James 1

James 1:1-99

ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

— — — — — —

Chap. 1:1. Address and greeting. James (for all questions who the Author of this Epistle was, see the Prolegomena. I assume here that which I have there endeavoured to establish, that it is “ James the Lord’ s brother,” the first president or bishop of the church at Jerusalem, an Apostle, but not one of the Twelve), servant (not necessarily, as Huther, an official appellation; but implying, as he also confesses, devotion to God and His work alone, irrespectively of self-will or other men’ s will. Œ c. says, ὑπὲρπᾶνδὲκοσμικὸνἀξίωμαοἱτοῦκυρίουἀπόστολοιτὸδοῦλοιεἶναιχριστοῦκαλλωπιζόμενοι , τοῦτογνώρισμαἑαυτῶνβούλονταιποιεῖσθαι , καὶλέγοντες , καὶἐπιστέλλοντεςκαὶδιδάσκοντες . Similarly Didymus, and Incert. in Catena) of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ , to the twelve tribes (of Israel: nor can there be any reasonable doubt that this Epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians in the first place. Not however to them, as distinguished from Gentile Christians: for the two classes appear to have been not as yet distinct.

If the later date of the Epistle be taken (see Prolegg), then the Jewish Christians are addressed as the nucleus and kernel of all Christendom. But to my mind, the former is more probable) which are in the dispersion (“ Legimus, occiso a Judæ is B. Stephano, quia facta est in illa die persecutio magna in ecclesia quæ erat Hierosolymis, et omnes dispersi sunt per regiones Judæ æ et Samariæ , præ ter Apostolos. His ergo dispersis qui persecutionem passi sunt propter justitiam, mittit Epistolam.” This is hardly correct; but more probable than De W.’ s view that the words are used merely to describe the scattered and distressed state of the Christians, as διασπορά did of the Jews. The most likely reference of διασπορά is to the literal and actual Jewish dispersion, as in reff.: and the Epistle must be considered as addressed, from the head of the mother church in Jerusalem, to the Jewish believers, residing among the dispersed tribes of Israel), greeting (the formula χαίρειν is not found in the address of any other apostolical Epistle; but it occurs in the Epistle drawn up under the direction of James to the Gentile churches in Acts 15:23).

2-12. Exhortations regarding the endurance of trials.

2. Think it all joy (χαράν , following up χαίρειν , a characteristic of the style of this Epistle: so ὑπομονήν · ἡδὲὑπομονή , ver. 3; λειπόμενοι · εἰδέτιςλείπεται , ver. 4 f.; διακρινόμενος · ὁδὲδιακρινόμενος , ver. 6; ἀπεἰραστόςἐστι … πειράζειδέ , ver. 13; βραδὺςεἰςὀργήν · ὀργὴγάρ , ver. 19 f.; τὸνἔμφυτονλόγον .… γίνεσθεδὲποιηταὶλόγου , ver. 21 f.; τούτουμάταιοςἡθρησκεία · θρησκείακαθαρὰκ .τ .λ ., ver. 26 f.;— yea, and that when &c. πᾶσαν , as in reff., not “ all (of it) joy,” eitel Freude, as Luther: but “ all sorts of,” “ every kind of,” “ all conceivable,” “ rem revera omnique ex parte læ tam,” as Theile, in Huther. Bengel’ s idea is good, that ‘ all’ is used as applying to all kinds of temptations; transferred from the subject to the predicate), my brethren (this is the constant address in our Epistle. It betokens community of origin and of faith), whensoever ye fall into (περιπίπτειν is used of becoming unexpectedly surrounded by adverse circumstances of any kind: so in reff.: so ὅστιςἂντοιαύταιςξυμφοραῖςπεριπέσῃ , Plato, Legg. ix. p. 877 c: μεγάλοιςἀτυχήμασινὑπ ʼ Αἰτωλῶν , καὶμεγάλαιςσυμφοραῖςπεριπεσόντες , Polyb. iv. 19. 13: περιπεσὼνβιαίοιςπληγαῖς , ib. iii. 116. 9. Herodotus also uses the expression, cf. vi. 16, and Thuc. ii. 54) various temptations (the πειρασμοί here are not only what we properly call temptations, but any kind of distresses which happen to us, from without or from within, which in God’ s purpose serve as trials of us: the latter word being, in this its now common general meaning, a word derived from the Christian life. See ref. 1 Pet., which is strictly parallel. Œ c. says, after Chrys. (in Catena), τὴνκατὰθεὸνλύπηνκαὶτοὺςπειρασμοὺςτούτουςκαὶἐπαινετοὺςοἶδεκαὶχαρᾶςἀξίους · δεσμὸςγὰροὗτοίεἰσινἀῤῥαγής , καὶαὔξησιςἀγάπηςκαὶκατανύξεως . Then, after quoting Sir. 2:1: John 16:33: and Matthew 7:14, … οὐγάρἐστινἐκτὸςγυμνασίωνοὔτεκοσμικῶνοὔτετῶνκατὰθεὸνστεφάνωνἀξιωθῆναι ):

3. Ground of this joy: knowing (as you do) that the proof of your faith (δοκίμιον , or δοκιμεῖον , Plato, Tim. p. 65 c. Pott explains it, “ quo quid exploratur;” Heisen, “ quo rei, quæ sub examen vocatur, manifestatur sinceritas, eaque probatur omne id intrinseca virtute possidere, quod extrinsecus specie et nomine præ se fert.” So in Dion. Hal. Rhetor. ii., δεῖδὲὥσπερκανόναεἰναικαὶσταθμήντινακαὶδοκίμιονὡρισμένονπρὸςὅτιςἀποβλέπωνδυνήσεταιτὴνκρίσινποιεῖσθαι : so, but joining with the idea of a test that of amelioration and perfecting also, Herodian ii. 10. 12, δοκίμιονδὲστρατιωτῶνκάματοςἀλλ ʼ οὐτροφή . The word must be taken here as abstract, ‘ the proving,’ not as concrete, ‘ the medium of proof,’ viz. the temptations.

