ἰόν, ἀμ αἰ δἰ νη Gog) TONY Felner re ptr ehidehates TOUTE IE LUDA Ld Labo Ala subd Peahdedboed bahatt ΠΝ Ayiatss owns wre. ryeperh pend aera re ore TL OU preted τ WAS eb ors Am HPAII C6 OA ie Cle MINAS ἢ pene Na dn) At eM PRM Od Oe 9 bbe Lie δούς ὮΝ ΙΝ Anis wisi ree. γ,γ. ΜΔ Te EMR ete ae φθόρον νη ual ory ἘΝ nes : Wiitea lb tats ht sPeneiiarereinterhs Age Miles Ψ δ ονν ' seu gg oen ΡΝ ΡΟΣ haat sotto My brid σαμεν Seay vrs sali ΤΥ earthed αν νι ἩΦΑΥ Μ᾿ eh aw wu ep emer rr m ia trver reer at Venger ys dare) vee Νὴ οὐ ὁ Mela a ving mausa vt PAN TOPS ’ Ht ayy yey ve ὙΦ Ὅν vet ies VPALN ἐκ ἐν opm ede d Ts ee ἡ ἣν ἡ καψδ ἐν λα φῇ re ae δ᾽ ΤΉΝ bla puber anplerdaOoyy wy ioe Hat Abe oy 1 PA nme dyke brnngitg abt yp babe tek ΑΝ ΑΜ 4m) Wart eho trom Og ΙΝ peas seve Lvalonateahe Tab oO BA ge τ φὴα φῇ κι φ᾿ Abia AM ot # ἀν velvety ey γα δ, raahy nuires tie ea ΠΤ Hy pre νην εὶ ΠΏ ΠΥ NWA by acne iM jureithoaen ἀπ νυν "δ TREN #498 Sore piqhoke Dhan rl ἐν τ Her neh ray et eis iietieatit ὙΠῊ ΟΝ ΚΤ ΗΝ 1 ite tripani chen τῷ τα ἐδ. λοι rho neny ier ah a “ 2 Fain γεν ἐφ h item Moai gy etreids DORE ὠ συν a rH θές “αὐ τα φάροφ ἰ φο δ β ἢ οὐ ὯΝ pu wiht pW out 00 Od ὁ ὦ at 1) reine “ Pom μι ΜΠ edoih bo eiw δ δὶ ἡ. DF Dy μων 8» mem Ἦν vebsteh teat sentd oy ie Ry ise ΜΠ] iy ΕΣ φρήν η[ν ete oo poy 9 ΤΩ ἣν ἽΝ Pr iain in het mY i Bolas Diet aise μη oh By dt iD et OR gerbe Cie ἐφύψην (sea g mens ta Se ὧν, ὧν ayaa yt] ΜῊΝ ΠΑΣΗ; ΒΗ ADAM ad γόνον ae aden ad ay) ae δ ἀμ, νόν ἐμῇ Ὁ + “yi enero bit ΡΩΝ Mer biden Ase ot beret 1 let ἐφ of id ἐφ rie gthak hate δι preven a, ‘1 4 Mire Lapa ge ΨΥ ΨΥ. ἀλη eh peda Ὁ αὐ νὴ μι τ, φι ἐφ ace jin ΩΝ ΜΠ Mearns ome ras ΣΉΝ Ὁ} rey ie ced aE pea galt pede be bee teed dy 24} 10 Vetta yn tea pgele Sat τον “ial Misi εὐ γνὴ tulad) -t0d “; ve ae ΡΝ Ni. ὁ otied fil paydaged: buen gras 65) seb ὁ ἐν i pant ayy ἫΝ Hip Oy thet puna ΠΝ on Horry τ ἼΩΝ riyi tee ingore Sa ΜΑΣ ταν ee ee tseithies wy L adic nd pede eM Py 4 “ἢ sti ΜΉΝ DET Lac bbnie deal ἡ ui ar eat ota “Ἰϑευγ leet μα “εν. ἈΚ miler x eth peta Dt ere fant ce bein τς: = Ut Ror “ies ph Soi he x Sri ΠΣ ata ramets ak peci {ap als pete brine 1 ψε ee haw rsd aan tol cra URE ap ah chanel στον τα στὴν et τε Rett wee hore mit ithres Ha το o@ etki “Heya mo Ly MPH pists, Neff i Ae tet ih beats ταν it oh Ch vis $400 ws ν᾿ ν᾿ ΑΨ, ΠΝ me arid: i te } ᾿ tgs dnirert Mae ἐμ ἡμῶν ies μι ΚΑ ΜΝ ΜΝ Ἵ ae ah a5 « ΒΟΉ bitate sie nit Rabie eA ie ΠΑ eters tone ie is μὴ ΤΉΝ Ἴ ΕἸ ἴω! ΘΒ nny ον ene ty yonidts “ἡ aH Ay Tot ἢ sie oh thy Deh ¥ SUC ta SAN egy 140 rE CAA ate print! ἀν Prat AE Pronamynl lamas obese be Sata gander tenes aes ; δε ΠΝ ΗΝ apd ΑΙ hd sie AyDEd! jrael)) φῆ ὅϑν Sobel Uy eg ἡ δι ἡφην A ΚΗ ny Ἧι. ἀρ vtranome δ νλ τ pe MMM aac 4 fot and Μαν idee Aggie ΗΝ CUTE Sthaeaaughien utes aap ΠΥ Hie th bape ΠΝ πα δια COL ui aks Reno Ca 1 ‘a iil} ries VA tan ny! tte pAhSi PMG uted Me) MAME bey ipeing δῃ mainte a) δ tiyaed teeledy anea'sy μὰ 4) μὴν head nen word 9 aa mathe Nt i } Ἢ PULLED belt nisl " esi ΠΝ ἢν Ἧ ΗΝ deltas eminent i νυ τῷ ΠΟΥ] ir Breet Cy ypaed shew bre via retin ΔΗ wat sya tee ΗΝ 4 ΝΣ a here Wa pared edness if 2 Moulin bee Mint τ ΣῊ | Δ 4 ΚΦ AabST EL rad ἜΝ ΠΥ ΜΝ $ Daag h Fah Hn ay “δά Re) 65 DUE φήνη tay sgh yi , ie ἀν »9"}} μὴ ψενἽκ ἩΜΈΡΗΙ δὲ ἼΩΝ " ἀν ie ΗΝ Δ ον ν4 τὴν ἡ QO RONG eat 8 ὙΦ ne eisai Mie rhe iy det esis ΝΥ chy | Whit alike Rie A ith saghitanem) Ties b4t F nue Eni Riot rine) bal hese ria swebrl, δέν ΜΉ Sirevin LUM erate s 9 AS earl eat ὟΝ Ti ) ch ψυ. ν 4 }} ny ΣΤῊΝ be ἮΝ ΗΝ, ἌΝ mT ers τὶ ἢ peed ie " Header A ihchusehy ‘ent 1s Dasa is ἀπ εν ip Ἢ ΡΝ bo belt Wy py Parnes i ΠΝ Wire δ᾽ Ὑ δὴ ἡ ὁ ΠΥ ΉΤΗΝ ᾿ ΜΈΡΗ ui ἢ; HSE HAL ες Mire γδοξεϑε Hi ΩΝ μὴν ye με 4 Wrest Bn OY VANITY TY Te sala ἐν ΨΩ byheaso Ta ἐρὸ Feber ‘ + bude sti wa ea aire Oi Aad bd r yen POSURE oe ead 9 be ith tia ΠΝ nya nips naa ΠΝ yey γὴν ΠΡ ΗΝ ἢ Sep bre go a thse ΝΗ if i WM lashterde ge ota i ᾿ ὅλη vy ὙΠ ρ harps εὐ νυν} ad fin (04 ΓΝ Ἢ ΠΥ ΟΣ en ΠΝΟῊΝ ted) Th ie | * Dt a het sary AOR era stubs | Dia Μ᾽ ᾿ ΠΣ ΠΝ ῥα τ mh deh HPL ΝΣ ΩΝ hae . ΡΜ ΗΜ in arte ΔΉΜΩΝ ΜΡΝ Hie tstlans 212% θεσαν “τς Υ ὯΝ ὙΠ te ber Serideve tt ΩΝ Ἡ ἐλ ψάρι ΣΝ ΡΝ { ἣν J Ce μεν 5) τὴ τ tae ΠΝ ret) Tih} Wes hor te) 1 40 Prada [ἢν ΤΉ ἢ) Abate ἰδοὺ! 4 Ἷ ΡΥ ΉΔΉΕΗΣ , Lee pat aT fei δ ρο φαὺ σῷ ἀγνιεᾷ ity yf re μέσ να Leah shy ehh ye haan by a6 Mi) ed a ων ἔμ! “δ νον κόρη φῚ ΠΥ verve) ἣν ρον με arene ὃ Walp Lah eee Marve ns pay ye Wee ee “ταν Wadyrabaieg ᾿ yy " ΠΝ ma Beat re tay aie thy r hd μὴν Vp με at δὰ ae i ΠΝ ΝΜ μὰ vn aay ena ee ‘ ὙΠ ΠΛῊΝ has " eee wits, μ eat ike LOWER ACS vid ts ay thy at * 2 A ABTS (hae ‘Siete ὙΠ ΑΝ ἠδ ἘΝ yi hike fei ὧν Ἢ yee ἐπ ἦν ἡ ν ἰδ i eee eet he rel δ᾿ a hapa a μι + watt ᾿ ine “es Hae hay 47k ewe τ ὑπ νΣ ne javscambe b Widget hse ante bore 4s reaed nbgennAye Wey clea c! ge DHE Yeats Ju ea tet M tn hf Peder ὦ δ ΠΩΣ fn : cara nytt ΡΝ ΩΝ Αγ ν ἐν Wishes ey aad tied ΜΝ Ἐν Mary ἐᾷ σεν φΦΦ ἑ το δίνην ipa wae STYT ATL RAB Ony amare Niet Fe ' woe eal hry 110 Opi ti iat ihr vend acts eet τον! a μὴ! one) ie aujees spat yer ἮΝ i tnstegue Ben tines 444 CU veal srpieycniieds ἐπὴν Merprsaebregestanrt JR) pd y {sites ἡα δι named Mie μήνόνος gio HSPs < meen uri bre dietl gai ἀν, aatreut paint " ΩΣ ἐπῆν ΠΩ " Al bs » ee ἐν Lost ΠΟ ue ὙΜΉΝ icc μα ει εν ὅτι ἐν τ γρ δε λη φρο ψ ae ἀντ εὐη τ δ eae μα i rr iter ith i Ἢ A ΚΔ itr ΜᾺ ai aa τ ὦ ὦ, ἘΝ iit ΣῊΝ μϑ δε γὴν bend | ee συψϑὸ pi dbo rea asic 216, OMe ΝΥΝ OR ALN a Hb US ITE ᾧὶ μ ΔΝ Ave Hid Lesael berate ssty vue ΛΗ saat a ΗΚ ars ΜΝ ΓΑ ΤΣ ἐν ἐν" nb of i" Vn " nee) if» Hat ΠΣ 5s = ee .} ΜΠΡῈ PI " πε Wel ig eC Te Μή. a ΝΣ ΤΙ ne ΤΗΝ, προς ata re veh ae tera ΣΜΉΝΗ tt "Ὁ γ anche name ἐπα δ The ἀπ τε ὙΠ ὦ νὴ ie a ste ety ean ὑφ Ney μον TH Raby ἐν ἢ, αὖον papal πο pH eae φὰς oy niteton τηνε ota ΝΗ ait dhs το να AL obriginirs ert fu sat Hiameniannsue team By Bente baat ΗΜ ve intend ) ἢ PO ROT ἌΜΕ ΣΉΝ aperinty "ὦ unre wits δπμνδάδη τον area ἀν θνν. νῷ en ἐν remem ἐμ δε "εἶν δι ὁ pina 4 ai yf Thole hy " μὴ Ay Tytler h δυο a ty Ped ἘΝ a atic paved Wasa ων vay ναί quae nk ἐατώφης paw ainhiee frites ryt ee ba τό ede μα arent am uh Cree ας ΝῊ Ἢ wean ΠΝ δια ἐνόν ὕστε ΠΥ ΙΝ ἢ vey arti ter dba be sine ea hag ΤῊ eC δ ΞΕ: anette Sagieas. tute Semmes ‘ anette at iteaiapieseah ean via orate ΠΝ sat hog ad iive@ dy νά κῃ δένξ σε have howell ὁ ϑεφφ δ ιν rg 4 ἀν φεβει ΗΜ > het ἡ τ γ γυ Ὁ PE φἐψ toad bied. ἢ φανῇ ieee aera ὃ } 4 ἢ ἃ oe et CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JOHN. BY JOH. EDY HUTHER, Tx.D., PASTOR AT WITTENFORDEN, SCHWERIN. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXXII. THE TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLESOF JAMES HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY PATON. (GilO AG. SD. D: THE EPI Timo OR es Omen BY Rev. CLARKE H. IRWIN, M.A. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY. HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TaD, OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. From the German, With the Sanction of the Author. THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JOHN. BY Ded; ἰδ HUA θὰ EDINBURGH: TE eee CLARK, 995 GHEORGHE STREET. MDCCCLXXXIL NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS: Abe Issue completes the Series of MEME RS COMMENTARIES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. In Twenty Volumes. ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL, 2 Vols. ST. MARK and ST. LUKE, 2 Vols.—ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL, 2 Vols.—ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, 2 Vols.—ROMANS, 2 Vols —CORINTHIANS, 2 Vols.—_GALATIANS, 1 Vol.—EPHESIANS and PHILE- MON, 1 Vol.—PHILIPPIANS and COLOSSIANS, 1 Vol.—_THESSALONIANS, Vol.—_TIMOTHY and TITUS, 1 Vol—HEBREWS, 1 Vol.—PETER and JUDE, 1 Vol.—_JAMES and JOHN, 1 Vol. DUSTERDIECK ON REVELATION Ἢ will not be translated in the meantime, as the Publishers have received no encouragement from the Subscribers. PREFACE. ὮΝ the new revision of this Commentary the follow- ἢ ἔν | ing works have been chiefly examined. UH. ἢ Bouman, Comment. perpet. in Jac. ep., ed. 1863, the exposition of the Epistle by Lange (second edition, 1866) in Lange’s Bibelwerk, and the third edition of de Wette’s exposition edited by Briickner. Whilst in the first of these works a deep and thorough examination of the thoughts of the Epistle is awanting, the work of Lange is too defective in exegetical carefulness, which alone can lead to sure results. In order to comprehend the Epistle historically, Lange proceeds from the most arbitrary hypotheses, which often mislead him into very rash, and sometimes strange explanations. It is to be regretted that, with all his spiritual feeling and acuteness, he has not been able to put a proper bridle upon his imagination. The second edition of de Wette’s Handbook, containing the exposition of the Epistles of Peter, Jude, and James, had been previously prepared by Briickner. When in the preface to the third edition he says that he has subjected this portion of the Handbook to a thorough revision, and, as far as possible, has made the necessary additions and corrections, this assertion is completely justified by the work. Although the remarks of Briickner are condensed, yet they are highly deserving of attention, being the result of a true exegetical insight. It were to be wished that Briickner had been less trammelled by “the duty to preserve the work of de Wette as much as_ possible uncurtailed.” Of the recent examinations on the relation of the Pauline view of justification to that of James, I will only here mention the familiar dissertation of Hengstenberg: “the Epistle of James,” in Nos. 91-94 of the Zvangelical Church Magazine, 1866; and the explanation of Jas. ii. vi PREFACE. 24-26, by Philippi in his Dogmatics, vol. I. pp. 297-315. Both, without assenting to my explanation, agree with me in this, that there is no essential difference between the doctrines of Paul and James. Hengstenberg arrives at this result by supposing, on the assumption of a justification gradually developed, that James speaks of a different stage of justification from that of Paul; whilst Philippi attributes to δικαιοῦν with James another meaning than that which it has with Paul. I can approve neither of the one method nor of the other; not of the former, because by it the idea of justification is altered in a most serious manner; nor of the latter, because it is wanting in linguistic correctness, and, moreover, thoughts are by it given which are wholly un- important. I will not here resume the controversy with Frank, to which I felt constrained in the publication of the second edition, only remarking that after a careful examination I have not been able to alter my earlier expressed view of James’ doctrine of justification, the less so as it had not its origin from dogmatic prepossession, but was demanded by exegetical conviction. Moreover, I am no less convinced than formerly that in the deductions made by me nothing is contained which contradicts the doctrine of the church regarding justifi- cation.— With regard to the question whether the author of this Epistle, the brother of the Lord, is or is not identical with the Apostle James, I have not been able to change my earlier convictions. If in more recent times the opposite view has been occasionally maintained, this is either in the way of simple assertion, or on grounds which proceed from unjustified suppositions. This present edition will show that I have exercised as impartial a criticism as possible with regard to my own views, as well as with regard to the views of others. The quotations from Rauch and Gunkel refer to their reviews of this commentary published before the second edition; the one is found in No. 20 of the Theol. Literaturblatt of the allgem. Kirchenzeitung of the year 1858; and the other in the Géttingen gel. Anz, Parts 109-112 of the year 1859. I have occasionally quoted Cremer’s biblisch- theol. Worterbuch des neutest. Grdcitét. The more I know of the value of this work, the more I regret that it does not PREFACE. Vil answer to its title, inasmuch as those words are only treated which the author considers to be the expressions of spiritual, moral, and religious life. A distinction is here made which can only with difficulty be maintained. I have quoted Winer’s Grammar, not only according to the sixth, but also according to the seventh edition, edited by Liinemann. I again close this preface with the hope that my labour may help to make the truly apostolic spirit of the Epistle of James more valued, and to render its ethical teaching more useful to the church. J. Ep. HUTHER. WITTENFORDEN, οἴου. 1859, ἘΠ ἐν εν ι ΠΡ hy ert Romig " riod ad κ᾿ ΠΣ ra » τ ι ὁ! Langs wish ‘4 4 teres Beh soon ἀν ae τῇ wig. : δὰ F) ‘se nek bole δῇ . “ἡ ἘΠΗΣ ἡ 8 ὧν ἃ O64 ι un ἡ eeu, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. INTRODUCTION. SEC. 1.—JAMES. fea eae ΠΕ author of this Epistle designates himself in the cr μὲ inscription ᾿Ιάκωβος, Θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ A 7k Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, and thus announces himself to = be, though not an apostle in the narrower sense of the term, yet a man of apostolic dignity. From this, as well as from the attitude which he takes up toward the circle of readers to whom he has directed his Epistle (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ), it is evident that no other James can be meant than he who, at an early period in the Acts of the Apostles, appears as the head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13 ff., xxi. 18); whom Paul calls ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου (Gal. i. 19), and reckons among the στύλοις (Gal. ii. 9), and whom Jude, the author of the last Catholic Epistle, designates as his brother (Jude 1); the same who in tradition received the name ὁ δίκαιος (Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 23, iv. 22), who was regarded even by the Jews as an ἀνὴρ δικαιότατος (Joseph. Antig. xx. 3. 1), to whom a higher dignity than that of the apostles is attributed in the Clementines, and who, according to the narrative of Josephus, suffered martyrdom about the year 63; according to that of Hegesippus (Euseb. 11. 23), not long before the destruction of Jerusalem.” 1 No certain decision can be come to on this difference, especially as the narrative of Hegesippus (comp. Lange’s Komment., Einleitung, p. 13 f.) bears unmistakable mythical traces ; and in the relation of Josephus : παράγων εἰς αὐτὸ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν ᾿Ιησοῦ, τοῦ λεγουμένου Χριστοῦ, ᾿Ιώκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ καὶ) «τινας (ἑτέρους) . παρίδωκε λευσθησομένους, the genuineness of the bracketed words is at least doubtful ; Clericus, Lardner, Credner assert their spuriousness, Meyur.—JAmMeEs. A bo THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, As regards the question whether this James is to be con- sidered as identical with the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus, as is maintained in recent times by Lange, Bouman, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others, or as a different person, the data given in the N. T. are more favourable to the idea of non-identity than to the opposite opinion. 