========================================================================
  THE EPISTLE OF ST JAMES: GREEK TEXT WITH INTRODUCTION,
  by Fenton John Anthony Hort
========================================================================

Fenton John Anthony Hort's collected correspondence containing practical wisdom
and spiritual counsel.

  Chapters: 7

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    0. The Epistle of St James: Greek Text with Introduction,
    1. PREFACE
    2. INTRODUCTION.
    3. IAKOBOU
    4. GREEK INDEX
    5. ENGLISH INDEX
    6. HEBREW INDEX

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 0: THE EPISTLE OF ST JAMES: GREEK TEXT WITH INTRODUCTION,
========================================================================


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: PREFACE
========================================================================

THE circumstances connected with the origin of this book have already been
related by Dr Westcott in the preface to the companion edition of Dr Hort's
Commentary on St Peter i.-ii. 17, published in 1898. It was designed to take its
place in a Commentary on the whole N.T. planned by the three friends, Westcott,
Lightfoot, and Hort in 1860.

Dr Hort's share included the Synoptic Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles of St
James, St Peter, and St Jude. After a brief period of work on the Gospels, of
which only a few unimportant fragments remain, Dr Hort set to work on St James.
If we may judge from the condition of the MS. the Commentary on Chapter I was
complete when he came back to Cambridge, as a Fellow of Emmanuel College, in
1871. His notes were, however, worked over and written out afresh when he chose
St James as the subject for his first three courses of Lectures as Hulsean
Professor in 1880, 1881. It is idle now to regret that his attention was called
away to lecture in 1882 on Tatian's Apology, leaving the Commentary incomplete,
but within sight of the end. When at length he returned to the Epistle in the
Summer Term of 1889, he dealt mainly with questions of Introduction. The
introductory matter printed in this volume was prepared for that course of
Lectures. It was supplemented by condensed notes on select passages from the
earlier chapters of the Epistle. No further progress was made with the
Commentary on the Text.

The Introduction and Commentary have been printed substantially as they stand in
the MS., except that for the sake of uniformity English renderings have in some
cases been supplied at the head of the notes. This however has only been done in
cases where the note itself gave clear indication of the rendering which Dr Hort
would himself have proposed.

No one who reads this book with the attention that it requires and deserves will
feel that any apology is needed for its publication, in spite of its
incompleteness. In the Introduction no doubt the scholarship appears to a
certain extent in what Dr Sanday, in the Preface to Dr Hort's notes on Apoc.
i.-iii. published last year, aptly describes as undress.' And some points would
naturally have received fuller treatment, if the author himself had been spared
to prepare his own work for publication. But there is no reason to suppose that
his conclusions would have been seriously modified by anything that has been
written on the Epistle since his death. His Introduction has, it will not be
superfluous to point out, an advantage from the appended Commentary, inevitably
but none the less unfortunately lacking in the still more compendious
introduction provided, e.g. in such a recognized Text-book as Jülicher's. For
after all the ultimate appeal on most of the vexed questions of Introduction
lies to the Text itself. And on one point at least Dr Hort's patient and minute
examination of the Text supplies a conclusive answer to the charge of
incoherence [1] not uncommonly brought against the Epistle on the ground of the
obvious abruptness of its style. No one can study these notes consecutively
without becoming conscious of a subtle harmony underlying the whole Epistle, due
partly to the consistent application of a few fundamental principles
characteristic of the author [2] , and partly to the recurrence in different
forms of the same fundamental failing in the people to whom his warnings are
addressed [3] .

In regard to the evidence to be derived from the language in which the Epistle
is written it is clear that Dr Hort worked habitually on an hypothesis, the
possibility of which many modern critics either ignore or deny. Everything here
turns on the extent to which a knowledge of Greek may be presupposed among the
Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in the First Century A.D. Jülicher, for example,
regards the excellence of the Greek of the Epistle as in itself conclusive
against the traditional attribution. This seems arbitrary in the case of a man
whose father according to an early tradition (St Matth. ii.) spent some time in
Egypt. Dr Hort on the other hand regarded a knowledge of Greek as anything but
exceptional in Palestine. He thinks it possible to identify dialectic
peculiarities of Palestinian Greek [4] . He is prepared to believe in the
currency [5] of Greek paraphrases of the O.T. resembling the Hebrew Targums.'
The influence that he everywhere ascribes to the LXX in moulding N.T. vocabulary
presupposes a considerable familiarity with the Greek Version of the O.T. in
Apostolic circles [6] . And he finds the Epistle of St James full of implied
references to the words of the Lord in their Greek form [7] . This point is one
of far-reaching importance, and if there are good reasons for supposing that a
man in St James' position could not have had a thorough knowledge of Greek, it
would be well that they should be produced.

The Commentary itself, as far as it goes, is finished work in every line. Each
word and phrase and sentence has been examined in the light of the whole
available evidence with characteristic freshness, and with a singularly delicate
sense both of the meaning of words, and of subtle variations of grammatical
structure. At times, no doubt, in Dr Hort's work as in Dr Westcott's, the
investigation of a particular word or form of thought seems to be carried beyond
the limits strictly necessary for the interpretation of the passage immediately,
under discussion. It is however only fair to recal the fact that each separate
Commentary was meant to form part of an inclusive scheme. Both scholars combined
a keen sense of the variety of the several parts of the N.T. with a deep
conviction of the fundamental unity of the whole. Their field of view was never
limited by the particular passage on which they might happen to be commenting.
No single fragment, they felt, could be fully understood out of relation to the
whole Revelation of which it formed a part. Conciseness and, as regards the
rapid apprehension of the salient points in individual books, something of
sharpness of focus were sacrificed in consequence. But for students of the N.T.
as a whole, the result is pure gain. The labour entailed in following out the
suggested lines of thought is amply repaid by a growing sense of depth beyond
depth of Wisdom hidden under familiar and seemingly commonplace forms of
expression. And even the several books stand out in the end in more clearly
defined individuality.

This characteristic of Dr Hort's method minimizes the disadvantages arising from
the fragmentariness of the finished work. The discussion of representative
sections of different writers has given him wider scope for the treatment of the
various departments of N.T. Theology than would have been afforded by a
Commentary formally complete on a single Epistle. The First Epistle of St Peter
occupies no doubt a peculiarly central position in N.T. The relation in which it
stands to the Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians' led Dr Hort to treat
many of the characteristic problems of the Pauline Gospel, and its relation to
the Epistle of St James is remarkably illustrated by the fact that in commenting
on St Peter Dr Hort not infrequently summarizes the results of investigations
recorded in full in this volume. Yet even 1 St Peter would not have given him
the scope afforded by these chapters of St James for treating of the fundamental
problems of individual (as distinct from social) Ethics, and of Psychology.

In spite therefore of its apparent fragmentariness Dr Hort's work is marked by a
real unity, and possesses a permanent value for all serious students of N.T. In
details no doubt both of vocabulary and syntax his results will need to be
carefully checked in the fresh light which is coming from the Papyri. But in
work so broadly based, fresh evidence we may well believe will confirm far more
than it will upset.

But, some one may say, granted all this, what is meant by the permanent value of
a Commentary? Are not Commentaries like all scientific text-books, only written
to be superseded? In every other department of study, however gifted a scholar
may be, he must be content that his particular contribution to the advancement
of knowledge shall be merged and lost in the general sum. Is there any reason to
think that the case is different in Theology? Strangely enough there is.

The subject-matter of the science of Theology is provided by the Bible. That
standard interpretation [8] ' of the primary Gospel was ordained to be for the
guidance of the Church in all after ages, in combination with the living
guidance of the Spirit.' Each age must go back for itself to the fountain head.
Yet for the thinkers in each age there are abiding lessons to be learnt from the
labours of their predecessors. It is not surprising, therefore, that all the
outstanding leaders in Theological thought, the men of creative insight, who
have moulded the minds of their fellows throughout the Christian centuries, e.g.
Origen, Theodore, and Augustine, have been great primarily as interpreters of
Scripture, content to sacrifice any glory of originality,' all licence of
unfettered speculations, that they might be the servants of a Text. And the work
to which they gave their lives is living work to-day. Their Theologies have
still a message for us, in spite of antiquated method and defective intellectual
equipment: full of light which we can ill afford to neglect. Though they must
remain a dead letter to us, till they are interpreted by the thoughts and
aspirations of our own time, as shone upon by the light of the Spirit who is the
teacher of Christ's disciples in every age [9] .'

The fact is that just as in the original communication of the Divine Revelation
the personality of the writer is an integral part of the message which he was
chosen to convey, so the personality of each interpreter of these living
oracles' is a vital element in all the fresh light that he is able to perceive
in them. Any contribution that he makes to their fuller understanding remains to
the end of time recognisably his, for those who have eyes to see. Here, as in
the case of all other builders on the one foundation, the fire tries, and the
day will declare each man's work of what sort it is: though it is only the few
here and there who are called out by, and exercise a dominant influence in, the
successive crises in the development of Christian thought, whose names survive
upon the mouths of men, and whose work is studied for its own sake in later
generations.

Now Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort have not left behind them a body of systematic
Theology. The treatise on Christian Doctrine which was to have been the crown of
Dr Westcott's work was never completed. They founded no school marked by common
adherence to any characteristic tenets. Their message to their age lay rather in
the attitude and method than in any specific results of their work. The crisis
in Christian thought which they were called to face affected primarily the
Authority, the Inspiration, and the Interpretation of the Bible. And it is
impossible to over-estimate the debt which English Christianity has owed in this
perilous period of transition to the steadying influence exerted over the minds
of their contemporaries by the simple fact of their lifelong devotion to the
study of the sacred text, their fearless faith in Truth, their guileless
workmanship,' and their reverent humility. At the same time it is hard not to
believe that the actual results of work done in such a spirit will . be found to
possess a value in the eyes of other generations besides that which witnessed
its production.

It only remains for me to express my heartiest thanks to my colleague, the Rev.
P. H. L. Brereton, Fellow of St Augustine's College, without whose scholarly and
ungrudging assistance I should have found it impossible in the pressure of
multifarious distractions to see this book through the press and verify the
references: to Professor Burkitt for his kind help in the note on the Latin
renderings of erithia: and to the printers and proof-readers of the University
Press for their patience and thoroughness.

J. O. F. MURRAY.

ST AUGUSTINE'S COLLEGE,

CANTERBURY.

St Peter's Day, 1909.

[1] On this point it is well worth while to compare A Discussion of the General
Epistle of St James by R. St John Parry, published by the Cambridge University
Press in 1903.

[2] See notes on i. 18, 21, iii. 9 for St James' doctrine of Creation: on the
true Law i. 25, ii. 12: on his conception of the World i. 27, iii. 6, iv. 4.

[3] E.g. formalism i. 22, 26, 27, ii. 19: censoriousness i. 19, iii. 1, 9, 12.

[4] See p. 46 b, 84 a.

[5] See p. 94 b.

[6] See esp. p. 97 b.

[7] See p. 91 a, p. xxxiii. etc.

[8] p. ix.

[9] Hort on The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 138.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION.
========================================================================

THE Epistle of St James is among the less read and less studied books of the
N.T.; and this for obvious reasons. With one partial exception it has not
supplied material for great theological controversies. But moreover it is a book
that very few Christians on consideration would place among the most important
books. No one wishing to refer to the written records which best set forth what
Christian belief and even Christian practice is would turn to it as they would
turn to the Gospels or to some, at least, of St Paul's Epistles. Nay, as we all
know, even distinctively Christian language in one sense of the phrase, i.e.
such language as no one but a Christian could use, is used in it very sparingly.
Thus no wonder that it has been comparatively little valued by Christian
readers, and comparatively little examined and illustrated by Christian
commentators.

Yet on the other hand it has an important place and office of its own in the
Scriptures of the N.T. Its very unlikeness to other books is of the greatest
value to us, as shewing through Apostolic example the manysidedness of Christian
truth. Our faith rests first on the Gospel itself, the revelation of God and His
redemption in His Only begotten Son, and secondly on the interpretation of that
primary Gospel by the Apostles and Apostolic men to whom was Divinely committed
the task of applying the revelation of Christ to the thoughts and deeds of their
own time. That standard interpretation of theirs was ordained to be for the
guidance of the Church in all after ages, in combination with the living
guidance of the Spirit. But it could not have discharged this office if it had
been of one type only, moulded by the mental characteristics of a single man,
though he were an inspired Apostle. It was needed that various modes of
apprehending the one Truth should be sanctioned for ever as contributing to the
completeness of the faith. And that mode of apprehending it which we find in St
James stamped the comprehensiveness of Apostolic Christianity in a marked
manner, being the furthest removed from that of the Apostle of largest
influence, St Paul.

That special type of Christianity which is represented by St James had a high
intrinsic value apart from its testimony to the various because partial
character of Divine truth as apprehended by men. One of the most serious dangers
to Christian faith in the early ages, perhaps we may say, in all ages, was the
temptation to think of Christ as the founder of a new religion, to invert His
words "I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." St Paul himself was entirely free
from such a view of Christianity: but the part which he had to take in
vindicating Gentile freedom against Jewish encroachments made him easily appear
to be the herald of a new religion. The Divine judgement of the fall of
Jerusalem and the Jewish State, and also the bitter hatred with which the Jews
long pursued Christians, would all tend to produce the same impression. Thus
many influences prepared the way for the influence of Marcion in the second
century and long afterwards, and made him seem a true champion of the purity of
the Gospel. When he cast off the worship of the Creator, of Jehovah the Lord of
Israel, the merely just God of the O.T., as he said, and set up the God of the
N.T. as a new God, alone in the strict sense good, alone to be worshipped by
Christians, he could not but seem to many to be delivering the faith from an
antiquated bondage. And so again and again the wild dream of a "Christianity
without Judaism" has risen up with attractive power. But the Epistle of St James
marks in the most decisive way the continuity of the two Testaments. In some
obvious aspects it is like a piece of the O.T. appearing in the midst of the
N.T.; and yet not out of place, or out of date, for it is most truly of the N.T.
too. It as it were carries on the line of intermediate testimony which starts
from John the Baptist, and is taken up by the hymns in Lk. i., ii. (Magnificat,
Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis). As they reach forward towards the Gospel, so the
Epistle of St James looks upon the elder dispensation as having been in a manner
itself brought to perfection by the Gospel.

This distinctive value of St James' Epistle is closely related to the
distinctive value of the first three Gospels. The relation is not merely of
affinity, but almost of direct descent. The Epistle is saturated with the matter
of those Gospels (or narratives akin to them). No other book so uses them. And
though the completeness of Christianity would be maimed if the teaching of the
Gospel of St John were away, yet the three Gospels give in their own way a true
picture. Many perversions of Christianity could not have arisen if they had in
practice as well as theory been taken with the Gospel of St John; and so the
combination of St James with St Paul is a safeguard against much error.

Besides this general value of the Epistle as a whole, its details are full of
matter of high interest and importance, often by no means lying on the surface.
It is also far from being an easy Epistle. Many verses of it are easy, but many
are difficult enough, and even in the easier parts the train of thought is often
difficult to catch. Much, though not all, of the difficulty comes from the
energetic abruptness of style, reminding us of the older prophets. Thus for
various reasons the Epistle is one that will repay close examination and
illustration.

Authorship.

Two questions arise: (1) What James is intended by Iakobos in [1]i. 1. (2)
Whether the James so intended did really write the Epistle: is it authentic or
supposititious?

There is no need to spend much time on this second question, which is almost
entirely distinct from the general question of the date of important N.T. books.
Some critics of ability still uphold a late date, but on very slight and
intangible grounds. One has urged similarity to Hom. Clem., a late book: but
such little similarity as there is proceeds from the fact that both are by
Jewish Christians, though in quite different generations. Others refer to the
judicial persecutions, or to the presbyters. Others, with less reference to
date, say that though Jewish it is not Jewish enough for the James whom they
rightly suppose to be intended: but then this image of James they have
constructed out of problematical materials. Again it is said that it contains
Orphic language, strange in a Palestinian Jew ( ton trochon tes geneseos in
[2]iii. 6): but this interpretation of the words cannot stand.

A somewhat more tangible ground is the supposed reference to Hebrews and
Apocalypse, books apparently (Apoc. certainly) written after St James' death. In
[3]ii. 25 there is a reference to Rhaab he porne as with Abraham an example of
justification by works. It is urged that as Abraham is taken from St Paul, so
Rahab is taken from the Pauline Hebrews xi. 31 (cf. Bleek Heb. I. 89 f.). It is
quite possible that Rahab may have been cited by St Paul or disciples of his as
an example of faith: but the reference to Heb. is unlikely, for there is no
question of justification there. She is merely one of a long series (ou
sunapoleto). But at all events it is enough that she was celebrated by the Jews
as a typical proselyte (Wünsche, Erläuterung der Evangelien, 3 f.). As Abraham
was the type of Israelite faith, so Rahab was of Gentile faith. In [4]i. 12, ton
stephanon tes zoes is referred to Rev. ii. 10; and ii. 5, kleronomous tes
basileias to Rev. i. 6, 9; v. l0. "Crown of life" is a striking phrase, not
likely to arise independently in two places: but probably of Jewish origin,
founded on O.T. (see further, in loc.). Kleron. t. basil. comes straight from
our Lord's words Mt. v. 3, 10; Lk. xii. 32, etc. as regards basileia (the poor,
as here) and both words Mt. xxv. 34; 1 Cor. vi. 9, etc. These supposed
indications, practically all isolated, crumble into nothing.

A striking fact is that Kern, who initiated the more vigorous criticism of the
Epistle in modern times by his essay of 1835, then placed it late: yet himself
wrote a commentary in 1838 in which he retracted the former view, and
acknowledged that he had been over hasty.

It is not necessary at present to say more on authenticity, which will come
under notice incidentally. But how as to the James intended? Practically two
only come into consideration: James the son of Zebedee and James the Lord's
brother. Who James the Lord's brother was is another question.

Was it the son of Zebedee? For this there is hardly any external evidence [10] .
Cod. Corbeiensis, an interesting ms with an Old Latin text, has Explicit
epistola Jacobi filii Zebedaei. The date is cent. X (Holder ap. Gebhardt Barn.^2
xxiv f.) ; but the colophon is probably much more ancient. The Epistle is not
part of a N.T. or of Epistles, but is in combination with three other Latin
books all ancient, the four together forming the end (true end) of a vol. of
which the first three-quarters (69-93) are lost (Bonnell ap. Hilgenf. in
Zeitsch. 1871, 263). Philaster on Heresies (soon after the middle of cent. IV);
Novatian (called Tert.) de cibis judaicis (cent. III); and an old translation of
the Ep. of Barnabas, next to which (i.e. last) it stands. Thus it is highly
probable that the Corb. Ms was copied from one written late in cent. IV, or not
much later, i.e. at a time when the Epistle of St James was treated in the West
as a venerable writing, but not as part of the N.T. This could hardly have been
the case after cent. IV, owing to the authority of Jerome, Augustine and the
Council of Carthage (prob. 397).

Another probable trace of this tradition in the West is in Isid. Hisp. de ortu
et obitu patrum 71: Jacobus filius Zebedaei, frater Joannis, quartus in ordine,
duodecim tribubus quae sunt in dispersion, gentium scripsit atque Hispaniae et
occidentalium locorum gentibus evangelium praedicavit etc. It has been suggested
that "scripsit" is an interpolation. Apparently the only reason is because (in
some MSS (?) not noticed by Vallarsi) Jerome de vir. illust. after Matthew has:
J. Zebedaei filius duodecim tribubus quae sunt in dispersione omnibus
praedicavit evangelium Dni. nostri J.C. etc. (Martianay, Vulgata, p. 191: cf.
Sabat. III. 944). But this may just as easily be a shortened abbreviation of
Isidore. This addition in Jerome is by Martianay referred to some Greeks (a
Graecis nescio quibus); but what Greeks are meant? The motive probably was to
make him an apostle, the identification with the son of Alphaeus not being known
to those who gave the title; also the connexion of Peter, James and John.
Practically the same motive still exists; but it is not an argument. Plumptre
(pp. 7-10) quite sufficiently answers Mr Bassett's reasons. They all are merely
points in which words said in the Epistle are such as might easily have been
said by one who saw and heard what the son of Zebedee did, but suit equally the
other James in question. Besides Apostleship the other motive is to obtain an
early date, on which more hereafter. At all events it is obvious that the
existence of recipients such as the Epistle presupposes would be inconsistent
with all that we know of the few years before St James' death. Indeed if he had
written, it is most strange that no better tradition should exist; most strange
also that there should be no record of such a special position and activity as
would lead to his writing in this authoritative tone.

We come therefore as a matter of course to James the Lord's brother. About him a
large literature has been written: it is worth while here only to take the more
important points. To take first what is clear and accepted on all hands, he was
the James of all but the earliest years of the Apostolic age. Three times he
appears in the Acts, all memorable occasions:--(i) xii. 17. When Peter is
delivered from the imprisonment which accompanied the death of James the son of
Zebedee, he bids his friends go tell the news to "James and the brethren," which
shews that already he was prominent, to say the least. (2) xv. 13. At the
conference or council at Jerusalem, arising out of the Judaizers' attempt to
enforce circumcision at Antioch, when Peter has spoken in favour of liberty, and
Barnabas and Paul have recounted their successful mission in Asia Minor, James
likewise recognises Gentile Christianity, but proposes restrictions which were
virtually a compromise; finally he refers to the Jews and their synagogues in
different cities. (3) xxi. 18. When Paul comes to Jerusalem (for the last time,
as it proved) and is welcomed by the brethren, he goes in next day to James, all
the elders being present: he greets them and recounts his missionary successes.
They (James and the elders) glorify God for what had happened, and then
mentioning the great number of Christian Jews at Jerusalem, all zealots for the
law, and ill-disposed towards St Paul, suggested his performance of a Jewish
rite of purification in the temple to shew that he himself had not abandoned
Jewish practice though it was not to be imposed on Gentiles. Thus, again,
substantially accepting Gentile freedom, but urging subordinate concession to
Jewish feelings.

Now as regards St Paul's Epistles:--(1) 1 Cor. xv. 7 (to which we must return).
Christ was seen by James, then by all the Apostles. (2) Gal. i. 19. Referring to
the first visit to Jerusalem after the conversion, "other of the apostles saw I
none, save James the Lord's brother." (3) Gal. ii. 9. The second visit to
Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians, but apparently the third altogether, and
probably identical with that of Acts xv. (see Lightft. Gal.^10 pp. 123 ff., 303
ff.). Here James, Cephas, John, of hoi dokountes stuloi ei?nai, recognising the
grace given him, give them the right hand of fellowship, that Paul and Barnabas
should go to the Gentiles, they to the circumcision, with a proviso that they
should remember the poor (brethren of Judaea), which, he says, for this very
reason I made it a point to do. (4) Gal. ii. 12. Certain came from James (from
Jerusalem to Antioch). [See Jud. Christ. pp. 79 ff.] Doubtless we must add Jude
1, adelphos de Iakobou: but this is of less consequence. Here then we have James
as the leading person at Jerusalem from the time of Peter's imprisonment to
Paul's last visit. Here the N.T. leaves him. More we learn from Hegesippus (Eus.
ii. 23; cf. iv. 22) about his way of life ("the Just"), his reputation among the
people, and his martyrdom. His death is also mentioned by Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. i,
for there is no sufficient reason to suspect the passage to be interpolated.

We now come to matters of question and debate. Was he one of the Twelve? i.e.
Was he the son of Alphaeus? Why was he called the Lord's brother? Without
attempting to trace out all the intricacies of the scriptural argument [11] a
word must be said on the cardinal points.

First Gal. i. 19: heteron de ton apostolon ouk eidon, ei me Iakobon ton adelphon
tou kuriou. Here, according to the most obvious sense, St Paul implies that
James was one of the Apostles, while he directly calls him the brother of the
Lord. Is this obvious sense right? i.e. Can heteron ei me reasonably bear
another meaning? On the whole, I think not. For the very late exchange of ei me
and alla in N.T. there is no probability whatever. In three other books of the
N.T. in less good Greek (Mt. xii. 4; Lk. iv. 25 f.; Rev. ix. 4) the meaning
looks like this, but fallaciously. Either the ei me goes with the preceding
clause as a general statement, dropping the particular reference, or (more
probably) there is a colloquial ellipse of another negative (cf. Mt. xii. 4,
oude tini ei me t. hiereusin monois; Lk. iv. 26, oude pros tina ei me eis
Sarepta; Rev. ix. 4, oude ti ei me t. anthropous). The force is thus not simply
"but," but "but only." St Paul himself has some rather peculiar uses of ei me.
Rom. xiii. 8, ei me to allelous agapan; 1 Cor. ii. 11, tis gar oiden . . . ta t.
anthropou ei me to pneuma k.t.l.; (probably not Gal. ii. 16, ou dikaioutai . . .
ean me). Again with an initial ellipse 1 Cor. vii. 17, ei me hekasto k.t.l.
("only"); Rom. xiv. 14, ei me to logizomeno; Gal. i. 7, ei me tines eisin
k.t.l.. Thus it is not impossible that St Paul might mean "unless you choose to
count" etc. But in a historical statement on a delicate matter he would probably
with that meaning have hinted it by a particle, as by ei me ara, ei me ge. Thus
it is much more probable that he did simply accept James as "an apostle," while
yet his mentioning so important a person (see ii. 9) only as an after thought,
not with Peter, does suggest some difference of authority or position between
them.

Next what did he mean by an apostle? Was it necessarily one of the Twelve? Here
we must walk cautiously, and observe carefully the limits of usage. The range of
the term in the N.T. is very peculiar. In Mt. and Mk. it is confined to the
first mission and return of the Twelve, and is so introduced as to suggest that
the previous narratives had it not (Mt. x. i, 2, 5; Mk. iii. 14; vi. 30). In Jn.
it is only used in its general sense of envoy (xiii. i6), oude apostolos meizon
t. pempsantos auton. In these three "the Twelve" or " the disciples" take its
place. But in Lk. it comes in more freely, though still not so commonly as
"disciples."

In Acts (from i. 2) it is the frequent and almost (contrast vi. 2) exclusive
designation of the Twelve and of them alone, with one remarkable exception. From
xi. 20 Antioch begins to be a centre of Christian life and activity external to
Jerusalem. Barnabas is sent (xi. 22) by the Church at Jerusalem to investigate
what was going on. He approved it, fetched Paul from Tarsus, and they worked at
Antioch together; and together they carried a contribution to the brethren in
Judaea (xi. 28 ff.). Then (xiii. 1-4) in a very marked way they are described as
set apart by a special command of the Holy Spirit, having hands laid on them and
being formally sent forth. This was the first Missionary Journey: on the course
of it they are twice (xiv. 4, 14) called "the apostles," but never after. This
usage in xiv. is often urged to shew the latitude of usage. It seems to me to
have quite the opposite meaning: it shews that the apostolate of the Twelve was
not the only office that could bear the name: but the application is to one
equally definite, though temporary, a special and specially sacred commission
for a particular mission of vast importance for the history of the Church, being
the first authoritative mission work to the heathen (in contrast to sporadic
individuals), the first recorded extension of the Gospel beyond Syria, and by
its results the occasion of bringing to a point the question of Gentile
Christianity and the memorable decision of the Council or Conference of
Jerusalem.

1 Pet. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1: "an apostle of Jesus Christ" (as in St Paul). 2 Pet.
iii. 2; Jude 17: "the apostles" used in a way which neither requires nor
excludes limitation. Rev. xxi. 14: twelve names of twelve apostles of the Lamb
on the twelve foundations of the wall of New Jerusalem; xviii. 20 (more
indeterminately). But ii. 2, the angel of the Church at Ephesus has "tried them
that say they are apostles, and are not, and found them false," which seems to
imply both a legitimate and illegitimate use outside the Twelve. Heb. iii. 1,
Christ Himself "apostle and high priest of our profession," equivalent to
"envoy" as in Jn.

St Paul emphasizes his own apostleship in salutations etc., and the energy with
which he asserts his own claim as connected with a special mission from Christ
Himself on the way to Damascus is really incompatible with looseness of usage.
The Twelve were confessedly apostles: so was he: but this was not worth saying
if the title might be given to others not having as definite an authority. This
comes out clearly when we consider the passages in which he acknowledges the
priority of the Twelve in time (1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 17; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii.
11). How then about the apparent exceptions in his use? Among these we must not
reckon Rom. xvi. 7 (hoitines episemoi en t. apostolois). The next clause speaks
of them (Andronicus and Junius) as having become Christians earlier than
himself, so that doubtless they had been at Jerusalem, and so would be, as the
words would quite naturally mean [12] , "men of mark in the eyes of the
apostles," "favourably known to the apostles." The only real passages are 2 Cor.
viii. 23 (Titus and others), apostoloi ekklesion between adelphoi hemon and doxa
Christou; and Phil. ii. 25 (Epaphroditus), t. adelphon kai sunergon kai
sustratioten mou, humon de apostolon; both marked by the added words as used in
the limited sense of "envoys of churches," somewhat as in Acts xiv. This throws
no light on "other of the apostles," apparently absolute and equivalent to
apostles of God or of Christ.

Thus far we find St Paul's use not vague at all, but limited to (I) the Twelve,
(2) himself, (3) envoys of churches, but in this case only with other words
(defining genitives) added. Yet it does not follow that he would refuse it to St
James unless he were of the Twelve. Supposing he had some exceptional claim like
his own, he might allow the name. 1 Cor. xv. 5-8 seems to shew that it really
was so:

"seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve,

seen of James, then of all the apostles."

The use of all implies the Twelve and something more, and it is not unlikely
that the relations correspond of single names and bodies.

Whether St James was the only additional apostle, we cannot tell: but probably
he was. His early and peculiar authority would be accounted for if he had some
exceptional Divine authorisation analogous to St Paul's. Not to speak of
confused traditions about this, St Paul's mention of Christ's appearance to him
(1 Cor. xv. 7) points to a probable occasion, and the Gospel according to the
Hebrews had a story referring to this event (Jerome, de vir. illustr. 2). Such
an event as the conversion of a brother of the Lord by a special appearance
after the Resurrection might easily single him out for a special apostleship.

Thus Galatians i. 19 is compatible either with his being one of the Twelve, or
an additional member of the apostolate by an exceptional title; and 1 Cor. xv.
rather suggests the latter.

The details of the "brotherhood" question must be left to the books on the
subject. Speaking generally there are four theories:

(1) Helvidian: brothers strictly, sons of Joseph and Mary.

(2) Palestinian or Epiphanian: brothers strictly in scriptural sense, though not
the modern sense, sons of Joseph but not Mary.

(3) Chrysostom (confusedly) and Theodoret: cousins, as children of Clopas.

(q.) Hieronymian: cousins, as children of Alphaeus.

The third is of no great historical importance or intrinsic interest: it is
apparently founded on a putting together of Mt. xxvii. 56 || Mk. xv. 40 with Jn.
xix. 25 (contrast Ltft. Gal.^10 pp. 289 f.). But in modern times it is usually
combined with the fourth by the (in itself probable) identification of Clopas
with Alphaeus.

The Hieronymian, largely accepted in the Western Church, and with rare
exceptions in England before Lightfoot, is probably, as Lightfoot shews,
historically only an ingenious scholar's theory in century iv. Intrinsically it
gives an unnatural and for any but patriarchal times unexampled sense to
"brethren" [13] . It occurs in the Gospels, Acts, and St Paul: nay (Mt. xii.
46-50 || Mk. iii. 31-35 || Lk. viii. 19-21) the original narrative puts it into
the mouth of those who told Him that His mother and His brethren sought to speak
with Him. It makes the "unbelief" of the brethren unintelligible, and involves
various petty difficulties in subordinate details. I mention only one of the
details, as deserving more attention than it has received, Jn. xix. 25. The
cousinhood theory turns on Mary wife of Clopas being sister to the Virgin, and
this on there being only three persons here, not four. Both arrangements are
possible: two pairs more natural, "mother" the common word of the first, "Mary"
of the second. But more striking is the antithesis of soldiers and women. As
Ewald pointed out, the soldiers would be four, or a combination of fours (see
Wetst. on Acts xii. 4). Thus St John would evidently have had dwelling in his
mind the two contrasted groups of four, the four indifferent Roman soldiers at
sport and gain, the four faithful women, two kinswomen, two disciples.

On the whole the biblical evidence, which alone is decisive, is definitely
unfavourable to the cousinhood theory; and, as far as I can see, it leaves open
the choice between the Helvidian and the Palestinian. Some might say that
"brethren," if less inapplicable than to cousins, would still be unlikely on the
Epiphanian view. But the language of Mt. and Lk. is decisive against this
predisposition. Joseph was our Lord's not genitor but pater. Lk. ii. 33, ho
pater autou kai he meter; 48, ho pater sou kai ego; 27, 41, 43, hoi goneis
[autou]]; and both Mt. and Lk. carry the genealogy to Joseph. Yet both assert
the miraculous conception, and it is impossible on any rational criticism to
separate the two modes of speech as belonging to different elements. The birth
from the Virgin Mary exclusively and the (in some true sense) fatherhood of
Joseph are asserted together; and if Joseph could rightly be called father, his
children could rightly be called "brethren." Still this leaves neutrality only.

On the other hand the traditional authority is by no means undecided. For the
Helvidian we have only the guess of the erratic Tertullian and obscure Latin
writers of century iv. For the Epiphanian we have in the earlier times some
obscure writings probably connected with Palestine as the Protevangelium Jacobi,
the Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen (sic), and various important writers
of the fourth century. It was of course possible that such a tradition should
grow up, before Jerome's solution was thought of, by those who desired to
maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary. But still the absence of any trace of
the other, even among Ebionites, is remarkable, and the tradition itself has
various and good attestation. The evidence is not such as one would like to rest
anything important upon. But there is a decided preponderance of reason for
thinking the Epiphanian view to be right.

Hence the writer of the Epistle was James the Just, bishop or head of Jerusalem,
brother of the Lord as being son of Joseph by a former wife, not one of the
Twelve, a disbeliever in our Lord's Messiahship during His lifetime, but a
believer in Him shortly afterwards, probably in connexion with a special
appearance vouchsafed to him.

Before we leave the person of James, we must speak of his death and the time of
it. According to Josephus (Ant. xx. 9. I) the high priest Ananus the younger, "a
man of peculiarly bold and audacious character" (thrasus t. tropon kai tolmetes
diapherontos), a Sadducee, and accordingly, Josephus says, specially given to
judicial cruelty, took advantage of the interregnum between Festus and Albinus
to gather a sunedrion kriton, at which "James the brother of Jesus, who is (or,
was) called Christ, and some others" were condemned to be stoned to death as
transgressors of the law. He adds that the best men of the city were indignant,
some wrote to King Agrippa, others met Albinus on the way to point out the
illegality of the act, and the result was that Ananus was deposed. An
interpolation has been supposed here; but the whole story hangs together, and
Lightfoot with good reason supports it, pointing out that in a real
interpolation the language is by no means so neutral. The date of these events
can be accurately fixed to 62, which must therefore be the date of St James'
death if the passage about him is genuine.

Hegesippus' account is much more elaborate (see Ltft. Gal.^10 366 f.). Dr
Plumptre makes a good fight for some of the particulars, on the ground that St
James was apparently a Nazarite. But on the whole Lightfoot seems right in
suspecting that the picture is drawn from an Ebionite romantic glorification of
him, the Anabathmoi Iakobou, part of which is probably preserved in the
Clementine Recognitions. Hegesippus ends with the words kai euthus Ouespasianos
poliorkei autous, which is commonly understood to mean that St James suffered
only just before the siege, say in 68 or 69. If so, no doubt this must be taken
as an error as compared with Josephus. But a writer of a century later might
very well speak of the judgement as immediate even if eight years intervened. At
all events we must hold to 62 as the date.

The Readers.

These are distinctly described as the Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion. Nothing
is apparently clearer. Some say to the Church at large, as referring to the true
Israel. But this comes in very strangely at the head of a letter with no
indication of a spiritual sense, and coupled with en t. diaspora; and especially
so from St James. If Gentile Christians are intended at all, then they are
considered as proselytes to Jewish Christians. This however is not likely.
Gentile Christians were very numerous, and are not likely to be included in so
artificial a way. Nor do the warnings of the Epistle contain anything applicable
to them distinctively.

On the other hand with much more plausibility the Readers have been taken as
either Jews alone, or Jews plus Jewish Christians. That Jewish Christians were
at least chiefly meant seems proved by "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ"
([5]ii. 1), probably also by "the good name" ([6]ii. 7), and perhaps "the coming
of the Lord" ([7]v. 7); and it is confirmed by the circumstances of those
addressed It is neither unnatural nor wrong that St James should regard Jewish
Christians positively as the true Israel, the true heirs of Abraham. With
Gentile Christians he was not concerned. Jewish Christians were to him simply
the only true and faithful Jews. His own position as head of the Jerusalem
Church gave him a special right to address Jewish Christians, but no such
special right to address others; though doubtless he would not refuse to speak
to such as were associated with Christian Jewish communities.

The only question therefore is whether he meant to include unbelieving Jews. If
the story in Hegesippus is true, he was honoured by all the people, and even
Josephus' account shews that his death might cause offence to men who were not
Christians. Still the Epistle contains no evidence that he had them in view
(neither the dodeka phulais, nor the slightness of definitely Christian teaching
prove anything), and it is fairly certain that he wrote to Christian Jews and to
them alone. [Yet see on iv. 4.]

Next to what Christian Jews? "Those in the dispersion." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 1; Jn.
vii. 35. Certainly therefore not those of Palestine, nor including them. No
others probably are excluded; but it does not follow that he sent copies of his
Epistle broadcast over the world, to wherever Christian Jews might be found. The
distribution might have been by means of returning visitors to feasts. Neither
method is unlikely. Perhaps we may go further and say that he would naturally
chiefly have in view those of Syria beyond Palestine, and possibly Babylonia.
And in Syria especially those of Antioch. Josephus, B.J. vii. 3. 3, speaks of
the Jews as sprinkled among the nations kata pasan t. oikoumenen, but especially
mingled with Syria on account of the neighbourhood, and peculiarly numerous at
Antioch on account of the size of the city. The Acts shew how important Antioch
was in the early Church. In writing in the first instance to Antioch he would be
writing to the chief centre of Hellenistic Judaism, from which what he wrote
would go forth elsewhere. At the same time he might have a good deal in view the
city itself and its circumstances, which he would know by the yearly visitors.
This supposition (of course it is not more) agrees with the fact that the
Epistle was read in the Syriac Canon at the time when 1 Pet. and 1 Jn. were the
only other Catholic Epistles so received. Various explanations of this fact are
possible [14] , but a very natural one would be that Antioch was itself the
primary recipient.

Circumstances and Date.

These must be inferred from the contents, and do not admit of certainty. The two
points which have attracted most attention are the paucity of Christian language
and the passage about justification.

The first seems to me to afford nothing tangible. The character and position of
St James make it quite conceivable that a state of feeling and language, which
with the other leaders of the Church would naturally belong only to an early
stage of growth, would with him be comparatively permanent. The amplest
recognition of St Paul's work and of Gentile Christianity would be consistent
with a preservation of a less developed type of Christian doctrine than St
Paul's. Hence the immature doctrine must be treated as affording no evidence one
way or the other.

Next as to the justification passage. This has given rise to endless debate. (1)
Was it written independently of St Paul? If so, probably before St Paul wrote on
the subject, and therefore at a very early date. Or (2) was it written to
correct St Paul? Or (3) to correct a perverse misunderstanding of St Paul? (2)
and (3) of course imply a date subsequent to Galatians and Romans, i.e. after
58.

(2) may be set aside as highly improbable. Apart from the language of the Acts,
the Epistle itself cannot be so understood. Laying side by side St Paul's
Epistles on this matter and St James, in spite of resemblances and contrasts it
is difficult to believe that one was aimed at the other. A real antagonist would
have followed St Paul more closely, and come definitely into collision, which St
James never does.

For (i) there is much to be said (see Plumptre). Its great difficulty is to shew
how language so similar in form about dikaiousthai ek pisteos could spring up
independently in the two sources. It is not a question of a mere phrase, but a
controversy. There is no substantial evidence as yet that it was a Jewish
controversy, and St Paul's language does not look as if it was.

For (3) may be urged the facts which throw doubt on (1) and (2). There is a
similarity of phrase such as makes indirect derivation of one from the other
probable, and the error which St James combats was not at all unlikely to arise
from a misuse and misapplication of St Paul. More will be said when we come to
the passage. If (3) be true then the Epistle must belong to the concluding years
of St James' life, and this is probable for other reasons. The Epistle implies
not only a spread of Christianity among the Diaspora, but its having taken root
there some time. The faults marked are those of lukewarmness, of what would
arise after a time in settled communities that were losing their early freshness
and vigour. The persecutions to which it refers might doubtless have occurred
early without our knowing anything about them. But the tone of St James on this
head reminds us of 1 Pet. and Heb. No year can be fixed with any certainty: but
60 or a little after seems not far wrong. The essential point is not the year
but the period, later than the more important part of St Paul's ministry and
writings.

Reception.

Two things are to be distinguished, use and canonical authority. The earliest
Bible of the Christian Church was the O.T. The books of the N.T. were only added
by degrees, and variously in different places; sometimes also with various
degrees of authority. The Catholic Epistles came more slowly to their position,
1 Pet. and 1 Jn. being the earliest. The first traces of St James, now
recognised almost on all hands, are in 1 Clement about 95. He apparently
combines Paul and James (Westcott, Canon N.T. p. 25). Next in Hermas, also
Roman, probably a little before 150. In these two there is no distinctly
authoritative use; but the whole way in which they use N.T. books leaves it
uncertain how they regarded the Epistle.

Next Irenaeus, towards the end of the second century, representing partly Asia,
partly Rome. His use of James has been often denied, and quite rightly as
regards authoritative use; but I feel sure he knew the book, though only as an
ancient theological writing. He never cites it, but uses phrases from it, which
taken singly are uncertain, but they confirm each other. Thus it is nothing in
itself that he says (iv. 13. 4) that Abraham "amicus factus est Dei." But it is
something that it occurs in a passage contrasting the Law of Moses and the Word
of Christ as an enlargement and fulfilment of the Law, speaking of "superextendi
decreta libertatis, et augeri subjectionem quae est ad regem," which looks very
like the nomon teleite basilikon of [8]ii. 8 and nomon teleion ton t.
eleutherias of [9]i. 25. And this becomes certainty when not long afterwards
(iv. 16. 2) we get the consecutive words about Abraham "credidit Deo et
reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est"; i.e. the
justification from Genesis is instantly followed by the "Friend" clause, exactly
as in [10]Jam. ii. 23. There is no reason to suppose that the last words as well
as the former were borrowed by St James from a traditional form of text.
Subsequently (iv. 34. 4) he uses the peculiar phrase "libertatis lex,"
explaining it thus: "id est, verbum Dei ab apostolis . . . adnuntiatum." Again
(v. 1. 1) we get within 7 lines "factores autem sermonum ejus facti" (cf. i. 22)
and "facti autem initium facturae"(cf. i. 18); neither being likely to suggest
the other except as being very near in the Epistle. These instances give some
force to what would otherwise be problematical: (iii. 18. 5) "Verbum enim Dei .
. . ipse hoc fecit in cruce," and shortly afterwards (19. 1) "non recipientes
autem verbum incorruptionis" (cf. i. 21). As regards authoritative use, we have
a definite statement from Cosmas (in cent. vi.), Topogr. Christ. vii. p. 292,
that Irenaeus declared 1 Pet, and 1 Jn. alone to be by the apostles; and it is
highly probable that, taking apostles in the Twelve sense, he would accordingly
exclude St James. The Epistle is also absent from the Muratorian Canon, probably
a Roman document of the age of Irenaeus.

Crossing the Mediterranean to the Latin Church of North Africa, we find no trace
of the Epistle in Tertullian or Cyprian. One allusion to "unde Abraham amicus
Dei deputatus" (Tert., adv. Jud. 2) proves nothing. The early or African old
Latin version omitted it.

Moving eastward to the learned Church of Alexandria, Clem. Alex. is difficult.
Certainly he did not use the book as Scripture; but I feel sure that he knew it,
though he does not name it. In Strom. vi. p. 825 (Potter): "except your
righteousness multiply beyond the Scribes and Pharisees, who are justified by
abstinence from evil, together with your being able along with perfection in
these things to love and benefit your neighbour, ouk esesthe basilikoi, for
intensification (epitasis) of the righteousness according to the Law shews the
Gnostic." Here basilikos is coupled with love to neighbour just as in [11]ii. 8,
and the tone of the passage is quite in St James' strain. In Strom. v. p. 650 we
have the peculiar phrase ten pistin toinun ouk argen kai monen, agreeing with
the true reading of [12]ii. 20. There are several allusions to Abraham as the
"Friend." to nai occurs three times as in [13]v. 12, but perhaps from
Evangelical tradition. Other passages may come from 1 Pet. Cassiodorus, late in
cent. vi., says (de instit. div. litt. viii.) that Clement wrote notes on the
Canonical ( = Catholic) Epistles, i.e. 1 Pet., 1 and 2 Jn., Jam. What is
certainly a form of these notes still exists in Latin, but there are none on
Jam., while there are on Jude. So that evidently there is a slip of author or
scribes, and practically this is additional evidence against Clement using Jam.
as Scripture.

It is somewhat otherwise with his disciple Origen, who very rarely, but still
occasionally, cites Jam., speaking of it as "the current Epistle of St James,"
and again referring to it as if some of his readers might demur to its
authority. In the Latin works there are more copious references, but these are
uncertain. On the whole a vacillating and intermediate position. Origen's
disciple Dionysius Alex. once cites [14]i. 13 apparently as Scripture. Another
disciple, Gregory of Neocaesarea, if the fragment on Jeremiah (Ghislerius i. p.
831) be genuine, refers though hardly by way of authority to [15]i. 17.

These are all the strictly Antenicene references. But there is one weighty fact
beside them: Jam, is present in the Syriac Version which excluded some others.
The present state of this version comes from the end of cent. III or early IV,
and Jam. may have been added then: but it is more likely that it had been in the
Syriac from the first, i.e. in the Old Syriac. The early history of the Egyptian
versions is too uncertain to shew anything.

Eusebius places it among the Antilegomena, practically accepted in some
churches, not in others. In speaking of Jam. (ii. 23. 25), he says that "the
first of what are named the Catholic Epistles is his. Now it should be known
that it is treated [by some] as spurious (notheuetai men); and indeed not many
of the old writers mentioned it, as neither did they what is called that of
Jude, which itself also is one of what are called the seven Catholic Epistles;
yet we know that these two with the rest have been in public use
(dedemosieumenas) in very many churches." Thus Eusebius, cautious as always in
letting nothing drop that had authority, is yet careful not to commit himself.

From this time forward the book had a firm place in the Greek Churches. It was
used very freely by Didymus and Cyril Alex.; and the Antiochene Fathers (like
Chrysostom), who kept to the Syrian Canon and did not use books omitted by it,
did use Jam. The only exception is a peculiar one. Theodore of Mopsuestia was
one of the greatest of all theologians and specially as a critic of the Bible,
whence he became the chosen interpreter of the Mesopotamian Churches. He was
somewhat erratic and rash in his ways, and lies under a kind of ban more easily
to be explained than justified. Most of his works have perished except
fragments, so that we have to depend on the report of a bitter antagonist,
Leontius, nearly two centuries later. After noticing his rejection of Job, and
referring to the testimony to Job in Jam., Leontius proceeds (c. Nest. et Eut.
iii. 14): "For which reason methinks he banishes both thisvery epistle of the
great James and the succeeding Catholic Epistles by the other writers (ton
allon)." This loose statement occurring in a violent passage needs sifting. It
was not likely that he would use any Catholic Epistles but Jam., I Pet., and 1
Jn., and this absence of use of 2 Pet., 2 and 3 Jn., and Jude would account for
Leontius language, while leaving it exaggerated. But Jam. is specially
mentioned, and doubtless rightly. The Instituta regularia (commonly called De
partibus divinae legis) of an African Latin writer Junilius, long believed to be
connected with the Syrian school of Nisibis, have lately been shewn to be a more
or less modified translation of an Introduction to Scripture by Paul of Nisibis,
a devoted admirer of Theodore, and it is full of Theodorian ideas. Its account
of the books of the O.T. corresponds with Theodore's, and in the N.T. it
excludes Jam. but not 1 Pet., 1 Jn. This was doubtless Theodore's own view. What
was the motive? It might have been knowledge of the imperfect early reception of
Jam. But in the case of the O.T. omissions, Job, Canticles, inscriptions of
Psalms, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (and Esther), there is direct evidence
that in at least some cases be acted on internal evidence (Job, Canticles,
Inscr. Ps.): and it is quite likely that it was the same here too as with
Luther.

Outside Theodore's own school we have no further omission of Jam. in the East.
Late in cent. VI Cosmas, having had urged against him a passage of 2 Pet.,
speaks disparagingly of the Catholic Epistles in general, and mentions various
facts as to past partial rejections (Top. Christ. vii. p. 292). His language is
altogether vague and confused: but he limits himself to urging that "the perfect
Christian ought not to be stablished on the strength of questioned books
(amphiballomena)."

In the West reception was not so rapid. Towards the end of cent. IV Jam. is
cited by three or four Italian Latin writers, as the Ambrosiast (= Hi1. Rom.) on
Gal. v. 10 (dicente Jacobo apostolo in epistola sua); perhaps from Jerome's
influence. Also Chromatius of Aquileia and Gaudentius of Brixia, but without
"apostolus"; Jerome himself, and abundantly Augustine, whose quotations equal
all others put together; also the Corbey MS., which may have an even earlier
original, the style being very rude. But not the earlier Latin writers of the
century, as Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose (though in one place a sentence of Jam.
appears among the texts which he notices as cited by Arians).

The most striking fact is the language of Victorinus Afer, converted at Rome
late in life, and seen there by Jerome and Augustine. His Comm. in Gal. i. 13
ff.: "From James Paul could not learn"; James "admixto Judaismo Christum
evangelizabat, quod negat id faciendum." Elaborately on "Jacobum fratrem Dei":
"The Symmachians make James as it were a twelfth apostle, and he is followed by
those who to our Lord Jesus Christ add the observance of Judaism." "When Paul
called him brother (of the Lord), he thereby denied him to be an apostle. He had
to be seen with honour. Sed neque a Jacobo aliquid discere potuit, quippe cum
alia sentiat; ut neque a Petro, vel quod paucis diebus cum Petro moratus est;
vel quod Jacobus apostolus non est, et in haeresi sit." He goes on to account
for the mention of the seeing of James. It was to shew that he did not reject
the Galatian doctrine from ignorance. "Vidi ergo nominatim quid Jacobus tractet
et evangelizet: et tamen quoniam cognita mihi est ista blasphemia, repudiata a
me est, sicut et a vobis, o Galatae, repudianda"; and more in the same strain.
Something here is probably due to the writer's late and imperfect Christian
education. It is not likely, in the absence of all other evidence, that such
language would have been used by ordinary well-instructed Christians anywhere.
But neither could it have been possible if the Epistle had in Victorinus'
neighbourhood been received as canonical. It attests a feeling about the book
very unlike that after Jerome and Augustine.

To resume, the Epistle of St James was known and used from a very early time, at
least at Rome, but without authority, It was used also, but with rather
indefinite authority, at Alexandria by Clement and Origen and Dionysius. It
formed part of the Syriac Canon, and was probably used in Syrian Churches. There
is no trace of it in North Africa. It is placed among the antilegomena in
Eusebius. In the west it was neglected till late in cent. IV, and then adopted
through Jerome and Augustine. In the East from Eusebius onwards in all Greek
writers except Theod. Mops. and his disciples, who probably rejected it on
internal grounds.

Purpose and Contents.

The purpose is practical not controversial, mainly to revive a languishing
religious state, a lukewarm formality, and correct the corruptions into which it
had fallen. Persecution had evidently fallen, and was not being met with
courage, patience and faith. This last word Faith occurs at the beginning, near
the end, and throughout chap. 2, and expresses much of the purport of the whole.
In various forms St James deals with the manner of life proceeding from a
trustful sense of God's presence, founded on a knowledge of His character and
purpose.

There are three main divisions:

I. (i.) Introduction, on Religion.

II. (ii. 1-v. 6.) Against (1) Social sins, (2) Presumption before God.

III. (v. 7-end.) Conclusion, on Religion at once personal and social.

(I.)

The Epistle begins with the greeting, which closes with the word chairein.

The next paragraph, [16]i. 2-18, may be called "Religion in feeling: experience
(trial--temptation), God's character, and the Divine aspects of human life." It
takes up chara from chairein, and deals with peirasmoi, the special trials (cf.
1 Pet. i. 6; iv. 12; also Heb. ii. 18 etc.) which serve as examples of all
peirasmoi.

First [17]2-4, on patience (cf. Lk. xxi. 19 = Mt. x. 22; xxiv. 13 || Mk. xiii.
13). But in this section there are digressions, the chief being [18]5-11; first
[19]5-8, on asking without doubting (Mt. xxi. 21 || Mk. xi. 23), and then
[20]9-11, on the humble and the rich (cf. Sermon on the Mount). [21]12, The
crown of life, the result of patience (sothesetai Mt., Mk. = ktesesthe t.
psuchas humon Lk.; cf. Heb. x. 34). [22]13, Trial not a temptation by God, but
([23]14 f.) by a man's own desire. [24]16-18, Digression on God's character, as
altogether good, and perfect, and the Author of man's high dignity. These verses
are implied in the rest of the epistle.

[25]i. 19-27. Religion in action. The moral results of this faith are
([26]19-21) quickness to hear, slowness to passionate speech. [27]22-25,
Hearing, not however as against doing. [28]26 f., Freedom from defilement not
ceremonial, but temperance of speech, beneficence to others, guilelessness of
self.

(II.)

ii. Insolence of wealth (towards fellow men). [29]1-4, The miscalled Christian
faith which dishonours the poor in synagogue. This is a violation of the
principle which follows. [30]5-9, The poor as blessed (cf. Sermon on the Mount),
and human respect of persons. [31]10-13, The integrity or unity of the law as a
law of liberty, and its import mercy. What follows is the positive side of
[32]1-13. [33]14-26, The miscalled faith which dispenses with works.

iii. License of tongue, springing from pride. [34]1, Not "many teachers."
[35]2-6, The great power of the tongue, though a small member. [36]7 f., Its
lawlessness and wildness. [37]9-12, Its capacities of good and evil, [38]13-14
(in contrast to bitter teaching), Wisdom to be shewn in works (cf. [39]17 f.) of
gentleness. [40]15-18, The difference of the two wisdoms exhibited in bitterness
and peace.

[41]iv. 1-12. Strife springing from love of pleasure (polemoi contrast to eirene
[42]iii. 18). [43]1-3, Wars due to evil desire. [44]4-6, God and the world as
objects of love. [45]7-10 (digression), Subjection to God. [46]11 f.,
Evil-speaking of others a breach of a law (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 1. Probably "love thy
neighbour as thyself").

[47]iv. 13-[48]v. 6. Presumption of wealth (towards God). Prophetic warnings to
the confident merchants ([49]iv. 13-17) as to stability of the future; to the
rich ([50]v. 1-3) as to impunity, specially ([51]4-6) as oppressors of the poor.
This leads back to persecution as at the beginning.

(III.)

[52]v. 7-end. Trustful patience towards God and towards man (one aspect of the
inseparableness of the two commandments. Cf. Mt. xxii. 37 ff.). [53]7-11,
Patience before God (as [54]i. 1-4, [55]12) now with patience towards men.
[56]12, Reverence towards God, probably as part of patience. (Negative.)
[57]13-20, The same, positive. The true resource Prayer, itself to be social,
i.e. intercessory, whether ([58]14 f.) in physical or ([59]16) moral evil.
([60]17 f., Digression on prayer in general.) [61]19 f. resumes [62]16.

[St James is full of unities, e.g. the unity of the O.T. and N.T.:

(a) The logos aletheias ([63]i. 18) is at once the original gift of reason, and
the voice of God in the Christian conscience enlightened by the Gospel,
doubtless with the intermediate stages of instruction (cf. Ps. cxix.).

(b) The Law is at once the Mosaic ([64]ii. 11), the Deuteronomic ([65]ii. 8,
actually Leviticus, but in spirit Deuteronomic; [66]i. 12; [67]ii. 5), and the
Evangelic ([68]ii. 5).

(c) The principle of mercy as against judgement ([69]ii. 13).]

Style.

The Greek is generally good; the style very short and epigrammatic, using
questions much. There is great suppressed energy, taking shape in vigorous
images. Much of the old prophetic spirit (Deuteronomic and later Psalms, esp.
cxix.), but uniting with it the Greek Judaism found in the Apocryphal Sapiential
Books and to a certain extent in Philo. But the style is especially remarkable
for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the
first three Gospels.

[10] Syr. often cited, on account of a Syriac note common to the three Epistles:
Of the Holy Apostles James Peter John Spectators of the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ The several Epistles printed in the Syriac tongue and characters. But
this is now understood to be due to Widmanstadt.

[11] Excellently given in Ltft., and summarised (rather too shortly) by Plumptre
pp. 10 ff.

[12] For this use of episemos en, and the opposite asemos en, there is good
classical analogy. It is analogous to 1 Cor. vi. 2, ei en humin krinetai ho
kosmos.

[13] See Additional Note, p. 102.

[14] It is possible that the language of the Epistle reflects in great measure
the circumstances of the Church at Jerusalem.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: IAKOBOU
========================================================================

^1IAKOBOU theou kai kuriou Iesou Christou doulos tais dodeka phulais tais en te
diaspora chairein.

