III. WORLDLINESS AND THE CHRISTIAN CONDUCT OF LIFE CONTRASTED (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 (πόθεν) 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 ἐν ὑμῖν, 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 (τὸν ἐν εἰρήνῃ συνεχῆ πόλεμον ἀνθρώπων), 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 ἀδελφοί μου.

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 μάχας ἐν λόγοις ποιεῖσθαι, Epict. Diss. i, 11:18, ii, 12:14, iii, 12:12, iv.5:2.

ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν, “because you make pleasures your aim,” δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις (Titus 3:3). Over against pleasure as the great end stands submission to God (v. 7).

τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μελεσιν, “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, Phœdo, 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 prœm. et pœn. 3 καταπεφρόνηκεν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν, 4 Macc. 1:22 πρὸ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἡδονῆς ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία, 5:23; Stobæus, ii, 7, 10 (ed. Wachsmuth, p. 88) ἡδονὴν μὲν [ἐπιγίγνεσθαι] ὅταν τυγχάνωμεν ὧν ἐπεθυμοῦμεν ἢ ἐκφύγωμεν ἃ ἐφοβούμεθα. The underlying conception is the same as in Jam 1:14, although no explicit reference to ἡδονή is there made.

On ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν, 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 πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι. Ungratified desire leads to φόνος; zeal for pleasure unable to reach its end, to μάχη and πόλεμος.

οὐκ ἔχετε διά] BAKL minn vgfu.

καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε διά] אR minn ff vgam boh syrutr.

οὐκ ἔχετε δὲ διά] minn. So Textus Receptus.

The short reading is probably original.

Under the reading adopted, the last clause, οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς, 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, καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε· φονεύετε. καὶ ζηλοῦτε, καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν· μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε.

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 (φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε, καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν, 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 φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε (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 ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε 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 μὴ γίνου ὀργίλος· ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ὀργὴ πρὸς τὸν φόνον· μηδὲ· ζηλωτὴς μηδὲ ἐριστικὸς μηδὲ θυμικός· ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων φόνοι γεννῶνται; cf. also Clem. Romans 4:7, Romans 4:9, quoted below, Test. XII Patr. Sim. 3:3 πάντοτε [ὁ- φθόνος] ὑποβάλλει ἀνελεῖν τὸν φθονούμενον. 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., Jam 5:6 ἐφονεύσατε, 1 Peter 4:15 φονεύς, Ecclus. 34:22.

καὶ ζηλοῦτε, καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν· μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε.

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 πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι (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 Matthew 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 πᾶς ὁ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστίν 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.

καὶ ζηλοῦτε. 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 ὁ μὲν δόξης ἐπιθυμεῖ καὶ τοῦτο ἐζήλωκε. 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 Jam 3:14. In secular use the meanings are developed on two sides, desire to surpass (“emulation,” “rivalry”) 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” (so R.V.; A.V. “desire to have”), 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.

μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε, 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 (ἐπιθυμεῖν), knowing desire (τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν) to be productive of revolution and addicted to plots. For all the passions of the soul (τὰ ψυχῆς πάθη) 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 (ἐπιθυμία) either for money or glory or pleasure. Over these things the human race goes mad.”

Ibid. 32, M. p. 208 πέμπτον δὲ [i. e. the fifth commandment of the second table] τὸ ἀνεῖργον τὴν τῶν ἀδικημάτων πηγήν, ἐπιθυμίαν, ἀφʼ ἡς ῥέουσιν αἱ παρανομώταται πράξεις, ἴδιαι καὶ κοιναί, μικραὶ καὶ μεγάλαι, ἱεραὶ καὶ βέβηλοι, περί τε σώματα καὶ ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα ἐκτός· διαφεύγει γὰρ οὐδέν, ὡς καὶ πρότερον ἐλέχθη, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν, ἀλλʼ οἷα φλὸξ ἐν ὕλῃ νέμεται δαπανῶσα πάντα καὶ φθείρουσα.