See further on 1 Peter 1:7) worketh (reff.) endurance (ὑπομονή , “ perseverantia, quod magis est quam patientia,” Theile. But does not St. Paul, Romans 5:3, Romans 5:4, state precisely the converse, viz. that ἡθλῖψιςὑπομονὴνκατεργάζεται , ἡδὲὑπομονὴδοκιμήν Doubtless: but it is really the same that is said: θλῖψις there = τὸδοκίμιον here. As De Wette observes, the thought is not carried to its end as in Rom., but the Apostle breaks away at ὑπομονήν to exhort respecting it):

4. but (q. d. and be not weary of enduring: but) let endurance have a perfect work (σκόπει , οὐκεἶπετὴνὑπομονὴνὁριστικῶς , ὅτιἔργοντέλειονἔχει , ἀλλὰπροστακτικῶς , ἐχέτω · οὐγὰρπροϋποκειμένηνἀρετὴνἐξαγγέλλει , ἀλλὰνῦνἐγγινομένην · ὡςχρὴγενέσθαινομοθετεῖ . Œ c. In fact, from the repetition of ἔργον from κατεργάζεται , it is much as if he had said ἡδὲὑπομονὴκατεργαζέσθωσωτηρίαντέλειον . The allusion seems to be to our Lord’ s saying Matthew 24:13, ὁδὲὑπομείναςεἰςτέλος , οὗτοςσωθήσεται . So that the words are to be taken simply and literally; ὑπομονή as the abstract, endurance, and ἔργον as the work wrought out (see reff.) by ὑπομονή in its continuance: not as by De Wette after Erasmus , Calov., Morus , Pott , al., to be understood as if ὑπομονή were ὁὑπομένων , and ἔργον the aggregate of ἔργα . And τέλειος is not to be understood as = εἰςτέλοςὑπομένων , but in its ordinary sense of ‘ perfect,’ fully brought out and accomplished. And as Bengel remarks, “ Perfecta est patientia, quæ gaudet” ), that ye may be perfect (for the work of God in a man is the man.

If God’ s teaching by patience have had a perfect work in you, you are perfect: His is a λόγοςἔμφυτος , ver. 21. And the purpose of that work is, to make as perfect) and entire (that in which every part is present in its place: so we have ὁλόκληροςκαὶὑγιής , Plato, Tim. p. 44 c: τὸβασίλειονὂνἐνὁλοκλήρῳτῷγένει , Corp.

Inscrip. 353. 26. The word is much used in Philo (see also Athenæ us vii. p. 700 and Pollux i. 1 in Wolf here) of sacrifices and sacrificing priests, in a technical sense, of which however there is no trace here), deficient in nothing (the subjoining a negative corroboration to a positive clause is characteristic of St. James: cf. vv. 5 and 6. The expression here is illustrated by Raphel from Polyb. p. 1202, 1. 15, ἐντῇπρὸςῬωμαίουςεὐνοίᾳπαρὰπολὺτἀδελφοῦλειπόμενος . Here however there is no comparison with others, only one implied with that ὁλοκληρία which ought to be their ultimate state).

5. But (q. d. but this perfection and entireness, this defect in nothing, will not be yet attained; and you will find, when you aim at it, that you are lacking in the very first requisite) if any of you is deficient in (of, gen. as in ch. 2:15) wisdom (τὸαἴτιοντοῦτελείουἔργουσοφίανλέγει , Œ c. Huther quotes from the Etym. Mag., γνῶσιςμὲνἐστὶτὸεἰδέναιτὰὄντα · σοφίαδέ , καὶτὸτὰὄνταγινώσκεινκαὶτὸτὰγνωστὰπράττειν . For what is meant by wisdom here, see ch. 3:15-17), let him ask (either supply ‘ it,’ or take the verb absolutely, which is better: so E. V., see below) from God who giveth (the part. is put first because it is that which is to be brought out in the sentence: q. d. ‘ from the giver, God.’ Thus asking and giving are put forward as belonging to us and God in the abstract, and we do not want any Object, as τὴνσοφίαν , supplied) to all men simply (so Romans 12:8, ὁμεταδιδούς , ἐνἁπλότητι : but perhaps ἁπλότης may also signify liberality.

See note on that place. It is not however necessary here to render “ benigne,” as Bede, Casaubon, al.: nor “ affluenter,” as Erasm., Grot., Est., al.; nor “ candide,” “ sincere,” as Pott, Theile, al.; nor = συντόμιος , καθάπαξ , as Hesychius: but we must interpret by what follows, and understand it of simply giving, and adding nothing afterwards which may take off from the graciousness of the gift) and upbraideth not (in what sense is rather doubtful.

Many (Morus, Carpzov, Storr, al.) interpret it of sending away with a refusal: but as Huther remarks, though καταισχύνειν may bear this meaning, ὀνειδίζειν is never found so used: certainly not in Sir. 20:15, ἄφρων … ὀλίγαδώσεικαὶπολλὰὀνειδίσει . By far the greatest part of Commentators understand it of reproaching by the recounting of benefits bestowed. But this again does not reach the full and general nature of the expression here: nor does it find any justification in that of Demosthenes, p. 316. 10, ὑπομιμνήσκειντὰςἰδίαςεὐεργεσίαςμικροῦδεῖνὅμοιόνἐστιτῷὀνειδίζειν : for it is one thing to say that such reminding is almost equivalent to ὀνειδίζειν , and another and a widely different one to use ὀνειδίζειν in this sense, which is never done. The real meaning here is just as in Sir. 20:15 above, and in Sir. 41:22, μετὰτὸδοῦναιμὴὀνείδιζε , viz. upbraiding with any kind of reproaches, as God might well do, so unworthy are we to approach Him with any request. This of course would include that other: but as Semler, “ Non tantum significat molestam commemorationem beneficiorum, sed etiam qualemcunque reprehensionem.” So De Wette and Huther), and it shall be given to him (viz. σοφία , see 3 Kings 3:9-12. The whole verse seems to be written in remembrance of Mat 7:7-12).

6. But let him ask in faith (persuasion that God can and will give: cf. Matthew 21:22, πάνταὅσαἐὰναἰτήσητεἐντῇπροσευχῇπιστεύοντεςλήμψεσθε : and cf. εὐχήτῆςπίστεως , ch. 5:15), nothing (μηδέν is adverbial, as in Mark 5:26: Luke 4:35: Acts 4:21; Acts 10:20, μηδὲνδιακρινόμενος as here: so also 11:12 al. In all these places it will of course admit of being understood ‘ in nothing,’ the accus. of reference: but it is simpler to believe that it had got past this and become an adverb) doubting (cf. Matthew 21:21, from which this is evidently taken, ἐὰνἔχητεπίστινκαὶμὴδιακριθῆτε , &c. Huther says well, “ διακρίνεσθαι is not = ἀπιστεῖν (Luke 24:11), but includes in it the essential character of ἀπιστία : while πίστις says ‘ Yes,’ and ἀπιστία ‘ No,’ διακρίνεσθαι is the union of ‘ Yes’ and ‘ No,’ but so that ‘ No’ is the weightier: it is that inward giving way which leans not to πίστις , but to ἀπιστία . The deep-lying ground of it is pride, and so far Thl. is right in saying, διακρινόμενοςδὲὁμεθ ʼ ὑπεροψίαςαἰτῶν · ὑβριστὴςὁμολογουμένωςὁδιακρινόμενος : whereas Œ c. in the words, λέγωνἐνσεαυτῷὅτιπῶςδύναμαιαἰτῆσαίτιπαρὰτοῦκυρίουκαὶλαβεῖν , ἡμαρτηκὼςτοσαῦταεἰςαὐτόν , brings out a point which belongs not to διακρίνεσθαι , but to a yet weak faith” ): for he that doubteth is like (reff.) a wave of the sea driven by the wind (a word no where else found.

