. James thinks of pleasure as primarily pertaining to the body. Cf. the frequent use of “ members” for “ body,” Romans 6:13, Romans 6:19, Romans 6:7:5, Romans 6:23, Colossians 3:5, Apoc. Bar. 83:3. The resemblance to 1 Peter 2:11 is probably accidental; nor is there probably any direct allusion to Romans 7:23. 2. V. 2 explains in detail the connection between ἡδοναί and πόλεμοικαὶμάχαι . Ungratified desire leads to φόνος ; zeal for pleasure unable to reach its end, to μάχη and πόλεμος . οὐκἔχετεδιά ] BAKL minn vgfu. καὶοὐκἔχετεδιά ] א R minn ff vgam boh syrutr. οὐκἔχετεδὲδιά ] minn. So Textus Receptus. The short reading is probably original. Under the reading adopted, the last clause, οὐκἔχετεδιὰτὸμὴαἰτεῖσθαιὑμᾶς , belongs with v. 3 (so WH.). R. Stephen’ s verse-division, which connects v. 2 c with the preceding instead of the following, and the punctuation of the A.V. are due to the Textus Receptus. ἐπιθυμεῖτε , καὶοὐκἔχετε · φονεύετε . καὶζηλοῦτε , καὶοὐδύνασθεἐπιτυχεῖν · μάχεσθεκαὶπολεμεῖτε . This punctuation alone (so WH. mg. and many commentators) preserves the perfect parallelism between the two series of verbs, which is fatally marred by the usual punctuation (φονεύετεκαὶζηλοῦτε , καὶοὐδύνασθεἐπιτυχεῖν , so Tisch. WH. etc.). The abruptness is then not greater than in 2:17, 5:6, 5:13 f. For the asyndeton, cf. 2:22, 24. These passages mark the extreme of the abruptness which in various forms is a quality of James’ s style. The usual punctuation is made additionally unacceptable by the impossible anticlimax φονεύετεκαὶζηλοῦτε (cf. Plato, Menex. 242 A). ἐπιθυμεῖτε , not a new idea but necessarily suggested by ἡδονῶν (v. 1). Pleasure and desire are correlative; see on v. 1. φονεύετε , “ kill,” “ murder.” No weaker sense is possible, and none is here necessary, for James is not describing the condition of any special community, but is analysing the result of choosing pleasure instead of God. The final issue of the false choice is flagrant crime. ἡδονή implies ἐπιθυμία ; ἐπιθυμία is often unsatisfied; in such a case its outcome, if unrestrained, is to cause the murder of the man who stands in its way.ἐπιθυμεῖτε , ἔχετε , φονεύετε are practically equivalent to a conditional sentence, in which ἐπιθυμεῖτεκαὶοὐκἔχετε forms the protasis, φονεύετε the apodosis; cf. 3:13, 5:13 f., Bultmann, pp. 14 f. In the use of the second person plural the writer is taking the readers as representative of the world of men in general. On the “ universal,” or “ gnomic,” present, see Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, i, § 190; Winer, § 40. 2. a; on asyndetic sentences of the nature of a condition, cf. Buttmann, § 139. 28; Winer, § 60. 4. c. The same idea that murder is the horrible outcome to be expected from actually existing conditions, unless their natural tendency is somehow checked, is found in Didache 3:2 μὴγίνουὀργίλος · ὁδηγεῖγὰρἡὀργὴπρὸςτὸνφόνον · μηδὲ · ζηλωτὴςμηδὲἐριστικὸςμηδὲθυμικός · ἐκγὰρτούτωνἁπάντωνφόνοιγεννῶνται ; cf. also Clem. Romans 4:7, Romans 4:9, quoted below, Test. XII Patr. Sim. 3:3 πάντοτε [ὁ - φθόνος ] ὑποβάλλειἀνελεῖντὸνφθονούμενον . It must not be forgotten that to cause a death indirectly is often called murder, and that even downright murders have not been unknown in otherwise respectable communities. Cf. Acts 9:23, Acts 20:3, Acts 23:12 ff., James 5:6 ἐφονεύσατε , 1 Peter 4:15 φονεύς , Ecclus. 34:22. καὶζηλοῦτε , καὶοὐδύνασθεἐπιτυχεῖν · μάχεσθεκαὶπολεμεῖτε . Having established the connection between ἡδονή and φόνος , the writer presents another chain, still hypothetical and general, but showing that the origin of the prevailing state of πόλεμοικαὶμάχαι (v. 1) is ζῆλος , which when it cannot attain its coveted prize regularly leads to fighting and strife. James, writing to no one community, but to the whole Christian world, is speaking of general tendencies, not of the sins of any particular local group. Hence his strong language has no personal sting. The underlying principle is not the same as that of Mat 5:21 f., although there is obvious resemblance. There, as in Matthew 5:28, the point is that it is the inner passion of the heart which God considers, not merely the carrying out of an angry thought in murder. Here in James the wickedness and dangerousness of the end sought, viz. pleasure, is exposed by showing to what an awful issue, if uninhibited, it surely leads. 1 John 3:15 πᾶςὁμισῶντὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦἀνθρωποκτόνοςἐστίν comes nearer, but is still different. To the mistaken idea that James is here giving a description of the particular communities which he addressed is due the conjecture φθονεῖτε for φονεύετε , which was printed in the second edition of Erasmus (1519), was supported by Calvin, translated by Luther (ihr hasset), and has been adopted by many other commentators, both older and more recent. Various other instances of the textual corruption, φόνος for φθόνος , can, indeed, be adduced (see Mayor3, p. 136); but there is no manuscript evidence for the reading here. The conjecture is unnecessary, and it obliterates the careful parallelism of the two series. Interpreters who have been unwilling to emend the text, and yet have felt bound to see in φονεύετε an actual description of the Christian community addressed, have been driven to various expedients. The more usual methods have been either to reduce the meaning of φονεύετε to “ hate,” or else to assume an hendiadys, by which “ murder and envy” becomes “ murderously envy” (Schneckenburger: ad necem usque invidetis). Both methods are linguistically impossible. καὶζηλοῦτε . καί connects the two series. ζηλοῦτε , “ hotly desire to possess,” “ covet,” cf. Ecclus. 51:18, Wisd. 1:12, 1 Corinthians 12:31, 1 Corinthians 12:14:1, 39, Galatians 4:17 f., Demosth. Ol. ii, 15 ὁμὲνδόξηςἐπιθυμεῖκαὶτοῦτοἐζήλωκε . The meaning is different from that of ζῆλος in 3:14. ζῆλος and ζηλόω start with the fundamental meaning of “ hot emotion.” For the peculiar Hebraistic and Biblical meaning “ zeal,” see note on James 3:14. In secular use the meanings are developed on two sides, desire to surpass and desire to possess (“ envy,” etc.). In either sense the words may refer, according to circumstances, to either a good or an evil desire. See Trench, Synonyms, § xxvi. In our verse ἐπιτυχεῖν shows that the desire is for possession; but ζηλοῦτε may then mean either “ envy” (the possessor) or “ covet” (his possessions). “ Covet” , as being the more general idea and a better parallel to ἐπιθυμεῖτε , is to be preferred. The English word “ jealousy” is derived from ζῆλος through French jalousie, Latin zelus, but in most of its meanings “ jealousy” corresponds rather to φθόνος , the “ begrudging” to another, indicating primarily not the desire to possess, but the unwillingness that another should have. μάχεσθεκαὶπολεμεῖτε , i. e. against those who possess what you wish to take from them. The connection of either barren envy or ungratified covetousness with strife is so natural that it hardly needs to be illustrated; but cf. Clem. Rom. 3-6 (where the Biblical and secular meanings are not distinguished), with Lightfoot’ s note on 3:2, Philo, De decal. 28; Iren. iv, 18:3. This passage is made more intelligible by passages from Greek and Roman writers, which show that not only the connection of pleasure and desire, but that of desire, conflict, and war, was a commonplace of popular moralising in the Hellenistic age. See Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen4, iii, 1, pp. 221-225. Thus Philo, De decal. 28, M. pp. 204 f.: “ Last of all he forbids desire , knowing desire to be productive of revolution and addicted to plots. For all the passions of the soul are bad, exciting it and agitating it unnaturally, and destroying its health, but worst of all is desire. … The evils of which the love of money or of a woman or of glory or of any other of those things that produce pleasure is the cause— are they small and ordinary? Is it not because of this passion that relationships are broken, and thus natural good-will changed into desperate enmity? that great and populous countries are desolated by domestic dissensions? and land and sea filled with novel disasters by naval battles and land campaigns? For the wars famous in tragedy, which Greeks and barbarians have fought with one another and among themselves, have all flowed from one source: desire either for money or glory or pleasure. Over these things the human race goes mad.” Ibid. 32, M. p. 208 πέμπτονδὲ [i. e. the fifth commandment of the second table] τὸἀνεῖργοντὴντῶνἀδικημάτωνπηγήν , ἐπιθυμίαν , ἀφ ʼ ἡςῥέουσιναἱπαρανομώταταιπράξεις , ἴδιαικαὶκοιναί , μικραὶκαὶμεγάλαι , ἱεραὶκαὶβέβηλοι , περίτεσώματακαὶψυχὰςκαὶτὰλεγόμεναἐκτός · διαφεύγειγὰροὐδέν , ὡςκαὶπρότερονἐλέχθη , τὴνἐπιθυμίαν , ἀλλ ʼ οἷαφλὸξἐνὕλῃνέμεταιδαπανῶσαπάντακαὶφθείρουσα . Philo, De Josepho, 11, M. p. 50; De posteritate Cain. i, 34, M. pp. 247 f.; De migratione Abr. 12; Lucian, Cynic. 15, πάνταγὰρτὰκακὰτοῖςἀνθρώποιςἐκτῆςτούτωνἐπιθυμίαςφύονται , καὶστάσειςκαὶπόλεμοικαὶἐπιβουλαὶκαὶσφαγαί . ταυτὶπάνταπηγὴνἔχειτὴνἐπιθυμίαντοῦπλείονος ; Cicero, De finibus, i, 13 ex cupiditatibus odia, dissidia, discordiae, seditiones, bella nascuntur; Seneca, De ira, ii, 35 ista quae appetitis quia exigua sunt nec possunt ad alterum nisi alteri erepta transferri, eadem affectantibus pugnam et jurgia excitant. Cf. Plato, Phœ do, p. 66 C καὶγὰρπολέμουςκαὶστάσειςκαὶμάχαςοὐδὲνἄλλοπαρέχειἢτὸσῶμακαὶαἱτούτουἐπιθυμίαι . See note on 1:14, and cf. Wendland and Kern, Beiträ ge zur Geschichte der griech. Philosophie und Religion, pp. 36-37; J. Drummond, Philo Judæ us, ii, pp. 302-306. In contrast to pleasure stands God. So Philo, Leg. all. ii, 23, M. p. 83, says that it is impossible to master pleasure except by complete submission to God. 4 Macc. 5:22, 6:35 represent, in more secular fashion, reason and sound principles as able to control pleasure and desire; but Test. XII Patr. Benj. 6 shows true Jewish character in the sharp contrast which it draws: “ [The good man] delighteth not in pleasure … for the Lord is his portion.” This section of the Testament of Benjamin is full of parallels to James. 3. By aiming at pleasure men cut themselves off from the only sure source or true satisfaction. οὐκἔχετε returns to the matter of the unsatisfied desire in order to point out another aspect of the futility of pleasure as a supreme end. So long as men allow their lives to be governed by ἡἐπιθυμίατῶνἡδονῶν , their desire is sure to be unsatisfied. The only sure source from which men can always receive is God. By choosing pleasure as their aim, men cut themselves off from this source, for they do not ask God for gratifications such as these, or, if they do, only find that their prayers, aiming at their own pleasures and not at his service, are unacceptable, and that they ought not to have offered them. James’ s principle is: Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in answer to your prayer (cf. Matthew 6:31-33). Then there will be none of the present strife. Pleasures war, and cause war. Desire for pleasure, when made the controlling end, leads to violence, for longings then arise which can only be satisfied by the use of violence, since God, from whom alone come good things (1:17), will not satisfy them. It should be needless to point out that οὐκἔχετε is not thought of as the result of μάχεσθεκαὶπολεμεῖτε . διὰτὸμὴαἰτεῖσθαιὑμᾶς . The ὑμᾶς is unnecessary, but not emphatic. Cf. 1:18, 4:15. αἰτεῖσθαι here means prayers to God. 3. αἰτεῖτε , cf. James 1:5 f., Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, Luke 11:9, John 14:13, John 14:15:7, John 14:16, John 14:16:23 f. John 14:26, 1 John 3:22, 1 John 5:14 f.. Here, as often in secular Greek (cf. L. and S.), no difference in meaning is perceptible between the active and middle of αἰτεῖν . Cf. 1 John 5:15-16 αἰτώμεθα , ᾐτήκαμεν , αἰτησει , Mark 6:22, Mark 6:24 αἴτησον , αἰτήσωμαι , and other examples quoted by Mayor. That there was once a distinction in use is likely, but even the statements quoted by Stephanus, Thesaur. s. v., that αἰτεῖσθαι means to ask μετ ʼ ἱκεσίας or μετὰπαρακλήσεως do not make the matter intelligible. See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 160; J. B. Mayor, in Expositor, 8th series, vol. iii, 1912, pp. 522-527; Hort, ad loc. κακῶς , “ wrongly,” cf. Wisd. 14:29, 30, 4 Macc. 6:17. The following clause explains this to mean: “ with the selfish purpose of securing pleasure, not of serving God,” cf. Matthew 6:32. For rabbinical ideas of bad prayers, see Schö ttgen on James 4:3. The promises are that the prayers of the righteous and the penitent will be heard; cf. Psalms 34:15-17, Psalms 145:18, Proverbs 10:24, Ps. Son 6:6, Luke 18:9-14, James 1:6 ff., 1 John 5:14, Hermas, Sim. iv, 6. ἵναἐνταῖςἡδοναῖςὑμῶνδαπανήσητε . “ ἐν marking the realm in rather than the object on” . The distinction is thus not in the things prayed for, but in the purpose with which they are to be used, and for which they are desired— i. e. whether pleasure or the service of God. Hence probably the unusual, though not unexampled, preposition. δαπανήσητε , “ spend” ; not necessarily “ waste,” nor “ squander” ; cf. Acts 21:24, 2 Corinthians 12:15, 2 Corinthians 12:1 Macc. 14:32. The object of δαπανήσητε is the means of securing enjoyment for which they pray; throughout the passage money is especially in mind. δαπανήσητε ] א cAKLP minnomn vid. δαπανήσετε ] B. καταδαπανήσετε ] א *. B and א have both fallen into error. 4. μοιχαλίδες , “ adulteresses,” i. e. “ renegades to your vows.” God is the husband to whom the Christian is joined as wife. The figure arose with reference to Israel as the wife of Jahveh; cf. Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 3:20, Ezekiel 16:23, Hosea 9:1, Wisd. 3:16, Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16:4, Mark 8:38; and see Heb. Lex. s. v. ז ָ נ ָ ה . To this corresponds the position of the church as the bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:1, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:24-28, Revelation 19:7, Revelation 21:9). The term is often, as here, applied to individual members of the people of God; cf. Exodus 34:15, Numbers 15:39, Psalms 73:27 πάντατὸνπορνεύσανταἀπὸσοῦ , Hosea 4:12. The feminine μοιχαλίς is alone appropriate in this sense, since God is always thought of as the husband. The harsh word comes in abruptly; it anticipates and summarises the thought expressed in the verse itself. For the severity, and the direct address, cf. 1:8, 4:13, 5:1. The word is fully explained by the figurative sense: to take it literally (Winer, Spitta, Hort, and others) is to violate the context and to introduce a wholly foreign and uncalled-for idea. Moreover the feminine used alone is then inexplicable. μοιχαλίδες ] Bא *A 33 ff (fornicatores) vg (adulteri) boh (adulterers) Syrpesh. μοιχοὶκαὶμοιχαλίδες ] א cKLP minn syrhcl. Plainly emendation. οὐκοἴδατε . The idea which follows is at any rate familiar to the readers, whether or not these words (as Spitta thinks) introduce a quotation. φιλία , “ friendship,” the usual meaning (cf. L. and S.) of this word, which is a common one in the Wisdom-literature and in 1, 2, and 4 Maccabees; cf. Wisd. 7:14. τοῦκόσμου . Objective genitive, “ friendship for the world.” Cf. 1:27 (and note), 2:5, John 15:18 f., 1 John 2:15. To make pleasure the chief aim is to take up with ἡφιλίατοῦκόσμου . To be “ a friend of the world” is to be on good terms with the persons and forces and things that are at least indifferent toward God, if not openly hostile to him. It does not imply “ conformity to heathen standards of living” (Hort), and is entirely appropriate in connection with a Jewish community. Cf. 2 Timothy 3:4 φιλήδονοιμᾶλλονἢφιλόθεοι , Philo, Leg. alleg. ii, 23, γέγονεφιλήδονοςἀντὶφιλαρέτου . The precise sense of ἡφιλίατοῦκόσμου is much discussed in the commentaries. For summary of views, see Beyschlag, who himself takes it in the active sense of “ love,” as given above. ἔχθρατοῦθεοῦ , “ enmity as regards God.” The accentuation ἔχθρα , not ἐχθρά , is required in order to preserve the sharpness of the contrast. Cf. Romans 8:7 ἔχθραεἰςθεόν , Romans 5:10, Romans 11:28, Colossians 1:21, in which passages, however, rather more of mutual relation is implied. It is to be observed that a state of enmity between men and God differs from a state of enmity in ordinary human relations in that the permanent attitude of love on God’ s part is not thereby interrupted. ὅςἐάν for ὅςἄν is characteristic of vernacular Greek, and is shown by the papyri to have been “ specially common” in the first and second centuries after Christ. See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 42-44, 234, where references to other discussions will be found; also Winer, § 42 fin., Blass, § 26. 4, and the references in Mayor’ s note, pp. 139 f. οὖν ] om L 33 minn boh. The weakness of attestation here counterbalances the presumption in favour of the shorter reading. Possibly oyn fell out by accident after ean. φίλοςτοῦκόσμου . Cf. 2:23 φίλοςθεοῦ . καθίσταται , “ stands,” cf. 3:6, Romans 5:19, 2 Peter 1:8. The word suggests a lasting state. But see J. de Zwaan, in Theol. Studië n, 1913, pp. 85-94. 5-6. Remember the Scripture which declares that God is a jealous lover and suffers no rival for the loyalty of the human spirit; and observe that God gives grace to fulfil his requirements, and that this grace is bestowed on the humble, not on those proud of their worldly success. 5. ἤ , introducing “ a question designed to prove the same thing in another way” (Lex.); cf. Matthew 12:29, 1 Corinthians 6:16, etc. κενῶς , “ emptily,” i. e. “ without meaning all that it says.” Cf. Deuteronomy 32:47 ὅτιοὐχὶλόγοςκενὸςοὗτοςὑμῖνκτλ . ἡγραφή . See 2:23 and note. The term must refer to “ Holy Scripture.” The quotation which follows is not found in the O. T., and either the writer has quoted (perhaps by mistake) from some other writing or a paraphrase, or else the Greek O. T. in some one of its forms had a sentence like this. The sentence seems to be a poetical rendering of the idea of Exo 20:5. λέγει . The formula is frequent; cf. Romans 4:3, Romans 9:17, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2. Various unsuccessful attempts are made to explain this sentence as not meant to be a quotation. (1) The usual method is to take the two sentences πρὸςφθόνονἐπιποθεῖτὸπνεῦμαὅκατῴκισενἐνὑμῖν · μείζοναδὲδίδωσινχάριν , as a parenthesis (Hofmann, B. Weiss, and others). Against such an idea speaks the technical introductory formula, which here prepares for the quotation with unusual elaboration. Such a formula is generally (cf. v. 6) followed at once by the quotation (Romans 11:2-4 is no exception to this rule). Moreover, if what follows is not quoted, λέγει would have to be given the somewhat unusual meaning “ speaks” (as in Acts 24:10). Such a parenthesis would introduce confusion into the thought of an otherwise well-ordered and forcible passage and make the διό of v. 6 unaccountable. (2) Equally futile is the theory that James is merely summarising the thought of the O. T. without intending to refer to any specific passage, e. g. (Knowling) Genesis 6:3-5, Deuteronomy 32:10 f. Deuteronomy 32:19, Deuteronomy 32:21, Isaiah 63:8-16, Ezekiel 36:17, Zechariah 1:14, Zechariah 8:2. The following sentence would then become merely the utterance of the writer, and against this speaks conclusively the formula of citation .* (3) Neither can the sentence be accounted for as an inexact citation of such passages as Exodus 20:5 ἐγὼγάρεἰμικύριοςὁθεόςσου , θεὸςζηλωτής , although the sense is akin. (4) The attempt to make λέγει refer vaguely to the substance of v. 4 is also vain. (5) Unacceptable are also the textual conjectures by which various scholars have tried to eliminate a supposed gloss: thus Erasmus and Grotius would excise διὸλέγει … χάριν (cf. 1 Peter 5:5); Hottinger and Reiche, μείζοναδὲδίδωσινχάριν · διὸλέγει . πρὸςφθόνον , “ jealously,” or, more exactly, “ begrudgingly.” πρός with accusative is a regular periphrasis for the adverb; so πρὸςβίαιαν for βιαίως , πρὸςὀργήν , “ angrily,” πρὸςεὐτέλειαν , “ cheaply,” πρὸςἡδονὴνκαὶχάριν , “ pleasantly and graciously” (Jos. Ant. xii, 103). See L. and S. s. v. πρός C. III. 7; Lex.. s. v. πρός I, 3. g. This idiom is not found elsewhere in the N. T.; see Schmid, Atticismus, iv, Index. In the sense of “ jealously,” πρὸςζῆλον would have been more in accord with LXX usage, cf. Numbers 5:14 πνεῦμαζηλώσεως , Exodus 20:5, Proverbs 6:34, Proverbs 27:4, Son 8:6, Ecclus. 9:1, so 2 Corinthians 11:2; but this meaning, “ ardent desire for complete possession of the object” as in the case of the husband , seems to be foreign to ζῆλος in general Greek usage, which denotes that emotion by φθόνος , as here. πρὸςφθόνον is thus a phrase drawn from Hellenic models, not founded on the language of the LXX. φθόνος means primarily “ ill will,” “ malice,” due to the good fortune of the one against whom it is directed, λύπηἐπ ʼ ἀλλοτρίοιςἀγαθοῖς (Diog. Laert. vii, 63. 111; see other similar definitions in Trench, Synonyms, § xxvi). This begrudging spirit may be shown in the refusal either to give or to share ; or in the jealous ill will of the gods toward overfortunate mortals; or in other ways corresponding to some of the meanings of English “ envy” and “ jealousy,” neither of which, however, is in meaning wholly coterminous with φθόνος . See Trench, l. c.; L. and S. s. vv. φθόνος , φθονέω , ἄφθονος , ἀφθονία . So, like English “ jealousy,” φθόνος is used in a bad sense of the ill will felt toward another with whom one has to share a prized object, but it does not seem ever to be quite equivalent to the English term for the lover’ s, or husband’ s, “ jealousy” ; the object of the emotion seems always to have been found in the hated possessor, not (as often in the English word) in the prized object. The Latin equivalent of φθόνος is invidia, from which comes English “ envy.” But the English word is in modern times often used in a milder sense, with reference only to the desire for equal good fortune with another and with no thought of ill will. It thus approaches more nearly the sense of ζῆλος , just as the English “ jealousy” (see on 3:14, 4:2), though derived from ζῆλος , zelus, has acquired much of the peculiar meaning of φθόνος . πρὸςφθόνον limits ἐπιποθεῖ . To connect it with λέγει yields but a poor sense. When connected with λέγει , πρός is usually taken in the sense of “ with reference to,” or “ against” (so Spitta). But there has been no previous mention of φθόνος in this paragraph to account for the introduction of such a quotation relating to it. If the phrase is connected with λέγει and taken in the sense “ enviously,” as explaining κενῶς , it lacks the proper, and indispensable, conjunction to connect it with κενῶς , and the general sense is less satisfactory. ἐπιποθεῖ , “ yearns,” “ yearns over,” of the longing affection of the lover. See Lightfoot on Philippians 1:8. Cf. 2 Corinthians 9:14, Philippians 1:8, Deuteronomy 13:8, Deuteronomy 32:11, Jeremiah 13:14. In Ezekiel 23:5, Ezekiel 23:7, Ezekiel 23:9 (Aq.) it has the lower sense of “ dote on.” As subject of ἐπιποθεῖ we may supply ὁθεός , and then take τὸπνεῦμα as object of the verb; or τὸπνεῦμα may be taken as subject and ἡμᾶς supplied as object. In the former case τὸπνεῦμα means the human spirit breathed into man by God (cf. Genesis 2:7, Isaiah 42:5, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Numbers 16:22, Numbers 27:16, Zechariah 12:1, Hebrews 12:9). This has the advantage that ἐπιποθεῖ and κατῴκισεν then have the same subject, and seems on the whole better. κατῴκισεν contains a hint of God’ s rightful ownership through creation. On the other hand, τὸπνεῦμα as subject would mean the Holy Spirit, to whom this would be the only reference in the epistle. In favour of this is the fact that the conception of the Holy Spirit as dwelling in man is repeatedly found in the N. T. and in early Christian literature. Cf. Ezekiel 36:27, Romans 8:11 f., 1 Corinthians 3:16 τὸπνεῦματοῦθεοῦἐνὑμῖνοἰκεῖ , Hermas, Sim. v, 6:7, Mand. iii, 1, v, 2, De aleatoribus, 3. Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geiste, p. 159, suggests that ἐπιποθεῖ here (like λυπεῖτε , Ephesians 4:30) refers to the idea of Hermas, Sim. v, 6:7, , ix, 32, that God has given us as a deposit a pure spirit, which we are bound to return to him unimpaired. “ God jealously requires back the spirit, pure as he gave it.” But this interesting interpretation is not supported by any clear indication in the context. If taken thus as a declarative sentence, the quoted passage means “ God is a jealous lover.” This obviously suits perfectly the preceding context. By some the sentence is taken interrogatively. It will then mean, “ Does the Spirit, set within us by God, desire to the extent of becoming jealous?” and will express the incompatibility of the Spirit with the sin of jealousy. But (1) this would require μή to introduce the question; (2) φθόνος is too weak a word after πόλεμοι , μάχαι , φονεύετε ; and (3) the general meaning of the sentence becomes altogether far less suited to the context. Mayor3, pp. 141-145 gives a convenient and full summary of the various views held about this verse, relating to (1) the construction of πρὸςφθόνον , (2) the meaning of πρὸςφθόνον , (3) the subject of ἐπιποθεῖ . A large amount of material is to be found in Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 881-928, Pott, “ Excursus IV,” pp. 329-355, and Gebser, pp. 329-346, who gives the views of commentators at length. See also W. Grimm, Studien und Kritiken, vol. xxvii, 1854, pp. 934-956; and Kirn, Studien und Kritiken, vol. lxxvii, 1904, pp. 127-133, 593-604, where the conjecture ΠΡΟΣΤΟΝΘΝ for ΠΡΟΣΦΘΟΝΟΝ (first proposed by Wetstein, 1730) is elaborately, but unconvincingly, defended, and the quotation explained as a combination of Psa 42:1 and Ecclesiastes 12:7. P. Corssen, Gö ttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1893, pp. 596 f., defends the conjecture ἐπιποθεῖτε , and the sense: “ In envy ye desire: but the Spirit which God hath put within you giveth greater grace; subject yourselves, therefore, to God.” κατῴκισεν ] Bא A minnpaue. κατῴκησεν ] KLP minnpler ff vg boh syrutr. The weight of external evidence leads to a (somewhat doubtful) decision for κατῴκισεν . 6. μείζοναδὲδίδωσινχάριν . God makes rigorous requirements of devotion, but gives gracious help in order that men may be able to render the undivided allegiance which he exacts. The subject of δίδωσιν is clearly ὁθεός . That the phrase is drawn from, and directly prepares for, the quotation from Proverbs which follows makes it unlikely that this sentence is part of the quotation of v. 5. μείζονα . The comparative is most naturally taken as meaning “ greater grace in view of the greater requirement.” Another interpretation is that of Bede: “ majorem gratiam dominus dat quam amicitia mundi” ; so also many other commentators. χάριν . The context seems to require that this be understood of the “ gracious gift” of aid to fulfil the requirement of whole-hearted allegiance. Cf. 1 Peter 3:7, Ephesians 4:7. On the meaning of χάρις , cf. J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 221 ff. Those who take χάριν in the sense of “ favour,” i.e. not the means of complying, but a reward for complying, have difficulty with μείζονα , which is then inappropriate; and the idea itself suits the context less well. διὸλέγει , sc. ἡγραφή or ὁθεός . A regular formula of quotation, Ephesians 4:8, Ephesians 5:14, Hebrews 3:7; διό (cf. Genesis 10:9, Numbers 21:14) means that the truth just affirmed has given rise to the sacred utterance to be quoted. On the formula, see Surenhusius, Βίβλοςκαταλλαγῆς , 1713, p. 9. The quotation from Proverbs 3:34 illustrates and confirms the main position of the preceding passage, vv. 1-5, viz. that God will not yield to Pleasure a part of the allegiance of men’ s hearts, but that by his grace he enables men to render to him undivided allegiance. “ So says the Scripture: ‘ God is opposed to the proud and worldly, it is the humble who receive his gift of grace.’ Hence (vv. 7ff.) to gain his favour we must humble ourselves before him.” The quotation thus has the important function of making the transition from the negative to the positive aspects of the subject, cf. the use of it in Clem. Rom. 30:2. The quotation is taken verbatim from the LXX of Pro 3:34, except that ὁθεός is substituted for κύριος . This is also the case in the same quotation in 1 Peter 5:5 and Clem. Rom. 30, and is probably due to a common form of popular quotation. On the theory of Oort (1885) and Grä tz (1892-94), that the obscure Hebrew א ִ ם in the passage quoted is a corruption of א ֱ ל ֹ ה ִ י ם , which has been preserved in James, 1 Peter, and Clem. Rom., see Toy on Proverbs 3:34. ὑπερηφάνοις , “ haughty persons,” here applied to those who, despising the claims of God, devote themselves to worldly pleasures and position, and insolently look down on others, especially on the humble pious. They are haughty both toward God and toward men, and are here identified with the “ friends of the world.” Cf. 1:10, 2:5-7, 5:1-6. On ὑπερηφανία , cf. Psalms 31:23, Ecclus. 10:7, 12, 18, 2 Macc. 9:11, 12, Ps. Sol. 2:35 (where Pompey is described as setting himself up against God), 4:28, and see Trench, Synonyms, § xxix. ἀντιτάσσεται , “ opposes,” cf. v. 4 and Acts 18:6, Romans 13:2, James 5:6. ταπεινοῖς , “ humble persons.” Here applied primarily to those who are humble toward God , but not without thought of the same persons’ lowly position in the community, cf. 1:10, 2:5. Spitta (pp. 117-123) has ingeniously argued that the unidentifiable quotation in v. 5 is from the apocryphal book “ Eldad and Modad” (cf. Numbers 11:24-29). This work is referred to by Hermas (Vis. ii, 3), and Lightfoot suggests that the quotation given as γραφή in Clem. Rom. 23:3 f. and as ὁπροφητικὸςλόγος in 2 Clem. Romans 11:2-4, as well as the one in Clem. Rom. 17:6, come from it. Spitta believes that, besides furnishing the quotation, it has also influenced the context here in James. The basis of his view is an exegesis which translates the passage thus: “ Think ye that the Scripture says in vain concerning envy: ‘ It (i.e. envy) longeth to possess the Spirit which He hath made to dwell in us; but He giveth (because of that envy) greater grace (to us)’ ?” This suggests to Spitta, following Surenhusius and Schö ttgen, the situation of Num 11:24-29, where Eldad and Modad are complained of by the envious Joshua because they have the spirit of prophecy, which no longer rests on him and the others of the Seventy Elders. The haggadic development (Wü nsche, Midrasch Bemidbar Rabba, pp. 408 f.) emphasised the greater grace granted to Eldad and Modad, which is explained by R. Tanchuma (Bemidbar r. 15) as due to their greater humility, since they modestly declined to be included in the number of the Seventy. The resemblance is here striking, provided the underlying exegesis of James be once accepted. But that requires the conjecture φθονεῖτε for φονεύετε in v. 2, and the consequent understanding of the whole passage as dealing primarily with φθόνος as its topic. It would thus make necessary a wholly different apprehension of the author’ s purpose from that presented above. Some of the confirmatory resemblances which Spitta finds between James and passages that may be supposed to have some connection with Eldad and Modad are curious. Thus, Hermas, Vis. ii, 3, cf. James 4:8; Clem. Rom. 23 (2 Clem. Rom_11), cf. James 4:8 f. δίψυχοι , ταλαιπωρήσατε , 3:16 ἀκαταστασία , 1:2, 5:7 ff.; Clem. Rom. 17:6, cf. James 4:14 ἀτμίς . Spitta would also connect with Eldad and Modad the unlocated quotation in Clem. Rom. 46:2, in which he finds some resemblance to the story of Korah, Num_16. And he compares Hermas, Vis. iii, 6 Sim. viii, 8, which seem to him to allude to this passage. But the evidence collected is not sufficient to overturn the more natural interpretation of the general course of thought in the context. Spitta’ s theory introduces a whole series of incongruous ideas, which have no good connection with what precedes and lead to nothing in what follows; and it must be pronounced fantastic. 7-10. Practical exhortation to the choice of God instead of pleasure as the chief end. These verses are addressed to the whole body of Christians, who are all subject to these moral dangers, and some of whom may be supposed to be liable to the reproach contained in ὑπερήφανοι , ἁμαρτωλοί , δίψυχοι . It is interesting to notice how James’ s religious ideal of penitent devotion to God here diverges from the Stoic ideal of reason as ruler over all passion and desire, which is given as the teaching of the Jewish law in 4 Macc. 5:23. 7. οὖν , “ in view of the relation of God and his service to the pursuit of worldly pleasures.” Cf. for similar grounding of practical exhortations, Romans 13:12, Romans 14:19, Galatians 5:1, Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 4:25 5:15, Colossians 2:16, Colossians 2:3:1, Colossians 2:5, Colossians 2:12. ὑποτάγητε , “ submit yourselves” , i.e. “ become ταπεινοί ” (v. 6), cf. ταπεινώθητε , v. 10. On this and the eight following aorist imperatives, the more “ pungent” form, see note on 1:2. On the passive aorist with the significance of the middle voice, which is a common phenomenon of the late language, cf. Buttmann, § 113. 4 (Eng. transl. p. 51); Winer, § 39. 2; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 152-163, especially p. 163; note μαρανθήσεται 1:11, ταπεινώθητε 4:10. ὑποτάσσομαι is used elsewhere in the N. T. of voluntary submission to God only in Hebrews 12:9, where the analogy of submission to earthly fathers has occasioned the use of the word. It is also found in Psalms 37:7, 62:1, Psalms 37:5, Haggai 2:18, Haggai 2:2 Macc. 9:12, in the sense of general submission of the whole soul to God. Submission is more than obedience, it involves humility (Calvin). ἀντίστητεδὲτῷδιαβόλῳ . “ Take a bold stand in resisting temptations to worldliness sent by ‘ the prince of this world’ (John 14:30), and you will be successful.” This idea seems to have been a commonplace of early Christian thought; cf. 1 Peter 5:8, 1 Peter 5:9, where, as here, the quotation of Pro 3:34 precedes, but where it is better not to assume literary connection with James. For the conception of a fight with the devil, cf. Ephesians 6:11 f. and see Weinel, Wirkungen des Gestes und der Geiste, pp. 17 f. The following passages may be compared: Hermas, Mand. xii, 5 δύναταιὁδιάβολοςἀντιπαλαῖσαι , καταπαλαῖσαιδὲοὐδύναται . ἐὰνοὖνἀντισταθῆτεαὐτῷ , νικηθεὶςφεύξεταιἀφ ʼ ὑμῶνκατῃσχυμμένος . Test. XII Patr. Nephth. 8:4 ἐὰνοὗνκαὶὑμεῖςἐργάσησθετὸκαλόν . . ὁδιάβολοςφεύξεταιἀφ ʼ ὑμῶν , Issach. 7:7 ταῦτακαὶὑμεῖς , τέκναμου , ποιεῖτε , καὶπᾶνπνεῦματοῦΒελίαρφεύξεταιἀφ ʼ ὑμῶν , Benj. 5, Dan_5. In these passages from Test. XII Patr., however, the thought is different; good conduct is there the means by which the devil is driven off, and the idea is that right action diminishes the chance of being tempted later on. James, on the other hand, is merely saying that boldness will avail against the tempter. 8. ἐγγίσατε , as those who wish to be in the closest possible relation to God. It is assumed throughout that the ostensible purpose of the persons addressed is right. They intend to be God’ s servants, but by yielding to natural inclinations they are in practise verging toward a state of ἔχθρατοῦθεοῦ . To draw near to God is used of the priests in the temple, Exodus 19:22, Ezekiel 44:13. It is half figurative in Exodus 24:2, Isaiah 29:13, and wholly so in such passages as the following: Hosea 12:6, Wisd. 6:19 (20), Judith 8:27, Hebrews 7:19 (cf. 4:16); cf. Psalms 145:18, Deu_4, and Philo’ s comment in De migr. Abr. 11, M. p. 445. Test. XII Patr. Daniel 6:2 ἐγγίσατετῷθεῷ , is an instructive parallel. ἐγγίσει corresponds to μείζοναδίδωσινχάριν , v. 6; as well as to φεύξεται , v. 7. Cf. Zechariah 1:3, on which James is very likely dependent, 2 Chronicles 15:2, Malachi 3:7, Psalms 145:18. καθαρίσατεχεῖρας , “ make your outward conduct pure.” From the ritual washing to make fit for religious duties (e.g. Genesis 35:2, Exodus 30:17-21), which was perfectly familiar in N. T. times (cf. Mark 7:3), sprang a figurative use of language, e.g. Isaiah 1:16, Job 17:9, 22:30, 1 Timothy 2:8, Clem. Rom. 29:1. In Psalms 23:4 ἀθῷοςχερσὶνκαὶκαθαρὸςτῇκαρδίᾳ , and in Ecclus. 38:10 the combination found in James is already complete. χεῖρας , καρδίας . For the omission of the article, cf. Schmiedel-Winer, § 19. 7, where it is explained under the rule that pairs of nouns often omit the article. ἁμαρτωλοί . A sharp term is used to strike the conscience of the reader, and is then partly explained by the parallel δίψυχοι . Half-hearted Christians, such as James desires to stir to better things, are in reality nothing but “ world’ s people” — a reproach meant to startle and sting. δίψυχοι , “ doubters,” is entirely parallel. The word ἁμαρτωλός is very rare in secular Greek, but there, as in the O. T. and N. T., has the sense of “ hardened sinner,” “ bad man,” cf. Plutarch, De aud. poet. 7, p. 25 C, the standing phrase τελῶναικαὶἁμαρτωλοί , Matthew 9:10 f., etc., and the application of ἁμαρτωλός to heathen, 1 Macc. 1:34, Galatians 2:15, etc. Cf. Enoch 5:6, 38:1, 45:2, 94:11, 95:2, 3, 7, 96:1, 2, 4. Suidas defines ἁμαρτωλοί as οἱπαρανομίᾳσυζῆνπροαιρούμενοικαὶβίονδιεφθαρμένονἀσπαζόμενοι . ἁγνίσατεκαρδίας . ἁγνός means “ clean,” “ pure,” ceremonially (John 11:55), and so morally. The latter development had already been made in secular Greek use. Cf. 1 Peter 1:22 τὰςψυχὰςὑμῶνἡγνικότεςἐντῇὑπακοῆτῆςἀληθείας Isaiah 1:16, and especially Psalms 24:4, Psalms 73:13. δίψυχοι . It is here implied that διψυχία involves some defilement from the world, cf. Hermas, Mand. ix, 7 καθάρισοντὴνκαρδίανσουἀπὸτῆςδιψυχίας . Test. XII Patr. Aser 3:2, οἱδιπρόσωποιοὐκεἰσὶτοῦθεοῦἀλλὰταῖςἐπιθυμίαιςαὐτῶνδουλεύουσιν , is an excellent commentary on this verse. 9. “ Make yourselves wretched, mourn, lament; that is a state of mind more suited to a Christian than worldly gaiety and joy!” This is primarily a call to repentance; but, more than that, it is a vehemently expressed recommendation of sober earnestness as the proper mood of a Christian, in contrast to a light and frivolous spirit. The writer was a sober man who felt the seriousness of living, and wished that others should feel and express it; in a word, a Puritan. The force of James’ s exhortation must not be reduced by interpretation, nor its range unduly limited. There is positive emphasis on the sadness, and even anguish, which is appropriate to the readers’ actual situation, and which they ought to seek, not try to avoid, cf. Matthew 5:4. Yet neither must the words be misunderstood as representing that a cheerfulness founded on the joy of faith is wrong for a soul which knows itself at one with God (cf. 1:2f.). James is not giving a complete directory for conduct at all times, but is trying by the unexpected intensity of his language to startle half-hearted Christians into a searching of heart and a self-consecration which he believes essential to their eternal salvation. For the same mood, due to a different cause, cf. Ecclesiastes 7:2-6, cf. also Ecclus. 21:20, 27:13.Jeremiah 4:13 f. Jeremiah 4:9:18 f. and some of the other prophetic parallels, such as Joe 1:10 ff., Micah 2:4, Zechariah 11:2, have some resemblance, but differ in that in those passages the impending punishment is made prominent. They are nearer to James 5:1 (cf. especially Zechariah 11:2). ταλαιπωρήσατε “ make yourselves wretched,” cf. 5:1. The word ταλαίπωρος and derivatives are employed both in secular and Biblical use of misery and wretchedness, whether strictly physical or general, often representing some form of Hebrew ש ׁ ָ ד ִ ד ; cf. Tob. 13:10, 2 Macc. 4:47, 4 Macc. 16:7, Psalms 12:5, Micah 2:4, Psalms 38:7, Jeremiah 12:12, Romans 7:24, Revelation 3:17, Clem. Rom. 23:3 ταλαίπωροίεἰσινοἱδίψυχοι . ταλαιπωρέω in itself is not limited to mental anguish, nor to repentance. It is here used in order to make a sharp contrast with the pleasures which the persons addressed are seeking. They had better, says James, make wretchedness their aim, and so humble themselves in penitence and obedience before God. The paraphrase of Grotius, “ affligite ipsos vosmet jejuniis et aliis corporis σκληραγωγίαις ,” which corresponds to the view of the Roman Catholic commentators (e. g. Est: opera pæ nalia subite) goes further than the text. πενθήσατεκαὶκλαύσατε , “ mourn and lament.” Cf. 2 Samuel 19:1, Nehemiah 8:9, Matthew 5:4, Mark 16:10, Luke 6:25, Revelation 18:11, Revelation 18:15, Revelation 18:19. πενθεῖν “ expresses a self-contained grief, never violent in its manifestations” (Lex.); see Trench, Synonyms, § lxv. But the two words are here used merely to secure a forcible fulness of expression. There is no ground for taking πενθήσατε specifically of an outward garb of mourning. πενθήσατεκαὶκλαύσατε ] א A omit καὶ ; perhaps by accidental confusion of KAI with KLA— . The omission would connect πενθήσατε with the preceding, and separate it from κλαύσατε in a very unnatural way. ὁγέλωςὑμῶν , pertaining to their present easy ways. This sentence makes the preceding words more intelligible. εἰςπένθος , cf. Amos 8:10, Tob. 2:6, Proverbs 14:13, Proverbs 14:1 Macc. 1:39, 9:41. μετατραπήτω , a poetical word which “ seems not to have been used in Attic” (L. and S.). In the Greek O. T. it is used in 4 Macc. 6:5, and by Aquila in Ezekiel 1:9, Symmachus in Ezekiel 10:11. μετατραπήτω ] BR minn. μεταστραφήτω ]> א AKL minnpler. Apparently an emendation, substituting a more familiar verb. κατήφειαν “ dejection,” “ gloominess,” from κατηφής , “ of a downcast look.” In accordance with its origin the word refers primarily to the outward expression of a heavy heart, cf. the publican in Luke 18:13. The word (not found in LXX; nor elsewhere in N. T.) is frequently used of dejection due to shame, and this association may have governed the choice of it here. Cf. Lex., L. and S. Wetstein, for many examples; and see Field, Notes on the Translation of the N. T., p. 238. 