Philo, De Josepho, 11, M. p. 50; De posteritate Cain. i, 34, M. pp. 247 f.; De migratione Abr. 12; Lucian, Cynic. 15, πάντα γὰρ τὰ κακὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐκ τῆς τούτων ἐπιθυμίας φύονται, καὶ στάσεις καὶ πόλεμοι καὶ ἐπιβουλαὶ καὶ σφαγαί. ταυτὶ πάντα πηγὴν ἔχει τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τοῦ πλείονος; 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, Phœdo, p. 66 C καὶ γὰρ πολέμους καὶ στάσεις καὶ μάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο παρέχει ἢ τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἱ τούτου ἐπιθυμίαι.

See note on 1:14, and cf. Wendland and Kern, Beiträge zur Geschichte der griech. Philosophie und Religion, pp. 36-37; J. Drummond, Philo Judæus, 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 (λογισμός) and sound principles (φιλοσοφία) 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.

οὐκ ἔχετε returns to the matter of the unsatisfied desire (ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε) 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 ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ἡδονῶν, 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 οὐκ ἔχετε is not thought of as the result of μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε.

διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς. The ὑμᾶς is unnecessary, but not emphatic. Cf. 1:18, 4:15. αἰτεῖσθαι here means prayers to God.

3. αἰτεῖτε, cf. Jam 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 μετʼ ἱκεσίας or μετὰ παρακλήσεως 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 Schöttgen on Jam 4:3.

The promises are that the prayers of the righteous and the penitent will be heard; cf. Psalm 34:15-17, Psalm 145:18, Proverbs 10:24, Ps. Song of Solomon 6:6, Luke 18:9-14, Jam 1:6 ff., 1 John 5:14, Hermas, Sim. iv, 6.

ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑμῶν δαπανήσητε. “ἐν marking the realm in rather than the object on” (Lex. s. v. δαπανάω). 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] אcAKLP 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. זָנָה.

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, Psalm 73:27 πάντα τὸν πορνεύσαντα ἀπὸ σοῦ, 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.

μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες] אcKLP minn syrhcl. Plainly emendation.

οὐκ οἴδατε. 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.

τοῦ κόσμου. 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 ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου. 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 φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι, Philo, Leg. alleg. ii, 23, γέγονε φιλήδονος ἀντὶ φιλαρέτου.

The precise sense of ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου 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.

ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ, “enmity as regards God.” The accentuation ἔχθρα, not ἐχθρά, is required in order to preserve the sharpness of the contrast. Cf. Romans 8:7 ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, 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.

ὅς ἐάν for ὅς ἄν 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.

φίλος τοῦ κόσμου. Cf. 2:23 φίλος θεοῦ.

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. Studiën, 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 ὅτι οὐχὶ λόγος κενὸς οὗτος ὑμῖν κτλ.

ἡ γραφή. 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 Exodus 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 πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὅ κατῴκισεν ἐν ὑμῖν· μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν, 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 (ἡ γραφὴ λέγει).*

(3) Neither can the sentence be accounted for as an inexact citation of such passages as Exodus 20:5 ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεός σου, θεὸς ζηλωτής, 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 διὸ λέγει … χάριν (cf. 1 Peter 5:5); Hottinger and Reiche, μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν· διὸ λέγει (with the insertion of δέ before θεός).

πρὸς φθόνον, “jealously,” or, more exactly, “begrudgingly.”

πρός with accusative is a regular periphrasis for the adverb; so πρὸς βίαιαν for βιαίως, πρὸς ὀργήν, “angrily,” πρὸς εὐτέλειαν, “cheaply,” πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ χάριν, “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,” πρὸς ζῆλον would have been more in accord with LXX usage, cf. Numbers 5:14 πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως, Exodus 20:5, Proverbs 6:34, Proverbs 27:4, Song of Solomon 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 (Hebrew קִנְאָה), seems to be foreign to ζῆλος in general Greek usage, which denotes that emotion by φθόνος, as here. πρὸς φθόνον 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, λύπη ἐπʼ ἀλλοτρίοις ἀγαθοῖς (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 (so especially the verb φθονέω); 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.

πρὸς φθόνον 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 (inserted by “Œcumenius” in his paraphrase: οὐ γὰρ κενῶς ἤτοι ματαίως, ἤ πρὸς φθόνον), and the general sense is less satisfactory.