The corresponding ἀνεμοῦσθαι occurs in Hippocr., Plato (Tim. p. 83 a), Æ lian, Lucian, al. It explains itself) and tossed about (ῥιπίζεσθαι , from ῥιπή (ῥιπαὶἀνέμων , Pind. Pyth. ix. 85: Soph. Antig. 137 al.; κυμάτωνἀνέμωντε , Pind. Pyth. iv. 346), to be blown about by wind: so τίδέ , εἰμὴπρὸςἀνέμουῥιπίζοιτοτὸὕδωρ , Philo de Mundo, § 18, vol. ii. p. 620: δῆμοςἄστατονκακόν , καὶθαλάσσῃπάνθ ʼ ὅμοιονὑπ ʼ ἀνέμουῥιπίζεται , Dio Chrys. Orat. xxxii. p. 368 b.

The more usual meaning of the verb , to kindle (ῥιπίζεται , κατακαίεται , Hesych.), is not applicable here. The word forms a synonym with ἀνεμίζεσθαι ; and the use of these synonymous expressions so close to one another is again a characteristic of St.

James. A good explanation of the figure is quoted by Wiesinger from Heisen: “ Modo ad litus fidei speique jactatur, modo in abyssum diffidentiæ revolvitur; modo in sublime tollitur fastus mundani, modo imis arenis miscetur nunc desperationis nunc afflictionis” &c.):

7. for (takes up and repeats the former γάρ : not as Calvin, “ non ergo existimet,” nor as Huther, = namlich) let not that man (said with a certain slight expression of contempt) think (cf. Matthew 5:17, μὴνομίσητεὅτικ .τ .λ .) that he shall receive any thing (sc. τῶναἰτουμένων : some things, as life, food, raiment, &c., he does continually receive) from the Lord .

8. He is a man with two minds, unstable (cf. Dio Chrys. above. Hippocrates uses it of fevers which observe no fixed periods: Demosth. p. 303, of the wind, ἀκατάστατονὥσπερἐνθαλάττῃπνεῦμα . We have, ἀκαταστασία ch. 3:16, and in Luke 21:9: 1 Corinthians 14:33: 2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 12:20) in all his ways ἀνήρ were subject, and δίψυχος , ἀκατάστ .… predicate; 2. on the rendering of the E. V., “ The (a) double-minded man (generic) is,” &c.

But then we should surely not have ἀνήρ , but ἄνθρωπος . From this passage the use of δίψυχος spread onwards in the Fathers: we have very early, in the Apostol. Constt. vii. 11, μὴγίνουδίψυχοςἐνπροσευχῇεἰἔσταιἢοὔ : in Clem.-rom. i. 23, p. 260, ταλαίπωροίεἰσινοἱδίψυχοι , οἱδιστάζοντεςτὴνψυχήν . The διακρίνεσθαι arises out of the διψυχία : this causes him, as Sir. 2:12, ἐπιβαίνεινἐπὶδύοτρίβους .

Cf. also Sir. 1:27, μὴἀπειθήσῃςφόβῳκυρίου , καὶμὴπροσέλθῃςαὐτῷἐνκαρδίᾳδισσῇ , and Tanchuma Rabba in Deuteronomy 26:17, “ Ne habeant (qui preces ad Deum facere velint) duo corda, unum ad Deum, aliud vero ad aliam rem directum” ).

9. The connexion appears to be this: we must not pray before God, we must not be before God, double-minded; in our trials, we shall get no heavenly wisdom, if this is so. This double-mindedness, one soul drawn upwards to God, the other drawn downwards to the world, causes nothing but instability, and cannot result in that joy which is to be our attitude in trial. And it arises from misapprehension of our appointed state in trial: the poor and humble forget the exceeding honour thus done to them, which ought to be to them ground of boasting, far more worthy than (see below) the rich in this world have in their riches which shall so soon fade away: whereas (ver. 12) he that is tried shall receive a crown of life from the Lord. But (contrasted with the διψυχια above) let the brother (the Christian believer) who is low (poor and afflicted; not merely, low in station: this explanation goes with the view that ὁδὲπλούσιος below is Christian also) glory in his exaltation (which he has obtained by being admitted into the fellowship of Christ’ s sufferings, and which he has further in reversion in the glorious crown of life hereafter, ver. 12):

10. but the rich , Bede, Lyra, Thomas Aq., Beza, Wetst., Pott, Hottinger, Huther, al.: but impugned by De Wette, Wiesinger, Stier, al.) glories (see above) in his humiliation (cf. ref. Phil.: in that which is in reality his debasement, just as in the other case the lowly Christian is called on to boast in what is in reality his exaltation. Thus, and thus only, the parallelism coheres. On the ordinary view, the ὕψος of the ταπεινός brother is, that which is really but not apparently his exaltation, whereas the ταπείνωσις of the πλούσιος brother is that which is apparently but not really his debasement); because as a flower of the grass (reff.) he shall pass away.

11. For the sun arose (it is given in the form of a tale, a narration of what happened and ever does happen: see Isaiah 40:7, from which the whole is adapted) with the heat πνεύματικαύσωνι : see Winer, Realw. art. “ Wind.” But καύσων in ref. Matt. and Isaiah 49:10, is evidently only heat: and considering, 1. the relation between that Gospel and St. James, and, 2. that the LXX, when the Kadim is intended, almost always add ὁἄνεμος or τὸπνεῦμα , I prefer the other meaning, the arid scorching which accompanies the increasing power of the sun), and dried up the grass, and the flower thereof fell away (all from Isaiah), and the beauty of its appearance (so πρόσωπον in reff., the external appearance of any thing) perished: thus also shall the rich man (the same as was spoken of ver. 10: not ὁπλοῦτοςαὐτοῦ , but the πλούσιος himself) wither (reff.: the verb continues the similitude) in his ways .

12. We now return to the suffering and tempted Christian, who has his μακαρισμός , and a possession more precious and more sure than worldly wealth. Blessed is the man (no stress on ἀνήρ , cf. vv. 7, 8, 20) who endureth (the emphasis is on ὑπομένει , which distinguishes this saying from that in ver. 2; it is not the mere περιπεσεῖνπειρασμοῖς , but the ὑπομένεινπειρασμόν , which is felicitated. There is no reason to read ὑπομενεῖ , as Bengel. The blessing is categorical, and as well expressed by the present as by the future) temptation: because when he has become approved (by the trial: when he has undergone the δοκίμιον , ver. 2. This δόκιμοςγενόμενος , as connected with that verse, furnishes some support to the reading which omits τῆςπίστεως there.