1. When mention is made in the N. T. of the ἀδελφοί of Jesus, they are represented as a circle different from that of the apostles. Thus they are already in John ii. 12 distinguished from the μαθηταῖς of Jesus; the same distinction is also made after the choice of the twelve apostles (Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 21, 31; Luke vii. 19; John vii. 3), and in such a manner that neither in these passages nor in those where the Jews mention the brethren of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 8 ἢ is there the slightest indication that one or several of them belonged to the apostolic circle: rather their conduct toward Jesus is characterized as different from that of the apostles ; and, indeed, it is expressly said of them that they did not believe on Him (John vii. 5). Also after the ascension of Christ, when His brethren had become believers, and had attached themselves to the apostles, they are expressly, and in the same simple manner as before, distinguished from the Twelve (Acts 1, 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5). 2. In no passage of the N. T. is it indicated that the aderdoé of the Lord were not His brothers, in the usual meaning of the word, but His cousins ; and, on the other hand, James the son of Alphaeus is never reckoned as a brother of Jesus, nor is there any trace of a relationship between him and the Lord. Certainly the Mary mentioned in John xix. 25 (ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ) was the mother of the sons of Alphaeus (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40), as “AAdaios and Κλωπᾶς are only different forms of the same name (Ἐ5Π); but from that passage it does not follow that this Mary was a sister of the mother of Jesus (see Meyer ὧν loc.). 3. According to the lists of the apostles, only one of the sons of Alphaeus, namely James, was the 1 According to the Receptus, the names of the brothers of Jesus are James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. Instead of Ἰωσής in Matthew, Lachmann and Tischendorf have adopted, according to preponderating authority, Ἰωσήφ ; in Mark they, however, read Ἰωσῆτος ; yet here also the Codex Sinaiticus has ᾿Ιωσήφ. It remains doubtful which is the correct name. Comp. Meyer on the passage in Matthew. INTRODUCTION. “i apostle of the Lord. Although the Apostle Lebbaeus (Matt. x. 3), whom Mark calls Thaddaeus (Mark ii. 18), is the same with "Iovéas ᾿Ιακώβου in Luke (Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13), yet he was not a brother of James; for, on the one hand, if this were the case he would have been called so by Matthew, who expressly places thé brothers among the apostles together ; and, on the other hand, ἀδελφός is not to be supplied to the genitive ᾿Ιακώβου in Luke,—contrary to all analogy —but vids (see Introduction to Commentary on Jude, sec. 1). According to Matt. xxvil. 26 and Mark xv. 40, Alphaeus, besides James, had only one other son, Joses. If the apostles Judas and Simon were also his sons, his wife Mary in the above passages would have been also called their mother, especially as Joses was not an apostle. From all these data, then, the brothers of the Lord, James, Judas, and Simon, are not to be considered as identical with the apostles bearing the same names. 4. There are, however, two passages, Gal. i. 19 and 1 Cor. xv. 7, which appear to lead to a different con- clusion. In the first passage εὖ μή appears to indicate, as many interpreters assume, that Paul, by the addition’ for the sake of historical exactness, remarks that besides the Apostle Peter he saw also the Apostle James. But on this supposi- tion we cannot see why he should designate him yet more exactly as τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, since the other Apostle James was at that time dead. The addition of this surname indicates a distinction of this James from the apostle. Now et μή does certainly refer not only to οὐκ εἶδον (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 482; Neander, Winer), but to the whole pre- ceding clause; still, considering the position which James occupied, Paul might regard him, and indeed was bound to regard him, as standing in such a close relation to the real apostles that he might use εἰ μή without including him among them.’ It is evident that Paul did not reckon James among the original apostles, since in Gal. ii. he names him and * Meyer (in loc.) supposes that James is here reckoned by Paul among the apostles in the wider sense of the term. But it is also possible that the words εἰ μὴ z..a. are not to be understood as a limitation to the thought before expressed, ἕσερον δὲ x.7.4., but as a remark added to it, by which Paul would lay stress upon the fact that besides Peter he has also seen James, the brother of the Lord, thus the man who possessed not only an apostolic dignity, but to whom the opponents of Paul directly appealed. + THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Cephas and John together, not as apostles, but as οἱ δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι, of δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι. --- Τὰ the other passage, 1 Cor. xv. 7, the word πᾶσιν may be added by Paul, with reference to James formerly named, in the sense: “ afterwards Christ appeared to James, and then—not to him only, but— to all the apostles,” from which it would follow that James belonged to the apostles. But this reference is not necessary, as πᾶσιν may as well be added in order simply to give prominence to the fact that all the apostles, without excep- tion, had seen the Lord.? 5. All the other reasons for the identity, which are taken from the N. T., as adduced by Lange, are too subjective in character to be considered as conclusive ; as, for example, that Luke in Acts xii. 17 would have felt himself obliged to notice that the James mentioned by him here and further on, is not the same with the James whom he had called an apostle in Acts i. 13;% that only an apostle could have written such an epistle, and have attained to that consequence which James possessed in the Church ;* and that it is improbable that, besides the Apostles James, Judas, and Simon, there should be three of the brothers of Jesus bearing the same names.” That James is reckoned by Paul among the στύλοις, has certainly been adduced as an argument for the opposite opinion ; but that Paul does not reckon those named as στύλοι because they were apostles, is undeniable ; and that only apostles could be considered as σσύλοι, is an unwarranted assumption. Bouman thinks that a mere private person could not attain to such an import- ance; but he overlooks the fact that James, as the most prominent of the brothers of the Lord, who are named alongside of the apostles, was more than a mere private person. ? Otherwise Meyer (in loc.), who here also understands the expression ἀπόστολοι in the wider sense, which certainly receives a justification from the fact that the original apostles had before been designated by Paul as of δώδεκα. 3 Against this it is to be affirmed, that Luke might certainly assume such an acquaintance on the part of his readers with the circumstances, that in speaking of James in Jerusalem he did not deem it necessary to remark which James he meant. He even names Philip (viii. 5) without saying whether he was the apostle or the deacon. Bleek (Hinl. in N. J. p. 545) explains the matter differently ; that as the Acts of the Apostles is not to be considered an inde- pendent work of Luke, we may suppose that he retained the simple designation James as he found it in his document, without making any remark on the relation of this James to Jesus and to James the son of Alphaeus. *The important position of James in Jerusalem was not founded on the apostolate, as that office points rather to missionary activity than to an episcopal superintendence of a church, 5 This similarity ceases to be remarkable, when we consider how frequently INTRODUCTION. a The testimonies of the post-apostolic age are much too uncertain to decide the controversy; for whilst Clemens Alexandrinus (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1: δύο δὲ γεγόνασιν ᾿Ιακώβοι: εἷς ὁ δίκαιος... ἕτερος δὲ ὁ... καρατομηθείς) and Jerome declare for the hypothesis of identity, the Apostolic Constitutions (11. 55, vi. 12, 14; in the latter passage, after the enumeration of the twelve apostles, there are yet named : ᾿Ιάκωβής τε ὁ τοῦ κυρίου ἀδελφὸς Kal “]εροσολύμων ἐπί- σκοπος καὶ Παῦλος ὁ τῶν ἐθνῶν διδάσκαλος) and Eusebius (commentary on [58.. xvii. 5 in Montfaucon, coll. nova patr. IL. p. 422; Hist. Heel. i. 12, vii. 19) definitely distinguish the brother of the Lord from the apostles. The statement of Hegesippus (in Euseb. iv. 22), to which Credner appeals against, and Kern and Lange for the identity, is not in favour of 10 :} also the extract of Jerome from the Hebrew gospel cannot with certainty be quoted for it (Hieron. de vir. ilustrib. chap. i1.); and still less the passage in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 35, where the words τῷ λεχθέντι ἀδελφῷ τοῦ κυρίου μου annexed to ᾿Ιακώβῳ admit of the explanation that the designation ἀδελῴ. τ. κύρ. was his familiar surname. The opinions of the later Church Fathers are evidently of no weight either for or against the identity. On the assumption of identity, the word aéeAdos cannot be understood in its usual sense. The opinion, obtaining most favour since the time of Jerome, is that the so-called ἀδελφοί the same names are given to different persons in the N. T. ; we have only . to adduce the names Mary, Simon, Joseph, Judas, ete. On the supposition of the identity of these three apostles with the three brothers of Jesus, then in the passages Matt. xii. 46 (Mark iii. 31 ; Luke viii. 19) and John vii. 3, 5, only one brother of the Lord, Joses (or Joseph), could be referred to, particularly as sisters could not be included in the idea of brothers, as Lange, it is true, thinks is the case in Acts i. 13, 14. 1The passage is: μετὰ od μαρτυρῆσαι ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, ὡς καὶ 6 κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, πάλιν ὁ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Ἀλωπᾶ καθίσταται ἐπίσκοσιος" ὃν προΐθεντο πάντες ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν ποῦ κυρίου δεύτερον. In this passage the translation of αὐτοῦ, οἵ πάλιν, and of δεύτερον is doubtful. Kern and Lange refer αὐσοῦ to ὁ κύριος, connect πάλιν directly with ὁ ἐκ ésiov αὐσοῦ, and refer δεύσερον to ἀνε μὲν ποῦ κυρίου. But αὐτοῦ may, as Credner remarks, also refer to Ἰώκωβον, and πάλιν be connected with xadicrara: ἐπίσκοπος, and δεύτερον With ov προέθεντο. If αὐτοῦ is referred to ᾿Ιώκωβον, then James is designated as the real brother of Jesus, since in another passage (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 22) Simeon the son of Clopas is called by Hegesippus the son of the uncle of Jesus ; if, on the other hand, it is referred to ὁ κύριος, nothing is said regarding the relationship of James to Jesus ; 6 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. were the cousins of Jesus, namely, the sons of the sister of His mother, who was also called Mary, and was the wife of Clopas (=Alphaeus). This view is supported by the interpretation of John xix. 25, according to which the words Mapia ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ are taken in apposition to the preceding ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ; and so the passage is explained by Theodoret: ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἐκαλεῖτο μέν, οὐκ ἣν δὲ φύσει... τοῦ Κλωπᾶ μὲν ἣν υἱός, τοῦ δὲ κυρίου ἀνεψίος" μητέρα γὰρ εἶχε τὴν ἀδελφὴν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου μητέρος. The correct interpreta- tion of that passage removes all ground for this opinion. Accordingly Lange (in Herzoe’s Real-Encyklopddie, and repeated in his Commentary, Introduction, p. 10), instead of this view, has advanced the theory, that as Clopas, according to Hege- sippus, was a brother of Joseph, the so-called brethren of Jesus were properly His step-cousins, but after the early death of Clopas were adopted by Joseph, and so actually became the brothers of Jesus. But this opinion is destitute of foundation; for even although the narrative of Hegesippus is correct, yet tradition is silent concerning the early death of Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph, and as little “does history know that the sons of Alphaeus formed one household with the mother of Jesus, and were prominent members of it,” as Lange maintains. By the denial of identity, ἀδελφός is to be understood in its proper sense. Thiersch (Krit. d. new. test. Schriften, pp. 361, 430 ff.) adopts the opinion contained, accord- it thus depends on the interpretation of πάλιν and δεύτερον. It cannot be denied that πάλιν is more naturally connected with καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος than with the words which immediately follow, as in that case it would clearly mean that Simeon became bishop a second time ; but δεύτερον may at least as well be con- nected with ὅν σροξέεντο (in the sense: ‘‘ whom all appointed the second bishop”) as with ὄντα ἀνε. τ. xvpiov.—Thus, then, the explanation of Credner is not inferior to that of Kern and Lange, but rather appears to be the more probable, as Hegesippus elsewhere designates James simply as the brother of the Lord, and never indicates that he was an apostle; rather in the words: διαδέχεται δὲ σὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς ποῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιάκωβος, ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος... Ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ιώκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο, he seems at least to distinguish him from the apostles. According to Hegesippus, Clopas was a brother of Joseph (Euseb. iii. 4), and thus Simeon as the son of Clopas was ἀνεψιὸς σοῦ κυρίου. Whether this is correct must indeed remain uncertain; it finds no support in the N. T., as there the sons of Clopas (= Alphaeus) are only James and Joses. From these remarks it follows how unjustifiable is the assertion of Lange: “ We learn from Hegesippus that James the brother of the Lord was a brother of Simeon, and that both were the sons of Clopas,” INTRODUCTION. vi ing to his conjecture, in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and already advanced by Origen (on Matt. xiii), that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a former marriage ; but against this Wiesinger rightly insists on the fact that this opinion of Origen “was by no means prevalent in his time.” It owed its origin apparently to a delicacy to deny the per- petual virginity of Mary, as Thiersch confesses that “it is not to him a matter of indifference whether the mother of the Lord remained det παρθένος. The evangelists, however, have not this feeling, for otherwise Matthew and Luke would not have said of Mary: ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, which points to the birth of later children not only as a possible, but as an actual fact. If it were otherwise, there would be some indication in the N. T. that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, or that the ἀδελφοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ were not her children. According to the N. T., the brothers of Jesus, to whom James belonged, are the children of Mary born in wedlock with Joseph after the birth of Jesus; as is correctly recognised by Herder, Credner, Meyer, de Wette, Wiesinger, Stier, Bleek, and others. In what the evangelists relate of the brothers of Jesus, James is not particularly distinguished. Accordingly we are not to consider his conduct as different from that of the rest. Although closely related by birth to Jesus, His brothers did not recognise His higher dignity, so that Jesus with reference to them said: οὐχ ἔστε προφήτης ἄτιμος, εἰ μὴ ἐν TH πατρίδι αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὑτοῦ (Matt. xiii 56). Lange incor- rectly infers from John ii. 12, where the brothers of Jesus are first mentioned, that “even at the commencement of the ministry of Jesus they were spiritually related (that is, by faith) to the disciples; ” for at that time the brothers had not attached themselves to the disciples, but went with them from Cana to Capernaum that they might accompany Mary. Ata later period we find them separated from the disciples (see Mark iii. 21; Matt. xii. 46; Luke viii. 19); they go with 1 This event, according to the united testimony of the Synoptists, occurred after the choice of the Twelve ; Mark makes it to follow directly upon it. In ἔλεγον γάρ, ver. 21, Lange finds an ‘‘ artifice” on the part of those belonging to Jesus to rescue Him from the death which threatened Him (!). — Meyer supplies to ἐξῆλθον. ‘from Nazareth ;” but it is probable that the family at this time 8 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Mary to the house where Jesus is, because, thinking that He was mad, they wished to bring Him home with them, which was evidently no sign of their faith, but rather of their un- belief. After the miracle of the loaves, when the feast of Tabernacles was at hand, they are with Jesus in Galilee; but that even at this period they did not believe on Him, is expressly asserted by John (vii. 5). Only after the ascension do we find them as disciples of the Lord in close fellow- ship with the apostles. We are not informed when this change took place, but from the fact that Jesus on the cross resigned His mother, as one forsaken, to the care of John, we may conjecture that even then they did not believe. It is probable that our Lord’s appearance after His resurrection to James (1 Cor. xv. 5) decided his belief, and that his con- version drew his brothers along with him, as may be inferred from the force of his character. So Bleek, Fini. in d. N. 1. p. 546. James at an early period obtained in the church of Jerusalem such a position that he appears as its head (about a.p. 44); yet this position is not that of a bishop in distinction from presbyters, but he was one of the presbyters (Acts xv. 22, 23), whose loftier dignity was not derived from any special official authority, but only from his personality. In the conference at Jerusalem (in the year 50, Acts xv.) James not only took an important part, but his voice gave the decision. _ We cannot call his advice, in accordance with which the definite resolution was arrived at, a compromise ; for the question whether believers among the Gentiles were obliged to be circumcised could only be affirmed or denied. James decided the question in the negative, grounding his opinion not on his own experience, nor on the communications of Paul and Barnabas, but on the divine act narrated by Peter, wherein he recognised the commencement of the fulfilment of the definite λόγοι τῶν προφητῶν. When he imposed upon. the Gentile Christians ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, he dwelt no longer in Nazareth, but in Capernaum ; for in Mark vi. 3 the inhabit- ants of Nazareth say only of the sisters, but not of His mother and brothers, that they dwelt with them (comp. also Matt. xiii. 55). 1 Lange also, it is true, finds in the demand of the brothers a sign of unbelief, but of the unbelief of an enthusiasm which had not yet risen to self-sacrifice ! INTRODUCTION. 9 does so, not in the same sense as that in which the Judaizers imposed on them the observance of the law; and when asa reason he appeals to the reading of Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues even of Gentile cities, he intimates that he wished to draw the boundary to the freedom of the Gentile Christians, within which they must keep themselves, if it were to be possible for the Jewish Christians to live in brotherly fellow- ship with them. That James not only recognises Gentile Christianity, but also the ἀποστολή of Paul, is apparent from Gal. ii. 7 ff.; yet it does not follow that he entered entirely into Paul’s views. According to Gal. 11. 12, the persons there called τινὲς ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακώβου were offended because Peter and the other Jews did eat μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν. We are not told in the narrative of Paul that these did not come directly from James, but only from Jerusalem, at least that they had not been sent by James, or that they had expressed themselves more strongly than the views of James warranted. The influence which they exerted on Peter, and even on Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, would rather seem to indicate that their words were regarded as those of James, who, when he declared himself against συνεσθίειν μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν, did not contradict his view expressed in the con- vention at Jerusalem. It is clear from Acts xxi. 17-26 that James attached great importance to the point that every ἀποστασία of the Jews from Moses should be avoided, and that the Gentile Christians should remain by that fourfold ἀπέχεσθαι ; he even demanded from Paul a proof that he had not ceased to observe the law (τὸν νόμον φυλάσσειν). From the fact that Paul complied with this demand, it follows not only that he was not hostilely opposed to the view of James, but that he respected it, and recognised in it nothing essentially opposed to his own principles. He could not have done so had James insisted on the observ- ance of the law in the same sense as did the Judaizing Christians, against whom Paul so often and so decidedly con- ‘If Paul by τὰ ἔθνη (Gal. ii. 12) means not Gentiles, but, as is certainly the usual view, Gentile Christians, we must suppose, with Wieseler (Komm. iiber d. Br, an d. Gal.), that the Gentile Christians at Antioch no longer kept the rules established at Jerusalem, otherwise Peter would have had no reason to separate himself from them at their meals. — Yet it is doubtful if we are justified in assuming this, as the presupposed fact is not in the least indicated by Paul. 10 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. tended. According to James, the law was not a necessary means of justification along with and in addition to faith, but the rule of life appointed by God to the people of Israel, according to which believing Israel has to conform in the /ree obedience of faith. Thus James was and continued to be in his faith in Christ a true Jew, without, however, denying that Christianity was not only the glorification of Judaism, but also that by it the blessing promised to Israel was imparted to the Gentiles without their being subject to the law of Israel. The position of James toward the Mosaic law was accordingly different from that of Paul. For whilst the latter was con- scious that in Christ he was dead to the law (μὴ av ὑπὸ νόμον, 1 Cor. ix. 20), so that he felt himself at liberty to be as ᾿Ιουδαῖος to the Jews but ὡς ἄνομος to the ἀνόμοις, though always ἔννομος Χριστῷ, the former esteemed it to be a sacred duty in Christ to observe the law which God had given to His people through Moses.” In this legal obedience James showed such a strict conscientiousness, that even by the Jews he received the name of “the Just.” And considering this his 1 Weiss is wrong when he maintains (in the dissertation ‘‘ James and Paul” in the deutsche Ztschr. f. christl. Wissenschaft, 5th year, 1854, No. 51) that James was a stranger to the distinction between the fulfilment of the law from a motive of duty and from the impulse of a new principle, and that in this he was in opposition to Paul; that while, according to the latter, the law leads to sin and death, according to the view of James it produces righteousness and deliverance from death, and that he cherishes the idea, supposed by Weiss to be contained in the O. T., that he only can be declared righteous by God who is actually perfectly righteous. In opposition to the first two positions it is to be urged, that James in chap. ii. speaks not of the O. T. law as such, but of the N. Τ΄ νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίας ; and against the third position, that the O. T. recog- nises distinetly a forgiveness of sins, as well as that James regards δικαιοῦσθαι ἐξ ἔργων as a work of grace, since he does not deny the existence of sin among true believers, and in ii. 11 presupposes that it is only possible to stand in the judg- ment inasmuch as that judgment is merciful. It is to be observed that Weiss advances the same view of James in his bibl. Theologie. 2 Paul and James before their conversion to Christ certainly occupied different positions with regard to the law. The former regarded it—conformably to his Pharisaism—as the means of procuring righteousness, and accordingly in his strivings he experienced it as a ζυγός which weighed him down ; James, on the other hand, was certainly one of those pious persons to whom, in the faith of the covenant which God made with His people, the law, as the witness of this covenant, was the word of divine love, and therefore in it he had found his joy and consolation (comp. Ps. exix. 92, xix. 8-11). Paul found his peace, when he recognised himself in Christ free from the law ; James, when he experienced in Christ strength to obey the law. INTRODUCTION. 5 i peculiar character, it is not at all to be wondered at that the Judaistic Christians leant chiefly on him, and that Judaistic tradition imparted additional features to his portrait, by which he appeared as the ideal of Jewish holiness. According to the description of Hegesippus (Euseb, Hist. Eccl. ii. 23), he was by birth a Nazarite, he led an ascetic life, he never anointed with oil nor used the bath, he never wore woollen but linen clothes, he was permitted to enter into the sanc- tuary, and he prayed constantly on his knees for the forgive- ness of the people, and continued in his devotions so long that his knees became hard as camels’. This description may contain a few genuine traits, yet, as will be generally admitted, it cannot be acquitted of “suspicious exaggeration” (Lange). The statements of the Ebionites proceed further; in the Clementines, James is raised above all the apostles, and exalted to the episcopacy of all Christendom; indeed, according to Epiphanius (Haeres, xxx. 16), his ascension to heaven was a matter of narration; and Epiphanius himself thinks that he not only went yearly into the holy of holies, but that he also wore the diadem of the high priest. SEC. 2.—THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE. The contents of the Epistle prove that it was addressed to Christians. Not only does the author—who by the designa- tion κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος plainly announces himself to be a Christian—address his readers throughout as his “brethren” (also as his “ beloved brethren”), but in several places he distinctly affirms that they stand with him on the same ground of faith; in chap. 1. 18 he says that God has begotten them (ἡμᾶς) by the word of truth; in chap. ii. 1 he reminds them of their πίστις τοῦ κυρίου “I. Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης ; in chap. ii. 7 he speaks of the goodly name (that is, the name of Jesus Christ) which was invoked upon them; in chap. v. 7 he exhorts them to patience, pointing out to them the nearness of the coming of the Lord; and in chap. ii. 16 ff. he evidently supposes that they had one and the same faith with himself. Add to this, that if the author as a δοῦλος of Christ had written to non-Christians, his Epistle could only have had the intention of leading them to faith in Christ; but of such 12 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. an intention there is not the slightest trace found in the Epistle, so that Bouman is completly unjustified when he says: vult haec esse epistola estque revera christianae reli- gionis schola propaedeutica. Certainly the designation of the readers, found in the inscription of the Epistle as ai δώδεκα φυλαὶ ai ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, appears at variance with this view, as such a designation properly applies to Jews dispersed among the Gentiles beyond the boundaries of Palestine. By this name cannot be meant Christians in general (Hengstenberg), in- asmuch as they are the spiritual Israel (in contrast to ὁ ᾿Ισραὴλν κατὰ σάρκα, 1 Cor. x. 18; comp. Gal. vi. 16), and still less the Gentle Christians (Philippi), because it stamps the nation- ality too distinctly (much more than the expression ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι διασπορᾶς, 1 Pet. i. 1), particularly as nothing is added pointing beyond the limits of nationality. The appa- rent contradiction is solved by the consideration of the view of James, according to which the Christians to whom he wrote not only had not ceased to be Jews, but it was precisely those Jews who believed in the Messiah promised to them and manifested in Jesus who were the true Jews, so that he regarded believing Israel as the true people of God, on whom he could therefore without scruple confer the name ai δώδεκα φυλαί, pointing to the fathers to whom the promises were made; and, besides, it is not to be forgotten that the sharp distinction between Christianity springing up in Judaism, and Judaism called to Christianity, did not at first arise, but was only gradually developed by subsequent historical relations ; yet 10 1s not —on account of the above adduced reasons — to be inferred, as Bouman and Lange assume, that the Epistle was not only written to the converted, but also to the un- converted Jews.” The destination of the Epistle to Jewish 1 The solution is unsatisfactory, that ‘‘ James writes to the Jews with whom he has access as a servant of Jesus Christ, and on whom as such he has influence.”’ “It is true that the author directly addresses the rich, who were hostilely disposed to the Christians ; but it does not follow from this that the Epistle was in any proper sense directed to them; it is rather to be explained from the liveliness with which he writes. The author sees those who had exposed the readers of his Epistle in a twofold manner to temptation (#spacuss) as present before him, and therefore for the sake of his readers he addresses them direetly ; as also the prophets often did in their denunciations against the enemies of Israel. INTRODUCTION. BS Christians follows from chap. ii. 2, where the place of assembly of the congregations is called συναγωγή ; from ii. 29; where Monotheism is prominently brought forward; from v. 12, where swearing according to forms customary ainong the Jews is forbidden; and from v. 14, where the custom of anointing with oil is mentioned. But, besides, all_the~ethical faults which the autho» reproves are of such a nature that they have their root in the carnal Jewish disposition (Wiesinger, Schaff, . Thiersch, and others*).——The indolent reliance, prevailing in the congregations, on a faith without works, cannot be ad- duced as a feature opposed to the Jewish character; for in its nature it is nothing else than the pharisaical confidence on the superiority over all other nations,-granted by God through the law to the people of Israel. “As the Jews thought that in their law they had a guarantee for their salvation without the actual practice of the law (comp. Rom. ii. 17 ff.), so these ) Christians trusted to their faith, though defective in works.’ / That in later times the Jews also placed a false confidence on their knowledge of God, Justin testifies when he says: οἱ λέγουσιν, OTL κἂν ἁμαρτωλοὶ ὦσι, Θεὸν δὲ γινώσκουσιν, ov μὴ λογίσηται αὐτοῖς ἁμαρτίαν (Dial. p. 370, ed. col.). — It is true it is not prominently mentioned in the Epistle that the readers were solicitous about a scrupulous observance of the rites of the Mosaic law, but a false estimate of an external θρησκεία was, according to 1. 22 ff, not wanting among them, with which also was united, as among the Jews, a fanatical zeal (ὀργή). ----- The condition of these Jewish-Christian congrega- tions, as described in the Epistle, was as follows: They were exposed to manifold temptations (πειρασμοῖς ποικίλοις), whilst their members as poor (ταπεινοί, πτωχοί) by reason of their faith (chap. 11. 5, 6) were oppressed by the rich. But they did not bear these persecutions with that patience which assures the true Christian of the crown of life; on the con- ’ When Briickner thinks that the description of the readers as αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί does not require that they were merely Jewish Christians, but only that they who came over to them from the Gentiles must have submitted to the ordinances of the Jewish national life, it is to be observed that circumcised Gentiles were no longer regarded as Gentiles, but as Jews, * «What James had in view is simply a Jewish orthodoxy which asserted itself among the Jewish Christians in the form of a dead unfruitful faith in God and the Messiah,” Thiersch. 14 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. trary, these persecutions gave rise to an inward temptation, the blame of which, however, they sought not in themselves, in their ἐπιθυμία, but in God. Instead of praying in faith for the wisdom which was lacking to them, they gave way to doubt, which placed them in opposition to the principle of Christian life. Whilst they considered their ταπεινότης as a disgrace, they looked with envy at the glitter of earthly elory, and preferred the friendship of the world to that of God, in consequence of which, even in their religious assem- blies, they flattered the rich, whilst they looked down upon the poor. This worldly spirit, conducive to the friendship of the world, was likewise the occasion of bitter strife among them, in which they murmured against each other, and in passionate zeal contended with violent words. These conten- tions were not “theological discussions” (Reuss) or “ doc- trinal dissensions ” (Schmid), for the Epistle points to none of these, but concerned practical life, especially the Christian’s demeanour in the world.’ As the Jews imagined that it belonged to them to be the ruling people of the world, to whom all the glory of the world belonged, so also many in these congregations wished to possess even on the earth in a worldly form the glory promised to Christians, and therefore they quarrelled with “the brethren of low degree,” who on their part were carried along in passionate wrath against those of a proud disposition. In serving the world they certainly did not wish to cease to be Christians, but they thought to be certain of justification (δικαιοῦσθαι) on account of their faith, although that faith was to them something entirely external which produced among them a fanatical zeal (as the law among the Jews), but not that work of faith which consisted, on the one hand, in τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, and, on the other, in the practice of compassionate love. Yet all were not estranged in this manner from the Christian life ; there were still among them disciples of the Lord who were and wished to be ταπεινοί; yet worldliness was so prevalent in the midst of them that even they suffered from it. Hence 1 The observation of Reuss ($ 144) is misleading: ‘‘ The supremacy of systems and philosophy of faith was to the simple-minded and unphilosophical author as much opposed as the supremacy of money and fine clothes,” since the λαλεῖν against which James contends has nothing to do with ‘‘ systems and philosophy.” INTRODUCTION. 13 the admonitory and warning nature of the Epistle to all, yet so that it is addressed chiefly sometimes to the one party and sometimes to the other, and is in its tone now mild and now severe. All, however, are addressed as ἀδελφοί, except the rich, who are distinctly stated as those who stand not inside, but outside of the congregations to whom the Epistle was ad- dressed. These faults in the congregations were the occasion which induced James to compose his Epistle. The Epistle itself is opposed to the opinion of Lange, that its occasion can only be understood when it is recognised that the Jewish Chris- tians were infected by the fanaticism of the Jews, in which the revolutionary impulse of independence and revenge was united with enthusiastic apocalyptic and chiliastic hopes, and which was excited by the antagonism of the Gentile world to Judaism ; in the Epistle only in an arbitrary manner can references and allusions to these “ historical conditions” be maintained. The churches to which the Epistle is addressed are, accord- _ing to the inscription, outside of Palestine, chiefly in Syria | | and the far East, whilst in the West there were hardly any _ Jewish Christian churches; yet it is possible that the author ( also included, by the expression employed, the churches in ᾿ Palestine only outside of Jerusalem (Guericke). SEC. 3.—CONTENTS AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. The Epistle commences with a reference to the πειρασμοί which the readers had to endure, exhorting them to esteem them as reasons for joy, to prove their patience under them, ~to ask in faith for the wisdom which was lacking to them, to which a warning against doubt is annexed. To the rich the judgment of God is announced; whilst to the lowly, who endure patiently, the crown of life is promised (i. 1-12). Directly upon this follows the warning not to refer the internal temptations which arose from their own lusts (ἐπιθυμία) to God, as from God, on the contrary, cometh every good gift, especially the new birth by the word of truth (i. 13-18). To this is annexed the exhortation to be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath. This exhortation forms the basis for the following amplifications. The first, “swift to hear,” is more precisely defined: to receive with meekness the word 16 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, which is able to save the soul, in such a way as there shall be no failure in the doing of the word by works of compas- sionate love, and by preserving oneself from the world (i. 19-27). With special reference to the flattery of the rich and the despising of the poor occurring in their assemblies, the sin of respect of persons is brought before the readers and pressed upon them ; that whosoever shall transgress the law in one point, he is guilty of all, and that to_the unmerciful a judgment without mercy will be meted out (Gi_1—15); where- upon it is strongly affirmed that it is foolish to trust to a faith which without works is in itself dead. Such a faith does not profit ; for by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, as also the examples of Abraham and Rahab show (@i_14-26). — Without any transition, an earnest warning follows against the vain desire of teaching, which evidently refers to “slow to speak, slow to wrath.” The warning is founded on the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of bridling the tongue. Heavenly wisdom is then commended in contrast to the wisdom of this world, which is full of bitter envy (iii. 1-18). The author severely reprimands his readers for their strifes arising from the love of the world, and exhorts them to humble themselves before God, and not to judge one another (iv. 1-12). He then turns to those who, in the pride of possession, forget their dependence on God, points out to them the fleeting nature of human life, subjoins a severe apostrophe against the rich, to whom he announces the certain judgment of God (iv. 13-v. 6), and, pointing to the Old Testament examples, exhorts his readers to a persevering patience in love, as the coming of the Lord is at hand (v. 7-11). After a short warning against idle swearing (v. 12), the author gives advice as to how the sick are to behave themselves, exhorting them to mutual confession of sin, and, referring to the example of Elias, to mutual inter- cession; he then concludes the Epistle by stating the blessing which arises from the conversion of a sinner (v. 13-20)." 1 On the train of thought in the Epistle, see ‘‘ The Connection of the Epistle of James,” by Pfeiffer, in theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1850, Part I. In this disserta- tion the importance of i. 19 for the construction of the Epistle is correctly recog- nised ; only the two members βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι and βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν are too much separated from each other, and accordingly the commencement of a third division of the Epistle is placed at iii. 18, where, however, the reference to the ὀργή in the preceding paragraph is evident. INTRODUCTION. Vi This Epistle was not addressed to a single church, but to a circle of churches (namely, to the Jewish-Christian churches outside of Palestine or of Jerusalem), on which account, when received into the canon, it was classed among the so-called ἐπιστολαῖς καθολικαῖς, by which, however, nothing is deter- mined concerning its peculiar design.’ For, even although the seven Catholic Epistles received this name with reference to the already existing collection of the Pauline Epistles, yet the opinion of Kern (Commentary, Introduction), that the collection of these epistles under that name indicates an internal relationship with reference to the doctrine and tendency of Paul, is not justified. As an encyclical epistle, the Epistle of James considers only congregational, but not personal relations. With regard to its contents, it is decidedly ethical, not dogmatic, and that not merely because it treats only of the ethical faults in the congregations referred to, but also because it contemplates Christianity only according to its ethical side.” It is peculiar to this Epistle that the gospel— the word of truth by which God effects the new birth, and of which it is said that it is able to save the soul—is designated νόμος. This νόμος, more exactly characterized as τέλειος ὁ THs ἐλευϑερίας, is certainly distinguished from the O. T. νόμος, which only commands, without communicating the power of free obedience ; but, at the same time, in this very designation the conviction is expressed of the closest connec- tion between Judaism and Christianity, whilst the same νόμος βασιλικός, which forms the essence of the law in the O. T. economy, is stated as the summary of this N. T. νόμος. Taking these two points together, it follows, according to the view of yee author, that, on the one hand, the Christian by means of ν πίστις, which is implanted in his mind by the word of truth, has stepped into a new relation with God (and in so far Christianity is a new creation); and, on the other hand, the 1 Concerning the name ἐπιστολαὶ καθολικαί, see Introductions to the N. T. The most probable opinion is, that «422.24; is synonymous with ἐγκύκλιος, The reason why 1 and 2 John are included, is that they belonged to the First Epistle, and were appended to it. See also Herzog’s Real-Encyklopddie, article ‘‘katholische Briefe.” 9 Also “‘the mystical element ” (Briickner, Gunkel) is not wanting, as appears from i. 18 ; but this is only indicated in a passing manner, without James further entering upon it. MEYER. —JAMES. B ΄ 18 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. chief point of Christianity consists in this, that in it such a ποίησις is possible, by which a man is μακάριος, and may be assured of future σωτηρία (and in so far Christianity is glorified Judaism). Hence the author can ascribe no im- _/portance to a πίστις which is without ἔργα, and hence it is natural to him to place all the importance on the épya, that is, on the works which proceed from faith; yet he does this neither in the sense that man by his épya is placed in this new relation to God, for it is only zm this relation that he can do these works, nor yet in the sense that by them he can merit owtrpia or δικαιοῦσθαι in the judgment (ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι), for James does not deny that the believer con- tinues a sinner, and that therefore he can only be acquitted in judgment by the mercy of God.— The reticence on christological points is another peculiarity of this Epistle. Yet there is not wanting in it a decidedly Christian impress. This is seen in two ways: First, ethical exhortations are enforced—though not, as is often the case in other Ν, Τὶ Epistles, by a reference to the specific points of Christ’s salva- tion—by a reference both to the saving act of regeneration by the gospel, and to the advent of the Lord, so that as the foundation of the Christian ethical life subjectively considered is πίστις, so objectively it is the redemption of God in Christ. Secondly, the same dignity is attributed to Christ in this Epistle as in the other writings of the N. T. This is seen from the fact that the author calls himself a δοῦλος of God and of the Zord Jesus Christ. It is here to be observed that God and Christ are placed in juxtaposition, and that the same name is given to Christ as to God, namely κύριος, by which He is placed on an equality with God, and specifically distinguished from man. ‘The circumstance that the author directly unites the divine judgment with the coming of the Lord, indeed designates the Lord Himself as the Judge, also points to this higher dignity of Christ. See Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, 24 ed. part 1. p. 94 ffi; Kern, Komment, Ῥ. 40; Schmid, Bibl. Theol. part 11. ὃ 57.1. Nor are christo- logical points wanting in the Epistle; though the fact that they are more repressed than is the case elsewhere in the N. T., and that specific acts of redemption, as the incarnation of Christ, His death, His resurrection, etc., are entirely omitted, INTRODUCTION. 