I. 1. Iakobos] For the person intended see Introd., pp. xi ff. The name is Iakob
in LXX., but has been doubtless Graecised as a modern name, as so many names in
Josephus. Probably it was common at this time: three are mentioned by Josephus,
and curiously one the brother of a Simon (Ant. xx. 5, 2), another coupled with a
John (B. J. iv. 4, 2). The third is an Idumaean (B. J. iv. 9, 6). [James brother
of Jesus Christ is also mentioned (Ant. xx. 9, 1) (if the passage be genuine).
See pp. xv, xxi f.]

theou kai kuriou I. Ch. doulos] The combination theou kai kuriou I. Ch., though
grammatically possible, is against Scriptural analogy, and would involve a very
improbable want of balance. The absence of the article is due to abbreviation
and compression of phrase. See note on 1 Peter i. i (p. 15 b). An unique phrase
as a whole, it unites the O.T. theou doulos (-oi) (Acts iv. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 16;
Apoc. saepe and esp. i. 1; and, in greeting, Tit. i. 1 Paulos doulos theou,
apostolos de I. Ch.) with St Paul's doulos I. Ch. (I. Ch.) (fully in Rom. i. 1;
later Phil. i. 1, douloi Ch. I..; as also Jude 1; cf. 2 Pet. i. 1).

This coupling of God and Christ in a single phrase covered by doulos is
significant as to St James' belief. Without attempting to say how much is meant
by it, we can see that it involves at least some Divineness of nature in our
Lord, something other than glorified manhood. This is peculiarly true as regards
a man with Jewish feelings, unable to admit lower states of deity. It thus shews
that he cannot have been an Ebionite. Even St Paul's salutations contain no such
combination except in their concluding prayers for grace and peace. An analogous
phrase is in Eph. v. 5, en te basileia tou Christou kai theou.?.

The conception is not of two distinct and co-ordinate powers, so to speak; as
though he were a servant of two lords. But the service of the one at once
involves and is contained in the service of the other. Christ being what He is
as the Son of the Father, to be His servant is impossible without being God's
servant; and the converse is also true. kuriou I. Ch. is the full phrase
illustrated by the early chapters of Acts; esp. ii. 36: God had made Jesus both
Lord and Christ. This true sense of christos is never lost in N.T.; it is never
a mere proper name like Iesous, which though a significant name is still a
proper name like any other. "Christos" has indeed, as a title, a little of the
defining power of a proper name, because it. represents not merely its etymology
"Anointed" but msych. I Ch. is not merely "Jesus the Anointed" but "Jesus, He
who has been looked for under the name the Anointed,' having therefore the
characteristics already associated with the name, and more." Accordingly, though
we often find Ch. I. where Ch. is intended to have special prominence, we never
have k. Ch. I. but only k. I. Ch., as here, I. standing between k. and Ch. and
thereby declared to have the character of both, but specially linked with Ch.,
k. being prefixed to both together.

doulos, servant] Probably in the widest sense, answering to Kurios, equivalent
to "doing His work in His kingdom, in obedience to His will" (cf. Acts iv. 29).
It is misleading to call doulos "slave," as many do, for it lays the whole
stress on a subordinate point. It expresses in the widest way the personal
relation of servant to master, not the mere absence of wages or of right to
depart. But St John in Apoc. (x. 7) uses the O.T. phrase "His own servants the
prophets," from Amos iii. 7; Dan. ix. 6, 10; Zech. i. 6, and probably has this
in mind in calling himself "the servant of God" ([70]i. 1). And it is not
unlikely that St James also has it in view, not necessarily as implying himself
to be a prophet, as Jn probably does, but. as standing in an analogous relation
to God and His kingdom.

tais dodeka phulais] . Equivalent to Israel in its fulness and completeness. It
has nothing to do with the return or non-return of the different tribes from
captivity. Josephus believed the ten tribes to have remained in great numbers
beyond the Euphrates, and in 4 Esdras xiii. 45 they are said to be in Arzareth,
which Dr Schiller-Szinessy (Journ. of Philology, 1870, pp. 113 f.) has shewn to
be only the 'rts 'chrt ("another land") of Deut. xxix. 28, referring to Sanhed.,
shewing that that verse was referred to the ten tribes. They are also the
subject of later traditions. But whatever may have been thought about the actual
descendants of the twelve tribes, and their fate, the people was thought of as
having returned as a whole.

After the return, when Judah and Benjamin apparently alone returned to any very
considerable extent, the reference to tribes, as a practically existing entity,
seems to have come to an end, except as regards the descent of individuals
through recorded genealogies, and the people that had returned was treated as
representing the continuity of the whole nation, Judah and Israel together. (See
Ezek. xlvii. 13; Ezra vi. 17; viii. 35.) This would have been unnatural if the
tribes had been previously the primary thing, and the people only an
agglomeration of tribes: but in reality the true primary unit was the people,
and the tribes were merely the constituent parts, the union of which expressed
its unity.

Accordingly our Lord Himself chose twelve Apostles, and spoke of them as to sit
on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And in the Apocalypse
12,000 are sealed from each of twelve tribes. Cf. xxi. 12-14.

Hence t. d. ph. is equivalent to to dodekaphulon (hemon), Acts xxvi. 7, which
occurs also Clement i. 55 (cf. 31, to dodekaskeptron tou Israel, answering to
Test. xii. Patriarch. Napht. 5, ta dodeka skeptra t. Israel from 1 Kings xi. 31
ff.; see LXX.), and Joseph. Hypomnesticum (Fabricius Cod. Pseud. V.T. ii. p. 3)
tous dodeka phularchous ex hon to dodekaphulon tou Israel sunistatai. Both forms
of speech in Lib. Jacobi i. (1, 3).

By keeping up this phrase St James marked that to him the designation of the
Israel which believed in Christ as the only true Israel was no mere metaphor. To
him a Jew who had refused the true Messiah had ceased to have a portion in
Israel.

en te diaspora] The term comes from Deut. xxviii. 25 (LXX.), and also sparingly
from later books; also from the more frequent use of the word diaspeiro, which
in this connexion is freely used, as well as diaskorpizo, for zrh, to scatter,
or blow abroad. The cognate zr, to sow, is used in this sense only, Zech. x. 9
(LXX. kai spero autous en laois). Even here the notion is merely of scattering,
not of sowing seed destined to germinate, and probably this was all that the
LXX. anywhere meant. The idea of the Jews among the nations being a blessing to
them and spreading light is found in the prophets, but not, I think, in
connexion with the image of seed. The corresponding Hebrew word is simply gvlh,
exile (lit. stripping), and hence the exiles collectively.

From the original seat at Babylon, which still continued a main home of the
Dispersion, it spread under Alexander and his successors westward into the Greek
world, Syria, Egypt (Alexandria and Cyrene), Armenia, Asia Minor, and at last
Rome. It was like a network of tracks along which the Gospel could travel and
find soil ready prepared for it in the worship of the true God, and the
knowledge and veneration of the ancient Scripture.

chairein] See Otto in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1867, pp. 678 ff. The common
greeting in Greek letters. The Semitic was of course slvm or (Chald.) slm. In
letters in the Apocrypha chairein often occurs, as also eirenen or eirene
(together, ch. and eirenen agathen, 2 Macc. i. 1). Hence it must have been
freely used by Jews as well as heathens. In N.T. it occurs three times: Acts
xxiii. 26, Claudius Lysias to Felix (heathen); xv. 23, Jerusalem letter to
Gentile Christians at Antioch, etc.; and here. It has been pointed out that the
Jerusalem letter was also not improbably written by St James, but nothing can be
built on a coincidence in itself so natural. Here, the Greek form is probably
preferred to eirene, etc. for the sake of the next verse.

^2Pasan charan hegesasthe, adelphoi mou, hotan peirasmois peripesete poikilois,

2. pasan charan, all joy] Not "every (kind of) joy," as from the variety of
trials; nor yet "joy and nothing but joy" negatively, but simply "all" as
expressing completeness and unreservedness. Hence it includes "very great," but
is not quantitative, rather expressing the full abandonment of mind to this one
thought. Thus Aristides i. 478 (224), to de med' ex hon heorakamen axioun
pepaideusthai pasa an eie snmphora; also Epictetus (ap. Gebser Ep. of James p.
8) 3, 22 eirene pasa; 2, 2 pasa soi asphaleia, pasa soi eumareia; 26 pasa
euroia; and Phil. ii. 29; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Eph. iv. 2.

charan] Joy, from ground of joy, by a natural figure. The charan catches up
chairein. "I bid you rejoice. And this I say in the most exact sense, though I
know how much you have to bear that seems anything but matter of rejoicing. Just
circumstances like these should you account occasions of unreserved joy."

On the sense, see 1 Peter i. 8 with v. 7. But virtually it comes from Lk. vi.
23, and the Beatitudes altogether.

hotan with aor. subj.] Although suggested by present circumstances, the
exhortation does not take its form from them. It is not "now that you are
encountering," but "when ye shall," and probably also, by the common
frequentative force of hotan, "whensoever ye shall."

peripesete] Not "fall into" but "fall in with," "light upon," "come across."
First used of ordinary casual meetings, as of persons in the street or ships at
sea; then very commonly of misfortunes of all kinds, sickness, wounds, a storm,
slavery, disgrace, etc. So the two other N.T. places: Lk. x. 30; Acts xxvii. 41.
The idea then is that, as they go steadily on their own way, they must expect to
be jostled, as it were, by various trials.

peirasmois, trials] An important and difficult word, entirely confined to O.T.,
Apocr., N.T., and literature founded on them; except Diosc. p. 3 B, tous epi t.
pathon teirasmous, experiments, trials made, with drugs in the case of diseases,
i.e. to see what their effect will be.

But the word goes back to peirazo, which is not so closely limited in range of
authors. First, "tempt" is at the utmost an accessory and subordinate sense, on
which see on [71]v. 13. It is simply to "try," "make trial of," and peirasmos
"trial."

Nor on the other hand does it, except by the circumstances of context, mean
"trial" in the vague modern religious and hence popular sense, as when we say
that a person has had great trials, meaning misfortunes or anxieties. Nothing in
Greek is said peirazein or called a peirasmos except with distinct reference to
some kind of probation.

Young birds are said peirazein t. pterugas (Schol. Aristoph. Plutus 575). But
more to the point, Plutarch (Cleom. 7 p. 808 a) says that Cleomenes when a dream
was told him was at first troubled and suspicious, peirazesthai dokon, supposing
himself to be the subject of an experiment to find out what he would say or do.
And still more to the point Plutarch Moralia 15 p. 230 a, Namertes being
congratulated on the multitude of his friends asked the spokesman ei dokimion
echei tini tropo peirazetai ho poluphilos; and when a desire was expressed to
know he said Atuchia.

The biblical use is substantially the same. In O.T. peirazo stands almost always
for nsh (also ekpeirazo) and peirasmos for the derivative msh. nshis used for
various kinds of trying, including that of one human being by another, as
Solomon by the Queen of Sheba, but especially of man by God and God by man. Of
man by God for probation, under the form of God exploring; of God by man always
in an evil sense, "tempting" God, trying as it were how far it is possible to go
into disobeying Him without provoking His anger; with this last sense we are not
concerned. The trying or "proving" (A.V.) of man by God is sometimes, but not
always, by suffering. In one chapter (Deut. viii. 2) it is coupled with nh,
kakoo, "humble" or "afflict"; but the context shews that "proving" is meant, as
it is also in Judg. ii. 22; iii. 1, 4. The cardinal instance is Abraham (Gen.
xxii. 1). Peirasmos chiefly refers to temptations of God by men, also probations
of Pharaoh (Deut. iv. 34; vii. 19; xxix. 3). There only remains Job ix. 23, very
hard and probably corrupt (LXX. altogether different, Vulg. poenis), where
"probations" may possibly be said in bitter irony, but "sufferings" is most
improbable, considering the derivation.

In Judith, Wisdom and Ecclus. peirazo similarly has both uses, viz. of God by
man, and man by God; also peirasmos in Ecclus., not only of Abraham (xliv. 20;
as also 1 Macc. ii. 52), but more generally; but in ii. 1; xxxvi. 1, on the one
hand the context implies affliction, on the other the stress lies on probations.
These two are interesting passages as preparing the way for St James. (1) xxxvi.
1, to phoboumeno Kurion ouk apantesei kakon; all' en peirasmo (whatever comes
will come by way of trial), kai `alin exeleitai. Still more (2) ii. 1, Son, if
thou settest thyself to serve the Lord God, prepare thy soul eis peirasmon etc.
Cf. ii. 5, en puri dokimazetai chrusos k.tl.

In the N.T. other shades of meaning appear. Besides the ordinary neutral making
trial, and God's trial of man, and man's evil trial or tempting of God, we have
men's evil making trial of one whom they regarded as only a man, the Scribes and
Pharisees "trying" or tempting our Lord, not tempting Him to do evil, but trying
to get Him to say something on which they could lay hold.

But further a peculiar sense comes in at what we call our Lord's temptation (Mk
i. 13, peirazomenos hupo tou Satana; Mk. iv. 1, peirasthenai hupo t. diabolou;
Lk. iv. 2, peirazomenos hu. t. d.). In Mt. (iv. 3) the devil is then called ho
teirazon.

For poikilois, divers, see note on 1 Pet. i. 6 (p. 41).

^3gnoskontes hoti to dokimion humon tes pisteos katergazetai hupomonen;

3. gnoskontes, taking knowledge, recognising] Not necessarily a new piece of
knowledge, but new apprehension of it.

dokimion, test] In N.T. only here and, in similar connexion, 1 Pet. i. 7, a very
hard verse. In LXX. only in two places, both rather peculiar. (1) Prov. xxvii.
21, representing mtsrph, a "melting-pot"; but the change of order shews that
"test" was meant by LXX., "there is a dokimion for silver and a purosis for
gold." (2) Ps. xii. 7, tslyl, probably a "furnace," a difficult and perhaps
corrupt passage. Similarly the cognate words dokimos, dokimazo in LXX. mostly
refer to silver or gold tried and found pure, to a trial by fire. [See Deissmann
Bib. Stud. sub voc., and Expositor 1908 p. 566.]

The rather rare word is always the instrument of probation, never the process.
Similar places are Herodian ii. 10. 6, dokimion de stratioton kamatos:
Iamblichus Vita Pythag. 30 p. 185 fin., tauten (t. lethen) de moi theon tis
eneke, dokimion esomenen tes ses peri sunthekas eustatheias.

katergazetai, worketh] A favourite word with St Paul.

hupomonen, endurance] The word hupomone (A.V. patience) is hardly used by
classical writers (an apophthegm in Plutarch Moralia 208 c, and an interpolated
clause in his Crassus 3) to describe a virtue, though frequently for the patient
bearing of any particular hardships. It stands for qvh and its derivatives in
the sense of the object of hope or expectation (as Ps. xxxviii. 8, kaii nun tis
he hupomone mou; ouchi ho kurios;), and perhaps hope itself in the LXX. and
Ecclus. (Fritzsche on xvi. 13). But late Jewish and Christian writers use it
freely for the virtue shewn chiefly by martyrs: thus 4 Macc. i. 11, te andreia
kai te hupomone, and often; Psalt. Solom. ii. 40; Test. xii. Patriarch. Jos. 10;
in the N.T., Lk. xxi. 19 (cf. Mt. xxiv. 13); St Paul often; Hebrews; 2 Peter;
and Apoc.; later Clement 1. 5; Ignatius ad Polyc. 6; etc.

No English word is quite strong enough to express the active courage and
resolution implied in hupomone (cf. Ellicott on 1 Thess. i. 3). "Constancy" or
"endurance" comes nearest, and the latter has the advantage of preserving the
parallelism of the verb hupomeno. The resemblance of this verse to Rom. v. 3 f.
should be noticed, though probably accidental.

^4he de hupomone ergon teleion echeto, hina ete teleioi kai holokleroi, en
medeni leipomenoi.

4. ergon teleion echeto, have a perfect work or result] The sense, obscure in
the Greek, is fixed almost certainly by the context. The phrase is suggested by,
and must include the meaning of, katergazetai in [72]v. 3. Endurance is
represented as having a work to do, a result to accomplish, which must not be
suffered to cease prematurely. Endurance itself is the first and a necessary
step; but it is not to be rested in, being chiefly a means to higher ends. Here
the Stoic constancy is at once justified, and implicitly pronounced inadequate,
because it endeavours to be self-sufficing and leads the way to no diviner
virtue. The work of the Christian endurance is manifold (elicited by divers
trials, [73]v. 2) and continuous, not easily exhausted; it remains imperfect (so
the connexion of the two clauses teaches) while we are imperfect. This use of
ergon is illustrated by the common negative formula ouden ergon, generally
translated "no use," as in Plutarch Lysander 11, en de ouden ergon autou tes
spoudes eskedasmenon ton anthropon: Publicola 13, ouden en ergon autou (tou
heniochou) katateinontos oude paregorountos. The combination of teleion with to
ergon occurs Ignat. Smyrn. but it is not a true parallel.

teleioi, perfect] This word in St James, as applied to man, has apparently no
reference, as in St Paul, to maturity, and still less to initiation. It
expresses the simplest idea of complete goodness, disconnected from the
philosophical idea of a telos. In the LXX. it chiefly represents tmym, a
variously translated word, originally expressing completeness, and occurring in
several leading passages as Gen. vi. 9 (teleios); xvii. 1 (amemptos); Deut.
xviii. 13 (teleios); Job i. 1 (amemptos); Ps. cxix. 1 (amomos). The Greek
teleios in a moral sense, rare in the LXX. and virtually wanting in the
Apocrypha, recurs with additional meanings in Philo, e.g. Legum Allegoriae iii.
45--49 (in contrast with ho prokopton. ho asketes).

It regains its full force and simplicity in Christ's own teaching, Mt. v. 48
("Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect");
xix. 21 ("If thou wilt be perfect" contrasted with "What lack I yet?"). These
passages are probably the chief sources of St James' usage.

holokleroi, entire] The principal word teleios is reinforced by the almost
synonymous holokleros, the primary sense of which seems to be freedom from
bodily defect either in a victim for sacrifice or in a priest; that is, it is a
technical term of Greek ritual. In extant literature we do not find it before
Plato, and he may well have introduced it into literature. It soon was applied
in a wider manner to all freedom from defect (cf. e.g. the Stoic use in Diogenes
Laert. vii. 107) being opposed to peros, kolobos, cholos. But the original sense
was not forgotten, and can be traced in the usage of Josephus and Philo, though
not in the LXX.

Thus teleios and holokleros (which are used together somewhat vaguely at least
once by Philo, Quis rerum div. heres? 23 p. 489) denote respectively positive
and negative perfection, excellence and complete absence of defect (cf. Trench
N.T. Synon. § 22). It is quite probable however that St James uses holokleros
with a recollection of its original force in Greek religion, and wished his
readers to think of perfection and entireness not; merely in the abstract but as
the necessary aim of men consecrated to God.!

en medeni leipomenoi, coming behind in nothing] Leipomai with the dative means
not mere deficiency but falling short whether of a standard or of other persons,
the latter when expressed being in the genitive. Essentially it is to be left
behind, as in a race, and it comes to be used for the defeat of an army,
strictly for its ceasing to resist the enemy and throwing up the struggle. There
is thus a suggestion of acquiescence in shortcoming as a thing to be striven
against (cf. Gal. vi. 9; Heb. xii. 3; 2 Thess. iii. 13). Compare the use of
hustero and husteroumai in St Paul and Hebrews (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 5, 7, en panti
eploutisthete en auto, en panti logo kai pase gnosei. . . . hoste humas me
hustereisthai en medeni charismati).

The object of comparison is usually expressed, rarely implied (as Diodorus Sic.
iii. 39; Plutarch Nicias 3); but leipomai is also used quite absolutely, as
here, in Plutarch Brutus 39 (erromenous chremasin hoplon de kai somaton plethei
leipomenous); cf. Sophocles Oed. Col. 495 f. En, commonly omitted, occurs
Herodotus vii. 8; Sophocles l.c.; and Polybius xxiv. 7 (legat. 50); see also
Herod. vii 168.

This final clause, added in apposition (cf. [74]i. 6, [75]8, [76]14, [77]17,
[78]22, [79]25; [80]ii. 9; [81]iii. 2, [82]8, [83]17), not only reaffirms
negatively what has been already said positively, but suggests once more the
idea of continual progress (a "race" in St Paul's language, as Phil. iii. 14;
cf. "the crown of life" in [84]v. 12) implied in the earlier clauses.

The spiritual force of this and similar verses cannot be reduced within the
limits of "common sense." An "ideal" interpretation can be excluded only by
"frittering away a pure and necessary word of Christ Himself. The perfection in
all good, after which every Christian should strive simply as a Christian, is
infinite in its nature, like a heavenly ladder the steps of which constantly
increase the higher we climb: but woe to him who would make landings in it out
of his own invention and on his own behalf" (Ewald, Jahrbücher iii. 259).

^5Ei de tis humon leipetai sophias, aiteito para tou didontos theou pasin haplos
kai me oneidizontos, kai dothesetai auto;

5. ei de tis humon leipetai sophias, But if any of you lacketh wisdom] If any,
i.e. whoever. The preceding leipomenoi suggests leipetai with a somewhat
different sense and construction. Leipomai with the genitive meaning to "be
wanting in" is rare, this sense being an extension of the commoner to "be
bereaved of"; it occurs Sophocles Elect. 474 (gnomas leipomena sophas); Plato
Menex. 19, 246 E; Pseud: Plato Axiochus 366 D (repeating amoiron); Libanius
Progymn. p. 31 A (l. tes ton poieton entheou manias); besides Jam. ii. 15.

sophias] The context fixes, without altogether restricting, the sense of wisdom.
"True perfectness cannot be where wisdom still is wanting; and wisdom, the
inward power to seize and profit by outward trials, cannot be supplied by the
trials themselves: but it may be had of God for the asking; He will send it
direct into the heart." It is that endowment of heart and mind which is needed
for the right conduct of life. "All salutary wisdom is indeed to be asked of the
Lord; for, as the wise man says (Ecclus. i. 1), All wisdom is from the Lord God,
and hath been with Him for ever.' . . . But here there seems to be a special
reference to that wisdom which we need for use in our trials, etc." (Bede).

This human and practical idea of wisdom is inherited from the meditative books
of the O.T. and the later works written on their model. Compare "the fear of the
Lord that is wisdom" (Job xxviii. 28), where wisdom is the knowledge of the most
essential facts and the power to walk instinctively by their light. It is
remarkable to find wisdom holding this position in the forefront of the epistle,
quite in the spirit of the elder theology. See further the notes on [85]iii.
13-18.

haplos, graciously] The combination with giveth early led to the assumption that
haplos requires here the sense of "abundantly," but without authority (cf.
Fritzsche Rom. iii. 62 ff.) and against the true context. On the other hand, a
large body of evidence forbids us to admit only the meanings "simply" or "with
singleness of heart," and establishes a nearer approach to "bounteously" than
most good critics have been willing to allow (see below).

In the best Greek authors the guidance of etymology is strictly followed, and
haplous as a moral epithet denotes only the absence of guile or duplicity. Later
writers comprehend under the one word the whole magnanimous and honourable type
of character in which this singleness of mind is the central feature. Kindred
and associated epithets are gennaios (cf. Plato Repub. i. 361 B, andra haploun
kai gennaion . . . ou dokein all' einai agathon ethelonta), eleutherios.
(Aeschines, p. 135, Reiske), and megalopsuchos. Truthfulness, liberality, and
gentleness variously appear as manifesting the same high sense of honour.

The transition may be seen in Xenophon Cyropaed. viii. 4, 32 ff., where Cyrus
blames alike those who magnify their own fortune (so thinking to appear
eleutherioteroi) and those who depreciate it, and adds, haploustatou de moi
dokei einai to ten dunamin phaneran poiesanta ek tautes agonizesthai peri
kalokagathias. But the usage became clearer subsequently. Scipio (Polybius,
xxxii. 13, 14) resolved pros men tous allotrious ten ek ton nomon akribeian
(i.e. his strict legal rights) terein, tois de sungenesi kai philois haplos
chresthai kai gennaios kata dunamin. One of Timon's friends (Lucian Tim. 56)
professed that he was not one of the flatterers, greedy of gold and banquets,
who paid their court pros andra hoion se haploikon kai ton onton koinonikon.
David is said by Josephus (Ant. vii. 13, 4) to have admired Araunah tes
haplotetos kai tes megalopsuchias, when he offered his threshing-floor and oxen.
M. Antony's popularity is attributed by Plutarch (c. 43) to his eugeneia, logou
dunamis, haplotes, to philodoron kai megalodoron, he peri tas paidias kai tas
homilias eutrapelia. Brutus, having tempered his character by education and
philosophy, seemed to Plutarch (c. 1) emmelestata krathenai pros to kalon, so
that after Caesar's death the friends of the latter attributed to Brutus ei ti
gennaion he praxis enenke, considering Cassius haploun to tropo kai katharon
ouch homoios (cf. Philopoem. 13). The Persians desired Ariaspes for their king,
as being praos kai haplous kai philanthropos (Plutarch Artaxerx. 30). Ho men
haplousteros, though opposed to ho panourgoteros, is the high-minded friend who,
when admitted indiscreetly to a knowledge of private affairs owing to his too
complaisant manners, ouk oietai dein oud' axioi sumboulos einai pragmaton
telikouton all' hupourgos kai diakonos (Plutarch Moralia 63 B). Wine is said to
quench polla ton allon pathon (besides fear) aphilotima kai agenne), and aoinos
aei methe kai skuthrope tais ton apaideuton enoikei psuchais, epitarattomene
hupo orges tinos e dusmeneias e philoneikias e aneleutherias; hon ho oinos
amblunon ta polla mallon e paroxunon oik aphronas oude helithious all' haplous
peoei kai apanourgous, oude paroratikous tou sumpherontos alla tou kalou
proairetikous (ib. 716 A, B). We are reminded of this passage of St James by the
following: "So I think that the gods confer their benefits in secret, it being
their nature to delight in the mere practice of bounty and beneficence (auto to
charizesthai kai eu poiein). Whereas the flatterer's work ouden echei dilaion
oud' alethinon oud' haploun oud' eleutherion" (ib. 63 F).

There are traces of a similar extension of meaning in Latin, as Horace Ep. ii.
2, 193, "quantum simplex hilarisque nepoti Discrepet, et quantum discordet
parcus avaro" (cf. "the cheerful giver" of Prov. xxii. 8, LXX., and 2 Cor. ix.
7); Tacitus, Hist. iii. 86, "inerat tamen (Vitellio) simplicitas et liberalitas,
quae, ni adsit modus, in vitium vertuntur"; and perhaps Vell. Paterc. ii. 125,
5, "vir simplicitatis generosissimae."

Himerius (Ecl. v. 19) affords the nearest verbal parallel to St James: ei de
haplos didontos labein ouk eulogon, tos ou pleon, hote mede proika k.t.l. Here
however haplos is not ethical at all, but retains its common classical meaning
"absolutely," that is (in this connexion) "without a substantial equivalent." In
St James the need for adopting this meaning is removed by the sufficient
evidence for "graciously"; and it is excluded by the contrast with "upbraideth."

In Jewish writings haplous is generalised in a different direction to denote one
who carries piety and openness of heart before God into all his dealings. So the
LXX.: 1 Chron. xxix. 17 for ysr; Prov. xix. 1 (cf. x. 9; 2 Sam. xv. 11); Aq.:
Gen. xxv. 27; Job iv. 6; Prov. x. 29; Sym.: Job xxvii. 5 for tm ,tm, and tmh;
Wisd. i. 1; 1 Macc. ii. 37, 60; 3 Macc. iii. 21; and the whole Test. vii.
Patriarch., esp. the Test. of Issachar (e.g. 3), not without reference to the
original meanings, as in opposition to periergos.

In St James (as in Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. viii. 2; ix. 11, 13) the late Greek usage
and the context certainly determine the chief shade of meaning, but with clear
reference to singleness. "Liberally" (A.V.) would be the best translation, if we
could preserve exclusively its proper ethical sense; but by "liberally" we now
usually mean "abundantly," and that is not the particular aspect of God's bounty
indicated here by the following words, whatever may be the case in the passages
of St Paul. On the whole graciously, coupled as it is with giveth, seems the
nearest equivalent.

kai me oneidizontos, and upbraideth not] The opposition is clearly to
graciously, not to giveth: to upbraid is not to refuse, or even to vouchsafe "a
stone for bread," but to accompany a gift with ungenerous words or deeds.
Oneidizo often has this sense in classical writers from Aristotle (Rhet. ii. 6.
10; cf. Demosth. de Coron. § 269) onwards (see exx. in Wetstein). In Ecclus. it
is a favourite word (with oneidismos), and occurs more than once in strictly
parallel passages: "My son, give not reproach with thy good deeds, neither
painful words with every gift. Will not dew assuage the hot wind? So is a word
better than a gift. Lo, is not a word more than a good gift? And both are with a
gracious man (kecharitomeno). A fool will upbraid ungraciously (acharistos
oneidiei), and a gift of the envious dissolveth the eyes" (xviii. 15-18). "The
gift of a fool will profit thee not, for his eyes are many, instead of one. He
will give little and upbraid much, and open his mouth as a crier: to-day he will
lend, and to-morrow ask back; hated is such a man" (xx. 14, 15). "Have respect .
. . unto thy friends concerning words of upbraiding, and upbraid not after thou
hast given" (xli. 17, 22).

By this contrast of mean and ignoble benefactors, St James leads on from the
naked idea of God as a giver to the more vital idea of His character and mind in
giving (cf. [86]i. 13, [87]17 f.; [88]iv. 6; [89]v. 7), answering by
anticipation a superstitious thought which springs up as naturally in the decay
of an established faith as in the confused hopes and fears of primitive
heathenism. The subject is partly resumed in [90]v. 17.

didontos . . . dothesetai] Giveth what? Wisdom doubtless in the first instance;
but, as the immediate occasion of prayer becomes here the text for a universal
lesson, St James' meaning is best expressed by leaving the object undefined. In
like manner the "holy spirit," promised in Lk. xi. 13 to them that ask, is
replaced in the parallel Mt. vii. 11 by "good things" without restriction.

This verse has much in common with some of Philo's most cherished and at the
same time most purely biblical thoughts on God as a free giver and on wisdom as
specially the gift of God. But his language, beautiful and genuine as it often
is, suffers much from being overlaid with a philosophical contrast between this
wisdom (virtually "intuition") and the knowledge and discernment which come by
processes of education. The wisdom of St James, for all its immediate descent
from heaven, excludes no lesson of experience in thought or life.

^6aiteito de en pistei, meden diakrinomenos, ho gar diakrinomenos eoiken kludoni
thalasses anemizomeno kai rhipizomeno;

6. aiteito de en pistei, meden diakrinomenos, but let him ask in faith, nothing
wavering] Taken from our Lord's words in Mt. xxi. 21, Mk xi. 23; cf. Jam. v. 15.
Not the mere petition avails, but the mind of the asker, the trust in God as One
who delights to give. Wavering is no doubt the right translation of
diakrinomenos in this verse (as Mt. Mk, ll. cc.; Acts x. 20; Rom. iv. 20; xiv.
23), though singularly enough this sense occurs in no Greek writing, except
where the influence of the N.T. might have led to its use. It is supported by
the versions, the Greek commentators on the N.T. from Chrysostom and Hesychius,
as well as by the context of all the passages. It is probably derived from the
common meaning to "dispute" (Jer. xv. 10; Acts xi. 2; Jude 9; cf. Ezek. xvii. 20
codd.; xx. 35 f.; Joel iii. 2), of which there is a trace in the passages of
Romans. Compare the use of dialogizomai, to "dispute with oneself," in the
Gospels.

eoiken kludoni thalasses, is like a rough sea] Kludon appears never (not even
Polyb. x. 10. 3) to mean a "wave," but always "rough water" ("the rough sea"
A.V. Wisd. xiv. 5) or "roughness of water"; it is frequently coupled with salos.

anemizomeno kai rhipizomeno, blown and raised with the wind] This appears to be
the nearest approach to the meaning of the Greek allowed by the English idiom.
Anemizo, occurs nowhere else in Greek literature, and might by its etymology
express any kind of action of the wind. The equally rare analogous verb
pneumatizo is used where fanning is intended (Antigonus Caryst. ap. Wetst.). The
compound exanemizo is preserved only in the Scholia on Homer Il. xx. 440 (eka
mala psuxasa, interpreted te kinesei tes cheiros herema exanemisasa: Steph.
s.v.), where likewise it denotes the gentle air made by a wave of the hand. The
cognate anemoumai is to "be breathed through (or, swelled out) by the wind"
(whence a singular derivative use peculiar to writers on Zoology), except in one
passage; and its compound exanemoumai has the same range, with the further
meaning to "be dissolved into wind." An epigram in the Anthology (A. P. xiii.
12) applies henemomenos to the sea, described as roaring (bromos deinos) and
causing a shipwreck. With this exception the evidence, such as it is, implies a
restriction of anemizo to gentler motions of the air: and in St James the
improbability of an anticlimax forbids it being taken as a stronger word than
rhipizo.

Still more definitely, rhipizo means strictly to fan either a fire or a person.
It is formed not from rhipe, a "rushing motion" (as applied to air, a "blast"),
but from the derivative rhipis, a fire-fan; and consequently expresses only the
kind of blast proper to a fan. This restriction appears to be observed in a few
passages of a rather wider range. Thus rhipizomai is applied to dead bodies
allowed to sway freely (?) in the air (Galen. x. 745 ed. Kahn); to sea foam
carried inland (Dion Cass. lxx. 4); to spacious and airy chambers (huperoa
rhipista, Jerem. xxii. 14); to water preserved by motion from the "death" that
would follow stagnation (Philo, de incor. mundi 24). Lastly an unknown comic
poet (Meineke iv. 615) calls the people an unstable evil thing (demos astaton
kakon), which altogether like the sea is blown by the wind (hup' anemou
rhipizetai) and from being calm raises its crest at a trifling breeze (kai
galenos . . . pneuma brachu korussetai. These leading words are clear, though
the line is corrupt). The compound anarripizo always means to "fan a flame"
literally or figuratively.

The prima facie notion of billows lashed by a storm is therefore supported by
hardly any evidence; and indeed the restless swaying to and fro of the surface
of the water, blown upon by shifting breezes, is a truer image of a waverer (cf.
Dion Cass. lxv. 16, Vitellius emplektos ano kai kato ephereto, hosper en
kludoni). In the tideless Mediterranean even a slight rufflement would be
noticed in contrast with the usually level calm, and the direct influences of
disturbing winds are seen free from the cross effects of other agencies.

^7me gar oiestho ho anthropos ekeinos hoti lepsetai ti para tou kuriou [15] ^8
aner dipsuchos, akatastatos en pasais tais hodois autou.

7, 8. We have to choose here between three constructions, each marked by a
different way of punctuating between the verses. (a) With a colon, making two
separate sentences (A.V.); "let not that man think that he shall receive
anything from the Lord: a man of two minds is unstable in all his ways." (b)
With a comma making [91]v. 7 a complete sentence, with [92]v. 8 added in
apposition (R.V. text); "let not that man think that he shall receive anything
from the Lord, a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways." (c) Without a
stop, making [93]v. 7 incomplete without part of [94]v. 8 (R.V. marg.); "let not
that man think that a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways, shall receive
anything from the Lord."

In (a) and (b) it is "that man" that is said not to receive from the Lord, and
so that is blamed. Now who is "that man" -- "he that wavereth" or "if any of you
etc."? The whole context excludes him that merely "lacketh wisdom" from blame:
blame here attaches not to the absence of wisdom, but to the failure to ask for
it, or to the asking without faith. Therefore the constructions (a) and (b)
require "that man" to mean the waverer. As an independent proof that he is
meant, it is urged that "that man" is itself a reproachful designation.
Undoubtedly it might be so employed; but St James' usage does not favour the
supposition. He has the same word for man (anthropos) in six other places, but
nowhere with a trace of reproach and apparently always in emphatic opposition to
other beings. Thus the opposition is to God's other "creatures" in [95]i. 19; to
"the devils" in [96]ii. 20 and probably [97]24; to "every kind of beasts etc."
in [98]iii. 8 f.; to beings not "of like passions" [99]v. 17; and so here to
"the Lord." Likewise there is no force in a cumbrous reproachful description (ho
anthropos ekeinos) thus closely preceding an explicit rebuke: in Mt. xii. 45;
xxvi. 24 the weight of the words is in harmony with the peculiar solemnity of
the subjects. If no reproach is implied, the phrase is still more inexplicable
by Greek usage as applied to the person last mentioned.

On the other hand, if he that "lacketh wisdom" be intended, all difficulty
vanishes. The obvious way of setting aside the last person and pointing back to
the person mentioned before him would be in Greek the use of the pronoun "that"
(ekeinos); and the insertion of "man" we have already seen to be explained by
the opposition to "the Lord."

Since then "that man" must naturally mean him that merely "lacketh wisdom," and
so cannot be identified with the subject of rebuke, the constructions (a) and
(b) (of which (b) is certainly the more natural) are excluded, and the two
verses become one unbroken sentence. I am not aware of any intrinsic advantage
of the constructions (a) or (b) that would lead us to set aside this conclusion,
though habit makes us assume a pause at the end of [100]v. 7. Perhaps a feeling
that the words "unstable in all his ways" must denote a punishment, not a sin,
may have introduced the construction (a) into late MSS. of the Vulgate
(inconstans est), and so into A.V.: in reality this instability is strictly
neither sin nor punishment, but in some sense the transition from the one to the
other. The position of the verb (in the Greek) at the beginning of the clause is
explained by the length and elaborateness of its subject.

Although the man deficient in wisdom is not directly rebuked, the form of the
sentence implies that he is concerned in the words spoken of others. Though not
assumed to be a waverer, he is virtually warned that he may easily become liable
to the reproach, and reminded of the nature of his relation as a "man" to "the
Lord" of men.

8. aner, man] A different word from that used in [101]v. 7, and wholly without
emphasis.

dipsuchos, of two minds] The image of dipsuchos (lit. "two-souled") represents
either dissimulation (suggested to modern ears by "double-minded" in A.V.), or
various kinds of distraction and doubt. Here faithless wavering is obviously
meant, the description in [102]verse 6 being made more vivid by an additional
figure. Perhaps, as Calvin suggests, there is an intentional contrast with the
manner of God's giving; "graciously" (aplos) being according to the primitive
meaning of the Greek "simply": Ita erit tacita antithesis inter Dei
simplicitatem, cujus meminit prius, et duplicem hominis animum. Sicut enim
exporrecta manu nobis Deus largitur, ita vicissim sinum cordis nostri expansum
esse decet. Incredulos ergo, qui recessus habent, dicit esse instabiles etc.
There may also be an allusion to "loving God with all the soul" or "the whole
soul," en hole te psuche sou (Deut. vi. 5; Mt xxii. 37). The idea was familiar
to the Greeks (dicha thumon or noon echein etc.) from Homer and Theognis (910
Bergk); cf. Xenoph. Cyropaed. vi. 1. 41. It appears less distinctly in 1 Kings
xviii. 21, and perhaps 1 Chr. xii. 33 (Heb. "a heart and a heart," not LXX.). We
are reminded of St James by Ecclus. i. 28, "Disobey not the fear of the Lord,
and approach Him not with a double heart" (en kardia disse).

The word itself dipsuchos dipsuchia, dipsucheo) occurs here and [103]iv. 8 for
the first time. It is sprinkled over the early Fathers rather freely, and is
found occasionally in later times in the novelist Eustathius (viii. 7; xi. 17
f.), as well as in ecclesiastical writers. Probably all drew directly or
indirectly from St James (Philo, Fragm. ii. 663 Mangey, uses dichonous
epamphoteres, where St John Damascene has the heading peri deilon kai
dipsuchon). The early references are Clem. I. 11, 23; in both cases distazontes
is added as if to explain an unfamiliar word: the latter passage (talaiporoi
eisin hoi dipsuchoi, hoi distazontes te psuche k.t.l.) seems quoted from an
earlier writing (as it is likewise in Ps.-Clem. II. 11); the reference in this
passage is conjectured by Lightfoot to be to the prophecies of Eldad and Medad
referred to in Hermas, Vis. ii. 3, and therefore current early at Rome: they are
said to have prophesied to the people in the wilderness, so that it is probably
a Jewish, though possibly a Christian, book; Ep. Barnab. 19 (cf. dignomos,
diglossos ib.; diplokardia 20); Const. Ap. vii. 11 ("Be not of two minds in thy
prayer (doubting) whether it shall be or not (cf. Herm. Vis. iii. 4. 3); for the
Lord saith to me Peter upon the sea, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst
thou doubt?"); Ps.-Ignat. ad Heron. 7; Hermas passim; and Didache Ap. iv. 4 ou
dipsucheseis poteron estai e ou (whence the usage in Barnabas, Hermas, and
Const. Ap.). The reproof to Peter literally "on the sea" (oligopiste, eis ti
edistasas; Mt. xiv. 31) may have been present to St James' mind, as he had just
drawn a comparison from the sea,

ak. en pasais t. hodois autou] As "a man of two minds" is a slightly varied
repetition of "he that wavereth," in like manner "unstable in all his ways"
answers to "like a rough sea etc." This parallelism is in itself enough to prove
that the absence of the conjunction after "two minds" is expressive, and denotes
not simple co-ordination but sequence: "a man of two minds and so unstable in
all his ways."

akatastatos, unstable] Things properly are called akatastata, when they do not
follow an established order of any kind (kathestekota: cf. Aristot. Probl. xxvi.
13). The word is rarely applied to persons. Polybius (cf. Demosth. de fals.
legat. p. 383) seems to mean by it "fickle" or "easily persuaded" (vii. 4. 6);
he couples the substantive with madness (mania) a few lines further on. Other
examples are Epictetus (Diss. ii. 1. 12: phobesetai, akatastatesei,
tarachthesetai) "in a state of trepidation"; Pollux "fickle" (vi. 121), and also
"disorderly," i.e. "stirring up disorder" (vi. 129); the translators of the O.T.
"staggering" or "reeling": Gen. iv. 12 (Sym.) anastatos kai akatastatos with
varr., saleuomenos kai akatastaton (stenon kai tremon LXX.), Lam. iv. 14 (Sym.),
akatastatoi egenonto LXX.) tuphloi en tais exodois, Isa. liv. 11 (LXX.), "tossed
with tempest" (A.V.), of Zion compared to a ship, and apparently Hos. viii. 6
(Sym.) where the "Quinta Editio" has rhembeuon; Plut. II. 714 E, says that wine
makes t. gnomen episphale kai akatastaton; cf. Skotomaina nux estin en he
mainetai kai akatastatei ta ourania in Etym. Magn. 719, 34. The verbal
resemblance of Tob. i. 15 (ebasileusen Sennacherim ho huios ant' autou, kai hai
hodoi autou [al. hai hod. tes Medias] hekatastatesan [so B; A katestesa, '
apestesan], kai ouketi hedunasthen poreuthenai eis ten Median) is curious but
hardly more: the meaning seems to be "his roads" (possibly "his ways of
government") "were full of disorder and therefore unsafe."

On the whole it can scarcely be doubted that St James intended, or at all events
had in view, the physical meaning of akatastatos employed by the translators of
the O.T.; so that the two leading words of the phrase make up a vigorous
metaphor, "staggering in all his ways." But the English word "staggering" hardly
suits the tone of the verse; and "unsteady" has other disturbing associations.
"Unstable" (A. V.), though somewhat feebler than the Greek, must therefore be
retained, and has the advantage of covering the alternative meaning "fickle."
Compare Ecclus. ii. 12, "Woe to cowardly hearts and faint hands, and a sinner
that walketh upon two paths."

en pasais tais hodois autou, in all his ways] Hodois retains its original force
as "roads" or "journeys" more distinctly than the English equivalent. "In all
his ways" is perhaps, as Bede says, in prosperity and adversity alike; whether
suffering trial or not, he has no firm footing. The formula occurs Ps. xci. 11
and elsewhere.

The last two sentences may be thus paraphrased: "A prayer for wisdom, to be
successful, must be full of trust and without wavering. Wisdom comes not to him
that asks God for it only as a desperate chance, without firm belief in His
power and cheerful willingness to give. Such a one is always tossed to and fro
by vague hopes and fears; he is at the mercy of every blast and counterblast of
outward things. While he allows them to hide from him the inner vision of God's
works and ways, he cannot go straight forward with one aim and one mind, and
therefore lacks the one condition of finding wisdom; he is a stranger to that
converse with God, in which alone the mutual act of giving and receiving can be
said to exist."

A passage of Philo deserves to be appended; much of the context is necessarily
omitted. "Whatsoever things nature gives to the soul need a long time to gain
strength; as it is with the communication of arts and the rules of arts by other
men to their pupils. But when God, the fountain of wisdom, communicates various
kinds of knowledge (tas epistemas) to mankind, He communicates them without
lapse of time (achronos); and they, inasmuch as they have become disciples of
the Only Wise, are quick at discovering the things which they sought. Now one of
the first virtues thus introduced is the eager desire of imitating a perfect
teacher, so far as it is possible for an imperfect being to imitate a perfect.
When Moses said (to Pharaoh, Ex. viii. 9) Command me a time that I may pray for
thee and thy servants etc.,' he being in sore need ought to have said, Pray thou
at once.' But he delayed, saying, To-morrow,' that so he might maintain his
godless feebleness (ten hapaloteta tes atheotetos) to the end. This conduct is
like that of almost all waverers (epamphoteristais), even though they may not
acknowledge it in express words. For, when any undesired event befalls them,
inasmuch as they have had no previous firm trust in the Saviour God, they fly to
such help as nature can give, to physicians, to herbs, to compound drugs, to
strict regimen, in short to every resource of perishable things. And if a man
say to them, Flee, O ye wretched ones, to the only Physician of the maladies of
the soul, and forsake the help which mutable (pathetes) nature can give,' they
laugh and mock with cries of To-morrow,' as though in no case would they
supplicate the Deity to remove present misfortunes" (De Sacrif. Ab. et Caini,
17-19).

^9Kauchastho de [ho] adelphos ho tapeinos en to hupsei autou, ^10 ho de plousios
en te tapeinosei autou, hoti hos anthos chortou pareleusetai. ^11 aneteilen gar
ho helios sun to kausoni kai exeranen ton chorton, kai to anthos autou exepesen
kai he euprepeia tou prosopou autou apoleto; houtos kai ho plousios en tais
poreiais autou maranthesetai.

9-11. A return to the original theme of [104]v. 2, bringing in the
characteristic contrast of rich and poor as a special application of the
principle of rejoicing in trials. There is probably a reference to the
Beatitudes such as they appear in St Luke (vi. 20, 24). An indirect opposition
(marked by But and also by the brother) to the waverer of [105]v. 8 is doubtless
also intended. Poverty, riches, and the change from one to the other may be
among the "ways," in all of which the waverer is found unstable.

9. The order in the Greek is important. ho adelphos belongs equally to ho
tapeinos and ho plousios, so that "let the brother boast" is common to both
verses. As St James bids his "brethren" count it all joy when they fell in with
trials, so he here points out the appropriate grounds of boasting to each member
of the brotherhood, the body who might be expected to take a truer view of life
than the outer world.

kauchastho, glory] In the O.T. and Ecclus. "glorying" or "boasting" drops
altogether its strict sense, and signifies any proud and exulting joy: so hthll
(epainoumai) Ps. xxxiv. 3; lxiv. 11 etc.; and kauchomai Ps. v. 11; cxlix. 5;
Ecclus. xxxix. 8 etc. In the N.T. the word is confined to the Epp. and common
there; but rarely loses its original force, probably out of St James only in the
parallel Rom. v. 2, 3, 11 and in Heb. iii. 6; in other apparently similar cases
the effect is produced merely by obvious paradox. Possibly the extension had its
origin in Jerem. ix. 23 f., quoted 2 Cor. x. 17. Here kauchastho repeats the
charan of [106]v. 2 with a slight change, meaning joy accompanied with pride.

tapeinos, of low estate] Poverty is intended, but poverty in relation to
"glorying" and contempt, a state despised by the mass of mankind. Tapeinos means
indifferently "poor" and "poor in spirit" i.e. "meek," two notions which the
later Jews loved to combine: it is often used in both senses in Ecclus.

to hupsei autou, his height] Not any future elevation in this or the other
world, but the present spiritual height conferred by his outward lowness, the
blessing pronounced upon the poor, the possession of the Kingdom of God.
Continued poverty is one of the "trials" to be rejoiced in.

10. te tapeinosei autou, his being brought low] Suffering the loss not of wealth
only, but of the consideration which wealth brings. Tapeinosis might mean "low
estate," as in the LXX.(and Lk. i. 48 from 1 Sam. i. 11); but St James' language
is not usually thus incorrect, and the classical sense is borne out by the
context. The correlation with [107]v. 9 is not meant to be exact. The rich
brother is to glory in his being brought low whenever that may be, now or at any
future day (see [108]v. 1). If the "trials" of the times included persecution,
the rich would be its first victims. This is a marked feature in the persecution
of the Jews by the mob of Alexandria under the Emperor Gaius (Philo, Leg. ad
Gai. 18; e.g. penetas ek plousion kai aporous ex euporon gegenesthai meden
adikountas exaiphnes kai anoikous kai anestious, exeosmenous kai
pephugadeumenous ton idion oikion k.t.l.).

hoti, since) This introduces not an explanation of being brought low, but one
reason why the rich brother should glory in it, or more strictly why he should
not be startled at the command to glory in it. Perfection ([109]v. 4) is assumed
to be his aim: our Lord taught that riches are a hindrance in the way of
perfection (Mt. xix. 21 ff.): and this doctrine loses no little of its
strangeness, when the separable, and so to speak accidental, nature of riches is
remembered.

hos anthos chortou, as the bloom of grass] Taken from the LXX. rendering of Isa.
xl. 6: pasa sarx chortos pasa doxa anthro'pou hos anthos chortou. chortos,
properly "fodder," means in the LXX. such grass, or rather herbage, as makes
fodder. It stands rightly for chtsyr (cf. Job xl. 15), in the first place here
as in the two following verses. But anthos chortou is put for tsyts hsdh, which
is rightly translated anthos tou agrou, "the flower of the field," in the
parallel Ps. ciii. 15. The LXX. nowhere else translate sdh by chortos, nor will
it bear that meaning: hence chortou is merely an erroneous repetition. The
unique image taken from the flower of grass had therefore an accidental origin,
though it yields a sufficient sense.

Grass is frequently used in the poetical books of the O.T. to illustrate the
shortness of life, or the swift fall of the wicked. To understand the force of
the image we must forget the perpetual verdure of our meadows and pastures under
a cool and damp climate, and recall only the blades of thin herbage which
rapidly spring up and as rapidly vanish before the Palestine summer has well
begun. By "the flower of the field" the prophet (and the LXX. translator)
doubtless meant the blaze of gorgeous blossoms which accompanies the first
shooting of the grass in spring, alike in the Holy Land and on the Babylonian
plain (Stanley Sin. and Pal. 138 f.; Layard Nineveh i. p. 78).

pareleusetai, pass away] Parerchomai and "pass" answer strictly to each other in
their primary and their metaphorical senses: the Greek word here, as often in
classical writers, means to "pass away," i.e. pass by and so go out of sight; it
is employed in precisely similar comparison, Wisd. ii. 4; v. 9.

Which passes away, the rich man or his riches? Notwithstanding the form of the
sentence, we might be tempted by the apparent connexion with [110]v. 9 to say
his riches (ho ploutos included in ho plousios). But in that case the only way
to avoid unmeaning tautology is to take the comparison as justifying the mention
of impoverishment rather than the exhortation to glorying in impoverishment;
"let the rich man glory in his being brought low, for brought low be assuredly
will be, sooner or later." This gives an intelligible sense; but no one having
this in his mind would have clothed it in the language of vv. [111]10, [112]11.
St James must therefore mean to say not that riches leave the rich man but that
he leaves his riches. This is the interpretation suggested by the natural
grammar of [113]v. 10, and no other will suit the last clause of [114]v. 11.

But a difficulty remains. St James would hardly say that the rich man is more
liable to death than the poor, and the shortness of life common to both is in
itself no reason why the rich should glory in being brought to poverty. Probably
the answer is that St James has in view not death absolutely but death as
separating riches from their possessor, and shewing them to have no essential
connexion with him. "Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, when the glory of
his house is increased; for when he dieth he shall carry nothing away: his glory
shall not descend after him" (Ps. xlix. 16, 17). "Whose shall those things be
which thou hast provided?" (Lk. xii. 20). The perishableness was familiar to
heathens of all nations: cf. Horace Od. ii. 14 "Linquenda tellus et domus et
placens Uxor; neque harum, quas colis, arborum" etc. The argument goes no
further than to lower the relative value set upon wealth, and cannot by itself
sustain the exhortation of [115]v. 10. But the exaggerated estimate of wealth
here combated involved much more than exaggeration. It set up riches as the
supreme object of trust and aspiration, and fostered the vague instinct that
there was a difference of nature corresponding to the distinction of rich and
poor. Thus in effect it substituted another god for Jehovah, and denied the
brotherhood of men. To a rich man in this state of mind the lesson of the
prophet was a necessary preparation for receiving the teaching of Christ.

I1. aneteilen, riseth] This is the common classical (gnomic) aorist of general
statements founded on repeated experience. There is no clear instance of this
use in the N.T. except here and [116]v. 24. Rapid succession is perhaps also
indicated by the series of aorists, though too strongly expressed in A.V. Not
unlike is Ps. civ. 22, aneteilen ho helios, kai sunechthesan (so all MSS. except
B).

sun to kausoni, with the scorching wind] A rare word in ordinary Greek, and
there chiefly used for some very inflammatory kind of fever (kausonos, thetmes
-- Suid. where Bernhardy refers to Herod. Epim. p. 196); in Athen. iii. p. 73 A
it denotes noontide heat. This seems also to be the meaning in Gen. xxxi. 40 (A
all.; kaumati E) and Song of 3 Child. 44 (A Compl. al.^3; kauma B all., kausos
all.); also in Mt. xx. 12; Lk. xii. 55 (aestas latt.); and perhaps Isa. xlix.
10, where the Hebrew has nothing to do with wind.

On the other hand in the O.T. kauson is a frequent translation of qdym (often
also rendered notos) the east wind of Palestine (the Simoom) destructive alike
by its violence and its dry heat acquired in passing over the desert. This sense
alone occurs in all the chief Greek translations of the O.T., and again
apparently in Ecclus. and Judith. The only trace of it out of the Bible is in
the Schol. to Aristoph. Lysist. 974, where a whirlwind is probably intended. St
Jerome on Hos. xii. 1 recognises both senses ("sequique kausona, hoc eat
aestum," and further on "sequuntur kausona, id est ariditatem sive ventum
urentem"), describing the wind as "injurious to the flowers and destroying every
budding thing." Again on Ezek. xxvii. 26 he notices willowy, "which we may
translate burning wind," as an appropriate rendering of qdym ("Auster"), and
then goes on to refer to Mt. xx. 12 with apparently only the heat in view
("totius diei calorem et aestum"). On the whole there can be little doubt that
the O.T. sense is that intended here ("the sun with the scorching wind"). In
Jonah iv. 8 the east wind (kauson) that beat upon Jonah rose with the sun. For
its effects on vegetation see Gen. xli. 6, 23, 27; Ezek. xvii. l0; xix. 12. It
is said to blow from February to June [v. Enc. Bib. pp. 5304 f.].

exepesen, fadeth away] This is one of the words in this verse derived from Isa.
xl. 7, where (as in xxviii. 1, 4) it stands for nvl, to fade or droop away. The
notion of dropping off is not distinctly contained in the Hebrew, as it is in
Job xiv. 2; xv. 33, where ekpipto is equally applied to flowers. The strictest
parallel is Job xv. 30 in the LXX., but the Hebrew is different. Possibly
various metaphors combined (cf. Fritzsche Rom. ii. 281) to give ekpipto its
genuine Greek sense of ending in failure or nothingness; so Ecclus. xxxi. 7;
Rom. ix. 6; and the "received" reading of 1 Cor. xiii. 8. But the same force
belongs to the root prior to all special applications. pipto itself has a hardly
distinguishable sense (to "fail" as well as to "fall"), which is associated with
parerchomai [117]v. 10) in Lk. xvi. 17. Hence exepesen was probably intended to
convey, and will certainly bear, the sense of withering away rather than falling
off.

7') he euprepeia tou prosopou autou, the glory of its pride] Each of the
principal words will bear two renderings. Euprepeia might mean "comeliness,"
"grace," "beauty." Prosopon might be simply the face' of the grass or flower, by
a common metaphor for its outward appearance or fashion.' Euprepeia, however
(used in O.T. for various Hebrew words), usually includes a notion of
stateliness, or majesty. So Ps. xciii. 1, ho kurios ebasileusen, euprepeian
enedusato; Ps. civ. 1, exomologesin kai euprepeian eneduso (', B); Jerem. xciii.
9, egenethen hos aner suntetrimmenos . . . apo prosopou Kuriou kai apo prosopou
heuprepeias doxes autou: Bar. v. 1 endusai (Ierousalem) ten euprepeian tes para
tou theou doxes eis ton aiona: Wisd. v. 16, to basileion tes euprepeias: Wisd.
vii. 29, estin gar haute (sophia) euprepestera heliou: etc.

The varied figurative use of pnym ("face") in the O.T. was closely followed in
the LXX. by prosopon, which brought in with it from prior, though late, Greek
usages the secondary notion of a person in a drama, or a representative. In late
Jewish Greek the old Hebrew idiom to "accept the face" (i.e. "receive with
favour") obtained fresh extensions, and thus in various ways the associations of
the word prosopon became more complex. It seems to mean a "person"
("personage"), as the possessor of dignity or honour, in Ecclus. xxxii. (xxxv.)
15 (12), me epeche thusia adiko, hoti kurios krites estin kai ouk estin par'
auto doxa prosopou, i.e. "the glory which distinguishes one person from another
has no existence in His sight." Compare Wisd. vi. 7, ou gar huposteleitai
prosopon ho panton despotes, oude entrapesetai megethos Not unlike is Ecclus.
xxix. 27, exelthe, paroike, apo prosopou doxes: cf. 2 Macc. xiv. 24, kai eichen
ton Ioudan dia pantos en prosopo, psuchikos to andri prosekeklito. "Person" in
this rather loose sense would accordingly seem to be the most exact translation
here, but would involve too harsh a figure in English; and "pride" nearly
expresses what is meant.