ἐπιποθεῖ, “yearns,” “yearns over,” of the longing affection of the lover. See Lightfoot on Php 1:8. Cf. 2 Corinthians 9:14, Php 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 ὁ θεός, and then take τὸ πνεῦμα as object of the verb; or τὸ πνεῦμα may be taken as subject and ἡμᾶς supplied as object. In the former case τὸ πνεῦμα 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, τὸ πνεῦμα 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 τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν οἰκεῖ, 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 πρὸς φθόνον, (2) the meaning of πρὸς φθόνον, (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 Psalm 42:1 and Ecclesiastes 12:7. P. Corssen, Göttingische 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] BאA minnpaue.

κατῴκησεν] KLP minnpler ff vg boh syrutr. The weight of external evidence leads to a (somewhat doubtful) decision for κατῴκισεν.

6. μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. 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 ὁ θεός (cf. κατῴκισεν). 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.

διὸ λέγει, sc. ἡ γραφή or ὁ θεός. 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, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, 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 Proverbs 3:34, except that ὁ θεός 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 Grätz (1892-94), that the obscure Hebrew אִם in the passage quoted is a corruption of אֱלֹהִים, 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. Psalm 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, Jam 5:6.

ταπεινοῖς, “humble persons.” Here applied primarily to those who are humble toward God (cf. v. 7 ὑποτάγητε, v. 10 ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον Κυρίου), 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 ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος 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 Schöttgen, the situation of Numbers 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 (Wünsche, 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. Jam 4:8; Clem. Rom. 23 (2 Clem. Rom_11), cf. Jam 4:8 f. δίψυχοι, ταλαιπωρήσατε, 3:16 ἀκαταστασία, 1:2, 5:7 ff.; Clem. Rom. 17:6, cf. Jam 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 (διό) 5:15, Colossians 2:16, Colossians 2:3:1, Colossians 2:5, Colossians 2:12.

ὑποτάγητε, “submit yourselves” (A.V.; better than R.V. “be subject”), 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 Psalm 37:7, 62:1, Psalm 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).

ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ. “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 Proverbs 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 δύναται ὁ διάβολος ἀντιπαλαῖσαι, καταπαλαῖσαι δὲ οὐ δύναται. ἐὰν οὖν ἀντισταθῆτε αὐτῷ, νικηθεὶς φεύξεται ἀφʼ ὑμῶν κατῃσχυμμένος.

Test. XII Patr. Nephth. 8:4 ἐὰν οὗν καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐργάσησθε τὸ καλόν . . ὁ διάβολος φεύξεται ἀφʼ ὑμῶν, Issach. 7:7 ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς, τέκνα μου, ποιεῖτε, καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα τοῦ Βελίαρ φεύξεται ἀφʼ 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 ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ.

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. Psalm 145:18, Deu_4, and Philo’s comment in De migr. Abr. 11, M. p. 445. Test. XII Patr. Daniel 6:2 ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ, is an instructive parallel.

ἐγγίσει corresponds to μείζονα δίδωσιν χάριν, 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, Psalm 145:18.

καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, “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 Psalm 23:4 ἀθῷος χερσὶν καὶ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, 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 τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, 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 οἱ παρανομίᾳ συζῆν προαιρούμενοι καὶ βίον διεφθαρμένον ἀσπαζόμενοι.

ἁγνίσατε καρδίας. ἁγνός means “clean,” “pure,” ceremonially (John 11:55), and so morally. The latter development had already been made (otherwise than in the case of ἅγιος) in secular Greek use.

Cf. 1 Peter 1:22 τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῆ τῆς ἀληθείας Isaiah 1:16, and especially Psalm 24:4, Psalm 73:13.

δίψυχοι. It is here implied that διψυχία involves some defilement from the world, cf. Hermas, Mand. ix, 7 καθάρισον τὴν καρδίαν σου ἀπὸ τῆς διψυχίας. Test. XII Patr. Aser 3:2, οἱ διπρόσωποι οὐκ εἰσὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτῶν δουλεύουσιν, 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 Joel 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 Jam 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 שָׁדִד; cf. Tob. 13:10, 2 Macc. 4:47, 4 Macc. 16:7, Psalm 12:5, Micah 2:4, Psalm 38:7, Jeremiah 12:12, Romans 7:24, Revelation 3:17, Clem. Rom. 23:3 ταλαίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ δίψυχοι.