10. ταπεινώθητε “ humble yourselves.” James here returns to the starting-point of his exhortation , and sums up in ταπεινώθητε the several acts directed in vv. 7-9. This act implies single-hearted faith, and such a soul has a sure reward from God, cf. 1:9. See references in Lex.. s. v. ταπεινοφροσύνη , and cf. Ecclus. 2:17 οἱφοβούμενοικύριον … ἐνώπιοναὐτοῦταπεινώσουσιντὰςψυχὰςαὐτῶν , 3:18, 7:17. ταπεινόω means “ to confess and deplore one’ s spiritual littleness and unworthiness” (Lex.). On the use of the passive aorist, cf. note on ὑποτάγητε , v. 7. ἐνώπιονκυρίου . κυρίου here means God; cf. vv. 6, 7, 8. ὑψώσει , i. e. morally and spiritually, by his presence (vv. 6, 7, 8 and 1:9); and in the glory of eternal life (1:12, 5:8); cf. Luke 1:52, Matthew 23:12, Luke 14:11, Luke 14:18:14, 2 Corinthians 11:7 ἐμαυτὸνταπεινῶνἵναὑμεῖςὑψωθῆτε . 1 Peter 5:6 bears close resemblance in form, and is noticeable because of the complicated resemblance of the context in Jam_4 and 1Pe_5. But the meaning is different. Here in James it is a humbling of the soul before God, with repentance, and is in contrast to ὑπερηφανία . 1 Peter is exhorting to a spirit of submissiveness to God , even when his providence appears in the hardships of persecution , cf. also 1 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 3:17, 1 Peter 4:12 ff. 11-12. “ Do not talk harshly of one another. He who judges his brother, sets himself above the law of love, and infringes on the prerogative of God, who alone is lawgiver and judge.” Vv.11 and 12 come in as a sort of appendix, much as 5:12-20 is attached as an appendix after the whole epistle has received a fitting conclusion in 5:11. The thought of the writer reverts (cf. 1:26, 3:1-10) to those facts of life which had given him the text for his far-reaching discussion and exhortation (4:1-10), and before passing to other matters he offers an example of how one particular form of μάχη is at variance with a proper attitude to God. The writer still has fully in mind the great opposition of the world and God, and hence probably arises the somewhat strained form in which the rebuke of vv. 11-12 is couched. Criticism of others is often occasioned by a supposed moral lapse, and it may well be, as Schneckenburger suggests, that this was what James had here specially in mind. If that were the case these verses would be a very neat turning of the tables, quite in the style of this epistle (cf. 2:25), and the peculiar form of the rebuke, and its attachment as an appendix, would also be partly accounted for. To this would correspond the address ἀδελφοί , v. 11, to which μοιχαλίδες , v. 4, ἁμαρτωλοί , δίψυχοι , v. 8, present a marked contrast but no real contradiction. This passage in James would then correspond closely with the mode of thought of Rom 14:10, where the καταλαλιά rebuked is occasioned by laxity and by intolerance, and where, as here, the reader is told that such judgment may safely be left to God the Judge. 11. καταλαλεῖτε , “ talk against,” “ defame,” “ speak evil” (A.V.), usually applied to harsh words about the absent. On the present imperative, cf. Winer, § 43, 3, § 56, I, b; Buttmann, § 139, 6; Gildersleeve, Syntax, § 415. Contrast the aorists of vv. 7-10. The present is here appropriate in the sense “ desist from.” καταλαλιά is habitual and should be stopped. The word is used in this sense in writers of the Koine (Polyb. Diod. C. I. G. 1770; see L. and S.) and in the Greek O. T.; cf. Psalms 101:5, where τὸνκαταλαλοῦνταλάθρατὸνπλησίοναὐτοῦ evidently refers to a generally recognised type of evil-doer, also Psalms 50:20. Cf. 2 Corinthians 12:20 ἐριθίαι , καταλαλιαί , ψιθυρισμοί , 1 Peter 2:1, Romans 1:30. See Clem. Rom. 30:1, 3, 35:5, etc., 2 Clem. Romans 4:3, Hermas, Sim. vi, 5:5, viii, 7:2, ix, 26:7; Mand. ii, 2; Barn. 20; Test. XII Patr. Gad 3:3, 5:4. What is meant here is indulgence in unkind talk. Nothing indicates that anything more is intended than the harsh criticism common in ancient and modern daily life. It is not directed especially against the mutual backbiting of the teachers (4:14 ff.). For such a view as, e. g. Pfleiderer’ s, that this is a polemic against Marcion’ s attitude of superiority to the Jewish law, there is no more reason than for the idea (Schneckenburger) of a rebuke of those who tore Paul’ s character to pieces behind his back. ἀδελφοί marks a transition, but here, as in 1:19, 2:5, a minor one. ἀδελφοῦ , τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ , with a certain pathetic emphasis. So in 1 John 2:9, 1 John 4:20. κρίνων , Cf. Matthew 7:1, and note that this is interpreted in the parallel Luke 6:37 by the substitution of καταδικάζειν , “ condemn, ” cf. Romans 2:1. For similar cases of two participles under one article, cf. 1:25, John 5:24. καταλαλεῖνόμουκαὶκρίνεινόμον , i. e. in so far as he thereby violates the royal law of love (2:8, note the context preceding the precept in Leviticus 19:18), and so sets himself up as superior to it. Speaking against the law involves judging the law. νόμου , i. e. the whole code of morals accepted by the readers, as 1:25, 2:9. νόμος without the article does not here differ from ὁνόμος . The particular clause in question is evidently the “ second great commandment,” cf. the phrase τὸνπλησίον , v. 12. ποιητὴςνόμου , cf. 1:22 f. (and note), Romans 2:13, Romans 2:1 Macc. 2:67. These are the only cases in the Bible of this phrase, which in secular Greek means “ lawgiver,” not “ doer of the law.” κριτής , thus claiming a superiority to the law such as belongs to God alone. The judge is here thought of, not as himself acting under law, but more as the royal judge, the fountain of right, i. e. such a judge as God is— an idea of κριτής which includes νομοθέτης . κριτής is not to be expanded into κριτὴςνόμου , “ critic of the law” , as is done by many commentators, for that idea has already been fully expressed, while in κριτής we have evidently a new idea and a step forward in the argument. V. 11 bears a close relation to the thought of Rom 2:1, Romans 14:4, but the resemblance does not imply literary dependence. 12. εἷς . “ One is lawgiver and judge, He, namely, who is able,” etc. Cf. Matthew 19:17 εἷςἐστὶνὁἀγαθός . εἷς is the subject, νομοθέτηςκαὶκριτής the predicate; ὁδυνάμενος is in apposition with εἷς . God, not Christ, appears clearly intended here; ὁκριτής in 5:9 is not decisive against this, and νομοθέτης is far more likely to be used of God, while εἷςἐστίν unequivocally means God. εἷς is used in order to emphasise the uniqueness, not the unity, of the lawgiver. νομοθέτης . Elsewhere in the Bible only Psalms 9:20. See 2 Ezr 7:8-9. Cf. νομοθετῶν , 2 Macc. 3:15, 4 Macc. 5:25, Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 8:6. Very frequent in Philo. The word is here added to κριτής because the latter does not fully express the idea of complete superiority to the law. νομοθέτης ] BP. ὁνομοθέτης ] all others. The reading without the article makes νομοθέτης predicate and is more expressive. The article was probably inserted to bring an unusual expression into conformity with the more common type of sentence. καὶκριτής ] om KL minn. External evidence here outweighs, on the whole, the authority of the lectio brevior. ὁδυνάμενοςσῶσαικαὶἀπολέσαι . Cf. Matthew 10:28. God’ s almighty power, to which we are wholly subject, gives him the right to judge. Cf. Hermas, Mand. xii, 6:3 τὸνπάνταδυνάμενον , σῶσαικαὶἀπολέσαι , Sim. ix, 23:4 ὡςδυνάμενοςἀπολέσαιἢσῶσαιαὐτόν . Cf. Psalms 68:20, Deuteronomy 32:39, 1 Samuel 2:6, 2 Kings 5:7. This description of God must have been common in Jewish use. τίςεἶ . Cf. Romans 9:20, Romans 14:4, Acts 11:17, Exodus 3:11. 13-17. The practical neglect of God seen in the trader’ s presumptuous confidence in himself; and the futility of it. After the discussion of the fundamental sin of choosing pleasure and not God as the chief end of life, two paragraphs follow illustrating by practical examples the neglect of God. Both paragraphs are introduced by the same words, and lack the address, ἀδελφοί . The persons in mind in vv. 13-17 may or may not be Christians. V. 17 implies that these presumptuous persons know better. The type of travelling traders referred to was common among Jews. The ease of travel in ancient times is amply illustrated by the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul. Cf. C. A. J. Skeel, Travel in the First Century after Christ, 1901; Zahn, “ Weltverkehr und Kirche wä hrend der drei ersten Jahrhunderte,” in Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche2, 1898. 13. ἄγενῦν , “ come now,” “ see here,” cf. 5:1. ἄγε , like φέρε , or Latin age, is usually an insistent, here a somewhat brusque, address. νῦν increases the insistency. ἄγε is wholly non-biblical in its associations, Judges 19:6, 2 Kings 4:24, Isaiah 43:6 being the only instances of the idiom in the O. T. οἱλέγοντες , i. e. in their hearts, cf. 1:13, 2:14. ἢαὔριον ] Bא minn ff vg boh syrpesh Jerome. καὶαὔριον ] AKLR minn syrhcl Cyr (cf. Luke 13:32 f.). A decision is possible only on external grounds. πορευσόμεθα , ποιήσομεν , ἐμπορευσόμεθα , κερδήσομεν . The future indicative is the consistent reading of Bא P minn ff vg boh Cyr. The aorist subjunctive (πορευσώμεθα , etc.) is read in each case by KLSΨ minn. A has πορευσώμεθα , ποιήσωμεν , ἐμπορευσόμεθα , κερδήσομεν . The context speaks on the whole for the future indicative. In such a case external evidence has little weight (cf. Romans 5:1). τήνδετὴνπόλιν , “ this city” ; not “ such a city” (A.V.; Luther: “ in die und die Stadt” ; Erasmus: in hanc aut illam civitatem). ποιήσομεν , “ pass,” “ spend.” See Lex.. s. v. ποιέω II. d, for examples of this meaning, which is said to be confined to later Greek. ἐμπορευσόμεθα , “ traffic,” “ do business.” This word is not very common in the Greek O. T., and is found only a few times in this sense (e. g. Genesis 34:10, Genesis 42:34). In secular Greek it is used in this sense: cf. Thuc. vii, 13, and other references in L. and S. κερδήσομεν . That travel is for the purpose of gain was obvious to Greek thought, cf. Anthol. palat. ix, 446 ἀγρὸςτέρψινἄγει , κέρδοςπλόος . The word is used absolutely, as here, “ to get gain,” in secular writers, e. g. Hdt. viii, 5, but is not found in LXX (once in Symmachus). 14. ὅτινες , with full classical meaning, “ of such a nature that.” For the loose grammatical attachment, cf. 1:7 f. ἀνὴρδίψυχος . τὸτῆςαὔριον . Cf. Proverbs 27:1 μὴκαυχῶτὰεἰςαὔριον , οὐγὰργινώσκειςτίτέξεταιἡἐπιοῦσα , also Ecclus. 11:18 f., Luke 12:16 ff. For a good parallel from Debarim rabba 9, see Schö ttgen or Wetstein on James 4:13. Many parallels are to be found in Philo and in Greek and Latin writers (see Wetstein), e. g. Philo, Leg. alleg. iii, 80, p. 132; Pseudo-Phocylides, 116 f.: This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ CHAPTER 5 1-6. The practical neglect of God seen in the cruelty and luxury of the rich; and the appalling issue which awaits it. 1. ἄγενῦνοἱπλούσιοι , cf. on 4:13. οἱπλούσιοι , cf. 1:10 f. 2:2-6. The chief question here is whether “ the rich,” who are attacked and warned, were Christians or not. In 1:10 f. the rich man referred to seems certainly to have been a Christian brother (see note); in 2:2 f. the rich visitor is apparently not a Christian, so “ the rich” of 2:6. In the passage before us the rich as a class are apostrophised, without reference to their religious profession, in order to make clear to the Christian readers the folly of admiring or striving after riches. Those who possess riches, runs the argument, do not present an attractive example, so soon as the real character of their possessions and prospects is understood. Like pleasure (4:1-10), so also wealth— which is sought after in order to gain pleasure— is a false aim. The tone is thus not of an appeal to evil-doers to reform (contrast 4:7-10 and even 4:13-17), but of a threatening of judgment; and the attitude ascribed to the rich is that of 2:6 f., rather than of 1:10 f.. Some of the rich may be Christians, but it is not as Christians that they are here addressed. The purpose of the verses is partly to dissuade the Christians from setting a high value on wealth, partly to give them a certain grim comfort in the hardships of poverty (cf. 5:7-11). The passage is highly rhetorical and in detail recalls the denunciations of the O. T. prophets. Many of the ideas are found in Wisd. 2, where the customary arrogance and selfishness of the rich, the transitoriness of their prosperity, and their treatment of the righteous are set forth. Luke 6:24 f. also forms a close parallel. Cf. Enoch 94:7-11, 96:4-8, 97:3-10, 98:4-16, 99:11-16, 100:6-13, 103:5-8. The only important argument for supposing these “ rich” to be Christians is that they are in form directly addressed. For a full statement of the arguments, see Zahn, Einleitung, 1, § 4. But the form is the same as that of the prophetic denunciations of foreign nations, e. g. Isaiah 13:6 (Babylon), 15:3 (Moab); cf. Mat_23 (the apostrophe against scribes and Pharisees), and the regular form of Biblical “ Woes.” κλαύσατε , “ lament.” Cf. 4:9; but there the lamentation is connected with repentance, here it is the wailing of those who ought to look forward to an assured damnation. Cf. 6:15-17 (note οἱπλούσιοι , v. 15), Joe 1:5 κλαύσατε . ὀλολύζοντες , “ with howls of mourning.” Cf. Isaiah 13:6 (against Babylon) ὀλολύζετε , ἐγγὺςγὰρἡμέρακυρίου , Isaiah 15:2, Isaiah 15:3 (against Moab) πάντεςὀλολύζετεμετὰκλαυθμοῦ , Amos 8:3 (note the following context), Zechariah 11:2, Isaiah 10:10, Isaiah 14:31 (against Philistia), 16:7 (Moab), 23:1 (Tyre), 23:1, 14 (ships of Tarshish), 65:14, Jeremiah 48:20, Ezekiel 21:12. ὀλολύζω and ἀλαλάζω both mean “ cry aloud” (onomatopoetic), and both refer in earlier secular Greek to joyful crying, or to a cry raised to the gods in worship, seldom to a mere wail of grief or pain. In the LXX ὀλολύζω is the ordinary representative of י ָ ל ַ ל and means “ howl,” especially in distress or from repentance. It is used only in the prophetic books, and nearly always in the imperative. ἀλαλάζω is the regular representative of Hebrew ר ו ּ ע ַ , except in Jeremiah, where in all the four cases of its use, 4:8, 29(47):2, 30(49):3, 32:20, it stands for י ָ ל ַ ל ; cf. also ἀλαλαγμός , Jeremiah 20:16, for י ְ ל ָ ל ָ ה . It means “ cry” — with joy, triumph, battle fury, by way of sounding alarm, or the like. Thus in the Greek O. T. there is a differentiation of meaning between the two words ὀλολύζω and ἀλαλάζω . In the N. T. ὀλολύζω only occurs once, while ἀλαλάζω is found but twice, Mark 5:36 (κλαίονταςκαὶἀλαλάζοντας , in the sense of a cry of grief), and 1 Corinthians 13:1 . The explanation of the facts seems to be that in later Greek usage ὀλολύζω took the special sense of “ cry in distress,” while ἀλαλάζω retained a wider range of meaning. ταλαιπωρίαις , “ miseries,” i. e. the sufferings of the damned, cf. vv. 7, 9, 18:7 f. 21:8, Psalms 140:10, Enoch 63:10, 99:11, 103:7. For the denunciation of future punishment against oppressors, cf. 2 Macc. 7:14, 17, 19, 35, 4 Macc. 9:9, 32, 10:11, 11:3, 23, 12:12, 19, 13:15. The reference found here by many older, and some more recent, commentators to the destruction of Jerusalem is wholly uncalled for; it is equally wrong to apply this to the distress preceding the Last Judgment; and still worse to think merely of the loss of property by the rich. ἐπερχομέναις , “ impending,” cf. Ephesians 2:7, Luke 21:26, Hermas, Vis. iii, 9; iv, 1. 