The δοκίμιον is of himself, and it is he that becomes δόκιμος by it) he shall receive the crown of life , which He promised to them that love Him (who promised it, is understood: God, repeatedly, in substance: whenever a kingdom is foretold as the future inheritance of His people: τοῖςἀγαπῶσιναὐτόν , cf. 2 Timothy 4:8, and the same words again in ch. 2:5. It is a formula frequently occurring in the law and the Prophets: cf. Exodus 20:6: Deuteronomy 7:9: Judges 5:31: Nehemiah 1:5: Psalms 5:11; 144:20: Daniel 9:4: Sir. 31 (34):16; 47:22).

13-15. The truth respecting temptation.

13. Let no one when tempted (in the manner hitherto spoken of through the chapter. There is no warrant for changing in the slightest degree the reference of the word. The ‘ tentatio’ is a trying of the man by the solicitation of evil: whether that evil be the terror of external danger, or whatever it be, all πειράζεσθαι by means of it arises not from God, but from ourselves— our own ἐπιθυμία . God ordains the temptation, overrules the temptation, but does not tempt, is not the spring of the solicitation to sin) say that (ὅτι recitantis) I am tempted from God : for God is unversed in things evil (the meaning usually given, “ untempted,” or “ not able to be tempted,” is against the usage of the word.

It occurs in four forms, ἀπείρᾶτος , ἀπείρᾶτος , ἀπείρητος (Ion.), and ἀπείραστος ; and in all of them seems to have but two meanings: 1. that has not been tried: so οὐδὲνἀπείρατόνἐστίτινι , Dem. p. 310; πόντοςἀπείρατοςὢντοῖςἝλλησι , Luc. Tox. 3: 2. that has not tried: so οὐκἀπείρατοςκαλῶν , Pind. Ol. 10 (11). 18; ἀλλοδαπῶνοὐκἀπείρατοιδόμοι , id. Nem. 1. 33; κακῶνἀπείρατος (that has never experienced adversity), Plut. παῤῥησίας , ἔρωτοςἀπείρατος , unversed in free speaking, in love, Lucian, Plut. See Palm and Rost’ s Lex., and numerous other examples in Wetstein. And even if we chose here to depart from usage, and suppose that ἀπείραστος is not a later form of ἀπείρατος , but a verbal from πειράζω , to be interpreted by the meaning of that verb in the context, we should get a meaning for ἀπείραστος entirely foreign from the context: viz. that God is not tempted of evil, whereas there is no question here of God being tempted, but or God tempting.

Some have endeavoured to escape this by giving ἀπείραστος an active sense— “ God is not one who tempteth to evil.” So Schol. in Cramer’ s Catena: ὅτιὁθεὸςπειράζωνἐπ ʼ ὠφελείᾳ , οὐκἐπὶτῷκακοποιῆσαι · διὸκαὶἐλέχθηὅτιὁθεὸςἀπείραστόςἐστικακῶν : so the Æ thiopic version: the vulg., “ Deus intentator malorum est:” Luther, al. This doubtless it may have: we find μηροὶκαλυπτῆςἐξέκειντοπιμελῆς , Soph.

Ant. 1011: τὠμῷτἀνδρὶμεμπτός , id. Trach. 446: ὕποπτοςΤρωϊκῆςἁλώσεως , Eur. Hec. 1117. But there are two objections: 1. that this sense would be tautological, the succeeding clause only repeating the assertion: 2. that thus the gen. κακῶν can only mean ‘ of evil men:’ ‘ God is no tempter of evil men,’ which is out of the question. It seems then that we must take refuge in the ordinary meaning of the word, and render it ‘ unversed in,’ ‘ having no experience of.’ And thus De Wette and Huther. Œ c. takes the words as in the citation from Plutarch above: τὸθεῖόντεκαὶμακάριονοὔτεαὐτὸπράγματαἔχει , οὔτεἑτέροιςπαρέχει : which is decidedly wrong. Taken as above, ἀπείραστος does not carry a negation of πειράζει , but forms a paronomasia with it: and the sentiment is just as in the passage of Sir. above quoted, which goes on πᾶνβδέλυγμαἐμίσησενκύριος ), but HE tempteth no man (the αὐτός does not, as commonly supposed, bring out God’ s action in distinction to His not being tempted— ‘ as He is not tempted, so neither does He himself tempt any man’ (see this urged in Wiesinger): but brings out this, that the temptation indeed takes place, but from another cause. Huther gives the sense well: “ Let none say when he is tempted to evil, From God am I tempted: for God hath no part in evil: but as to the temptation, He tempteth no man” &c.):

14. but each man is tempted, being drawn out and enticed by his own lust (the image, if we are justified in supposing that a fixed one was contemplated from the first, seems to be, as Pott observes (in Huther), “ ἐπιθυμία , ἁμαρτία , et θάνατος personarum vim habent: imaginem meretricis suppeditant voces συλλαβεῖν , τίκτειν , ἀποκύειν , necnon et ἐξέλκειν atque δελεάζειν .” The participles ἐξελκόμενος and δελεαζόμενος are abundantly illustrated by the Commentators, e. g. in Wetst. by Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 4, τὰ … ζῶα .… τούτωνγὰρδήπουτὰμὲνγαστρὶδελεαζόμενα … τῇἐπιθυμίᾳτοῦφαγεῖνἀγόμεναπρὸςτὸδέλεαρ , ἁλίσκεται . And Herod. ii. 70, of taking the crocodile, ἐπεὰννῶτονὑὸςδελεάσῃπερὶἄγκιστρονκ .τ .λ .… ὁκροκόδειλος … ἐπεὰνἐξελκυσθῇἐςγῆνκ .τ .λ . Schneckenburger says, “ ἐξέλκειν et δελεάζειν sunt verba e re venatoria et piscatoria in rem amatoriam et inde in nostrum tropum translata:” only we must not here interpret ἐξέλκειν which precedes δελεαζ ., as in Herod. above, “ to draw to land,” but rather as Schulthess, “ elicere bestias ex tuto, ubi latent, in locum hamis retibusque expositum.” But, as Huther observes, it is hardly likely that the original reference of the words would be distinctly before the Apostle as he used them. Cf. Aristot.

Polit. v. 10, παρὰτῆςγυναικὸςἐξελκυσθείς , “ ab uxore sollicitatus.” In the Test. XII.

Patrum, p. 702 (Kypke), Joseph says of Potiphar’ s wife, εἰςπορνείανμεἐφελκύσατο . And cf. Homer’ s αὐτὸςγὰρἐφέλκεταιἄνδρασίδηρος , Od. π . 294: and, which is the nearest correspondence of all, Plut. de Sera Numinis Vindicta (in Huther), τὸγλυκὺτῆςἐπιθυμίαςὥσπερδέλεαρἐξέλκειν . With regard to the matter treated, and the proper sense of ἐπιθυμία here, it seems to me that Huther is right in setting aside the difficulties which Hofmann (Schriftb. i. p. 415) and after him Wiesinger, have found in this passage as compared with Romans 7:7. St. James is not here speaking of the original source of sin in man, but of the actual source of temptation to sin, when it occurs.