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 pænalia subite) goes further than the text.

πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε, “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.

πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε] אA 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.

ὁ γέλως ὑμῶν, pertaining to their present easy ways. This sentence makes the preceding words more intelligible.

εἰς πένθος, 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]> אAKL 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 (v. 6 ταπεινοῖς), 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 οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον … ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ταπεινώσουσιν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν, 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.

ἐνώπιον κυρίου. 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 ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε.

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 (τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ), even when his providence appears in the hardships of persecution (v. 7 τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπʼ αὐτόν), 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 Romans 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. Psalm 101:5, where τὸν καταλαλοῦντα λάθρα τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ evidently refers to a generally recognised type of evil-doer, also Psalm 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 (note the address ἀδελφοί) 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, τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, 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.

καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον, 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 ὁ νόμος. The particular clause in question is evidently the “second great commandment,” cf. the phrase τὸν πλησίον, v. 12.

ποιητὴς νόμου, 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 κριτὴς νόμου, “critic of the law” (cf. νόμον κρίνεις), 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 Romans 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 εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός.

εἷς is the subject, νομοθέτης καὶ κριτής the predicate; ὁ δυνάμενος is in apposition with εἷς.

God, not Christ, appears clearly intended here; ὁ κριτής in 5:9 is not decisive against this, and νομοθέτης is far more likely to be used of God, while εἷς ἐστίν unequivocally means God. εἷς is used in order to emphasise the uniqueness, not the unity, of the lawgiver.

νομοθέτης. Elsewhere in the Bible only Psalm 9:20. See 2 Ezra 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.

ὁ νομοθέτης] 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.

καὶ κριτής] om KL minn. External evidence here outweighs, on the whole, the authority of the lectio brevior.

ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι. 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 τὸν πάντα δυνάμενον, σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι, Sim. ix, 23:4 ὡς δυνάμενος ἀπολέσαι ἢ σῶσαι αὐτόν. Cf. Psalm 68:20, Deuteronomy 32:39, 1 Samuel 2:6, 2 Kings 5:7. This description of God must have been common in Jewish use.

τίς εἶ. 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 während der drei ersten Jahrhunderte,” in Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche2, 1898.

13. ἄγε νῦν, “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, Jdg 19:6, 2 Kings 4:24, Isaiah 43:6 being the only instances of the idiom in the O. T.

οἱ λέγοντες, i. e. in their hearts, cf. 1:13, 2:14.

ἢ αὔριον] Bא minn ff vg boh syrpesh Jerome.

καὶ αὔριον] 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 (except ποιήσωμεν) 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).

τήνδε τὴν πόλιν, “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 ἀγρὸς τέρψιν ἄγει, κέρδος πλόος.

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. ἀνὴρ δίψυχος.

τὸ τῆς αὔριον. Cf. Proverbs 27:1 μὴ καυχῶ τὰ εἰς αὔριον, οὐ γὰρ γινώσκεις τί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, also Ecclus. 11:18 f., Luke 12:16 ff. For a good parallel from Debarim rabba 9, see Schöttgen or Wetstein on Jam 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.:

οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τί μετʼ αὔριον ἢ τί μεθʼ ὥραν·

ἄσκοπός ἐστι βροτῶν θάνατος, τὸ δὲ μέλλον ἄδηλον,

Seneca, Ep. 101, especially §§ 4-6, quam stultum est, ætatem disponere ne crastini quidem dominum … nihil sibi quisquam de futuro debet promittere, etc., etc. Other passages on the uncertainty of life are collected by Plutarch, Consolatio ad Apollonium, 11, p. 107, and in Stobæus, Anthol. iv, cap. 31, Ὅτι ἀβέβαιος ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὐπραξία, μεταπιπτούσης ῥαδωίς τῆς τύχης, where especially the tragedians are drawn on. But in both the N. T. and Philo the commonplace is given a different turn: “let the uncertainty of life remind you of your dependence on God.”