2-3. Your wealth is already, to any eye that can see realities, rotten, moth-eaten, and rusted. The rust of it will testify to you in the Day of Judgment how valueless it and your confidence in it are. And the worthlessness of your wealth will then be your ruin, for you have been storing up for yourselves only the fire of hell. 2. σέσηπεν , “ has rotted,” “ is rotten,” i. e. of no value. The word is here used to apply (literally or figuratively) to every kind of wealth. On the general idea, cf. Matthew 6:19. In James it is not the perishability but the worthlessness of wealth that is referred to. The property— no matter what its earthly value, or even its earthly chance of permanence— is worthless if measured by true standards. This and the following verbs in the perfect tense are picturesque, figurative statements of the real worthlessness of this wealth to the view of one who knows how to estimate permanent, eternal values. The perfect tense is appropriately used of the present state of worthlessness. Others take the perfect tense in these verbs as describing by prophetic anticipation (cf. Isaiah 60:1) what will inevitably happen with the lapse of time. But this is unnecessary, and the change to the future in ἔσται makes it unlikely. Notice also that the mention of the “ rusting” of gold and silver points to a figurative meaning. The view taken of these perfects carries the decision for a series of exegetical problems in vv. 2, 3 which are discussed in detail in the notes. A different view can be made clear by the following paraphrase, based on Huther’ s interpretation: “ Your wealth will all perish in the Day of Judgment. The rust of it will testify to you beforehand of your own coming destruction, and the Judgment, when it has destroyed your possessions, will afterwards fall on you. You have been amassing treasure in the very days of the Judgment itself!” The idea that σέσηπενκτλ . gives the first specification of the actual sin of the rich, who show their rapacity by treasuring up wealth and letting it rot instead of using it to give to the poor or as capital to promote useful industries (“ Œ cumenius,” Calvin, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, Bengel, Theile), is needless and far-fetched. τὰἱμάτια . On garments as a chief form of wealth, cf. Matthew 6:19, Matthew 6:1 Macc. 11:24, Acts 20:33, also Hor. Ep. i, 6, lines 40-44, Quint. Curt. v, 63. σητόβρωτα , cf. HDB, “ Moth,” and EB, “ Moth.” The word is found elsewhere in the Bible only in Job 13:28 ὡςἰμάτιονσητόβρωτον . In secular Greek it has been observed only Orac. Sib. ap. Theoph. Ad Autol. ii, 36 (fragm. 3, 1. 26), σητόβρωταδέδορκε (of idol-images). Cf. Isaiah 51:8, Isaiah 50:9, Micah 7:4 (LXX), Job 32:22 (LXX). 3. κατίωται , “ rusted,” “ corroded.” The preposition κατα - has a “ perfective” force, almost like “ rusted out,” or “ rusted through,” cf. the only other Biblical instance, Ecclus. 12:11 εἰςτέλοςκατίωσεν . Hence R.V. “ utterly rusted.” See J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 111 ff. The word is found in Epict. Diss. iv, 614, but is rare. In fact, silver does not easily corrode so as to become worthless (cf., however, Ecclus. 29:10 f.), and gold not at all. On ancient knowledge of the freedom of gold from rust, see references in Wetstein. In the apparent references to the rusting of gold in Ep. Jer_11 and 24, tarnishing is probably meant. But James’ s bold figure has nothing to do with such expressions. He means that even the most permanent earthly treasure has no lasting value. “ Have rusted” is equivalent to “ are worthless,” and the writer is thinking of the present, although the present is illuminated by what he knows about the future. Cf. Chaucer, Prologue to Canterbury Tales: “ And this figure he addide yit therto, That if gold ruste, what shulde yren doo?” εἰςμαρτύριον , used in various relations in the N. T., Matthew 8:4 (Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14), 10:18, 24:14, Mark 6:11 (Luke 9:5), 13:9 (Luke 21:13), Hebrews 3:5. It seems to mean “ for a visible (or otherwise clear and unmistakable) sign.” It is derived from an O. T. expression, found in Genesis 21:30, Genesis 31:44, Deuteronomy 31:19, Deuteronomy 31:26, Joshua 24:27, in all which cases it represents ל ְ ע ֵ ד or ל ְ ע ֵ ד ָ ה , which means “ to be a sign,” or “ pledge,” or “ symbol,” usually with reference to some material object, a book, a stone, a group of animals. See also Job 16:8 (Job’ s sickness as μαρτύριον of his guilt), Micah 1:2. In Joshua 22:27, Joshua 22:28, Joshua 22:34, Rth 4:7 μαρτύριον is used in a different grammatical relation but in the same sense. In 1 Samuel 9:24, Proverbs 29:14, Hosea 2:12, Micah 7:18, εἰςμαρτύριον is found, due to a mistranslation but probably intended by the translator in the same sense. So here the rust is the visible sign and symbol of the real state of the case— of the perishability of riches and hence of the certain ruin awaiting those who have no other ground of hope. Others take εἰςμαρτύριον to mean “ for witness of your rapacity” or “ of your own coming destruction.” The latter view corresponds with that which takes the perfects σέσηπενκτλ . in a future sense as prophetic of the Judgment. ὑμῖν , “ to you,” “ giving you proof of the facts.” This is better suited to the context than “ against you,” viz. in the judicial process of the Last Day. Cf. Enoch 96:4 for parallel to this latter. φάγεταιτὰςσάρκαςὑμῶν , “ shall consume your fleshly parts,” i. e. “ the perishability of your riches will be your ruin,” “ you and your riches will perish together.” The idea is of rust corroding, and so consuming, human flesh, like the wearing into the flesh of a rusty iron chain— a terrible image for the disastrous results of treating money as the reliance and the chief aim of life. For a somewhat similar turn, cf. Ecclus. 34(31):5. φάγεται is used as future of ἐσθίω in LXX and N. T. ἐσθίω is found in secular writers of the devouring of a fire (Hom. Il. xxiii, 182), the eating of a sore (Æ sch. Philoctetes, fragm.), the effect of caustics, and the like. σάρκας . The plural is used from Homer down, also by Attic writers and Plato, in a sense not distinguishable from that of the singular. So Leviticus 26:29, 2 Kings 9:36, 2 Kings 9:4 Macc. 15:15, Revelation 17:16, 19:18, 21, Luke 24:39 (Tischendorf). ὡςπῦρἐθησαυρίσατε , “ since you have stored up fire,” i. e. the fire of Gehenna. There is a play in the word ἐθησαυρίσατε (cf. vv. 2 f.), as in Matthew 6:19; cf. a curiously similar play in Ecclus. 29:11.Proverbs 16:27 ἀνὴρἄφρωνὀρύσσειἑαυτῷκακά , ἐπὶδὲτῶνἑαυτοῦχειλέωνθησαυρίζειπῦρ . On the fire of hell, cf. Isaiah 30:33, Judith 16:17, Matthew 5:22, and see P. Volz, Jü dische Eschatologie, pp. 280 f. 285 f.; W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums2, p. 320. On ὡς with the meaning “ since,” see Lex. s. v., I, 4, b. (not quite adequate), L. and S. s. v., B, IV. ὡςπῦρ would more naturally be connected with the preceding (so WH. mg.), cf. Isaiah 30:27 καὶἡὁργὴτοῦθυμοῦὡςπῦρἔδεται . But this leaves ἐθησαυρίσατε without an object, which is impossible, unless, indeed, the text is defective and a word has dropped out. Windisch conjectures ὀργήν , cf. Romans 2:5. Syr omits ὡς and connects πῦρ with the following sentence. Latin vt and vg connect with the preceding; but a wide-spread alteration (Cod. Amiat., not Cod. Fuld.) has relieved the difficulty by adding iram after thesaurizastis. Cf. Matthew 6:19, Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22, Romans 2:5 θησαυρίζειςσεαυτῷὀργὴνἐνἡμέρᾳὀργῆς , Proverbs 1:18 (LXX), 2:7, Tob. 4:9 θέμαγὰρἀγαθὸνθησαυρίζειςσεαυτῷεἰςἡμέρανἀνάγκης , 4 Ezra 6:5, 7:77 “ a treasure of works laid up with the Most High,” Apoc. Baruch 24:1, and Charles’ s note, Test. XII Patr. Leviticus 13:5, and Charles’ s note. ἐνἐσχάταιςἡμέραις , i. e. “ which shall be in the last days.” The last days are the days of judgment, when punishment will be awarded. Cf. the same phrase in 2 Timothy 3:1 and (with the article) Acts 2:17, Didache 16:3. For the omission of the article with a superlative, cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 19. 9. Other similar phrases are τῇἐσχάτηἡμέρᾳ (John 6:39 f., etc.), ἐσχάτηὥρα (1 John 2:18), ἐνκαιρῷἐσχάτῳ (1 Peter 1:5), ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουχρόνου (Jude 1:18, etc.); see Lex. s. v. ἔσχατος , 1 and 2, a. The same expressions are found in the O. T., cf. Numbers 24:14, Deuteronomy 4:30, Isaiah 2:2, Isaiah 41:23, Jeremiah 23:20, Ezekiel 38:16, Daniel 2:28, Hosea 3:5, Hosea 3:4 Ezra 13:16. Other interpretations are possible for the last sentence of v. 3: (1) With the punctuation, as above, by which ὡςπῦρ is connected with the following, ὡς can be taken in the sense, “ as,” “ as it were.” But this is less forcible, since the writer who wrote the preceding and following denunciation would not be likely to hold back from the out-and-out threat of “ fire.” (2) ὡςπῦρ can be connected with the preceding sentence, and ἐθησαυρίσατε made to begin a new sentence (so A.V., R.V., WH. mg., following Old Latin and Vg). In that case we must read: “ The rust of them will be for a witness and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the Last Days,” etc. This makes a fairly suitable context for ὡςπῦρ . But the following sentence is left mutilated, for ἐθησαυρίσατε requires an object; and the sense is weakened. Under this interpretation the “ Last Days” have to be understood as already here. 4. As an example of the way in which the rich have been treasuring up fire for themselves, James specifies injustice to farm labourers, a conspicuous form of oppression from early O. T. times down. Cf. also v. 6. Hermas, Vis. iii, 9:6, has many points of similarity. μισθός , cf. Deuteronomy 24:15 αὐθημερὸνἀποδώσειςτὸνμισθὸναὐτοῦ … ὅτι … καταβοήσεταικατὰσοῦπρὸςκύριον , Leviticus 19:13, Malachi 3:5 τοὺςἀποστεροῦνταςμισθὸνμισθωτοῦ , Ecclus. 31(34):25-27, Tob. 4:14, Ps.-Phocylides, 19 μισθὸνμοχθήσαντιδίγου · μὴθλῖβεπένητα . ἐργατῶν , “ labourers,” especially used of farm labourers. In O. T. only Wisd. 17:17, Ecclus. 19:1, 40:18, 1 Macc. 3:6, Psalms 94:16 (Sym.). The word has thus almost no LXX associations. In the N.T., beside this passage in James it is used freely by Matthew (six times) and by Luke and Acts (five times), and four times in the Pauline and Pastoral epistles. ἀμησάντων , “ reap.” Only here in N. T. Cf. Leviticus 25:11, Deuteronomy 24:19, Isaiah 17:5, Isaiah 37:30, Micah 6:15. χώρας , “ estates,” “ farms,” cf. Luke 12:16, Luke 21:21, John 4:35, Amos 3:9, Amos 3:10, Amos 3:11, Amos 3:2 Macc. 8:6. E.V. “ fields” suggests too small a plot of ground; χώρα means not a fenced subdivision but the whole estate under one ownership. ἀφυστερημένος , “ kept back,” an appropriate word, rare in Biblical Greek. Cf. Nehemiah 9:20; used intransitively in Ecclus. 14:14. ἀφυστερημένος ] B*א . ἀπεστερημένος ] B3AP minnpler. ἀποστερημένος ] KL. The rare word found in B*א has been emended to a more familiar one, cf. Malachi 3:5, Ecclus. 4:1, 29:6, 31(34):27. ἀφ ʼ ὑμῶν , “ by you,” cf. 1:13. See Lex. s. v. ἀπό , II, 2, d. bb. col. 59b. Cf. Winer, § 47 (Thayer’ s translation, p. 371), Buttmann, § 147. 6 (Thayer’ s translation, pp. 325 f.). κράζει , cf. Deuteronomy 24:15; Genesis 4:10 (blood of Abel), 18:20 f. 19:13 (sin of Sodom), Enoch 47:1 (prayer and blood of the righteous). εἰςτὰὦτακυρίουσαβαώθ , cf. Isaiah 5:9, ἠκούσθηγὰρεἰςτὰὦτακυρίουσαβαὼθταῦτα (i. e. the aggressions of the rich), Psalms 18:7. κυρίουσαβαώθ , “ Lord of Sabaoth,” “ Lord of Hosts,” י ה ו ה צ ְ ב ָ א ו ֹ ת . This term originally referred to Jahveh as the god of the armies of Israel, then as ruler of the “ hosts of heaven,” i. e. the stars and heavenly powers. In LXX usually represented by παντοκράτωρ (see Lex. s. v.), but in all cases in Isaiah and in nine others transliterated, as here and Romans 9:29. See HDB, “ Lord of Hosts,” EB, “ Names,” Smith, DB, “ Sabaoth,” Sanday on Romans 9:29. The term is here used (after Isaiah 5:9) to suggest the almighty power and majesty of Him who will make the cause of the labourers his own, so in 3 Macc. 6:17 f.. 5. Your luxurious life on this earth is nothing in which you can take satisfaction, it is but the preliminary to a day of punishment. Cf. Luke 16:19-31 (Dives and Lazarus), Luke 6:24 f. 12:Luke 6:16-21. Cf. Enoch 98:11, 102:9. ἐτρυφήσατε , “ you have lived in luxury,” “ lived delicately” (R.V.). Derived from θρύπτω , to “ break down,” “ enervate” ; it denotes soft luxury, not necessarily wanton vice. Cf. Nehemiah 9:25 καὶἐφάγοσανκαὶἐνεπλήσθησανκαὶἐλιπάνθησανκαὶἐτρύφησαν , Ecclus. 