On the whole clause cf. Isa. xxviii. 1-5. The rendering here given has the
advantage of recalling [118]v. 9 ("glorying," "low estate," "height").

maranthesetai, wither away] Marainomai denoted originally the dying out of a
fire (cf. Aristot. de vita et morte, 5), but came to be used of many kinds of
gradual enfeeblement or decay. In classical Greek there are but slight traces of
its application to plants (Plutarch, Dion, 24; Lucian, de Domo, 9; Themistius,
Or. xiii. p. 164 C, anthos amudron aretes marainesthai). But this is the exact
sense in Wisd. ii. 8; and Job xxiv. 24, emaranthe hosper moloche (al. chloe) en
kaumati e hosper stachus apo kalames automatos apopeson, which curiously
resembles the text. Hence probably also the meaning "scorch" in the only
remaining instance in the O.T. and Apocrypha, Wisd. xix. 20.

The idea of gradual passing away, which is characteristic of the classical use,
is out of place here, where the rapid disappearance of the grass is dwelt upon.
The fitness of the word comes solely from its association with the image just
employed: it can mean no more than "die or vanish as the grass does."

poreiais, goings] The known evidence for the reading poriais is insufficient;
but in any case it is merely a variation of spelling. There is no authority for
the existence of a word poria signifying "gain" (porismos), which is a blunder
of Erasmus founded on a false analogy of aporia and euporia. Poreia means a
"journey," and is very rarely used in any secondary sense, unless by a conscious
metaphor indicated in the context. The only clear cases discoverable are Ps.
lxviii. 24; (Isa. viii. 11;) and Hab. iii. 6 (whence the interpolation in
Ecclus. i. 5). This is the more remarkable as triboi and hodoi are abundantly so
used in the LXX. Herder's ingenious suggestion that there is an allusion to
travelling merchants (as undoubtedly [119]iv. 13 f.) has great probability. At
all events the common interpretation of "goings" as a mere trope for "doings"
seems too weak here. The force probably lies in the idea that the rich man
perishes while he is still on the move, before he has attained the state of
restful enjoyment which is always expected and never arrives. Without some such
hint of prematurity the parallel with the grass is lost.

The addition of the elaborate description in [120]v. 11 to the simple comparison
in [121]v. 10 seems to shew how vividly St James' mind had been impressed by the
image when himself looking at the grass: what had kindled his own imagination he
uses to breathe life into the moral lesson. In the last clause of the verse he
returns, as it were, from the contemplation to his proper subject, and ends with
an echo of the last words of [122]v. 8.

"Let God alone be thy boast and thy greatest praise (Deut. x. 21), and pride not
thyself upon riches, neither upon honour, neither etc., considering that these
things . . . are swift to change, withering away (marainomena) as it were before
they have fully bloomed." Philo, de vict. off. 10 (ii. 258).

^12 Makarios aner hos hupomenei peirasmon, hoti dokimos genomenos lepsetai ton
stephanon tes zoes, hon epengeilato tois agaposin auton.

12. The parenthesis (vv. [123]5-[124]11) ended, St James returns to his first
theme, trials. He has dealt with them (vv. [125]3, [126]4) as to their intended
effects on human character, as instruments for training men to varied
perfection. He has spoken (vv. [127]5-8) of the process as one carried on
through a wisdom received from God in answer to trustful prayer, depending
therefore on a genuine faith, which in its turn depends on a true knowledge of
God's character. He has spoken (vv. [128]9-11) of the true estimate of poverty
and riches, or rather of the contempt and honour which they confer, as
characteristic of the right mind towards men, which should accompany and express
the right mind towards God. Now he returns to trials, once more in relation to
God, but from quite a new point of view, not as to their effects on character,
but as to the thoughts which they at the time suggest to one who has no worthy
faith in God.

makarios, happy] Not "blessed," but as we say "a happy man." Cf. its use in the
Psalms (e.g. i. 1) and in the Beatitudes. St James drops the paradoxical form of
the original theme in [129]v. 2. Not now trial, but the patient endurance of
trial is pronounced "happy." Thus the explanations in vv. [130]3, [131]4 are
incorporated with the primary exhortation in [132]v. 2.

hupomenei, endureth] Not "has to bear," but "bears with endurance," the verb
recalling hupomonen ([133]v. 3). So Mt. xxiv. 13; Mk xiii. 13 compared with Lk.
xxi. 19. In 1 Pet. ii. 20 the force is very apparent. The phrase Makarios ho
hupomenon (B: hupomeinas A, etc.) occurs Dan. xii. 12 (Thdn). Compare [134]v.
11.

dokimos, approved] Again this word recalls the dokimion of [135]v. 3. It means
one who has been tested, as gold or silver is tested (Zech. xi. 13, LXX.; cf.
Ps. lxvi. 10), and not found wanting. "Approved" is not quite a satisfactory
rendering in modern English, though it is the best available here. "Proved" or
"tried" in their adjectival sense would be less ambiguous, if the form of the
sentence did not render them liable to be taken for pure participles, expressing
not the result but the process of trial.

ton stephanon tes zoes, the crown of life] The precise force of this phrase is
not easy to ascertain. One of the most ancient and widely spread of symbols is a
circlet round the head; expressing chiefly joy or honour or sanctity. There are
two principal types, the garland of leaves or flowers (stephanos) and the linen
fillet (diadema, mitra). From one or other of these two, or from combinations of
both, are probably derived all the various "crowns" in more durable or precious
materials, sometimes enriched with additional ornaments or symbols. Each type is
represented by a familiar instance. The chaplet with which the victor was
crowned at the Greek games is a well-known illustration as used by St Paul. A
fillet under the name of "diadem" was one of the insignia of royalty among the
Persians, and was adopted by the Greek and Graeco-Asiatic kingdoms after
Alexander. This ancient original of the modern kingly crown is never called
stephanos in classical Greek; but the same Hebrew word trh, which is always
rendered stephanos by the LXX., denotes some royal headdress of gold (shape
unknown) in 2 Sam. xii. 30 (the golden crown of the Ammonite king taken at
Rabbah) || 1 Chr. xx. 2; (Ps. xxi. 3;) Esth. viii. 15; as well as the symbol of
glory, pride, or beauty (cf. Lam. v. 16), stephanos sometimes standing alone,
sometimes being followed by a defining word (stephanos, doxes, truphes,
kaucheseos, tes hubreos, kallous, chariton; Ecclus. vi. 31; xv. 6). This idiom
clearly comes from the general popular use of chaplets, not from any
appropriation to particular offices.

Which then of the various uses of crowns or chaplets has supplied St James with
his image? In such a context we should naturally think first of the victor's
crown in the games, of which St Paul speaks. On the other hand, the O.T.
contains no instance of that use (it would be impossible to rely on the LXX.
mistranslation of Zech. vi. 14, ho de stophanos estai tois hupomenousin, really
the proper name Helem); and apparently the Apocrypha has no other instance than
the description of virtue, in Wisd. iv. 2, which en to aioni stephanephorousa
pompeuei, ton ton amianton athlon agona nikesasa. In any case we must take St
James' use with that of St John in Apoc. ii. 10, where again we have the crown
of life. The phrase probably came from Jewish usage not now recorded. But when
the two contexts are compared it is difficult to doubt that the Greek victor's
crown is an element in the image. Even in Palestine Greek games were not
unknown; and at all events St James writing to the Dispersion, and St John to
the Churches of Proconsular Asia, could have no misgiving about such an allusion
being misunderstood. There is of course no thought of a competitive contest; all
alike might receive the crown. It is simply the outward token of glad
recognition from the Heavenly Lord above, who sits watching the conflict, and
giving timely help in it. It expresses in symbol what is expressed in words in
the greeting, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" The martyrs of Vienna and
Lugdunum are said in the well-known epistle (Euseb. H. E. v. 1. 36) to receive
"the great crown of incorruption" as "athletes." "The crown of incorruption" is
also spoken of in the Mart. Polyc. 17, 19. (So also Orac. Sibyll. ii. pp. 193,
201, quoted by Schneckenburger.)

Life is itself the crown, the genitive being that of apposition. There is no
earlier or contemporary instance of this genitive with stephanos, except 1 Pet.
v. 4: but the form of expression recals Ps. ciii. 4. "Life" is probably selected
here in contrast to the earthly perishableness dwelt on in vv. 10 f. But it does
not follow that perpetuity is the only characteristic in view. Fulness and
vividness of life are as much implied. The life is an imparting of God's life:
"enter thou into the joy of thy Lord [16] " The idea cannot be made definite
without destroying it. The time when the reception of the crown of life begins
is likewise not defined, except that it follows a period of trial. Its fulness
comes when the trials are wholly passed.

hon epengeilato, which He promised] "The Lord" is a natural interpolation. The
subject of the verb is to be inferred from the sense rather than fetched from
[136]v. 5 or [137]7; it is doubtless God. The analogy of [138]ii. 5 shews that
words of Christ would be to St James as promises of God; and such sayings as
that in Mt. xix. 29; Lk. xviii. 29 f. may be intended here. But equally
pertinent language may be found in the O.T., as Ps. xvi. 8-11, where the
comprehensive idea of "life" well illustrates that of St James: see also Prov.
xiv. 27; xix. 23. Zeller (Hilgenfeld, J. B. 1863, 93 ff.) tries to shew that the
reference here is to the Apocalypse passage. Probably the promise comes from
Deut. xxx. 15, 16, 19, 20.

tois agaposin auton, them that love Him] This phrase is common in the O.T.,
usually joined with "keeping of God's commandments"; but singularly absent from
the prophets (exc. Dan. ix. 4), who speak much of God's love to men. Here see
Ps. xxxi. 23; cxlv. 20; also Ecclus. xxxi. 19; Bel and Drag. 38. As St James
describes endurance as leading to the crown promised to those who love God, he
must have regarded it as at least one form, or one mark, of the love of Him. But
then all the preceding verses shew that he considered endurance when perfected
to involve trust in Him, unwavering conviction of His ungrudging goodness, and
boasting in that low estate which Christ had de-dared to be height in His
Kingdom. Probably, specially chosen, the words sum up in the Deuteronomic phrase
adopted by Christ the Law as towards God (Deut. vi. 5, ap. Matt. xxii. 37 || Mk.
xii. 30 || Lk. x. 27), just as we have the second part of the Law in [139]ii. 8,
conforming with St James' treatment of the Law as spiritualised in the Gospel.

Agaposin in 1 Cor. ii. 9 is substituted for hupomenouin eleon in Isa. lxiv. 4.
Compare Jam. ii. 5 (on which see Exod. xix. 5, 6); Rom. viii. 28 (t. ag. ton
theon); 2 Tim. iv. 8 (t. hegap. t. epiphaneian autou); also the use of 'hv
itself in Ps. xl. 17 || lxx. 5 (hoi ag. to soterion sou).

^13medeis peirazomenos legeto hoti Apo theou peirazomai; ho gar theos apeirastos
estin kakon, peirazei de autos oudena.

13. In contrast to him who endures trial, bears it with hupomone, and thereby
receives life, the opposite way of meeting trial, yet accompanied with a certain
recognition of God, is to yield and play a cowardly and selfish part, and to
excuse oneself by throwing the blames on God as the Author of the trial. Of
course this, like most of the ways rebuked by St James, is a vice of men whose
religion has become corrupt, not of men who have none at all.

As far as the first clause is concerned, the use of language is easy. The
peirazomenos of [140]v. 13 takes up the peirasmon; of [141]12, and that the
peirasmois of [142]2. Peirasmos is still simply "trial," "trying," the sense of
suffering being, as we saw, probably latent, as in Ecclus., but quite
subordinate.

apo theou, from God] Not a confusion of apo and hupo, which would be unlike St
James' exactness of language; the idea is origin not agency: "from God comes my
being tried." The words in themselves are ambiguous as to their spirit. They
might be used as the justification of faithful endurance: the sense that God was
the Author of the trial and probation would be just what would most sustain him,
as the Psalms shew. But here the true phrase has been corrupted into an
expression of falsehood. The sense of probation, which implies a personal faith
in the Divine Prover, has passed out of the word peirazomai: just as God's
giving was; thought of nakedly, without reference to His gracious ungrudging
mind in giving, so here His proving is thought of nakedly, without reference to
His wise and gracious purpose in proving. Somewhat similar language occurs in
Ecclus. xv. 11, 12.

peirazomai, tempted or tempted by trial] Now comes the difficulty: we have
passed unawares from the idea of trial to that of temptation, by giving what is
apparently a neutral, practically an evil, sense to "trial." Trial manifestly
may have either result: if it succeeds in its Divinely appointed effect, it
results in perfectness: but it may fail, and the failure is moral evil. If we
think of it only in relation to this evil when referring it to God, we mentally
make Him the Author of the moral evil, in other words a tempter.

We are so accustomed to associate the idea of temptation with peirasmos, that we
forget how secondary the sense is. It is worth while to see what evidence it has
from usage. We saw that the only O.T. and Apocryphal senses are: (1) trying of
men by God (good); (2) trying of God by men (evil); (3) trying of men by man,
which nay be either neutral as in the case of the Queen of Sheba, or with evil
purpose, but not properly a "temptational" purpose, as those who tried to
entangle our Lord in His words. But the N.T. has another use. Three times in the
Gospels the idea of tempting comes in, not as the sole sense but still
perceptibly; viz. in the Temptation, the Lord's Prayer, and "Watch and pray,
that ye enter not into temptation" (Mt. xxvi. 41 and parallels). To see the
exact force and connexion we must go back to the O.T. In Genesis God stands face
to face with Abraham; He alone is visible as trying him. But not so later. The
Book of Job does not apply the words "try," "trial" (Heb. or Gk) to Job: but it
is a record of a typical trial, recognised as such in Jam. v. 11; and while the
result of the trial is perfectly good, the agency of Satan is interposed: the
same process is carried on for his evil purpose and for God's good purpose, so
that he is an unconscious tool in God's hand.

Exactly similar is the passage in Lk. xxii. 31, on Satan desiring to have the
apostles to sift them as wheat: his evil purpose there stands in subordination
to the Divine purpose for perfecting Apostleship. Probably so also in the
Temptation: Mt. iv. 1 peirasthenai (peirazomenos Mk i. 13, Lk. iv. 2) hupo tou
diabolou (Satana Mk i. 13), i.e. the appointed probation of the Messiah takes
place through the adversary who strives to tempt Him with the ways of false
Messiahship. But in Mt. we have further ho peirazon, and this in connexion with
1 Thess. iii. 5, me epeirasen humas ho teirazon, probably means not the Divinely
ordained agent of probation, but he who tries with evil intent, i.e. the
Tempter, "lest it prove that ye have been tried by the Tempter" (by him and not
by God only). Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 5 (1 Cor. x. 13; Gal. vi. 1 are not certain); also
peirasmos 1 Tim. vi. 9; 2 Pet. ii. 9; Apoc. iii. 10.

So also in the Lord's Prayer peirasmon doubtless starts from trial, but trial
considered as a source of danger rather than of effectual probation, as seems to
be implied by the antithesis of (masc.) tou ponerou. The Lord's Prayer virtually
rules the sense of me eiselthete (Mt. xxvi. 41 and parallels). This implication
of evil in the idea of trial apparently came from this idea of Satan's part in
Divine trials. Thus the notion is not so much tempt in the sense of "allure,"
"seduce," as "try with evil intent."

It is difficult to find traces of Jewish influence going as far as the N.T.
goes, but we do find "trial" with an evil sense attached, as the Evening Prayer
in Berachoth 60 B, where sin, transgression, trial, disgrace stand in a line
(cf. Taylor 141 f.).

apeirastos . . . kakon, untried in evil] The meaning of apeirastos has been much
discussed. It appears in this shape in St James for the first time in Greek
literature, though Boeckh has recognised it in the shortened apeiratos (as
thaumastos, thaumatos, etc.) of Pindar, Olymp. vi. 54. The preceding words at
first sight suggest an active force "incapable of tempting to evil" (so Origen
on Exod. xv. 25). A few cases of verbals in -tos in an active sense governing
cases occur, but only in the tragedians. Aprosdoketos (Thuc.) and apraktos with
two or three other doubtful instances are used actively by prose writers, but
without governing a case. Considerable internal evidence would therefore be
required before such a sense could be accepted here, while in fact it would
reduce the next clause to an unmeaning repetition. Apeirastos therefore, being
from peirazo, ought in strictness to be only a true passive, "not tried or
tempted," "unattempted" (so Joseph. B. J. vii. 8. 1, met' ergon apeiraston
paraleipontes; Galen, in Hip. Aph. i. 1 [xvii. B 354 ed. Kühn] peirasthai ton
apeiraston ouk asphales, or "incapable of being tried or tempted": and ap. kakon
might well be "incapable of being tempted by evil things," i.e. virtually "to
evil," though the phrase would in this sense be singular; so apparently
Ps.-Ignat. ad Philip. 11 pos peirazeis ton apeiraston; (? Leuc.) Act. Joh. 190,
Zahn [c. 57* Bonnet] ho gar se (John) peirazon ton apeiraston peirazei; and a
scholium in Oecumenius. In this way we gain a forcible antithesis to the
following clause, but with the loss of causal connexion with the preceding.

The active and passive senses being then excluded by the context, the neuter
remains, if only it can be sustained philologically. Now while peirazo belongs
to Epic and to late Greek, and has no middle except once in Hippoc. de Morb. iv.
327 T. ii. (Lob. ap. Buttm. ii. 267) [17] , the Attics used peirao and also the
middle peiromai, whence they had the verbal apeiratos in both passive and neuter
senses, which cannot always be distinguished. The phrase apeiratos kakon,
meaning "having had no experience of evils," "free from evils," seems to have
been almost proverbial: it occurs in Diod. Sic. i. 1; Plut. Moral. 119 F;
Joseph. B. J. ii. 21, 4 (cf. iii. 4, 4): Athenag. de resur. 18 (where the
Strasburg MS. has apeirastos); Themist. vii. p. 92 B (Wetst.). It is quite
possible that the two forms, having the strict passive sense in common, were at
length used indiscriminately, apeirastos borrowing from apeiratos its wider
range: and so we find in Theodoret de Prov. v. (iv. 560 Schulze), oude gar an
edeisamen, ei pantelos apeirastos auton (sc. venomous serpents) he hemetera
phusis memenekei. But, even without supposing St James to have lost the
distinction, we can readily understand that he may have seized the familiar
apeiratos kakon, and by a permissible license substituted the kindred apeirastos
in conformity with the peirazo and peirasmoi of his context.

Similarly his kaka are not, as usual in this phrase, misfortunes, but moral
evils. In English the force is best given by the abstract singular, "untried in
evil," i.e. without experience of anything that is evil. The argument doubtless
is: -- God's own nature is incapable of contact with evil, and therefore He
cannot be thought of as tempting men, and so being to them the cause of evil.
Compare M. Aurel. vi. 1 ho de tauten (ten ton holon ousian) dioikon logos
oudemian en heauto aitian echei tou kakopoiein, kakian gar ouk echei.

autos, Himself] That is, He for His part (not so others). This the proper sense
of autos is compatible with a neuter as well as with a passive rendering of
apeirastos: the order is not autos de peirazei.

peirazei de autos oudena] This statement cannot possibly be taken in the
original sense of peirazei. The whole passage rests on the assumption that
peirasmos as trial does come from God. The word has therefore in this place
acquired a tinge partly from the misuse of it in the mouth of the man excusing
himself, partly from the kakon of the following clause; it means "tries" in the
sense that the man talks of "trying," tries for evil, i.e. tempts.

At first sight it looks strange, taking this verse with the next, that St James
in denying that God tempts is silent about Satan as the tempter, while yet he
does in antithesis speak of a man's own desire as tempting him. The silence
cannot possibly arise from any hesitation to refer to Satan or to his
temptations: that supposition is historically excluded by the general language
of the N.T. St James as a Jew of this time would be more, not less, ready than
others to use such language; and it lies on the surface of the early Gospel
records on which his belief was mainly founded.

It is striking that the Clementine Homilies, representing a form of Ebionism,
i.e. the exaggeration of St James' point of view, lean so greatly on the idea of
Satan as the tempter that they say absolutely, what St James here says only with
a qualification, that God does not peirazein at all. In contrasting sayings of
Christ with false teaching, it says (iii. 55) tois de oiomenois hoti ho theos
peirazei, hos hai graphai legousin, ephe, Ho poneros estin ho peirazon; ho kai
auton peirasas, probably from an apocryphal Gospel. And so on the theory that
any doctrine of the O.T. which the writer thought false must be an
interpolation, he calls it a falsehood (iii. 43) to say that the Lord tried
Abraham, hina gno hei hupomenei; and (xvi. 13) with reference to Deut. xiii. 3
he boldly substitutes ho peirazon epeirazen for the LXX. peirazei Kurios ho
theos sou humas eidenai ei k.t.l.

This illustrates St James' caution. He was as anxious as Hom. Clem. to maintain
at all hazards the absolute goodness of God, but he entirely believed and upheld
the O.T. language. Meanwhile to have spoken here of Satan would have been only
substituting one excuse for another. It was as practical unbelief to say, I sin
because Satan tempts me, as to say, I sin because God tempts me. In each case it
was an external power. What was needed to bring forward was the third factor,
that within the man himself, and subject to his own mastery. The whole subject
involved two mysteries, that of God as good in relation to evil, that of God as
Providence in relation to human responsibility. Explicitly and implicitly St
James recognises both sides of each antinomy: he refuses to cut either knot by
the sacrifice of a fundamental truth.

^14hekastos de peirazetai hupo tes idias epithumias exelkomenos kai
deleazomenos;

14. hekastos de peirazetai hupo tes idias epithumias, but each man is tempted by
his own desire] Here the particular temptation belonging to the peirasmoi of
persecution is expanded into temptation generally, to doing evil acts, not
merely not persisting in good. It is violent to connect hupo tes idias
epithumias exclusively with the following participles: hupo goes naturally with
a passive transitive verb immediately preceding, unless the sense forbids. There
is no need to take either verb or participles quite absolutely: as often happens
hupo k.t.l., standing between both, belongs to both, but especially to the verb
as standing first.

epithumias, desire] This must be taken in its widest sense (cf. [143]iv. 1)
without special reference to sensuality: such desires as would lead to
unfaithfulness under the peirasmoi of of persecution, to which the Epistle
refers at the outset, are not likely to be excluded. It is not abstract desire,
but a man's own desire, not merely because the responsibility is his, not God's,
but also because it substitutes some private and individual end for the will of
God: kata tas idias epithumias occurs 2 Pet iii. 3 (cf. Jude 16, 18); 2 Tim. iv.
3.

The meaning of the Greek words needs nothing beyond themselves to explain them.
But it is likely enough that St James had in mind, when he was writing, hytsr
hr, or "the evil impulse," often spoken of in Jewish literature, starting from
Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21 ("imagination"), properly the set or frame (plasma) of the
heart or of its thoughts, occasionally identified with Satan, but oftener not.
Cf. Weber, Syst. der alt-synagog. Pal. Theol. 204 ff., 223 ff.

The representation of the desire as a personal tempter, probably implied in this
verse and clearly expressed in the next, may contain the idea that, not being
evil intrinsically, it becomes evil when the man concedes to it a separate voice
and will instead of keeping it merged in his own personality, and thus subject
to his authority. The story of Eve, with the Jewish allegories on the same
subject, can hardly have been absent from St James' mind: but it does not meet
his purpose sufficiently to affect his language. On the other hand he probably
pictured to himself the tempter desire as a harlot. Here too a Christian
distinction may be latent in the image: the desire tempts not by evil but by
misused good (cf. [144]v. 17).

exelkomenos kai deleazomenos, being enticed and allured (by it)] Deleazo, to
allure by a bait (delear), is frequently used metaphorically, as here. Exelko, a
rather rare word, is not known to occur in any similar passage. The sense of
Aristotle's plegas labon kai para tes gunaikos exelkustheis (Pol. V. 10, p. 1311
b 29) is too obscure to supply illustration. Several commentators cite as from
Plut. De sera num. vind. (no ref.), to gluku tes epithumias hosper delear
exelkein: Plutarch's real words are (p. 554 F), to gluku tes adikias hosper
delear euthus exededoke. The combination with deleazo, has naturally suggested
here the image of fish drawn out of the water by a line (hoi de elkousi; epean
de exelkusthe es gen -- Herod. ii. 70, of the crocodile), in spite of the
obvious difficulty that the bait ought to precede the line: but the whole
conception is unsuitable to the passage. The simple helko is used for the
drawing or attracting operation of a love-charm (iunx: so Pind. Nem. iv. 56;
Xen. Mem. iii. 11, 18; Theocrit. ii. 17 ff.; as duco Verg. Ecl. viii. 68); and
soon came to be applied to any pleasurable attraction (Xen. Symp. i. 7; Plat.
Rep. v. p. 458 D with peithein, but erotikais anankais; vii 538 D, epitedeumata
hedonas echonta, ha kolakeuei men hemon ten psuchen kai helkei eph' heauta,
peithei de ou tous kai hopeoun metrioths; Philostr. Ep. 39, kalos ei, kan me
theles, kai pantas helkeis to ameloumeno, hosper hoi botrues kai ta mela kai ei
ti allo automaton kalon; Athan. Or. cont. Gentes 30 on men leaving the way of
truth, on which they have been set dia tas exoiem autous helkousas hedonas tou
biou; Ael. N. A. vi. 31). It is associated with delear, deleazo, in Plut. Moral.
1093 D, hai d' apo geometrias kai astrologias kai harmonikes drimu kai poikilon
echousai to delear [hedonai] oudenos ton agogimon apodeousin, helkousai kathaper
iunxi tois diagrammasin. Philo says (i. 512), epithumia men gar, holkon echousa
dunamin, kai an pheuge to pothoumenon diokein anankazei. Such seems to be the
sense here, ek being prefixed to denote the drawing out of the right place or
relation or the drawing aside out of the right way: cf. ekklino, ekpipto,
ekstrephomai, ektrepomai, and especially (though not in N.T.) exago. The present
tense of the participles expresses only the enticing and alluring action of the
desire, antecedently to its being obeyed or resisted. Renderings of exelkomenos
like "drawn astray," though in themselves more expressive than "enticed," would
therefore involve an erroneous anticipation of the next verse. Cf. on this use
of helko Creuzer in Plotin. de pulchr. pp. 249 ff.

^15eita he epithumia sullabousa tiktei hamartian, he de hamartia apotelestheisa
apokuei thanaton.

15. eita, next] Eita, when historical (in Heb. xii. 9 it is logical), marks a
fresh and distinct incident, whether immediate or, as in the parable of the
Sower (Mk iv. 17; Lk. viii. 12), after an interval. Thus here it separates the
temptation from the yielding to temptation implied in sullabousa.

he epithumia, the desire] That is, either his desire generally, as the article
in [145]v. 14 suggests, or that particular desire of his which tempted him; not
desire in the abstract.

sullabousa tiktei, conceiveth and bringeth forth] The double image distinguishes
the consent of the will (the man) to the desire from the resulting sinful act,
which may follow either instantly or at a future time. On the other hand the
compact phrase adopted from the O.T. (Gen. iv. 1, 17 etc.) participle and verb
brings thought and act together as a single stage between the temptations on the
one hand and the death on the other: the sin dates its existence from the moment
of consent, though it is by act that it is born into the world.

hamartian, a sin] This might of course be "sin": but the individual sense suits
the passage better; each special desire has a special sin for its illegitimate
offspring. The personified sin of this verse is neither momentary thoughts nor
momentary deeds, but has a continuous existence and growth, a parasitical life:
it is what we call a sinful state, a moral disease which once generated runs its
course unless arrested by the physician.

he de hamartia apotelestheisa, and the sin, when it is fully formed]
Apotelestheisa is not exactly "full-grown," a sense for which there is no
authority, but denotes completeness of parts and functions either accompanying
full growth as opposed to a rudimentary or otherwise incomplete state, e.g. of
the winged insect in contrast to the chrysalis and the grub (Plato Tim. 73 n;
Pseud.-Plato Epinom. 981 C; Aristot. H. A. v. 19, p. 552 a 28; Generat. Animal.
ii. 1, p. 732 a 32; iii/ 11. p. 762 b 4), or possessed by beings of high
organisation (Aristot. H. A. ix. 1, p. 608 b 7, man as compared with other
animals echei ten phusin apotetelesmenen). Similarly it is used of mental or
moral accomplishment (gen. Hipparch. vii. 4; Oecon. xiii. 3; Lucian Hermot. 8,
hos an apotelesthe pros areten). In virtue of its morbid life the sin goes on
acquiring new members and faculties (cf. Rom. vi. 6; Col. iii. 5) till it
reaches the perfection of destructiveness. It may be safely assumed that
apoteleisthai does not mean, as some suppose, the carrying out of a sinful
thought into act, though purposes, desires, hopes, prayers are said
apotelestheisa. The image requires in this place a sense applicable to a living
being.

apokuei thanaton, giveth birth to death] The precise force of apokueo, here and
in [146]v. 18, is not altogether certain. Tikto, which St James has just
employed, is the usual literary word for the bearing of a son or daughter by the
mother (only poets employ it of the father): it has reference to parentage, the
relation of mother to child. Apokueo, as most commonly used, is the medical or
physical word denoting the same fact, but chiefly as the close of pregnancy
(kueo): thus a person named is very rarely said apokueisthai; while this verb is
often applied to the young of animals, and in the case of human births the
accompanying substantive is usually brephos or some other neuter form. Perhaps
in consequence of this neuter and so to speak impersonal reference, apokueo
seems further (though the evidence is scanty) to have been specially applied to
cases of births abnormal in themselves or in their antecedents; as of Athene
from the brain of Zeus (Et. Mag. 371, 35) of misshapen animals (Herodian i. 14,
1); or of one species from another (Phlegon passim) etc. Here there is no
father. The birth of death follows of necessity when once sin is fully formed,
for sin from its first beginnings carried death within.

For other images of the relation of sin to death see Gen. ii. 17; Ezek. xviii.
4; Rom. v. 12; vi. 21 (the nearest in sense to St James' language), 23; vii. 11,
13; 1 Cor. xv. 56; cf. 1 Jn v. 16.

^16Me planasthe, adelphoi mou agapetoi.

16. me planasthe, be not deceived] Occurs similarly 1 Cor. vi. 9; xv 33; Gal.
vi. 7: in each case the danger lies in some easy self-deception, either
springing up naturally within or prompted by indulgent acceptance of evil
examples without. The "wandering" forbidden is not wandering from right action,
but from a right habit of mind concerning action. The middle sense "go not
astray" is possible here, but the passive "be not led astray "is preferable (2
Tim. iii. 13; cf. 1 Jn iii. 7). Delusions like these, St James means to say,
would not be possible to men fully embracing the fundamental truth "Every gift"
etc.

adelphoi mou agapetoi, my beloved brethren] So [147]v. 19; [148]ii. 5. The
simple adelphoi or adelphoi mou recurs often in the Epistle.

^17pasa dosis agathe kai pan dorema teleion anothen estin, katabainon apo tou
patros ton photon, par' ho ouk eni parallage e tropes aposkiasma.

17. The first part of this verse admits several constructions. The commonest
makes anothen the predicate, and katabainon k.t.l. epexegetic, "every good gift
(or, giving) etc. is from above, descending etc.": anothen estin is however a
weak and unlikely phrase; contrast ek ton ano eimi (Jn viii. 23) with anothen
erchomenos (iii. 31); en dedomenon soi anothen (xix. 11). This difficulty is
removed by making anothen dependent on katabainon etc., which is thus taken into
the predicate: but the substitution of esti, katabainon for katabainei either is
unmeaning or enfeebles the sense; in [149]iii. 15, ouk estin haute he sophia
anothen katerchomene , the participle is adjectival or qualitative, as the next
clause shews, while here a statement of fact is required. Both constructions are
liable to a more fatal objection, incongruity with the context. The doctrine
contained in them is clearly enunciated in the Apocrypha and still more by
Philo, being an obvious inference from O. T. language; and little if at all less
clearly by heathen writers; but it is out of place here. Though every good gift
were from above, yet evil gifts might proceed from the same source; and if so,
the good God might remain the tempter. A perception of the difficulty has led
Bengel and others into forcing an impossible meaning upon pasa dosis agathe, "a
gift (giving) altogether good," and then extorting from this translation the
sense "nothing but good gifts."

The true construction was pointed out by Mr Thomas Erskine (The unconditional
freeness of the Gospel, Edinburgh, 1829 [ed. 3] pp. 239 ff.). The predicate is
agathe and teleion anothen, "every giving is good and every gift perfect from
above (or, from its first source), descending etc."; paraphrased by Mr Erskine,
"there are no bad gifts, no bad events; every appointment is gracious in its
design, and divinely fitted for that design." Anothen is more completely
appropriate to teleios than to agathos (cf. Symb. Antioch. Macrost. ap. Athan.
de Synod. 26, p. 740 D [732 B Migne], ouden gar prosphaton ho christos
proseilephen axioma, all' anothen teleion auton kai to Patri kata panta homoion
einai pepisteukamen): but had its force been intentionally limited to teleion
(as Mr Erskine apparently assumes), it would hardly have been placed at the end;
and it makes. excellent sense with both adjectives. On this view St James must
mean by "every gift" every gift of God: the limitation is supplied by the
context, and is further justified by the absolute use of he orge, [to] thelema
(see Lightfoot, On Revision of the N.T., 105 f.), and by the converse use of
doron absolute for an offering of man to God (Mt. xv. 5; Mk vii. 11; Lk. xxi. 4
[true text]). Thus [150]i. 5 and this verse complete each other: God's giving is
gracious and ungrudging in respect of His own mind; it is good and perfect in
respect of its work and destination: dosis and agathe form the intermediate
link.

dosis . . . dorema, giving . . . gift] These cannot possibly be synonyms:
rhetorical repetition of identical sense in other diction is incompatible with
the carefully economised language of all writers of the N.T., and here the words
are emphatically distinguished by means of pasa, pan, and the separate
adjectives. The difference is probably double. Since dosis is often not less
concrete than doma, and dorea (as always in Acts) than dorema, the variety of
termination might have had no significance. But it was easy to use either dosis
and dorea or doma and dorema; so that the contrast of forma and genders would be
singularly clumsy if it was not intentional Aoalr occurs elsewhere in the N.T.
only in Phil. iv. 15, where it is verbal, doseos kai lempseos: so Ecclus. xli.
19; xlii. 7. It is also verbal in Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 20, p. 100; de Cherub.
25, p. 154), being in the second place treated, like dorea, as a species of
charis. In one passage (Rom. v. 15 f.) St Paul distinctly employs dorea in the
same relation to dorema as charis to charisma (cf. Mart. Polyc. xx. 2); and the
other places where he uses dorea gain force if it is taken as qualitative or
semi-verbal (Rom. v. 17; 2 Cor. ix. 15; Eph. iii. 7; iv. 7: so probably also Jn
iv. 10; Heb. vi. 4). On this evidence, direct and indirect, the relation of
"giving" (so the Geneva and "Bishops" Bibles) to "gift" must be accepted as
distinguishing dosis from dorema.

Another difference, probably here subordinate, is independent of the
termination. In the second passage cited above, and also Leg. Alleg. iii. 70, p.
126, Philo distinguishes the dora and domata of the LXX. in Numb. xxviii. 2 by
value, calling dora "perfect good things," and stating that dosis is a "moderate
grace" (charis mose), dorea a "better" grace: but this conception is otherwise
unsupported. On the other hand doroumai, dorea, dorema usually imply free
giving, sometimes with anticipation of a return but still not as matter of
barter; and Aristotle (Top. iv. 4, p. 125 a 17) chooses dosis as an illustration
of a "genus," dorea of a "species"; "for dorea," he says, "is a dosis without
repayment" (anapodotos). This secondary difference cannot be rendered concisely
in English without exaggeration: and indeed dorema merely gives prominence to
what in this context is already latent in dosis. Moreover in good Attic writers
dosis when not used technically is chiefly applied to Divine benefits, e.g.
several times in Plato: so Plutarch (C. Mar. 46, p. 433 A) represents Antipater
of Tarsus as counting up the happinesses (makarion) of his life at its end,
katharer philochrestou tes tuches hapasan dosin eis megalen charin tithemenon.

agathe, good] Agathos denotes properly what is good in operation and result to
things outside itself, utility in the utmost generality (Mt. vii. 17 pan dendron
agathon karpous kalous poiei), and hence beneficence where there is a personal
agent. So Ecclus. xxxix. 33, "All the works of Jehovah are good (agatha;), and
he (or, they) will supply every need in its season." "Good" gifts in particular
(not deceptive gifts of evil effect), and that as given by God, are the subject
of a saying by our Lord (Mt. vii. 11; Lk. xi. 13) which St James may have had in
view: but the conception is widely spread.

teleion, perfect] As agathos expresses the character of the gifts, derived from
the Giver, so teleios expresses the completeness of their operation when they
are not misused. Philo says themis de ouden ateles auto charizesthai, hosth'
halokleroi kai panteleis hai tou agennetou doreai pasai (i. 173); charizetai de
ho theos tois hupekoois ateles ouden, plere de kai teleia panta (i. 447).

anothen, from the beginning or from their source] The commonest sense "from
above," found in various similar passages, is harsh here in combination with the
adjectives, though the etymology may have dictated the choice of the word, as
specially appropriate to the subject of the verse. It is rather, as often, "from
the beginning" (so Lk. i. 3; Acts xxvi. 5; Gal. iv. 9); or, with a slight
modification, "from their source," origin suggesting the ground antecedent to
origin. Nearly similar is the use in Dion Cass. xliv. 37: hosois de anothen
("from their ancestry," as the context shews) ek pollou sperma andragathias
huparchei; Ps.-Demosth. p. 1125, poneros houtos anothen ek tou Anakeiou kadikos;
Athenag. de Res. 17, haute gar ton anthropon he phusis, anothen kai kata gnomen
tou toiesantos sunkekleromenen echousa ten anomalian; Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv.
p. 50, chrusos esti to agalma sou, . . . lithos estin, ge estin ean anothen
noeses. God's gifts are inherently good and perfect in virtue of His nature.

katabainon, descending] Sc. "as they do." This clause is explanatory of anothen.
They are good and perfect, because their source is good and perfect.

tou patros ton photon, the Father of lights] In Greek literature and in Philo
pater is sometimes hardly more than a rhetorical synonym for "Maker," usually
coupled with a more exact word such as poietes or demiourgos: but this lax use
finds no precedent in Scripture, and leaves the sense imperfect here. God's
relation to finite things must include authorship; but the authorship required
by St James' argument must be combined with likeness, and a higher perfection in
the likeness. Every light is an offspring of the perfect and primal Light, and
in some sense bears His image: its character as a light fits it to set forth
that character of God to which St James makes appeal. Philo calls God "an
archetypal Splendour (auge), sending forth numberless beams" (i. 156); "not only
Light, but also [a light] archetypal of every other light, nay rather elder and
more original (anoteron) than an archetype" (i. 632); and "the primary most
perfect Good, the perpetual fountain of wisdom and righteousness and every
virtue," "an archetypal exemplar of laws and Sun [? archetypal] of sun,
intellectual [Sun] of material [sun], supplying from His invisible fountains
streams of visible light to all that we see" (horata phenge to blepomeno) (ii.
254).

The plural phota has various applications, to lamps or torches, to windows, and
to days. In the O.T. 'vr, "light," and m'vr, "a light" or "a luminary," are
distinguished (markedly in Gen. i. 3 ff., 18.; contrast 14 ff.). But the phrase
'vrym occurs once (Ps. cxxxvi. 7), the subject being the heavenly luminaries,
and there the LXX. also has phota (in place of the usual phosteres), as it has
again in Jer. iv. 23 with the same sense, but apparently not reading the
Massoretic text. The next clause suggests that the luminaries of the sky were
present to St James' mind, nor indeed could he have forgotten the chief of
visible lights: it does not however follow that they alone were meant to be
denoted by ton photon, which would more naturally include all lights, and that
invisible as well as visible (see next verse and [151]iii. 15, [152]17). The
words "Father" and "lights" taken in their proper sense illustrate each other.
Plutarch (ii. 930) uses the phrase polla ton photon quite generally, so far as
appears, while his immediate subject is the moon.

par' ho, with whom] This peculiar use of para, too lightly treated by
commentators, occurs in two other phrases of the N.T., both repeated more than
once; para anthropois adunaton all' ou para theo, panta gar dunata para [to]
theo (Mk x. 27; with Mt. xix. 26; Lk. xviii. 27); ou gar estin prosopolepsia
para to theo (Rom. ii. 11; and virtually Eph. vi. 9). In the Gospel saying para
anthropois is probably formed only in antithesis to para to theo, itself taken
from the common or Alexandrine text of Gen. xviii. 14, me adunatei para to theo
rhema, where the original reading (Dov, Hil. a deo, B being deficient here)
seems to be para tou theou, as the Hebrew suggests, followed by the best MSS. of
Lk. i. 37. The usage probably comes from the Hebrew instinct of reverence which
preferred "in the presence of God," "with God" (m) to "in God" (b); so Ps.
xxxvi. 10, para soi pege zoes; cxxx. 7, para to kurio to eleos kai polle par'
auto lutrosis; Job xxvii. 11, anangelo humin ti estin en cheiri Kuriou, ha estin
para Pantokratori ou pseusomai. Winer's reference (p. 492 Moulton) to the
"metaphysical" conception of possession, power etc. (penes) is forced; and the
frequent meaning "in the sight of" (v. 27) is still less applicable. In the only
classical passage cited (Matthiae, Winer) Demosthenes uses para with
depreciative circumlocution analogous to but not identical with the biblical
diction, ei d' oun esti kai par' emoi tis empeiria toiaute (De Cor., p. 318),
"if indeed any such skill does reside with me."

ouk eni, can be no or there is no room for] Eni is not a contraction of enesti,
eneisi, but simply eni, the Ionic form of en, retained in this Attic idiom like
para without the substantive verb: so P. Buttmann Gr. Gr. ii. 375;
Winer-Moulton, p. 96; Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 28, where as in Col. iii. 11 the
use is identical. The same force adds indignant irony to St Paul's question in 1
Cor. vi. 5, houtos houk eni en humin oudeis sophos hos k.t.l.; "is it impossible
that there should be among you etc.?", as it adds playful irony to the
suggestion in Plato's Phaedo (77 E), mallon de me hos hemon dedioton, all' isos
eni tis kai en hemin pais hostis ta toiauta phobeitai, "perhaps it is not
impossible that even among us etc.": there is no reason to think that eni ever
becomes a bare equivalent of estin.

parallage, variation] Parallasso, parallaxis, parallage, are words of wide
range, perhaps starting from the notion of alternation or succession attached to
the adverb parallax, but in common use applied to all kinds of variations
(different states of a single thing), and then all differences as between one
thing and another; not to speak of several derivative senses. The various
periodic changes of the heavenly bodies are doubtless chiefl intended here. In
the North of Scotland the emperor Severus, says Dion Cassius (lxxvi.13), ten te
tou helion parallaxin kai to ton hemeron, ton te nukton kai ton therinon kai ton
cheimerinon megethos akribestata katephorasen. There is of course no reference
to parallax in the modern sense, though it was known (parallaxis) to at least
the later Greek astronomy. For the doctrine cf. Mal. iii. 6; Ps. cii. 25 ff.

tropes, change] Though trope often means a solstice and sometimes also an
equinox, this sense is excluded by the combination with "shadow," which must be
intelligible through obvious phenomena without astronomical lore. Trope is a
favourite word with Philo, usually coupled with metabole, denoting any change
undergone by any object. Some passages approach this verse, as i. 80, "When the
mind has sinned and removed itself far from virtue, it lays the blame on things
divine (ta theia), attributing to God its own change (trope)"; i. 82, "How shall
a man believe God? If he learn that all other things change (trepetai), but He
alone is unchangeable (atreptos)"; ii. 322, "It is unlawful that he [the high
priest, Num. xxxv. 25] should have any defilement whatever attaching to him,
either owing to deliberate act or in virtue of a change in the soul without
purpose (kata propen tes psuches abouleton: cf. bouletheis in v. 18)."

St James may have had chiefly in view either night and day (cf. Bas. Hex. Hom.
ii. p. 20 B, kai nux skiasma ges apokruptomenou heliou ginomenon), or the
monthly obscurations of the moon, or even the casual vicissitudes of light due
to clouds.

aposkiasma, shadow] Either the shadow cast by an object (more commonly skiasma,
as several times in Plutarch, to skiasma tes ges, the shadow cast by the earth
on the moon in an eclipse), or a faint image or copy of an object. On the
strength of this second sense some late writers supposed St James to mean "not a
trace (ichnos) of change": but usage gives them no support, and shadow no less
than change must form part of the primary image. The genitive doubtless
expresses "belonging to change," "due to change" ("shadowing by turning,"
Geneva).

The whole verse may be compared with 1 Jn i. 5 ff.: here temptation to evil,
there indifference to evil, is declared impossible for the Perfect Light. But
here the name Father introduces an additional conception, illustrated in the
next verse.

A few lines may be quoted from a striking Whitsun Day sermon of Andrewes on the
present verse (p.752, ed. 1635). "Yet are there varyings and changes, it cannot
be denied; we see them daily. True: but the point is per quem, on whom to lay
them. Not on God. Seems there any recess? it is we forsake Him, not He us: it is
the ship that moves; though they that be in it think the land goes from them,
not they from it. Seems there any variation, as that of the night? it is umbra
terrae makes it: the light makes it not. Is there anything resembling a shadow?
a vapour rises from us, makes the cloud, which is as a penthouse between, and
takes Him from our sight: that vapour is our lust; there is the apud quem. Is
any tempted? it is his own lust doth it: that entices him to sin, that brings us
to the shadow of death: it is not God; no more than He can be tempted, no more
can He tempt any. If we find any change the apud is with us, not Him: we change;
He is unchanged. Man walks in a vain shadow: His ways are the truth; He cannot
deny Himself." [iii. p. 374.]

^18bouletheis apekuesen hemas logo aletheias, eis to einai hemas aparchen tina
ton autou [18] ktismaton

18. The details of this verse are best approached by asking to whom it refers.
Does St James mean by hemas "us" men, the recipients of God's word of reason; or
"us" sons of Israel (Jew and Christian not distinguished), the recipients of
God's word of revelation generally; or "us" Christians, the recipients of God's
word of the Gospel? Several considerations appear to shew decisively that he
meant mankind generally. First, the natural sense of ktismaton: a chosen race or
Church would surely have been called a firstfruit of "men" (as Apoc. xiv. 4: cf.
Jam. iii. 9), not of God's "creatures"; the force of ktismaton is pointed by
apekuesen ("gave . . . birth"). Second, the connexion with vv. [153]12-[154]17,
which evidently refer to God's dealings with men generally: a statement
applicable only to Christians, or Jews and Christians, could not have been
affixed to them with such close structure of language, or without at least some
word of clear distinction. Third, the absence of articles with logo aletheias: a
Jew, much more a Christian, could not fail to call the revelation made to him
"the word of [the] truth"; St James never indulges in lax omission of articles;
and the sense excludes explanation of the omission by a specially predicative
emphasis. Fourth, a comparison with [155]v. 21: if, as we shall find, ton
emphuton logon can mean only "the inborn word," not any word proclaimed from
without, there is a strong presumption that the "word of truth" of the earlier
verse is the same. This conclusion is free from difficulty except on the
assumption that St James could not call an inward voice of God "a word of
truth," which will be examined below; and no other words of the verse favour,
even in appearance, a more restricted reference.

bouletheis, of set purpose] Boulomai and thelo, though largely coincident in
sense, and often capable of being interchanged, never really lose the
distinction indicated by Ammonius, De diff. verb. p. 31, boulesthai men epi
monou lekteon tou logikou, to de thelein kai epu alogou zoou, and again (p. 70),
thelein kai boulesthai ean lege tis, delosei hoti akousios te kai eulogos
oregetai tinos (quoted though not accepted by W. Dindorf in Steph. Thes.). Thelo
expresses the mere fact of volition or desire, neither affirming nor denying an
accompanying mental process: boulomai expresses volition as guided by choice and
purpose. Hence boule, "counsel," agrees exactly in sense with boulomai, and the
derivative bouleuomai differs only by accentuating deliberation of purpose still
further: accordingly bouleuomai is substituted for boulomai in inferior MSS. of
Acts, v. 33; xv. 37; 2 Cor. i. 17.

A distinction the inverse of this has been for many years traditional, founded
on a part of Buttmann's acute but not quite successful exposition of Homeric
usage in the Lexilogus (194 ff. E.T.). He observed that thelo is applied to "a
desire of something the execution of which is, or at least appears to be, in
one's own power"; while boulomai expresses "that kind of willingness or wishing
in which the wish and the inclination toward a thing are either the only thing
contained in the expression, or are at least intended to be particularly
marked": and he assumed purpose or design to be involved in the former kind of
desire. But the observation does not sustain the inference. The cases in which
we naturally speak simply of volition are just those in which action either
follows instantly or is suspended only by another volition of the same agent:
while the separation of wish and inclination from fulfilment exactly corresponds
with the separation of the mental process leading to a volition from the
volition itself, which is not in strictness formed till action becomes possible.
This view is in like manner illustrated by two accessory observations. In Homer
the gods are said boulesthai, not thelein, although their action is unimpeded.
Buttmann explains this peculiarity by a respectful intention to emphasize "the
inclination, the favour, the concession"; but it seems rather due to a feeling
that the volitions of gods are always due to some provident counsel (Dios d'
eteleieto boule). On the other hand the antithesis an hoi te theoi thelosi kai
humeis boulesthe (Demosth. Olynth. ii. 20, p. 24, cited by Dindorf) probably
rests on the contrast between the absoluteness of the Divine volitions and the
human need of deliberation before decision. Again the meaning of inclination
latent in boulomai is often extended so as to include preference or relative
inclination: but as a rule preference implies comparison, and comparison belongs
to the mental antecedents of volition, not to volition itself.

Bouletheis, like boulomenos, might doubtless mean "of His own will," i.e.
spontaneously, without compulsion or suggestion from without: but such a sense
is feeble in this context. On the other hand it cannot by itself express
graciousness of will, as some have supposed. If we give boulomai its proper
force, an adequate sense is at once obtained. Man's evil thoughts of God are
inconsistent with a true sense of his own nature and destiny, as determined for
him from the beginning by God's counsel. Thus the words "that we might be a kind
of firstfruits of his creatures" would by themselves shew why St James might
place the Divine counsel or purpose in the forefront. But there is much reason
for thinking that bouletheis further refers to the peculiarity of man's creation
in the Mosaic narrative, as having been preceded by the deliberative words "Let
us make man," etc. It is morally certain that the rest of the verse is a
paraphrase of what had been said about the creation in God's image: and if so,
St James, in recalling God's purpose concerning man, might naturally point to
the mysterious language of Genesis which seemed to invest man's creation with
special glory on this very ground as well as on the other. It is at least
certain that the same interpretation was placed on these words of Genesis by
several of the gathers (Philo's explanation is quite different), and that
without any apparent dependence on St James. It is probably implied in
Tertullian's remarkable fifth chapter against Praxeas (e.g. Nam etsi Deus nondum
Sermonem suum miserat, proinde eum cum ipsa et in ipsa Ratione intra semetipsum
habebat tacite cogitando et disponendo secum quae per Sermonem mox erat
dicturus; cum Ratione enim sua cogitans atque disponens Sermonem eam efficiebat
quam sermone tractabat). The language of others is quite explicit. Macarius
Magnes (Fragm. Ham. in Gen., Duchesne De Macario Magnete, p. 39): kai ta men
alla ktismata rhemati mono parektai. ho de anthropos eschen exaireton ti kata
ten poiesin para tauta. Boules gar proegoumenes ektisthe, hina ek toutou
deichthe hotiper ktisma timion uparchei; to gar Poiesomen anthropon kat' eikona
hemeteran kai kath' homoiosin ouden heteron deiknusin e hoti sumboulo echresato
ho pater to monogenei autou to huio epi te toutou kataskeue k.t.l. ... boules
gar energeia to pan [p. 1397 B-D, Migne].

apekuesen hemas, gave us birth] i.e. at the outset, antecedently to growth. We
are His children, made in His likeness. See note on v. 15.

logo aletheias, by a word of truth] This phrase is evidently capable of various
senses, according to context. In O.T. (Ps. cxix. 43; Prov. xxii. 21 bis; Eccl.
xii. l0) it is a word of truth uttered by men in the common ethical sense, words
of veracity or of faithfulsteadfastness. In 2 Cor. vi. 7, en logo aletheias, it
means "utterance of truth" in speaking such things as are true and recognised as
true; the matter of it having been previously called ho logos tou theou (ii. 17;
and esp. iv. 2, te phanerosei t. aletheias). This message of truth as a whole is
called ho logos tes aletheias Eph. i. 13; 2 Tim. ii. 15. In this last sense St
James is understood by those who assume him to refer here directly to the
Gospel. As seen above, this agrees neither with the absence of articles nor with
the context. We must at least see whether the words cannot naturally bear a
meaning which connects them with the original creation of man.

It is at first sight tempting to have recourse to the Jewish conception of the
Creation as accomplished by ten Words of God ("And God said"). So Aboth v. 1, "
By ten Sayings the world was created," and refit in Taylor; Aristob. ap. Euseb.
Pr. Ev. xiii. p.664 says that "Moses has spoken of the whole creation (genesin)
of the world as theou logous." In this case log. al. would be the actual words
described as spoken. But it is not easy to see how they could be called log.
al., and moreover this sense, while it would suit well with ektisen or epoiesen,
does not harmonise with epekuesen.

We must therefore seek the explanation rather in the distinctive feature of
man's creation in Gen. ii. 7, the special imbreathing from God Himself, by which
man became, in a higher sense than the animals, "a living soul." But how was
this a word, a word of truth? The answer is given by looking back from the word
of truth in the special Christian sense. St Peter (i. 23) speaks of Christians
as anagegennemenoi not by (ek) a corruptible seed but an incorruptible, dia
logou zontos theou kai menontos: he goes on to quote Is. xl. 6-8 on the
abidingness of the word of the Lord, and adds that this rhema is to
euangelisthen eis humas: in other words, the essence of the Gospel was an
utterance (rhema) of God's Word or speech to mankind. Here the abiding word of
God stands to the new birth, or renewal, in the same position as log. al. in St
James to the original Divine birth, and the word is called a seed. This large
view of God's revelation is, next, what we find in e.g. Ps. cxix., where the
spiritual conception of God's law, which pervades the psalm (and of which we
shall find much in St James), is exchanged occasionally for a similar conception
of His "word" or utterance (v. 142 compared with 160), the word which abideth
for ever in heaven. And now thirdly St James looks back beyond the Law to the
original implanting of a Divine seed in man by God. By this Divine spark or seed
God speaks to man, and speaks truth. This is the conception of Eph. iv. 24, ton
kata theon ktisthenta . . . tes aletheias, and Col. iii. 10, eis epignosin kat'
eikona tou ktisantos autun. And so Aug. De Gen. ad lit. iii. 30 enquiring
wherein consists the image of God says "Id autem est ipsa ratio vel mens vel
intelligentia, vel si quo alio vocabulo commodius appellatur. Unde et Apostolus
dicit, Renovamini etc."; and again (32) "Sicut enim post lapsum peccati homo in
agnitione Dei renovatur secundum imaginem ejus qui creavit eum, ita in ipsa
agnitione creatus est, ante quam delicto veterasceret, unde rursum in eadem
agnitione renovaretur." Here the human agnitio is correlative to the Divine
logos. Philo (De opif. 28, p. 20) says gennesas auton (Adam) ho pater
hegemonikon phusei zoon ouk ergo monon alla kai te dia logou cheirotonia
kathistesi ton upo selenen hapanton basilea. Thus the distinctly perceived word
of truth of the Gospel enables St James to look back to the creation, and regard
that too not only as a Divine birth, but as a Divine birth in virtue of a Divine
seed which was also a Word of truth, the means by which all other words of truth
were to enter man. [See on 1 Pet. l.c.]

eis to, in order that] It is needless here to consider the debated question
whether eis to with infinitive following a verb denotes always purpose, or
sometimes only result ("so that"). Here Divine purpose is clearly meant (cf.
[156]iii. 3): the relation of man to the world is part of God's plan, and cannot
indeed be separated from His purpose respecting man himself.

aparchen tina ton autou (v. eautou) ktismaton, a kind of firstfruits of his
creatures] Here again the phrase has force at all three stages of revelation. It
is manifestly true of Christians (cf. Rom. xi. 16): true also of Israel, as Jer.
ii. 3 hagios Israel. to kurio, arche (r'syt) genematon autou; and again Philo de
const. princ. 6 (ii. 366) to sumpan Ioudaion ethnos . . . tou sumpantos
anthropon genous apeoemethe hoia tis aparche to poiete kai patri; and lastly of
the human race (cf. Rom. viii.)

ktismaton] Wisdom ix. 2, kai te sophia sou kataskeua'sas [kataskeuasas]
anthropon hina despoze ton hupo sou genomenon ktismaton. Amb. Hex. vi. 75, Sed
jam finis sermoni nostro sit, quoniam completus est dies sextus et mundani
operis summa conclusa est, perfecto videlicet homine in quo principatus est
animantium universorum, et summa quaedam universitatis, et omnis mundanae gratia
creaturae. . . . Fecerat enim hominem, rationis capacem, imitatorem sui,
virtutum aemulatorem, cupidum caelestium gratiarum.