The ἁμαρτία of St. Paul, the sinful principle in man, is not here in question: we take up the matter, so to speak, lower down the stream: and the ἐπιθυμία here is the ἐπιθυμία there, itself the effect of sin (abstr.) in the members, and leading to sin (concrete) in the conduct):

15. then lust having conceived, bringeth forth sin: and (δέ brings out the new subject) sin, when completed, bringeth forth death causes her to bring forth Death. As regards the single expressions, συλλαβοῦσατίκτει is a regular LXX formula for ו ַ ת ּ ַ ה ַ ר ו ַ ת ּ ֵ ל ֶ ד : cf. reff. Gen., also 30:17 al. fr. ἀποκύειν , or ἀποκυεῖν (either is allowable, see Winer, § 15) is found principally in later Greek: Wetst. gives examples from Maximus Tyr., Herodian, Lucian, Phlegon,— all with this meaning.

For ἀποτελεσθεῖσα , cf. Polyb. ii. 58. 7, τὸμέγιστονἀοέβημακατὰπροαίρεσινἀπετέλεσαν ).

16-18. The idea that God tempts to sin has been as yet only negatively contradicted. But so far is it from this being so, that He is the Author of all good.

16. Do not err (some have ended the paragraph with these words: some have begun a new one. But Theile (in Huther) rightly remarks of this formula, “ Ubi antecedentia respicit, nunquam finit cohortationem, sed ita interpositum est, ut continuet et firmet, nunc illustrando, nunc cavendo.” It occurs in reff.: see also 1 John 3:7 . Still we must not take Theile’ s further exposition, “ Nolite in alterum errorem abstrahi, ut nempe bona quoque a summo numine abjudicetis:” for this does not lie in the context), my beloved brethren (both this earnest address, and the caution, shew how important the Writer feels this to be, which he is about to enunciate):

17. every good gift and every perfect gift descendeth from above , from the Father of the lights (of heaven) (it seems now generally agreed that by τὰφῶτα here is meant the heavenly bodies, and by πατήρ the creator, originator, as in Job 38:28, τίςἐστινὑετοῦπατήρ ; Being this, being the Father of those glorious fountains of light, and thus (see below) purer and clearer than they all, it cannot be that He should tempt to evil. Our very life, as renewed in Christ, is of His begetting, and we are a firstfruit of His new world.

Various meanings have been given to τῶνφώτων — spiritual light, Grot.: illumination, with reference to the Urim, Heisen: “ luminum spiritualium in regno gratiæ et gloriæ ,” Bengel: “ omnis perfectionis, bonitatis, sapientiæ et prosperitatis,” Wolf, Benson, al.: “ omnis et præ stantiæ et bene compositi ordinis,” Calv. As regards the word φῶτα , we have, Psalms 135:7 ff., τῷποιήσαντιφῶταμεγάλα … τὸνἥλιον … τὴνσελήνηνκαὶτοὺςἀστέραςκ .τ .λ .: Jeremiah 4:23, ἐπέβλεψαἐπὶτὴνγῆν , καὶἰδοὺοὐθέν , καὶεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν , καὶοὐκἦντὰφῶτααὐτοῦ . In Genesis 1:14, Genesis 1:16 they are φωστῆρες ), with (‘ chez,’ ‘ apud,’ bei: see reff.) whom there is no change (πόθενδέ , says Arrian on Epict. i. 14, p. 62, πρὸςτὴναὔξηαινκαὶμείωσιντῆςσελήνης , καὶτὴντοῦἡλίουπρόσοδονκαὶἄφοδον , τοσαύτηπαραλλαγὴκαὶἐπὶτὰἐναντίαμεταβολὴτῶνἐπιγείωνθεωρεῖται . This sentence confirms what Gebser (in Huther, al.) has observed, that παραλλαγή never occurs as an astronomical term: seeing it is used in its common sense, even where the heavenly bodies are being spoken of. Besides which, it is not at all probable that St. James should write to the dispersed Jewish Christians in the technical language of astronomy. I take then the word in its ordinary sense, ‘ change:’ that uncertainty of degree of light which we see in the material heavenly bodies, but which is not in God their Creator.

So in Wetst., we have Theophrastus speaking of a παραλλαγήτιςεὐοσμίαςκαὶἀοσμίας : Plato, Rep. vii., of the absurdity of one who looks on the order and symmetry of the heavenly bodies, and νομίζονταγίνεσθαίτεταῦταἀεὶὡσαύτως , κ . οὐδαμῆοὐδὲνπαραλλάττεινσῶμάτεἔχοντακαὶὁρώμενα : Plotinus, Enn. vi. 6. 3, of a παραλλαγὴἡμερῶνπρὸςνύκτας : Diogenes Laert. vii. 145 , of the moon eclipsing the sun, καὶπάλινπαραλλάττουσα ) or shadow (ἀποσκίασμα , the dark mark of shadow,— σκίασμα , the result of σκιάζεσθαι , cast ἀπό , from, any object) of turning , Wolf, Lö sner, Morus, Rosenm., al.).

18. The greatest example of this position, that all good and perfect gifts come from Him: mentioned not merely as an example, but as leading on to the following context. Because He willed it (the aor. part. is, 1. contemporary with the verb: 2. slightly causal, involving the condition of the act which follows. It was of His own mere will, ‘ proprio motu,’ and the emphasis is on this word. “ Exprimit quod Deus pro suo beneplacito nos genuerit, atque ita sibi fuerit causa. Unde sequitur, naturale esse Deo benefacere.” Calvin) begat He (ἀποκύειν or -εῖν (see above, ver. 15), here in the sense generare, as there parere. Cf. 1 Peter 1:23: 1 John 3:9.

The spiritual birth, not the natural, is meant, as is evident by what follows) us (ἡμᾶς , twice repeated, signifies the Writer and his readers, not Christians in general: not especially as Jewish Christians, Ἰουδαίῳπρώτῳ ,— for that is not (see below) the reference here) with the word of truth (the gen. is one of apposition: cf. John 17:17, ὁλόγοςὁσὸςἀλήθειάἐστι .