19 forms a peculiarity of this Epistle which distinguishes it from all the other writings of the N. T. The view of the author is directed less to the past than to the future, as this corresponds to his design, which aimed at the practical bearing of Chris- tianity ; 5861. 12,11. 5,14, iii. 1, v. 1, 7, 9. See on the contents of the Epistle, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des N. T. pp. 196-219. — It is undeniable that there is a connection between this Epistle and Christ's Sermon on the Mount; Kern calls it a counterpart of the same, and Schmid (Bibl. Theol. ii. § 60) says that James had it for his model. Yet this is not to be understood as if the Sermon on the Mount, as transmitted by Matthew, was influential for the conception of this Epistle ; it is not even proved that the author was acquainted with that writing; and not only do we find in each of these two writings many references which are foreign to the other, but also where they coincide there is a difference of expression in the same thoughts. The relationship consists rather in the fact that the ethical view of Christianity, as seen in the Epistle, is in perfect accordance with the thoughts expressed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in His other discourses, and which, before they were reduced to writing, were in their original form vividly impressed on the Church by oral tradition. Embued with the moral spirit of Christianity announced in these words of Jesus, the author of the Epistle regards Chris- tianity chiefly as a moral life, so that even the person of Christ, in a certain measure, steps into the background ; just. as Christ Himself, where He treats of the ethical life, is comparatively silent with reference to His own person. The parallel passages from the Sermon on the Mount are the following: chap. i. 2, Matt. v. 10-12; chap. 1. 4 (ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι), Matt. v. 48; chap. 1. 5, v. 15 ff, Matt. vil. 7 ff; chap. i. 9, Matt. v. 3; chap. 1. 20, Matt. v. 22; chap. i. 13, Matt. vi. 14, 15, v. 7; chap. 11. 14 ff, Matt. vii. 21 ff; chap. i. 17, 18, Matt. v. 9; chap. iv. 4, Matt. vi. 24; chap. iv. 10, Matt. v. 3, 4; chap. iv. 11, Matt. vii. 1 Εἰ ; chap. v. 2, Matt. vi. 19; chap. v. 10, Matt. v. 12; chap. v. 12, Matt. v. 33 ff. There are also parallel passages from the other discourses of Jesus: chap. i. 14, Matt. xv. 19; chap. iv. 12, Matt. x. 28. Compare also the places where the rich are denounced with Luke vi. 24 ff. — But as these parallel passages do not prove 20 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. the use of the synoptical Gospels, so neither is a use of the Pauline Epistles demonstrated." The few places where the author coincides with the First Epistle of Peter are to be explained from an acquaintance of Peter with this Epistle. On the other hand, it is worthy of remark that not only is there frequent reference to the expressions and _ historical examples of the O. T., but that the idea “of the contrast, running through the spirit of Israel, between the externally fortunate but reprobate friendship of the world, and the externally suffering but blessed friendship of God” (Reuss), pervades this Epistle. — Several passages are evidently founded on corresponding passages in the Apocrypha of the O. T. As, on the one hand, the Epistle is a letter of comfort and exhortation for the believing brethren, so, on the other hand, it is a polemical writing; but its polemics are directed not against dogmatic errors, but ethical perversions. Only one passage, chap. ii. 14-26, appears to combat a definite doctrine, and that the doctrine of justification of the Apostle Paul. But whatever view may be taken of this, the polemics are here introduced for the sake of ethical Christian life, namely, only with the object of showing that Christians are not indolently to trust to a πίστις without works, but are to prove a living faith by good works, so that the proposition ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον is by no means employed to confute the Pauline principle, οὐ δικ- αἰοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in the application in which Paul made the assertion. Here, then, as everywhere, we see that the author is a man whose attention is entirely directed to practical life, and who both for himself and for others has in view, as the aim of all striving, a τελειότης which consists in the perfect agreement of the life with the divine will, which the law in itself was incapable of producing, but which to the Christian is rendered possible, because God, according to His will, has by faith implanted His law as an inner principle of life, and therefore is to be aimed at with all earnestness. In recent times, the peculiar tendency of this Epistle has often been designated as that of a Jewish Christianity. It is ‘Incorrectly, Hengstenberg thinks that chap. i. 2, 3 refers to Rom. v. 3; chap. i. 25, ii. 12, to Gal. iv. 5; and chap. i. 22 to Rom. 11, 13. INTRODUCTION. 2AM true that there is not the slightest trace of an agreement with the view expressed in Acts xv. 1: ἐὰν μὴ περιτέμνησθε τῷ ἔθει Moicéos, οὐ δύνασθε σωθῆναι ; neither is circumcision, nor the ritual observances of the Mosaic law, anywhere mentioned ; but the supposition of the unity of the Old and New Testament law which lies at the foundation of the Epistle, as well as the peculiar importance assigned to ποιήσις τοῦ ἔργου, with the reticence on the christological points of salvation, point cer- tainly to a Jewish-Christian author, who occupies a different position to the law from that of the Apostle Paul. So far, there is nothing to object to in this designation; only it must not be forgotten that, apart from the heretical forms into which Jewish Christianity degenerated, it might assume, and did assume, special forms different from that presented in this. Epistle. If, in later Jewish-Christian literature, there are many traces of a relationship with the tendency of this Epistle, yet there is to be recognised in this fact not less the definite: influence of the person of the author than its Jewish-Christiam spirit. As regards the style and form of capression, the language is not only fresh and vivid, the immediate outflow of a deep and earnest spirit, but at the same time sententious and rich in eraphic figure. Gnome follows after gnome, and the discourse hastens from one similitude to another: so that the diction often passes into the poetical, and in some parts is like that of the O. T. prophets. We do not find logical connection, like that in St. Paul; but the thoughts arrange themselves in single groups, which are strongly marked off from one another. We everywhere see that the author has his object clearly in sight, and puts it forth with graphic concreteness, “ As mild language is suited to tender feeling, so strong feel- ings produce strong language. Especially, the style acquires emphasis and majesty by the climax of thoughts and words ever regularly and rhetorically arrived at, and by the constantly occurring antithesis,” Kern (Commentary, p. 37 f.).— Also the mode of representation in the Epistle is peculiar: “The writer ever goes at once in res medias; and with the first sentence which begins a section (usually an interrogative or imperative one), says out at once, fully and entirely, that which he has in his heart ; so that in almost every case the first words of each 22 TILE EPISTLE OF JAMES. section might serve as a title for it. The further develop- ment of the thought, then, is regressive, explaining and grounding the preceding sentence, and concludes with a com- prehensive sentence, recapitulating that with which he began” (Wiesinger). SEC. 4.—THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. According to the inscription, the Epistle is written by James, who styles himself δοῦλος of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ ; but this designation is neither in favour of nor against the apostolate of the author. Still it is evident from the whole contents of the Epistle, addressed to the Jewish-Christian churches of the Diaspora, that no other James is meant than “the brother of the Lord,’ who is not identical with the Apostle James (see sec. 1). Eusebius expresses himself un- certainly concerning its authenticity ; he reckons it among the Antilegomena (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25), and says of it: ἰστέον ὡς νοθεύεται μέν, that not many of the ancients have mentioned it, but that nevertheless it is publicly read in most of the churches (Hist, Eccl. ii. 23). Of the ancient Fathers, Origen / is the first who expressly cites it (tom. xix. in Joan.: ὡς ἐν TH φερομένῃ ᾿Ιακώβου ἐπιστολῇ ἀνέγνωμεν) ; in the Latin version of Rufinus, passages are often quoted from the Epistle as the words of the Apostle James (ed. de la Rue, vol. 11, Hom. viii. in Exod. p. 158: “sed et Apostolus Jacobus dicit;” comp. pp. 139, 191, 644, 671, 815). The Epistle is not mentioned in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, and Ter- tullian ; yet, according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 14), it was known and commented on by Clemens Alexandrinus. Diony- sius Alexandrinus expressly mentions it ; and Jerome (Catalog. c. 111.) directly calls James, the Lord’s brother, the author of the Epistle, yet with the remark: quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur. It is of special importance that this Epistle is found in the old Syriac version, the Peshito, in which are wanting the four smaller Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. Guericke (inl. p. 442) with truth remarks: “that this testimony is of the greater importance, as the country from which the Peshito proceeded closely bordered on | that from which the Epistle originated, and as that testimony INTRODUCTION. aa was also repeated and believed in by the Syriac Church of the following age.” The early existence of the Epistle appears by many similarities to single passages in the earliest writings. The agreement which subsists between some passages of First ‘ Peter and this Epistle is undeniable; compare 1 Pet. 1. 6, 7 with Jas. i. 2,3; 1 Pet. ii 1 with Jas. 1.21; 1 Pet. iv. 8 with Jas. v. 20, and 1 Pet. v. 5-9 with Jas. iv. 6,7,10. (See author’s Comm. on First Peter, Introd. sec. 2.) That Clemens Romanus, in his Lpist. ad Corinth. chap. x. Xi. XVil. XXXVUIL, alludes to corresponding passages in this Epistle, is not so cer- tain as Kern (in his Commentary), Guericke, Wiesinger, and others assume; for that Clemens in chap. x. adduces, among the pious men of the Old Testament, Abraham, referring to Gen. xv. 6, is not surprising; also the words ὁ φίλος mpoca- γορευθείς do not prove an acquaintance with the Epistle, as Abraham was already so called by Philo; his offering of Isaac is indeed mentioned, but not as an ἔργον, on account of which he was justified. Similarly with reference to the mention of Rahab, of whom it is said in chap. xii.: διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλο- ξενίαν ἐσώθη ‘Pad, ἡ πόρνη, whereupon follows the history.’ Still less is the connection between chap. xvil. and Jas. v. 10,11. It seems more certain that Jas. 1. 13 lies at the foundation of the words in chap. xxxviii.: ὁ σοφὸς ἐνδεικνύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λόγοις GAN ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς. Some similarities to the Epistle likewise occur in Hermas; thus IIL. simi. 8: nomen ejus negaverunt, quod super eos erat invoca- tum (comp. Jas. ii. 7); yet here the discourse is not concerning the rich and an invective upon them. Further, the passages II. mand. xii. 5: ἐὰν οὖν ἀντιστῆς αὐτὸν (τὸν διάβολον), viKn- θεὶς φεύξεται (comp. Jas. iv. 7) ; and 11. mand. xii. 6 : φοβήθητι τὸν κύριον, τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι (comp. Jas. iv. 12). Of greater importance than this coincidence in single expressions is the fact that, with Hermas, a view generally predominates which agrees in many respects with that of the Epistle ; Christianity is also with him mostly considered in its ethical sense ; the christological points step into the back- 1 Even Guericke admits that this passage of the example of Rahab, according to its actual contents, is a reminiscence rather of Heb. xi. 31 than of Jas. ii. 25. But it is possible that Clemens had neither the one passage nor the other in view. 24 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ground ; the distinction of rich and poor is strongly emphasized; and in the exhortation to prayer, πίστις is expressly insisted on, and διψυχία (11. mand. 9) is warned against; so that an acquaintance of the author of this writing with the Epistle can scarcely be denied. Also the Clementine Homilies, apart from their speculative contents, exhibit an acquaintance with the | tendency of this Epistle. Kern has collected a great number of parallel passages, yet it cannot be denied that in individual cases hoth the connection and the expression of thought are different. In Irenaeus (adv. haer. iv. 16. 2) the union of the words: Abraham credidit Deo et reputatum est illi ad justi- tiam, with those which directly follow: et amicus Dei vocatus est, points to Jas. 11. 23; also, in Clemens Alex. Strom. vi. p. 696, ed. Sylb., a similarity to Jas. ii. 8 can scarcely be denied ; whilst the designation of Abraham in Tertullian (adv. Judaeos, cap. 2) as amicus Dei, proves nothing. Cyrill of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. c. 33) reckons all the seven Catholic Epistles among the canonical writings; and since his time the Epistle has been unhesitatingly reckoned an apostolic writing belong- ing to the canon." According to the above data, a certain dubiety undoubtedly prevailed in tradition, which, however, proves nothing against the authenticity, as it is easily accounted for from the peculiar nature of the Epistle. For, on the one hand, James the Lord’s brother had, it is true, obtained an apostolic importance, so that Paul numbered him among the pillars of the church; yet he was not an apostle, and the more closely the Jewish-Christian churches attached themselves to him, so the more estranged must he have become to the other churches ; and, on the other hand, the Epistle was directed only to the Jewish-Christian churches, and the more these, by holding to the original type, distinguished and separated themselves from the other churches, the more difficult must it have been to regard an epistle directed to them as the common property of the church, especially as it appeared to contain a contradiction to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul. These circumstances, as Thiersch (Kvit. p. 359 f.) and Wiesinger have rightly remarked, would hinder the universal recognition of the Epistle ; but the 1 Only Theodorus Mopsuestius is said to have rejected it, according to the statement of Leoutius Bysantius (contra Nest, et Hut. iit. 14), | INTRODUCTION. 