^19Iste, adelphoi mou agapetoi. esto de pas anthropos tachus eis to akousai,
bradus eis to lalesai, bradus eis orgen,

19. Iste and esto de] So read for Hoste and esto without de, which is Syrian
only, the connexion between the clauses not being perceived.

Iste may be either indicative or imperative. But St James ([157]iv. 4) has the
other form oidate in indicative; and probably used this shorter and sharper form
for distinction, to mark the imperative; this being also the best sense. The
N.T. writers commonly use oidate; but iste occurs in two other places (Eph. v.
5; Heb. xii. 17), both of which gain by being taken imperatively, the former in
particular.

Here St James repeats positively what he has said negatively in [158]v. 16. In
vv. [159]13-[160]15 he was combating error; and then he finally says Me
planasthe as introductory to his fundamental doctrine of [161]17, [162]18. That
doctrine being now set forth, he a second time calls attention to it on the
positive side, as the basis of what he is going to say. "Know it well, my
beloved: brethren (the old address repeated). And on the other hand" (de, with
tacit reference to the acquiescence in evil hinted at in [163]v. 13).

pas anthropos] There is force in ianthropos with reference to [164]v. 18. The
expression is not equivalent to pas, but everyone of the human race, that race
which is God's offspring and endowed by Him with a portion of His own light.

tachus eis to akousai] There are two grounds for this admonition: (1) suggested
by logo aletheias (see [165]v. 21); (2) the love of violent and disputatious
speech was to be a special object of attack in the Epistle (c. iii.).

The admonition itself is common enough among moralists (Greek exx. in Wetstein,
Theile, etc.), and especially in Ecclus. as v. 11-13; iv. 29 (reading tachus
with A'*, not trachus); xx. 5 ff. etc., and indeed in O.T. (Prov. xiii. 3 etc.).
But in this connexion the sense must be more special, as also [166]v. 20 shews;
and the reference must be to speaking in God's name or on God's behalf. What is
desired is a quick and attentive ear to catch what God has spoken or is
speaking, to be alive to any logos aletheias of His, rather than to be eager to
dictate to others about His truth and will in a spirit of self-confidence and
arrogance.

Then he goes on in a secondary way to bradus eis orgen, because this arrogance
of magisterial speech was closely mixed up with violence of speech, zeal for God
being made a cloak for personal animosities.

^20orge gar andros dikaiosunen theou ouk ergazetai.

20. orge gar andros, for a man's wrath] Not "the wrath of man." It is not
exactly the broad distinction of human as against Divine wrath, which would
require anthropou or ton anthropon; but a single man's anger, the petty passion,
of an individual soul (cf. t. idias epithumias, [167]v. 14). Contrast Rom. xii.
19, te orge, the one central universal anger, which is only a particular form of
the universal righteousness.

dikaiosunen theou ouk ergazetai, worketh no righteousness of God] Not "the
righteousness of God," but no righteousness which is a true part and vindication
of God's righteousness. The late text has ou katergazetai by a natural
correction: this would more distinctly express result. Result is of course
included in ergazetai, but the main point is that a man's anger is not a putting
in force, a giving operation to, any true righteousness of God, as it professed
to be.

^21dio apothemenoi pasan rhuparian kai perisseian kakias en prauteti dexasthe
ton emphuton logon ton dunamenon sosai tas psuchas humon.

21. dio clearly marks the connexion of the verses, shewing that [168]19 f. must
be so understood as to prepare for dexasthe and the accompanying words.

rhuparian kai perisseian, defilement and excrescence] These illustrate each
other, being cognate though not identical images. perisseia is by no means to be
confounded with the semi-medical perissoma, as it were the refuse of the body.
The proper or usual sense of perisseia is simply abundance, superfluity; usually
in a good sense as overflow; sometimes in a bad sense, as beyond measure.

The special image here is evidently rank and excessive growth. So Philo
interprets peritemnesthe t. sklerokardias as t. perittas phuseis tou hegemonikoi
which are sown and increased by the unmeasured impulses of the passions (De
vict. offer. ii. 258); also blastai perittai . . . t. blaberan epiphurin (De
somn. i. 667); and other passages have the idea without the word. For the
contrast to the original proper growth see Ps.-Just. De Monarch. i.: tes
anthropines phuseos to kat' archen suzugian suneseos kai soterias labouses eis
epignosin aletheias threskeias te tes eis ton hena kai panton despoten,
pareisdusa eis eidolopoiias exetrepse baskania to huperballon tes ton anthropon
megaleiotetos, kai pollo chrono meinan to perisson ethos hos oikeian kai alethe
ten planen tois pollois paradidosi.

Whether St James has trees particularly in view may be doubted, but he probably
means simply "excrescence." The violent speech was not, as it was supposed to
be, a sign of healthy life: it was a mere defilement and excrescence on a man
considered in his true character as made in God's image.

kakias, malice] It might be quite general, "evil"; but it seems here to have the
proper sense of "malice": what was called "holy anger" was nothing better than
spite.

prauteti, meekness] The word is contrasted with kakias: the temper full of
harshness and pride towards men destroyed the faculty of perceiving whatever God
spoke.

ton emphuton logon, the inborn word] A simple phrase, made difficult by the
context. Heisen has 120 pages on it. Its proper meaning is "inborn," or rather
"ingrown," "congenital," "natural" (often coupled with phusikos). It is used in
opposition (Heisen 671) to didaktos, epiktetos, epeisaktos, etc. This agrees
with the derivation. Phuo or phuomai is to grow, or causatively, to make to
grow, as of a living being putting forth fresh growings (growing teeth, beard,
etc.), or a higher being creating that which grows, or a parent producing
offspring. So emphuoaai almost always is to be inborn in, to grow as part of.
Where the causative use occurs (with one peculiar figurative exception Ael. N.
A. xiv. 8 of eels fixing their teeth in a bait), it is always said of a higher
power (God, nature, fate) who causes some power or impulse to grow up in a man
or other living being from birth.

Occasionally there is a secondary ingrowth, a "second nature," as we say; and
both verb and adjective have this sense too. Thus Clem. Str. vi. 799, lambanei
toinun trophen men pleiona he enkentristheisa elaia dia to agria emphuesthai,
i.e. "grows into" a wild olive, not "is grafted into," which would be mere
tautology after enkentristheisa. Also emphutos Herod. ix. 94 of Evenius, kai
meta tauta autika emphuton mantiken eichen, i.e. he had a Divine gift of
prophecy, not as a receiver of prophecies, but as the possessor of a power
within himself. Such passages as these are useless for shewing that the word can
mean implanted. So also passages in which God's bestowal of the gift is spoken
of in the context. Thus Ps-Ign. Eph. 17, dia ti logikoi ontes ou ginometha
phronimoi; dia ti emphuton to peri theou para christou labontes kriterion eis
agnoian katapiptomen, ex ameleias agnoountes to charisma ho eilephamen anoetos
apollumetha; Similarly Barn. ix. 9, oiden ho ten emphuton dorean tes didaches
autou themenos en hemin: where t. didaches cannot be doctrine or revelation
imparted to us, but an inward Divine teaching to interpret allegory, as is shewn
by the parallel vi. 10, eulogetos ho kurios hemon, adelphoi, ho sophian kai noun
themenos en hemin t. kruphion autou: and still more the corrupt passage i. 2,
houtos (or, hou to) emphuton tes doreas pneumatikes charin eilephate (<tes
before dor. C).

It is therefore impossible to take ton emphuton logon as the outward message of
the Gospel. He could never have used in that sense a word which every one who
knew Greek would of necessity understand in the opposite sense. It may be that
the idea of reception (dexasthe) is transferred from the external word: but in
any case it has an intelligible meaning. The word is there, always sounding
there; but it may be nevertheless received or rejected. This notion of the
reception of a word already within is like ktesasthe tas psuchas (Lk. xxi. 19),
or ktasthai to skeuos (1 Th. iv. 4). There is special force in emphuton
contrasted with rhuparian kai periss.: these are unnatural, accidental; the
voice of the word within is original and goes back to creation.

This sense (Schulthess and as against the wrong sense Heinsius in loc.) has
ancient authority. Oecum. (? e Did. Al.) has emphuton logon kalei ton
diakritikon tou beltionos kai tou cheironos, kath' ho kai logikoi esmen kai
kaloumetha. Cf. Athan. Or. c. Gent. 34, epistrepsai de dunantao ean hon
enedusanto rhupon pases epithumias apothontai kai tosouton aponipsontai heos an
apothontai pan to sumbebekos allotrion te psuche, kai monen auten hosper gegonen
apodeixosin, hin' houtos en aute theoresai ton tou patros logon, kath' hon kai
gegonasin ex arches dunethosin. kat' eikona gar theou pepoietai kai kath'
homoiosin gegonen . . . hothen kai hote panta ton epichuthenta rhupon tes
hamartias aph' eautes apotithetai, kai monon to kat' eikona katharon phulattei,
eikotos dialamprunthentos toutou hos en katoptro theorei ten eikona tou patros
ton logon, kai en auto ton patera, hou kai estin eikon ho soter, logizetai
k.t.l. See also 33 fin., dia touto goun kai tes peri theou theorias echei ten
ennoian, kai aute heautes ginetai hodos, ouk exothen, all' ex heautes lambanousa
ten tou theou logou gnosin kai katalepsin. Also Vit. Anton. 20 (812 AB).

ton dunamenon sosai tas psuchas humon] The simplest sense is right. The contrast
is between life and death, the "soul" being the living principle; as Mt. xvi. 25
etc., but esp. Lk. vi. 9. [See note on 1 Peter i. 9.]

This life-giving power as ascribed to the inborn word becomes intelligible if we
consider it as differing at different ages of the world according to the stages
of experience and of revelation. It is always the testimonium animae naturaliter
Christianae (cf. Rom. i. 19 ff.), but the testimony becomes enlightened and
enriched ns time goes by. To Christians the inborn word speaks with the
increased force and range derived from the Gospel: but what St James is
referring to here is not the original reception of the Gospel as a word from
without, but the renewed reception of the word within whatever its message may
be: it is the original capacity involved in the Creation in God's image which
makes it possible for man to apprehend a revelation at all. Cf. also Deut. xxx.
14 and St Paul's comment on it in Rom. x. 6 ff.

^22Ginesthe de poietai logou kai me akroatai monon paralogizomenoi eautous

22. Thus far we have had the relation of hearing to speaking, and hearing has
been commended before speaking. But the formalistic spirit of the Jewish
Christians could give this too a wrong turn, as though hearing were all that
were needed. There remained another antithesis, hearing and doing, and to this
St James turns by way of precaution.

ginesthe, shew yourselves] i.e. in hearing, to prove that you hear rightly.

poietai, doers] Cf. Rom. ii. 13; and Jam. himself vv. [169]23, [170]25; [171]iv.
11. So with t. nomou 1 Macc. ii. 67. It is founded on our Lord's sayings Mt.
vii. 24 etc., the close of the Sermon on the Mount, just as teleioi in [172]v. 4
expresses the close of its first chapter (v. 48) on the Old and New Law.

poietai logou] Not the Word whether external or internal, but any word that has
authority. It is almost adjectival, "word-doers," as we say "law-abiding,"
"law-breakers."

akroatai] used in N.T. only in the same passages, Rom. ii. 13 and Jam. i. 23,
25. It expresses listening, but is specially used of the disciples or hearers of
philosophers; and probably. also in Judea, where the attendance on the
rabbinical schools was strongly inculcated.

Cf. R. Shimeon son of Gamaliel in Aboth i. 18, "All my days I have grown up
amongst the wise, and have not found aught good for a man but silence: not
learning but doing is the groundwork, and whose multiplies words occasions sin."
So also v. 20, "There are four characters in college-goers. He that goes and
does not practise, the reward of going is in his hand. He that practises and
does not go, the reward of practice is in his hand. He that goes and practises
is pious. He that goes not and does not practise is wicked." And again v. 18,
"There are four characters in scholars. Quick to hear and quick to forget, his
gain is cancelled by his loss. Slow to hear and slow to forget, his loss is
cancelled by his gain. Quick to hear and slow to forget is wise. Slow to hear
and quick to forget; this is an evil lot." But St James uses the common language
in a wider sense.

paralogizomenoi] The word occurs Col. ii. 4, where the context rather suggests
"delude by false reasoning." But it is very doubtful whether the word has that
force. It has two chief meanings, not to be confused, from two meanings of
logizomai, to misreckon, cheat in reckoning, and so cheat in any way; and to
misinfer, draw a wrong conclusion from the premises, but without implication of
evil intent. It is used several times in LXX. for simple beguiling, though by
words. Lightfoot refers to Dan. xiv. [Bel and D.] 7. Cf. Ps. Salom. iv. 12, 14
(parelogisato en logois hoti ouk estin horon kai krinon), 25.

^23hoti ei tis akroates logou estin kai ou poietes, houtos eoiken andri
katanoounti to prosopon tes geneseos autou en esoptro,

23. katanoounti, taking note of] Not merely to see passively, but to perceive:
as Plato (Soph. 233 A) gar po katanoo to nun erotomenon, "I do not catch the
question." Cf. Mt. vii. 3; Acts vii. 31, etc.

to prosopon tes geneseos autou, the face of his creation] Not altogether easy.
The phrase must be taken with t. trochon t. geneseos ([173]iii. 6), but I speak
only of the simpler case here presented. Here it is often understood as "his
natural face" (A.V.), lit the face of his birth, with which he was born, i.e.
his bodily face. But if such a meaning were intended, no such circuitous and
obscure phrase would have been used; t. prosopon autou, would have been enough,
no other face being mentioned. Also the image so presented has no force: if it
is merely a case of hasty looking or intent looking, all that is said in [174]v.
24 is otiose.

The genesis is his birth strictly, in antithesis to later degeneracy; but the
face is the invisible face, the reflexion of God's image in humanity. St James
is still consistently referring to Gen. i. The face which a man beholds when he
receives the Divine word is the representation of what God made him to be,
though now defaced by his own wrong doings. So Eustathius in Od. xix. 178, kai
houto men he Penelope oknei diorthousthai ten phusin, kai perittotera
phainesthai hautes, kai t. eikona tou ek geneseos prosopou diagraphein eite
metagrephein, where the contrast is between Penelope's natural face and its
disfigurement by artificial cosmetics.

There is special fitness in the word because it is used in LXX. for tvldvt and
mvldt, and has thus (from Gen. ii. 4; v. 1) given Genesis its Greek name. In
itself the word is neuter in force, and in Greek philosophy it rather represents
natural processes as governed by necessity, not by Divine will. But to a
Christian Jew the only genesis could be that of the Pentateuch, Psalms and
Prophets, the beginnings of things as coming from the hand of God; so that it
virtually carries with it the association of our word "creation"; and it is to
be observed that ktisis, though found in Apocr. for "creation," is never so used
in LXX. proper, though ktizo (as well as poieo) is; there being no Hebrew
substantive meaning "creation." Cf. 2 Macc. vii. 23, ho t. kosmou Ktistes, ho
plasas anthropou genesin kai panton exeuron genesin.

^24katenoesen gar heauton kai apeleluthen kai eutheos epelatheto hopoios en.

24. katenoesen, he takes note of ] The verb as before: he sees himself and knows
that it is himself that he sees, the new man kata theon ktisthenta. The aorist
denotes the instantaneous and quickly passing character of the seeing.

apeleluthen, is gone away] He went away and remains away: a contrast to
parameinas. It was a passing glance, not taken up into his life, but
relinquished.

eutheos epelatheto, straightway forgetteth] Again the aorist because the
forgetting was a single and immediate act.

hopoios en, what manner of man he was] I.e. his original image antecedent to
change and becoming. Cf. Apoc. iv. 11, dia to thelema sou esan (not eisin) kai
ektisthesan, where esan perhaps expresses the Divine idea, realised visibly in
ktisis.

On the whole thought of the verse cf. Origen Hom. in Gen. i. § 13, "Semper ergo
intueamur istam imaginem Dei, ut possimus ad ejus similitudinem reformari. Si
enim ad imaginem Dei factus homo, contra naturam intuens imaginem diaboli, per
peccatum similis ejus effectus est; multo magis intuens imaginem Dei, ad cujus
similitudinem factus est a Deo, per verbum et virtutem ejus recipiet formam
illam quae data ei fuerat per naturam." Also Athan. (Or. cont. Gent. ii. p. 3)
speaks of man as having nothing to hinder him from attaining to the knowledge
concerning the Divinity, for by his own purity (katharotetos) he always
contemplates the image of the Father, the God-Word, in whose image also he is
made, . . . hikane de he t. psuches katharotes esti ton theon di heautes
katoptrizesthai, as the Lord also says, Blessed are the pure, etc." See also the
passage cited above on [175]v. 21.

So also virtually (though confusedly) Oecum., but supposing the word to be the
Mosaic Law (dia t. nomou manthanontes hoioi gegonamen) and again speaking of a
spiritual (noeton) mirror.

^25ho de parakupsas eis nomon teleion ton tes eleutherias kai parameinas, ouk
akroates epilesmones genomenos alla poietes ergou, houtos makarios en te poiesei
autou estai.

25. parakupsas, looketh into] The notion of a steady gaze has been imported into
the word from the context, and prematurely. It seems never to have any such
meaning. Kupto and all its compounds express literally some kind of stretching
or straining of the body, as up, down, or forward. Parakuptois the stretching
forward the head to catch a glimpse, as especially through a window or door,
sometimes inwards, oftener outwards. When used figuratively, as here, it seems
always to imply a rapid, hasty, and cursory glance. So Luc. Pisc. 30, kapeide
monon parekupsa eis ta humetera, the speaker says to the philosophers: "As soon
as ever I had merely looked into your world, I began to admire you, etc."; Bas.
Ep. lxxi. § 1, ei de ho deina arti parakupsai philotimoumenos pros t. bion t.
Christianon: "If so and so making it his ambition just now to cast a glance at
the life of Christians, and then thinking that his sojourn with us confers on
him some dignity, invents what he has not heard, and expounds what he has not
understood" : where all turns on the slightness and superficiality of the
acquaintance; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 8, p. 554, pou gar tois idiotais pro mikrou
themis eis hegemonikes (imperial) psuches parakupsai bouleumata; Ach. Tat. ii.
35 [cf. Jacobs, p. 593] of beauty that parakupsan monon oichetai; D. Cass. lxii.
3, Boadicea of the Romans, ex houper es ten Bretannian houtoi parekupsan, "from
the time that these men put their heads into Britain"; lxvi. 17, of emperors who
partly reigned together, each of them believed himself to be emperor aph' hou ge
kai es touto parekupsen, "from the time that he put his head into this," i.e.
began at all to reign (lii. to is not quite so clear); Demosth. Phil. i. 24 (p.
46 fin.) auxiliary troops parakupsanta epi ton t. poleos polemon, pros Artabazon
kai pantachoi mallon oichetai pleonta; they just shew themselves for the war,
and then sail off.

St James could not have used such a word to contain within itself steady
looking, and it must therefore have a meaning analogous to Lk. ix. 62, putting
hand to the plough, the stress being on parameinas. It answers to katenoesen
heauton. [See on 1 Pet. i. 12.]

nomon teleion ton tes eleutherias, a perfect law, even that of liberty] Here the
word has become a law, but a perfect law, just as they are interchanged in Ps.
cxix. The starting point is language such as we find in that Psalm, also Ps.
xix. 7: but Christ's word in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. v. 48), itself founded
on Deut. xviii. 13, is the main source, that being the sum and climax of Mt. v.,
the subject of the new or rather subjacent Law. (On the recognition of the
heathen as having a law and covenant see Isa. xxiv. 5 and Delitzsch and Cheyne.)
Thus St James refers at once to the Gospel and to what was before the Law (cf.
Rom. ii. 14 as to the heathen): his "perfect Law" unites both. It is perfect, as
expounded by our Lord, because it deals not with single acts but with universal
principles.

ton tes eleutherias] In what sense? Irenaeus thinks of free-will: but that is
not in the context. In LXX. eleutheria is never used in any such figurative or
ethical sense. The nearest approach in sense is in Ps. cxix. 32, 44 f., 96 (rchv
,rchv, "broad," platuno, platusmos, plateia, where the reception of God's law is
represented as giving spacious room in which to walk, removing the narrowing
bondage of petty personal desires (cf. Wordsworth's Ode to Duty). The idea of
the Law as a source of freedom was not strange to the later Jews: so Aboth iii.
8 (R. Nechoniah Ben Ha-Kanah), "Whoso receives upon him the yoke of Thorah, they
remove from him the yoke of royalty and the yoke of worldly care," etc. (p. 60);
also Perek R. Meir (=Aboth vi.) 2 (R. Joshua Ben Levi), "It (the Bath Kol)
saith, And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of
God, graven upon the tables (Ex. xxxii. 16); read not charuth graven' but
cheruth freedom,' for thou wilt find no freeman but him who is occupied in
learning of Thorah" (p. 114, with Taylor's note); and also Philo, Q. omn. prob.
lib. 7 (ii. 452), hosoi de meta nomou zosin eleutheroi: but he has also the
Stoic language about the freedom of the wise man: cf. Sacr. Ab. et Cain, 37 (i.
188). But St James seems to mean more than ethical result; rather the character
of the law, as positive not negative ("Thou shalt love . . .") and depending on
expansive outflow, not on restraint and negation.

kai parameinas, and there continueth] The first meaning is to "stay where one
is": then to "stay with a person loyally": also absolutely to "persevere," esp.
in contrast to others who fall away. Diod. Sic. (ii. 29), contrasting the Greeks
with the Chaldaeans and their hereditary lore says: para de tois Hellesin ho
polus aparaskeuos prosion opse pote tes philosophias haptetai, kai mechri tinos
philoponesas apelthe, perispastheis hupo biotikes chreias, oligoi de pantelos
epi philosophian apoduntes ergolabias heneken paramenousin en to mathemati. The
idea then probably is "perseveres in" the law, not perseveres looking at it, nor
abides beside it. So Ps. i. 2, kai en t. nomo autou meletesei hemeras kai
nuktos.

genomenos, shewing himself] As ginesthe in [176]v. 22.

akroates epilesmones . . . poietes ergou, a hearer that forgetteth...a doer that
worketh] The first genitive must be adjectival: not exactly an adjective "a
forgetful hearer," but a hearer in contrast to a doer, and so characterised by
forgetting. This sense of a characteristic, or even something stronger, is
always to be traced in these Hebraistic genitives in Greek. In like manner ergou
is quasi adjectival, and so without the article: with the article it would have
to be in the plural.

makarios] not eulogetos. "Happy" in the sense "to be envied." He may have
delight in it or he may not: the state itself is good and desirable: if he is in
a right mind, he cannot but delight in it. This makarios hardly goes back to the
Sermon on the Mount (it comes nearer Jn xiii. 17): rather it is to be referred,
if any whither, to the Psalms, not least to Ps. i.

en te poiesei, in his doing] Not dia ten p. Not a reward, but a life. His action
is the action that is right and therefore makaria. It refers back to poietes.

^26Ei tis dokei threskos einai me chalinagogon glossan heautou [19] alla apaton
kardian heautou, toutou mataios he threskeia.

26. dokei, seemeth] Sc. to himself, as often.

threskos, religious] An interesting but extremely rare word. Not known except
here and in Lexicographers; Latt. religiosus. The derivation is probably
directly from treo, and it seems to mean one who stands in awe of the gods, and
is tremulously scrupulous in what regards them. The actual renderings in Lexx.
are strange: Hesych. heterodoxos, eugenes (?); Et. Nag. and Suid. heterodoxos;
Et. Gud. ho heterodoxos, hairetikos. Oecum. (Did.), having previously said that
threskeia denotes something more than faith, a knowledge of secret things
(kruphion, interprets threskos as "one who knows and exactly keeps the things
hidden (aporreton) in the Law." We get more help from other glosses in Hesych.
threxato ephulaxato, esebasthe; threske hagne, panta eulaboumeen; threskos
perittos, deisidaimon. None can come from this passage: so that they attest
other lost passages, all having the idea of cautious observance of religious
restrictions, sometimes spoken of with praise, sometimes with blame. This
exactly answers to the proper meaning of religiosus, as of religio which is
properly the gathering up of oneself in awe, and consequent scrupulousness. It
thus belongs to an early stage of what we now call religion, containing indeed
elements which are and must be permanent, but still as a whole narrow and
immature, not including faith in God or love of God. Now this was just the;
spirit of much of the later Judaism, notwithstanding its opposition to the
spirit of the prophets and of much else in the O.T., and it was apparently
getting the better of the Jewish Christians. Men prided themselves on a special
religiousness because (as in the Gospels) they made clean the outside of the cup
and of the platter and tithed mint and cummin. Thus the word, though not here
used in an evil sense, is used probably in a limited sense, in the sense which
these persons would use for themselves. threskos would be the word which they
would choose to express their ideal man.

These two concluding verses of c. i. bring together the two points of Christian
conduct, which he has been dwelling on since [177]v. 19. From [178]19 to [179]21
he taught slowness to speak and so here he teaches the bridling of the tongue.
From [180]22 to [181]25 he taught doing as against barren hearing: and; so here
and in [182]v. 27 he gives illustrations of rightful doing.

chalinagogon glossan heautou, bridling his tongue] A very common figure, worked
out more fully in [183]iii. 2 ff.

apaton kardian heautou, deceiving his heart] This answers to paralogizomenoi
heautous in [184]v. 22. He again, as in [185]20, implies that the unbridledness
of tongue aimed at was one which was defended as the speech of uncompromising
zeal.

mataios, vain, to no purpose] At once unreal in itself and ineffectual. Cf.
mataia he pisti humon (1 Cor. xv. 17). It is much used in the O.T. for the
futility of idols and idolatry (and hence in N.T., Acts xiv. 15; cf. 1 Pet. i.
18), and so Jer. x. 3, ta nomima t. ethnon mataia. But still more Isa. xxix. 13
(repeated by our Lord Mt. xv. 8 f.; Mk vii. 6 f.), maten de sebontai me, etc.
(LXX. not Heb.); especially applicable here to a depravation of the true
religion.

threskeia, religion] A far commoner word than threskos, and probably of wider
sense, but still a word of very limited history. It occurs twice in Herod. ii.
18, 37, both times with reference to the Egyptians, first about an abstinence
from certain flesh, and the second time (allas te threskias epiteleousi) about
white robes, circumcision, shaving, frequent washings, etc., all cases of
personal ceremonial (so also threskeuo ii. 64). It is apparently absent, as also
threskeuo, from Attic literature: but like many words found in Herod. came into
use in late days. It is doubtful whether there is any earlier instance than
this, except Wisd. xiv. 18, 27 (-euo xi. 16; xiv. 16), all of worship of idols
or lower creatures. In N.T. in a good sense, t. hemet. threskeias, Acts xxvi. 5,
which illustrates the use of ei tis . . . threskos: and in St Paul (Col. ii. 18)
thr. t. angelon (also 23, ethelothreskeia). It has a more positively bad sense
in Philo, Quod deter. pot. 7 (i. 195), where a man who uses purifications or
lavishes wealth on temples and hecatombs and votive offerings is called
threskeian anti hosiotetos hegoumenos. But shortly afterwards Clem. Rom. uses it
freely in a good sense (x1v. 7), ton threskeuonton t. megaloprepe kai endoxon
threskeian t. hupsistou, and lxii.1, peri men ton anekonton te threskeia hemon,
the virtuous life "suitable to our worship" of God, as just expounded by a
prayer. And still more strongly Melito, p. 413 Otto, ouk esmen lithon
therapeutai, alla monon theou tou pro panton . . . kai t. christou autou . . .
esmen threskeutai: where therapeutai is equal to or better than therapeutai. And
so often in the Fathers and other later writers. What is commonly said that
threskeia means only ritual is not exact. threskeia is simply reverence of the
gods or worship of the gods, two sides of the same feeling. The reverence gives
rise to ceremonial rites, not of worship but of abstention, which are often
called threskeia. The worship was expressed in ritual acts, which sometimes are
called threskeia, esp. in the plural threskeiai. But the fundamental idea is
still what underlies both. Besides, however, the exx. already cited, there are
others which especially connect it with Jewish ceremonial religion, as 4 Macc.
v. 6, of refusal to eat pork or things offered to idols. Thus St James is still
using the word preferred by the Jewish Christians, not that which he would have
chosen independently.

^27threskeia kathara kai hamiantos para to theo kai patri haute estin,
episkeptesthai orphanous kai cheras en to thlipsei auton, aspilon eauton terein
apo tou kosmou.

27. threskeia kathara kai hamiantos, a pure and undefiled religion] It is not he
kath. kai am. thr. He does not say or mean that what follows includes all that
can be called pure and undefiled religion.

Why these particular words, kathara and hamiantos, rather than alethineor some
such word? Because he is still keeping in view the pretension made on behalf of
the vain religion, viz. that it was pure and free from pollution. This alone
would suffice to shew that St James had chiefly in view ceremonial threskeia,
the washings and purifications of late Judaism, multiplying Levitical
ordinances. These terms which you claim, he means, for your vain threskeia do
really belong to something very different (Lk. xi. 41).

para] In His sight, in His presence, and so in His eyes.

to theo kai patri] The two names are probably combined with reference both to
what has preceded and to what is going to follow. The false religion spoke much
of God, but forgot that He was also Father. A true sense of being His children
would lead to a different conception of Him and of the kind of service
acceptable to Him. And again, to think of Him as Father was to think of men as
brethren; a point of view forgotten in this threskeia which set no store on such
brotherliness as is involved in the visiting of orphans and widows.

episkeptesthai, to visit] The word is often used in O.T. of God visiting
individual persons or His people: but no case like this. Ecclus. vii. 35 has it
of visiting the sick, and so Test. Sim. i; Mt. xxv. 36, 43 (the latter en
phulaee as well as asthenounta): and it seems an ordinary Greek usage as Xen.
Cyr. v. 4. 10; Mem. iii. 11. 10; Plut. Mor. (ii. 129 C, t. philous asthenountas;
Luc. Philops. 6.

The word must doubtless then be taken literally: not the mere bestowal of alms,
but the personal service. The Bible represents God as specially taking thought
for the fatherless and widow, as their "father," Ps. lxviii. 5 (cf. Deut. xxvii.
19; Isa. i. 17; Ecclus. iv. 10). In contrast Mk xii. 4o (|| Lk. xx. 47), the
devouring widows' houses is a mark of the scribes.

aspilon, unstained] Quite a late word, apparently not extant before N.T The
force of the word here is that after St James has noticed the acts of brotherly
care towards orphans and widows, he returns to the claim of purity, as though to
point out that there was indeed a purity and undefiledness in the strictest
sense to be pursued, not from fictitious and artificial pollutions, but from a
power able to infect and pollute the inward self.

apo tou kosmou, from the world] The use of kosmos here is remarkable. The word
can hardly be used neutrally here, as though St James meant only that the kosmos
contained things that might bring moral defilement. The kosmos is evidently
thought of as itself defiling. The same comes out yet more strongly in [186]iv.
4, and probably also in the difficult [187]iii. 6. We are used to this language
as conventional. But it needs investigation as to its strict meaning and origin.
There is nothing of the kind in the first three Gospels or in the Acts or
(strange to say) the Apocalypse or Hebrews: very abundant in St John's Gospel
and first Epistle; and 1 Jn. ii. 15 furnishes a remarkable parallel to [188]iv.
4. It is not very clear in St Paul (2 Cor. vii. 10), ho k. houtow [1 Cor. iii.
19; v. 10; vii. 31; Eph. ii. 2] being, at least partly, a different conception;
but it is found in 2 Peter, distinctly in ii. 20, ta miasmata t. kosmou (ct.
aspilon), and indirectly i. 4; ii. 5 (bis); iii. 6. Thus it is clear in St
John's Gospel and Epistle, 2 Peter, and St James. There is nothing to be made of
the common Greek sense as the visible universe, or the order of it. This
physical sense seems to belong to some places where the word is used, but not to
those where the kosmos is in any sense evil.

The conception must be Jewish: can it be traced back to the O.T.? Certainly not
the Greek word from the LXX., for there it has only the "order" or "ornament"
meanings. In the Apocr. it is the world, but not in an evil sense. In the LXX.
its place is apparently taken by oikoumene, which represents the Heb. tvl, a
curious ancient word, always used without the article, meaning apparently at
first the fruitful soil of the earth, and then as a virtual synonym of "earth,"
but esp. earth as the habitation of men. Sometimes, like "world," it is
naturally transferred to the collective races of men. Hence we get an
intermediate sense in Ps. ix. 8, where God appears as judging tvl in
righteousness, and the phrase is repeated in the later psalms, xcvi. 13; xcviii
9. But it acquires a more distinctly bad sense in the early chapters of Isaiah,
xiii. 11; xiv. 17 (21); xviii. 3; xxiv. 4 (see foll. vv. for sense); xxvi. 9,
18. In these passages it means the sum of the fierce surrounding heathen
nations, the powers of the heathen world at once destructive and corruptive
(xxvi. 9), and see Cheyne's note, who calls attention to two points: "(1) the
Jews are in constant inter-course with the heathen; (2) they suffer, not merely
by their political subjugation, but by the moral gulf between themselves and the
heathen." Thus tvl is virtually the ideal Babylon of the prophets and still more
of the Apocalypse. Delitzsch (Isa. xxvi. 18) rightly calls it a kosmos: and
conversely we may say that the N.T. kosmos probably came from this source.

To Jewish Christians scattered through the Empire, to the Christians of Ephesus
(1 Jn), the contact with the heathen world would be a perpetual source of moral
danger, and they would be tempted to all sorts of risks from trying to avoid
collisions with it. Its injurious effects would be many; but their prevailing
characteristic would be defilement. In St John, and perhaps to some extent here,
we have the paradox of the holy people itself becoming the world, by putting on
in other forms the maxims and practice of an outer world. At all events the evil
is conceived of as residing not in anything physical, but in a corrupt and
perverted society of men. This is probably always the true ethical sense of
"world." Thus the two clauses answer to each other in respect of the outward
objects of the two forms of pure religion: the one is a duty of communication
with men for good, the other a duty of avoiding such evil as comes from
communication with men.

The whole verse has doubtless a paradoxical shape, though this is explained by
the latent antithesis to the spurious threskeia. But in any case the conception
is that of Isa. lviii. 3-7 (esp. 6); Zech. vii. 4-10.

It closes the paragraph [189]19-[190]27 with a general statement as to religion,
corresponding to vv. [191]17, [192]18, which form a general statement as to
theology concluding the first section.

II. ^1Adelphoi mou, me en prosopolepsiais echete ten pistin tou kuriou hemon
Iesou Christou [20] tes doxes;

II. 1. adelphoi mou] The preface being ended St James turns to the special
points of practice which he had directly in view. He makes no further exordium,
but breaks at once in medias res with this personal appeal, putting ad. mou in
the forefront. It does not occur again at the beginning of a sentence till the
close ([193]v. 19).

In what follows in this verse three points of construction require
consideration: the mood and general force of en . . . echete; the nature of the
genitive tou kuriou in connexion with ten pistin; and the construction and
consequent interpretation of tes doxes.

e en prosopolepsiais echete] This is often, naturally enough, taken as an
imperative: but this gives a rather tame sense, and gives no exact sense to en
pr. echete, and especially to the position of en pr. as coming before echete. It
is more natural to take it as an interrogative appeal to their consciences: "
Can you really think en prosopolepsiais that you are having or holding the faith
etc."

The plural -ais probably expresses "in (doing) acts of:" When words having an
abstract sense are in the plural, the meaning is either different kinds (as
"ambitions" = different kinds of ambition) or different concrete acts or
examples. The abstract has no number strictly speaking: but a plural at once
implies a number of singulars to make it up, and (apart from kinds) things
concrete can alone be numbered.

prosopolepsiais, acts of partiality] This group of words has a Hebrew origin.
ns' phny, "to receive the face of," is much used in different books of the O.T.
for receiving with favour an applicant, whether in a good or bad sense. The
exact force of the phrase is not clear. ns' has not the strong sense "accept,"
"welcome," but rather either simply "take" or "lift up," and some accordingly
adopt "lift up." Against this Gesen. Thes. 915 f. (cf. Hupfeld on Ps. lxxxii. 2)
has argued with much force: but he has not succeeded in explaining the precise
manner in which "taking the face of" comes to have the required meaning. From
the sense of receiving a particular person with favour would naturally come the
perversion, the receiving with undue favour, i.e. favouritism, partiality. In
some of the passages the partiality is spoken of as due to bribes: but this is
an accident: the partiality itself is what the phrase denotes. It is variously
rendered by the LXX. as lambano prosopon, prosdechomai pr., thaumazo pr. etc.
The N.T. has lamb., thaum., blepo eis. From the commonest rendering were formed
a group of compound words, prosopolemptes Acts x. 34; aprosopolemptos 1 Pet. i.
17; prosopolempteo, Jam. ii. 9; and prosopolempsia here and three times in St
Paul. They are doubtless words of Palestinian Greek.

echete ten pistin tou kuriou hemon k.t.l.] The two most obvious senses of the
genitive here are the subjective, the faith which our Lord Himself had, and the
objective, the faith in Him. The former is not a likely sense to be meant
without some special indication of it: the latter is not supported by any clear
parallels, and (taken thus nakedly) gives a not very relevant turn to the
sentence. The true sense is doubtless more comprehensive, and answers to an idea
widely spread in the N.T.; "which comes from Him, and depends on Him," "the
faith which He taught, and makes possible, and bestows": it is a faith in God,
enlarged and strengthened by the revelation of His Son; the faith in God which
specially arises out of the Gospel and rests on Him of whom the Gospel speaks.
It thus includes a faith in Christ: but this is only the first step on the way
to a surer and better faith in God. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
This is the probable sense always where pistis is followed by Iesou or similar
words. Even Mk xi. 22, echete pistin theou, is not so much "Have faith in God"
as "Have faith from God. Trust on, as men should do to whom God is a reality."

tou kuriou hemon] It is impossible to determine precisely how much meaning St
James put into these words. But they do not differ from St Paul's formula, and
probably to say the least go much beyond what the disciples meant by kurios in
the days of the ministry. They must be taken with [194]i. 1.

tes doxes, who is the Glory] Doxes is very difficult in this position. Some take
it with pistin, changing the meaning of pistin: Have ye the faith in respect of
glory? equivalent to, Do ye take the same view of true glory and dignity? This
gives a fair sense; but imports an unnatural force into pistin, and leaves the
transposition of t. doxes inexplicable, besides disturbing the connexion between
t. pistin and t. kuriou etc. The other interpretations, "faith in the glory,"
"glorious faith," are evidently impossible.

Another favourite way is to take it with t. kuriou (so A.V.). The possibility of
two genitives, hemon and t. doxes, cannot be denied: so in 1 Tim. iv. 2
daimonion and pseudologon are probably independent genitives governed by
didaskaliais: also Acts v. 32 (T.R.); 2 Cor. v. 1; Phil. ii. 30; Mt. xxvi. 28:
(Winer-Moulton 239). But t. kuriou t. doxes is itself a phrase at once so
compact and so nearly unique (1 Cor. ii. 8; cf. ho theos t. doxes Ps. xxix. 3,
and probably thence Acts vii. 2) that the division of it into two distant parts
is not probable, and can only be taken as a possible interpretation.

It is needless to examine the combination with Christou, or with the whole
phrase t. kuriou hemon I. Ch.

There remains the possibility of not taking it as directly dependent on any
preceding words, but in apposition to I. Ch., "our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the
Glory": so Bengel. Several passages of the Epistles give a partial confirmation.
Rom. ix. 4, he doxa seems to be the glory of the Divine presence (O.T.); 1 Cor.
xi. 7, a man is said to be eikon kai doxa theou, which may be taken with v. 3,
kephale de gunaikos ho aner, kephale de tou christou ho theos; Eph. i. 17, ho
theos tou kuriou hemon I. Ch. ho pater tes doxes, where the two clauses seem to
stand in precise parallelism and it seems impossible to give the second an
intelligible sense except it means that the Son was Himself the Glory; Tit. ii.
13, ten makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tes doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros
hemon Ch. I., where it is on the whole easiest to take Ch. I. as in apposition
to t. doxes t. megalou theou k. soteros hemon. Illustrative passages are 2 Cor.
iv. 6; Heb. i. 3 (apaugasma t. doxes, He who is an effulgence of the Father's
glory being thereby Himself the Glory); possibly 1 Pet. iv. 14; also Apoc. xxi.
11, 23, where note the parallelism to kai ho luchnos autes to arnion. [See Add.
Note.]

But was there anything to lead to such a representation? The O. T. speaks much
of the kvvd of the Lord. From this and from the late dread of connecting God too
closely with lower things arose the Jewish conceptions of the Glory yqr', and
the Shechinah. See Weber 160 on the Glory as in Heaven; 179 ff. on the Glory and
the Shechinah, and the relation of the Shechinah to the Word in the Targums (cf.
Westcott, Introd.^6 152); and 182 ff. the combination of both conceptions (Word
and Shechinah) in the Shechinah in Talmud and Midrash. Now the Word of the
Targums is the true antecedent of the Logos in St John, much more so than the
Logos of Philo; and it would be only natural that the other great conception
which linked God to men, that of the Glory, should be transferred to Christ as
the true fulfiller of it.

The force then of the title here would probably be that the faith of Christ as
the Glory was peculiarly at variance with this favouritism shewn to the rich:
since He who represented the very majesty of heaven was distinguished by His
lowliness and poverty: cf. Phil. ii. 5 ff.; 2 Cor. viii. 9. As St James
([195]iii. 9) rebukes the cursing of men who are made in the likeness of God, so
here he rebukes the contemptuous usage of poor men, even such as the Incarnate
Glory of God Himself became.

^2ean gar eiselthe eis sunagogen humon aner chrusodaktulios en estheti lampra,
eiselthe de kai ptochos en rhupara estheti,

2. eis sunagogen humon, into your (place of) assembly] The word means either the
assembly or the building which held the assembly, and either makes sense: in Jn
vi. 59, xviii. 20 it is the assembly clearly.

Two subjects of historical interest, the thing and the word, demand notice. As
regards the thing synagogue see Plumptre in Smith's Dict.; Schürer ii. § 27. The
date when the synagogue-system arose is unknown. It is remarkable that there are
no clear traces of it in the Apocrypha; yet probably there is a reference in Ps.
lxxiv. 8 (Maccabaean). But it was widely spread in the first century in all
places where Jews were to be found.

The name "synagogue." The origin is doubtless the LXX., but in a confused way.
There are two chief words in O.T. (cf. Schürer l.c. [and Hort, Christian
Ecclesia]) for kindred meanings, qhl, "congregation," and dh, "assembly": in
this sense dh is almost always rendered sunagoge, qhl ekklesia about 70 times,
sunagoge about half as many, other words very rarely. Probably ekklesia was,
chosen for qhl, because both words express the calling or summoning of a public
assembly (convocation) by a herald. Both dh and sunagoge are somewhat more
general words. But the difference in usage was very slight. They stand side by
side in Prov. v. 14 (where see Delitzsch), also (Heb.) Exod. xii. 6; and
[ex]ekklesiazein sunagogen occurs several times; also sunechthesan . . .
ekklesia (sic) 2 Ezra x. 1, and episunechthe ekklesia 1 Macc. v. 16. This O.T.
double use recurs in Apocrypha, especially Ecclus. and 1 Macc. The late traces
of ekklesia is shew that it must have survived, apparently as the body of men
making up a congregation, the religious community so to speak; and also as the
community of the whole nation (Mt. xvi. 18), as in the O.T. (For the Hebrew
words used see Schürer l.c.) The late use of sunagoge was apparently limited to
the individual buildings, or to the congregation as assembled in them. There is
some evidence of its being employed to denote some religious associations among
the Greeks (see Harnack cited below), but probably this had nothing to do with
the selection. It is very common for Jewish synagogues in N.T.; three times in
Josephus; also Philo, Q. omn. prob. lib. 12 (ii. 458), "The seventh day is
reckoned holy, on which abstaining from other works, kai eis hierous
aphiknoumenoi popous, hoi kalountai sunagogai, they sit in ranks according to
age, the younger below the older, placed for listening with the fitting order."

Now, as far as evidence goes, the Christian usage was to adopt ekklesia both for
single congregations and for a whole community. For the building it is not used
in the apostolic age, though it was afterwards. On the other hand the Christian
use of sunagoge is very limited: see a long note in Harnack Hermas Mand. xi. 9.
He shews how rarely and as it were etymologically only it was used by ordinary
Christian writers, and it at last became definitely the synagoga contrasted with
ecclesia as in Augustine; and in earlier writers it some-times is used in a
depreciatory sense like our "conventicle." What however especially concerns us
here is the evidence for its use among Jewish Christians, see Lightfoot, Phil.
190: Epiph. (xxx. 18) states that the Ebionites call their church sunagogen and
not ekklesian; and Jer. Ep. 112. 13 says of the Ebionites, "To the present day
through all the synagogues of the E. among the Jews there is a heresy called of
the Minaei" etc. This makes it very likely that Jewish Ebionites inherited the
name from the purer days of Jewish Christianity, and that St James does here
distinctly mean "synagogue": and since he elsewhere ([196]v. 14) speaks of t.
presbuterous tes ekklesias, i.e. the living congregation, the difference of word
suggests that here the building is meant.

chrusodaktulios] Not known elsewhere. The adjective was doubtless chosen to
express that the wearing of gold rings, probably a multitude of them (ton
daktulion plethos echon, Luc. Nigr. xiii.), was characteristic of the kind of
man.

estheti lampra contrasted with rhupara estheti] The two words are strictly
opposed, as often; practically new glossy clothes and old shabby clothes.
Lampros has nothing to do with brilliance of colour, being in fact often used of
white robes. Artemidorus (ii. 3 s. fin.), after enumerating the omens from
garments of all sorts of colours, concludes aei de ameinon kathara kai lampra
himatia echein kai peplumena kalos e rhupara kai apluta, plen ton tas rhupodeis
ergasias ergazomenon.

^3epiblepsete de epi ton phorounta ten estheta ten lampran kai eipete Su kathou
hode kalos, kai to ptocho eipete Su stethi e kathou ekei [21] hupo to hupopodion
mou,

3. epiblepsete de epi, and ye look with favour on] Epiblepo epi is often used in
LXX. of God looking with favour on men; not apparently of men on men. But
Aristotle (Eth. Nic. iv. 2, p. 1120 b 6) says (in giving) to gar me epiblepein
eph' heauton eleutheriou, to pay no regard to oneself and one's own interest.

kalos, in a good place] Ael. V. H. ii. 13, kai de kai en kalo t. theatrou
ekatheto; xiii. 22, Ptolemy having built a temple for Homer auton men kalon
kalos ekathise, kuklo de tas poleis periestese t. agalmatos.

stethi e kathou] It is uncertain whether to read stethi e kathou ekei hupo to
hupopodion (B ff), or stethi ekei e kathou hupo to hupopodion. Probably the
former, notwithstanding the want of verbal balance. Stand anywhere contrasted
with sit in a particular humble place.

hupo to hupopodion mou, below my foot-stool] Hupo might be "down against," i.e.
close up to, with the accessory sense of lowness. But more probably "below" in
the sense of in a lower place, as Plutarch Artax. v. (i. 1013 E) kathezomenon
tes men hup' auton, tes de metros huper auton.

^4ou diekrithete en heautois kai egenesthe kritai dialogismon poneron [22] ;

4. No kai before ou; perhaps omit ou (B* ff) which gives the same sense,
substituting affirmation for question.

diekrithete en heautois, divided in your own minds] As [197]i. 6; explained by
Mt. xxi. 21, ean echete pistin kai me diakrithete, appearing in Mk xi. 23 as kai
me diakrithe en te kardia autou alla pisteue hoti k.t.l.; cf. Acts x. 20; Rom.
iv. 20; xiv. 23 (hoti ouk ek pisteos): cf. Jude 22. The idea is that the
singleness and strength of faith is split up and shattered by the divided mind,
professing devotion to God yet reaching away to a petty and low standard. En
heautois is in antithesis to what follows: the wrong-doing to others is traced
back to its root within, just as in [198]iv. 1.

kritai dialogismon poneron, judges swayed by evil deliberations] The genitive is
not unlike [199]i. 25. The idea seems to be "judges swayed by evil deliberations
or thinkings": contrast Prov. xii. 5, logismoi dikaion krimata. dialogismos is a
very elastic word. In Mt. xv. 19 dialogismoi poneroi (|| Mk. vii. 21, hoi
dialogismoi hoi kakoi) stand at the head of the evil things that come forth from
the heart, and probably mean malicious evil plottings (cf. 1 Tim. ii. 8, choris
orges kai dialogismou), answering apparently to the single Hebrew word mzmh,
properly only a thought, device, but usually an evil device. In various places
of St Luke it is used of the plotting of the Pharisees and the imperfect faith
of the disciples. Probably the mere suggestion that they made themselves kritai
contained a reproach: cf. [200]iv. 11: they broke the command of the Sermon on
the Mount (Mt. vii. 1). But further the office of a true judge is to divide, to
sever right from wrong: but here the division was dictated not by justice
according to the facts, but by evil divisions within their own minds (cf. Rom.
xiv. 10, 13), by evil calculations, as we might say. Contrast Lk. xiv. 12 ff.
Such moral distraction is a form of dipsuchia, and opposed to the singleness of
faith.

^5Akousate, adelphoi mou agapetoi. ouch ho theos exelexato tous ptochous to
kosmo plousious en pistei kai kleronomous tes basileias hes epengeilato tois
agaposin auton;

5. akousate, hearken] An imperative like iste in [201]i. 19, but with a sharper
tone, as of a warning prophet: cf. especially Isa. li. 1, 4, 7. It introduces an
appeal to a truth that could not be denied by any who accepted Christ's Gospel.
It is softened at once by adelphoi mou agapetoi, of which agap. here occurs for
the last time (previously in [202]i. 16; [203]i. 19, where likewise there are
appeals to accepted but practically belied truths).

ouch ho theos exelexato, did not God choose] What choice by God is meant here?
In our Lord's apocalyptic discourse Mt. xxiv. 22 (with ||^8) He spoke of the
shortening of the days of tribulation for the elect's sake, and Mk adds ohus
exelexato, which is virtually implied in the verbal eklektous. The conception
doubtless is that the infant church or congregation of Christians owed their
hearing and reception of the Gospel to God's choice. Here as elsewhere it is not
a simple question of benefit bestowed on some and refused to others: those on
whom it is bestowed receive it for the sake of the rest: they are God's
instruments for the diffusion of His truth and salvation. This choice of
Christians by God from among heathenism or unbelieving Judaism is spoken of by
St Paul 1 Cor. i. 27 f. (a passage much resembling this) and Eph. i. 4. It is
implied in various places where eklektos or ekloge is spoken of. Both words
occur often in St Paul, ekloge in 2 Pet. i. 10, and eklektos especially in 1
Pet. viz. i. 1; ii. 4, 6, 9, where St Peter carries it back to two passages of
Isaiah, one xxviii. 16 LXX. only (cf. Prov. xvii. 3 LXX.) properly "well-tried";
the other xliii. 20, where as in neighbouring chapters and some Psalms it refers
to Israel as the object of God's choice. But exelexato itself stands in a still
more fundamental passage, Deut. xiv. 1, 2. [See further on 1 Peter ll. cc.]

St James does not however refer directly to Christians but to the poor. The
reference is doubtless to the special manner in which Christ's own preaching was
addressed to the poor. The Gospel was not intended to be confined to them; but
they were to be its first and its strictly primary recipients, the recipients
who would best shew its true character. "Blessed are ye poor" are the first
words of the Sermon on the Mount: ptochoi euangelizontai is the culminating mark
of Christ's true Messiahship, founded about Isa. lxi. 1, which is quoted in full
in the words spoken in the synagogue at Nazareth which head the ministry in St
Luke (iv. 18), as the Sermon on the Mount does in St Matthew.

tous ptochous to kosmo, the poor in the eyes of the world] To kosmo might be
taken as "in relation to the world": but more probably in the eyes of "the
world"' (cf. 1 Cor. i. 18, t. apollumenois k.t.l.; 2 Cor. x. 4 dunata to theo;
Acts vii. 20 asteios t. theo). Cf. Lk. xvi. 15 to en anthropois hupselon, said
to the philarguroi Pharisees. "The world" is used in the same sense as before,
here as judging by an external and superficial standard.

plousious en pistei, to be rich in virtue of faith] Not "as being," but "to be"
expressed more explicitly in Eph. i. 4 by einai hemas agious kai amomous k.t.l.

The meaning is not "abounding in faith," which would weaken the force of
plousious in this connexion, but "rich in virtue of faith": their faith of
itself constituted them not only powerful, able to move mountains, but rich: see
2 Cor. vi. 10; viii. 9; Apoc. ii. 9; iii. 18; and esp. 1 Pet. i. 7. The
explanation is that the use and enjoyment of riches contain two elements, the
thing used and enjoyed, and the inward power of using and enjoying it; and this
inward power is so intensified and multiplied by a strong and simple faith in
God that it so to speak extracts more out of external poverty than can without
it be extracted out of external riches. Cf. Ps. xxxvii. 16 and in spirit the
whole Psalm; Test. Gad 7, ho gar penes kai aphthonos, epi pasi Kurio
eucharisoton, autos para pasi ploutei, hoti ouk echei ton poneron perispasmon
ton anthropon.

kleronomous tes basileias, heirs of the kingdom] The kingdom of heaven is what
in the Sermon on the Mount is especially pronounced to belong to the poor. The
Gospel preached to them is the Gospel of the kingdom. In Lk. xii. 32 we have
"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the
kingdom"; and less distinct passages abound. The combination kleron. tes basil..
occurs in Mt. xxv. 34 and in St Paul (I Cor. vi. 9 f.; xv. 50; Gal. v. 21: cf.
Eph. v. 5), but not in connexion with the poor. The conception of inheritance is
common however in similar contexts, and especially in the O. T. It is involved
in the conception of sonship, as Gal. iv. 7.

hes epengeilato tois agaposin auton, which He promised to them that love Him]
This corresponds exactly to the use of the same phrase with ton stephanon t.
zoes in [204]i. 12. Even with that peculiar phrase derivation from the
Apocalypse was seen to be unlikely: much more this commoner phrase from Apoc. i.
6; v. 10. The promise referred to is probably Dan. vii. 18, 27, though our
Lord's language may possibly be meant, or may at least give definiteness to the
older language. Tois agaposin is, as before, the general Deuteronomic term
expressing fulfilment of the new and perfect Law.

^6humeis de hetimasate ton ptochon. ouch hoi plousioi katadunasteuousin humon,
kai autoi helkousin humas eis kriteria;

6. humeis de] in the strongest contrast.

hetimasate] Sc. in that act. Not merely failed to give him honour, but treated
him with dishonour. So Prov. xiv. 21; xxii. 22; and cf. 1 Cor. xi. 22.

ouch hoi plousioi, do not the rich] What follows shews that rich men not
Christians are meant. But this does not force us to take the rich and poor of
[205]v. 2 as other than Christians. Within the Christian body there were both
classes: but further the whole body was bound to regard itself emphatically as a
band of poor men in the face of the wealth and power of the encompassing heathen
or even Jewish world. The whole passage reminds us that the name Ebionites for
the Jewish Christians of Palestine has nothing to do with an imaginary Ebion,
but is simply the Ebionim, the Poor Men.

katadunasteuousin humon, oppress you] Dunasteuo is to "be a potentate," "have"
or "exercise mastery," either absolutely or over some one in particular:
sometimes in a neutral sense, sometimes with a bad sense "lord it over."
Katadunasteuo expresses the same more strongly, violent exercise of mastery,
tyranny. It occurs in Xen. and often in late Greek: much in LXX., chiefly for
ynh, to oppress; as the poor Ezek. xviii. 12; xxii. 29; (LXX. Amos viii. 4);
also Wisd. ii. 10. The case is usually (always in LXX.) the accusative, but the
genitive occurs Diod. Sic. xiii. 73 fin. and Symm. apparently (Ps. lxiv. 4), cf.
Wyttenb., as often happens with compounds into which kata enters.

kai autoi helkousin humas, and are not they the men that drag you] Not "drag you
in person," as is shewn by [206]v. 7. The pretext of law covered violent usage:
cf. suro Acts viii. 3; xvii. 6. [Swete on Ps.-Pet. iii.]

eis kriteria, into courts of justice] Here the meaning can hardly be "suits,"
though kriteria may mean this. Better, as sometimes, courts of justice, though
we should have expected epi rather than eis.

It can hardly be doubted that this means judicial persecutions, whether formally
on the ground of being Christians, we cannot tell for that time. No definite law
against Christians is likely to have then existed. But if they had become
objects of dislike, it was easy to find legal pretexts.

^7ouk autoi blasphemousin to kalon onoma to epiklethen eph' humas;

7. ouk autoi blasphemousin, are not they the men who abuse] Blasphemeo carries
with it nothing of our sense of "blaspheme" as containing some extreme
irreverence towards God. It is simply abusive and scurrilous language whether
directed against God or men. Very rare in LXX. It comes here from Isai. lii. 5
where the word is n'ts, properly expressive of contempt, usually rendered
paroxuno (even with to onoma) or some such word (one derivative is once
blasphemia, Ezek. xxxv. 12).

to kalon onoma, the honourable name] Worthy of admiration, not contempt and
contumely. Kalos is what is good as seen, as making a direct impression on those
who come in contact with it; contrast agathos which is good in result.

to epiklethen eph' humas, by the which ye are called] From the LXX. of Amos ix.
12 (quoted Acts xv. 17) literally following the Hebrew, but also Jer. xiv. 9.
The phrase is adopted for its vividness. The name was as it were laid upon them,
stamping them with a special allegiance.