And the word of truth is the gospel, preached, and ἔμφυτος as below: cf. 1 Peter 1:23, ἀναγεγεννημένοι … διὰλόγουζῶντοςθεοῦ . The failure of the articles does not alter the sense. It is especially a characteristic of the abrupt sententious style of our Apostle. Cf. ποιηταὶλόγου , ver. 22, where λόγος must be ‘ the word;’ and indeed passim. Œ c. makes λόγος personal: ἵναμήτιςὑπολάβῃὁμοίωςἡμῖνκαὶτὸνυἱὸνἀποτεκεῖναὐτόν , καὶμεθ ʼ ἡμῶνκαὶτὸνυἱὸνγεγεννῆσθαι , ἐπάγειτό , λόγῳἀληθείας , πάνταγὰρκατὰτὸνθεῖονἸωάννηνδιὰτοῦυἱοῦἐγένετο : and so Athanasius, Serm. iii. advers. Arianos, vol. ii. p. 483; and Bernard, Serm. ii. ad Fratres (?): which is clearly wrong), that we should be (aim, but not the primary aim, of the ἀποκυῆσαι . His gracious purpose with regard to us in particular was, that we should be, &c.

His great purpose with regard to all Christians is not here in question. Hence ἡμᾶς is repeated) a kind of firstfruit of His creatures (τὰκτίσματααὐτοῦ manifestly extends wider than merely to the great multitude of the regenerated whom no man can number; it embraces all creation, which we know shall partake in the ultimate glorious perfection of the sons of God: cf. Romans 8:20, Romans 8:21. Obviously, the κτίσματα are not the καινὴκτίσις , as Grot. and many others). Wiesinger has an important note, shewing from this verse what must be the right understanding of much which follows in this Epistle. “ This passage,” he says, “ is among those which reveal the depth of Christian knowledge in which the practical and moral exhortations of the Writer are grounded: lying as it does expressly (διό , ver. 21) at the basis of them.

We will here bring together in a few words the teaching of the passage, for the sake of its important bearing on the rest of the Epistle. It teaches us, 1. as a positive supplement to vv. 14, 15, that the life of man must be renewed, from its very root and foundation: 2. it designates this renewal as God’ s work, moreover as an imparting of the life of God , as only possible by the working of the Spirit, only on the foundation of the objective fact of our Redemption in Christ, which is the content of the λόγοςἀληθείας : 3. it sets forth this re-generation as an act once for all accomplished (ἀπεκύησεν , aor.) and distinguishes it from the gradual penetration and sanctification of the individual life by means of this new principle of life imparted in the re-generation: 4. it declares also expressly that the re-generation is a free act of God’ s love not induced by any work of man (Ephesians 2:8, Ephesians 2:9: Titus 3:5), so that man is placed by God in his right relation to God, antecedently to all works well-pleasing to God: for this the expression ἀπεκύησεν involves: cf. ἐξελέξατο , ch. 2:5, and in so far as this ἀπεκύησεν necessarily implies the justification of the sinner (the δικαιοῦσθαι of St. Paul), it is plain also, that St. James cannot, without contradicting himself, make this δικαιοῦσθαι , in the sense of St. Paul, dependent on the works of faith. 5. λόγοςἀληθείας is specified as the objective medium of re-generation: and herewith we must have πίστις as the appropriating medium on the part of man himself: of the central import of which πίστις in St. James also we have already seen something (vv. 3, 6), and shall see more (ch. 2:5, 14 ff.). 6.

Together with this act of re-generation proceeding from God, we have also the high destination of the Christian, which the Apostle gives so significantly and deeply in εἰςτὸεἶναικ .τ .λ . And that which God has done to him, is now in the following verses made the foundation of that which the Christian has on his part to do: by which that which we said under (3) and (4) receives fresh confirmation.

This passage is one to be remembered, when we wish to know what the Apostle understands by the νόμοςτέλειος (1:25; 2:12), and what he means, when (2:14 ff.) he deduces δικαιοῦσθαι from the works of faith. As regards the dogmatical use, which some make of this passage, wishing to shew that regeneration is brought about by the word, as distinguished from the Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5-7), we may remark, that seeing that λόγοςἀληθείας designates the gospel, as a whole, without any respect to such distinction, nothing regarding it can be gathered from this passage. The word of the Lord constitutes, we know, the force of the Sacrament also. ‘ Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit Sacramentum.’ And is it meant to be inferred that the readers of this Epistle were not baptized?”

19-27. Exhortation to receive rightly this word of truth. (See the general connexion in the Prolegomena.)

19. First, as to the reading. For the external evidence, see the digest. It is of a kind which can hardly be rejected. And all internal considerations make the same way. It is hardly possible that the simple and obvious ὥστε should have been altered into the difficult ἴστε . Whether the connexion with the last verse was plain, is not a consideration which usually entered into the minds of transcribers. They were much more likely to attempt to establish some connexion, plain or not, especially when so unusual a word as ἴστε admitted of change to so obvious an one as ὥστε .

Next, comes the question how ἵστε is to be taken, whether imperatively or indicatively. If the former, the sense will be, ‘ Know, my beloved brethren’ (either what has preceded or what follows: if the latter, then the introduction of ἔστωκ .τ .λ . with a δέ gives it as a generally received saying, possibly as a reference to ref. Sir., γίνουταχὺςἐνἀκροάσεισου , καὶἐνμακροθυμίᾳφθέγγουἀπόκρισιν : if the former, the imperative sense seems hardly applicable). On the whole I much prefer the indicative sense, for which we have a precedent in reff. Heb. and Eph., the only other places where the form occurs in the N. T.

And taking this indicative sense, I refer the word not to what follows, but to what precedes, making it an appeal to their knowledge of the momentous facts which he has just stated: You are well aware of this: but (i. e. and having this knowledge &c.). Thus we bring ἴστε here into strict accord with its meaning in those two other places, where it is, “ Ye are aware;” appealing to a well-known fact.

Ye know it, my beloved brethren: but (consequently) let every man he swift to hear (the word of truth which has so great power for good and for life: we need not actually supply τὸνλόγοντῆςἀληθείας as Est., al., De W., Wiesinger do: the verb is absolute and general, having only reference to the word of truth), slow to speak , slow to wrath (Bengel and others interpret ὀργή , “ ira sive impatientia erga Deum,” and so nearly Calvin: but the reference is more general, as the precept is. The quick speaker is the quick kindler. See below. We have in Philo de Confus. Ling. § 12, vol. i. p. 412, βραδὺςὠφελῆσαι , ταχὺςβλάψαι : but the words occur in contrast only here in the N. T.):