ποία, “Of what character?” i. e. “Is it secure or precarious?” The answer is: “It is a mere passing mist.”

ἀτμίς, “vapour,” cf. 1:11. Cf. Clem. Rom. 17:6 (from “Eldad and Modad”?) ἐγὼ (i. e. Abraham) δέ εἰμι ἀτμὶς ἀπὸ κύθρας (“steam from a pot”). For the comparison of the life of the wicked to smoke and vapour, cf. 4 Ezra 7:61, Apoc. Bar. 82:6.

Whether James meant “smoke” or “steam” is impossible to determine. In the LXX the word is several times used of smoke, Genesis 19:28, Leviticus 16:13, Ecclus. 22:24 (?) 24:15, Hosea 13:3 (?), although it properly means vapour, in distinction from καπνός; cf. Aristotle, Meteor. ii, 4, p. 359 b. The very similar passage Wisd. 2:4 uses ὀμίχλη, “mist.” Cf. Psalm 102:3 ἐξέλιπον ὡσεὶ καπνὸς αἱ ἡμέραι μου, Psalm 37:20.

Seneca, Troad. 401, compares human life to smoke (calidis fumus ab ignibus).

γάρ introduces the answer to ποία κτλ., and also the reason for the whole rebuke contained in vv. 13 f.

φαιτομένη, ἔπειτα καὶ ἀφανιζομένη, “appearing and then disappearing,” with a more delicate play on words than is quite reproducible in the English rendering.

The same contrast and play is found in Aristotle, Hist. an. vi, 7, Ps.-Aristotle, De mundo, vi, 22, and evidently was a turn of expression common in Greek usage.

The best text for this verse is the following:

οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον· ποία ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν; ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε [ἡ] πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη, ἔπειτα καὶ ἀφανιζομένη.

The various readings here adopted are attested by either B or א, or both. The following variants require comment:

τὸ τῆς αὔριον] אK minnpler ff vg sah syrpesh.

τὰ τῆς αὔριον] AR 33 minn syrhcl boh.

τῆς αὔριον] B.

The external evidence is strongly for τὸ τῆς αὔριον, in view of the tendency of B to omit articles and the demonstrably emended character of A 33 (cf. Proverbs 27:1, which may have been in the emender’s mind).

The “intrinsic” evidence of fitness also speaks for the retention of τό In the text of B (οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον ποία ζωὴ ὑμῶν) the writer would declare that the censured traders do not know what are to be to-morrow the conditions of their life—e. g. whether sickness or health, fair weather or foul. In fact, however, the latter part of this same verse (ἀτμίς κτλ.) and v. 15 (ζήσομεν) show that the uncertainty of life itself is what he has in mind. Hence ποία cannot be connected with ἐπίστασθε to form an indirect question, but must be a direct interrogative introducing a direct question to which ἀτμίς κτλ. gives the answer.

ποία] Bא* 1518 syrhcl bohcod.

ποία γάρ] אoAKLP minnpler vg boh syrpesh.

quae autem] ff.

The shorter and better attested reading is to be accepted.

ἡ ζωή] B omits ἡ, doubtless by error.

ἀτμὶς γάρ] A 33 vg boh omit γάρ. Doubtless emendation to avoid introducing the answer by γάρ. א omits the whole clause ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε.

ἐστε] B minn syrhcl Jerome.

ἔσται] AKR minn.

ἐστιν] L minn ff vg boh (was).

Either ἔσται or ἐστε may well have originated in an itacistic corruption of the other;. the evidence for the two together far outweighs that for ἐστιν. As between ἐστε and ἔσται, external evidence (א is lacking) speaks on the whole for ἐστε.

ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον] BR omit ἡ. The question is difficult to decide and unimportant for the sense. An accidental agreement here between B and P is possible, but a little improbable.*

15. ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν properly belongs with λέγοντες, v. 13.

ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θέλῃ, “deo volente”; cf. Acts 18:21, 1 Corinthians 4:19, 1 Corinthians 16:7, Romans 1:10, Php 2:19, Php 2:24, Hebrews 6:3.