What name does he mean? Probably Christos or Christianos, as 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16;
cf. Acts xxvi. 28. That is, the watchword, as seen in the Acts, was "Jesus is
Christ": and so in the more important and significant name of the two the whole
sense became concentrated. If the Epistle was indeed addressed first to Antioch,
it is an interesting fact that there the disciples were first called Christians.
It matters little for St James' meaning whether the name was chosen by
Christians themselves or given by others in reproach (Tac. Ann. xv. 44, quos per
flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat). It would soon be willingly
accepted: and if this had not taken place when St James wrote, it would at least
contain the kalon onoma Christos. [See Lightfoot, Ignatius vol. I. p. 400.]

^8ei mentoi nomon teleite basilikon kata ten graphen Agapeseis ton plesion sou
hos seauton, kalos poieite;

8. mentoi, indeed, really] Not an easy use of this particle, which occurs Jn
five times; 2 Tim. ii. 19; Jud. 8. In St John and St Paul it clearly has its
commonest (adversative) sense "however," "howbeit," and perhaps also in St Jude.
Hence commentators naturally try to find the same sense here. A sharp and
intelligible adversativeness is obtained by supposing St James to be replying to
an imagined plea of the Jewish Christians that they were shewing their love to
their neighbours by their civility to the man with the gold rings. It is hardly
credible however that so absurd a plea, of which there is not the least hint in
the text, should be contemplated by St James; and it is difficult to find any
other way of satisfactorily justifying an adversative sense. It seems more
likely that mentoi retains its original force of a strong affirmation, which is
not confined to answers to questions, though they furnish the commonest
examples. It is virtually little more than a strengthened men, and a de
naturally follows. It thus becomes equal to "if you indeed," "if you really."
This kind of sense is common in Xen. especially the Memorabilia (as i. 3. 10
with ei; i. 4. 18 with en; see Kühner: also his Gr. ii. 694 f.: of. Sturz Lex.
Xen. iii. 114 f.). The force of the particle seems to lie in an implied
reference to a contradiction between the respect of persons and a virtue
specially claimed, namely fulfilment of the Law. Thus just as St James had
rebuked the unreal akroasis, the unreal threskeia, the unreal pistis, so here he
rebukes an unreal keeping of the law.

teleite, fulfil] As Rom. ii. 27. In both places the peculiar word was probably
chosen to express that it is not a direct performance, but a virtual fulfilment:
cf. Rom. ii. 14 f.

nomon . . . basilikon, a royal law] The order shews that either basilikon is
accessory ("a law, a royal law"), or has a special force, a law which well
deserves to be called "royal." But in what sense royal? Probably not in the
vague figurative sense common in Greek to denote anything specially high or
worthy (sometimes basilikos kai theios); nor again in the Greek application to
laws, perhaps starting from Pindar's famous nomos panton basileus (on which see
Thompson Gorg. 484 B), of which the most interesting for our purpose are in Xen.
Oec. xiv. 6 f. and Ps.-Plat. 317 C. Probably one of two senses, either fit to
guide a king, a law such as a true king would take for his own government as Ps.
lxxii., Zech. ix. 9, and the Gospels in so far as they set forth our Lord as a
king; -- or, more probably perhaps, a law which governs other laws, and so has a
specially regal character. This sense gains in probability if taken with the
context. St James does not deny that there was an obedience to a law of some
rank or other. When our Lord rebuked the Pharisees (Mt. xxiii. 23), it was for
tithing herbs on the one hand and leaving ta barutera t. nomou, judgment, mercy,
and faith, on the other, adding "these ought ye to have done etc."; thereby
implying the existence of less weighty parts of the law. So here the law,
fulfilling which was made a boast, was not denied, but with it was contrasted by
implication the neglect of the higher and more fundamental law of love. One of
the two commandments, of which our Lord had said that on them hung all the Law
and the Prophets, might well be called royal.

There is no difficulty in thus applying so wide a term as nomos to a single
precept, since the precept itself was so comprehensive. Thus in Rom. xiii. 8 ff.
the separate commandments are called entolai, but this the sum of them is called
a nomos, and by one not improbable interpretation ton heteron nomon.

kata ten graphen, according to the Scripture] Doubtless the O.T. (Lev. xix. 18)
: the saying had a double sanction, Scripture, and the Lord's ratification of
it.

kalos poieite, ye do well] This has no sarcasm, as some suppose: simply "ye do
well" (cf. [207]v. 19; Mk vii. 37; Acts x. 33; 1 Cor. vii. 37 f.; 2 Pet. i. 19;
3 Jn 6). "I do not complain of you for seeking to fulfil a law, but for
neglecting the true value of one law as compared with another: if you are
fulfilling a law of the high kind, you are indeed doing well."

^9ei de prosopolepteite, hamartian ergazesthe, elenchomenoi hupo tou nomou hos
parabatai.

9. prosopolepteite, ye have respect of persons] Apparently hapax legomenon.

hamartian ergazesthe] A strong phrase, which must mean more than "ye commit
sin." Probably a reminiscence of Mt. vii. 23 (Sermon on the Mount), where those
who say "Lord, Lord" are at last addressed, "I never knew you, depart from me of
ergazomenoi ten anomian" (from Ps. vi. 8). St James never uses anomos, anomia;
and hamartia is often used as virtually a synonym, though the conceptions are
different. Moreover (see [208]v. 10) it is quite possible that he refers to a
willingness to treat this conduct as no sin at all.

elenchomenoi, convicted, shewn to be guilty.

tou nomou] The definite concrete law of Moses.

parabatai, transgressors] Cf. Rom. ii. 25, 27; Gal. ii. 18. Parabates is not
used in LXX.; though parabaino much (and parabasis once), chiefly of covenants
but also of laws and commandments, just as in classical usage: the strict sense
is to "over-step." The point is that the sticklers for law are marked as
essentially "law-breakers," and that on the chewing of legality itself. Probably
there is no reference to such places in the Law itself as Exod. xxiii. 2; Deut.
xvi. 19: otherwise the following yelp would lose force.

^10Hostis gar holon ton nomon terese, ptaise de en heni, gegonen panton enochos.

10. holon ton nomon terese, keep the whole law] The subjunctives terese . . .
ptaise are certainly right according to the best MSS. It is the only quite
certain N. T. example of hostis or hos with subjunctive without an, though it
has some good authority in Mt. x. 33 (not xviii. 4). But it certainly occurs
occasionally in good Greek authors. There is no real difference of sense, though
a"v marks the indefiniteness more explicitly. See Kühner ii. 205 f., better than
Winer-Moulton 386.

This is probably said with reference to the plea that the whole Law had been
observed. The verse seems to be a reminiscence of our Lord's answer, Mk x. 21,
hen se husterei; Lk. xviii. 22, eti en soi leitei (cf. Mt. xix. 21, ei th?leis
teleios einai), said after an enumeration of the commandments of the second
table, and the profession that they had been kept. The selling of goods and
giving to the poor there corresponds antithetically to the neglect of the poor
here.

terese] No longer telese. The more formal word is appropriate here.

ptaise, trip or stumble] As [209]iii. 2 bis. It is incipient falling (Romans xi.
11): cf. Deut. vii. 25. Common in Philo.

gegonen panton, is become (makes himself) guilty of all] Enochos is used with
genitive or dative of crimes, or punishments, or, as here, precepts. Properly
speaking it means simply "bound by," "subject to," "coming under."

The force of panton is determined by heni: it is all separate points or items
that make up the Law.

Various Jewish writings contain sayings like this verse (Schöttg. 1016 ff.); as
Shabbath (R. Jochanan): "If a man do all (of the 39 works prescribed by Moses),
but omit one, he is guilty for all and each." There is nothing in the O. T.
exactly answering to this: but Deut. xxvii. 26, after the various specific
curses on Mt Ebal, ends with "Cursed be he that confirmeth not (all) the words
of this law to do them," where the LXX. and Samar. insert pasin, and St Paul
(Gal. iii. 10) so quotes the passage. The insertion is partially supported by
Deut. xi. 32 (taken with vv. 26, 28) as Delitzsch points out. The same principle
of the Law being one whole is implied in Mt v. 18 f., iota hen e mia keraia . .
. mian t. entolon touton t. elachiston.

^11ho gar eipon me moicheuses eipen kai me phoneuseis; ei de ou moicheuseis
phoneuseis de, gegonas parabates nomou.

11. ho gar eipon k.t.l.] It is very unlikely that the two commandments are
chosen at random, as though both were unconnected with prosopolempsia. If this
were the case, there would be no clear and coherent course of thought. It is
quite possible that Me moicheuses implies that such sins as adultery were really
avoided and condemned by those who dishonoured the poor; and that they made
their condemnation of fleshly sins an excuse for indulgence towards spiritual
sins. At all events Me phoneuseis is directly connected with the matter in hand,
because murder is only the extreme outcome of want of love to neighbours or
brethren. Our Lord (Mt. v. 21-26) had carried back murder to the expression of
anger (cf. Jam. i. 19 f.), and though St Paul (Rom. xiii. 8, 9) had carried back
all commandments of the second table alike to love of the neighbours, the 6th
was evidently the most direct expression of the principle common to all, for
([210]v. 10) "love worketh no ill to a neighbour."

^12houtos laleite kai houtos poieite hos dia nomou eleutherias mellontes
krinesthai.

12. houtos laleite kai houtos poieite, so speak ye, and so do] The two chief
spheres of shewing forth love or its absence. We have had them paired already in
[211]i. 19-[212]21 contrasted with [213]22-[214]25, [215]i. 26 contrasted with
[216]27; and are now going to have them on a larger scale, in inverted order,
[217]ii. 14-[218]26 contrasted with [219]iii. 1-[220]12. Both are exemplified in
the treatment of the poor in the synagogues, the contemptuous language
accompanying the loveless acts.

hos dia nomou eleutherias, as by a law of liberty] This use of dia with
krinesthai is singular, though disguised by the ambiguity of "by," which denotes
kata with acc., or hupo with gen. (cf. Jn vii. 51, "Doth our law judge a man?"),
as well as dia with gen. Apparently it comes from Rom. ii. 12, hosoi en nomo
hemarton dia nomou krithesontai, where it apparently means "on terms of," "in a
state depending on," and corresponds to some other peculiar uses of dia by St
Paul, as dia grammatos kai peritomes (Rom. ii. 27); di' akrobustias (iv. 11);
dia proskommatos (xiv. 20); (?) dia doxes (2 Cor. iii. 11); (?) di' epangelias
(Gal. iii. 18). Thus the sense would seem to be not that the law of liberty is
the standard or the instrument by which they are to be judged, but that they are
to be judged as men who have lived in an atmosphere, as it were, of a law of
liberty, and subject to its conditions. The two conceptions are closely related,
but dia seems to lay stress chiefly on the present state rather than on the
future judgment. It is probably for this reason that dia nomou el. stands before
mellontes.

A law of liberty, exactly as [221]i. 25: viz. Christ's Law, as distinguished
from the Mosaic. The transition from the Mosaic Law in vv. [222]10, [223]11 to
the Christian Law here corresponds precisely to the transition in the Sermon on
the Mount from the one jot or tittle, one of these least commandments of Mt. v.
18 f., to "Except your righteousness etc." of Mt. v. 20, where the exceeding
righteousness of the Christian disciple consists not in the performance of a
greater number of positive precepts than the Scribes and Pharisees, but in the
inner subjection of the spirit to the law of love, taking possession not of
individual acts or abstinences, but of the whole life.

The whole passage implies that under the unity of the external law there lies a
much deeper unity of the spiritual law. If the whole external law was broken by
the murderous conduct of a man who kept himself clean from adultery, much more
was wrong done to the whole spiritual and free law of love by the attempt to
keep any part of conduct exempt from it.

^13he gar krisis aneleos to me poiesanti eleos; katakauchatai eleon kriseos.

13. he gar krisis] To be interpreted by krinesthai: the Divine judgment: cf.
[224]v. 9.

aneleos to me poiesanti eleos, without mercy to him that hath shewed no mercy]
The requital is in kind, cf. Mt. vii. 1, 2, and the parable of the Two Debtors,
Mt. xviii. 21-35, esp. 33. Here not love but mercy or pity is named. It is quite
possible that St James is not thinking exclusively of the treatment of the poor
in the synagogue, but going on to a wider range of kindred conduct (cf. [225]i.
27), and the absence of tenderness which is a common mark of the Pharisaical or
perverted religious spirit. But in any case the word is in place, for while love
is the universal fundamental attitude between man and man according to the
Divine plan of the world, the characteristic form which love takes when directed
to the poor is pity. To suffer with their suffering is the test of its reality.

katakauchatai, glorieth against] This is the true as well as the common reading:
another ancient reading is katakauchastho, and another, less attested,
katakauchasthe. The abrupt introduction of this apophthegm gave rise to various
conjunctions, de the best attested, also (T. R.) kai, also quoniam or "for."

The verb itself recurs [226]iii. 14, and is found Rom. xi. 18; also three times
in LXX., scarcely at all elsewhere. The sense of the image will depend on the
interpretation of eleos and kriseos. The opposition of the two words is
singular, because they are coupled in the O. T., Ps. ci. (c.) 1; (LXX. xxxiii.
(xxxii.) 5); virtually Hos. xii. 6; Mic. vi. 8; Zech. vii. 9. In these places
krisis, mspt, means the quality by which justice is done, as by an actual or
virtual judge. eleos is in like manner coupled with righteousness, and with
truth. The same combination with near appears Mt. xxiii. 23 (with faith added),
these being the weightier matters of the law neglected by the Scribes and
Pharisees. This cannot however be St James' sense. Except as applied to God's
judgment, he never uses krino, krisis, krites in a good sense; but always as
governed by "Judge not that ye be not judged." Here, as the previous he krisis
suggests, there must be at least some reference to the Divine judgment on its
condemnatory side, as krima [227]iii. 1, and krithete [228]v. 9. The image then
probably is that krisis comes so to speak as the accuser before the tribunal of
God, and eleos stands up fearlessly and as it were defiantly to resist the
claim. Is it then human or Divine eleos, the plea of the mercy that has been
shewn in life or the Divine mercy resisting the Divine condemnation? Probably
neither without the other: the two mercies are coupled as in Mt. v. 7, in the
Lord's Prayer, and the Two Debtors.

There is a somewhat similar use of kauchomai (not katakauch.) in Ecclus. xxiv.
1, 2. Schneckenburger well refers for a similar virtual kauchesis to 1 Cor. xv.
55. On the general sense cf. Or. Sib. ii. 81, Rhuetai ek thanatou eleos, krisis
hoppot' an elthe.

It is however probable that in so far as St James contemplates this sense of the
defying of judgment by mercy, it is only as a particular case of a universal
truth. That is, he may mean that this final triumph of mercy proceeds from the
previous and inherent superiority of mercy to krisis, human as well as Divine,
answering to the superiority of mercy to sacrifice (Mt. ix. 13; xii. 7). Mercy
is greater and better than human krisis in this narrower sense (an echo of
kritai dialogismon poneron in [229]v. 4), just as the Gospel is greater and
better than the Law: and they who recognise and act on this truth become
recipients of the Divine mercy, and have passed beyond condemnation by the
Divine judgment in so far as it is embodied in the Law.

Unless this sense is present, it is difficult to account for the absence of de.
Since there is no conjunction, this clause can hardly be merely antithetical to
the preceding, but must supply its foundation: the quoniam gives the truer
connexion, though not the whole of it.

^14Ti ophelos, adelphoi mou, ean pistin lege tis echein erga de me eche; me
dunatai he pistis sosai auton;

14. We now come to the section on faith and works.

adelphoi mou] Marking a fresh appeal, though closely connected with what
precedes.

ean pistin lege tis echein, if a man say he hath faith] We have already had
([230]i. 22 ff.) hearing without doing: here we have believing without doing. We
have also had a spurious threskeia: here we have a spurious pistis. The
profession of a pistis has been already presumed in [231]ii. 1, where St James
implies that the true faith of Jesus Christ was absent or defective. Our Lord in
St Luke's account of the explanation of the Parable of the Sower (viii. 13) had
spoken of a temporary believing, which fell away in time of peirasmos. The
expression of it is "Lord, Lord"; and the ferga me eche here exactly answers to
Lk. vi. 46 (kai ou poieite ha lego), just as the listening to words without
doing in [232]i. 22 f. answers to Mt. vii. 24, 26. The hearing the word, which
is also spoken of in the Parable of the Sower, is the first step of reception;
and belief marks another step: the failure may take place at either stage.

It is to be observed that here at least St James does not say ean pistin eche
tis but e. p. lege tis echein: it is not faith without works but the profession
of faith without works that thus far is pronounced unprofitable.

There is no reason for referring this spurious claim to faith to a Jewish
origin. There is no clear evidence for anything answering to it among the Jews.
It would on the other hand be a natural accompaniment of a slackening Christian
devotion. "Faith" or "believing" was emphatically the Christian watchword,
hardly less prominent in the first three Gospels than in St Paul or St John. And
the corruption of the Christian type of religion would need reprobation by the
authority of one in St James' position quite as much as the corruption of so
much of the Jewish type of religion as the Jewish Christians retained. The
question of justification introduces a fresh element; but we do not reach that
till [233]v. 21.

he pistis] Naturally "the faith," "that faith," the faith which is compatible
with the absence of works. The phrase doubtless implies that there was something
to which the name might in some sense be given; though it is not what St James
recognises as genuine faith.

sosai] As [234]i. 21.

^15ean adelphos e adelphe gumnoi huparchosin kai leipomenoi tes ephemerou
trophes,

15. This verse shews the connexion with what precedes. The examples of deficient
works to which St James at once flies are taken from the treatment of the poor,
quite as much as all that has been said about places in the synagogues.

adelphos e adelphe] The explicit notice of both sexes brings out two degrees, as
it were, in the helplessness which craved the sympathy and support of
Christians. The women, as in the special example of the widows in [235]i. 27,
would have all the needs and difficulties of the men, and the additional needs
and difficulties falling naturally to their sex, especially in ancient times.

The term "brother" "sister," repeated from [236]i. 9, calls attention to the
special ties between those who by believing in the Son had acquired a closer and
deeper tie of brotherhood as alike children of the Father. There was a true
sense in which it was applied to all mankind: but in those days when the little
community was surrounded by a more or less hostile population, the specially
Christian sense had peculiar force. Christ too had in this connexion spoken of
His own brethren, Mt. xxv. 35 f., 40, 42 f.

gumnoi, naked] In the conventional sense of Scripture, as needing clothing,
corresponding to the next phrase on the need of food.

huparchosin] Huparcho denotes not simple being, but being in a state or
condition as distinguished from what is temporary or accidental: it is used
properly with reference to antecedent states. Often it means what one is by
nature: but that specially strong force comes from the context. The prior
continuity is the main thing. Hence what is implied here is that not some casual
poverty but habitual poverty is meant.

leipomenoi, in lack of] With the gen. just as in [237]i. 5. In this sense of
outward destitution Just. Mart. uses it absolutely. Ap. i. 67, hoi echontes tois
leipomenois pasin epikouroumen; and again, kai autos epikourei orphanois te kai
cherais, kai tois dia noson e di' allen aitian leipomenois.

Omit osin after leipomenoi; the participle instead of leipontai continues the
indication of huparchosin, expressing a habitual condition, not an accidental
want of food.

tes ephemerou trophes] Simply the food needed day by day, daily food.

^16eipe de tis autois ex humon Hupagete en eirene, thermainesthe kai
chortazesthe, me dote de autois ta epitedeia tou somatos, ti ophelos;

16. eipe de tis autois ex humon] He first begins indefinitely, "if a man say to
them," and then after autois adds ex humon, implying that such a speech would
really be the speech expressive of the temper of their own minds, though only
one here or there might have the boldness to put it into these words.

Hupagete en eirene, Go in peace] A common Jewish farewell (Judg. xviii. 6 etc.:
and used by our Lord Lk. vii. 50 etc.): here a dismissal, a sending away, in
euphemistic and seemly form.

thermainesthe kai chortazesthe, be ye warmed and filled] These words are usually
taken as imperatives. Plumptre ingeniously suggests that they are indicatives;
the unreal assertion that the poor are warmed and fed being a repetition of the
unreal assertion that they had faith when they shewed such a lack of love. But
it is difficult to get this sense out of the words as actually put into the
mouth of the speaker, not as another's description of his act. We must therefore
keep to the imperative sense. It is not a mere substitution for the optative, "I
hope you may somehow get warmed and fed," but an exhortation to go and get for
themselves the means of doing this. It reminds us to a certain extent of "Send
the multitude away that they may buy for themselves victuals" (Mt. xiv. 15 and
parallels). Not that there is any clear reflexive force in the middle, which is
probably rather a passive, or at least not distinguish-able from such: but it
does lie in the use of the imperative. The use of the present tenses, not
aorists, goes with huparchosin and leipomenoi, as marking the reference to a
continuous state, "get your food and clothing now and always."

thermaino, chortazo. Two strong words seem to be purposely chosen. "Warming"
(Heb. and LXX.) is spoken of as an effect of clothes: Job xxxi. 20; Hag. i. 6
(cf. 1 Kin. i. i). Plut. Symp. 691 D speaks of the same garment as warming in
winter, cooling in summer. Galen, V. M. S. ii. (ap. Wetst.) speaks of it as a
common incorrect custom to speak of a thing as warming, because it hinders
chilling.

chortazo, originally of pasturing cattle, is used in late Greek of feeding men:
but usually, perhaps always, with the sense of feeding to the full, satisfying.

Thus the warm garments and satisfying food correspond to en eirene.

me dote de, and yet ye give not] Transition to the full plural. Though one alone
might be ready to speak the words, the general line of conduct was common to a
large number.

ta epitedeia tou somatos, the things needful to the body] Epitedeios is properly
what is convenient or fitting, useful. But ta epited. by usage are ordinary
necessaries, sometimes called ta anankaia epitedeia.

tou somatos has force in relation to the following comparison (houtos kai). It
is an appeal to an example from the obvious realm "of the body."

^17houtos kai he pistis, ean me eche erga, nekra estin kath' heauten.

17. houtos kai, even so] What is the precise comparison? i.e. what is it that in
vv. [238]15, [239]16 is compared to faith as being liable to be dead? The result
spoken of is that the body is, as a matter of fact, chilled and starved if it
has not necessaries. Presently, in [240]v. 26, St James says, in a similar
comparison about the deadness of faith without works, that the body without
spirit is dead. One is tempted to assume that he meant the love or beneficence
is dead if it contents itself with words. But there would be no real image
there, merely a repetition of the dead faith in a particular application.
Moreover ti ophelos points not to the unreality of the beneficence but to the
absence of result in the way of starvation prevented. Apparently the comparison
is to the words spoken: they are dead words inasmuch as they produce no effect
on the supposed need. This is Grotius' explanation, and although not altogether
satisfactory, it seems to be the best. Most commentators overlook the need of
explanation altogether. Wetstein quotes from Plaut. Epidic. i. 2. 13 f. A man
asks another for money: the reply is "If I had it, I certainly would not refuse
it"; and then comes the rejoinder, Nam quid to igitur rettulit Beneficum ease
oratione, si ad rem auxilium emortuum est?

eche erga, have works] A remarkable phrase, but very expressive of St James'
true meaning. The works are not something added on to the faith, but elements of
it, parts of itself.

nekra estin, is dead] Again the same, not merely "useless" or "unacceptable" but
"dead." It is no question of faith v. works, but whether faith is faith if it
has no works.

kath' heauten, in itself] This brings out the same yet more emphatically, "in
and by itself," not merely in relation to other things, not merely in its
utility, so to speak; but in its own very and inherent nature.

^18all' erei tis Su pistin echeis; [23] khago erga echo. deixon moi ten pistin
sou choris ton ergon, kago soi deixo ek ton ergon mou ten pistin.

18. all' erei tis, But some one will say] An extremely difficult verse, The
natural way of taking all' erei tis is as the words of an objector, and then it
is difficult to see how the next words could be put into an objector's mouth. It
is then suggested that the tis is virtually St James himself, like "so that a
man shall say etc." (Ps. lviii. 11) as often wrongly interpreted (the true
meaning being "men shall say"); but this is very unnatural from every point of
view. Accordingly it is often now supposed that a third person is introduced,
mainly on St James' side. This however only lessens, by no means removes, the
difficulty. (1) It is very unlike St James to favour the broad positive
statement addressed to those whom he is rebuking, "Thou hast faith, and I have
works"; (2) all' erei tis is a most unlikely phrase for introducing one who is
more for than against the writer; and (3) the supposed speaker disappears
thenceforward, and it is difficult to see what good purpose would be served by
this momentary introduction.

Not only the most natural but the only natural way to understand all' erei tis
is as introducing an objector, one of the persons rebuked (tis . . . ex humon),
as in 1 Cor. xv. 35 (cf. Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19). Indeed it is difficult otherwise
to understand the su, of [241]v. 19, o anth. kene of [242]20, and blepeis of
[243]22, but especially [244]20. In [245]24 there is a return to the plural in
horate, but the intermediate singular 2nd person singles out someone for rebuke,
who can be no other than the tis of [246]18, for the tis of [247]16 belongs
exclusively to the illustration.

A very fair and, to say the least, not improbable sense may then be obtained by
taking Su to echo alone as put into the objector's mouth, the rest of the verse
being taken as St James' own reply; and further by taking Su pistin echeis by
itself as a question. Questions of this kind are very common in St James, and
[248]19 is best so interpreted. The sense will then be "Thou, James, hast thou
faith, that thing which thou slightest in me? I for my part as well as thou
(kago) have works"; that is, "I do not allow that I have no works, I have works
(sc. works of the law) in addition to my faith: can you conversely say that you
have faith in addition to your works?" St James' reply then attacks the notion
that faith and works are two separate things. All turns on choris, which does
not mean simply "without," but "apart from," "separated from." "Shew me," he
says, "thy faith apart from the works, the works that properly belong to it and
should characterise it"; implying that this is an impossibility; "and I will
shew thee by my works the faith, the faith belonging to them and inspiring
them." That is, he turns the tables, and pleads that it is he alone, not the
antagonist, who can shew both. The form deixon moi . . . kago soi deixo occurs
Theoph. Ant. i. 2, Alla kai ean phes Deixon moi ton theon sou, kago soi eipoimi
an Deixon moi ton anthropon sou kago soi deixo ton theon mou; where two
impossibilities are set against each other: but in St James the kago soi is
positive, not merely contingent on the other shewing. The whole is little more
than a paraphrase of "By their fruits ye shall know them."

^19su pisteueis hoti eis theos estin [24] ; kalos poieis; kai ta daimonia
pisteuousin kai phrissousin

19. su pisteueis, thou believest, dost thou not?] The sense is not very
different whether we take it as indicative or interrogative: but interrogative
is more forcible.

hoti eis theos estin, that there is (exists) one God] MSS. much divided. The
best attested readings are eis theos estin and eis ho theos estin (or, inverted,
in the common form, eis estin ho theos). The second (and third) would mean "that
God is one.' Cf. Deut. vi. 4 etc. On the whole it is more probable that St James
is not singling out the detached affirmation of unity, but taking all together
thefirst article in the creed of Jew and Christian alike, an article not first
only but fundamental. The meaning apparently is "you claim to have a belief
detached from works, though you claim likewise to have works independently:
well, what is that belief? Take it in its simplest and most fundamental form,
the belief that there is One God. A belief without works necessarily consists in
belief in a proposition; belief not in One God, but that there is One God. Well,
so far so good: thou doest well."

kai ta daimonia pisteuousin, the devils also believe this] Kai is of course not
"and" but "also," they as well as thou.

pisteuousin] Sc. this, believe that this is true.

ta daimonia] Here as in the Gospels we must not think simply of "powers of
evil," as such, but of the pneumata ponera or akatharta by which those called
demoniacs were possessed. The reference is probably to the Gospel narratives,
"What have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us?
We know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God" (Mk i. 24 etc.).

phrissousin, shudder] Properly the same as the Latin horror, the standing of
hair on end with fear. Specially used of awe of a mysterious Divine power, as
often of the adepts in the Greek mysteries. Cf. Plat. Phaedr. 251 A, proton men
ephrixe kai ti ton tote hupelthen auton deimaton, eita prosoron hos theon
sebetai. It is something at once more distant and more prostrate than worship.
Cf. Ast on the above p. 449 and Wytt. on Plut. ii. 26B. An Orphic fragment
quoted by Clem. Alex. Str. v. 724 and Euseb. P.E. xiii. 13 (Hermann pp. 453 f.)
on God: Daimones hon phrissousi, theon de dedoiken homilos; an oracle ap. Lact.
de ira Dei xxiii. (and in Latin Aug. Civ. Dei xix. 23), Wolff Proph. Orac. p.
143:

Es de theon basilea kai eis genetera propanton,

Hon tromeei kai gaia kai ouranos hede thalassa

Tartarioi te muchoi kai daimones ekphrissousin;

and a magical invocation (Oneiropompos Agathokleus (sic) in A. Dieterich Papyrus
magica Mus. Lugd. Bat. p. 800: Lips. 1888), Thoth, hon pas theos proskunei kai
pas daimon phrissei. There is thus no force of "and yet" in kai before phr.: it
is rather "their belief" is so strong and undeniable that it ends in a kind of
strong homage. It is a proof that they believe, not something done in spite of
it.

Thus the force of the clause lies on the word daimonia (cf. daimoniodes
[249]iii. 15). A belief such as this, even though its contents are so true and
important as a belief in One God, cannot be a very Divine thing when it can be
shared by the daimonia.

The whole then turns on the real nature of the belief or faith supposed, and
Bede seems to have understood it rightly, when, taking up language of Augustine,
he says: "Sed nec Deum credere et contremiscere magnum est, si non et in eum
credatur, hoc est si non ejus in corde amor teneatur. Aliud est enim credere
illi, aliud credere illum, aliud credere in illum. Credere illi est credere vera
esse quae loquitur: credere illum credere quod ipse sit Deus: credere in ilium
est diligere illum. Credere vera esse quae loquitur multi et mali possunt,
credunt enim esse vera, et nolunt ea facere, quia ad operandum pigri sunt.
Credere autem ipsum esse Deum, hoc et daemones potuerunt. Credere vero in Deum
soli novere qui diligunt Deum, qui non solo nomine sunt Christiani sed et factis
et vita." (For reff. to Aug. see Pearson Creed p. 16.)

^20theleis de gnonai, o anthrope kene, hoti he pistis choris ton ergon arge
estin;

20. theleis de gnonai, but wilt thou gain the knowledge] He is now going to
prove his point by reference to Scripture. The words are equivalent to "Do you
ask me what proof I have that . . ."

o anthrope kene, O vain man] Anthrope probably in contrast to daimonia, a being
who shouldest have such a much better faith than daimonia.

Kenos (by itself) is not at all common as applied to men: it denotes
pretentiousness, hollowness accompanying display. Thus Epictet. ii. 19. 8, "But
if I am kenos, especially at a banquet, I astonish the visitors by enumerating
the writers (on a particular subject)"; iv. 4. 35, kenon, eph' hois hou dei
epairomenon. Plutarch Sertor. xxvi. (581 F), "to despise Mallius hos kenou kai
alazonos; Moral. 81 B, agriculturalists like to see ears of corn bending down,
but those that are lifted by lightness kenous hegountai kai alazonas; and so of
youths intending to philosophise, those who are most kenoi and deficient in
baros thrasos echousi, and a gait and walk and countenance full of scorn and
contempt. The use of andras kenous (lit. empty) in Judg. ix. 4 does not help.
Probably the sense is rather analogous to the Greek sense than identical. It is
doubtful whether personal arrogance is intended here. Rather the unreality of
the kind of faith professed, a faith which had no inner core to it.

hoti he pistis choris ton ergon] Probably as before ([250]v. 18) this faith
separated from the works belonging to it.

arge, worthless] So best MSS., not nekra, which comes from [251]v. 26; argos is
worthless, i.e. either not working, idle, lazy, or producing no works in the
sense of results, hence useless, fruitless, ineffectual, as 2 Peter i. 8, ouk
argous oude akarpous; and perhaps Mt. xii. 36, pan rhema argon. This sense would
suit the context: but as there is an apparent contrast to sunergei in [252]v.
22, it is better to refer it rather to the act of working than to the result.
Ton ergon are the concrete works capable of being spoken of separately; so that
there is no tautology, the working being thought of with reference to the agent,
and arge here meaning "inactive," putting forth no powers.

^21Abraam ho pater hemon ouk ex ergon edikaiothe, anenenkas Isaak ton huion
autou epi to thusiasterion;

21. St James comes now to his examples to prove his point.

Abraam ho pater hemon] These words stand first, before ouk, in the sense "Take
Abraham our father for instance, was not he," etc. "Abraham our father" in a
combination of senses, as the father of the old Israel (Mt. iii. 9, etc.), as
the father of the new Israel which had arisen out of the old Israel (claimed by
Stephen, Acts vii. 2), and above all as the father of those who have shewn faith
(Rom. iv. ii, 12, 16; Gal. iii. 7 ff.). The context seems to shew that this last
is chiefly meant. Abraham's example is important for this purpose just because
he was the typical instance of faith.

ouk ex ergon] The words do not express whether he means that works had a share
in it, or that works alone were concerned: but the former sense alone can be
reconciled either with the general argument or with the quotation in [253]v. 23.

edikaiothe] This word is manifestly to be interpreted in the first instance by
its O.T. usages. The active voice dikaioo represents the Piel and Hiphil of tsdq
both causative, to cause to be tsdyq (dikaios), just as dikaioo) as applied
ethically to persons is properly to make dikaios. The passive voice dekaiousthai
is one of the representatives of the Kal of the same verb, to be tsdyq or
dikaios, a word chiefly though not exclusively used in Job (see especially Isa.
xliii. 9, 26; xlv. 25), and sometimes rendered dikaios eimi, or in English "to
be righteous." So far all is etymologically clear: the active is to make
righteous, the passive to be made righteous. But then comes the question, does
tsdyq or dikaios or righteous mean always simply a quality in a man without
reference to the recognition of it? Certainly not. Various passages (e.g. Ps.
cxliii. 2) express or imply the sense of being righteous in God's sight, and
this is almost the only sense of the active, chiefly with the force "defending
the cause of," "pleading for the righteousness" or "innocence of." The same
senses reappear freely in Ecclus. So in N.T.: Mt. xii. 37; Lk. vii. 29; x. 29;
xvi. 15; xviii. 14 (not to count edikaiothe he sophia etc., Mt. xi. 19; Lk. vii
35); besides all the passages in St Paul, and also Acts xiii. 39 where St Paul
is the speaker.

Leaving then for the present St Paul out of sight, that we may not disturb St
James' argument, we have naturally here the sense "Did not Abraham appear
righteous in God's sight on the ground of works?"

anenenkas k.t.l.] From a combination of Gen. xxii. 2 (enenenkon) and 9,
epetheken auton epi to thusiasterion. There is sometimes doubt when epi stands
before to thusiaster. whether it means "to" or "upon": but here doubtless, as
the Hebrew suggests, it is "upon," as Mt. v. 23; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The meaning is
that this act was distinctly a work. The faith in God which Abraham felt was
carried out in a piece of conduct which tried it to the utmost.

^22blepeis hoti he pistis sunergei tois ergois autou kai ek ton ergon he pistis
eteleiothe,

22. blepeis, thou perceivest] It is so obvious, when looked at, that there is no
room for doubt.

he pistis, the faith] Sc. in this case: the faith in antithesis to the works was
not separate from them but wrought with them.

sunergei, worked with] A bold image. The faith not only was followed or
accompanied by works -- that is expressed in tois ergois autou -- but itself
worked with his works. Not for faith plus works does St James plead, but for
faith at work, living, acting in itself, apart from any value in its results;
sunergeo is properly to be a sunergos: not used in LXX., but twice in Apocr. and
in four other places of the N.T.

kai ek ton ergon, and by the works] Ek as before, in consequence of, by effects
proceeding from.

he pistis eteleiothe, the faith was made perfect] So long as the faith was not
exercised, it was in a manner imperfect. It gained maturity and completeness by
being thoroughly acted out. This is the only place where St James uses this verb
(common in N.T., especially Jn, 1 Jn, Heb.), but teleios, as we have seen, he
has five times, and this nearly answers to ergon teleion echeto in [254]i. 4. It
is to be observed that the two clauses are exactly complementary to each other.
The works received the co-operation of a living power from the faith: the faith
received perfecting and consummation from the works into which it grew.

^23kai eplerothe he graphe he legousa Episteusen de Abraam to theo. kai
elogisthe auto eis dikaiosunen, kai philos theou eklethe.

23. kai eplerothe he graphe he legousa, and there was a fulfilment of the
Scripture which saith] The usual phrase, as Lk. iv. 21, etc. The Divine word
spoken is conceived of as receiving a completion so to speak in acts or events
which are done or come to pass in accordance with it. This idea of filling, or
giving fullness to, is always contained in the biblical use of fulfilling,
though not always in precisely the same sense. he graphe probably the individual
saying of Scripture (he graphe haute in Lk.).

The passage Gen. xv. 6 was the one which most clearly expressed the faith of
Abraham and which at the same time connected it with the accounting it on the
part of God as righteousness. The words elogisthe auto eis dik. are equivalent
to saying edikaiothe (he, not the faith). Philo, Leg. All. iii. 81 (p. 132)
paraphrases them, Abraam ge toi episteuse to theo, kai dikaios enomisthe. The
two passages are brought together also in 1 Macc. ii. 52, Abraam ouchi en
peirasmo heurethe pistos, kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosunen; for the peirasmos
doubtless refers to Gen. xxii. 1, ho theos epeirazen ton Abraam.

kai philos theou eklethe, and (so) he was called the friend of God] Probably the
meaning is that this was another result of the faith which be shewed in the
sacrifice of Isaac, the first result being the fulfilling of the words spoken of
him with reference to an earlier exhibition of faith. The reference itself is
doubtless mainly, if not wholly, to Isa. xli. 8 (Heb. Sym., not LXX. hon
hegapesa) "who loved me," not "whom I loved" (see Cheyne); 2 Chr. xx. 7 (Heb.
not LXX. to hegapemeno sou); but v.l. to philo apud Field), and eklethe means
not "acquired the human title," but "was Divinely stamped" with that unique
name. At the same time the name, though doubtless originating in Isaiah if not
earlier, was widely spread, and St James may have had Greek authority for it.
See the authorities in Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. 10 (Clement refers to it 17
also); and Rönsch in Hilg. Z. S. 1873 iv. 583 ff., and Wetst. Philo uses it,
even substituting it once for tou paidos mou in Gen. xviii. 17. Judith viii.
26=22 in lat. vg., "quomodo pater nester Abraham tentatus est, et per multas
tribulationes probatus Dei amicus factus est." Cf. Wisd. vii. 27; Clem. Hom.
xviii. 13; Recog. i. 32. So also Lib. Jubil. 19, Ber. R. on Gen. xiii. 8, etc.;
and the name is still in use among the Arabs, El Khalil. Weil, cited by Rönsch
585, quotes "When Abraham by Nimrod's command was to be thrown into the fire,
the heaven with its angels and the earth with all the creatures therein cried
out with one voice, God of Abraham, Thy friend, who alone on earth adores Thee,
is thrown into the fire' etc." This various use shews by the way that the
occurrence of the phrase in a Christian author is no sufficient proof that he
employed the Epistle of St James.

It is very doubtful whether the name is etymological, though a writer against
the Jews called Molon, cited by Alex. Polyhistor ap. Euseb. P. E. 9. 19, p. 420,
says, hon de methermeneuesthai Patros philon; and Rönsch argues that ch being
changed into h, rchm represents philos, though more properly "one on whom God
had mercy."

^24horate hoti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon.

24. horate, ye see] St James now turns from the "empty man" to the brethren whom
he was previously addressing. Toinun is spurious. Elsewhere in the N.T. horate
is always imperative, but in the sense "see to it," "beware," which will not do
here. It is not likely to be used in the sense "take note," "observe," so that
the indic. is the most natural. The sense must be "ye see by this example of
Abraham": otherwise homoios de kai has no force.

ex ergon dikaioutai] The same phrase as in [255]v. 21: but here the important
explanatory clause is added, kai ouk ek pisteos monon; shewing that with him it
was no question of faith contrasted with works, but of faith without works
contrasted with faith with works: the faith as a ground of justification is
assumed as a starting point.

^25homoios de kai Rhaab he porne ouk ex ergon edikaiothe, hupodexamene tous
angelous kai hetera hodo ekbalousa;

25. homoios de kai] This introduces another example, not needing such full
exposition. Abraham the father of the Jewish people was the first; now St James
cites a heathen, a Canaanitess, as a type of the other branch of Israelites and
of Christians, the proselyte Jews, the Gentile Christians; nay the first of all
proselytes, for her act took place at the very entrance into the Promised Land.
In doing this, St James doubtless was building on a Jewish traditional view.
Setting aside Heb. xi. 31, the remarkable introduction of Rahab's name in Mt. i.
5 (as also Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba) implies a tradition as to her marriage to
Salmon which marks her out in a signal manner. See Wetst. (i. 226) and better
Wünsche Erl. der Ev. 3 f. Thus Megilla 14 b, "Eight prophets who were also
priests are descended from the harlot Rahab, etc." (ten prophets and
prophetesses according to Midrash, Ruth i.): another Midrash says priests. Midr.
Cant. "As long as the Israelites do the will of God, He brings every righteous
man whom He sees among the other peoples, and joins him to Israel, as came to
pass with Jethro and Rahab.

The precise purpose of adding he porne (added also in Heb.) is not clear.
Perhaps her occupation is meant to point to her heathen origin, and as marking
the extreme form of a faith which was due to a change or conversion, not part of
an orderly and continuous growth, as in Abraham or Samuel.

ouk ex ergon edikaiothe] The force of this lies in what is implied, that she was
justified in virtue of her faith in that she embraced the belief in the one true
God, and risked all on the belief. This very faith, he says, was not one barren
of works: it shewed its strength by her willingness to risk her life to save the
servants of the true God.

hupodexamene, hospitably entertained.

tous angelous] Called kataskopous in Heb., and tous kataskopeusantas Josh. vi.
25. The more favourable word is perhaps chosen to suggest that in receiving them
she was as it were receiving angels.

hetera hodo] Probably no more than "different different from the way by which
they came."

ekbalousa, dismissed them] So probably. The word is a stronger one than we
should expect to find used, but the same thing happens in other places of the
N.T., as Mt. ix. 38, Lk. x. 2, ergatas; Jn x. 4, probata; Mt. xii. 35, xiii. 52,
ek t. agathou thesaurou ta agatha, etc.

^26hosper [25] to soma choris pneumatos nekron estin, houtos kai he pistis
choris ergon nekra estin.

26. gar is very doubtful: some authority for de: but no conjunction most likely.
It is a general summing up, not standing in very near relation to [256]v. 25,
but referring alike to the whole passage from [257]v. 14.

choris pneumatos, separated from (the) spirit] Not spirit in the higher sense,
but simply the breath of life. The body with the breath in it has all the
difference from the body out of which the breath has departed that life has from
death, although externally the body is nearly the same. So too the same contents
of faith, that there is one God, or to go on to all that is contained in
[258]ii. 1, the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ the Glory, is a dead thing if it
is separated from works, in other words, from active energy. The paradox must be
intentional. The opposite is what most would be tempted to say: but it would be
only superficially true. True faith is a faith that aims at work and motion;
false faith is virtually a corpse. He uses nekra here where he had said arge
before. The idea is much the same, but nekra expresses it by a strong image.

Now as regards the relation of this section to St Paul, the examples cited are
certainly not enough to imply that St Paul had already written. St Paul mentions
Abraham: but who could do otherwise in speaking of faith? St Paul does not
mention Rahab; and though the Pauline author of Heb. does, it is not in
connexion with justification or with any controversial purpose but simply as one
of a series of examples of faith. It is remarkable that Philo, de nobil. 5 (ii.
442), first speaks strongly of Abraham (dio kai pisteusai legetai to theo
protos, epeide kai protos akline kai bebaian eschen hupolepsin, hos estin hen
aition to anotato kai pronoei tou te kosmou kai ton en auto), and then proceeds
Tauten ten eugeneian ou monon theophileis andres alla kai gunaikes ezelosan, and
then gives as an instance Tamar, who appears in Mt. with Rahab, using language
that might be applied at once to Rahab, how she was an inhabitant of Palestine,
a woman brought up in a city full of many gods, full of images etc.: and then
how out of deep darkness she was able to see a little dawn of light, and how she
waxed strong unto piety, little heeding life if she were not to live nobly. Thus
both examples might come quite naturally to St James simply from his Jewish
education.

But the phrase ex ergon edikaiothe, taken in its juxtaposition to faith, is very
hard to explain without reference to St Paul. There is no real evidence for any
similar Jewish language. Justification is not part of St James' original
argument: but he brings it in from vv. [259]21-[260]24 in a way which implies
that he is arguing against some actual plea. If he had been intending to argue
against St Paul he would have used language which struck at St Paul's doctrine.
But this he avoids. His language is indeed formally inconsistent with St Paul's,
since St Paul altogether declined to speak of any justification by works. But
this language of St Paul may easily have been used, even by men opposed to him,
in a manner at variance with his true purpose. Such verbal contradictions are
sometimes inevitable for the expression of the fulness of the truth: and laying
aside the insoluble question whether St James personally would have accepted
every word that St Paul used, or St Paul every word that St James used, we are
justified in considering both, not merely to have been needful as leaders of the
Church in the Apostolic age, but as having contributed two forms of teaching,
each of which is permanently necessary for the completeness of truth.

III. ^1Me polloi didaskaloi ginesthe, adelphoi mou, eidotes hoti meizon krima
lepsometha;

III. 1. St James takes up now a fresh point: wrong speech after wrong action.

me polloi didaskaloi, not many teachers] There is no need to correct to
poludidaskaloi or otherwise. The phrase is peculiar, but forcible and clear
enough as interpreted by the context and by vv. [261]13 ff. It is assumed that
for the good of the community there should be teachers, discharging a special
function for the rest (1 Cor. xii. 29, me pantes didaskaloi; cf. 28, triton
didaskalous), and then implied that many set up as teachers not from a sense of
responsibility but from a vain or censorious spirit. Thus the single notion
"many teachers" practically involves the idea that the teaching arose from low
personal motives.

The context would allow didaskaloi to be used vaguely, as if ordinary social
censoriousness were intended. But it is hardly likely that this word would have
been chosen except with reference to actual public teaching. The sense is
illustrated by the whole of 1 Cor. xii.-xiv., but especially by xiv. 26; though
it is true that we cannot conclude too rapidly from the ways of Corinthian
Greeks to the Jews of the Dispersion. Still what follows in the rest of the
chapter is strikingly analogous to much that St Paul says in 1 Cor. about sophia
and logos, and to the manner in which he connects together the misuse of both.
The disputatiousness of Greeks may well have had much in common with the
disputatiousness of Jewish Christians, more especially as many of them were of
Greek race.

This precise tendency has no distinct echo in the Gospels, except the warning
against idle words. Mt. xxiii. 8-10 refers rather to the honour of rabbiship
than to the pride of the exercise of the office of teacher,

adelphoi mou] This again introduces a fresh point, softening off at the outset
the sharpness of what St James had to say.

eidotes] Not "taking note," "observing," but "knowing as ye already do."

meizon krima lepsometha, shall receive greater judgment] The word of Christ on
idle words (Mt. xii. 36 f.) pronounced that account should be given en hemera
kriseos; "for by thy words . . . thou shalt be condemned (katadikasthese)."

krima lepsometha] This phrase occurs in a different context Mk xii. 40 || Lk.
xx. 47, with perissoteron for meizon. There perissoteron seems to mean that
those who combined the pretensions of scribeship with these faults and vices
should be condemned yet more than ordinary offenders. Here meizon must have much
the same force, but perhaps also a special reference to the just retribution
involved in "Judge not that ye be not judged": that is, it seems to be implied
that wrong judging was a characteristic of the much teaching. This seems to
follow from gar in [262]v. 2, which cannot be otiose. We all stumble and
therefore come under judgment: but the judgment is greater if we have been
taking on ourselves to judge others.

^2polla gar ptaiomen apantes. ei tis en logo ou ptaiei, houtos teleios aner
dunatos chalinagogesai kai holon to soma.

2. polla gar ptaiomen apantes, For in many things we all stumble] Ptaio as
before ([263]ii. 10).

polla] Lies between polu and pollakis: it is "much" with the idea of plurality
and repetition introduced: so Mt. ix. 14 v.1. (nesteuomen); Mk iii. 12
(epetima); v. 10 (parekalei), 38 (alalazontas), 43 (diesteilato), etc.

apantes] "one and all."

ei tis en logo ou ptaiei, If any stumbleth not in speech] Not me but ou, =
"succeeds in escaping stumbling," the two words being taken together. For the
phrase cf. Ps. xxxix. 1, tou me amartanein en glosse mou; Ecclus. xix. 16, kai
tis ouch hemarten en te glosse autou; (Cf. Philo de nom. mut. 1082 C; de Abr.
352 C.) The image was applied to the tongue by Zeno ap. Diog. Laert. vii. 26
(Wetst.), kreitton einai t. posin olisthein e te glotte: cf. Eustathius in Od.
viii. 171.

The previous sentence spoke of moral stumbling of any kind. Here it becomes
narrowed to speech: stumbling in speech is peculiarly easy and common: but the
misuse of speech in pride and bitterness of teachership is something much worse
than ordinary stumbling in speech. Here then St James drops for a while the
subject begun in [264]v. 1, to be taken up again in [265]13-[266]18. The vicious
teachership suggested to him the vicious use of the tongue in general, and so he
launches out into this wider subject.

teleios aner, a perfect man] The adjective as before, consecrated by Mt. v. 48.
Aner cannot have the sense that anthropos would have, "one shewing the
perfection of humanity": it is simply "one that is perfect."

dunatos chalinagogesai kai holon to soma, able to bridle the whole body also]
The force of kai is that his stumbling not in speech arises from his bridling
his tongue; and that a man who can bridle his tongue can also bridle his whole
body. This may be in two senses, that the tongue is so difficult to bridle that
it is an easier thing to bridle the whole body, and that in the bridling of the
tongue the bridling of the body is virtually accomplished at the same time. The
comparison to the horses' bridle in [267]v. 3 and to the rudder in [268]v. 4 and
the whole language of [269]6 prevent the exclusion of the second sense, while
the form of this sentence rather suggests the first. Probably St James meant
both senses to be included.

The bridling of the tongue (already named [270]i. 26) is naturally one of the
commonest of images in various languages: but it is especially associated with
me hamartanein en glosse in Ps. xxxix. 1 (Heb. not LXX.).

^3ei de ton hippon tous chalinous eis ta stomata ballomen eis to peithesthai
autous hemin, kai holon to soma auton metagomen;

3. ei de] True reading, not ide (or as T.R. with a few idou) derived from
supposed parallelism to idou in [271]v. 4. The de is equivalent to the logical
"now": the verse is really an inference from the force of the word
chalinagogesai. St James has used it completely metaphorically of the whole
body, when he might have said in general terms "keep in order": but it occurs to
him that the word has a special force for his purpose because it is just through
the mouth, the source of speech, that the process of bridling takes place.

ton hippon] Put first because horses are the direct subjects of comparison with
teleios aner: it thus is equivalent to "in the case of horses" though of course
governed not only by ta stomata but also by tous chalinous: the mouths are the
part of the horses into which we put the bits by which we mean to restrain them.
This accounts for the two articles.

eis to peithesthai (not pros), to make them obey us] St James doubtless means to
express not merely result but purpose. The reason why the phrase is introduced
is probably because St James is thinking how far control of the tongue goes
towards producing control of the whole body.

metagomen, we turn about] Metago as commonly used means to "transfer" or
"transport" in a strong sense, as prisoners to a strange land, or the power of
government from one class to another. It is also used of turning men to a better
mind (still transference) Plut. ii. 225 F; Epict. Ench. xxxiii. 3. Apparently
here simply in the sense of leading not from one place to another but from one
direction to another, though it is not satisfactory to have no clear authority
for it. Lexicons and commentaries pass the point over.

^4idou kai ta ploia, telikauta onta kai hupo anemon skleron elaunomena,
metagetai hupo elachistou pedaliou hopou he horme tou euthunontos bouletai;

4. The example of the ships and rudders comes in by way of addition, apparently
as suggested by the last words of [272]v. 3.

telikauta onta kai hupo anemon skleron elaunomena, though they are so great, and
though they are driven by rough winds] This is the most natural construction
according to the form of the sentence. On the other hand it is somewhat singular
that the size and the driving by winds, which would not be always rough, are
coupled together; and it is possible that kai means not "and" but "even," "the
ships, great as they are, even when they are being driven by rough winds, are
turned about," etc.

pedaliou, rudder] From the Odyssey onwards.

horme, impulse] This might be either the impulse in the mind of the steersman or
the impulse which his hand communicates to the helm: but the whole phrase would
be rather feeble if referred to the mind only: moreover there would be almost a
contradiction between the "impulsiveness "and the purpose (boule).

tou euthunontos, the steersman] Euthuno, first to make straight, is then used of
any kind of guidance, shepherd of sheep, charioteer of chariot, steersman of
ship (Plato etc.); and of the rudder itself (Luc. Dial. Mort. x. 10, euthune, o
porthmeu, to pedalion; Eur. Cyc. 15,

en prumne d' akra autos labon euthunon ampheres doru).

bouletai, willeth] By a bold figure the deliberation and decision is transferred
to the last point at which the steersman's action passes into that of the rudder
by the movement of his hand. Boulomai as before implies not mere will but
intention: the steersman turns the helm this way or that because he knows which
way his course lies. Rudders and steersmen have furnished many images. This
combination of the horse's bridle and the ship's rudder as illustrative of the
government of the tongue is found in Ps.-Plat. Axioch. [? ap. Theoph. Simoc. Ep.
70] and in Plutarch and Philo [see Wetst. and Mayor].

^5outos kai he glossa mikron melos estin kai megala auchei. idou helikon pur
heliken hulen anaptei;

5. Apparently a direct comparison with [273]v. 4. What is not easy is megala
auchei (so better than megalauchei).

megala auchei, hath great things whereof to boast] Aucheo is properly to stretch
the neck and hold up the head in pride, and hence to speak with proud
confidence. Megalaucheo seems always to be used in a disparaging sense, to
denote "boastfulness." The difficulty is that the comparison seems to require
not great pretension but great performance to be ascribed to the tongue.
Oecumenius has megala ergazetai by way of paraphrase, and something like this is
doubtless what we should expect. It does not help much to say that the
pretension comes first, the performance next, viz. in the following verses. The
true solution lies probably in the wider use of aucheo than of megalaucheo.
Though aucheo never loses the sense of boast, it frequently, both in early and
late Greek, is used without sense of unreality in the boast, and virtually as
equivalent to "having cause to boast." The only question then is as to the use
of megala, which prima facie has an adverbial force, "greatly." Now auchei used
absolutely without reference to any object could refer only to boastfulness,
pretence; and megala as an adverb would only accentuate this force, by the
association with megalaucheo. But in late Greek aucheo is not infrequently used
with the accusative of things boasted of, where the classical usage would be
with dative with or without epi. Thus Aristid. i. 103, monois d' humin huparchei
katharan eugeneian te kai politeian auchesai: just as we use the verb "boast"
transitively: "that country boasts many great cities." So here m. auchei
doubtless means "hath great things whereof to boast," or shortly "great are its
boasts" (i.e. the concrete subjects for boasting, auchemata, not the boastings,
aucheseis). This sense is supported by the analogy of katakauchatai in [274]ii.
13, where the glorying of mercy against judgment is no mere vain boasting, but a
true position proudly held. It is thus quite doubtful whether there is even an
indirect reference to arrogance of tongue. What follows gives examples of the
"great things."

idou helikon (not olegon) pur heliken hulen anaptei, Behold how much wood is
kindled by how small a fire] Helikos expresses magnitude in either direction,
quantus or quantillus (Luc. Hermot. 5): the antithesis explains that with pur it
means "how little," with hulen "how great." This is a good example of St James'
pregnant enigmatic style, leaving much to the reader's intelligence.

hulen] Etymologically = silva, and answers fairly to both the English words
"wood" and "timber." It is used either of dead wood or living, and either will
make sense here. But it never means a wood, a forest. As applied to living wood
it is either woodland as opposed to mountains and cultivated plains, specially
the rough bushy skirts of the hills, or brushwood. Thus Plat. Polit. 272 A says,
karpous te aphthonous eichon apo te dendron kai polles hules akkes. A spark
setting fire to the brush might suggest the image, or it may be (as often)
simply a great mass of cut timber ready for the carpenter. The word is
interesting on account of Plato's use, answering to materia, materies. [See
Additional Note.]

The image was probably taken from the Hebrew Proverbs of Ben Sira (trans]. in
Drusius ap. Crit. Sacr. viii. p. 1899) cf. Ecclus. xi. 32. "A burning fire
kindles many heaps of corn." On which the Scholiast has "There is nothing which
more devastates the world than an evil tongue: for a tongue of this kind, though
it be not very evil, is the ruin of many just and pious men. (Example of Doeg.)
Wherefore the wise Hebrews declare that in an evil tongue lurks deadly poison,
and that because of it the world suffers chastisement," etc.

^6 kai he glossa pur, ho kosmos tes adikias he glossa kathistatai en tois
melesin hemon, he spilousa holon to soma kai phlogizousa ton trochon tes
geneseos kai phlogizomene hupo tes geennes.