20. for the wrath (any wrath, all wrath) of man (ἀνήρ is used by our Apostle without any such definite precision as has been supposed here by Bengel, “ Sexus virilis maxime iram alit:” or Thomus, “ Non dicit pueri, quæ cito transit.” Cf. ἀνὴρδίψυχος , ver. 8, and reff.) worketh not (ἐργάζεται and κατεργάζεται would differ here slightly in sense: the latter would signify more ‘ worketh out,’ ‘ bringeth to issue or existence,’ the former, ‘ practiseth,’ ‘ worketh habitually,’ and each of these would throw its own shade of meaning on δικαιοσύνη — see below) the righteousness of God (if ἐργάζεται , = that which is righteousness in God’ s sight = τὸδίκαιονἐνώπιοντοῦθεοῦ : if κατεργάζεται , = that righteousness, to produce which is God’ s end in begetting us to a new life. In other words, the more general ethical sense is given by ἐργάζεται : the more particular theological one by κατεργάζεται . At all events, we must not interpret δικ . θεοῦ the state of righteousness before God, as some, or that righteousness in another, into which God begets men by his word of truth, as Hofmann (Schriftb. 1. 548 f.) and Wiesinger. When this latter asks, What relevance here has the remark that anger doeth not that which is right in the sight of God?— an easy answer can be given. Be not intemperately zealous, hastily rash to speak and to be angered, even in God’ s behalf (for this is implied): be humble, ready to listen, for your angry zeal, your quick speaking, work not God’ s righteous purposes— serve not Him, are not carriers forward of that righteousness which is the characteristic of His kingdom, ch. 3:18. How many an endeavour, which might have ended in ἐργάζεσθαιδικαιοσύνηνθεοῦ , has been diverted and blighted by hasty speaking and anger, and ended only in disgracing ourselves, and Him whom we would have served, before men!

So Bengel, “ Ira plane impedit justitiam Dei; tametsi sibi dum fervet, quam maxime operari eam videatur. Purius sine ira fit” ).

21. Wherefore (consequence from ver. 20: seeing that ὀργή excludes you from having a share in the righteous work of God) putting off (reff.: aor., because it must be done as a single act, antecedently to that which follows. The previous putting off is the condition of the subsequent reception) all filthiness (ῥυπαρία is here figurative, as ῥυπαρός and ῥυπαρεύω in ref. Rev.: in the other reff. the word occurs in its literal sense. Some Commentators take it here as standing alone: Others join it with καὶπερισσείαν , as belonging to the genitive κακίας , which seems better for the context, which concerns not the putting away of moral pollution of all kinds, but only of that kind which belongs to κακία : see below. And thus taken it will mean that κακία pollutes the soul, and renders it unfit to receive the ἔμφυτοςλόγος .

It is very possible that the agricultural similitude in ἔμφυτος may have influenced the choice of both these words, ῥυπαρία and περισσεία . The ground must be ridded of all that pollutes and chokes it, before the seed can sink in and come to maturity: must be cleaned and cleared) and abundance (“ superfluity” is perhaps too strong; it is, if the above figure be allowed, the rank growth, the abundant crop.

Beza, Erasm. Schmid, al. take it as = περίσσωμα , “ excrementum;” Pott, Schneckenb., De Wette, al., as “ efflorescence,” as Lö sner, “ ramos in vite vel arbore abundantes, falceque resecandos;” Michaelis, al. take it as the remnant of κακία surviving from old times = περίσσευμα Mark 8:8. But the usual meaning seems preferable, as being both philologically correct, and suiting in its simplicity the solemn character of the exhortation) of malignity (evil disposition towards one another, as in reff. The word carries on the ὀργή above: which springs from (see note on ref. Eph.) κακία , evil disposition, which is inherent in our hearts, and requires putting off before we can receive the word of God. That this is so, is evident from ἐνπραΰτητι which follows.

However the exhortation may apply in the wider sense, it is not its sense here, as the context plainly shews), in mildness receive (cf. reff. and παραδέχονται , Mark 4:20, of the good ground) the implanted word (the word spoken of is beyond doubt the same as the λόγοςἀληθείας above— i. e. the gospel, in its fulness. But the epithet makes some little difficulty.

First of all, it clearly is not, as Œ c. seems to take it, “ innate:” τὸνδιακριτικὸντοῦβελτίονοςκαὶτοῦχείρονος , δι ʼ ὃκαὶλογικοὶἐσμὲνκαὶλεγόμεθα : and so in the Apostolical Constt. viii. 12, νόμονδέδωκαςἔμφυτον , for this would stultify δέξασθε , we having it already. Nor must ἔμφυτος be taken as proleptic, “ ita ut inseratur,” as Calvin, Semler, De Wette (but doubtfully), al. Nor again can it mean ‘ the word which has been planted in the whole of Christendom,’ seeing that individuals are here being dealt with: but the allusion is apparently to the parable of the sower, and it is the word implanted (= which has been sown), the word whose attribute and ἀρετή it is to be ἔμφυτος , and which is ἔμφυτος , awaiting your reception of it to spring up and take up your being into it and make you new plants), which is able to save your souls (cf. Romans 1:16, where the εὐαγγέλιον is said to be δύναμιςθεοῦεἰςσωτηρίανπαντὶτῷπιστεύοντι . “ Magnificum cœ lestis doctrinæ encomium, quod certam ex ea salutem consequimur. Est autem additum, ut sermonem illum instar thesauri incomparabilis et expetere et amare et magnificare discamus. Est ergo acris ad castigandam nostram ignaviam stimulus, sermonem cui solemus tam negligenter aures præ bere, salutis nostræ esse causam.

Tametsi non in hunc finem servandi vis sermoni adscribitur, quasi aut salus in externo vocis sonitu inclusa foret, aut servandi munus Deo ablatum alio transferretur. Nam de sermone tractat Jacobus, qui fide in corda hominum penetravit: et tantum indicat, Deum salutis auctorem evangelio suo eam peragere.” Calvin.

Observe ψυχάς . It is the ψυχή which carries the personality of the man: which is between the πνεῦμα drawing it upwards, and the σάρξ drawing it downwards, and is saved or lost, passes into life or death, according to the choice between these two. And the λόγοςἔμφυτος , working through the πνεῦμα and by the divine πνεῦμα , is a spiritual agency, able to save the ψυχή . And σῶσαι , the aor., because the power is to complete the work and to have done it for ever).

22. The ταχὺςεἰςτὸἀκοῦσαι and δέξασθε are qualified, at the same time that they are enforced, by a caution. But be ye (not, ‘ become ye,’ any more than in Matthew 6:16; Matthew 10:16; Matthew 24:44: John 20:27: Romans 12:16. In all these places no other meaning will suit the context but simply “ be ye:” with reference indeed to some future act by which the word γίνεσθαι gets its propriety; but ‘ become’ in English carries a very different meaning, viz. that of change into the state mentioned from some other previous one, which is in none of these cases implied) doers of the word (viz. of the λόγοςἔμφυτος , the λόγοςτῆςἀληθείας . Theile remarks well, “ Substantiva plus sonant quam participia;” the substantive ποιητής carries an enduring, a sort of official force with it: ‘ let this be your occupation.’ For the expression, see reff.), not hearers only (ἀκροατής in classical Greek carries rather the idea of attentive observance with it, which cannot be the case either here or in ref. Rom.), deceiving yourselves (see note on ref.