14:4; and for τρυφή Luke 7:25, 2 Peter 2:13, Ecclus. 14:16. Cf. Hermas, Sim. vi, 1:6 τρυφῶνταἧνκαὶλίανσπαταλῶντα , Luke 16:19 εὐφραινόμενοςκαθ ʼ ἡμέρανλαμπρῶς . The aorist is “ constative” or summary (cf. J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 109), and is properly translated by the English perfect (A.V., R.V.). ἐπὶτῆςγῆς , in contrast to heaven, or the next world; ἐνἡμέρᾳσφαγῆς is the day which introduces the next world. Cf. Matthew 6:19. ἐσπαταλήσατε , “ given yourselves to pleasure.” R.V. “ taken your pleasure” is weaker than the original, and not so good as the antiquated “ been wanton” of A.V. Cf. 1 Timothy 5:6, Ecclus. 21:15. σπαταλᾶν is a less literary word than τρυφάω , having worse associations in secular use, and suggesting positive lewdness and riotousness. This word and its cognates, σπαταλός , σπατάλη , κατασπαταλάω , are each used a few times in LXX, Sym. and “ alii.” Cf. Barn. 10:3, Varro ap. Non. p. 46. 12 spatula eviravit omnes Veneri vaga pueros. Hort, pp. 107-109, assembles many instances of the word from the LXX and other sources. ἐθρέψατετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶνἐνἡμέρᾳσφαγῆς , “ you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.” This declares, with a hard, ironical turn, what has been the real nature of the τρυφᾶν and σπαταλᾶν , the life of luxurious pleasure; it is merely a fattening of the ox that he may be fit for slaughter. Cf. Jeremiah 46:21 ὥσπερμόσχοισιτευτὸιτρεφόμενοι , Xen. Mem. 2, 1:22 τεθραμμένηεἰςπολυσαρκίαν , Philo, In Flacc. 20 σιτίαμοικαὶποτὰκαθάπερτοῖςθρέμμασινἐπὶσφαγὴνδίδοται . καρδίας , i. e. the heart as the seat of pleasures, appetites, passions. See Lex. s. v. καρδία , 2. b. δ . Cf. Matthew 15:19, Luke 21:34, Acts 14:17, Psalms 104:15, Judges 19:5, Judges 19:8, Hermas, Sim. v, 3:7. ἐνἡμέρᾳσφαγῆς , “ for (i. e. so as to be fat in) the day of slaughter.” On this use of ἐν , cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:13. The rendering of A.V., R.V., “ a day of slaughter,” is wrong, cf. Romans 2:5, 1 Peter 2:12. The article is omitted, as often in compact prepositional expressions, Blass-Debrunner, § 255. Cf. Jeremiah 12:3 ἄθροισοναὐτοὺςὡςπρόβαταεἰςσφαγήν , ἅγνισοναὐτοὺςεἰςἡμέρανσφαγῆςαὐτῶν , 50:27, Isaiah 34:2, Isaiah 34:6, Ezekiel 21:15, Psalms 44:22, Orac. Sib. 5, 377-380. The Day of Judgment is meant. Cf. Enoch 94:9, “ Ye have become ready for the day of slaughter,” 98:10, 99:6, Jeremiah 25:34. Many interpreters think that ἐνἡμέρᾳσφαγῆς must refer to the time in which ἐθρέψατε has been going on. Then the sense will be: “ You have been occupied with pampering yourselves in the very day when you will be finally cut off.” But this is unnecessary, and the words become less pregnant and significant, while it is not natural to speak of the present time as if the Day of Judgment itself (near though it may be) had already come. ἐνἡμέρᾳ ] Bא *R 33 minn ff vg boh. ἐνἡμέραις ] A. ὡςἐνἡμέρᾳ ] א cKL 048 minnpler syrutr Cyr. A’ s reading is unsupported error. The prefixing of ὡς changes and weakens the sense because of failure to note the allusion to the Day of Judgment in ἡμέρασφαγῆς . This reading with ὡς is correctly enough paraphrased by aeth (ed. Platt) ut qui saginat bovem in diem mactationis. 6. By your oppression you are guilty of the blood of righteous men; do you not find them your enemies? κατεδικάσατε , “ condemned.” Cf. Matthew 12:7, Matthew 12:37, Luke 6:37. The rich are judges, or at any rate control the courts. ἐφονεύσατε , “ murdered.” Cf. 2:11, 4:2. Oppression which unjustly takes away the means of life is murder. Cf. Ecclus. 4:1, 31(34):25-27: ἄρτοςἐπιδεομένωνζωὴπτωχῶν , ὁἀποστερῶναὐτὴνἄνθρωποςαἱμάτων · φονεύωντὸνπλησίονὁἀφαιρούμενοςσυμβίωσιν , καὶἐκχέωναἷμαὁἀποστερῶνμισθὸνμισθίου . Here, however, every kind of cruel conduct leading to the death of the poor and righteous is doubtless meant, including in some cases actual murder— whether violent or judicial (e. g. the execution of Stephen). Cf. Enoch 99:15, 100:7, 103:11-15, Wisd. 2:20, Psalms 37:32, Isaiah 57:1, Matthew 23:35. τὸνδίκαιον , singular, representing the class. Cf. Isaiah 3:10, Isaiah 3:11, 57:1 , Wisd. 2:12, Enoch 95:7. The oppressed and the righteous are evidently the same persons. The rich here are not thought of as Christians. Cf. Amos 2:6, Amos 2:7, Amos 2:5:12, Amos 2:8:4, where the poor, the oppressed, and the righteous are the same. In Luke 23:47, Acts 3:14, Acts 3:7:52, Acts 3:22:14, 1 John 2:1 (cf. 1 Peter 3:18), ὁδίκαιος is used of Christ, cf. Enoch 38:2, 53:6. It is not, however, likely that Christ would here be referred to so vaguely, although his death might naturally be included in the writer’ s mind under ἐφονεύσατε . The attack is upon the rich as a class, and their misdeeds are thought of as characterising their whole history. Matthew 23:35 is an excellent parallel; cf. also the reproaches in Acts 7:51-53. οὐκἀντιτάσσεταιὑμῖν ; “ does not he resist you?” ἀντιτάσσεται (cf. James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Romans 13:2, Acts 18:6, Proverbs 3:34) evidently relates to a highly formidable resistance, and probably the witness of the poor at the Day of Judgment is meant. Cf. Enoch 91:12 (and Charles’ s note) 98:12, 104:3. In Hosea 1:6 ἀντιτάσσεσθαι is contrasted with ἐλεεῖν , to “ show mercy” ; in Proverbs 3:34 with διδόναιχάριν , “ be favourably inclined.” It seems to be used of active opposition or resistance, not of a merely hostile attitude. So Esther 3:4, Proverbs 3:15, Proverbs 3:4 Macc. 16:23 . Other interpretations of v. 6 are to be rejected: (1) If, with many interpreters, οὐκἀντιτάσσεται is taken as a positive statement instead of a question, it must probably refer to the deliberate non-resistance of the righteous on principle, as in Isaiah 53:7, 1 Peter 2:23. But (a) this sense is wholly unsuited to the context, (b) the asyndeton after δίκαιον then becomes well-nigh impossibly violent, and (c) to end this powerful passage of triumphant denunciation with a brief reference to the submissive non-resistance of the righteous would be strange indeed. (2) For this last reason the view that the meaning is, “ he offers you no effective resistance,” is almost equally unacceptable. (3) Hofmann and others take ἀντιτάσσεται as impersonal passive, “ no opposition is made,” cf. v. 15. But (Mayor) “ it is the middle, not the active, which means to resist.” (4) Some interpreters would supply ὁθεός as the subject of ἀντιτάσσεται , taking the latter interrogatively. This would be in accord with the Jewish avoidance of the name of God wherever possible, and would form an allusion to 4:6; but it seems here unnecessary and unnatural. In the interest of this last interpretation Bentley conjectured OK̄ C̄ for ΟΥΚ ; like most N. T. conjectures, it is unnecessary. (5) By those who take τὸνδίκαιον to refer to Jesus Christ, οὐκἀντιτάσσεται is interpreted either interrogatively, as a warning of the Day of Judgment (cf. Matthew 25:31 f.), or affirmatively, in the light of 1 Peter 2:23. 7-11. Encouragement to patience, and constancy, and to mutual forbearance, in view of the certainty and nearness of the Coming of the Lord, and in view of the great examples of the prophets and Job, and of their reward. With v. 7 begin the Counsels for the Christian Conduct of Life, which occupy the rest of the chapter and are contrasted with the censure of Worldliness in 4:1-5:6. 7. μακροθυμήσατε , “ be patient.” This word has more the meaning of patient and submissive, ὑπομένειν that of steadfast and constant, endurance. But the two words are nearly synonymous. Cf. 1:3 f. 12, 5:11, Colossians 1:11, Colossians 3:12 (with Lightfoot’ s notes), 1 Corinthians 13:4, 1 Corinthians 13:7, 2 Corinthians 6:4, 2 Corinthians 6:6, Hebrews 6:11 f. Hebrews 6:15, 2 Timothy 3:11. See Trench, Synonyms, § liii. μακροθυμεῖν is rare in secular Greek, but is common (as verb, noun, and adjective) in the LXX, partly with reference to God’ s attribute of long suffering (e. g. Psalms 86:15), partly in passages commending the virtue to men, e. g. Proverbs 19:11, Ecclus. 29:8, Baruch 4:25 τέκνα , μακροθυμήσατε (suffer patiently) τὴνπαρὰτοῦθεοῦἐπελθοῦσανὑμῖνὀργήν . Enoch 96:1, 3, 97:1-2, 103:1-5 are good parallels, combined, as they are, with the series of Woes to which vv. 1-6 are so closely similar. It is to be noted that the evil and hardship which are to be borne with patience, and which call out groans (v. 9), are not necessarily persecution, or unjust oppression, but may well be merely the privations, anxieties, and sufferings incident to the ordinary life of men. Note the reference to the example of Job (whose misfortunes were grievous sickness and the loss of children and property), and the special precepts about conduct in sickness, vv. 14 ff. Notice also κακοπαθεῖ , v. 13, a general word for being in trouble. οὖν presents the exhortation as a direct corollary from the declaration in vv. 1-6 that judgment awaits the rich; but the paragraph as a whole is related to the main underlying thought of 4:1-5:6, not exclusively to 5:1-6. Cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:6, 2 Thessalonians 1:7. ἀδελφοί , possibly in contrast to οἱπλούσιοι , v. 1. τῆςπαρουσίαςτοῦκυρίου , “ the coming of the Lord.” Cf. Matthew 24:3, Matthew 24:27, Matthew 24:37, Matthew 24:39, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 1 Thessalonians 3:4:15, 1 Thessalonians 3:5:23, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:3:4, 1 Corinthians 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Jn. 2:28, cf. Mark 14:62. τοῦκυρίου refers to Christ, cf. 1:1, 2:1, 5:14, 2 Peter 3:12. The word παρουσία is found but five times in the LXX (Nehemiah 2:6 (Cod. A), Judith 10:18, 2 Macc. 8:12, 15:21, 3 Macc. 3:17), and until the N. T. we do not find it used with reference to the Messiah at all. Nor does God’ s coming to redemption and judgment appear to be referred to in Jewish sources by this term. Its natural associations in such use are with the “ advent,” or visit , of Greek kings to the cities of their realm; cf. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten2, pp. 278 ff., Light from the Ancient East, pp. 372 ff., and especially Brooke’ s full note on 1 John 2:28. Test. XII Patr. Jude 1:22:2, ἕωςτῆςπαρουσίαςθεοῦτῆςδικαιοσύνης is probably a Christian addition; it is not found in the Armenian version. It refers to Christ with the naï ve patripassianism characteristic of these interpolations. The quotations given by Spitta (p. 137) from the Testament of Abraham are of Christian origin, and refer to the παρουσία of Christ (cf. Schü rer, GJV, § 32, V, 6). ἱδοὺὁγεωργός . “ The farmer has to wait, and to be patient” ; a comparison used as an argument, and introduced abruptly, as in 2:15, 3:4, 5. This comparison does not bear any special relation to the occupation of the readers. ὁγεωργός refers to the independent farmer, not to the ἐργάτης . We are here reminded of the parables of the Gospels, where the consummation of all things is repeatedly compared to a harvest, e. g. Matthew 13:30; cf. also Ecclus. 6:19, Psalms 126:5, Psalms 126:6. For the thought, cf. (Wetstein) Tibullus, 2, 6. 21 f. and the apocryphal fragment quoted in Clem. Rom. 23:3-5 and Clem. Romans 11:2-4. τὸντίμιονκαρπόν , “ the precious crop” for which he longs. τίμιος is added in order to make the comparison complete. ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ , “ over it,” “ with reference to it.” Cf. the use of ἐπὶ with παρακαλεῖν , “ console,” in 2 Corinthians 1:4, 1 Thessalonians 3:7, and with μετανοεῖν , 2 Corinthians 12:21; also the more general use, John 12:15, Revelation 22:16. ἕωςλάβῃ sc. ὁκαρπός . So R.V. A.V. and R.V. mg., with some interpreters, supply “ the farmer” as subject. πρόϊμον ] Β 048 (minnpauc) vg sah. ὑετὸνπρόϊμον ] ΑΚ (LP minnpler) syrpesh syrhcl. txt. καρπὸντὸνπρόϊμον ] א * min ff syrhcl. mg boh. The shortest reading is to be preferred; the others represent two different methods of completing a supposedly defective text. It should be stated that B3KL minnpler read πρώϊμον , the more usual form of the word. Another possibility would be that the Syrian reading with ὑετόν , which clearly gives the best sense, is original; and either (1) that ὑετόν was accidentally omitted, so as to produce the text of B, and by a secondary conjecture that of א , or else (2) that for ὑετόν , not understood outside of Palestine and Syria, καρπόν was directly substituted, so that the editor of the text of B, having to choose between two rival readings, cut the knot by refusing to accept either. But against this stands the weight of the external testimony to the omission, together with the argument from the shorter reading. In any case the reading καρπόν is secondary. πρόϊμονκαὶὄψιμον sc. ὑετόν , “ the early and late rain.” On the ellipsis, to which there is no complete parallel, cf. 3:11. To fill the ellipsis, καρπόν is sometimes supplied from the preceding (so many interpreters from Cassiodorius to Spitta), and then the reference will perhaps be to the succession of barley and wheat, Exodus 9:31 f.; cf. Stephanus, Thesaur. s. v. πρώϊμος ; Geoponica, i, 12:32, 37, with similar distinction of οἱπρώϊμοικαρποὶκαὶοἱὄψιμοι … οἱδὲμέσοι ; Xen. Œ c. 17:4. The sentence would then mean, “ until he receive it early and late,” and would emphasise the continuance of the farmer’ s anxiety until all the harvests are complete. But this does not well suit the comparison with the Parousia, where it is the event itself, not the completion of a series of processes, that is significant. Moreover, the O. T. parallels tell strongly against this interpretation, and there is no evidence that such a distinction had any place in popular usage. The use of these terms for the two critical periods of rain is found in Deuteronomy 11:14, Jeremiah 5:24, Joe 2:23, Zechariah 10:1 (LXX); cf. Jeremiah 3:3, Hosea 6:3. The comparison is drawn from a matter of intense interest, an habitual subject of conversation, in Palestine. The “ early rain” normally begins in Palestine in late October or early November, and is anxiously awaited because, being necessary for the germination of the seed, it is the signal for sowing. In the spring the maturing of the grain depends on the “ late rain,” light showers falling in April and May. Without these even heavy winter rains will not prevent failure of the crops. Thus the farmer is anxious, and must exercise μακροθυμία , until both these necessary gifts of Heaven are assured. The special anxiety about these rains seems to be characteristic of the climate of Palestine and southern Syria, as distinguished from other portions of the subtropical region of the Mediterranean basin. Elsewhere, although the dry season and rainy season are quite as well marked, the critical fall and spring months are pretty certain to secure a sufficient rainfall, as in Italy, or else there is no hope of rain in them, as in northern Egypt in the spring. But in Syria these rains are usual yet by no means uniform or certain; hence only there do they take so prominent a place in the life and thought of everybody. See J. Hann, Handbuch der Klimatologie 3, iii, 1911, pp. 90-96, especially the instructive tables, pp. 12 f., 93; H. Hilderscheid, “ Die Niederschlagsverhä ltnisse Palä stinas in alter und neuer Zeit,” in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palä stinavereins, xxv, 1902, especially pp. 82-94; E. Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation, 1911; EB, “ Rain.” It is instructive to observe that the v. l. ὑετόν belongs to the “ Syrian” (Antiochian) text, the framers of which were familiar with a similar climate, while in Egypt καρπόν (א boh, etc.) or else the shorter reading with no noun at all (B sah) was prevalent. The reading καρπόν (or the corresponding interpretation) was likewise natural from the point of view of Italy and the western Mediterranean (ff Cassiodorius). The question arises whether this may be a purely literary allusion, drawn from the O. T. passages and made without any personal knowledge of these rains and their importance. That is made unlikely by the absence of any other relation here (apart from the names of the two rains) to the language or thought of any one of the O. T. passages. The author uses a current phrase as if he were himself familiar with the matter in question. To suppose that to him and his readers this was a mere Biblical allusion to a situation of which they knew only by literary study would give a formal stiffness and unreality to the passage wholly out of keeping with the intensity and sincerity of the writer’ s appeal. The resemblance here to the O. T. is in fact less close than to the tract Taanith of the Mishna, where the date is discussed at which, if rain have not yet begun, it should be prayed for. The tract shows in many ways how deeply these seasons of rain entered into all the life of the people. See also JE, “ Rain.” The Apostolic Fathers and the apologists contain no reference to these terms for the rains of Palestine, and the names do not seem in any way to have become part of the early Christian religious vocabulary. 8. καί , as often in comparisons. Cf. John 6:57, Matthew 6:10, 1 Corinthians 15:49, Philippians 1:20; οὕτωςκαί , James 1:11, James 3:5. στηρίξατετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν , “ make your courage and purpose firm.” Cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:13, Psalms 112:8, Ecclus. 6:37, 22:16, Judges 19:5, Judges 19:8. στηρίζειν is common in N. T., cf. 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Thessalonians 2:17, Luke 22:32, Acts 18:23, Romans 1:11, etc. ἤγγικεν , cf. 1 Peter 4:7, Mark 1:15, Matthew 3:2. 9. μὴστενάζετεκατ ʼ ἀλλήλων , “ do not groan against one another.” στενάζειν does not mean “ murmur,” but “ groan,” “ complain of distress,” cf. Hebrews 13:17. It is frequently used in the LXX for the utterance of various kinds of pain and grief. The more emphatic words here are κατ ʼ ἀλλήλων , and the sentence means: “ Do not blame one another for the distress of the present soon-to-be-ended age.” This, it is pointed out, is both wicked and needless . We ought to cultivate patience in general, and we ought not to blame one another for our unmerited distress, for we should recognise that it is part of the inevitable and temporary evil of the present age. The translation “ grudge” (A.V.) means “ complain” ; cf. Psalms 59:15 (A.V.), Shakespeare, 1. Henry VI, iii, 1, 176. ἵναμὴκριθῆτε . They are themselves in danger of judgment, if they commit the sin of complaining of their brethren. Cf. 2:12 f. 4:12, 5:12, also Matthew 7:1 (but there is here in James nothing of the idea that judging brings Judgment). As in 4:12, so probably here, God is the judge, and with the coming of the Lord (i. e. Christ), v. 7, God’ s judgment appears; cf. Romans 2:16. The sentence means hardly more than “ for that is wrong,” cf. v. 12. πρὸτῶνθυρῶν , cf. Mark 13:29, Matthew 24:33. 10. ὑπόδειγμαλάβετε , “ take as an example.” Cf. Ecclus. 44:16,, 2 Macc. 6:28, 31, 4 Macc. 17:23, John 13:15; 1 Peter 2:21, ὑπόγραμμον . τῆςκακοπαθίαςκαὶτῆςμακροθυμίας , “ of hardship coupled with patience,” i. e. “ of patience in hardship,” easily understood as a form of hendiadys. Cf. 4 Macc. 9:8 διὰτῆσδετῆςκακοπαθίαςκαὶὑπομονῆς , “ through this patient endurance of hardship.” κακοπαθία and κακοπαθέω are somewhat rare words; they correspond well to English “ hardship.” Cf. Malachi 1:13, Jonah 4:10, Jonah 4:2 Macc. 2:26 f., Ep. Arist. 49:26, also Sym. in Genesis 3:17, Psalms 12:5, Psalms 16:4, Psalms 127:2. τοὺςπροφήτας . Cf. Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:23:34, Matthew 5:37, Acts 7:52, Hebrews 11:33, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, Luke 11:49, 2 Chronicles 36:16. It is noteworthy that the example of Christ’ s endurance of suffering is not here referred to, as it is in 1 Peter 2:21 ff. οἳἐλάλησανἐντῷ͂ὀνόματικυρίου . Cf. Daniel 9:6 (Theod.) οἳἐλάλουνἐντῷὀνόματίσου , Jeremiah 20:9, Jeremiah 44:16. οἳἐλάλησανκτλ . is added in order to point out that even the most eminent servants of God have been exposed to suffering and hardship, cf. Matthew 5:12. ἐντῷὀνόματι ] BP minnmulti. ἐνὀνόματι ] א . ἐπὶτῷὀνόματι ] min. τῷὀνόματι ] AKL 048 minnpler. Difficult to decide; external authority is here against lectio brevior. 11. μακαρίζομεντοὺςὑπομείναντας . Cf. 1:3, 12, Daniel 12:12 μακάριοςὁὑπομένων , 4 Macc. 1:10, 7:22, εἰδὼςὅτιτὸδιὰτὴνἀρετὴνπάνταπόνονὑπομένεινμακάριόνἐστιν , Matthew 24:13. μακαρίζομεν refers to the prevalent habitual estimate of the worth of constancy. It sounds as if James had in mind some well-known saying like Daniel 12:12. τοὺςὑπομείναντας , “ those who have proved themselves constant” — a general class, not specific individuals. τοὺςὑπομείναντας ] Bא AP minn ff vg syrpesh.hcl. τοὺςὑπομένοντας ] KL 048 minnpler sah. External evidence must decide; the meaning differs by only a shade. τὴνὑπομονὴνἸώβ . This virtue was seen in Job’ s refusal to renounce God, Job 1:21 f. Job 1:2:9 f. Job 1:13:15, Job 16:19, Job 19:25 ff. It had evidently already become a standing attribute of Job in the popular mind; in Tanchuma, 29. 4 (Schö ttgen, Horae hebraicae, pp. 1009 f.) Job is given as an example of steadfastness in trial and of the double reward which that receives. Cf. Clem. Rom. 17:3, 26:3, 2 Clem. Romans 6:8; this verse is the only mention of Job in the N. T., and has doubtless given rise to the modern saying, “ as patient as Job.” ἠκούσατε . Perhaps in the synagogue; cf. Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:43. τὸτέλοςκυρίου , “ the conclusion wrought by the Lord to his troubles.” Cf. Job 42:10-17, especially v. 12 ὁδὲκύριοςεὐλόγησετὰἔσχαταἸώβ . τὸτέλοςκυρίου is taken by Augustine, Bede, and many later interpreters to mean the death of Christ. But in that case not the mere death, but the triumph over death, would have had to be made prominent. The suggestion is at variance both with what precedes and with what follows; and the death of Christ is not likely to be introduced so ambiguously. “ If τέλος is supposed to refer to the Resurrection and Ascension, the main point of the comparison (suffering) is omitted: if it refers to the Crucifixion, the encouragement is wanting” (Mayor). τέλος sometimes means “ death,” as Wisd. 3:19, cf. 2:16 μακαρίζειἔσχαταδικαίων . But it is not necessary to give it that meaning here. εἴδετε , i. e. in the story of Job. Cf. Hebrews 3:19, Test. XII Patr. Benj. 4:1 ἴδετεοὖν , τέκναμου . τοῦἀγαθοῦἀνδρὸςτὸτέλος . πολύσπλαγχνόςἐστινὁκύριοςκαὶοἰκτίρμων . Cf. Psalms 103:8 , 111:4, 145:8, Exodus 34:6, Ecclus. 2:7-11, Ps. Sol. 10:8, Test. XII Patr. Jude 1:19:3, Zab. 9:7. πολύσπλαγχνος means “ very kind.” Apart from far later Christian use (e. g. Theod. Stud. p. 615, eighth century) it is elsewhere found only in Hermas, Sim. v, 7 4, Mand. iv, 3. Cf. πολυσπλαγχνία , Hermas, Vis. i, 3:2, ii, 2:8, iv, 2:3, Mand. ix, 2, Justin Mart. Dial. 55; πολυεύσπλαγχνος , Hermas, Sim. v, 4:4; πολυευσπλαγχνία , Hermas, Sim. viii, 6:1. It seems to be equivalent to LXX πολυέλεος . Like other words from σπλάγχνα it must be of Jewish origin. This group of words is rather more strongly represented in the N. T. than in the LXX, and seems to have come into free popular use in the intervening period. οἰκτίρμων , “ merciful.” In classical Greek only a poetic term for the more common ἐλεήμων (Schmidt, Synonymik der griech. Sprache, iii, p. 580). Frequent in the LXX for ר ַ ח ֲ מ ִ י ם ; nearly always used of God; in the majority of cases combined with ἐλεήμων . Cf. Luke 6:36. 12-18. Do not break out into oaths. Instead, if in distress, pray; if well off, sing a psalm to God; if sick, ask for prayer and anointing, and confess your sins. Prayer is a mighty power; remember Elijah’ s prayer. The exhortation relating to oaths appears to be parallel with μὴστενάζετε . “ Do not put the blame for your hardships on your brethren: do not irreverently call upon God in your distress.” Vv. 12-18 all relate to the religious expression of strong emotion. 12. πρὸπάντωνδέ , “ but especially,” emphasising this as even more important than μὴστενάζετε . For the use of this formula near the end of a letter, cf. 1 Peter 4:8, and see examples from papyri quoted in Robinson, Ephesians, p. 279. μὴὀμνύετε . A reminiscence of Mat 5:34-37 (note especially v. 37 and the reference to οὐρανός and γῆ in vv. 34 f.). τὸνοὐρανόν . The accusative is the ordinary classical construction after ὄμνυμι ; ἐν with the dative, as found in Matthew is a Hebraism. ἤτω , for ἔστω . See references in Lex. and Winer-Schmiedel, § 14:1, note; also Mayor’ s note, p. 167, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 56. ἤτωδὲὑμῶντὸναὶναί , “ let your yea be yea” (and nothing more). This is simpler, and in every way better, than to translate, “ Let yours be the ‘ Yea, yea,’ ” i. e. the mode of speech commanded by the Lord in Matthew 5:37. It is not to be supposed that James had in mind any question of the lawfulness of oaths in a law-court in a Jewish or Christian country. To any oriental such a saying as this, or Matthew 5:37, would at once suggest ordinary swearing, not the rare and solemn occasions about which modern readers have been so much concerned. The commentators are divided on this point. Huther (Beyschlag) names many who hold that James meant to forbid all oaths, but a still larger number who think that only frivolous swearing was in his mind. Huther’ s own argument is that if he had meant to forbid serious oaths he would have had to mention explicitly the oath by the name of God. The form here differs from that of the saying in Matthew 5:37 ἔστωδὲὁλόγοςὑμῶνναὶναί , and it is a singular fact that the words of Jesus are quoted substantially in the form found in James by many early writers, including Justin Martyr, Apol. i, 16, Clem. Alex. Strom. v, 14, 99, p. 707, vii, 11, 67, p. 872. The form in James is simpler and seems to correspond to a current Jewish mode of describing truthfulness. Similar language is found in Ruth rabba 3, 18, “ With the righteous is their ‘ yes,’ yes, and their ‘ no,’ no,” ascribed to R. Huna († 297 a.d.), quoting his contemporary R. Samuel bar-Isaac, and doubtless independent of the N. T. The fact probably is that at an early date the text of Mat 5:37 was in the East either modified or misquoted by the influence of the more familiar current phrase, which also appears in James. In the later quotations, however, direct influence from James 5:12 is very likely to have come in. The theory that we have here in James and in these early writers the traces of an oral form of the sayings of Jesus preserved independently of Matthew’ s Greek gospel is unlikely, and unnecessary. For a convenient presentation of the facts, see A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, ii, Matthaeus und Marcus, 1894 (Texte und Unters. x), pp. 96 f. The commonness of oaths (often half-serious, half-profane) in daily speech in the ancient world, both Jewish and Gentile, does not need to be illustrated, cf. Ecclesiastes 9:2. The censure of the moralists seems to have proceeded both from the tendency to untruthfulness which made an oath seem needed (and which it intensified), from the dishonest distinctions between the valid and the invalid oath, and from the irreverence of profanity . To these motives should be added the dread among the Greeks of an oath which might commit to unexpected obligations perhaps tragic in their result. From Jewish sources there are consequently many sayings recommending either complete abstinence from swearing or at least the greatest possible restriction of the custom. Thus Ecclus. 