The expressions ἐὰν θεὸς θέλη, σὺν θεῷ θεῶν βουλομένων, τῶν θεῶν θελόντων, or the equivalent, were in common use among the ancient Greeks. For references to papyri, see Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 1897, p. 80; see also Lietzmann on 1 Corinthians 4:19. Cf. Plato, Alcib. I. p. 135 D, Hipp. major, p. 286 C, Laches, p. 201 C, Leges, pp. 688 E, 799 E, etc., Theæt. p. 151 D, Aristophanes, Plut. 1188, Xenophon, Hipparchicus, 9, 8 (Mayor quotes many of the passages). Similar expressions were also in familiar use by the Romans, from whom the modern deo volente is derived. Cf. Lampridius, Alex. Sever. 45 si dii voluerint, Minucius Felix, Octavius, 18 “si deus dederit” vulgi iste naturalis sermo est, Sallust, Jdg 14:19 deis volentibus, Ennius ap. Cic. De off. i, 12, 38 volentibu’ cum magnis diis, Plautus, Capt. ii, 3, 94 si dis placet, id. Poen. iv, 2, 88 si di volent, Liv. ix, 19, 15, absit invidia verbo. See other references in B. Brisson, De formulis et solennibus populi Romani verbis, rec. Conradi, Halle, 1731, i, 116 (pp. 63 f.); i, 133 (p. 71); viii, 61 (p. 719).

The corresponding formula inshallah, “if God will,” has been for many centuries a common colloquial expression of modern Arabic, cf. Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, ch. 13. It is not unlikely that the Mohammedans derived it from the Syrians, and that these had it from the Greeks. The Jews do not seem to have commonly used any such formula either in Biblical or in Talmudic times. The use of such formulas “was introduced to the Jews by the Mohammedans” (L. Ginzberg, JE, art. “Ben Sira, Alphabet of”).

The statement often found that the practise recommended was a part of Jewish customary piety in N. T. times goes back at least to J. Gregory, whose Notes and Observations on Some Passages of Scripture, first published in 1646, are reprinted in Latin in Critici sacri, 1660, vol. 9. He quotes from the “Alphabet of Ben Sira” (written not earlier than the eleventh century; see JE, l. c.) a Jewish instance of the formula, and evidently based his statement (“mos erat inter Judœos”) on this, with, perhaps, some knowledge of the ways of mediæval and later Jews. For the passage from the “Alphabet,” see Schöttgen, Horae hebr. pp. 1030 f.; the earliest use of it to illustrate Jam 4:15 is probably J. Drusius, Quœstiones hebraicae, iii, 24, 1599 (reprinted in Critici sacri, vol. viii).

The origin of this type of “apotropaic” formula among the Greeks and Romans is to be sought in the notions of divine vengeance for human presumption, to be averted by thus refraining from a positive assertion about the future.

It thus appears that James is here recommending to Christians a Hellenistic pious formula of strictly heathen origin. His own piety finds in it a true expression of Christian submission to divine providence.

καὶ … καί, “both … and.”

Others take the first καί as introducing the apodosis. But the more natural suggestion of the repeated καί speaks for the view given above.

ζήσομεν, ηοιήσομεν BאAP minn ff.

ζήσωμεν, ποιήσωμεν] KLSΨ 048 minnpler. Probably emendation due to a mistaken notion that these verbs were included under ἐάν.

See Beyschlag for references to older discussion of this variant. The two Mss. (181, 328) alleged (by Wetstein and later critics) to contain the reading ζήσωμεν … ποιήσομεν both read —ω— in both cases.

16. νῦν δέ, “but actually, in point of fact,” in contrast to what they ought to do.

καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονίαις ὑμῶν, “glory in these your acts of presumption.” καυχᾶσθε is thrown into strong emphasis by νῦν δέ. Instead of humility toward God, their attitude is one of boasting.

ἀλαζονίαις refers to the attitude described in v. 13 (οἱ λέγοντες), καυχᾶσθε (which carries the emphasis) signifies an aggravation of it, viz. the pride which they take in their own overweening self-confidence and presumption. ἐν indicates that ἀλαζονίαι are the ground of the glorying, cf. 1:9.