6. A very difficult verse. Houtos is spurious before he glossa kathistatai, and
misleading also. It is impossible Greek to take he spilousa as predicate to the
sentence he glossa kathist. as though it were to spiloun. The best punctuation
is to take kai he glossa pur as a separate clause, "the tongue also is a fire,'
introductory to what follows. Then ho k. t. ad. he gl. kathist. en t. mel. hem.;
then he spilousa . . .geennes, in which last clause references to fire appear
again. Hence he glossa (the 2nd) must be the subject, ho kosmos t. ad. the
predicate; and the reason why ho kosmos t. ad. is put first is because he glossa
must be put last in order to connect it distinctly with the following
participles. Thus the arrangement of words is exactly analogous to that of
[275]i. 7, [276]8.

kai he glossa pur, The tongue also is a fire] Cf. Prov. xvi. 27; Ps. cxx. 4;
Ecclus. xxviii. 21-23; also Ps. Sol. xii. 2.

ho kosmos tes adikias, the unrighteous world] Certainly a difficult phrase. The
article must of course have its full force, "a world of iniquity" cannot be
right. Some take kosmos as "ornament": understanding it to mean that the tongue
gives a specious and seductive colour or gloss to what is evil by means of
plausible words. But though words might by a rather bold figure be called the
adornment of iniquity, the tongue that utters them could not: nor has that sense
any special force here. The commonest interpretation is to take it as "world" in
the sense of universe, "that world of iniquity." The article here acquires a
possible sense with the other construction, in apposition with pur; but not as
the predicate after kathistatai. The sense itself too is at once exaggerated and
vague. It is not the comprehensiveness of the tongue within itself that the
context refers to, but its power of acting upon what is without it.

There remains the "evil" sense of kosmos, found already [277]i. 27, and
recurring [278]iv. 4. To repeat very briefly. This sense of something called the
kosmos as not only containing evil elements but itself in some sense evil is
chiefly found in Jn and 1 Jn, also 2 Pet.; perhaps not elsewhere (2 Cor. vii. 10
doubtful). It is not derived from the physical universe, but a Jewish image
taken from the tvl of the early chapters of Isaiah (cf. Ps. ix. 8 etc.),
rendered oikoumene in LXX., denoting the heathen nations around, the heathen
world at once as destructive and as corruptive: hence it is human society in a
corrupt and perverted state. As applied to the tongue then, the meaning is that
the tongue is to the rest of the body what the corrupt society is to mankind,
and especially to the Church as the representative of mankind in its true state.
Thus t. adikias may be compared to its use in Lk. xvi. 8, ton oikonomon tes
adikias and 9, mamona t. ad. and xviii. 6, ho krites t. ad.: the world which
gives itself up to unrighteousness, which takes its form from unrighteousness
and obeys it: somewhat similar are the genitives in [279]i. 25. Much the same
ultimate sense would be obtained by taking kosmos as the sphere or region, the
domain as it were in which unrighteousness obtains a footing. But this is not a
natural sense of the word, which is more easily interpreted by the other
passages of this Epistle referred to.

kathistatai, is constituted, shews itself, makes itself, acts the part of] The
exact force is shewn by [280]iv. 4. Kathistasthai eis is to come into a certain
state, or kath. with nominative to become (contrast kathesteka to have become,
to be). Thus Plut. ii. 2 E, trees if neglected strebla phuetai kai akarpa
kathistatai, tuchonta de orthes paidagogias enkarpa ginetai kai telesphora (cf.
6 F).

en tois melesin hemon, among our members] Apparently not merely with reference
to its action on the other members; but as being that one among the members
which has this special power.

he spilousa, that stainer of] The article has the effect of giving a substantive
force to the participle, as it were, the tongue that stainer of the body. The
use of this word agrees with the interpretation just given of kosmos, when
compared with aspilos . . . apo t. kosmou in [281]i. 27. The image however is
difficult: in what sense can the tongue be said to stain the body? Apparently
with reference to the idea that runs through chap. i. that there is a Divine
image received by man at creation, a true ideal form derived from likeness to
God, and that all moral evil is to be regarded in relation to this as ([282]i.
21) a rhuparia or defilement and a perisseia or excrescence (unnatural growth).
Still why "the body," for St James certainly regarded the Divine image as (at
least in the first instance) inward and spiritual? Probably because he regarded
the body as the outward expression of the inward mind; and the, external
deformities of passion as true types as well as results of the invisible
deformities from which they spring. Moreover the action of the tongue might be
regarded as staining the action of the whole body, the total conduct of which
the body is the organ. Cf. also Eccles. v. 5.

kai phlogizousa ton trochon tes geneseos, and it setteth on fire the wheel of
man's creation] Here we reach one of the hardest phrases in the Bible. To
discuss it fully would take too long. We must be content to deal with the
leading points. At the outset Grotius' suggestion that trochon should be read
trochon, a running or course, must be set aside. The word, chiefly poetic, is
never used figuratively; and at all events phlogizousa points to some physical
image. The suggestion comes from too prosaic a dealing with the imagery of a
prophet. Phl. t. trochoe must mean "setting on fire the wheel."

But then what is t. geneseos, and what wheel is meant? Attention was called
eight years ago by Hilgenfeld (ZWT. 1873. 20; cf. Einl. 539 f.) to the certainly
curious fact that Simplicius on Arist. de caelo ii. p. 91 B in allegorising
Ixion's wheel says, "and he hath been bound by God to tes moiras trocho kai tes
geneseos, hon adunaton metallaxai kat' Orphea (what follows is hopelessly
corrupt, but ends with tas anthropinas psuchas), clearly referring to an Orphic
doctrine. The sense comes out more clearly, but with kuklos for trochos, in
Procl. Tim. v. 330 A (on Plato's words te tautou kai homoiou periodo, "This is
the one salvation of the soul which is held forth by the Creator, delivering it
tou kuklou t. geneseos and from the great error and from the ineffectual life,
namely the ascent of the soul to the spiritual region (to noeron eidos) and its
flight from all things which cleave to us ek tes geneseos; and lower down (B) .
. . apo tes peri ten genesin planes, hes kai hoi par' Orphei to Dionuso kai te
Kore teloumenoi tuchein euchontai

Kuklou t' au lexai kai anapneusai kakotetos.

There is somewhat similar language in Procl. Tim. i. 32 E and Theol. Pl. vi. 3
p. 351; cf. Verg. Aen. vi. 748, Hos omnes ubi mille rotam volvere per annos. For
geneseos we have anankes in the statement of Diog. Laert. viii. 14, Vit. Pyth.,
"They say that he was the first to declare the soul kuklon anankes ameibousan
allote allois endeisthai zoois. So more vaguely, without reference to any one in
particular, Chrys. Mt. lxxv. 728 C, periphoran kai genesin legontes. Also Philo
de Somn. ii. 6, p. 664 of Pharaoh's gold chain round Joseph's neck, anchonen
epiphane, kuklon kai trochon anankes ateleutetou, . . . ouk akolouthian kai to
hexes en bio kai ton heirmon ton tes phuseos pragmaton, hos he Thamar, ou gar
kloios, all' hormiskos autes ho kosmos (cf. de mut. nom. 23 p. 598). In the
first places cited the reference is certainly to the Orphic or Pythagorean
doctrine of a cycle of metempsychosis: Chrys. and Philo are ambiguous. Another
passage of Simplicius (Comm. in Epict. Ench. p. 177 C) gives it a distinctly
wider sense, "The dissolution of compounds and the change of simples one into
another is good for the whole; since the destruction of one is the origin
(genesis) of another; and this is the cause why ton tes geneseos kuklon remains
imperishable (anekleipton).

But it is most improbable that St James should use a phrase of this origin to
convey a doctrine with which he can have had no sympathy. The Orphic doctrine
would be entirely alien to him (notwithstanding Hilgenfeld's references to
threskos), and the vaguer doctrine hardly less. Genesis in this connexion was
the word used in late Greek philosophy to express natural necessity; the
necessary chain of causation; and it was especially opposed to any religious
view of the world.

An equal improbability lies in the mode of use: this setting on fire of the
trochon t. geneseos is evidently spoken of as an evil thing; but to a believer
in God this interruption of the wheel of earthbound destiny would be no subject
for regret. The interpretation thus just inverts the purport of the sentence.

Moreover it is difficult to think that tes geneseos should recur in two places
of the Epistle (here and [283]i. 23) in very peculiar phrases, yet be entirely
different in sense: for whatever sense we give to geneseos with to prosopon, it
cannot possibly be destiny.

Another simpler image occurs in various classical writers, partly again in
connexion with Ixion, that of human life as a wheel rolling down hill over all
sorts of inequalities: thus Sil. Ital. vi. 120. But here too there is no special
force in the setting fire, and t. geneseos remains inexplicable. The same may be
said of the vaguer senses "course of life," "course of nature."

The true clue is doubtless to be found in t. geneseos which we saw (on [284]i.
23) to refer to the original creation of man. It is not in classical but in
biblical language that we should naturally expect to find the explanation. Not
the heathen godless genesis but the genesis of revelation, the origin of the
world in the will and purpose of God, is denoted by the word for St James. It is
the tldt or mldt (see Gen. ii. 4; v. 1), whence Genesis has its Greek name.
Ktisis is not used in LXX. (though ktizo is): see 2 Macc. vii. 23, ho tou kosmou
ktistes, ho plasas anthropou genesin kai panton exeuron genesin. It thus is
equivalent to what in modern language we call Creation. The phrase "the wheel of
creation" is limited by the sense of the rest of the sentence to "the wheel of
man's creation," i.e. the wheel of man's nature according to its original Divine
purpose, just as ti prosopon t. geneseos autou is "the face of his creation,"
the face reflecting the Divine image in which he was created.

What then is meant by the wheel? It can hardly be the detached wheel rolling
uselessly along, as in the classical image. It must be the chariot wheel of man
as he advances on the way of life, fulfilling his appointed course. Probably, I
do not say more, but probably there is an allusion to the wheel in the vision of
Ezekiel (i. 15, 16b, 19-21). This may sound fanciful till we remember that this
vision of Ezekiel, called the Chariot by the later Jews, was in Jewish thought
associated with the Creation. According to the imagery of the vision, the wheel
might be the body and all its activities, by means of which the spirit moves
upon the earth. This is represented as set on fire by the tongue, because its
orderly Divinely-appointed motion is made violent and irregular by the passions
which the tongue excites: it catches fire, and loses its power to fulfil its
proper course. [See Additional Note.]

kai phlogizomene hupo tes geennes, and is set on fire by hell] The fire is not a
fire from above but from beneath. This seems to be the true force of the
reference to Gehenna, which usually in the N.T. appears simply as the place of
punishment for evil (whether we mean by punishment retribution only, or
retribution combined with purification), not excepting perhaps Mt. xxiii. 15,
huion geennes, as itself so to speak a realm of evil. The fire lighted at the
nether fires is a simpler and broader image, answering in some degree to the
lower wisdom of [285]v. 15. Wetstein quotes the Targum on Ps. cxx. 2 (where the
hot burning coals may be taken as describing either the operation of the tongue
or its punishment, or indeed both, i.e. its appropriate punishment) Lingua
dolosa . . . cum carbonibus juniperi, qui incensi sunt in gehenna inferne.

^7 pasa gar phusis therion te kai peteinon herpeton te kai enalion damazetai kai
dedamastai te phusei te anthropine;

7. gar, For] The purpose of gar seems to be to introduce an explanation and
justification of the strong language just used. From the word "bridle" in
[286]v. 2 St James has been led to the idea of a small agency exercising great
power, and especially to the image of fire as representing the tongue: and now
he proceeds to explain this, pointing first to its unbridledness, and then to
its strange inconsistency of action.

pasa gar phusis, every nature] Phusis is often used periphrastically with the
genitive, so that this might mean simply "all beasts and birds," etc. And it is
also sometimes used for "kind." Thus Diod. Sic. i. 10, he ge palin ex arches
kainas enenke ton zoon phuseis; Plut. ii. 636 E, zoon de pollas phuseis tou
kosmou periechontos, ouden, hos eipein, genos amoiron esti tes ex oou geneseos.
But even in such places the original sense is latent, "many kinds" as dependent
on "many natures." Here, at all events, the strict sense is required by te
phusei te anthropine; for although anthropine phusis is occasionally, though
very rarely, equivalent to "mankind," the periphrasis would have a rhetorical
unnaturalness here, especially in the resolved form te ph. te anth. (not te
anth. ph.). The meaning doubtless is that the inherent nature of man, that
nature which proceeds from the Divine image, has proved its kingship over the
natures of different classes of animals, probably with reference to Gen. i. 28;
ix.2. The meaning cannot be that every kind, or the nature of every kind, of
animals has been tamed; which would be manifestly untrue: but each of these four
great classes is considered as having a special nature. An exact parallel is 1
Cor. xv. 39, alle de sarx ktenon k.t.l. What is there said of the outward flesh
is here implied as to the inward nature.

therion te kai peteinon herpeton te kai enalion, of beasts and birds, of
creeping things and things in the sea] These classes are exactly and almost
verbally taken from Gen. ix. 2, which is a modification of [287]i. 28. Theria
probably includes both theria and ktene of [288]i. 28, the fiercest and least
tameable of quadrupeds being taken as representatives of the whole class:
peteina and erpeta are taken as they stand.

In the second pair erpeton answers to therion in the first, and doubtless was
intended especially to include serpents, with especial reference to the tongue
(see [289]v. 8). The allusion may be to the sacred tame serpents which were kept
in different temples, for instance in those of Asclepius. Tame fish, sacred and
other, were also known to the ancients (see Ael. Nat. An. viii. 4; xii. 30).
Enalia answer to ichthues. A poetic word, used in prose in this general manner
in late writers only, as Ps.-Arist. de mundo 5, houtos enalion zoon kai pezon
kai aerion phuseis echorisen; Plut. ii. 911 D, to ton enalion genos contrasted
with ta chersaia; also 729 E, epheidonto malista ton enalion.

damazetai kai dedamastai te phusei te anthropine, is tamed and hath been tamed
into subjection to the nature that is human] First comes the general statement
that they are tamed: then the thought occurs that there are domestic races which
have been tamed long ago; and so the present acquires a more precise sense.

There is a long-established conquest by the human race transmitted by hereditary
instinct, and it is being perpetually renewed. Damazo is sometimes applied to
the mere crushing of a foe: its proper sense is taming, subduing not for
destruction but for orderly use, as with horses and oxen. There is no clear
indication that use is contemplated here: but rather the general notion of
taming, involving obedience and restraint. There is probably a reminiscence of
what has been said above of the bridling of horses.

The taming is part of the lordship of the earth bestowed in Gen. i. 28, and
corresponds to the government (archete LXX.) over the lower animals which there
follows: cf. Ps. viii. 6 ff. This is brought out by the emphatic form te phusei
te anth.; lit. "the nature that is human," i.e. the conquest is connected with
the characteristic prerogative of the living soul which God breathed into man.
The dative is probably not the simple dative of agency with a passive verb, of
which (except with passive participles) there is no clear case in the N.T. All
the instances seem to fall under one of two heads, including the idea either of
appearing to (as a heuretho humin 2 Cor. xii. 20; auto heurethenai 2 Pet. iii.
14; egnosthe Lk. xxiv. 35; Phil. iv. 5) or of being subjected to (here, and ho
tis hettetai 2 Pet. ii. 19). Thus the sense is not simply tamed by the human
nature, but tamed into subjection to it. See the chorus in the Antigone 332 ff.,
esp. 342-351.

^8ten de glossan oudeis damasai dunatai anthropon; akatastaton kakon, meste iou
thanatephorou.

8. ten de glossan oudeis damasai dunatai anthropon, but the tongue can no one,
even of men, tame] By a vivid image the tongue is projected, as it were, out of
human nature and spoken of as though it had a separate life of itsown, over
which no one can gain complete mastery. And though in strictness the tongue is
nothing more than the organ by which what is in the heart and mind is expressed,
yet experience shews that speech or utterance, as such, has what may well be
called a magic power which acts reflexly on the mind within: so that St James'
language does express a true fact, though it does not attempt to explain all the
grounds of it. There may be, that is, a kind of conflict between a man and his
own tongue, or his own impulse of utterance, in which his true self gets
worsted.

The position of anthropon is at once secondary and emphatic; it might be "the
tongue no one can tame, -- no one, that is, of men"; but is rather "no one, even
of men," even of those beings so highly endowed, of whom he has been just
speaking.

akatastaton kakon, a disorderly evil] This is the true reading, not
akatascheton, which would be merely a feeble repetition of oudeis damasai
dunatai. St James has used the word already in [290]i. 8, and akatastasia in
[291]iii. 16, where it is coupled with pan phaulon pragma. To his mind it
expressed the utmost evil, the disorder which is the entire opposite of God's
perfect purpose and man's single-minded surrender to God's purpose. Cf. 1 Cor.
xiv. 33.

Not akatastaton only, but ak. kakon. It is startling to hear the tongue called
"an evil," rather than its misuse. But (1) the adjective explains how it becomes
an evil; and (2) its evil arises from the very fact of its independence, i.e.
from its isolation from the integrity of humanity. There is just the same
abnormal and morbid independence as in the case of a desire which in like manner
can be conceived of as something distinct from the man in whom it arises
([292]i. 14 f.).

meste, full of] Not meston: it cannot therefore agree with kakon, but goes back
to he glossa. The tongue not merely contains deadly venom, it is charged with
it: cf. Ps. lviii. 4; cxl. 3. There must be an indirect reference to a poisonous
serpent, as in these Psalms; the image probably being derived in the first
instance from the flexibility and mobility of the actual tongue.

^9en aute eulogoumen ton kurion kai patera, kai en aute katarometha tous
anthropous tous kath' homoiosin theou gegonotas;

9. en aute (bis), therein] The phrase is remarkable. The purely instrumental use
of en is Hebraistic, and found only in such writers of the N.T. as admit a
certain (not very large) amount of Hebraism. It does not agree with the general
colour of St James' language. Nor does this passage come well under the rather
vague "causal" use of en (Jelf 246 f.; Kühner ii. 403 f.). But St James' purpose
is probably to identify ourselves with the tongue. If he had said di' autes, it
would have expressed a pure instrumentality: we should have appeared solely as
the speakers, the tongue as our organ merely. Now the whole passage implies a
kind of independent power over us exerted by the faculty of utterance; so that
St James intentionally makes the tongue an actual speaker as well as an organ of
speech: in the tongue we bless God, almost in the sense "in the person of the
tongue." The nearest parallel is in Rom. xv. 6, en heni stomati doxazete
k.t.l..: cf. also Mt. ix. 34, en to archonti ton daimonion; and Acts xvii. 31,
krinein t. oikoumenen . . . en andri ho horisen.

eulogoumen, we bless] This is the highest function of speech. As man's relation
to God is the supreme fact of his nature which alone puts all others into their
right place, so blessing God for His goodness and His benefits is the supreme
use of the powers of utterance. Thus (Lk. i. 64) this is the first use which
Zacharias makes of the recovered power, aneochthe de to stoma . . . kai he
glossa autou, kai elalei eulogon ton theon. Cf. Ps. li. 15.

ton kurion (not theon) kai patera, the Lord and Father] The less common phrase
is the true reading. The kurion expresses God's majesty and His rule over all
His creatures, and especially over men who have the privilege of being able to
render conscious obedience. Patera expresses both rule and love, and also all
the associations connected with the human word, in reference ([293]i. 18) to the
first origin of man as not merely owing his existence to God's fiat but a
partaker of the Divine nature as being made in God's image.

katarometha, we curse] Kataromai originally took the accusative of the thing,
the dative of the person: "imprecate this or that against a man," the thing
imprecated being sometimes omitted. But in late writers (Plutarch, Lucian) it
succumbs to the general tendency to pure transitiveness. The first person
katarometha (as well as eulogoumen) is singular, because St James does not seem
to be speaking directly of a universal human shortcoming (polla ptaiomn hapantes
[294]v. 2).

As far as this verse goes, the meaning might be only that blessing and cursing
are both utterances of the tongue: but [295]v. 10 shews that St James meant to
say that they come from the very same tongue, and that he is in fact attacking
not merely a vice of the tongue but a false kind of religion. He is dealing with
a tendency, close akin to that which he combated at the end of chapter i., to a
loveless religiosity, the combination of professed devotion to God with
indifference and even hatred to men. He implies that the utterance of blessing
must be spurious if it does not include men as its objects as well as God: cf. 1
Pet. iii. 9; Rom. xii. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 12; and their source, the use of the word
in Lk. vi. 28, where it has a stronger force than appears at first sight.

It is to be observed that ton kurion kai patera here repeats the to theo kai
patriof [296]i. 27.

tous anthropous, men] Not simply individual men, but mankind: the curse uttered
against the hated or despised individual persons was in effect a wrong done to
mankind, and sprang from an evil spirit as towards mankind, a disregard of the
second law, the law of love to neighbours. It was the temper of the Pharisees in
Jn vii. 49, "This people which knoweth not the law are accursed."

tous kath' homoiosin theou gegonotas, which are made after the likeness of God]
Here the latent doctrine of the Epistle breaks out into plain words. The
connexion between the two supreme forms of love which together make up the sum
of human duty is not accidental: the love of man is founded on the love of God.
The tenderness and mercy shewn to the lower animals form but a small part in
that true love of men which attaches itself to the Godlike in them, hidden as
the image may often be; so that the cursing of them is a cursing of that which
bears the stamp of the Creator's own nature.

St James chooses not the kat' eikona, but the second phrase kath' homoiosin, not
elsewhere found in the N.T. On these words it is worth while to refer to
Delitzsch New Comm. on Genes. E.T. i. pp. 99 f., on the words tslm eikon, and
dmvt homoiosis. In image, he says, the representation of the primitive form or
model predominates, in likeness the representation of the pattern or ideal. He
accordingly treats the difference as justifying the interpretation common in the
Fathers, by which likeness is the gradual process of assimilation to the
archetypal image; image belonging to fundamental nature, likeness to progressive
character. The distinction is an important one, whether it was intended in
Genesis or not; a point very hard to determine. There does not appear, however,
to be any trace of it here, where the reference is rather to what God originally
made men to be than to what they have grown to be under His fatherly nurture.

Gegonotas with kath' homoiosin expresses at once the primitive origin and the
present continuance of the state which it introduced: in St James' eyes mankind
are still in the likeness of God for all their sin and evil. Beresh. Rabb. 24
fin. (on Gen. v. i), "According to R. Akiba the words Lev. xix. 18, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself,' are a comprehensive principle of the Law. Thou
shouldest not say Because I have been despised, may my neighbour be despised
with me; and because I have been cursed, may my neighbour be cursed with me.' If
thou attest so, said R. Tanchuma, know that he whom thou despisest is made after
the image of God." On the image cf. Ecclus. xvii. 3 (and context).

^10ek tou autou stomatos exerchetai eulogia kai katara. ou chre, adelphoi mou,
tauta houtos ginesthai.

10. ek tou autou stomatos, from the same mouth] This merely states clearly and
emphatically what was implied in [297]v. 9. It excludes the notion of different
tongues blessing and cursing: it is not "from the same source," but definitely
"from the same mouth."

Cf. Testam. Benj. 6, he agathe dianoia ouk echei duo glossas eulogias kai
kataras.

ou chre, adelphoi mou, tauta houtos ginesthai, It is not fitting, my brethren,
that these things should so be] Here St James turns from his statement to direct
expostulation, intermitted since [298]v. 1; so that the division of verses is
very awkward, though modern editions of the A.V. have partially mended it by
putting a full stop in the middle.

Adelphoi mou marks the sudden turn of language, kept up by the repetition in
[299]v. 12.

chre occurs here alone in the N.T., not at all in the LXX. or Apocrypha. Though
St James does not use dei, chre is not a synonym. It is a somewhat vague word,
apparently starting from the sense "there is need." In ethical applications it
comes nearer to prepei or kathekei than to dei, meaning rather "fitting,"
"congruous to a law or rather standard." Hence St James probably does not mean "
this conduct of yours is wrong," but "this doubleness in the use of the tongue
is an unnatural monstrous thing." Then tauta has probably the definite sense,
the blessing on the one hand and the cursing on the other: it is a monstrous
state to be in that this blessing and this cursing should be constantly arising
on this footing of identical origin, from the same tongue, the organ of the same
mind. Thus, there is no redundance in the two words tauta houtos; and the
present ginesthai has also its force, for he is speaking not of casual sins but
of a settled and deliberate habit.

^11meti he pege ek tes autes opes bruei to gluku kai to pikron;

11. meti, Can it be that] The ti added to me strengthens it, suggesting
impossibility. Two similar uses of it in the N.T. are Mk iv. 21 and Lk. vi. 39.
In other places it is used where the possibility is recognised by the side of
the unexpectedness.

he pege, the fountain] The force of the article is not obvious: suke has none,
and a fountain, as such, has no particular title to be spoken of generically.
The true reason probably is that St James is thinking of what the fountain
stands for, the heart. The reference to he pege in itself proves that the tongue
was to him merely the organ of a power within. Doubtless he remembered (Mt. xii.
34) ek gar tou perisseumatos tes kardias to stoma lalei, the overflow. And so he
pege = he kardia (cf. ho ophthalmos, to soma).

opes, crevice] Ope is properly a chink in a wall for looking through. It then
comes to be applied to holes and burrows in the ground, as those of ants and of
hibernating animals, or somewhat larger clefts in the rock (Heb. xi. 38, etc.).
Here too it is probably the crevice in a face of rock through which a stream
bursts forth. The pege is not to be confounded with the well. On the springs of
Palestine see Stanley Sinai and Palestine pp. 123, 146, and Grove's App. 500 ff.

bruei, sends forth] Bruo is chiefly used of the fresh and vigorous putting forth
of herbage by the earth, or of leaves, flowers, or fruits by plants and trees;
but also sometimes of the shooting forth of water by a source (cf. Clem. Alex.
Paed. i. 6. 45; iii. 7. 39). Usually also it occurs with a dative, but
occasionally in late writers, as here, with an accusative.

to gluku kai to pikron, that which is sweet and that which is bitter] The
articles are not easy. If we supply nothing, and understand merely "that which
is sweet," etc., the articles are quite justified, and on the whole this is
best, the most general abstract opposites being used here in the first instance,
and then halukon afterwards substituted. The mere omission of hudor would create
no difficulty: but a generalisation of water "the sweet water," "the bitter
water" does not seem natural here.

St James would be familiar with bitter springs from those of Tiberias (see
Reland Palest. 301 ff., 1039 f.; Robinson Bibl. Res. ii. 384).

^12me dunatai, adelphoi mou, suke elaias poiesai e ampelos suka; oute halukon
gluku poiesai hudor.

12. Not only a new image comes in here, but a new point of view, prepared for by
part of [300]v. 11. In [301]9-[302]11 St James has dwelt on the inconsistency of
the two kinds of speech as coming forth from the same tongue, as though bitter
and sweet came alike from the same spring. But he pege has carried us back from
the springs to the inner reservoirs, from the mouth to the heart; and so now a
comparison between the heart and its utterance, rather than between two
utterances, comes into view. The image is formed by examples of our Lord's
words, Lk. vi. 44, "Each tree is known by its own fruit." Wishing to treat them
gently, he keeps within the limits of that single sentence of Christ, as though
it were only one kind of fruit tree as against another, all three being good and
useful. But doubtless he intended them to apply the associated words, which
spoke of "corrupt trees" and of "thorns" and "thistles "(Lk. vi. 43 f. || Mt.
vii. 16-20). In so doing he was indirectly implying that the curses uttered by
their tongues expressed the contents of their hearts more truly than the
blessings, which he assumes to be unreal words. The same comes out more clearly
in the next image.

oute halukon gluku poiesai hudor, neither can salt water yield sweet] So we must
read for houtos and oudemia pege al. kai gluku, a vapid repetition of [303]v.
11. Oute is hard and some good MSS. naturally substitute oude, but by a manifest
grammatical correction. In late Greek the original difference of oute and oude,
mete and mede, became to a great extent broken down. This may be seen in the
N.T. (as Acts xxiii. 8), and still more in later MSS. of the N.T. See
Win.-Moult. 614 if. Probably the best way to explain this oute, which Lachmann
thought corrupt, and which seems to have no exact parallel, is to treat the
previous questions as equivalent to negative assertions: "the fountain does not,
the fig tree cannot, nor can," etc.

halukon] Simply "salt" as an adjective: doubtless hudor, kept to the end, goes
with both al. and gluku. Poiesai is borrowed from above, being used of natural
producing. As applied to hudor it means to rain, and this is a rare use.
Doubtless St James purposely retained the same word as an image in the sense,
out of a reservoir of salt water springs forth no fountain of sweet water. Thus
he distinctly implies, though he still leaves the rebuke to implication, that
not the verbal blessing of God but the cursing of men was a true index to what
lay within. It is no longer merely a difference of kinds placed on a level, but
one is evil, the other good. Thus this sentence is no mere repetition of [304]v.
11, but goes far beyond it.

^13Tis sophos kai epistemon en humin; deixato ek tes kales anastrophes ta erga
autou en prauteti sophias.

13. Here the long digression on the tongue ends, and St James returns with full
recollection of what he has said in the interval, to the interrupted warning of
[305]v. 1 against being "many teachers." The excuse for this ambitious
teachership was the possession of wisdom, and so he goes on now to consider the
true and the false wisdom. Speech and wisdom, as good things liable to grievous
abuse, appear in like manner in 1 Corinthians (i. 5, 17, and thence on through
ii.; also iii. 18 f., etc.).

Tis is by no means equivalent to hos. The only passage in the N.T. where this
can be, and this at best is doubtful, is Acts xiii. 25. But it shews how the one
sense can pass over into the other. St James rather calls upon anyone who makes
this claim to come forward, and hear what the true demand upon him is. Cf. Ps.
xxxiv. 12, LXX.

sophos kai epistemon, wise and understanding] As Deut. i. 13; iv. 6. Epistemon
especially expresses personal acquaintance with things, conversance with them:
it thus includes experience.

deixato, let him shew] Cf. [306]ii. 18 bis; ek also as there.

kales, good] As directly beheld and contemplated, as distinguished from agathos
good in fruit or result. Thus here it manifestly refers to a goodness which can
be seen and recognised. This comes out strongly in the parallel but more limited
passage 1 Pet. ii. 12, where conduct which even the heathen must honour and
admire is expressed by kalos (also anastrophe): on this application of letting
the light shine before men cf. Rom. xii. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 21.

anastrophes, behaviour] Anastrophe is "manner of life." Perhaps "behaviour" is
the most exact rendering. Anastrephesthai (=versari) is first used of externals,
to have your employment in a place, be going to and fro in it. Then in later
Greek as Polybius it is used ethically: the verb, not the substantive, occurs
once or twice in this sense in LXX., but the substantive in Apocr. In the N.T.
in the Epistles generally (not Evv., Act., Apoc.), and doubtless widely used at
that time. Chiefly, and perhaps wholly, it means in the N.T. acts performed
towards others, social conduct, whether as towards fellow Christians or towards
the world at large.

ta erga autou, his works] This is no tautology: his works are not simply his
acts, but the utterance and outcome of his wisdom and understanding. It is
assumed that the use of wisdom and understanding is practical (so [307]i. 5 in
connexion with [308]i. 4); so that ta erga autou are equivalent to "the works of
the wise man." Just as works in chap. ii. were the manifestation of faith, so
they are here of wisdom. The works are to be shewn forth in contrast to the
words to which vv. [309]1-[310]12 refer.

en prauteti sophias, in meekness of wisdom] Here comes in the controlling
spirit, the mention of which indicates what it was that vitiated the supposed
wisdom. It was pride and bitterness, exaltation of self and not contempt only
but hatred of others. Both of these characteristics are negatived together by
"meekness," including at once humility towards self, and gentleness and
forbearance towards others (contrast with [311]v. 14). The word itself stands
twice in the Gospels as spoken by Christ, Mt. v. 5, "Blessed are the meek"; xi.
29, "for I am meek"; and in Zech. ix. 9, quoted by Mt. xxi. 5, it is a
characteristic of King Messiah as He comes to Jerusalem. It occurs a few times
in LXX. (chiefly for nv), and is the word applied to Moses (Numb. xii. 3). In
[312]i. 21 St James had dwelt on meekness as a condition of receptivity in
hearing: here conversely he speaks of it as a condition of the true shewing
forth to others for their instruction.

At first sight en prauteti sophias is a paradox. The arrogant disputer is ready
to praise meekness as a fitting virtue for the weak and foolish; but thinks it
out of place for himself St James lays down on the other hand that it is a fruit
and mark of wisdom. He who is wise in a true sense of the word, he means, cannot
but be meek. By meekness of behaviour wisdom will be displayed rather than
disguised. St James leaves untouched the question whether the possession of
wisdom is a sufficient ground for assuming the responsibilities of teaching. He
implies that the kale anastrophe must come first, and then much at least of the
ostentatious teaching will disappear.

^14ei de zelon pikron echete kai erithian en te kardia humon, me katakauchasthe
kai pseudesthe kata tes aletheias.

14. zelon, jealousy] A word that oscillates between a good and an evil sense,
both occurring in the N.T. Arist. (Rhet. ii. 11. 1) distinguishes it from
phthonos, as emulation from envy; he says, kai epieikes estin ho zelos kai
epieikon, to de phthonein phaulon kai phaulon, etc.; and classical writers
generally incline to an at least not distinctly evil sense, which they express
rather by phthonos or zelotupia. But in the Acts zelos is distinctly evil, and
so in at least St Paul and St James. St James, however, though in [313]v. 16 he
uses zelos absolutely as St Paul does, here precludes mistake by adding pikron.

erithian, ambition, rivalry] Combined with zelos likewise in Gal. v. 20. A
curious word with an obscure history: see Fritzsche Rom. 143-8, the best
account, but very imperfect. Erithos (derivation doubtful) in Homer's time is a
hired labourer, apparently an agricultural labourer (Etym. Mag. kurios de ho ten
gen ergazomenos ergates epi mistho): and a gloss of Hesychius (eritheuei, eike,
ergaze maten) seems to shew that labour or work was the main idea. The same is
always the force of the somewhat commoner compound sunerithos. The fundamental
passage is Odyss. vi. 32, where Athene tells Nausicaa that she will accompany
her kai toi ego sunerithos ham' hepsomai, when she goes with the housemaidens to
wash the linen. This one passage apparently gave rise to many others, one in
Aristoph. Pax 785 and many in late poets; also Plat. Rep. vii. 533 D; Leg. x.
889 D of the arts cooperative, coancillary with, philosophy, whence also Orig.
Ep. ad Greg. i. Afterwards, probably from wrong etymology, it was used of women
servants spinning wool. But in Arist. Polit. v. 2, 3 we find eritheia, -euomai
in a quite different sense. Speaking of changes of political constitution, some
he says take place from arrogance, some from fear; some from preeminence, some
from contempt and so on: and then some di' eritheian. The term is explained by
the next chapter: "Constitutions change without sedition also dia tas eritheias,
as at Heraea, ex haireton gar dia touto epoiesan klerotas, hoti hepounto tous
eritheuomenous" i.e. apparently they changed the mode of appointment to offices
from election to lot, because they chose tous eritheuomenous: this may mean
either candidates who bribed, or who courted and gained a following in other
ways. Suidas says, erithia; he dia logon philoneikia, legetai de kai he
mistharnia. More definitely speaking of dekazesthai (bribery) he says, homoion
kai to eritheuesthai to dekazesthai estin, kai he eritheia eiretai apo tes tou
misthou doseos (cf. Etym. Mag. 254). This points to the gaining of followers and
adherents by gifts. It might, however, be by arts as well as gifts: see Ezek.
xxiii. 5, 12, kai heritheusato (Sym.). But apparently the word came to be used
not merely of the manner of winning followers, but of the seeking of followers
itself. Thus Hesych., hepritheumenon pephilotimemenon, heritheueto ephiloneikei:
hence to be ambitious, indulge in ambitious rivalry. The Scholl on Soph. Ajax
833, ho de Sophokles eritheusai men ti hos presbutero (sc. Aeschylus) me
bouletheis, ou men paralipein auto dokimazon psilos phesi k.t.l.; Polyb. x. 25.
9, hoi de tes strategias oregomenoi dia tautes tes arches exeritheuontai tous
neous, kai paraskeuazousin eunous sunagonistas eis to mellon. It is likewise
implicitly coupled with philotimia in Philo Leg. ad Caium 10 (ii. 555),
hegemonia d' aphiloneikos kai aneritheutos orthe mone. (The passages in Eust.
Opusc. ap. Stephan. suit either "ambition "or " faction." Cf. C.I.G. 2671. 46,
aneritheutoi)

What sense the earlier Greek Fathers attached to it in St Paul does not appear.
Chrys. on Rom. ii. 8 seems to identify it with philoneikias tinos kai rhathumias
as if he had eris in mind: in the four other places we learn nothing, nor do we
from Theodore: Didymus on 2 Cor. has eridas te kai eritheias. Theodoret on Rom.
is strange and obscure. The Latin evidence is as follows:

Rom. ii. 8, contentione d g vg pp

2 Cor. xii. 20, dissensions d g r vg Ambst

Gal. v. 20, provocationes simultates Cyp^2 (em. Nemesianus) simultates Ambst
inritationes d g Iren rixae Luc Hier vg

Phil. i. 17, aemulatione Tert dissensione d contentione g Ambst vg contumaciam r
Aug^3 invidia(m) et contentione(m) Aug^2

Phil. ii. 3, contentionem d g vg Aug Amb al aemulationem Hil irritationem Ambst

Jam. iii. 14, contentionem (es) f s vg Aug

Jam. iii. 16, contentio f s vg Aug

Most of these renderings suggest the erroneous association with eris (also
"contention" syr vg): but aemulatio (Tert Hil) may have another force. Some of
the N.T. places are ambiguous: but wherever the context has a defining force, it
is in favour of the sense found in Polyb. etc. The difficult Rom. ii. 8 must be
taken with Phil. i. 17, which seems to point to the Judaizing leaders, who
intrigued against St Paul. In 2 Cor. xii. 20 it is separated from eris by zelos
and thumoi and precedes katalaliai, so also in Gal., though followed by
dichostasiai. In Phil. ii. 3 it is coupled with kenodoxia and contrasted with
tareinophrosune: so here with zelos. Thus all points to the personal ambition of
rival leaderships. There is no real evidence for "party spirit," "faction,"
etc., i.e. for the vice of the followers of a party: erithia really means the
vice of a leader of a party created for his own pride: it is partly ambition,
partly rivalry.

en te kardia humon, in your heart] Here what answers to the pege is at last
distinctly expressed.

me katakauchasthe, boast not] The imperative is not the most obvious mood: we
should rather have expected some statement of the natural consequences of having
bitter jealousy in the heart, viz. "how can ye do other than boast, etc.?" Me
with a question cannot mean "Do ye not?" so that the imperative is
unquestionable. The meaning seems to be this, "Do not set up for teachers, for
then your teaching will be a boasting, etc." It is thus in antithesis to deixato
in [314]v. 13. He asks "Who is wise etc.?" The possession of wisdom was made a
claim to teachership. He deals with it first positively. There is a right way to
show forth wisdom. But, he goes on, if when searching your hearts you find
bitter jealousy and ambition there, do not speak and teach, for in shewing forth
what you regard as your wisdom you will be boasting etc.

katakauchasthe] As in [315]ii. 13 (cf. [316]1. 9; [317]iv. 16), but here
followed by an additional kata. This one word exactly expresses the true spirit
and purpose of the ambitious teachership. It was boasting against other men,
partly against the multitude, still more against rival teachers. But St James
unexpectedly puts in another object. The boasting directed against other men
would in effect be a boasting against the truth itself which was supposed to be
spoken. Nay it would be more, it would turn to falsehood uttered against the
truth.

kai pseudesthe kata, and lie not against] If necessary the kata might be
repeated in sense from katakauchasthe (Kühner ii. 1073 f.): but a better sense
is given by the words as they stand: the adverse boast turns to simple
falsehood, and the truth suffers from both.

tes aletheias, the truth] For somewhat similar contexts of he aletheia see Rom.
i. 18; ii. 8 (also ex erithias), 20; 1 Jn i. 6, 8. The implied doctrine is a
paradox, but amply attested by experience. The mere possession of truth is no
security for true utterance of it: all utterance is so coloured by the moral and
spiritual state of the speaker that truth issues as falsehood from his lips in
proportion as he is himself not in a right state: the correct language which be
utters may carry a message of falsehood and evil in virtue of the bitterness and
self-seeking which accompanies his speaking. At bottom such speakers do not
cherish the truth except as a possession of their own, or a missile of their
own.

^15ouk estin haute he sophia anophen katerchoµene, alla epigeios, psuchike,
daiµoniodes

15. ouk estin haute he sophia, This wisdom is not] These words are enough to
confirm the interpretation of [318]v. 14 just given. No evil wisdom has been
directly spoken of. But it is implied in katakauchasthe etc.: the speech there
spoken of is the speech which claims to be the speech of wisdom: now therefore
St James will say what the wisdom is. Wisdom as such is what he specially prized
([319]i. 5; [320]iii. 17), which made him all the more hostile to its
counterfeit.

anophen katerchoµene, a wisdom that cometh down from above] estin . . .
katerchoµene is not equivalent to ou katerchetai. The participle is qualitative,
i.e. in effect an adjective: "is not one that cometh down," "is not of a kind
that cometh down": it is not such a wisdom as God gives ([321]i. 5). Cf. Philo
Leg. All. iii. 58 (i. 120), toutois (tried ascetes) sumbibeke me tois geinois
alla tais epouraniais epistemais trephesthai.

alla epigeios, but is earthly] Opposed to epouranios. It belongs to the earthly
sphere. However it may discourse about heavenly things, it derives its aims and
its measures from a mere transfer of things earthly to a higher sphere: it has
none of the large vision which belongs to the spirit. Compare ta epigeia
phronountes of Phil. iii. 19, likewise said, I believe, of Judaizers, and Col.
iii. 2, which manifestly refers to them, and has the same context (ii. 23) logon
m?n echonta sophias. Speaking to Greeks St Paul analogously refers to he sophia
tou kosmou toutou (1 Cor. i. 20; iii. 19), tou aionos toutou (ii. 6). All these
three words gain their proper sense only when understood in antithesis to
characteristics of the true wisdom. The spurious wisdom, in relation to its
source and sphere, is earthly not from heaven.

psuchike, of the mind] A remarkable word, not known in this sense before the
N.T. It occurs in four passages: 1 Cor. ii. 14, ps. anthropos contrasted with ho
pneumatikos; 1 COr. xv. 44 (bis), 46, soma ps. contrasted with soma pneumatikon;
Jude 19, psuchikoi, pneuma me echontes. These all contain express opposition to
pneumatikos, and the same is doubtless implied here. It is not likely that St
James and St Jude borrowed it, in such different connexions, from St Paul; and
St Paul's own manner of using it in both places does not suggest that he was
giving it a new sense. Most probably all three writers took it from the Greek
religious language of Palestine. In earlier usage the word means simply of or
belonging to the psuche; and this is fundamentally the biblical sense, the only
peculiar colouring coming from the way in which the psuche was regarded as not
identical with the pneuma but inferior to it. On this head there is very little
Jewish evidence (Delitzsch seems to know of none: Hor. Hebr. on 1 Cor. ii. 14 in
Z. S. f. Luth. Th. 1897 p. 209). But Joseph. Ant. i. 1. 2 describing the
Creation says that God kai pneuma eneken auto (man) kai psuchen; and in 4 Macc.
i. 32 (perhaps from a Platonic basis) it is said that of desires some are
psuchikai, some somarikai; and reason (ho logismos) appears to rule over both;
which implies the inferiority of the psuche to reason. Cf. Iren. v. 6. 1; Orig.
on Ezek. Schol. (iii. 727 Migne). What is implied then is that this wisdom does
not rise above the lower parts of the mind. The rendering "sensual" is so far
wrong that it suggests sensuality in the common sense: the Latin animalis is in
like manner correct as taken from anima, but suggests "bestial," which is not
the true sense, which is simply "of the mind" in contrast to "of the spirit."

daimoniodes, demon-like] The word requires care. -odes properly denotes (1)
fullness, (2) similarity. The word itself, a rare word, in all the known
examples means "demon-like," except in two very late writers, where (like
daimonios) it means "supernaturally sent." The interpretation "inspired by
demons" is not unnaturally suggested by katothen erchomene and [322]v. 6
phlogizomene hupo tes geannes; cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1, didaskaliais daimonion. But
that sense is stronger than really suits the context; and the more correct sense
"demon-like" or rather "such as demons have" makes the triad more natural and
complete. The origin and sphere of the spurious wisdom is the earth not heaven;
its seat in man is his soul, not his spirit; the beings with whom he shares it
are the demons, not the angels: thus the wisdom shared by demons answers to the
faith shared by demons of [323]ii. 19.

^16hopou gar zelos kai erithia, ekei akatastasia kai pan phaulon pragma.

16. hopou gar, For where] A necessary justification of what has just been said :
St James has just used strong language respecting the professed wisdom of these
teachers, and the reasonableness of his language did not lie on the surface, but
had to be explained. Hopou and ekei express presence. Though wisdom is God's
gift, it is also an energy of the human mind and heart, and therefore takes its
colour from the condition of the human heart and mind. If jealousy and rivalry
are present there, these other things inconsistent with a truly Divine wisdom
must be present there likewise.

akatastasia, disorder] A Stoic word. Cf. akatastatos [324]i. 8; [325]iii. 8. In
Lk. xxi. 9 (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 5) it is coupled with polemous, as outward commotions
and disorders. In 1 Cor. xiv. 33 it is contrasted with eirene with reference to
orderliness in assemblies of the Church. In 2 Cor. xii. 20 (me pos eris, zelos,
thumoi, erithiai, katalaliai, psithurismoi, phusioseis, akatastasiai) it follows
psithurismoi, phusioseis. The meaning here seems to be that the presence of
jealousy and rivalry implies a disorderly state of mind leading to disorder of
spiritual vision; so that everything is seen in a distorted and disarranged
light, the true mark of wisdom being to discern the inward order of things.

kai pan phaulon pragma, and every worthless matter] Pragma is a vague word,
properly an act, a thing performed, but often used only as "a matter." Cf. Herm.
Vis. i. 1. 8, e ou dokei soi andri dikaio poneron pragma einai ean anabe autou
epi ten kardian he ponera epithumia;

Phaulos expresses not so much moral evil as worthlessness; it is applied to what
is poor, paltry, worthless (four times in N.T. of acts and mostly contrasted
with ta agatha: Jn iii. 20, contrasted with t. aletheian; v. 29; Rom. ix. 11; 2
Cor. v. 10. Tit. ii. 8 is different). Here apparently we have another antithesis
to true wisdom: wisdom discerns not only the order of things, but their relative
worth and dignity: and the presence of what is low and worthless in the heart
and mind incapacitates it for this discernment. Both akatastasia and phaulon
exactly agree with epigeios etc., implying not so much positive evil as the
limitations and paltrinesses that belong to a low order of things.

^17he de anothen sophia proton men agne estin, epeita eirenike, epieikes,
eupeithes, meste eleous kai karpon agathon, adiakritos, anupokritos;

17. he de anothen sophia, But the wisdom that is from above] That there is such
a wisdom is not only implied in [326]v. 15, but stated in [327]i. 5.

proton men, epeita] Apparently express first the purely inward personal
character, second the social character of the true wisdom, the conduct which it
inspires towards others.

agne, pure] The word answers very nearly to "pure," katharos being rather
"clean." It is an ancient word of Greek religion, denoting freedom from any kind
of defilement, whether of sensuality or of things supposed to be of a defiling
nature. Cf. Plut. Qu. Rom. i. (ii. 263 E), Dia ti ten gamoumenen haptesthai
puros kai hudatos keleuousin; . . . e hoti to pur kathairei kai to hudor
hagnizei, dei de katharan kai hagnen diamenein ten gametheisan; It thus
expresses religious purity, combining katharos and agios. But in due time it
acquired an ethical sense. Theoph. (Bernays 68) and Clem. Alex. 652 quote an
inscription from the temple at Epidaurus,

agmon chre naoio thuodeos entos ionta emmenai; hagneie d' esti phronein hosia.

Cf. Clem. 629 with reference to washings, eu goun kakeino eiretai Isthi me
loutro alla noo katharos. hagneia gar, oimai, teleia he tou nou kai ton ergon
kai ton dianoematon, pros de kai ton logon eilikrineia ("Let all thy converse be
sincere"). 1 Jn iii. 3 applies it even to God Himself (= hagios). Thus here it
seems to mean purity from every kind of inward stain or blemish (the positive
side of aspilog heauton terei apo tou kosmou), and that on the ground of
consecration to God. A similar sense and sequence occur 1 Pet. i. 22, tas
psuchas humon hegnikotes hen te hupakoe tes aletheias (leading on to) eis
philadelphian etc. [See note in loc.] Also [328]Jam. iv. 8.

eirenike, peaceable] The most general exhibition of wisdom inspired by love. The
true purpose of wisdom is not to gain victories over others, which in an
unchristian state of society is implicitly the purpose of speech, but to promote
peace: Mt. v. 9, "Blessed are the peacemakers"; cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 33 already cited
(contrasted with akatastasia): also Eph. iv. 3; Phil. iv. 7 ff.; Col. iii. 15.

epieikes, forbearing] Originally "fitting," "appropriate": then "fair" or
"reasonable," "justly just"; see Aristot. Rhet. i. 13. 13, to gar epieikes dokei
dikaion einai, esti de epieikes to para ton gegrammenon nomon dikaion . . . (17)
kai to tois anthropinois sunginoskein epieikes (cf. Eth. Nic. v. 14). Cf. Plato
passim. It may thus be sometimes rendered by gentleness; but expresses rather
forbearance, unwillingness to exact strict claims.

eupeithes, compliant] This word is tolerably common in the sense "compliant,"
"obedient," especially as towards laws or morality. It is apparently confined to
action, not extended to belief in the sense "docile." The precise force here is
probably to be gathered by antithesis. The false wisdom would be domineering and
imperious: the true wisdom shews itself in willing deference within lawful
limits.

meste eleous, full of mercy] Perhaps in contrast to meste iou thanatephorou
([329]iii. 8); at all events the two passages illustrate each other. Filled with
mercy and good fruits, so that they break forth in overflow.

On eleos see [330]ii. 13 (cf. Mt. ix. 13; xii. 7 from Hos. vi. 6). The true
wisdom takes account of the actual wants and sufferings of men, and never loses
sight of practical aims. It is not self-contained, but of necessity issues forth
in good fruits. "Good" in the sense of our Lord (Mt. vii. 17 ff., etc.), though
here agathous, not kalous, because the benefits to others are specially here in
view.

adiakritos, without dividings of mind] This word usually takes its sense from
the active diakrino to "distinguish," and means (passive or neuter) "without
distinction," "promiscuous," or (active) "without making distinctions"; in which
sense it is usually employed as a term of blame, though rarely by some Fathers
as a term of praise (implicit obedience). But no such senses are possible here;
and we may fairly take it as negativing any sense of either diakrino or -omai.
This being the case, the meaning is virtually fixed by [331]i. 6 bis, [332]ii.
4, founded on Mt. xxi. 21 || Mk xi. 23; Acts x. 20; Rom. iv. 20; xiv. 23. The
prominent meaning there is doubting, but doubting as a result of division of
mind. Adiakritos is "without dividings of mind"; the negative form of singleness
or wholeness of heart; cf. [333]i. 5[334]-8. These last two negative epithets
seem parallel to hagne on the one side and eirenike etc. on the other; and
adiakritos to the inward character of the wisdom in relation to God alone.

anupokritos, without hypocrisy or feigning] This word expresses the relation to
men. The true wisdom requires not only singleness before God but truthfulness
towards men, and is incompatible with all playing of parts. We may recognise
here a warning against the pharisaic leaven still lingering among Jewish
Christians.

^18karpos de dikaiosunes en eirene speiretai tois poiousin eirenen.

18. karpos de dikaiosunes, But the fruit which is righteousness] For the whole
verse cf. Heb. xii. 11: for this phrase cf. Prov. xi. 30; Amos vi. 12; (also
Phil. i. 11); and Isa. xxxii. 17 (but with erga not karpos). It might be either
(as apparently in Isaiah) the fruit which springs from righteousness, or the
fruit which is righteousness, righteousness as fruit. The latter alone suits
this sentence. It is as though St James feared that the force of the one
comprehensive word eirenike might be lost in the additional cognate epithets;
and so returned to it with a fresh expansion for the emphatic close of the
paragraph. Karpos dikaiosunes in like manner catches up the meste karpon
agathon: St James cannot too often reiterate his warning, founded on our Lord's,
against anything that bears no fruit, an unfruitful religion, an unfruitful
faith, and now an unfruitful wisdom. He had said before ([335]i. 20) "the wrath
of man worketh no righteousness of God"; now he shews in contrast how
righteousness is produced, for the warning of those who professed to be
champions of righteousness. It is not the product of angry vindications: but it
grows slowly up as the corn from the seed, the seed which is inevitably and
always sown by those who make peace.

en eirene, in peace] It might be doubted whether this goes with karpos dik. or
speiretai or both. It is difficult to see any clear force in connexion with
speiretai, and the order rather suggests at least a primary connexion with
dikaiosunes. The righteousness which thus springs up is a righteousness in
peace. Righteousness and peace are connected Ps. lxxxv. 10; lxxii. 7. Usually
the relation would be reversed, as it were eirene en dikaiosune, righteousness
the foundation of peace, as Ps. lxxii. 3; Isa. xxxii. 17 (already cited). But
the other relation is true also: peace is the condition required for the growth
of righteousness, though it may be peace in the midst of turmoil and trouble
(cf. Lk. i. 74 f.). Compare the use of the cognate en agape in Ephesians (i. 4;
iii. 17; iv. 15 f.). As the sowing is peaceful by the very fact that the sowers
are the peacemakers, so the harvest of righteousness is in peace too. The dative
tois as before probably does not denote pure agency, but also what redounds to
them: they have this fruit of their labour.

tois poiousin eirenen, for them that make peace] Only a resolved form of hoi
eirenopoioi (Mt. v. 9). They who make peace shew likeness to God the great maker
of peace. They do His work.

IV. ^1Pothen polemoi kai pothen machai en humin; ouk enteuthen, ek ton hedonon
humon ton strateuomenon en tois melesin humon;

IV. 1. The true reading has pothen twice.

polemoi] This of course is suggested by the preceding eirenen. A new paragraph
begins here, the last of the middle or principal part of the book, its subject
being strife as proceeding from the inward strife of desire. Till [336]v. 11 the
tongue is not mentioned again: St James is now about to deal more directly with
the inward nature, as he has already spoken of action and of speech. The word
polemoi is the simplest and broadest that could be used in opposition to
"peace." He probably was not thinking of the wars of nations, though they too,
on one side or on both, might usually be traced to the same origin; but of the
factions which divided one set of Christians from another. What the factions of
the Jews of Palestine were, almost every page of Josephus shews; and the temper
may well have spread to the Jews of other lands, and have kept its hold even on
those of them who became Christians.

kai pothen machai] Battles bear the same relation to wars that single conflicts
do to standing animosities and hostile states. Thus if polemoi are here the
factions and antagonisms among Christians, the machai are their casual quarrels.
mache in late Greek is often applied to philosophical disputes, and even to
contradictions or inconsistencies in logic. But the context does not point to
doctrinal disputes; rather to more ordinary quarrels and factiousnesses.

en humin] This might be either "among you" or "within you": but what follows
fixes the sense to "among you."

ouk enteuthen] Probably only preparatory to what follows: "from this source,
viz."

ek ton hedonon humon] It is not easy to seize the precise force; it is not
likely to mean simply "desires," which is expressed by epithumia in [337]i. 14
f. Nor can it be concrete pleasures, i.e. pleasant things, for they could hardly
be said strateuesthai. Apparently it means "indulgence of desires," "indulged
desires." There is no limitation to sensual "pleasures," which only supply as it
were imagery for the rest. Possessions and places of dignity or fame ([338]v. 2)
may be as sweet (hedone) to the soul as anything else; and in [339]i. 14 f.
there is a similar description of all kinds of desires in terms specially
applicable to desires belonging to the senses. So also St Paul (e.g. Gal. v. 19)
includes among the works of the flesh such vices as enmities, strife, jealousy,
anger etc.

ton strateuomenon, that war] Strateuomai like strateuo is used either of the
general or of the soldiers who serve under him: chiefly the latter. But it is
difficult here to see either command or service implied with en following.
Further against whom? The somewhat parallel passage, 1 Pet. ii. 11, has ton
sarkikon epithumion, haitines strateuontai kata tes psuches, but that does not
of necessity rule the sense here. "Against each other" is difficult to explain,
what follows having nothing to do with the occasional conflict of pleasure with
pleasure; and we should then expect "against each other" to be expressed; indeed
strateuomai absolute probably could not mean this.

The answer to both questions is found by taking strateuomenon en tois melesin
strictly together. The pleasures are represented as making war in the members,
i.e. as invading them as a territory. Though eis would be the preposition
generally used of invading a territory, en is quite suitable here where the
invading power does not come from an extraneous region. It is not that the war
is made against the members: properly war is not said to be made against the
territory invaded, but against its owners. So here the war is against the true
lord of the members, i.e. the human spirit acknowledging and obeying the will of
God, since the true nature of man is formed to do God's will. Cf. Rom. vii. 23,
eteron nomon en tois melesin mou antistrateuomenon to nomo tou noos mou. Thus 1
Pet. ii. 11 agrees, if we give tes psuches its highest sense. [See note in loc.]

en tois melesin humon, in your members] In contrast to en umin. The outer strife
is only a product of an inner strife. The very reference to "members" implies
the compositeness of human nature, and the need of acting with reference to the
relation of the parts to each other and to the whole. Reflexly it calls
attention to the fact that in the larger body, the body corporate in which the
polemoi and machai arise, we are strictly "members one of another."