Col. παραλογίζεσθαι is used here probably as allusive to λόγος , and means, to deceive by a false logical conclusion. The ‘ hearer only’ does this, when he infers that the mere sound of the word received in his outward ear will suffice for him. Cf. ἀπατῶνκαρδίαναὐτοῦ , ver. 26. Hesych. gives ἀπάτηλογισμοῦ as the explanation of παραλογισμός . See Suicer, sub voce).

23-25. Justification of παραλογιζόμενοι , and of the foregoing exhortation.

23. Because, if any is a hearer of the word and not a doer, this man (the demonstrative pronoun points more markedly at the individual in whom the hearing and not-doing are united: see reff.) is like to a man contemplating (reff. Probably the example was meant to have a general reference: for though it may be true, as De Wette says, that many men remember well their appearance in the mirror, the common rule is that men forget it. Had a particular case of one who looks and forgets been intended, the next sentence would not surely have been introduced with the aor. and γάρ , but with καί and participles) the countenance of his birth belongs to πρόσωπον or to τῆςγενέσεως , is uncertain as the words stand: more probably however to the latter: cf. τοῦυἱοῦτῆςἀγάπηςαὐτοῦ , Colossians 1:13) in a mirror (see reff.: and Pind. Nehemiah 7:20):

24. for (this seems to stamp the example as a general one, applying to all, not merely taking some possible man who may do this: see above) he contemplated himself (on the aorr. see above, ver. 11), and has departed and suddenly taking place. For similar conjunctions of perfects with aorr., cf. Luke 4:18: Mark 15:44: Hebrews 2:14 and note: 1 Corinthians 15:4: and Winer, § 40. 4), and immediately forgot of what appearance he was (viz. in the mirror. It is to be observed, that the κατανοεῖν answers to the hearing of the word: the ἀπεληλυθέναι to the relaxing the attention after hearing— letting the mind go elsewhere, and the interest of the thing heard pass away: and then the forgetfulness in both cases follows. In the next verse we pass to one who looks and does not depart).

25. But he who looked into the perfect law which is (the law) of our (Christian) liberty (τὸννόμοντέλειον , not, the gospel as contrasted with the law, nor the covenant of faith as more perfect than that of legal obedience: but, the rule of life as revealed in the gospel, which is perfect and perfecting, but not in contrast with the former law as being not perfect, and not able to make perfect: that distinction is not in view here: see below. The whole Epistle is founded on this perfect law of Christ, more especially on that declaration of it contained in the sermon on the mount: see Prolegg.

And that this law here is meant, the λόγοςἔμφυτος , λόγοςἀληθείας , as it is a rule of conduct, is evident from what follows, where deeds, and they only, are spoken of. It is the law of our liberty, not as in contrast with a former law of bondage, but as viewed on the side of its being the law of the new life and birth, with all its spontaneous and free development of obedience. Huther remarks, “ Ever in the O. T. the sweetness of the law was subject of praise (Psalms 19:8-11), but the life-giving power belonged to the law only in an imperfect manner, because the covenant on which it rested, was as yet only one of promise, and not of fulfilment” ) and remains there (remains looking in, does not depart as the other. There is a paronomasia in the παρα - repeated. Schneckenburger tries to give it the sense of ἐμμένειν in Acts 14:22: but as Wiesinger remarks, the matter spoken of here is not so much observing the law in act, as observing it in attention— not letting it pass out of the thoughts.

That leads to action, as below), being not a forgetful hearer but a doer of work (ἔργον , not sing. for plur. as Grot., “ effector eorum operum quæ evangelica lex exigit:” but abstract, of work, something which brings a result with it), this man (see on οὗτος above, ver. 23) shall be blessed in his doing (cf. Sir. 19:20, ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳποίησιςνόμου .

The words imply that even in the act there is blessing: ἐν not being instrumental, but taken in its proper meaning: the life of obedience is the element wherein the blessedness is found and consists).

26, 27. The Apostle is still on the command in ver. 19. As yet he has been exemplifying the ταχὺςεἰςτὸἀκοῦσαι in connexion with the βραδὺςεἰςὀργήν . From this he passes to that which is again so nearly connected with it,— the βραδὺςεἰςτὸλαλῆσαι .

26. If any man imagines that he is religious (in the sense of ‘ observant of God’ s outward service,’ not = εὐσεβής , but marking the external manifestation of εὐσέβεια . We have no word at all adequately expressing θρῆσκος . See reff.), not bridling his tongue but deceiving his heart , of this man (cf. on οὗτος above, ver. 23) the religious service is vain (idle and fruitless).

27. Religious service pure and unpolluted (the two adjectives seem merely to bring out the positive and negative sides of purity, as in the two members of the apodosis below) in the estimation of (reff. and Romans 2:13: Galatians 3:11) Him who is our God and Father (thus with the τῷ : if without it, ‘ (our) God and Father.’ That the paternal relation here ascribed to God must be understood as referring to us, is evident, were it only from the reference which Chrys. (in Caten.) recognizes: οὐκεἶπενἐὰννηστεύητε , ὅμοιοιἐστὲτῷπατρὶὑμῶν · οὐδὲνγὰρτούτωνπαρὰθεὸν (-ῷ) οὐδὲἐργάζεταίτιτούτωνὁθεός · ἀλλὰτί ; γίνεσθεοἰκτίρμονεςὡςὁπατὴρὑμῶνὁἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς · τοῦτοθεοῦἔργον · ἐὰνοὖντοῦτομὴἔχῃς , τίἔχεις ; ἔλεονθέλω , φησί , καὶοὐθυσίαν ) is (consists in) this, to visit orphans and widows in their affliction (shews at the same time the reason for the ἐπισκέπτεσθαι , and the object of it),— to (there is no copula. These asyndeta are found in our Epistle especially, where various particulars are enumerated which go to make up a whole, or apply to the description of one thing: as e. g. ver. 19, ch. 3:6: cf. also ch. 5:5, 6) preserve himself (the reflexive ἑαυτόν refers back as its subject to τις , as if it were ἐπισκέπτεσθαίτιναὀρφανοὺςκ .τ .λ .) unspotted from (belongs to τηρεῖν , see ref. Prov. and cf. προσέχεινἀπό , Matthew 16:6, Matthew 16:12) the world , is to Christians a source of continual defilement. They, by their new birth unto God, are taken out of the world; but at the same time, by sin still dwelling in them, are ever liable to be enticed and polluted by it: and therefore must keep themselves (cf. 1 Timothy 6:14), for fear of such pollution. This keeping is indeed in the higher sense God’ s work: cf.

John 17:15: but it is also our work, 1 Timothy 5:22. The Commentators compare Isocr. ad Nicocl. p. 36, ἡγοῦτοῦτοεἶναιθῦμακάλλιστονκαὶθεραπείανμεγίστην , ἐὰνβὲλτιστονκαὶδικαιότατονσεαυτὸνπαρέχῃς . Also Psalms 50:8-15: 1 Samuel 15:22: Psalms 40:7 f.: Sir. 35:2).