25 more this was the case, so much the more valuable are those testimonies of antiquity, although isolated, in favour of its genuineness. Whilst, in the Middle Ages, the canonicity of the Epistle was not questioned, in the sixteenth century objections to it of various kinds were advanced. It is well known that Luther did not regard the Epistle as apostolical. In his preface to it (1522) he thus expresses his opinion: “In my opinion, it was some good pious man who got hold of and put on paper some sayings of the disciples of tlhe apostles, or perhaps another has made notes from his preaching.” In the preface to the N. T. (1522) he calls the Epistle, compared with the best books of the N. T. (which he names as the Gospel and First Epistle of John, the Pauline Epistles, particularly the Romans, the Galatians and the Ephesians, and First Peter), “a right strawy Epistle, for it has in it no true evangelical character.” In his sermons on the Epistles of Peter (1523), Luther says that one may discern that the Epistle of James is “no genuine apostolical epistle;” and in his Kirchenpostille (delivered in the summers of 1527 and 1528), he again says that it “ was neither written by an apostle, nor has it the true apostolic ring, nor does it agree with the pure doctrine” (Luther’s Works, edited by Plochmann, vol. VIII. p. 268). So also, in a sermon on the day of Epiphany, he says, “James and Jude many think are not writings of the apostles.” The reasons with which Luther supports his depreciatory judgment of the Epistle, and which he gives in his preface to it, are the follow- ing :—(1) That it “proclaims the righteousness of works, in flat contradiction to Paul and all other scripture;” it is true “a gloss (or explanation) of such righteousness of works may be found; but that the Epistle adduces the saying of Moses (Rom. iv. 3), which speaks only of Abraham’s faith and not of his works, in favour of works, cannot be defended.” (2) That it “makes no mention of the sufferings, the resurrection, and the Spirit of Christ.” Besides, he objects to the Epistle, that this James does nothing more than urge men to the law and its works, and “confusedly passes from one subject to another.”* 1 Also in the Table-Talk (Plochmann’s edition, vol. LXII. p. 127) the same opinion is expressed : ‘‘ Many have endeavoured and laboured to reconcile the Epistle of James with Paul. Philip Melancthon refers to it in his Apology, but 26 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Assuming that some passages are borrowed from First Peter, and that chap. iv. 5 is from Gal. v. 17, he comes to the con- clusion, that as James was put to death by Herod before Peter, he could not be the author of the Epistle, but that the real author must have lived long after Peter and Paul.\— With the opinion of Luther agree the Moagdeburgh Centuries, Hunnius, Althamer, and others; and also Wetstein.? On the other hand, with evident reference to this opinion, Calvin defends the Epistle ; in his introduction to his commentary he says: Quia nullam ejus (epistolae) repudiandae satis justam causam video, libenter eam sine controversia amplector; he repudiates the assertion that the Epistle contradicts the Apostle Paul; against the reason: quod parcior in praedicanda Christi _ gratia videtur, quam apostolo conveniat, he asserts: non est ab omnibus exigendum, ut idem argumentum tractent; and he then gives his own judgment: Nihil continet Christi apostolo indignum ; multiplici vero doctrina scatet, cujus utilitas ad omnes Christianae vitae partes late patet. On the other hand, the Epistle did not remain unattacked even in the Catholic Church; not only Erasmus, but also Cajetan (on account of the unapostolic salutation, chap. i. 1), expressed doubts of its apostolic origin. But neither these doubts nor the attacks of Luther deprived the Epistle of its ecclesiastical authority ; on the contrary, it was regarded in the Protestant not less than in the Catholic Church, as the work of the Apostle James not with earnestness ; for ‘ faith justifies’ and ‘ faith does not justify’ are plain contradictions. "Whoever can reconcile them, on him will I put on my cap (Barelt), and allow him to call me a fool.” This saying, as well as the expres- sion in the Kirchenpostille, proves that Luther, even in his later years, continued firm to the opinion expressed in his preface to the Epistle of 1522, and in his preface to the N. T. of the same year, although in the later editions of the N. T. the whole conclusion, in which he treats of the distinction between the books of the N. T., is omitted (see Plochmann, vol. LXIII. p. 114). 1'This opinion of Luther, that the supposed author is James the son of Zebedee, is surprising, as in the tradition of the church of his own and of the preceding time, not James the son of Zebedee, but James the son of Alphaeus, was regarded as the author; yet in some mss. of the Peshito it is ascribed to the former. * Wetstein’s opinion is as follows: Meam sententiam nemini obtrudam, tantum dicam, me epistolam Jacobi non existimare esse scriptum apostolicum, ob hane rationem: primo, quia directe contra Paulum et omnem scripturam operibus justificationem tribuit; denique, Jacobus ipsa ita confundit omnia ac permiscet, ut mihi vir bonus aliquis ac simplex fuisse videatur, qui arreptis quibusdam dictis discipulorum apostolicorum ea in chartam conjecerit. INTRODUCTION. XG the Younger, who was considered as identical with “the Lord’s brother.” —- Afterwards Faber (Observatt. in Ep. Jac., Coburg 1770), Bolten (Uebers. der neut. Briefe), Schmidt (Hinl. ins NV. T.), and Bertholdt advanced the untenable opinion, that the Epistle of James was originally written in Aramaic, and afterwards translated by another into Greek; de Wette, in his Introduction to the New Testament, asserted that the com- position of this Epistle by the Lord’s brother—whom he also regarded as the same with James the son of Alphaeus—was doubtful. De Wette advances the following reasons for his doubts :—(1) That we cannot see what should have induced James to write to all the Jewish Christians in the world; (2) that the mzsplaced contradiction to Paul seems unworthy of James; (3) that if i, 25 is to be regarded as a reference to Heb. xi. 31, this would betray an author of a later day; and (4) lastly, that it is incomprehensible that James should have attained to such a use of the Greek language. If de Wette at a later period somewhat modified his opinion, still he remained true to his doubts, which he did not deny even in his eaxeget. Handbuch. Against these reasons it is to be observed,—1. The occasion of the writing is clearly to be recognised from the Epistle itself, namely, the ethical faults in the churches referred to; that only the Jewish Christians in Palestine had separate churches for themselves, is an un- founded assumption of de Wette. 2. The opinion of a con- tradiction to Paul is destitute of all sure exegetical reasons ; see explanation of 11. 14 ff 3. It cannot be proved that the example of Rahab is taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4. It cannot be perceived why James should be less skilled in the Greek language than must be assumed from this Epistle. — When de Wette in his exeget. Handbuch thinks that the author has appropriated to himself from Paul (out of his Epistles) the free moral spirit, but not his contemplative believing view, and that it is very doubtful whether he ever reached such a standpoint, it is to be observed that such subjective suppositions form no sure basis for criticism. —- Schleiermacher (in his Introduction to the N. T., edited by Wolde) judges of the Epistle even more unfavourably than de Wette. He not only agrees with Luther that the author “is confused,” and is destitute “of the true evangelical character,’ but he also 28 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, objects that the transitions are “ either ornate and artificial, or awkward ;” that the artificial character of the diction shows that the author was a stranger to the Greek language; that much therein is bombast. Schleiermacher, indeed, acknowledges that the Epistle is addressed to Jewish Christians, that possibly, in the section ii. 14—26, “no reference to the Pauline theory lies at the foundation ;” that, if the writing is to be placed in the canonical period of the apostolic writings, it must be put at an early period, as there is no reference to the relation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians; that it indi- cates a view of Christianity out of which afterwards Ebionite Christianity may have arisen. But, on the other hand, in opposition to these admissions, Schleiermacher thinks that if the Epistle belongs to the early period, it could not have been addressed to churches outside of Palestine; that we would expect it to have been written in Aramaic; that, considering the idea of Christianity which predominates in it (namely, that it is the fullest development of monotheism), we can with difficulty imagine that “this James was the same person who was the immediate disciple of Christ and the apostles, who afterwards became bishop of Jerusalem, and was so earnest (?) for the diffusion of Christianity among the Gentiles.” — Finally, Schleiermacher arrives at the conclusion that the Epistle is a later production and fabrication, 1.6. not founded on fact, and not intended by its author for any particular circle of readers. The explanation of the origin and composition of the Epistle which he most favoured was, that “some one wrote it in the name of the Palestinian apostle James, and collected remini- scences from his discourses not in the happiest manner, and in a language which was not familiar to him.” This criticism wants a sure ground to rest upon, as much as the criticism of de Wette.—— Also the recent Tiibingen school, in conformity with their view of the development of Christianity, have denied the authenticity of the Epistle. They place its origin in the period when the two antagonistic principles of Jewish Christianity and Paulinism already began to be reconciled, in order to be united together in Catholicism. Baur, both in his Paulus (p. 677 ff.) and in his Christenthum der 3 ersten Jahr- hunderte (p. 96 f.), has attempted to prove that the Epistle belongs to a period when Jewish Christianity had already INTRODUCTION. 29 made an important concession in relinquishing the necessity of circumcision to Gentile Christianity, and that it proves itself to be a product of the post-Pauline period, in that it opposes δικαιοῦσθαι ἐξ ἔργων to the Pauline δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ πίστεως, but, on the other hand, does not deny the influence of Paulinism ; for, in accordance with the Pauline idea of making the law an inward thing, “it not only speaks of the commandment of love as a royal law, but also speaks of a law of liberty.’—Schwegler (das nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. 1. p. 415 ff.) has attempted to justify this view of Baur by an examination of particulars. The following are the reasons which he assigns for the composition of the Epistle in the post-apostolie period:—1. Its want of individuality; 2. The want of acquaintance of Christian antiquity with it, and its late recognition as a canonical writing; 3. The form of a mild Ebionitism which pervades it; 4. The internal congrega- tional relations presupposed; 5. Its acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. The LHbionitical character of the Epistle is proved—(1) from the name of James attached to it; (2) from the designation of the readers as the δώδεκα φυλαὶ x«.7.r., by which not the Jewish-Christian churches, but entire Chris- tianity is meant; (3) from the retention of the old Jewish name συναγωγή instead of ἐκκλησία ; (4) from the statement of the Christian life as the fulfilling of the law, united with reticence upon the doctrine of the person of Christ; (5) from the relation of the Epistle to the Shepherd of Hermas and the Clementine Homilies; (6) from the use of the Apocrypha ; (7) from the polemic against the Pauline doctrine of justifica- tion; and (8) lastly, from the antagonism to the Gentile Christians, who under the name πλούσιοι are put in opposition to the Jewish Christians, i. to the πτωχοῖς. The conciliating tendency seeking an adjustment of the antagonism is alleged to be manifest—(1) from the antagonism of the rich and the poor being discussed with the design of paving the way for an approximation of these parties by influencing the former (the Gentile Christians, regarded as the rich) (!), and by bringing about a change of sentiment in them (toward the Jewish Christians, regarded as the poor); (2) from there being found in the Epistle a doctrinal approximation to the Pauline ideas 30 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, and principles, particularly in the idea of the law as νόμος ἐλευθερίας, of Christianity as a new creation, of πίστις as “an internal and confident apprehension of the doctrine of salva- tion,” and even in the matter of justification itself; whilst to the Pauline doctrine is not plainly opposed the δικαίωσις ἐξ ἔργων, but the δικαίωσις ἐξ ἔργων, ols ἡ πίστις συνεργεῖ, or the δικαίωσις ἐκ πίστεως, ἣ τελειοῦται διὰ τῶν ἔργων ; and (3) from the fact that by the words: σὺ πιστεύεις, ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς els éotu’ καλῶς ποιεῖς, the agreement of the Gentile-Christian and the Jewish-Christian tendencies in this principal and fundamental doctrine of Christianity is prominently brought forward. Schwegler has evidently most carefully searched out and employed all those points which. can in any way be made to support his hypothesis; but it is perfectly clear that many of the points adduced by him are pure fictions, and that from others the most arbitrary inferences are drawn. ‘The result is a view which is manifestly self-contradictory. Whilst Schwegler adopts the fancy that by the “ rich” are meant the Gentile Christians, he subjoins to this the inference that the Gentile-Christian cause (i.e. the cause of the πλούσιοι) repre- sents itself to the Ebionitic writer as “a proud conceit of wisdom,” as “loquacious controversy,” as “the love of the world and its lusts, covetousness, insolence, uncharitableness,” as “a false and perverted tendency,” and that “to attack on all sides these tendencies in their forms, disguises, and appearances is the object of the Epistle ;” but in spite of this, he says at the conclusion of the inquiry: “ Thus, then, it is with a call to εἰρήνη that the author turns himself to the opposite Gentile- Christian faction, such is the watchword and leading practical thought of his Epistle.” The most glaring internal contradic- tion of such ὦ criticism would not hinder us from placing the most arbitrary fiction in the place of history.’ Ritschl (d. Entst. dev altkathol. Kirche, p. 150 ff) occupies a 1 Reuss (§ 146, note) correctly observes : The character of the Epistle given by the Tiibingen criticism goes beyond every sure reason, when it places it far back into the second century, and makes it grow from recent sources. That the πλούσιοι are the Pauline Christians, is a postulate of this criticism for which there is no proof. The numerous references to the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Hermas, Philo, exist only in the imagination of the critic, and cause the extreme simplicity and originality of this Epistle to be overlooked. INTRODUCTION. Ὁ ἢ different position with reference to the Epistle than Schwegler. He asserts expressly that the similarities and points of con- tact between the Epistle and the Clementine Homilies are too vague to declare that, on account of them, the Epistle must be regarded as post-apostolic, or that a continuity of design in these writings can be discerned. He considers, indeed, that the Epistle belongs to the Jewish-Christian tendency, particu- larly on account of its polemic against the Pauline doctrine of justification; but it is a matter of surprise to him that there is in it no reference to the principles according to which the intercourse of Jewish with Gentile Christians was arranged (namely, the compliance of the latter with the four prohibitions expressed in the decree of Jerusalem), and also that the view of the Epistle is pervaded by an element essentially Pauline (namely, by the idea of the new birth; but which is under- stood, in a manner entirely original, as an implantation of the law). Thus Ritschl is constrained to confess that the Epistle, viewed on every side, remains as a riddle in the development of the oldest Christianity. This unsatisfactory result points to the incorrectness of his suppositions. Ritschl does not only over-estimate the importance of the decree of Jerusalem in the view of James (he likewise overlooks the fact that James, in an Epistle addressed to Jewish Christians, had no occasion to refer to the necessity of keeping to the articles of that decree), but he is also wrong in deriving the ideas of the law and regeneration, contained in this Epistle, from Paul: as if these ideas were not contained in Christianity itself. Ritschl also, as Schwegler, maintains that chap. u. 14-26 is not designed to combat a perversion of Paul’s doctrine; and in this he is correct; but he assumes too hastily that the polemic is directed against Paul. MRitschl’s judgment on the Epistle contains the correct decision, that the reasons adduced by Schwegler do not contradict its authenticity. Kern had already, in a treatise in the year 1835 (Tiibinger Zeitschr.), partially adduced the same arguments against the authenticity; but at a later period he regarded them as unsatisfactory, and asserted this in his commentary in the year 1838—of which fact Schwegler, who often appeals to him, takes not the slightest notice. After a careful review of the historical relations, Kern, in his commentary, says not only that the Epistle bears 32 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. internal evidence that it originated rather in the apostolic age than in any other period, but also that he cannot but consider it as the production of him to whom it is ascribed in the inscription—of James the Lord’s brother, who is called, along with Peter and John, a pillar of the church, and under whose superintendence the church of Jerusalem was placed. Kern arrived at this conclusion even although he regarded ii. 14-16 as a direct attack upon the Pauline doctrine of justification. But this opinion is at variance with the authenticity of the Epistle. For how can it be supposed that James—after he had declared himself on the side of Paul in the transaction at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), or, if the narrative of Luke regarding that transaction cannot be reckoned as true, after he had given to Paul the right hand of κοινωνία (Gal. ii. 9'\—could have argued, not against an objectionable application of the doctrine of Paul, but against that doctrine itself? Add to this, that such an attack, in a writing devoted to Jewish Christians, was certainly not necessary in their case. It is true Kern thinks that “ James might consider it possible that his Epistle might come into the hands of Gentile Christians, with whom the Jewish Christians were at variance upon the doctrine;” but this is a mere arbitrary hypothesis: in the Epistle there is not the slightest indication that the author, in 11, 14, addresses others than those to whom he directed his Epistle. But if the polemic of the Epistle is not directed against the Pauline doctrine of justification, there are no reasons, either external or internal, which constrain us to deny that James was the author, and to consider it as the production of a later period. The late recognition of the Epistle, as has already been remarked, is sufficiently explained from the position of the author and his readers: the want of personal references ; from the encyclical form of the Epistle; the frequent references to the Old Testament and to examples there represented, as well as to the Apocrypha; from the individuality of James; and, lastly, the facility in the use of the Greek language from the acquaint- 1 Meyer, in loco, with truth observes: ‘‘ According to the representation of vy. 7-9, the apostles recognised the twofold divine call to apostleship ; but a merely external and forced agreement, without any acknowledgment of the prin- ciples of Paul, would have been as little compatible with such a recognition as with the apostolic character generally.” as ον INTRODUCTION, anee with the Hellenistic idiom which prevailed in Palestine. The organization of the Church does not here appear such \ as was only appropriate to a later period; if Paul, in his first missionary journey, made it a point to establish the office of presbyters in the then existing Gentile churches (Acts xiv. 23), and if, at a still earlier period, such an office was formed at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30), its existence in the Jewish-Christian churches, to which the Epistle is directed, cannot certainly be regarded as anything surprising ; and the function which is here attributed to the presbyters entirely corresponds to the relation in which they stood to individual members of the. church. The opinion that chap. 11. 15 refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and chap. v. 12 to the Gospel of the Hebrews,’ is anything but certain; and as little is a use of the Epistle to the Romans made out from chap. i. 2 (compared with Rom. v. 3), chap. 1. 18 (compared with Rom. viii. 23), chap. 1. 21 (compared with Rom. xiii. 12), chap. 1. 22 (compared with tom. 11. 13), chap. iv. 1 (compared with Rom. vii. 23), chap. iv. 4 (compared with Rom. viii. 7), chap. iv. 12 (compared with Rom. 11. 1), for the agreement is found here only in single expressions, which would as naturally present them- selves to James as to Paul (comp. Briickner in de Wette’s Commentary, Ὁ. 188 f.). It may certainly appear surprising, that in the Epistle the permanent importance for the readers of the Mosaic law, according to its ritual side, is not prominently brought forward, especially as James was such a careful observer of it; but this objection is completely removed when we con- sider that no doubt of that importance was supposed to exist among the readers. James here proceeds in the same manner as Christ, who, although He Himself observed the law of His nation, yet did not inculcate on His disciples so much the observance of its separate ritual enactments, as point out to. them the way by which the law was observed in its innermost nature. Thus, then, there is no reason in the Epistle to assign its origin to the post-apostolic age, or to ascribe it to another 1 In the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Clement. Hom. iii. 55, xix. 2) the pro- hibition of oaths is as follows : ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ, καὶ Td οὐ οὐ" τὸ γὰρ περισσὸν πούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἔστιν ; the second clause is in accordance with Matt. v. 37, the first with Luke v. 12. But this only indicates a different form of expression in the tradition, not the use of a written record. MEYER. —J AMES, ς 34 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. author than to him who is named in the superscription. Reuss (sec. 146) with truth observes: “His official import- ance gave to James the right to come forward as the common leader of all the Christians of the circumcision; and what we know or conjecture of his religious disposition is strikingly in unison with the contents of this Epistle.” The authenticity of the Epistle, in spite of the supposition of a difference between the doctrine of justification of James and that of Paul, has in recent times been generally recognised." Reuss, indeed, expresses himself very cautiously, that the genuineness of the Epistle is not raised above all doubt because a definite ecclesiastical tradition does not exist; how- ever, he grants that nothing can be inferred from this against its authenticity. Other critics and interpreters have, however, expressed themselves more decidedly in favour of the authen- ticity of the Epistle, agreeing with one another that the authorship is to be ascribed to James, “the Lord’s brother,” who stood at the head of the Church of Jerusalem, and only differing in this, whether he is identical with (so Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Guericke, Lange, Bouman, and others) or different from the Apostle James (so Credner, Kern, Neander, Thiersch, Schaff, Briickner, Wiesinger, Bleek, and others). — The integrity of the Epistle in its separate portions has never been doubted ; only Rauch (Wiener and Engelhardt’s neues hrit. Journal der theolog. Lit. 1827, vol. VI. part 3) has thought that the conclusion, chap. v. 12—20, proceeds from another author ; but the reasons which he assigns for this have already been refuted by Schneckenburger (Z%ib. Zeitsch. f. Theol. 1829, part 3), Kern (in his Kommentar), Hagenbach (Winer’s krit. Jowrn. VI. 395 ff.), and Theile. 1 For the same reasons as those of Luther, the authenticity of the Epistle is denied by K. Strébel. In the Zeitschr. 7. d. luth. Theol. of Rudelbach and Guerieke, 1857, part II. p. 365, he says: ‘‘ Let the Epistle of James be understood as you please, it is ever in contradiction to the whole sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and therefore cannot be reckoned of canonical authority ; with its well-meaning but otherwise completely unknown author, identical with none of the names of the N. T. persons, the capacity of teaching falls short of his good intention.” So also, in a review of this commentary (1st edition) in the same magazine, 1860, part I. p. 162 ff., Kahnis (d. luth. Dogmatik, vol. I. pp. 533-536) agrees with the opinion of Luther on the contents of this Epistle, but does not express himself on its authenticity. INTRODUCTION. oo SEC. 5.—PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING. The place of composition is not mentioned in the Epistle ; but from the position which James occupied to the Church of Jerusalem, and from the fact that he has addressed his Epistle to the churches in the diaspora, it cannot be doubted that this is Jerusalem. The supposition of Schwegler, that the actual place of composition was Rome, requires no refutation. It is more difficult to determine the time of composition. It is only certain that it must have been before the destruction of Jerusalem; but it is a matter of dispute whether it was written before or after the ever-memorable labours of Paul among the Gentiles, or, more precisely, whether it was written before or after the council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts xv.' If there is in the Epistle a reference to the Pauline doctrine of justification—whether the attack be directed against the doctrine itself, or a perversion of it,—then it could only be written after that transaction, as Bleek, among others, assumes. But on the other supposition, both opinions are possible. Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Schaff suppose it to be composed before, and Schmid and Wiesinger after the council at Jerusalem.? — The former opinion is the more probable; for after that time the Pauline proposition, that man is justified not ἐξ ἔργων, but only ἐκ πίστεως, was not only generally known, but so powerfully moved the spirits in Christendom, that it seems impossible to suppose that James could have in perfect ingenuousness asserted his principle: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως κόνον, Without putting himself in a definite relation to the doctrine of Paul, whether misunderstood or not. Wiesinger, for the later com- position of the Epistle, appeals “to the form of the Christian 1 Lange infers from the political circumstances which, according to his view, were the occasion of this Epistle, that it was composed ‘‘at the latest period of the life of James, perhaps about the year 62.” For one who calls in question the supposition of Lange, this statement of time is destitute of all reason. > Briickner, indeed, denying the assigned polemics, but supposing that the formulae δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ πίστεως, dix. ἐξ ἔργων were first brought into vogue by Paul, and then were used of an earlier existing habit of thought, which James combats, comes to the conclusion that the Epistle indeed belongs to a compara- tively early period of the apostolic age, but is not to be transferred to the earliest period of apostolic life. 36 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. life of the readers,” whilst, on the one hand, they are treated “as those who are mature in doctrine,’ and, on the other hand, “the faults censured in their conduct are such as can only be understood on the supposition of a lengthened continuance of Christianity among the readers.” But, in opposition to this view, it is to be observed that a Christian church without such maturity as is indicated in i. 3, 11. 5, ili. 1, iv. 1, can hardly be imagined ; and that in Jewish-Christian churches such faults — as are here represented in the Epistle would arise at an early period from the unsubdued Jewish carnal disposition, especially as the transition to Christianity, particularly among the Jews, might easily occur without any actual internal transformation. The inquiry of Wiesinger: Where, outside of Palestine, before the apostolic council, shall we look for the Jewish-Christian churches which will satisfy the postulates of the Epistle? is of less importance, as it cannot be proved that Wiesinger is correct in his undemonstrated assertion, “that the Jewish- Christian church, precisely in the ten years after that council, both inside and outside of Jerusalem, obtained a great accession to their numbers.” That during this period it extended its limits is certainly to be granted, but it cannot be proved that at that period it first gained such an extension that James could only then write to ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ. On Wiesinger’s view, that James was acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans, but wrote 11. 