^2epithumeite, kai ouk echete; phoneuete. [26] kai zeloute, kai ou dunasthe
epituchein; machesthe kai polemeite. ouk echete dia to me aiteisthai umas;

2. epithumeite, ye covet] "Desire" in the widest sense. But in reference to
dealings with others it becomes limited to "coveting," i.e. desiring what is
another's. Compare St Paul's reference to Commandment X. in Rom. vii. 7; xiii.
9.

kai ouk echete, and have not] The order quite excludes that prior want which
leads to desire. The words must mark the intermediate stage. First comes the
desire, next the desire finds no satisfaction.

phoneuete, ye commit murder] This has long been recognised as a serious
difficulty, because it is a strange word to couple with zeloute, more especially
as preceding it. Jealousy or envy would be the cause, not the result, of murder.
Moreover "murder" is a kind of crime that we should hardly look for among any
early Christians. Accordingly Erasmus and many after him have proposed to read
phthoneite. There is absolutely no MS. authority for this; and though it is
possible that slight errors occur here and there in all MSS., and there are some
passages where this does appear to be the case, it must not be accepted in any
single instance without clear evidence. Now though phthoneite is certainly
possible here, it would not really be as natural a word as it appears at first
sight. St James has already used zeloute in a very strong sense, strong enough
for his purpose, so that phthoneo is not wanted; and if it were to be used,
being the more clearly disparaging word, it ought to stand after zeloute, not
before it. Cf. Plat. Menex. 242 A: "From prosperity," he says, "there came upon
the city proton men zelos, apo zelou de phthonos." Plut. ii. 796 A says of
phthonos that "this passion, which befits no time of life, yet among the young
is rich in specious names, being called competition (hamilla) and zelos and
ambition (philotimia)."

Thus phthoneite followed by zeloute makes an anticlimax, though not so startling
an anticlimax as phoneuete zeloute. The true solution seems to lie in a change
of punctuation. St James' style is abrupt and condensed: and apparently he
intended phoneuete to be taken by itself as the single consequent to epithumeite
kai ouk echete, and kai zeloute to be the beginning of a fresh series, not part
of the conclusion of the first. This view is also taken by Hofmann. It has, I
think, but two difficulties worth consideration. (1) The presence of kai before
zeloute, where a sharper antithesis would have seemed to be given by the absence
of a conjunction: but zeloute to say the least contains a fresh element not in
epithumeite, and really expresses a different idea, and Hebrew precedent is
favourable to either presence or absence of the conjunction. (2) The reference
to murder remains. This difficulty must remain if phoneuete is genuine, whatever
be the punctuation; and it is hardly greater than what moichalides in [340]v. 4
presents, if taken literally, as it doubtless must be. Murder and adultery were
both contemplated as fast approaching those to whom the Epistle was written, if
not, as the strictest interpretation of the words would imply, actually among
them. Of such murder Ahab and Naboth's vineyard would be a well remembered type.
It is not unlikely that he first gives the extreme example of what leads to
murder (in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount; cf. 1 Jn iii. 15), and then
(zeloute) turns to what was clearly and widely present. Analogously the
adulteresses of [341]v. 4 seem to be an extreme example, leading to the widely
spread and unquestionable friendship with the world.

As positive evidence for this punctuation independent of phoneuete, may be noted
its throwing kai ou dunasthe epituchein into exact analogy with kai ouk echete,
and its giving machesthe kai polemeite force by making them correspond to
phoneuete. The whole verse should, I believe, be read thus: "Ye covet, and have
not: ye commit murder. And ye envy, and cannot attain: ye fight and war." The
usual punctuation gives the whole verse a loose and apparently inconsequent
structure.

kai zeloute, and ye envy] The verb like the substantive has both a good and an
evil sense. The evil is clearly meant here, as Acts vii. 9; 1 Cor. xiii. 4. As
we have seen zelos might be simply the first stage of phthonos, and both might
mean envy of possessions. But comparison with [342]iii. 14 on the one hand,
where zelos is used and ambition not covetousness is in question, and with
epithumeite . . . phoneuete on the other, which clearly refers to covetousness,
shews that zeloute expresses not envy of possessions but envy of position or
rank or fame. It is sordid and bitter personal ambition. In this sense much is
said of zelos in Clem. Rom., not only in the enumeration iii. 2, but iv. 7-13;
v. 2 ff.; vi. 1 ff. etc. (On the word see Lightfoot on iii. 2 and Trench Syn.
i.) The passage quoted above from Plutarch specially illustrates the true sense
here.

kai ou dunasthe epituchein, and cannot attain] Epitunchano does not properly
mean to "obtain," i.e. get possession, but to "attain," i.e. either fall in with
or hit the mark, and is specially used absolutely of being successful. Here then
it will be "succeed in attaining" the position of the rivals.

machesthe kai polemeite, ye fight and war] These words stand in exactly the same
relation to kai zeloute . . . epituchein as phoneuete to epithumeite . . .
exete. The words are repeated from [343]v. i, here naturally in inverse order,
because the single and casual machai are a step to the settled and continuous
polemoi.

ouk echete, ye have not] St James goes back to the former ouk echete. The
desire, in so far as it included no coveting towards others, was not (or need
not be) in itself evil. Men have various wants, and it is by Divine appointment
that they have desires that these wants should be supplied. And so it is also of
Divine appointment that these wants should be carried before God in prayer, and
desires take the form of petitions. Except by prayer, men stand in this, as in
all things, in a false relation to God and therefore to all things.

dia to me aiteisthai umas, because ye ask not] It is remarkable that the middle
is used here and in the next line, but the active between. aiteo is properly to
ask a person, what is asked for being often added in a second accusative; it is
as it were to "petition." aitoumai is properly to ask for a thing: the person
asked is sometimes also inserted, but rarely. Thus the two forms approach each
other from different sides, and it is often difficult to distinguish them. Thus
compare 1 Jn iii. 22 with v. 14 f. Here aitoumai retains its proper force.
dapanesete requires an implied object, spending must be a spending of something;
and the same object seems to be implied throughout, viz. "what things ye
desire." "Ye have not what things ye desire because ye ask not [for them]," and
again, "ye ask [for them] amiss, that ye may spend them" etc.

^3aiteite kai ou lambanete, dioti kakos aiteisthe, hina en tais hedonais humon
dapanesete.

3. Then the intermediate aiteite is probably due to an intentional reference to
our Lord's words in their Greek form (Mt. vii. 7 f. || Lk. xi. 9 f.; Jn xvi.
24); he wishes the apparent contradiction of them to be patent, that he may
explain it. Thus aiteite kai ou lambanete, "ye ask, and ye do not receive." The
apparent contradiction of [344]v. 2 must also be noticed; but it is impossible
to explain it by difference of active and middle: St James could never mean to
say that they did aitein though they did not aiteisthai. The true solution is
simpler. In a sense they did ask, but it was an evil asking, and therefore not a
true asking. We had a similar ambiguity in the language about faith.

dioti kakos aiteisthe, because ye ask in evil wise] Not all asking from God is
prayer. Asking is but the external form of prayer, and no asking from God which
takes place in a wrong frame of mind towards Him or towards the object asked has
anything to do with prayer. It is an evil asking.

hina en tais hedonais humon dapanesete, that ye may consume what ye desire in
your pleasures] The usual preposition with dapanao is eis, and no other example
of en seems to be known: but it is difficult to take dapanesete alone as the
primary predicate, and doubtless en tais hedonais dap. must be taken together,
not precisely in the sense "consume upon your pleasures," but literally "consume
in your pleasures," i.e. by using for your pleasures. Throughout "what ye
desire" is to be understood as the object. There is force in dapanesete; not
simply spend, but consume, expend, dissipate. This force is explained by en tais
hed. humon, which as before must be taken in the widest sense, not limited to
pleasures of the senses. God's gifts, when rightly used, are not dissipated in
the using: they are transmuted as it were to some fresh form of energy, which
lives on, and turns to fresh use. But the use which consists in nothing more
than individual gratification, not tending in any way to improve and enlarge the
person gratified, is pure waste, dissipation, destruction. God bestows not gifts
only, but the enjoyment of them: but the enjoyment which contributes to nothing
beyond itself is not what He gives in answer to prayer; and petitions to Him
which have no better end in view are not prayers.

^4moichalides, ouk oidate hoti he philia tou kosmou echthra tou theou estin; hos
ean oun boulethe philos einai tou kosmou, echthros tou theou kathistatai.

4. moichalides, ye adulteresses] Moichoi kai is spurious (Syrian). The first
question here is whether the word is used literally or figuratively. It is a
common late word for "adulteress." It is usually taken figuratively for these
reasons, that adulterers are omitted, that friendship with the world seems too
slight and too inappropriate a charge to bring against adultery, and that
adultery was not a kind of offence likely to be found in early Christian
societies. Hence it is assumed that moichalides is to be interpreted with
reference to the O.T. language, in which all sin and apostasy are spoken of as
adultery, in reference to such language as "thy Maker is thy husband." On that
view the reference may either be to whole communities (backsliding Israel) or to
individuals (adulterous souls). The difficulty of moichalides is undeniable. But
it is hardly credible that this figurative view should have been brought in by a
single word, without any mark of its figurative intention; and moreover
phoneuete and moichalides in a literal sense confirm each other, and both stand
on the same footing as the passage [345]iv. 13-[346]v. 6, which likewise does
not read as if addressed to Christians, least of all [347]v. 6. It would seem as
though in all this part of the Epistle St James extended his vision beyond the
immediate state of things among those to whom he was writing and contemplated
likewise that which would naturally spring from the roots which already were
there, and what did indeed already exist among the unbelieving Jews. The other
alternative would be to treat the Epistle as written to all Jews of the
Dispersion, not Christian Jews only: and that is apparently excluded by [348]ii.
1.

The mention of adulteresses alone may be founded on, and is at least illustrated
by Mal. iii. 5, a passage which is probably referred to in [349]v. 4: there in
LXX. tas moichalidas represents a masculine in the Hebrew. But there is also a
fitness in the word used. The whole passage is not exhaustive, it deals with
representative evils. Peace has suggested war, war has suggested first wrong
deeds of aggression (murder etc.) due to the action of indulged pleasures, which
in this case are aptly represented as themselves making war. But St James wishes
to point to another class of evils likewise due to pleasures but not of the
aggressive type. Now a male adulterer as such is an aggressor, a maker of war,
an invader of that which belongs to another man; so that he would not so well
serve as an ex-ample for this second illustration. Unfaithfulness, disloyalty,
breach of a sacred bond and covenant are the essence of this second type of
evil; and of these the faithless wife serves as the clearest example, since the
faithless husband, who as such is doubly an adulterer, does not exhibit this
characteristic detached from the other.

ouk oidate hoti he philia] Here we reach the remaining difficulty, the connexion
between literal adultery and love of the world. The difficulty is greatly
diminished when we remember that both in the Bible and in actual fact adultery
includes much more than impurity. The broken bond and the price paid for the
breach of the bond are doubtless here contemplated. The price might be gifts, or
pride, or distinction, or other such things: they would at all events often
belong to the world even more than to the flesh. (Cf. Ezek. xxiii. 5 f., 12, 14
ff.; also Hos. ii. 12; ix. 1 f.) Guinevere's disloyalty to Arthur for the sake
of Lancelot has not a little in common with disloyalty to God for the sake of
the world. It is the surrender to the glory and strength of visible things in
forgetfulness of simple inward love and duty.

he philia tou kosmou, the friendship of the world] To be compared with 1 John
ii. 15, Me agapate ton kosmon k.t.l.; both being closely connected with Mt. vi.
24 || Lk. xvi. 13. Yet the conceptions of the three passages, as represented by
the three words leuein, agapate, philia, are different. philia, not occurring
elsewhere in N.T. but several times in Prov. (LXX.), and in Apocr., is best
rendered by "friendship," though it goes beyond it in Greek usage. It is used
(see Rost and Palm) for any kind of family affection, but especially for
friendship proper (see the singularly interesting and beautiful discussion in
Aristotle's Eth. Nicom. viii.). As between God and men St James has already
recognised it in the person of Abraham ([350]ii. 23). The friendship of the
world (i.e. standing on terms of friendship with it) in those days would mean or
involve conformity to heathen standards of living (see on [351]i. 27; [352]iii.
6). At the time when St James wrote this, the eyes of all Jews must have been
turned on one signal example illustrating this verse. The Empress Poppaea, the
wife of Nero, one of the vilest of women, was conspicuous at Rome; and there is
reason to believe that she had embraced Judaism (Friedlander i. 413), for
Josephus calls her theosebes (Ant. xx. 8. 11), and she was the patroness and
friend of the Jews at Rome.

Both philia and echthra doubtless denote here rather states than feelings. To be
on terms of friendship with the world involves living on terms of enmity with
God. It is neither simply hatred of God nor the being hated by God; but being on
a footing of hostility. This explains the genitive.

hos ean oun boulethe, whosoever therefore chooses] Here we pass from the footing
to the state of mind. There might be much thoughtless and as it were casual love
of the world of which St James might hesitate to use this language. But he
wishes the contradiction to be recognised and faced. The relation between the
two states as such being what he has described, any one who deliberately chooses
the one makes himself to belong to the other. Boulomai implies purpose,
intention, not mere will, but will with premeditation as [353]i. 18.
kathistataivirtually "makes himself" as [354]iii. 6.

^5e dokeite hoti kenos he graphe legei, Pros phthonon epipothei to pneuma ho
katokisen en hemin;

5. dokeite hoti, think ye that] With a different subject, as Mt. xxvi. 53; Mk
vi. 49; Lk. xii. 51; xiii. 2.

kenos, in vain] Cf. o anthrope kene [355]ii. 20; and kenos is often used with
logos and rhema, a word void of meaning.

he graphe legei] These words and those that follow stand almost on a level with
[356]iii. 6 for difficulty, and the number of solutions proposed is great (see
Theile). It is impossible here to examine them in detail. As regards the general
construction, pros phthonon k.t.l. may be joined to what precedes, as the
quotation referred to, or it may be taken as a separate sentence affirmative or
interrogative: and further to pneuma may be taken either as the subject to
epipothei or as governed by it, and pros phthonon may be variously understood.

At the outset katokisen, not -esen, is the reading: so that the verse contains a
distinct reference to God, "which He caused to dwell in us." This of itself
makes it highly probable that epipothei has the same subject, making to pneuma
accusative, "He longs for the spirit which He caused to dwell." The reference
here is certainly, as in other parts of the Epistle, to God's breathing into
man's nostrils the breath of life ; probably also to Gen. vi. 3, where the LXX.
and other versions [Jer. Onk. Syr. Sah.; but Sym. krinei] have ou me katameine
to pneuma mou en tois anthropois toutois eis ton aiona for the difficult ydvn,
for which they perhaps had another Hebrew word: also Job xxvii. 3 (cf. xxxiii.
4; xxxiv. 14). epipothei is well illustrated by Alford, though he inverts the
construction: it expresses God's yearning over the human spirit. which He not
only made but imbreathed as a breath from His own Spirit: for His yearning see
Deut. xxxii. 11.

pros phthonon, jealously] This makes another step. Apparently it can only mean
"jealously," in the same way that pros orgen means "angrily," pros aletheian
"truly" etc. This is the only place in the N.T. where pros is so used: but there
can be no real doubt about it here.

Is then phthonon used in a good or an evil sense? If we follow the usage of the
word itself, it should have an evil sense. But in that case pros phthonon k.t.l.
must form a question expecting a negative answer "Is it jealously (or, for
jealousy) that He yearns" etc., with the meaning "It is not from jealousy of
others but for some other reason, as simply love to men, that He yearns" etc.
But this does not suit the context: e dokeite hoti clearly shews that St James
is still pursuing the stern strain of [357]v. 4, and maintaining the
incompatibility of friendship with God and the world together. Now this is
exactly what the Bible calls jealousy (see 2nd Commandment), and the difficulty
here arises not from the conception of jealousy, but from the word used. This
being the case it seems tolerably certain that St James does mean to attribute
phthonos to God (not of course in the sense in which Herodotus i. 32; iii. 40
said phthoneron to theion and Plato Phaedr. 247 A, phthonos gar exo theiou
chorou histatai, denied it, i.e. as grudging mankind happiness or prosperity),
but in the sense that He does grudge the world or any other antagonistic power
such friendship and loyalty as is due to Himself alone. We may therefore render
the words "jealously (or, with jealousy) doth He yearn after the spirit which He
caused to dwell in us."

Lastly, are these words independent or a quotation? No one probably would doubt
that the form of language suggests a quotation. hoti kenos he graphe legei
certainly does not sound as if it were meant to stand absolutely, and there are
no words of the O.T. which could readily occur to any one as so clearly
expressing the substance of [358]v. 4 as not to need quotation. Also pros
phthonon k.t.l. comes in abruptly as St James' own words; though fitly enough if
they belonged originally to another context.

The difficulty is that no such words can be found. The passages already cited
contain however their substantial purport; so that our O.T. Scripture does in a
manner furnish them. But it is likely enough that they come directly from some
intermediate source now lost to us. There are other reasons for supposing the
N.T. writers to have used Greek paraphrases of the O.T. resembling the Hebrew
Targums, and the words may have come literally from one of these. In their
vocabulary such paraphrases would certainly not always follow the same
limitation as the LXX.; and though the LXX. sedulously uses zelos etc. only
(there is no trace of phthonos as a rendering of qn'h in Hexapla), and avoids
phthonos in speaking of God, it by no means follows that a Palestinian
paraphrase would do the same.

^6meizona de didosin charin; dio legei, Ho theos huperephanois antita'ssetai,
tapeinois de didosin charin.

6. Before examining the first six words of the verse, it will be well to
consider the quotation which follows, from which the words didosin charin are
derived. The form in which St James quotes Prov. iii. 34, dio legei, Ho theos
huperephanois antita'ssetai, tapeinois de didosin charin, differs from the LXX.
only by the substitution of ho theos (so also 1 Pet. v. 5, doubtless from Jam.)
for Kurios. Both subjects of the verbs are absent from the Hebrew, but both come
from the LXX. of 32 (Kuriou), 33 (Theou), Jehovah in both places. The verse in
the original is rather peculiarly worded, but probably means (contrast
Delitzsch) "Though to the scorners He sheweth Himself a scorner, yet to the
lowly He giveth grace." That is, unlike the scorners of the earth, who are
specially scornful to the lowly, He is scornful only to scorners and to the
lowly on the contrary a giver of grace.

huperephanois, scorners] huperephanos belongs to all periods of Greek in the
sense "insolent," being especially used of such evil effects as follow from
wealth or position (Arist. Rhet. ii. 16. 1. Trench Syn. § 29 is worth reading,
but he makes huperephanos too purely inward). In N.T. the substantive stands Mk
vii. 22 between blasphemia (not "blasphemy" but "reviling") and aphrosune (for
this sequence cf. Arist. Rhet. ii. 17. 6 huperephanoteroi kai alegistoteroi).
The adjective (not to speak of Lk. i. 51, derived from Ps. lxxxix. 10) stands in
2 Tim. iii. 2 between alazones and blasphemoi, and in Rom. i. 30 between
hubristas and alazonas. This last collocation (adopted also by Trench, though in
a peculiar way) best illustrates the force of huperephanos, as is seen in a
passage of "Callicratidas" (Neo-Pythagorean) in Stob. Fl. 85. 16 (iii. 141 f.
Mein.) ananka gar tos polla echontas tetuphosthai praton, tetuphomenos de
alazonas gignesthai, alazonas de genomenos huperephanos emen kai mete homoios
mete isos hupolambanen tos sungeneas k.t.l., huperephanos de genomenos hubristas
emen (cf. Teles, ib. 93. 31 (p. 187.6) huperephanos ex alazoneias). The alazon
is personally arrogant, and gives expression to his arrogance; in the
huperephanos the personal arrogance has become insolence towards others, whether
in thought, word or deed; in the hubristes the impulse to assert self by actual
contumely or violence to others has become the dominant characteristic. The
whole range of the three words is exemplified in [359]iv. 13-[360]v. 6, which
ends with antitassetai humin, best explained as an echo of [361]iv. 6.

The original of huperephanoi is ltsym, the scorners or scoffers, a word much
used in Proverbs and occasionally elsewhere: see especially Hupfeld on Ps. i. 1.
It is rendered in various ways by LXX., never very successfully; here alone by
huperephanos, which fairly represents the temper expressed outwardly by ltsym.

antita'ssetai, withstands] Possibly for ytytsv, "withstands," stands in the
way." But the words in Prov. are hv' ylyts, "himself sheweth scorn," of which
antita'ssetai cannot be a direct translation, but may perhaps be a paraphrase,
in the sense "To the scorners God sets himself face to face," i.e. meets scorn
with scorn (cf. the probable meaning of me antistenai to ponero in Mt. v. 39).
However this may be antita'ssetai was probably taken by St James in its common
and obvious sense of facing for resistance, as Esther iii. 4, and (by
corruptions of the Hebrew text) 1 Kings xi. 34; Hos. i. 6. Antita'ssomai is
properly a military word, to set or be set in battle array, but often used
figuratively, in the singular no less than the plural.

tapeinois de, but to those of low estate] The K'thibh here has nyym, the Q'ri
nvym. It is usually said (the case is well stated by Delitzsch on Ps. ix. 12)
that the former word has a physical sense, outwardly lowly, afflicted, poor; the
latter an ethical sense, inwardly lowly, humble, meek. Hupfeld i.e. has shewn
the difficulty of carrying out the distinction consistently. Lowliness
(downcastness, depression) is the fundamental idea in both cases. On the whole,
whatever be the Hebrew reading, probably the physical sense was intended in
Prov, if not always in O.T. The nyym are the helpless or poor trampled on or
insulted by the insolent rich or powerful. The same sense on the whole suits
best in St James. The strictly ethical sense can never be clearly traced in the
N.T. in the absence of some qualifying adjunct (papeinos te kardia Mt. xi. 29;
papeinophron, tapeinophrosune Acts, 1 Peter, St Paul). Elsewhere papein?s,
tapeinoo, tapeinosis denote always some kind of external lowliness or abasement.
Here we are especially reminded of ho adelphos ho tapeinos in [362]i. 10, and
the strong sympathy with the poor ('vyvnym) perceptible in the Epistle, as in
early Jewish Christianity generally.

didosin charin, giveth grace or acceptance] Not to be interpreted as referring
to "grace" in the traditional theological sense. Still less can the phrase did.
charin bear here the meaning found in classical writers (Eur. Suppl. 414; Plat.
Leg. 702 C; 877 A; and later authors), to gratify, do a pleasure or favour to
(gratificor). In the LXX. charis almost always represents chn, the primary force
of which is seen in the phrase "find grace in the eyes of," common in the
historical books. The same books four times have "give grace," but always with
the same adjunct "in the eyes of," the giver of the grace or favourable
estimation being thus distinct from the person whose favourable estimation is
given. Of a phrase "give grace" in a sense directly correlative to that of
"finding grace" i.e. "shew favour," there is no example with chn in the O.T.,
though it finds place in the solitary instance of the cognate chnynh (LXX. with
a change of person dosousin eleos) Jer. xvi. 13: cf. Tob. vii. 17. On the other
hand the Psalms and Proverbs three times speak of "giving grace" in a sense
arising out of the absolute use of the word "grace" (almost always without any
defining adjunct) in these books and in Ecclesiastes. The fundamental sense
"acceptance," which predominates a few times (Prov. iii. 4; xxii. 1; xxxiii. 23;
Eccl. ix. 11), is usually more or less merged in the sense of the quality or
qualities which lead to acceptance and constitute acceptability, whether it be
graciousness of speech and demeanour or the lesser "grace" of gracefulness,
adornment, beauty. Acceptability and acceptance are blended in the two passages
which most concern us here; Prov. xiii. 15 "Good understanding giveth grace"
(cf. [363]iii. 4 "So [by devotion to "mercy and truth "] shalt thou find grace
and good understanding in the sight of God and man"; also Ecclus. xxi. 16;
xxxvii. 21); and Ps. lxxxiv. 11 "The Lord will give grace and glory" (cf. Prov.
iv. 9 "a garland of grace" parallel to "a crown of glory"; also Ecclus. xxiv. 16
of oi kladoi mou kladoi doxes kai charitos). In like manner here, Prov. iii. 34,
God is represented as granting to the lowly a "grace" or acceptance (before the
more discerning of men as well as before Himself) doubtless founded on a
disposition worthy of such acceptance, a lowliness of spirit (Prov. xvi. 19;
xxix. 23; Mt. v. 3), which He denies to the scornful men of power, externally
the monopolists of "grace" or acceptance.

This the original sense of Proverbs, illustrated by an almost immediately
preceding verse, iii. 31, "Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his
ways," is also the sense of St James. He is giving a warning against the danger
of courting the friendship of the world, the society ruled by powerful scorners.
Refusal to seek that friendship meant acceptance of the lowly estate, held in no
visible honour by God or men. But the ancient wisdom of Israel had pronounced
the true judgement. Those who looked below the surface of things would find that
the powerful scorners have God Himself set against them (cf. echthros tou theou
kathistatai) while it is to the lowly ones that He gives "grace" or acceptance.

The introductory words meizona de didosin charin can now hardly have any other
meaning than this, "But He giveth a greater grace or acceptance than the world
or its friendship can give": that is, their connexion is with [364]v. 4, [365]v.
5 being parenthetic. To connect them directly with [366]v. 5, in the sense "He
gives a (spiritual) grace to aid men to cleave to Him, proportionate to the
jealousy with which He yearns after His spirit within them," renders the whole
of the quotation irrelevant except the two words already cited, besides
involving a complete departure from the sense of Proverbs. The subject of the
verb is naturally identical with the implied subject of the preceding principal
verb epipothei. By "greater" St James doubtless means worthier, higher, as 1
Cor. xii. 31 (right text); Heb. ix. 11; xi. 26.

dio, wherefore] The employment of dio in the introductory formula of a quotation
is elsewhere found only in Eph. iv. 8; v. 14 (dio legei both times, as here);
while the more obvious dioti, "because," is confined to 1 Peter. It seems to be
derived from a Rabbinic usage (Surenhuis Bibl. katal. 9), but ultimately it may
be traced to Gen. x. 9; Num. xxi. 14 (lkn y'mr, LXX. dia touto erousin, d. t.
legetai). The idea probably meant to be suggested is that the truth stated is
presupposed in the quotation appealed to, forming as it were the basis, on which
it rests.

legei, the Scripture saith] Legei may have as a subject he graphe from [367]v.
5, or the implied subject of didosin, that is, God; or again it may be virtually
impersonal, as in Eph. v. 14, and probably iv. 8. This use of legei (or other
such words) without an expressed or directly implied subject, for introducing
quotations from Scripture or quasi-Scriptural books, is not identical with the
common interposition of an impersonal ephe (inquit) after the opening words of
quotations of all kinds: it doubtless implies an appeal to an authoritative
voice. The Rabbinical illustrations cited by Surenhuis, p. 11, belong only to
cases (like Rom. xv. 10) where another quotation has immediately preceded. To
supply mentally either "God" or "the Scripture" is in strictness to define too
much as there is no real ellipse, but in translation into modern languages some
supplement is needed, and for this purpose "the Scripture" gives the truest
impression. E graphe is also the more probable of the two possible subjects
furnished by the preceding context.

^7Hupotagete oun to theo; anti'stete de to diabolo, kai pheuxetai aph' humon;

7. From [368]vv. 7 to [369]10 we have a hortatory digression, starting from the
suggestions of [370]v. 6.

hupotagete oun to theo, Submit yourselves therefore to God] It is hardly
credible that St James should use this phrase without a conscious reference to
its associations in the Psalm from which (LXX.) it virtually comes, and that
Psalm xxxvii. Noli aemulari. See vv. 7, 9, hupotagethi to kurio kai hiketeuson
auton; mee parazelou en to kateuodoumeno en te zoe, k.t.l. hoi de hupome'nontes
ton kurion autoi kleronomesousin ten gen: so again Ps. lxii. 1, 5, Ouchi to theo
hupotagesetai he psuche mou; par' autou gar to soterion mou. . . . plen to theo
hupotagethi, he psuche mou, hoti par' autou he hupomone mou. This is but a
paraphrastic rendering of the original, the Hebrew (dvmyh ,dmm) meaning "to be
silent (or, still: sigeson Aq., hesuchaze Sym.) to the Lord," i.e. the going
forth of the soul to Him not in speech (whether clamour to Him or murmur against
Him) but in resolute suppression of speech. Similarly Lam. iii. 26, "It is good
that a man wait and be still to the salvation (saving help) of Jehovah" (LXX.
hupomenei kai hesuchasei eis to soterion Kuriou); and with another reference,
Job xxix. 21, "men . . . kept silence to my counsel" (LXX. esiopesan epi).
Compare Ps. iv. 4; cxxxi. 2. This deeply felt idea of a strenuous silence to
God, the expression of perfect trust, loses somewhat by translation into the
common thought of submission, which need imply no more than a sense of inability
to resist: but St James might well assume that readers of the LXX. Psalter would
recognise the "submission" of which he spoke to be one aspect of faithful
endurance under trials.

Yet doubtless St James' primary meaning was the simple Greek meaning "submit
yourselves." In 2 Mac. ix. 12 the dying Antiochus Epiphanes is made to say,
Dikaion hupotassesthai to theo kai me thneton onta huperephana phronein
Epictetus uses the same word, applying it to both the fact of subjection to God
(Diss. iii. 24. 65, hos tou Dios diakonon edei, hama men kedomenos, hama d' hos
to theo hupotetagmenos) and the duty of submission to Him (iv. 12. 11, ego d'
echo tini me dei areskein, tini hupotetachthai, tini peithesthai, to theo kai
tois met' ekeinon). In the N.T., which dwells much on submission as among men,
human submission to God is spoken of only here and Heb. xii. 9 (hupotagesometha
to patri ton pneumaton). Here as oun indicates, it is doubtless suggested by
huperephanois (cf. 2 Mac. above). The insolence of the powerful implies a sense
at once of having others in subjection and of being in subjection to none (cf.
Ps. xii. 3-5). The lowly then are bidden to find refuge for their subjection to
the tyrannous and too visible "world," not in wooing its friendship but in
cherishing the submission or accepted subjection to the invisible God (compare
Ign. Eph. 5, gegraptai gar, Huperephanois ho theos antitassetai; spoudasomen oun
me antitassesthai to episkopo, hina omen theo hupotassomenoi). The same word
expresses both the external fact (subjection) and the voluntary acceptance of it
(submission): -- "be ye subject (in mind), as being already subject (in
destiny); take up the attitude belonging to the position."

The aorist imperative (used in this verb by 1 Pet. ii. 13; v. 5; but not by St
Paul) has here the force of a call out of a degenerate state, and it is repeated
in nine succeeding verbs.

anti'stete de to diabolo, but resist the devil] De is omitted in the Rec. Text
after the later Syrian text, doubtless because the following initial imperatives
have no connecting particles.

The name ho diabolos is used much in the N.T., somewhat more than the
transliterated original ho Satanas. Both names occur in Mt., Lk., Jn, Acts, St
Paul and Apoc. Apparently in most if not all cases the use of the Greek diabolos
involves a distinct reference to the etymology.

The precise force of the Hebrew name is not free from doubt. Apparently the verb
stn (also stm) meant originally to "lie in ambush for," and so to "bear a
chronic grudge against" or "be a treacherous enemy to." The subst. stn stands in
Numbers for the angel waylaying Balaam, and in Samuel and Kings for (apparently
secret) enemies, as it were thorns in the side. In the later books it becomes a
proper name for the evil spirit, as an accuser (Ps. cix. 6; Zech. iii. 1, 2), as
an insidious enemy (1 Chr. xxi. 1), and as both (Job i., ii.). The occurrence of
the derivative, stnh for "an accusation" in Ezra iv. 6 is sufficient proof that
in the late language the original sense had become specialised to express in
particular that form of insidious hostility which consists in malicious
accusation; and there is ample evidence (see e.g. Levy-Fleischer, N. Heb. W. B.
iii. 500 f.) that malicious accusation came to be regarded as a characteristic
of Satan, as indeed appears by Apoc. xii. 10 (see Schöttgen, Hor. Heb. i. 1121
ff.). The Fathers usually interpret the name simply as ho antikeimenos,
adversarius, in accordance with a possible latitude of interpretation in several
places where the verb or the substantive used appellatively occurs; and
similarly [ho] antikeimenos is the rendering of Theodotion in Job, and of both
him and Symmachus in Zech. iii. 2, as they also (and Aquila likewise) use
antikeimai and its participle in passages of less direct bearing. But (except in
the later revised text, once or twice) not so the LXX., which employs diaballo,
diabole, endiaballo, epiboulos, satan, and for the evil spirit exclusively [ho]
diabolos.

There can be little doubt that the writers of the N.T. adopted the term diabolos
directly or indirectly from the LXX.; and this consideration seems to set aside
the tempting interpretation suggested by abundant Greek usage as regards the
verb, the "severer," "putter at variance," in opposition to a "reconciler." For
the equally tempting interpretation "perverter," that is, "one who turns good to
evil," there is no Greek evidence beyond the occasional sense of dia in
composition (as it were, one who casts awry). The biblical origin of the name
fixes upon it the sense "malicious accuser," "of God to men, and of us to God,
and again of ourselves to each other" (Chrys. 2 Cor. p. 438 D). There is a
special fitness in the word, because it is oftener applied in ordinary Greek to
suggested disparagement, whether open or secret, to words or acts intended to
produce an unfavourable impression (see Aristotle's account of diabole as a
department of forensic rhetoric, Rhet. iii. 15. 1, with Cope's note), than to
formal and definite accusation.

This the proper biblical sense of ho diabolos, of which the sense in which he is
called ho peirazon is only another aspect, agrees well with the context here.
Trustful submission to God involves resistance to him who tempts men to
faithlessness by insinuating disparagement of God's power or His goodness,
backed up with suggestion of the safer and pleasanter friendship of "the world."

^8engisate to theo, kai thngisei humin. katharisate cheiras, amartoloi, kai
hagnisate kardias, dipsuchoi. ^9 talaiporesate kai penthesate kai klausate; ho
gelos humon eis penthos metastrapeto [27] kai he chara eis katepheian; ^10
tapeinothete enopion Kuriou, kai hupsosei humas. ^11 Me katalaleite allelon,
allelon, adelphoi; ho katalalon adelphou e krinon ton adelphon autou katalalei
nomou kai krinei nomon; ei de nomon krineis, ouk ei poietes nomou alla krites.
^12 heis estin [28] nomothetes kai krites, ho dunamenos sosai kai apolesai; su
de tis ei, ho krinon ton plesion;

^13 Age nun hoi legontes Semeron e aurion poreusometha eis tende ten polin kai
poiesomen ekei eniauton kai emporeuoometha kai kerdesomen; ^14 hoitines ouk
epistasthe tes aurion poia he zoe humon; atmis gar este [29] pros oligon
phainomene epeita kai aphanizomene; ^15 anti tou legein humas Ean ho kurios
thele, [30] kai zesomen kai poiesomen touto e ekeino

^16 nun de kauchasthe en tais alazoniais humon; pasa kauchesis toiaute ponera
estin. ^17 eidoti oun kalon poiein kai me poiounti, hamartia auto estin. V. ^1
Age nun hoi plousioi, klausate ololuzontes epi tais talaiporiais humon tais
eperchom?nais. ^2 ho ploutos humon sesepen, kai ta himatia humon setobrota
gegonen, ^3 ho chrusos humon kai ho arguros katiotai, kai ho ios auton eis
marturion humin estai kai phagetai tas sarkas humon; hos pur [31] ethesaurisate
en eschatais hemerais. ^4 idou ho misthos ton ergaton ton amesanton tas choras
humon ho aphusteremenos aph' humon krazei, kai hai boai ton therisanton eis ta
ota Kuriou Sabaoth eiseleluthasin; ^5 etruphesate epi tes ges kai espatalesate,
ethrepsate tas kardias humon en hemera sphages. ^6 katedikasate, ephoneusate ton
dikaion. ouk antitassetai humin; [32]

^7 Makrothumesate oun, adelphoi, heos tes parousias tou kuriou. idou ho georgos
ekdechetai ton timion karpon tes ges, makrothumon ep' auto heos labe proimon kai
opsimon ^8 makrothumesate kai humeis, sterixate tas kardias humon, hoti he
parousia tou kuriou engiken ^9 me stenazete, adelphoi, kat' allelon, hina me
krithete; idou ho krites pro ton thuron hesteken. ^10 hupodeigma labete,
adelphoi, tes kakopathias kai tes makrothumias tous prophetas, hoi elalesan en
to onomati Kuriou. ^11 idou makarizomen tous hupomeinantas; ten hupomonen Iob
hekousate, kai to telos Kuriou eidete, hoti polusplanchnos estin ho kurios [33]
kai oiktirmon. ^12 Pro panton de, adelphoi mou, me omnuete, mete ton ouranon
mete ten gen mete allon tina horkon; eto de humon to Nai nai kai to Ou ou, hina
me hupo krisin pesete. ^13 Kakopathei tis en humin; proseuchestho; euthumei tis;
psalleto ^14 asthenei tis en humin; proskalesastho tous presbuterous tos
ekklesias, kai proseuxasthosan ep' auton aleipsantes elaio en to onomati [tou
kuriou]; ^15 kai he euche tes pisteos sosei ton kamnonta, kai egerei auton ho
kurios; kan hamartias e pepoiekos, aphethesetai auto. ^16 exomologeisthe oun
allelois tas hamartias kai proseuchesthe [34] huper allelon, hopos iathete. polu
ischuei deesis dikaiou energoumene. ^17 Elias anthropos en homoiopathes hemin,
kai proseuche proseuxato tou me brexai, kai ouk ebrexen epi tes ges eniautous
treis kai menas hex; ^18 kai palin proseuxato, kai ho ouranos hueton edoken [35]
kai he ge eblastesen ton karpon autes. ^19 Adelphoi mou, ean tis en humin
planethe apo tes aletheias kai epistrepse tis auton, ^20 ginoskete [36] hoti ho
epistrepsas amartolon ek planes hodou autou sosei psuchen autou ek thanatou [37]
kai kalupsei plethos hamartion

Note on "Brother" improperly used (see p. xx).

Gen. xiv. 14, 16, Abram and Lot (really nephew), LXX. adolphos A etc., anepsios
g n, uhuos t. adelphou m, adolphidous codd. Cf. xiii. 8, "for we be men,
brethren," anthropoi adelphoi; xiii. 11, ekastos apo tou adelphou autou. Contra,
xii. 5; xiv. 12; "brother's son," (ton) huion tou adelphou (autou).

Gen. xxix. 12, Jacob Rachel's "father's brother" (i.e. father's sister's son),
LXX. adelphos tou patros autes; xxix. 15, Laban to Jacob, "thou art my brother"
(i.e. sister's son), adelphos mou. Contra, xxix. 10 ter, Laban Jacob's "mother's
brother."

Gen. xxxi. 23, (32), 37, Laban's "brethren," and vv. (32), 37, 46, 54, Jacob's
"brethren"; i.e. apparently all attached to their households.

2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, Zedekiah (Mattaniah) Jehoiachin's brother (i.e. father's
brother, LXX. adelphon tou patros autou). Contra, 2 Kings xxix. 17, "father's
brother" (LXX. unintelligibly huion). 1 Chron. iii. 15 has the genealogy
rightly.

Gen. ix. 25, Shem and Japheth Canaan's "brethren" (i.e. uncles), LXX. tois
adelphois autou.

Gen. xvi. 12, Ishmael is to dwell "in the presence of all his brethren," LXX.
kata prosopon panton ton adelphon autou. Cf xxv. 18.

Numb. xx. 14, Israel (people) brother of (the king of ?) Edom.

Amos i. 9, Israel and Tyrus apparently brothers, perhaps from Hiram's friendship
and brotherhood (1 Kings ix. 13, cf. xx. 32; both cases of brotherhood of
kings).

Neh. v. 10, 14, Nehemiah's brethren (i.e.? household).

Job vi. 15, "My brethren" (i.e.? Job's friends), LXX. hoi engutatoi mou, Allos;
adelphoi mou.

Job xix. 13, adelphoi mou; Ps. xxxv. 14; cxxii. 8; either friends or relatives.

Isa. lxvi. 20, "your brethren," apparently fellow-worshippers of Jehovah from
other nations.

Persons or things in pairs, Gen. xiii. 11; xxvi. 31; (xliii. 33 LXX.); Exod.
xxv. 20; xxxvii. 9; (1 Sam. xx. 41 Thdn): of the same nature, Job xxx. 29; Prov.
xviii. 9.

Fellow-descendants of Israel, Exod. ii. 11; iv. 8; (xxii. 25 LXX.); Lev. xix. 17
(?); xxv. 35 etc.; and esp. Deut. xv. 2 (contrasted with ho allotrios); Jud.
xiv. 3. Fellow-descendants of a tribal head, Judah 2 Sam. xix. 12; Levi Numb.
viii. 26; xvi. 10; Nehem. iii. 1; (Gk Ezra passim); 2 Chron. xxxi. 15.

2 Sam. i. 26, David and Jonathan.

Cf. Tobit passim.

Similarly "sister."

(Gen. xxiv. 60, Laban and his mother both say to Rebecca "thou art our sister":
but apparently only by a zeugma. The LXX. in consequence alters "thy brother" in
v. 55 into hoi adelphoi autes.)

Job xlii. 11, Job's brethren and sisters (?). Nations of like nature and
character, Ezek. xvi. 46; xxiii. 31. Metaphorically, of the same nature, Job
xvii. 14; Prov. vii. 4. Term of endearment, Cant. passim. Things in pairs, Exod.
xxvi. 3, 5, 6, 17; Ezek. i. 9; iii. 13. Member of the same nation (Midianite),
Numb. xxv. 18.

Note on tes doxes (see [371]ii. 1).

[The following is a note by Dr Hort on Tit. ii. 13 (tes doxes tou megalou theou
kai soteros hemon, Christou Iesou).]

Christou Iesou is best taken as in apposition to tes doxes, not to tou megalou
theou kai soteros hemon. The obvious difficulties of the latter in reference to
St Paul's usage are much increased by megalou, partly by its sense, partly as an
adjective merely.

By its sense: cf. 1 Tim. i. 11; vi. 15, 16 [see below].

As an adjective, because it compels theou to be a pure substantive, and thus
individualises it. It to say the least suggests "division" of "substance," a
separate Deity, the Deity of Tritheism, not the equally perfect Deity of a
Person of the One Godhead [38] . This is very unlike St Paul and the N.T.

St Paul does not elsewhere categorically call our Lord the glory of the Father;
but various phrases of his have the same effect. In 2 Cor. iv. 4 we have ton
photismon tou euangeliou tes doxes tou christou, hos estin eikon tou theou,
while in 1 Cor. xi. 7 eikon and doxa are coupled (aner, . . . eikon kai doxa
theou huparchon, he gune de doxa andros estin. In the same context in 2 Cor.
(iv. 6) we have pros photismon tes gnoseos tes doxes tou theou en prosopo o
Christou, which must go along with 2 Cor. ii. 10, kai gar ego ho kecharismai, ei
ti kecharismai, di' humas en prosopo Christou, meaning in both cases in the
person of Christ, so that St Paul describes God's glory as set forth (or as
being) in the person of Christ. The sense is given without the word in 1 Tim.
vi. 15, 16, where much stress is laid on the height and invisibility of the
Father, phos oikon aprositon, who kairois idiois will shew (deixei) the
epiphaneia of I. Ch.: unseen Himself, He manifests His Son as His glory. There
is less certainty about 1 Tim. i. 11, to euangelion tes doxes tou makariou
theou, though makarios probably denotes the supreme unapproachableness; and
about Eph. i. 17, ho theos tou kuriou hemon I. Ch., ho pater tes doxes (a
remarkable juxtaposition when compared with ho theos kai pater tou kuriou hemon
I. Ch. in Eph. i. 3 etc.). Still more doubtful is 1 Cor. ii. 8, ton kurion tes
doxes, and perhaps even Jam. ii. 1, ten pistin tou kuriou hemon I. Ch. tes
doxes, where the order becomes quite easy if we may take tes doxes, used quite
absolutely, as in apposition to I. Ch. In Rom. ix. 4 he doxa is thus used
absolutely, and seems to mean the Shechinah, and it is by no means unlikely that
our Lord would be spoken of by the Apostles as the true Shechinah. In any case
Apoc. xxi. 10, 11 is quite in point. Heb. i. 3 gives the same sense under the
form apaugasma tes doxes.

Note on hulen ([372]iii. 5).

[The following represents Dr Hort's notes from his letter to Dean Scott of
January 28, 1878, written in answer to the Dean's list of passages intended to
show that hule may mean "a forest."]

In St James "how great a forest" might be tolerated as a paraphrase of "how much
woodland," but not as a literal rendering. Hence a reference to living wood
seems rather unlikely, as often fire is connected with hule meaning "cut wood."

Odyss. v. 63 f.,

hule de speos amphipephukei telethoosa,

klethre t', aigeiros te, kai euodes kuparissos.

Rather "luxuriant tree-age" (like herbage) about the cave: so Il. vi. 147 f.,

phulla ta men t' anemos chamadis cheei, alla de th' hule telethoosa phuei.

Il. xi. 155 ff., wood and a wood equally pertinent:

hos d' ite pur aidelon en axulo empese hule, pante t' eiluphoon anemos pherei,
hoi de te thamnoi prorrizoi piptousin epeigomenoi puros horme.

Hes. op. 506 ff.,

memuke de gaia kai hule; pollas de drus hupsikomous elatas te pacheias oureos en
besses pilna chthoni pouluboteire empipton, kai pasa boa tote neritos hule.

"Woodland" (the forest region) is more coordinate with gaia than "a forest"
would be: cf. also neritos, 509.

Thuc. ii. 77. If the sentence, ede gar en oresin hule triphtheisa hup' anemon
pros hauten apo thautomatou pur kai phloga ap' autou aneken, stood alone, it
would be Il. xi. 155 over again. But just before hule twice means "wood"
indefinitely (cut wood): hence there is a presumption that here again hule is
"wood" indefinitely. The same thing is spoken of in two states, cut and living:
a transition from cut wood to a forest would be much more violent. Lucretius (i.
896 ff.) probably had the passage in view, but throws no light: the described
phenomenon is the same on either view:

At saepe in magnis fit montibus, inquis, ut altis Arboribus vicina cacumina
summa terantur Inter se, validis facere id cogentibus austris, Donec flammai
fulserunt flore coorto.

Aristot. H. A. ix. 11. 3 (615 a 15), enioi de ton ornithon en tois oresi kai te
hule katoikousin, is distinctly in favour of the indefinite use. He coordinates
tois oresi with te hule (the forest region). So still more c. 32 (618 b 21),
houtos (sc. the white-tailed eagle) kata ta pedia kai ta alse kai peri tas
poleis ginetai . . . petetai de kai eis ta ore kai eis ten hulen dia to tharsos,
where ta alse bears the same relation to ta pedia that he hule does to ta ore.

Theocr. xxii. 36,

pantoien d' en orei theeumenoi agrion hulen.

Pantoien favours the same use.

Soph. O. T. 476 ff.,

phoita gar hup' agrian

hulan ana t' antra kai

petras hate tauros.

The sing. hulan with plur. antra: hupo irrelevant, whether as "seeking the
covert of," or simply "under the covert of."

Eur. Hipp. 215,

pempete m' eis oros; eimi pros hulan kai para peukas,

forest region, like "the (collective) mountain." Cf. Scott, Lady of the Lake,
iii 16,

"He is gone on the mountain,

He is lost to the forest."

On the other hand, Herodian's use, vii. 2. 4 (lithon men gar par' autois (sc.
the Germans) e plinthon opton spanis, hulai d' eudendroi), 5 (hoi de Germanoi
apo men ton pedion kai eitines esan chorai adendroi anakechorekesan; en de tais
hulais ekruptonto, peri teta hele dietribon), also viii. 1. 2 (en koilasin oron
e lochmais hulais te), is at first sight individual, and may be so. But in the
absence of other clear evidence, I suspect that it is collective. Thus Plutarch
Pyrrh. 25, daseian hulais hodon; while also Aratus 32, popon hules gemonta.
Aristotle just after the above place has (618 b 28) houtos oikei ore kai hulas,
though the evidence already given makes a strictly individual sense improbable.

Aristotle's collective sense of the singular with the article is well
illustrated by Xenoph. Cyn. vi. 12 (desanta d' ek tes hules tas kunas); ix. 2
(tas men kunas desai apothen ek tes hules), 19 (^is dikroas tes hules); x. 7
(epiballontas tous brochous epi aposchalidomata tes hules dikra); Plato Crit.
107 C (gen men kai ore kai potamous kai hulen ouranon te xumpanta); Polit. 272 A
(karpous de aphthonous eichon apo te dendron kai polles hules alles. No doubt
forest trees were included, but the predominating and sometimes exclusive
meaning is brushwood or even mere weeds of a shrubby or woody nature. Its
leading idea, when it is used of living wood, seems to be nearly that of loca
silvestria, the indeterminate wild rough country on the flanks of the hills, as
distinguished from the cultivated land below.

Note on ton trochon tes geneseos ([373]iii. 6).

[The following references in further illustration of this phrase have been taken
from the marginal notes in Dr Hort's Greek Testament and from his other MSS.]

On the wheel or circle of human affairs (their reverses) see a large collection
of passages in Gataker on Marcus Aurelius ix. 28.

On the Orphic and Pythagorean wheel or circle of Genesis (metempsychosis) see
Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 797-800.

On the general cycle of growth and decay see Simplicius Comm. in Epict. Ench. p.
94 B, all' oute te psuche kakon estin he tou somatos nosos, eiper iatreia ousa
tes psuches dedeiktai kai phainetai pollachou enargos aute. kai ei epiblabes de
to meriko somati he nosos en kai he phthora autes, hophelimos de ousa ephaineto
te te tou chromenou psuche, kai te tou pantos sustasei ton en auto stoicheion,
kai to aperanto tes geneseos kuklo, dia touto ep' apeiron proionti, dia to ten
allou phthoran allou genesin einai. So ho tes geneseos potamos, Plutarch, de
consolat. (ii. 106 F).

Plato, Leg. x. p. 898 (Jowett's translation), "Of these two kinds of motion,
that which moves in one place must move about a centre like globes (mimema ti
kuklon) made in a lathe, and is most entirely akin and similar to the circular
movement of mind (te tou nou periodo). . . . In saying that both mind and the
motion which is in one place move in the same and like manner, in and about the
same, and in relation to the same, and according to one proportion and order,
and are like the motion of a globe (sphairas entornou apeikasmena phorais), we
invented a fair image, which does no discredit to our ingenuity. . . . Then,
after what has been said, there is no difficulty in distinctly stating, that
since soul carries all things round (epeide psuche men estin he periagousa hemin
panta), either the best soul or the contrary must of necessity carry round and
order and arrange the revolution of the heaven" (ten de ouranou periphoran ex
anankes periagein phateon epimeloumenen kai kosmousan etoi ten aristen psuchen e
ten enantian).

Iamblichus de myster. viii. 6, legeis toinun hos Aiguption hoi oleious, kai to
eph' hemin ek tes ton asteron anepsen kineseos. to de pos echei dei dicha
pleionon apo ton Herraikon soi noematon diermeneusai. duo gar echei psuchas, hos
tauta phesi ta grammata, ho anthropos. kai he men estin apo tou protou noetou
metechousa kai tes tou demiourgou dunameos, he de, endidomene ek tes ton
ouranion periphoras, eis hen epeiserpei he theoptike psuche. touton de houtos
echonton, he men apo ton kosmon eis hemas kathekousa psuche, tais periodois
sunakolouthei ton kosmon; he de apo tou noetou noetos parousa, tes genesiourgou
kineseos huperechei, kai kat' auten he te lusis ginetai tes heimarmengs, kai he
pros tous noetous theous anodos, theourgia te, hose pros to agenneton anagetai,
kata ten toiauten zoen apoteleitai..

Clement Strom. v. 8 (pp. 672 f.), alla kai Dionusios ho Thrax ho grammatikos en
to Peri tes emphaseos peri tou ton trochiskon sumbolou phesi kata lexin;
esemainon goun ou dia lexeos monon, alla kai dia sumbolon enioi tas praxeis, dia
lexeos men hos echei ta legomena Delphika parangelmata, to meden agan kai to
gnothi sauton kai ta toutois homoia, dia de sumbolon hos ho te trochos ho
strephomenos en tois ton theon temenesin heilkusmenos para Aiguption kai to ton
thallon ton didomenon tois proskunousi. phesi gar Orpheus ho Thrakios;

thallon d' hossa brotoisin epi chthonos erga memelen, houden echei mian aisan
epi phresin, alla kukleitai, panta perix, stenai de kath' hen meros ou themis
estin, all' echei, hos erxanto, dromou meros ison hekastos.

Cf. Plutarch Numa 14 (i. 69 f.) tois Aiguptiois trochois ainittetai ti.

Nilus Sentent. 193 (Orelli Opusc. Sent. i. 344) [1245 A, B, Migne], Gela men tou
biou ton trochon, ataktos kuliomenon; phulattou de ton bothron [trochon, Migne]
eis hon kuliei tous en auto nustazontas. Cf. 122, p. 334 [1260 D], Skia kai
trocho ta lupera tou biou kai ta phaidra paraballe; hos gar skia ou menei, kai
hos trochos kulietai; and 140, p. 338 [1240 C], Ei ten zoen ten ontos potheis,
prosdechou aei ton anthropinon thanaton, kai misei ton paronta bion; horas gar
ton trochon ataktos kuliomenon.

On the whole passage cf. Andrewes, Sermons 603 f. [Library Ang. Grath. Th. iii.
p. 122], "The tongue is the substantive and subject of all the rest. It is so;
and God can send from Heaven no better thing, nor the devil from hell no worse
thing than it. The best member we have,' saith the Prophet [Ps. cviii. 1 P. B.
V.]; the worst member we have, saith the Apostle: -- both, as it is employed.

"The best, if it be of God's cleaving; if it be of His lightening with the fire
of Heaven; if it be one that will sit still, if cause be. The worst, if it come
from the devil's hands. For he, as in many other, so in the sending of tongues,
striveth to be like God; as knowing well they are every way as fit instruments
to work mischief by, as to do good with."

Note on espatalesate ([374]v. 5).

Ezek. xvi. 49, en plesmone arton kai en euthenia (oinou A) espatalon haute
(Sodom) kai hai thugateres autes. hsqt, to be at rest, A.V. "idleness."

Ecclus. xxi. 15, logon sophon . . . ekousen ho spatalon kai aperesen auto
(contrasted with epistemon,); xxvii. 13, ho gelos auton (moron) en spatale
hamartias.

Deut. xxviii. 54, "the man that is tender and very delicate (hrk vhng) among
you." Sym. ho spatalos, LXX. ho trupheros, Aq. truphetes.

Eccles. ii. 8 (Sym.) spatalas, tngvt, the delights of the sons of men. LXX.
entruphemata, Aq. truphas.

Cant. vii. 7 (6): Allos (? Sym.), agapete, en spatalais, tnvgym. LXX., Aq.
truphais (on), "O love, for delights." The same Hebrew word occurs elsewhere
only Prov. xix. 10; Mic. 1. 16; ii. 9, and is rendered truphe, truphera, truphes
by LXX.

Amos vi. 4, hoi katheudontes epi klinon elephantinon kai kataspatalontes ep?
tais stromnais auton, srchym, Jer. lascivitis. In vi. 7 the same Hebrew word is
truphpheton in Sym., lascivientium Jer., LXX. having another reading. The word
seems to mean "hang" or "stretch languidly and effusely."

Prov. xxix. 21, hos kataspatala ek paidos oiketes estai, mphnq (cf. Arab. root
"live softly").

Ps.-Theano Ep. 1 [p. 741] (Gale Opusc. mythol. 86), eiduia hoti ta spatalonta
ton paidion, hotan akmase pros andras, andrapoda ginetai, tas toiautas hedonas
aphairei. The epistle is all about luxurious and indulgent education.

Nilus Sentent. 319 (Orelli i. 368) ho de emplatunon heauton en to paronti bio
dia spatales kai methes kai doxes apanthouses k.t.l.

Anthologia Palatina xi. 402 spatale bis, kataspatalas, with reference to
luxurious eating; ix. 642, spatalema, of luxurious food.

Gloss ap. Steph., spatalao delicias ago.

Polybius excerpta Vaticana p. 451 [xxxvii. 4, 6 ed. Didot] plousious to?tous
katalipein (t. paidas) kai spatalontas threpsai.

Clement Strom. iii. 7 (p. 538): We must practise enkrateia not only peri ta
aphrobisia, but also peri ta alla hosa spatalosa epithumei he psuche hemon, ouk
arkoumene tois anankaiois, periepgazomene de ten chliden.

Eustathius bis ap. Steph., ton spatalonton mnesteron.

Anth. Pal. v. 18: tois spatalois klemmasi, . . . ek spatales, of the ointments
and other luxurious equipments of rich ladies (ton sobaron).

Ib. v. 27. 6,

kai sobaron tarson chrusophoros spatale nun penichre k.t.l. tauta ta ton
spatalon termata pallakidon.

Ib. vii. 206. 6 (on a cat killed for eating a partridge),

hoi de mues nun orchountai tes ses draxamenoi spatales.

Ib. vi. 74. 8,

parripsasa de kisson cheira perisphinxo chrusodeto spatale.

Ib. v. 271. 2,

ten chrusokrotalo seiomenen spatale.

Epiphanius i. 812 A, ei heora tina en truphe kai spatale.

"Bardesanes" ap. Euseb. Prep. En. vi. 10 (p. 276 A): From the conjunction of
Ares and Paphia in Crius of hoi Chaldaizontes say are born tous andreious kai
spatalous. Cureton says the corresponding Syriac word is unknown to him:
dissolutos is the Latin of Rufinus.

Philo de sept. spect. i. 5, spatalon kai basilikon to philotechnema (the Hanging
Gardens).