Another view takes καυχᾶσθε of the arrogant talk itself, described in v. 13, and understands ἐν as merely giving the presumptuous manner of it (Mayor: “the manner in which glorying was shown, ‘in your self-confident speeches or imaginations’ = ἀλαζονευόμενοι”), cf. Clem. Rom. 21:5 ἀνθρώποις ἐγκαυχωμένοις ἐν ἀλαζονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου. This is possible, but is repetitious, and gives no such advance in the thought as the emphatic νῦν δέ seems to call for.

ἀλαζονία, “braggart talk,” or, more inclusively, “presumptuous assurance,” “vainglory” (so 1 John 2:16 [R.V.]); much like ὑπερηφανία, with which it is frequently associated, cf. Romans 1:30, 2 Timothy 3:2, 2 Timothy 3:2 Macc. 9:8 (v. l.).

It is stronger than καυχᾶσθαι, and has the idea of emptiness and insolence, cf. Wisd. 2:16, 5:8, 4 Macc. 1:26, 2:15, 8:19 τὴν κενοδοξίαν ταύτην καὶ ὀλεθροφόρον ἀλαζονίαν. See the full discussion in Trench, Synonyms, § xxix. ἀλαζών and its derivatives are found twelve times in the Greek O. T. Cf. Test. XII Patr. Daniel 1:6, Joseph 17:8; Teles (ed. Hense2), p. 40.

πονηρά, “wrong.” Cf. Jam 2:4, Matthew 15:19, John 3:19, John 3:7:7, 1 John 3:12, Colossians 1:21, Acts 25:18.

There is no distinction drawn in vv. 16, 17 between πονηρά and ἁμαρτία.

17. This is a maxim added merely to call attention to the preceding, and with no obvious special application. It is almost like our “verbum sap sat, ” and means, “You have now been fully warned.” For the same characteristic method of capping the discussion with a sententious maxim, cf. 1:18, 2:13, 3:18.

There is, however, a certain pointedness in v. 17 by reason of its relation to James’s fundamental thought. “You Christians have in your knowledge of the law a privilege, and you value it (cf. the reliance on faith in 2:14 ff.); this should spur you to right action.” Cf. Romans 2:17-20, of the requirement of conduct imposed on the Jews by their superior knowledge.

οὖν, “so then,” serving to introduce this summary concluding sentence, which is applicable to the whole situation just described; see Lex. s. v. οὖν, d; cf. Matthew 1:17, Matthew 7:24, Acts 26:22.

καλόν, “good,” opposed to πονηρός (cf. v. 16). So nearly always in N. T. (only Luke 21:5 in sense of “beautiful”), cf. Jam 2:7, Jam 3:13, Matthew 5:16 ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα.

ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστίν, sc. τὸ καλόν, i. e. the good thing which he does not do.

On αὐτῷ, cf. Clem. Rom. 44:4, and the similar expression ἔστιν ἐν σοὶ ἁμαρτία, which is a standing phrase in Deut., e. g. 15:9, 23:21 f. 24:15.

Bultmann R. Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, xiii), 1910.

Winer G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Thayer’s translation, 21873.

Buttmann A. Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Thayer’s translation, 1876.

Mayor J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, 1892, 21897, 31910.

Ol. olim (used to indicate Gregory’s former numeration of Greek Mss., in Prolegomena, 1894).

Trench, R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 121894.

L. and S. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 71883.

J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol I. Prolegomena, 1906, 31908.

Lex. J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1886.

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 21902.

* The objection, however, that this interpretation makes it necessary to take ἡ γραφή to mean “the Scriptures” as a whole is not conclusive, cf. Lightfoot on Galatians 3:22, Hort on 1 Peter 2:6.

Heisen H. Heisen, Novae hypotheses interpretandae epistolae Jacobi, Bremen, 1739.

Pott D. J. Pott, in Novum Testamentum Grœce, editio Koppiana, Göttingen, 31816.

Gebser A.R. Gebser, Der Brief des Jakobus, Berlin, 1828.

Zahn Theodor Zahn

* On this whole passage, see Corssen, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1893, pp. 578 f.; B. Weiss, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. xxxvii, 1894, pp. 434 f. The view taken above is substantially that of Corssen. The resulting text is the same as that underlying the translation of the English R. V.

JE The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-1906.