23:9-11, 27:14. Philo discusses oaths in De decal. 17-19, and De spec. leg. ii, 1-6. His principle is that oaths are to be avoided when possible, that oaths should be taken by lower objects rather than by “ the highest and eldest Cause,” and he praises the man who by any evasion avoids the utterance of the sacred words of oaths. His abhorrence of oaths is due to their profane impiety and unseemliness, but he also lays stress on truthfulness and on the wickedness of false swearing and of swearing to do wrong. Rabbinical teaching was to much the same effect, with varying degrees of rigour. Nedarim 20 a, “ Accustom not thyself to vows, for sooner or later thou wilt swear false oaths” ; Midrash Bemidbar r. 22, “ Not even to confirm the truth is it proper for one to swear, lest he come to trifle with vows and swearing, and deceive his neighbour by oaths” ; Midrash Wajjikra r. 6 (cf. Shebuoth 47 a), where all swearing is forbidden. See A. Wü nsche, Neue Beiträ ge zur Erlä uterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1878, pp. 57-60, and E. Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen, 1905, pp. 54-56. In particular the Essenes refrained from oaths; Josephus, BJ, ii, 8 6: “ Every statement of theirs is surer than an oath; and with them swearing is avoided, for they think it worse than perjury. For they say that he who is untrustworthy except when he appeals to God, is already under condemnation,” cf. Ant. xv, 10 4. Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, 12, mentions among the doctrines of the Essenes τὸἀνώμοτον , τὸἀψευδές . Similar reasons led to the discouragement of oaths by Greek moralists. Pythagoras himself is said (Diog. Laert, Pythag. 22, Jamblichus, Vita Pythag. 9 and 28) to have taught μηδ ʼ ὀμνύναιθεούς , ἀσκεῖνγὰραὑτὸνδεῖνἀξιόπιστονπαρέχειν , and this was certainly a principle of the Pythagoreans. See also Diodor. Sic. x, fragm. 92. From the Stoic side comes the saying of Epictetus, Enchir. 335, ὅρκονπαραίτησαι , εἰμὲνοἷόντε , εἰςἅπαν , εἰδὲμή , ἐκτῶνἐνόντων , and that of the Stoically influenced Eusebius, in Stobæ us, Anthol. iii, 27, 13 οἱπολλοὶτοῖςἀνθρώποισιτὸεὐόρκουςεἶναιαὐτοῖςπαραινέουσιν , ἐγὼδὲκαὶτὸἀρχὴνμηδ ʼ εὐπετέωςὀμνύναιὅσιονἀποφαίνομαι . For other Greek sayings, cf. Chœ rilus of Samos (fourth century b.c.), ὅρκονδ ʼ οὐτ ʼ ἄδικονχρεὼνὀμνύναιοὔτεδίκαιον (in Stobæ us, Anthol. iii, 27, 1); Menander, Sent. sing. 441 ὅρκονδὲφεῦγεκαὶδικαίωςκἀδίκως ; the statement of Nicolaus Damascenus (Stob. Anth. iv, 2, 25), Φρύγεςὅρκοιςοὐχρῶνται , οὐτ ʼ ὀμνύντες , οὔτεἄλλουςἐξορκοῦντες ; Sosiades’ maxims of the Seven Sages, in Stobæ us, Anthol. iii, 1, 173 ὅρκῳμὴχρῶ . See R. Hirzel’ s excellent monograph, Der Eid, 1902; L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 1882, ii, pp. 1-11; references in Mayor and Wetstein on Matthew 5:37; Stobæ us, Anthol. iii, c, 27 Περὶὅρκου . With early Christian writers the objection to oaths was further increased by reason of the necessary association with heathen worship and formulas. The subject is discussed by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine. See references in Mayor, K. F. Stä udlin, Geschichte der Vorstellungen und Lehren vom Eide, 1824, “ Oaths,” in DCA. ἵναμὴὑπὸκρίσινπέσητε , cf. v. 9, with the same meaning. ὑπὸκρίσιν ] Bא A minn ff vg boh sah syrutr. εἰςκρίσιν ] minn2. εἰςὑπόκρισιν ] KLP 048 minnmulti. The reading of KLP is a superficial emendation. 13-15. The negative precepts for behaviour under the trials of earthly existence are followed by positive precepts for the conduct of life in the shifting scenes of this world. In trouble and joy, and in sickness, the first thought and the controlling mood should be Prayer. 13. κακοπαθεῖτις ; “ is any in trouble?” Cf. note on κακοπαθίας , v. 10; the word refers to calamity of every sort, and is not to be limited to the opposite of εὐθυμία . These short sentences, with question and answer, are characteristic of the diatribe; cf. Teles, ed. Hense2, p. 10. See Introduction, p. 12. εὐθυμεῖτις ; “ is any in good spirits?” εὐθυμεῖν , εὐθυμία are not found in LXX, εὔθυμος only in 2 Macc. 11:26. In the N. T. they are found elsewhere only in Acts 24:10, Acts 24:27:22, Acts 24:25, 36— in both cases in passages of a distinctly Hellenic character. ψαλλέτω , “ let him sing a hymn.” Cf. Ephesians 5:19, Romans 15:9, 1 Corinthians 14:15; ψαλμός , 1 Corinthians 14:26, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16. Properly “ play the harp,” hence frequent in O. T., especially in Psalms (forty times), for ז ָ מ ַ ר , “ sing to the music of a harp,” e. g. Psalms 7:17, Psalms 98:4. But the word does not necessarily imply the use of an instrument. 14. ἀσθενεῖτις ; “ is any sick?” Cf. Matthew 10:8, John 4:46, Acts 9:37, Philippians 2:26 f. τοὺςπρεσβυτέρουςτῆςἐκκλησίας , definite officers, not merely the elder men in general, cf. Acts 20:17. Presbyters as church officers are mentioned in the N. T. in Acts 11:30, Acts 11:14:23, Acts 11:15:4, Acts 11:6, Acts 11:22, Acts 11:23, Acts 11:16:4, Acts 11:20:17, Acts 11:21:18, 1 Timothy 5:1, 1 Timothy 5:2, 1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Timothy 5:19 (?), Titus 1:5, 1 Peter 5:1 (?), 3 John 1:1. Jewish villages also had presbyters. On the origin and history of the Christian office of presbyter, see EB, “ Presbyter,” “ Bishop,” “ Ministry” ; HDB, “ Bishop,” “ Church,” “ Church Government,” “ Presbytery.” The solemn visit here described gives a vivid picture of the customs of a Jewish town. James recommends it not as anything new, nor as excluding all other therapeutic methods. Visiting the sick (cf. Matthew 25:36) was enjoined by the rabbis: Nedarim 39, “ He who visits the sick lengthens his life, and he who refrains shortens it” ; cf. Sanhedrim 101, 1 (Wetstein), where R. Elieser is visited in sickness by four rabbis; Shabbath 127 b; Sota 14 a. See Edersheim, Jewish Social Life, pp. 167 f.; S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, second series, Philadelphia, 1908, pp. 99 f. and note 42, p. 311. The following interesting passages have been brought to the attention of N. T. scholars by the aid of Dr. S. Schechter (see Fulford, St. James, pp. 117 f.): Samachoth Zutarti (ed. Chaim M. Horowitz, Uralte Tosefta’ s, Mainz, 1890, pp. 28-31), “ From the time when a man takes to his bed, they come to him and say, ‘ Words neither revive one, nor do they kill.’ [After exhorting the sick man to set his worldly affairs in order, as Isaiah did Hezekiah, 2 Kings 20:1, if he sees that the sick man is dangerously ill, the visitor says], ‘ Confess before thou diest, for there are many who have confessed and died not; others who did not confess have died. Again perhaps on the merit of thy confession thou wilt recover.’ If he can confess with his mouth, he does so. If not, he confesses in his heart. Both the man who confesses with his mouth and the man who confesses in his heart are alike, provided that he directs his mind to God and his understanding is clear.” T. B. Shabbath 13 b, “ He who comes to a sick man says, ‘ May the Lord have mercy on you.’ ” “ He who comes to pay a visit to a sick man must not sit on a bed or on a chair; but let him wrap his mantle round him, and pray the mercy of God for the man. There is a divine presence at the head of the sick man.” Closely like the verse in James is Baba bathra 116 a, “ Let him into whose house calamity or sickness has come, go to a wise man (i. e. a rabbi) that he may intercede for him with God.” ἐκκλησίας , cf. note on συναγωγήν , 2:2, and EB, “ Church.” προσευξάσθωσαν . Cf. Ecclus. 38:9, 14. ἀλείψαντεςἐλαίῳ , cf. Mark 6:13. The aorist participle does not imply that the anointing is to precede the prayer; cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 139-141; Blass-Debrunner, § 339; Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 130-132. The Jews, as well as other ancient peoples, used oil as a common remedial agent. In many cases, doubtless, the application had therapeutic value; often, however, in the lack of scientific knowledge it must (like many other remedies, ancient and modern) have owed its efficacy wholly to influence on the patient’ s mind. Cf. Isaiah 1:6, Luke 10:34, and the evidence collected by Mayor; and see “ Oil” and “ Anointing,” in EB, and HDB Galen, Med. temp. ii, calls oil “ The best of all remedies for paralysis (τοῖςἐξηραμμένοιςκαὶαὐχμώδεσισώμασιν .)” Talm. Jerus. in Berakoth 3. 1, “ R. Simeon, the son of Eleazar, permitted R. Meir to mingle wine and oil and to anoint the sick on the Sabbath. And he was once sick, and we sought to do so to him, but he suffered us not.” Talm. Jerus. in Maasar Sheni 53. 3, “ A tradition: Anointing on the Sabbath is permitted. If his head ache, or if a scall comes upon it, he anoints it with oil.” Talm. Bab. in Joma 77. 2, “ If he be sick, or scall be upon his head, he anoints according to his manner.” Talm. Jerus. in Shab. 14. 3, “ A man that one charmeth, he putteth oil upon his head and charmeth.” With these Jewish ideas may be compared the notion of the oil which flows from the tree of life in paradise and bestows physical and spiritual blessings (Apoc. Mos. 9, Vita Adae et Evae 36, Evang. Nicod. 19). This use of oil for healing was combined with the appeal to spiritual forces, as we can see in James 5:14 and as is hinted in Mark 6:13. The reference in James is to an accepted popular custom, and the writer would hardly have been able to distinguish the parts played in the recovery by the two elements, or perhaps even to give any theory of the function of the oil. It is possible, as has often been suggested, that one motive for James’ s exhortation is to counteract the habit of seeking aid from superstitious, often heathenish, incantations and charms. The verse is often quoted to that end by later Christian writers (see references infra). The same therapeutic use of oil (oleum infirmorum) in combination with religious rites continued in the earlier centuries of the Christian era, and is there, as among the Hebrews, carefully to be distinguished from that anointing (oleum catechumenorum, chrisma principale, etc.) which was the symbol of the conveyance of a character or grace. The story told by Tertullian (Ad Scapulam, 4) is often quoted: “ Even Severus himself, the father of Antoninus, was graciously mindful of the Christians; for he sought out the Christian Proculus, surnamed Torpacion, the steward of Euhodias, and, in gratitude for his having once cured him by anointing, he kept him in his palace till the day of his death.” Besides this case Puller, Anointing of the Sick, has collected a large number of narratives of cures through the administration of holy oil, written at various dates from the third to the seventh century, and attested by contemporary or nearly contemporary evidence. Many of them are cases of paralysis or blindness, and may well have been of an hysterical nature (see P. Janet, The Major Symptoms of Hysteria, 1907). During this period of church history it does not appear that the therapeutic anointing with oil was generally thought of as also having spiritual efficacy. Origen, Hom. ii in Lev_4, uses the passage in James to illustrate the remission of sin through penitence, but seems to pay no attention to the reference to anointing. Likewise Chrysostom, De sacerd. iii, 6, quotes James to prove the authority of priests to forgive sins, but seems to take no thought of the anointing. Other writers also make it plain that they think of the oil merely as a means of securing bodily health. The value in the Christian church of such a popular substitute for pagan magic was felt at this time. Cyril of Alexandria, De adorat. in spir. et ver. vi, p. 211, urges his readers to avoid the charms and incantations of magicians, and fittingly quotes James 5:13-15, and likewise Cæ sarius of Arles more than once quotes the verses on occasions when he is warning his people against the common recourse to sorcerers and superstitions, instead of which he recommends the consecrated oil. Cf. Append. serm. S. Augustini, serm. 265, 3, Migne, vol. xxxix, col. 2238, and serm. 279, 5, col. 2273; also the Venerable Bede, Exposit. super div. Jacob. epist., Migne, vol. xciii, col. 39. From the fourth century on there are Greek and other oriental liturgies containing forms for blessing the holy oil, for instance in one of the oldest, the Sacramentary of St. Serapion (fourth century, Egypt), ed. Brightman, Journal of Theol. Studies, i, 1899-1900, pp. 108, 267 f. The Latin forms are to the same effect. During these centuries the therapeutic use of oil consecrated by a bishop or a priest or a wonder-working saint was permitted to any person without distinction. The letter of Pope Innocent I to Decentius (Ep. 25, 8, Migne, vol. xx, cols. 560 f.), dated March 19, 416, says that sick believers “ have the right to be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, which, being consecrated by the bishop, it is lawful not for the priests only, but for all Christians to use for anointing in case of their own need or that of members of their household.’ Before the end of the eighth century, however, a change came about in the West, whereby the use of oil was transformed into an anointing of those about to die, not as a means to their recovery, but with a view to the remission of their sins, and in connection with the giving of the viaticum. How far the change in the church may have been influenced by coexisting popular customs and ideas, which now forced themselves into legitimate usage, is not known. For instance, Irenæ us, i, 215, says that the gnostic Marcosii anointed the dying with oil and water as a protection of their souls against the hostile powers of the spirit-world. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/