Chrysostom (on 1 Tim. v. 6) evidently takes gluttony as the leading idea, but
sometimes includes drunkenness, and apparently once over-sleep.

Barnabas x. 3, hotan spatalosin men as swine.

Hermas Sim. vi. 1, ta probata tauta hosei truphonta en kai lian spatalonta, kai
hilara en skirtonta hode kakeise.

Ps.-Chrysost. de poen. (ix. 777 E), ho spatalistes ekeinos, sc. Dives in the
parable.

N.T. latt. (1) Jam. v. 5: fruiti estis super terram et abusi estis, ff; epulati
estis super terram et in luxuriis (no verb), vg. (2) 1 Tim. v. 6:

delicata est Cyp Tert 171 in deliciis agit d pp " " est vg pp " " vivit pp g^1
deliciosa " g^2

All the biblical passages and some of the others suggest simply luxurious and
self-indulgent living. The leading idea is probably luxurious feeding, as
several times in Anth. Pal. and in Chrysostom.

Perhaps "ye lived delicately on the earth and were luxurious" (Jam. v. 5), and
"she that is luxurious" (1 Tim. v. 6).

None of the passages bear out the supposed connexion with spathao, to lavish.
Rather (as Lobeck) from spao, to suck down.

Peculiarities of vocabulary in the Codex Corbeiensis of St James.

i. [375]3 (also [376]4; [377]v. 11) [39] hupomone suferentia [40] [378]4 bis
(also [379]25; [380]iii. 2) [41] teleios consummatus [381]7 oiestho speret
[382]10 (also [383]11; [384]ii. 5; [385]v. 1) [42] plousios locuples [386]11
euprepeia dignitas poreiais actu [387]13 apeirastos (estin) temptator non (est)
[388]14 deleazetai elicitor (cod. eliditur) [389]15 apokuei [43] (?) adquirit
[390]17 dosis parallage datio permutatio trope (? rhope) (?) momentum (cod.
modicum) aposkiasma obumbratio [391]18 ktismaton conditionum [392]21 apotithemai
expono [393]21 (also [394]iii. 13) praites clementia [395]22 paralegizom^noi
(heautous) (?) aliter consiliantes [396]23 genesis [44] natale [397]24 eutheos
in continenti [398]25 akroates [45] audiens [399]26 threskos religiosus [400]26,
[401]27 threskeia religio [402]27 thlipsis tribulatio ii. [403]1
prosopolempsiais acceptione personarum [404]9 prosopolempteo personas accipio
[405]1 tes doxes honoris (cod. honeris) [406]3 hupopodion scamellum [407]4
diakrinomai [46] dijudicer [408]5 epangellomai [47] expromitto [409]6 hetimasate
frustrastis (cod. -atis) katadunasteuousin humon potentantur in vobis [410]8
teleite consummamini [48] [411]9 elencho traduco [412]12 eleutheria [49]
liberalitas [413]13 katakauchomai [50] superglorior [414]14 (also [415]i. 21;
[416]iv. 12; [417]v. 15, [418]20 sozo salvo [419]16 chortazesthe estote satulli
[420]22 sunergeo communico [421]23 logizo aestimo [422]25 porne angelous
fornicaria exploratores iii. [423]3 peithomai consentio [51] [424]4 (hopou)
ubicumque [52] [425]6 genesis [53] nativitas [426]7 enalion natantium [427]11
bruo bullio (trans.) [428]12 pikron halukon } salmacidum [429]13 epistemon
disciplinosus [430]14 (kata)kauchasthe [54] alapamini [431]15 psuchikos
daimoniodes animalis demonetica [432]17 epieikes verecundie eupeithes
consentiens [55] adiakritos sine dijudicatione (?) inreprehensibilis anupokritos
sine hypocrisi iv. [433]2 zeloute zelatis machesthe rixatis [434]3 hedonai [56]
libidines dapanao erogo [435]4 moichalides fornicatores [436]5 epipotheo (?)
convalesco (?) concupisco as vg.) [437]8 hagnizo sanctifico [438]11 ter
katalaleo retracto de [439]12 nomothetes legum positor [440]13 (also [441]v. 1)
age nun jam nunc [442]14 atmis momentum [57] pros oligon per modica (? per
modicú) aphanizo extermino [443]16 kauchesis [58] gloria (? gloriatio for talis
follows) v. [444]2 setobrota gegonen tiniaverunt [445]3 katiotai aeruginavit
phagetai manducabit (of rust) [446]4 ton therisanton qui araverunt in [447]5
spatalao abutor trepho cibo [448]7 timion karpon honoratum fructum [449]8
sterizo conforto engizo adpropio [450]10 hupodeigma experimentum tes kakopathias
[59] de malls passionibus [451]11 polusplanchnos (? -os) visceraliter [452]12
allog tina alterutrum [453]13 kakopatheo [60] anxio psalleto psalmum dicat
[454]16 energoumene frequens [455]17 homoiopathes similis [456]18 blastano
germino (trans.) [457]19, [458]20 epistrepho revoco

[15] kuriou] kuriou,

[16] [For the way in which the N.T. fills out the older image of life see Hort's
Hulsean Lectures, pp. 100 ff.]

[17] Moreover the difference in sense was broken down: peirazo = peiromai in
Acts xvi. 7; xxiv. 6; (reading) ix. 26. peiromai only in Acts xxvi. 21. In Heb.
iv. 15 for pepeirasmenon tempted' many MSS. have pepeipamenon.

[18] autou] eautou

[19] heautou bis] autou

[20] Christou] Christou,

[21] e kathou ekei] ekei e kathou

[22] ou diekrithete . . . poneron] diekrithete . . . poneron

[23] echeis;] echeis

[24] theos estin] ho theos estin

[25] hosper] + gar

[26] phoneuete.] phoneuete

[27] metastrapeto] metastrapheto

[28] estin] estin ho

[29] tes aurion . . . gar este] ta tes aurion; poia gar he zoe humon; atmis este
he

[30] thele] thelese

[31] humon; hos pur] humon hos pur;

[32] humin;] humin.

[33] ho kurios] Kurios

[34] proseuchesthe] euchesthe

[35] hueton edoken] edoken hueton

[36] ginoskete] ginosketo

[37] autou ek thanatou] ek thanatou autou

[38] As if Quicunque vult had said "sicut unamquamque personam esse singillatim
(or, per se) Deum et Dominum confitemur," not "sicut singillatim unamquamque
personam Deum et Dominum confitemur."

[39] All the passages in Jam. in which hupomone occurs.

[40] Occurs besides in vg. of v. 11 and twice in d (Lk. viii. 15; xxi. 19).

[41] In i. 17 perfectus; ii. 22 eteleihothe

[42] But in ii. 6 divites.

[43] In i. 18 apekuesen, peperit.

[44] In iii. 6 nativitas.

[45] But in vv. 22, 23 auditor.

[46] But in i. 6 bis dubito.

[47] In i. 12 promitto.

[48] Cf. i. 4,

[49] But in i. 25 libertas.

[50] Cf. i. 9 kauch?stho, glorietur; iv. 16 kauchasth9e, gloriamini; kauchesis,
gloria, (?) gloriatio; but iii. 14 ?atakauchasthe, alapamini.

[51] Cf. iii. 17,

[52] Apparently in the sense "anywhere."

[53] In i. 23 natale.

[54] Cf. ii. 13.

[55] Cf. iii. 3.

[56] But in iv. i voluptates.

[57] [Dr Hort suggested, flamentum. See Studia Biblica (first series), p. 140.]

[58] Cf. ii. 13.

[59] But see v. 13.

[60] But see v. 10.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: GREEK INDEX
========================================================================

(The references in brackets are to the occurrences in James of annotated words.)

agathos 29, 52, 86 ([459]i. 17; [460]iii. 17)

agapao 21, 51 ([461]i. 12; [462]ii. 5, [463]8)

angelos 66 ([464]ii. 25)

hagnos 85 f. ([465]iii. 15)

adelphe 58 ([466]ii. 15)

adelphos 14, 27, 45, 57, 58, 67, 78, 102 ([467]i. 2, [468]9, [469]16, [470]19;
[471]ii. 1, [472]5, [473]14, [474]15; [475]iii. 1, [476]10, [477]12; [478]iv. 11
ter; [479]v. 7, [480]9, [481]10, [482]12, [483]19)

adiakritos 86 f. ([484]iii. 17)

adikia. 71f. ([485]iii. 6)

aiteo 90 f. ([486]i. 5, [487]6; [488]iv. 2, [489]3 bis)

akatastasia 85 ([490]iii. 16)

aktastatos 13, 76 ([491]i. 8; [492]iii. 8)

akouo 50 ([493]i. 19; [494]ii. 5; [495]v. 11)

akroates 38, 41 f. ([496]i. 22, [497]23, [498]25)

alazon contrasted with huperephanos 95

aletheia 33f., 83 ([499]i. 18; [500]iii. 14; [501]v. 19)

halukon 80 ([502]iii. 12)

hamartia 26, 54 ([503]i. 15 bis; [504]ii. 9; [505]iv. 17; [506]v. 15, [507]16,
[508]20)

amiantos 43 f. ([509]i. 27)

Anabathmoi Iakobou xxii

anastrophe 80 ([510]iii. 13)

anatello 16 ([511]i. 11)

anaphero 63 ([512]ii. 21)

aneleos 56 ([513]ii. 13)

anemizo 10 ([514]i. 6)

aner 12, 36, 68 ([515]i. 8, [516]12, [517]20, [518]23; [519]ii. 2; [520]iii. 2)

anthos 15 ([521]i. 10, [522]11)

anthropinos 75 ([523]iii. 7)

anthropos 35, 62, 77 ([524]i. 7, [525]19; [526]ii. 20, [527]24; [528]iii. 8,
[529]9; [530]v. 17)

antitassomai 95 ([531]iv. 6; [532]v. 6)

anupokritos 87 ([533]iii. 17)

anothen 29 ([534]i. 17; [535]iii. 15, [536]17)

aparche 35 ([537]i. 18)

hapas 68 ([538]iii. 2)

apatao 43 ([539]i. 26)

apeirastos 22 f. ([540]i. 13)

aperchomai 40 ([541]i. 24)

haplos 7 ff. ([542]i. 5)

apo c. gen. 21

apokueo 26f., 33 ([543]i. 15, [544]18)

aposkiasma 31 ([545]i. 17)

apoteleo 26 ([546]i. 15)

argos 62 f. ([547]ii. 20)

atimazo 51 ([548]ii. 6)

autos 23 ([549]i. 13)

aucheo 70 ([550]iii. 5)

basilikos xxvi f., 53f. ([551]ii. 8)

blasphemeo 52 ([552]ii. 7)

blepo 63f. ([553]ii. 22)

boulomai 32 f., 69 f., 93 ([554]i. 18; [555]iii. 4; [556]iv. 4)

bradus 36 ([557]i. 19 bis)

bruo 79 ([558]iii. 11)

geenna 74 ([559]iii. 6)

genesis 39, 72 ff., 106 f. ([560]i. 23; [561]iii. 6)

ginomai 38, 41, 77 f. ([562]i. 12, [563]22, [564]25; [565]ii. 4, [566]10,
[567]11; [568]iii. 1, [569]9, [570]10; [571]v. 2)

ginosko 5, 62 ([572]i. 3; [573]ii. 20; [574]v. 20)

glossa 71, 75 f. ([575]i. 26; [576]iii. 5, [577]6 bis, [578]8)

graphe, he 54, 64, 93 f. ([579]ii. 8, [580]23; [581]iv. 5)

gumnos 58 ([582]ii. 15)

daimonion 61 f. ([583]ii. 19)

daimoniodes 84 f. ([584]iii. 15)

damazo 75 ([585]iii. 7 bis, [586]8)

dapanao 91 ([587]iv. 3)

dei contrasted with chre 78

deiknumi 80 ([588]ii. 18 bis; [589]iii. 13)

deleazo 25 ([590]i. 14)

dia c. gen. 55f.

diabolos 98 f. ([591]iv. 7)

diakrinomai l0, 49 ([592]i. 6 bis; [593]ii. 4)

dialogizomai in the Gospels 10

dialogismos 50 ([594]ii. 4)

diaspora xxii. f., 3, 67, 92 ([595]i. 1)

didaskalos 67 ([596]iii. 1)

didomi 9 f., 96 ([597]i. 5 bis; [598]ii. 16; [599]iv. 6 bis; [600]v. 18)

dikaiosune 36, 87 ([601]i. 20; [602]ii. 23; [603]iii. 18)

dikaioo 63, 65 ([604]ii. 21, [605]24, [606]25)

dio 36, 97 ([607]i. 21; [608]iv. 6)

dipsuchos 12 f. ([609]i. 8; [610]iv. 8)

dokeo 93 ([611]i. 26; [612]iv. 5)

dokimion 5 ([613]i. 3)

dokimos 19 ([614]i. 12)

doxa, he 47 f., 103 f. ([615]ii. 1)

dosis 28 ([616]i. 17)

doulos 1 f. ([617]i. 1)

dodeka xxiii. 2 ([618]i. 1)

dorema 28 ([619]i. 17)

eikon contrasted with homo?osis 77 f.

eirene 3, 59, 87 ([620]ii. 16; [621]iii. 18 bis)

eirenikos 86 ([622]iii. 17)

ei to c. infin. 35, 69

eita 26 ([623]i. 15)

ekballo 66 ([624]ii. 25)

ekeinos 11 ([625]i. 7; [626]iv. 15)

ekklesia 48 f. ([627]v. 14)

eklegomai 50 ([628]ii. 5)

ekpipto 17 ([629]i. 11)

elencho 54 ([630]ii. 9)

eleos 56 f., 86 ([631]ii. 13 bis; [632]iii. 17)

eleutheria 41, 56 ([633]i. 25; [634]ii. 12)

helko 52 ([635]ii. 6)

emphutos 37 f. ([636]i. 21)

en 76, 88, 91

enalios 75 ([637]iii. 7)

eni 30 ([638]i. 17)

enochos 55 ([639]ii. 10)

exelko 25 f. ([640]i. 14)

epangellomai 20 ([641]i. 12; [642]ii. 5)

epiblepo epi 49 ([643]ii. 3)

epigeios 84 ([644]iii. 15)

epieikes 86 ([645]iii. 17)

epithumeo 89 ([646]iv. 2)

epithumia 24 ff. ([647]i. 14, [648]15)

epikaloumai 52 ([649]ii. 7)

epilesmone 41 f. ([650]i. 25)

episkeptomai 44 ([651]i. 27)

epistemon 80 ([652]iii. 13)

epitedeios 59 ([653]ii. 16)

epitunchano 90 ([654]iv. 2)

ergazomai 36, 54 ([655]i. 20; [656]ii. 9)

ergon 5 f., 41 f., 57-67, 80 f. ([657]i. 4, [658]25; [659]ii. 14, [660]17,
[661]18 ter, [662]20, [663]21, [664]22 bis, [665]24, [666]25, [667]26; [668]iii.
13)

erithia 81 ff. ([669]iii. 14, [670]16)

herpeton 75 ([671]iii. 7)

esthes 49 ([672]ii. 2 bis, [673]3)

heteros 66 ([674]ii. 25)

euthuno 69 ([675]iii. 4)

eulogeo 76 f. ([676]iii. 9)

eupeithes 86 ([677]iii. 17)

euprepeia 38 ([678]i. 11)

ephemeros 58 ([679]ii. 15)

echo 46, 89 f. ([680]i. 4; [681]ii. 1, [682]14, [683]17, [684]18; [685]iii. 14;
[686]iv. 2 bis)

zelos 81, 89 f., 94 ([687]iii. 14, [688]16)

zeloo 89 f. ([689]iv. 2)

zoe 20 ([690]i. 12; [691]iv. 14)

hedone 88, 91 ([692]iv. 1, [693]3)

helikos 70 ([694]iii. 5)

thanatos 26 f. ([695]i. 15; [696]v. 20)

thelo 32 f., 62 ([697]ii. 20; [698]iv. 15)

theos kai pater 44; heis theos estin 61

thermaino 59 ([699]ii. 16)

therion 75 ([700]iii. 7)

threskeia 43 f. ([701]i. 26, [702]27)

threskos 42 ([703]i. 26)

Iesous Christos 1 f., 47 ([704]i. 1; [705]ii. 1)

hippos 69 ([706]iii. 3)

katharos 43 f. ([707]i. 27)

kathistamai 72, 93 ([708]iii. 6; [709]iv. 4)

kakos, kakos 23, 76, 91 ([710]i. 13; [711]iii. 8; [712]iv. 3)

kalos, kalos 49. 52, 80 ([713]ii. 3, [714]7, [715]8, [716]19; [717]iii. 13;
[718]iv. 17)

kardia 83 ([719]i. 26; [720]iii. 14; [721]iv. 8; [722]v. 5, [723]8)

karpos 87 ([724]iii. 17, [725]18; [726]v. 7, [727]18)

katabaino 29 ([728]i. 17)

katadunasteuo, 52 ([729]ii. 6)

katakauchomai 56 f., 70, 83 ([730]ii. 13, [731]iii. 14)

katanoeo 39 f. ([732]i. 23, [733]24)

kataromai 77 ([734]iii. 9)

katergazomai 5 ([735]i. 3)

kauson 16 f. ([736]i. 11)

kauchomai 14 f. ([737]i. 9; [738]iv. 16)

kenos, kenos 62, 93 ([739]ii. 20; [740]iv. 5)

kleronomoi tes basileias xii. 51 ([741]ii. 5)

kludon 10 ([742]i. 6)

kosmos 44 f., 51, 71 f., 92 f. ([743]i. 27; [744]ii. 5; [745]iii. 6; [746]iv. 4
bis)

krima 67 f. ([747]iii. 1)

krisis 56 f. ([748]ii. 13 bis; [749]v. 12)

kriteria 52 ([750]ii. 6)

krites 50 ([751]ii. 4; [752]iv. 11, [753]12; [754]v. 9)

ktisis and genesis 39

ktisma 35 ([755]i. 18)

kurios 1 f., 47, 77 (cum art. [756]i. 7; [757]ii. 1; [758]iii. 9; [759]iv. 15;
[760]v. 7, [761]8, [[762]11], [[763]14], [764]15: sine art. [765]i. 1; [766]iv.
10; [767]v. 4, [768]10, [769]11)

lampros 49 ([770]ii. 2, [771]3)

legei (sc. he graphe) 97 ([772]iv. 7: cf. [773]ii. 23; [774]iv. 5)

leipomai 6 f., 58 ([775]i. 4, [776]5; [777]ii. 15)

logos 33 f., 37 f., 38, 68 ([778]i. 18, [779]21, [780]22, [781]23; [782]iii. 2)

makarios 19, 42 ([783]i. 12, [784]25)

marainomai 18 ([785]i. 11)

mataios 43 ([786]i. 26)

mache 88 ([787]iv. 1)

machomai 90 ([788]iv. 2)

megal9aucheo 70 (megala auchei, [789]iii. 5)

melos 72, 89 ([790]iii. 5, [791]6; [792]iv. 1)

mentoi 53 ([793]ii. 8)

mestos 76, 86 ([794]iii. 8, [795]17)

metago 69 ([796]iii. 3, [797]4)

meti 78 ([798]iii. 11)

moichalides 91 f. ([799]iv. 4)

nekros 60 ([800]ii. 17, [801]26 bis)

nomos 41, 53-56 ([802]i. 25; [803]ii. 8, [804]9, [805]10, [806]11, [807]12;
[808]iv. 11 quater)

hodos 13 ([809]i. 8; [810]ii. 25; [811]v. 20)

oida 35, 67 ([812]i. 19; [813]iii. 1; [814]iv. 4, [815]17)

holokleros 6 ([816]i. 4)

homoiosis 77 f. ([817]iii. 9)

oneidizo 9 ([818]i. 5)

onoma 52 f. ([819]ii. 7; [820]v. 10, [821]14)

ope 79 ([822]iii. 11)

horao 65 ([823]ii. 24)

orge 36 ([824]i. 19, [825]20)

horme 69 ([826]iii. 4)

hotan 3 ([827]i. 2)

para c. dat. 30, 44 ([828]i. 17, [829]27)

parabates 54 ([830]ii. 9, [831]11)

parakupto 40 f. ([832]i. 25)

parallage 30 f. ([833]i. 17)

paralogizomai 39 ([834]i. 22)

parameno 41 ([835]i. 25)

parerchomai 16 ([836]i. 10)

pas 3, 35, 74 ([837]i. 2, [838]5, [839]8, [840]17 bis, [841]19, [842]21;
[843]ii. 10; [844]iii. 7, [845]16; [846]iv. 16; [847]v. 12

pater 29 f., 44, 77 ([848]i. 17, [849]27; [850]ii. 21; [851]iii. 9)

peirazo 4 f., 21 ff. ([852]i. 13 ter, [853]14)

peirasmos 4 f., 21 f. ([854]i. 2, [855]12)

peripipto 3 f. ([856]i. 2)

perisseia 36 ([857]i. 21)

peteinon 75 ([858]iii. 7)

pege 78 f. ([859]iii. 11)

pedalion 69 f. ([860]iii. 4)

pikros 79 ([861]iii. 11, [862]14)

pisteuo 61 ([863]ii. 19 bis, [864]23)

pistis 10, 46, 57-67 ([865]i. 3, [866]6; [867]ii. 1, [868]5, [869]14 bis,
[870]17, [871]18 ter, [872]20, [873]22 bis, [874]24, [875]26; [876]v. 15)

planao 27 ([877]i. 16; [878]v. 19)

pleroo 64 ([879]ii. 23)

plousios 51f. ([880]i. 10, [881]11; [882]ii. 5, [883]6; [884]v. 1)

pneuma 66, 93 ([885]ii. 26; [886]iv. 5)

poieo (as used in [887]iii. 12) 80

poiesis 42 ([888]i. 25)

poietes 38, 41 f. ([889]i. 22, [890]23, [891]25; [892]iv. 11)

poikilos 5 ([893]i. 2)

polemeo 90 ([894]iv. 2)

polemos 87 f. ([895]iv. 1)

polus 68 ([896]iii. 1, [897]2; [898]v. 16)

poneros 50 ([899]ii. 4; [900]iv. 16)

poreia 18 ([901]i. 11)

porne 65 ([902]ii. 25)

pragma 85 ([903]iii. 16)

prautes 36 f., 81 ([904]i. 21; [905]iii. 13)

prosopolempteo 54 ([906]ii. 9)

prosopolempsia 46 ([907]ii. 1)

prosopon 17 f., 39 ([908]i. 11, [909]23)

ptaio 55, 68 ([910]ii. 10; [911]iii. 2 bis)

pur 71 ([912]iii. 5 bis; [913]v. 3)

Rhaab 65 f. ([914]ii. 25)

rhipizo 10 f. ([915]i. 6)

rhuparia 36 ([916]i. 21)

rhuparos 49 ([917]ii. 2)

sophia 7, 81, 83, 85 ([918]i. 5; [919]iii. 13, [920]15, [921]17)

sophos 80 ([922]iii. 15)

spatalao 107 ff. ([923]v. 5)

spiloo 72 ([924]iii. 6)

stephanos t. zoes, ho xii. 19 f. ([925]i. 12)

strateuomai 88 ([926]iv. 1)

sullambano 26 ([927]i. 15)

sunagoge 48 f. ([928]ii. 2)

sunergeo 64 ([929]ii. 22)

sozo 38, 58 ([930]i. 21; [931]ii. 14; [932]iv. 12; [933]v. 15, [934]20)

tapeinos 15, 95 f. ([935]i. 9; [936]iv. 6)

tapeinosis 15 ([937]i. 10)

tachus 35 f. ([938]i. 19)

teleios 6, 29, 41, 68 ([939]i. 4 bis, [940]17, [941]25; [942]iii. 2)

teleioo 64 ([943]ii. 22)

teleo 53 ([944]ii. 8)

tereo 55 ([945]i. 27; [946]ii. 10)

tikto 26 ([947]i. 15)

tis distinguished from hos 80

trope 31 ([948]i. 17)

trochon t. geneseos, ho xii, 72 ff., 106 f. ([949]iii. 6)

hubristes contrasted with huperephanos 95

hule 70 f., 104 f. ([950]iii. 5)

hupago 59 ([951]ii. 16)

huparcho 58 ([952]ii. 15)

huperephanos 94 f. ([953]iv. 6)

hupo c. acc. 49 ([954]ii. 3; [955]v. 12)

hupodechomai 66 ([956]ii. 25)

hupomeno 19 ([957]i. 12; [958]v. 11)

hupomone 5 ([959]i. 3, [960]4; [961]v. 11)

hupotassomai 97 f. ([962]iv. 7)

hupsos 15 ([963]i. 9)

phaulos 85 ([964]iii. 16)

phthoneo 89 (see [965]iv. 2)

phthonos 93 f. ([966]iv. 5)

philia 92 f. ([967]iv. 4)

philos 64 f. ([968]ii. 23; [969]iv. 4)

phlogizo 72, 74 ([970]iii. 6 bis)

phoneuo 89 ([971]ii. 11 bis; [972]iv. 2; [973]v. 6)

phrisso 61 ([974]ii. 19)

phusis 74 ([975]iii. 7)

chairein 3 ([976]i. 1)

chalinagogeo 43, 68 f. ([977]i. 26; [978]iii. 2)

chara 3, 15 ([979]i. 2; [980]iv. 9)

charis 96 ([981]iv. 6 bis)

chortazo 59 ([982]ii. 16)

chortos 15 f. ([983]i. 10, [984]11)

chre 78 ([985]iii. 10)

Christianos 52 f.

chrusodaktulios 49 ([986]ii. 2)

choris 66 ([987]ii. 18, [988]20, [989]26 bis)

psuche 38 ([990]i. 21; [991]v. 20)

psuchikos 84 ([992]iii. 15)


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: ENGLISH INDEX
========================================================================

Aboth 34, 38 f., 41

Abraham xxvi f., 4, 63 ff.

Achilles Tatius 40

Acta Johannis 23

Aelian 25, 37, 49, 75

Alexander Polyhistor 65

Alford (Dean) 93

Ambrose xxx, 35

Ambrosiaster xxix

Ammonius 32

Andrewes (Bp) 31, 107

Anthologia Palatina 10, 108

Antioch xxiii f., 52

aorist tense 16, 39 f.

"apostle," meaning of xvi ff.

Apostolic Constitutions 12 f.

Aristobulus 34

Artemidorus 49

Arzareth 2

Ast 61

Athanasius 25, 37 f., 40

Athenagoras 23, 29

Augustine xiii, xxix, 34, 48, 62

Bardesanes 108

Barnabas, Epistle of xiii, 12 f., 37, 108

Basil 31, 40

Bassett (F. T.) xiv

Bede 7, 13, 62

Bengel 27, 47

Berachoth 22

Bereshith Rabba 65, 78

Bonnell xiii

Brethren of the Lord xix ff.

"Brother" improperly used 102

Buttmann 32 f.

Calvin 12

Carthage, Council of xiii

Cassiodorus xxvii

Cheyne (Dr) 41, 45, 64

"Christianity without Judaism" x

Chromatius xxix

Chrysostom xix, xxviii, 10, 72, 83, 99, 108, (109)

Clement of Alexandria xxi, xxvii, 29, 37, 79, 85 f., 107, 108

Clement of Rome and Pseudo-Clement xxv f., 2, 5, 12, 43, 64, 90

Clementine Homilies xi, 24, 65

Clementine Recognitions xxii, 65

Clopas xix f.

Codex Corbeiensis xiii, xxx, 109 ff.

Cosmas xxvi, xxix

Creuzer 26

Cyprian xxvii

Cyril of Alexandria xxviii

dative case 75

Delitzsch (Franz) 41, 45, 48, 55, 77 f., 84, 94, 95

Didaché 13

Didymus xxviii, 82

Dindorf (W.) 32 f.

Diodorus Siculus 7, 23, 41, 52, 74

Diogenes Laertius 6, 68, 73

Dion Cassius 10, 11, 29, 30 f., 40

Dionysius of Alexandria xxvii f.

Dioscorides 4

Drusius 71

Ebionism xxi f., 1, 24, 49, 52

Ellicott (Bp) 5

Epictetus 3, 13, 62, 69, 98, 106

Epiphanius xix ff., 49, 108

Erasmus 18, 89

Erskine (Thomas) 27 f.

Eusebius xxviii

Eustathius 12, 39, 68, 108

Ewald xx, 7

Friedländer 93

Fritzsche 5, 7, 17, 81

Galen l0, 23, 59

Gataker 106

Gaudentius xxix

genitive case 42, 50, 72

Gregory of Neocaesarea xxviii

Grotius 60, 72

Harnack 48

Hebrews, Gospel according to the xix

Hegesippus xv, xxii f.

Heinsius 37

Heisen 37

Helvidian theory xix ff.

Herder 18

Hermas xxvi, 12, 48, 85, 109

Herodian (grammarian) 16

Herodian (historian) 5, 27, 105

Hesychius 10, 42, 81 f.

Hilary of Poictiers xxx

Hilgenfeld 72 f.

Himerius 8

Hofmann 89

Holder xiii

Hupfeld 46, 95

Iamblichus 5, 106

Ignatius and Pseudo-Ign. 5, 6, 13, 23, 37, 98

Irenaeus xxvi f., 41, 84

Isidore of Seville xiii

James (St) the son of Zebedee xiii f.

James (St) the son of Alphaeus xiv, xvi

James (St) the Just, the Lord's brother xiii ff, 1

James (St), The Epistle of, relation to O. and N.T. x f., xxxiii; to St Paul x
f., xxiv f., 66 f.; to Synoptic Gospels xi, xxxiii, et al.; authorship xi ff.;
readers xxii ff.; circumstances and date xxiv f.; reception xxv ff.; purpose and
contents xxxi ff.; style xxxiii

Jerome xiii f., xix ff., xxix, 17, 49

John of Damascus 12

Josephus xv, xxi ff., 1, 2, 6, 8, 23, 48, 84, 93

Jude (St) xv

Junilius xxix

Justin and Pseudo-Just. 36, 58

Kern xii

Lactantius 62

Leontius xxviii

Libanius 7

Liber Jacobi 2

Liber Jubilaeorum 65

Lightfoot (Bp) xv, xix f., xxii, 12, 28, 30, 39, 49, 53, 64, 90

Lobeck 106, 109

Lucian 8, 18, 26, 40, 49, 69, 70

Lucifer of Calaris xxx

Luther xxix

Macarius Magnes 33

Marcion x

Marcus Aurelius 23, 106

Martianay xiv

Mary wife of Clopas xx

Megilla 65

Melito 43

Messiah 1

Midrash on Canticles 65

Muratorian Canon xxvii

mysteries, the Greek 61

Nilus 107, 108

Novatian xiii

Oecumenius 23, 37, 40, 42, 70

Origen xxi, xxvii, 22, 40, 82, 84

Orphic doctrine xii, 61, 72 f., 106 f.

Otto 3

Paul (St) and St James x f., xxiv f., 66 f.

Paul of Nisibis xxix

persecution xxxi

Philaster xiii

Philo Judaeus xxxiii, 6, 9 f., 14, 15, 19, 25, 29, 31, 48, 64, 66, 73, et al.

Philo de sept. spect. 108

Philostratus 25

Phlegon 27

Plumptre (Dean) xiv, xxii, xxv, 48

Plutarch 4, 6, 8, 25, 28, 30 f., 44, 62, 74 f., 85, 89 f., et al.

Pollux 13

Polybius 7, 8, 10, 13, 82, 108

Polycarp, Martyrium 20, 28

Poppaea 92 f.

Proclus 72 f.

Protevangelium Jacobi xxi

Psalmi Solomonis 5, 39, 71

Pythagorean doctrine 106

Reland 79

religio, religiosus 42

Robinson (Dr E.) 79

Rönsch 64 f.

Schiller-Szinessy 2

Schneckenburger 20, 57

Schöttgen 55, 98

Schulthess 37

Schürer 48

Sermon on the Mount xxxi f., 6, 38, 50 f., 54, 79, 90, et al.

Shabbath 55

Shechinah 47, 104

Sibylline Oracles 20, 57

simoom 17

simplex, simplicitas 8

Simplicius 72 f., 106

Stanley (Dean) 79

subjunctive mood 54

Suidas 16, 42, 82

Surenhuis 97

Syriac Canon and versions xiii, xxiv, xxviii, xxx

Taylor (Dr Charles) 22, 34, 41

Tertullian xvii, 33

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 2, 5, 9, 44, 51, 78

Theile 35, 93

Themistius 18, 23

Theodore of Mopsuestia xxviii f., xxxi

Theodoret xix, 23, 82

Theophilus of Antioch 61

Trench (Archbp) 6, 90, 95

Victorinus Afer xxx

Weber 25, 47

Weil 65

Westcott (Bp) xxvi, 47

Wetstein 60, 74, et al.

Wünsche xii, 65

Wyttenburg 52, 61

Zeller 20 f.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: HEBREW INDEX
========================================================================

'vyvnym ?96

'hv ?21

m'vr ,'vrym ,'vr ?29 f.

'rts 'chrt ?2

gvlh ?3

dmvt ?77

dvmyh ,dmm ?97

hthll ?14

zrh and zr 3

chn and chnynh ?96

chtsyr ?15

chrvt (for chrvt) ?41

ydvn (in Gen. vi. 3) ?93

ynh ?52

ytsv ?95

ytsr ?25

yqr' ?47

ysr ?9

kvvd ?47

lyts ,ltsym ?95

mzmh ?50

mtsrph ?5

msych ?1

mspt ?56

n'ts ?52

nvl ?17

msh ,nsh ?4

ns' phny ?46

srch ?108

dh ?48

trh ?19

lkn y'mr ? 97

tslyl ?5

m ? forb ?(of God) 30

ng ?107

nh ?4

ny ,nv ?81, 95

pnym ?17, 46

tsdyq ,tsdq ?63

tsyts hsdh ?15

tslm ?77

qdym ?17

qhl ?48

qvh ?5

qn'h ?94

r'syt ?35

rchv ,rchv ?41

rchm ?65

stnh ,stn ,stn ?98

slm) slvm) ?3

sqt ?107

tvl ?45, 71

tvldvt and mvldt ?39, 73

tmym ?6

tmh ,tm ,tm ?9

Cambridge

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, MA. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Index of Scripture References

Genesis

[993]1 [994]1:1-31 [995]1:3-5 [996]1:14-16 [997]1:18 [998]1:28 [999]1:28
[1000]2:4 [1001]2:4 [1002]2:7 [1003]2:17 [1004]4:1 [1005]4:12 [1006]4:17 [1007]5
[1008]5:1 [1009]5:1 [1010]6:3 [1011]6:3 [1012]6:5 [1013]6:9 [1014]8:21 [1015]9:2
[1016]9:2 [1017]9:25 [1018]10:9 [1019]12:5 [1020]13:8 [1021]13:8 [1022]13:11
[1023]13:11 [1024]14:12 [1025]14:14 [1026]14:16 [1027]15:6 [1028]16:12
[1029]17:1 [1030]18:14 [1031]18:17 [1032]22:1 [1033]22:1 [1034]22:2 [1035]22:9
[1036]24:55 [1037]24:60 [1038]25:18 [1039]25:27 [1040]26:31 [1041]29:10
[1042]29:12 [1043]29:15 [1044]31:23 [1045]31:32 [1046]31:32 [1047]31:37
[1048]31:37 [1049]31:40 [1050]31:46 [1051]31:54 [1052]41:6 [1053]41:23
[1054]41:27 [1055]43:33

Exodus

[1056]2:11 [1057]4:8 [1058]8:9 [1059]12:6 [1060]15:25 [1061]19:5-6 [1062]22:25
[1063]23:2 [1064]25:20 [1065]26:3 [1066]26:5 [1067]26:6 [1068]26:17 [1069]32:16
[1070]37:9

Leviticus

[1071]19:17 [1072]19:18 [1073]19:18 [1074]25:35

Numbers

[1075]8:26 [1076]12:3 [1077]16:10 [1078]20:14 [1079]21:14 [1080]25:18 [1081]28:2
[1082]35:25

Deuteronomy

[1083]1:13 [1084]4:6 [1085]4:34 [1086]6:4 [1087]6:5 [1088]6:5 [1089]7:19
[1090]7:25 [1091]8:2 [1092]10:21 [1093]11:26 [1094]11:28 [1095]11:32 [1096]13:3
[1097]14:1-2 [1098]15:2 [1099]16:19 [1100]18:13 [1101]18:13 [1102]27:19
[1103]27:26 [1104]28:25 [1105]28:54 [1106]29:3 [1107]29:28 [1108]30:14
[1109]30:15-16 [1110]30:19 [1111]30:20 [1112]32:11

Joshua

[1113]6:25

Judges

[1114]2:22 [1115]3:1 [1116]3:4 [1117]9:4 [1118]14:3 [1119]18:6

Ruth

[1120]1

1 Samuel

[1121]1:11 [1122]20:41

2 Samuel

[1123]1:26 [1124]12:30 [1125]15:11 [1126]19:12

1 Kings

[1127]1:1 [1128]9:13 [1129]11:31-33 [1130]11:34 [1131]18:21 [1132]20:32

2 Kings

[1133]29:17

1 Chronicles

[1134]3:15 [1135]12:33 [1136]20:2 [1137]21:1 [1138]29:17

2 Chronicles

[1139]20:7 [1140]31:15 [1141]36:10

Ezra

[1142]4:6 [1143]6:17 [1144]8:35

Nehemiah

[1145]3:1 [1146]5:10 [1147]5:14

Esther

[1148]3:4 [1149]8:15

Job

[1150]1:1 [1151]1:1-22 [1152]2:1-13 [1153]4:6 [1154]6:15 [1155]9:23 [1156]14:2
[1157]15:30 [1158]15:33 [1159]17:14 [1160]19:13 [1161]24:24 [1162]27:3
[1163]27:5 [1164]27:11 [1165]28:28 [1166]29:21 [1167]30:29 [1168]31:20
[1169]33:4 [1170]34:14 [1171]40:15 [1172]42:11

Psalms

[1173]1:1 [1174]1:1 [1175]1:1-6 [1176]1:2 [1177]4:4 [1178]5:11 [1179]6:8
[1180]8:6-8 [1181]9:8 [1182]9:8 [1183]9:12 [1184]12:3-5 [1185]12:7 [1186]16:8-11
[1187]19:7 [1188]21:3 [1189]29:3 [1190]31:23 [1191]33:5 [1192]34:3 [1193]34:12
[1194]35:14 [1195]36:7 [1196]36:9 [1197]36:10 [1198]37:1-40 [1199]37:16
[1200]38:8 [1201]39:1 [1202]39:1 [1203]40:17 [1204]49:16-17 [1205]51:15
[1206]58:4 [1207]58:11 [1208]61:2 [1209]61:6 [1210]64:4 [1211]64:11 [1212]66:10
[1213]68:5 [1214]68:24 [1215]70:5 [1216]72:1-20 [1217]72:3 [1218]72:7 [1219]74:8
[1220]82:2 [1221]84:11 [1222]85:10 [1223]89:10 [1224]91:11 [1225]92:1
[1226]96:13 [1227]98:9 [1228]101:1 [1229]102:25-27 [1230]103:1 [1231]103:4
[1232]103:15 [1233]103:22 [1234]108:1 [1235]109:6 [1236]119:1 [1237]119:1-176
[1238]119:1-176 [1239]119:1-176 [1240]119:1-176 [1241]119:32 [1242]119:43
[1243]119:44-45 [1244]119:96 [1245]119:142 [1246]119:160 [1247]120:2 [1248]120:4
[1249]122:8 [1250]129:7 [1251]131:2 [1252]136:7 [1253]140:3 [1254]143:2
[1255]145:20 [1256]149:5

Proverbs

[1257]3:4 [1258]3:31 [1259]3:32 [1260]3:33 [1261]3:34 [1262]3:34 [1263]4:9
[1264]5:14 [1265]7:4 [1266]10:9 [1267]10:29 [1268]11:30 [1269]12:5 [1270]13:3
[1271]13:15 [1272]14:21 [1273]14:27 [1274]16:19 [1275]16:27 [1276]17:3
[1277]18:9 [1278]19:1 [1279]19:10 [1280]19:23 [1281]22:1 [1282]22:8 [1283]22:21
[1284]22:22 [1285]27:21 [1286]29:21 [1287]29:23 [1288]33:23 [1289]43:20

Ecclesiastes

[1290]2:8 [1291]5:5 [1292]9:11

Song of Solomon

[1293]7:7 [1294]65

Isaiah

[1295]1:17 [1296]8:11 [1297]13:11 [1298]14:17 [1299]18:3 [1300]24:4 [1301]24:5
[1302]26:9 [1303]26:9 [1304]26:18 [1305]26:18 [1306]28:1 [1307]28:1-5 [1308]28:4
[1309]28:16 [1310]29:13 [1311]32:17 [1312]32:17 [1313]40:6 [1314]40:6-8
[1315]40:7 [1316]41:8 [1317]43:9 [1318]43:26 [1319]45:25 [1320]49:10 [1321]51:1
[1322]51:4 [1323]51:7 [1324]52:5 [1325]58:3-7 [1326]61:1 [1327]64:4 [1328]66:20

Jeremiah

[1329]2:3 [1330]4:23 [1331]9:24-24 [1332]10:3 [1333]14:9 [1334]15:10 [1335]16:13
[1336]22:14 [1337]93:9

Lamentations

[1338]4:14 [1339]5:16

Ezekiel

[1340]1:9 [1341]1:15-16 [1342]1:19-21 [1343]3:13 [1344]16:46 [1345]16:49
[1346]17:20 [1347]18:4 [1348]18:12 [1349]20:35-36 [1350]22:29 [1351]23:5
[1352]23:5-6 [1353]23:12 [1354]23:12 [1355]23:14-16 [1356]23:31 [1357]27:26
[1358]35:12 [1359]47:13

Daniel

[1360]7:18 [1361]7:27 [1362]9:4 [1363]9:6 [1364]9:10 [1365]12:12 [1366]14:7

Hosea

[1367]1:6 [1368]2:12 [1369]6:6 [1370]8:6 [1371]9:1-2 [1372]12:1 [1373]12:6

Joel

[1374]3:2

Amos

[1375]1:9 [1376]3:7 [1377]6:4 [1378]6:7 [1379]6:12 [1380]8:4

Jonah

[1381]4:8

Micah

[1382]1:16 [1383]2:9 [1384]6:8

Habakkuk

[1385]3:6

Haggai

[1386]1:6

Zechariah

[1387]1:6 [1388]3:1-2 [1389]3:2 [1390]6:14 [1391]7:4-10 [1392]7:9 [1393]9:9
[1394]9:9 [1395]10:9 [1396]11:13

Malachi

[1397]3:5 [1398]3:6

Matthew

[1399]1:5 [1400]2 [1401]3:9 [1402]4:1 [1403]4:3 [1404]5:1-48 [1405]5:3 [1406]5:3
[1407]5:5 [1408]5:7 [1409]5:9 [1410]5:9 [1411]5:10 [1412]5:18-19 [1413]5:18-19
[1414]5:20 [1415]5:21-26 [1416]5:23 [1417]5:39 [1418]5:48 [1419]5:48 [1420]5:48
[1421]5:48 [1422]6:24 [1423]7:1 [1424]7:1-2 [1425]7:3 [1426]7:7-8 [1427]7:11
[1428]7:11 [1429]7:16-20 [1430]7:17 [1431]7:17-19 [1432]7:23 [1433]7:24
[1434]7:24 [1435]7:26 [1436]9:13 [1437]9:13 [1438]9:14 [1439]9:34 [1440]9:38
[1441]10:22 [1442]10:33 [1443]11:19 [1444]11:29 [1445]11:29 [1446]12:4
[1447]12:4 [1448]12:7 [1449]12:7 [1450]12:34 [1451]12:35 [1452]12:36
[1453]12:36-37 [1454]12:37 [1455]12:45 [1456]12:46-50 [1457]13:52 [1458]14:15
[1459]14:31 [1460]15:5 [1461]15:8-9 [1462]15:19 [1463]16:18 [1464]16:25
[1465]18:4 [1466]18:21-35 [1467]18:33 [1468]19:21 [1469]19:21 [1470]19:21-23
[1471]19:26 [1472]19:29 [1473]20:12 [1474]20:12 [1475]21:5 [1476]21:21
[1477]21:21 [1478]21:21 [1479]21:21 [1480]22:37 [1481]22:37 [1482]22:37-39
[1483]23:8-10 [1484]23:15 [1485]23:23 [1486]23:23 [1487]24:8 [1488]24:13
[1489]24:13 [1490]24:13 [1491]24:22 [1492]25:34 [1493]25:34 [1494]25:35-36
[1495]25:36 [1496]25:40 [1497]25:42-43 [1498]25:43 [1499]26:24 [1500]26:28
[1501]26:41 [1502]26:41 [1503]26:53 [1504]27:56

Mark

[1505]1:13 [1506]1:13 [1507]1:13 [1508]1:24 [1509]3:12 [1510]3:14 [1511]3:31-35
[1512]4:1 [1513]4:17 [1514]4:21 [1515]5:10 [1516]5:38 [1517]5:43 [1518]6:30
[1519]6:49 [1520]7:6-7 [1521]7:11 [1522]7:21 [1523]7:22 [1524]7:37 [1525]10:21
[1526]10:27 [1527]11:22 [1528]11:23 [1529]11:23 [1530]11:23 [1531]11:23
[1532]12:30 [1533]12:40 [1534]13:13 [1535]13:13 [1536]15:40

Luke

[1537]1:3 [1538]1:37 [1539]1:48 [1540]1:51 [1541]1:64 [1542]1:74-75 [1543]2:27
[1544]2:33 [1545]2:41 [1546]2:43 [1547]2:48 [1548]4:2 [1549]4:2 [1550]4:18
[1551]4:21 [1552]4:25-26 [1553]4:26 [1554]6:9 [1555]6:20 [1556]6:23 [1557]6:24
[1558]6:28 [1559]6:39 [1560]6:43-44 [1561]6:44 [1562]6:46 [1563]7:29 [1564]7:35
[1565]7:50 [1566]8:12 [1567]8:13 [1568]8:15 [1569]8:19-21 [1570]9:62 [1571]10:2
[1572]10:27 [1573]10:29 [1574]10:30 [1575]11:9-10 [1576]11:13 [1577]11:13
[1578]11:41 [1579]12:20 [1580]12:32 [1581]12:32 [1582]12:51 [1583]12:55
[1584]13:2 [1585]14:12-14 [1586]16:8 [1587]16:9 [1588]16:13 [1589]16:15
[1590]16:15 [1591]16:17 [1592]18:6 [1593]18:14 [1594]18:22 [1595]18:27
[1596]18:29-30 [1597]20:47 [1598]20:47 [1599]21:4 [1600]21:9 [1601]21:19
[1602]21:19 [1603]21:19 [1604]21:19 [1605]21:19 [1606]22:31 [1607]24:35

John

[1608]3:20 [1609]3:31 [1610]4:10 [1611]5:29 [1612]6:59 [1613]7:35 [1614]7:49
[1615]7:51 [1616]8:23 [1617]10:4 [1618]13:16 [1619]13:17 [1620]16:24 [1621]18:20
[1622]19:11 [1623]19:25 [1624]19:25

Acts

[1625]1:2 [1626]2:36 [1627]4:29 [1628]4:29 [1629]5:32 [1630]5:33 [1631]6:2
[1632]7:2 [1633]7:2 [1634]7:9 [1635]7:20 [1636]7:31 [1637]8:3 [1638]9:26
[1639]10:20 [1640]10:20 [1641]10:20 [1642]10:33 [1643]10:34 [1644]11:2
[1645]11:20 [1646]11:22 [1647]11:28-29 [1648]12:4 [1649]12:17 [1650]13:1-4
[1651]13:25 [1652]13:39 [1653]14:1-28 [1654]14:4 [1655]14:4 [1656]14:14
[1657]14:14 [1658]14:15 [1659]15 [1660]15:13 [1661]15:17 [1662]15:23 [1663]15:37
[1664]16:7 [1665]17:6 [1666]17:31 [1667]21:18 [1668]23:8 [1669]23:26 [1670]24:6
[1671]26:5 [1672]26:5 [1673]26:7 [1674]26:21 [1675]26:28 [1676]27:41

Romans

[1677]1:1 [1678]1:18 [1679]1:19-21 [1680]1:20 [1681]1:30 [1682]2:8 [1683]2:8
[1684]2:8 [1685]2:8 [1686]2:11 [1687]2:12 [1688]2:13 [1689]2:13 [1690]2:14
[1691]2:14-15 [1692]2:25 [1693]2:27 [1694]2:27 [1695]2:27 [1696]3:62-64
[1697]4:11 [1698]4:20 [1699]4:20 [1700]4:20 [1701]5:2-3 [1702]5:3-4 [1703]5:11
[1704]5:12 [1705]5:15-16 [1706]5:17 [1707]6:6 [1708]6:21 [1709]6:23 [1710]7:7
[1711]7:11 [1712]7:13 [1713]7:23 [1714]8:1-39 [1715]8:28 [1716]9:4 [1717]9:4
[1718]9:6 [1719]9:11 [1720]9:19 [1721]10 [1722]10:6-8 [1723]11:11 [1724]11:16
[1725]11:18 [1726]11:19 [1727]12:8 [1728]12:14 [1729]12:17 [1730]12:19
[1731]13:8 [1732]13:8-9 [1733]13:8-10 [1734]13:9 [1735]14:10 [1736]14:13
[1737]14:14 [1738]14:20 [1739]14:23 [1740]14:23 [1741]14:23 [1742]15:6
[1743]15:10 [1744]16:7

1 Corinthians

[1745]1:5 [1746]1:5 [1747]1:7 [1748]1:17 [1749]1:18 [1750]1:20 [1751]1:27-28
[1752]2:1-16 [1753]2:6 [1754]2:8 [1755]2:8 [1756]2:9 [1757]2:11 [1758]2:14
[1759]2:14 [1760]3:19 [1761]4:12 [1762]5:10 [1763]6:2 [1764]6:5 [1765]6:9
[1766]6:9 [1767]6:9-10 [1768]7:5 [1769]7:17 [1770]7:31 [1771]7:37-38 [1772]10:13
[1773]11:3 [1774]11:7 [1775]11:7 [1776]11:22 [1777]12:1-14:40 [1778]12:28
[1779]12:29 [1780]12:31 [1781]13:4 [1782]13:8 [1783]14:26 [1784]14:33
[1785]14:33 [1786]14:33 [1787]15:7 [1788]15:7 [1789]15:7 [1790]15:9 [1791]15:17
[1792]15:33 [1793]15:35 [1794]15:39 [1795]15:44 [1796]15:46 [1797]15:50
[1798]15:55 [1799]15:56

2 Corinthians

[1800]1:17 [1801]2:10 [1802]2:17 [1803]3:11 [1804]4:2 [1805]4:4 [1806]4:6
[1807]4:6 [1808]5:1 [1809]5:10 [1810]6:5 [1811]6:7 [1812]6:10 [1813]7:10
[1814]7:10 [1815]8:2 [1816]8:9 [1817]8:9 [1818]8:21 [1819]8:23 [1820]9:7
[1821]9:11 [1822]9:13 [1823]9:15 [1824]10:4 [1825]10:17 [1826]11:5 [1827]12:11
[1828]12:12 [1829]12:20 [1830]12:20 [1831]12:20 [1832]12:20

Galatians

[1833]1:7 [1834]1:17 [1835]1:19 [1836]1:19 [1837]1:19 [1838]2:9 [1839]2:9
[1840]2:12 [1841]2:16 [1842]2:18 [1843]3:7-9 [1844]3:10 [1845]3:18 [1846]3:28
[1847]4:7 [1848]4:9 [1849]5:10 [1850]5:19 [1851]5:20 [1852]5:20 [1853]5:21
[1854]6:1 [1855]6:7 [1856]6:9

Ephesians

[1857]1:3 [1858]1:4 [1859]1:4 [1860]1:4 [1861]1:13 [1862]1:17 [1863]1:17
[1864]2:2 [1865]3:7 [1866]3:17 [1867]4:2 [1868]4:3 [1869]4:7 [1870]4:8 [1871]4:8
[1872]4:15-16 [1873]4:24 [1874]5:5 [1875]5:5 [1876]5:5 [1877]5:14 [1878]5:14
[1879]6:9

Philippians

[1880]1:1 [1881]1:11 [1882]1:17 [1883]1:17 [1884]2:3 [1885]2:3 [1886]2:5-7
[1887]2:25 [1888]2:29 [1889]2:30 [1890]3:14 [1891]3:19 [1892]4:5 [1893]4:7-9
[1894]4:15

Colossians

[1895]2:4 [1896]2:18 [1897]2:23 [1898]3:2 [1899]3:5 [1900]3:10 [1901]3:11
[1902]3:15

1 Thessalonians

[1903]1:3 [1904]3:5 [1905]4:4

2 Thessalonians

[1906]3:13

1 Timothy

[1907]1:11 [1908]1:11 [1909]2:8 [1910]4:1 [1911]4:2 [1912]5:6 [1913]5:6
[1914]5:6 [1915]6:9 [1916]6:15-16 [1917]6:15-16

2 Timothy

[1918]2:15 [1919]2:19 [1920]3:2 [1921]3:13 [1922]4:3 [1923]4:8

Titus

[1924]1:1 [1925]2:8 [1926]2:13 [1927]2:13

Hebrews

[1928]1:3 [1929]1:3 [1930]2:18 [1931]3:1 [1932]3:6 [1933]4:15 [1934]6:4
[1935]9:11 [1936]10:34 [1937]11:26 [1938]11:31 [1939]11:31 [1940]11:38
[1941]12:3 [1942]12:9 [1943]12:9 [1944]12:11 [1945]12:17

James

[1946]1:19-20 [1947]1:23 [1948]1:25 [1949]2:1 [1950]2:1-26 [1951]2:5 [1952]2:9
[1953]2:15 [1954]2:23 [1955]3:1-18 [1956]3:9 [1957]3:14 [1958]3:16 [1959]4:8
[1960]5:5 [1961]5:5 [1962]5:11 [1963]5:11 [1964]5:15

1 Peter

[1965]1 [1966]1:1 [1967]1:1 [1968]1:1 [1969]1:1 [1970]1:6 [1971]1:6 [1972]1:7
[1973]1:7 [1974]1:8 [1975]1:9 [1976]1:12 [1977]1:17 [1978]1:18 [1979]1:22
[1980]1:23 [1981]2:1 [1982]2:4 [1983]2:6 [1984]2:9 [1985]2:11 [1986]2:11
[1987]2:12 [1988]2:13 [1989]2:16 [1990]2:20 [1991]2:24 [1992]3:9 [1993]4:12
[1994]4:14 [1995]4:14 [1996]4:16 [1997]5:4 [1998]5:5 [1999]5:5

2 Peter

[2000]1:1 [2001]1:1 [2002]1:4 [2003]1:8 [2004]1:10 [2005]1:19 [2006]2:5
[2007]2:9 [2008]2:19 [2009]2:20 [2010]3:2 [2011]3:3 [2012]3:6 [2013]3:14

1 John

[2014]1:5-8 [2015]1:6 [2016]1:8 [2017]2:15 [2018]2:15 [2019]3:3 [2020]3:7
[2021]3:15 [2022]3:22 [2023]5:14-15 [2024]5:16

3 John

[2025]1:6

Jude

[2026]1:1 [2027]1:1 [2028]1:8 [2029]1:9 [2030]1:16 [2031]1:17 [2032]1:18
[2033]1:19 [2034]1:22

Revelation

[2035]000 [2036]1 [2037]1:1 [2038]1:6 [2039]2:2 [2040]2:5 [2041]2:9 [2042]2:10
[2043]2:10 [2044]3:10 [2045]3:18 [2046]4:11 [2047]5:10 [2048]9:4 [2049]9:4
[2050]10:7 [2051]12 [2052]12:10 [2053]14:4 [2054]18:20 [2055]21:10-11
[2056]21:11 [2057]21:12-14 [2058]21:14 [2059]21:23

Tobit

[2060]1:15 [2061]7:17

Judith

[2062]8:26

Wisdom of Solomon

[2063]1:1 [2064]2:4 [2065]2:8 [2066]2:10 [2067]4:2 [2068]5:9 [2069]5:16
[2070]6:7 [2071]7:27 [2072]7:29 [2073]9:2 [2074]11:16 [2075]14:5 [2076]14:16
[2077]14:18 [2078]14:27 [2079]19:20

Baruch

[2080]5:1

Prayer of Azariah

[2081]1:44

1 Maccabees

[2082]2:37 [2083]2:52 [2084]2:52 [2085]2:60 [2086]2:67 [2087]5:16

2 Maccabees

[2088]1:1 [2089]7:23 [2090]7:23 [2091]9:12 [2092]14:24

3 Maccabees

[2093]3:21

4 Maccabees

[2094]1:11 [2095]1:32 [2096]5:6

Sirach

[2097]1:1 [2098]1:5 [2099]1:28 [2100]2:1 [2101]2:1 [2102]2:5 [2103]2:12
[2104]4:10 [2105]4:29 [2106]5:11-13 [2107]6:31 [2108]7:35 [2109]11:32
[2110]12:17 [2111]12:22 [2112]15:6 [2113]15:11-12 [2114]17:3 [2115]18:15-18
[2116]19:16 [2117]20:5-7 [2118]20:14-15 [2119]21:15 [2120]21:16 [2121]24:1-2
[2122]24:16 [2123]27:13 [2124]28:21-23 [2125]29:27 [2126]31:7 [2127]31:19
[2128]33:1 [2129]35:11-12 [2130]36:1 [2131]37:21 [2132]39:8 [2133]39:33
[2134]41:19 [2135]42:7 [2136]44:20


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/the-epistle-of-st-james-greek-text-with-introduction/
========================================================================