14-26 without reference to the doctrine of Paul, James must bear the reproach of having at least acted very inconsiderately in using the Pauline mode of expression known to him, and in enunciating propositions which in form expressed the opposite of what Paul taught, with the design of saying something which had no reference to Paulinism, which contained neither an antithesis against it nor an agreement with it, and which was directed neither against Paul himself nor against Paul misunderstood. If the reasons assigned by Wiesinger for the later composition of the Epistle were convincing,—if, particularly, an acquaint- ance of James with Paul’s mode of thought and expression, and especially of his doctrine of justification, followed from the points of similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, or from chap. ii. 14-25,— it would result from this, that James in his polemics had this in view, and that thus Wiesinger's denial INTRODUCTION. ont! of any reference to it is unjustifiable. If, then, we are not to involve ourselves in contradiction, we must in this denial maintain that the Epistle was composed before the apostolic council; and to this view nothing in the Epistle stands opposed. 38 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, ᾿Ιακώβου ἐπιστολή. In several codd. the superscription is more fully expressed, whilst to ἐπιστολή the word καθολιχή 15 added, and to ᾿Τακώβου the words τοῦ ἀποστόλου, also τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου, and in one τοῦ ἀδελ- Pou Θεοῦ. CHAPTER 1 Ver. 3. Instead of Ree. τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως, after A B* C G Kx, etc., several vss. (Lachm. Tisch. 7), Buttm. reads, after B** some min. etc., τὸ δοχήμιον ὑμῶν without τῆς πίστεως. The addition τῆς πίστεως, it is true, is suspicious, as it may be derived from 1 Pet. 1. 7 (de Wette), but the testimonies for its genuine- ness are too important to declare it spurious. — Instead of δοκίμιον there is also the reading δοκιμεῖόν, and in three min. dox/- pov. — Ver.7. Instead of ὁ ἄνθρωπος, Buttm. reads simply ἄνθρωπος, a reading which Tisch. 7 leaves entirely unnoticed. — The same is also the case in respect of ἀδελφός, ver. 9; 8 has the article in both places. — Ver. 11. B omits after προσώπου the demonstra- tive αὐτοῦ. -- Instead of πορείαις, A, 40, 89, 98, ed. Colinaei, read πορίαις, ὃ; reading on which Theile rightly remarks: familiari librariis τοῦ εἰ et « permutationi debetur; there is no word σπορία = εὐπορία in the Greek language. Codex 30 apud Mill. reads edao- ρίαις evidently as an interpretation. The conjecture: ἐμπορίαις, which has been proposed by Hammond, Castalio, and Junius, is arbitrary. — Ver. 12. Instead of ἀνήρ, A, some min. and vss. read déyvépwxog; an unnecessary change.— After ἐπηγγείλατο the Ree. has ὁ κύριος, after G K, etc. (instead of which some min. and vss. read ὁ Θεός; C: κύριος), which, however, after A B ¥, etc., is to be regarded as an insertion (Lachm. Tisch. de Wette, Wiesinger; on the other hand, Theile, Reiche, Bouman, Lange consider ὁ κύριος as the correct reading). — Ver. 13. δὲ alone reads ὑπό instead of &xé.—The article rod before Θεοῦ is, according to almost all authorities, to be obliterated as spurious. — Ver. 19. Instead of the Rec. dere, after G K, several min. and yss., B C (S: ἔστω, corrected ore), several min. Vulg. and other vss. read ἔστε: A: ἴστε δέ; Lachm. has adopted the reading ‘ore; Tisch. now CHAP. I. 1. 39 (7) reads ὥστε; whilst Theile, Lange (ἴστε δὲ) consider the read- ing ἔστε as the original, de Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, Bouman have rejected it from internal reasons; as, however, on a careful consideration (see exposition), no internal reasons exist against its genuineness, and the external testimonies are 707 it, it merits the preference. — Instead of ἔστω, Rec., after G K, etc. (Tisch. 7) Lachm., reads ἔστω δέ, after BC, ἃ, Codex A has καὶ ἔστω (Lange). — Ver. 20. The Ree. οὐ κατεργάζεται (Tisch.), after Οὗ G K, e¢ al. ; Lachm. has adopted οὐκ ἐργάζεται, after A Β O*** &, οἱ al. ; de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman consider the compound, and Lange the simple verb, as the correct reading. On the distinc- tion of these modes of reading, see exposition. — Ver. 22. Μόνον, which the fec., after A C G K 8, many min., places before ἀκροαταί, Stands after it in B, some min. etc.; so read Lachm. and Tisch. It is possible that the reading of the most of the codd. is a correction, because one united μόνον according to its meaning with μή ; still the Rec. must be regarded as the original reading from authorities. — Ver. 25. Οὗτος, which the Rec., after G K, many min. and vss., has before οὐκ ἀκροατής (Tisch. 7), is wanting in A Β Cx, etc.; Lachm. has omitted it; it is difficult to consider it genuine, for not only is the testimony of the most weighty authorities against it, but also the addition from the following οὗτος 15 not difficult to be explained from the want of a connecting particle after παραμείνας ; whilst de Wette hesitates, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange are for its retention. — Ver. 26. After ea 62 15 found in C (Lachm.), which, however, appears to be inserted only for the sake of a closer connection of the verse with the preceding.— The words ἐν ὑμῖν after εἶναι are to be obliterated (after A B C8, with Tisch. Lachm. Reiche, and others). — Ver. 27. Tisch., after C** G K, ete., has omitted the article τῷ before Θεῷ ; the weightiest authorities, A B C* 8, cor- rected, etc., however, are in favour of its retention (Lachm.). Ver. 1. Address and greeting. James calls himself a “servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Oececu- menius correctly: Θεοῦ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς, κυρίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ; some expositors have incorrectly taken Θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου together as applied to “Inc. Xp. There is here no combination of the Old and New Testaments in this conjunction (against Lange). It is to be observed that in the apostolic addresses our Lord’s name is always given in full: ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. -- Δοῦλος] is here an official appellation, which, however, belongs not only to the apostles, but to every possessor of an ecclesiastical office received from the Lord; comp. particularly Phil. i. 1: Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος, δοῦλοι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and Jude 1. 40 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. In this name the consciousness is expressed that the office is a service in which not our own will, nor the will of other men, but only of God or of Christ, is to be fulfilled. Oecumenius: ὑπὲρ πᾶν δὲ κοσμικὸν ἀξίωμα οἱ τοῦ κυρίου ἀπόστολοι τὸ δοῦλοι εἶναι Χριστοῦ καλλωπιζόμενοι, τοῦτο γνώρισμα ἑαυτῶν βούλονται ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ λέγοντες καὶ ἐπιστέλλοντες καὶ διδάσκοντες. ---- Ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ) A designation of the people of Israel living outside of Palestine, and dispersed among the Gentiles. On ai δώδεκα φυλαί it is to be observed, that although this appellation of the people of Israel after the exile does not occur in the Apocrypha, yet the people who returned were still regarded as the twelve tribes (1 Esdr. vii. 8, 9); as the people of the twelve tribes are the covenant people, to whom the promises given to the patriarchs refer; from which it is to be explained that in the N. T. the number twelve is particularly emphasized (Matt. xix. 28; Rev. vii. 4-8, xxi. 12), and that James designates by this name the people to whom the promise was fulfilled. On τῇ διασπορῷᾷ, see Deut. xxx. 4; Neh. 1. 9; Ps. exlvii. 2; 2 Mace. i. 27 (Jer. xv. 7); John vii. 35; Winer’s Realwirter- buch, article “ Zerstreuung.” Whether this designation is to be understood in a literal or symbolical sense, see Introduction, sec. 2. Laurentius, Hornejus, Hottinger, Pott, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, Neander, Guericke, Schmid (b7b/. Theol.), Wie- singer, and others correctly consider the Epistle as addressed to Jewish Christians ; only it is to be observed that with the early composition of the Epistle these are not here to be considered as contrasted with the Gentile Christians. Had the author been eonscious of such a contrast, it would have been else- where indicated in the Epistle itself. — χαίρειν] sc. λέγει ; see 1 Mace. x. 18, 25, xv. 16; 2 Macc. i. 1; and in the N. T. Acts xv. 23, xxiii. 26 (2 John 11). It is to be observed that this very form of greeting, elsewhere not used in the N. T. Epistles, occurs in the writing proceeding from James, Acts xy. 23 (Kern); the pure Greek form of greeting is more fully: χαίρειν καὶ ὑγιαίνειν καὶ εὖ πράττειν, 2 Mace. ix. 19. Vv. 2-12. Exhortation in reference to the endurance of temptations. Ver. 2. James begins with the hortative words: πᾶσαν χάραν ἡγήσασθε] estecm it complete joy. πᾶσα χάρα, complete CHAP. I. 2. 41 joy = nothing but joy. Luther: “ Esteem it pure joy.” Many old expositors incorrectly explain πᾶσα = μεγίστη, Summum, perfectum gaudium;' it is more correct to resolve the adjec- tive here by the adverb πάντως, ὅλως (Carpzov), with which the explanation of Theile coincides: rem revera omnique ex parte laetam. The meaning is: the πειρασμοί are to you a joy which is entie joy, excluding all trouble. See Hom. Od. xi. 507. πᾶσαν ἀληθείην μυθήσομαι, i.e. “of Neoptolemus I will declare to thee the whole truth” (ze. nothing but the truth, which excludes all falsehood). — χαρά, a metonymy = gaudendi materia, res laeta; see Luke 1]. 10.—JIt is not improbable that James by this exhortation to joy refers to the χαίρειν in ver. 1; comp. vv. 5, 19 (Wiesinger).— The address ἀδελφοί μου (or ἀδελφοί alone, iv. 11, v. 7, 9, 19; also ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, 1. 16, 19, 11. 5), which is James’ constant form, expresses the consciousness of fellowship, namely, the fellowship in nationality and belief (Paraeus), with the readers.” — ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις) περιπίπ- Tew involvit (α) notionem adversi, (Ὁ) notionem imviti atque inopinati (Theile) ; it is synonymous with ἐμπίπτειν (see Luke x. 30 compared with ver. 36), but has a stronger meaning : to full into something, so that one is entirely surrounded by tt ; thus in the classics it is particularly used of misfortune: συμφοραῖς, Plato, Leg. ix. 8776; ζημίαις καὶ ὀνείδεσι, Isocrates, i. 39.— By πειρασμοί are commonly here understood the θλίψεις, which are prepared for Christians on account of their faith by an unbelieving world (comp. Luke viii. 13: καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται; in connection with Matt. xiii. 21: γενομένης θλίψεως ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον, εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζεται) ; and undoubtedly James had these in view. Yet there is nothing in the context which necessitates us to such a limitation ; rather the additional epithet ποίκιλοι justi- fies us to extend the idea, and to understand by it all the relations of life which might induce the Christian to withdraw from the faith, or to become wavering in it. When Lange explains πειρασμοί specially of “the allurements and threats 1 Winer (p. 101 [E. T. p. 138]) explains πᾶσα χαρά as ‘‘all (full) joy.” This would signify such a joy as wants nothing; which, however, does not suit the context. ? Incorrectly Semler : Hoc nomen praecipue de doctoribus intelligo. 42 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. by which the Gentiles on the one side, and the fanatical Jews on the other, and also the Ebionites, who were already in the field, sought to draw the readers to their side,” he founds this particular statement on his erroneous view of the tendency of the Epistle. To refer the idea only to inward temptations (Pfeiffer) is the more erroneous, as it is even questionable whether James had these in view at all. — On ποικίλοις, see 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff, xi. 23 fff The adjective does not allude to the different sources from which the πειρασμοί sprung, but is to be referred to their manifold forms. In a far-fetched manner, Lange finds in ποικίλοις, according to its original meaning, “an allusion to the manifold-dazzling glitter of colours of the Jewish-Christian and Jewish temptations, in which they might even represent themselves as prophetic exhortations to zeal for the glory of God.” — Inasmuch as the Christian has to rejoice not only im the πειρασμοῖς, but on accownt of them, Oecumenius strikingly observes: τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν λύπην καὶ τοὺς πειρασμοὺς τούτους καὶ ἐπαινετοὺς οἶδε καὶ χαρᾶς ἀξίους" δεσμὸς γὰρ οὗτοί εἰσιν ἀῤῥαγής, καὶ αὔξησις ἀγάπης καὶ κατα- νύξεως .. . οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐκτὸς γυμνασίων οὔτε κοσμικῶν οὔτε τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν στεφάνων ἀξιωθῆναι. With reference to joy in θλίψεις, see Matt. ν. 11, 12; Acts iv. 23 ff, ν. 41; Rom. v. 3; also Ecclus. 11. 1 ff. ; particularly comp. the parallel passage 1 Pet. 1 6. Ver. 3. γινώσκοντες) whilst ye may know (“in the con- sciousness,’ de Wette). The participle, when closely con- nected with the imperative, participates in its meaning; see author on 2 Tim. 11. 23; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 58; Col. 11. 24, iv. 1; Heb. x. 34, and other passages. It is neither simply the imperative: Luther, “and know ye,” nor simply a confirmation, so that it may be rendered by γινώσκετε yap (Pott).—6re τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν (τῆς πίστεως). τὸ δοκίμιον (only here and in 1 Pet. i. 7) Ξξ, τὸ δοκιμεῖον, is properly the means of proving: quo quid exploratur (Pott); quo rei, quae sub examen vocatur, manifestatur sinceritas eaque probatur omne id intrinseca virtute possidere, quod extrinsecus specie ac nomine prae se fert (Heisen): ὑππ8Ξ κριτήριον; so in Dionysius Halicarnassus, rhetor.11: δεῖ δὲ ὥσπερ κανόνα εἶναι καὶ στάθμην τινὰ καὶ δοκίμιον ὡρισμένον πρὸς ὅ τις ἀποβλέπων δυνήσεται τὴν κρίσιν ποιεῖσθαι; yet generally CHAP. I. 3. 43 to the idea of proving is attached that of purification and verification. Theile = probamentum; thus Herodian, ii. 10,12: δοκίμιον δὲ στρατιωτῶν κάματος ἀλλ᾽ ov τρυφή; and the LXX. Prov. xxvii. 21: δοκίμιον ἀργυρίῳ καὶ χρυσῷ πύρωσις ; comp. Prov. xvii. 3; Ps. xii. 7; Ecclus. i. 5. Many ex- positors, as Semler, Pott, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, adhere to the import of means, whether of proof or of purification and verification,’ whilst they understand thereby the above-mentioned wrespacuot. In this case τὸ δοκίμιον stands for τοῦτο τὸ δοκίμιον (Pott); but the necessity of supplying τοῦτο is decisive against this interpretation ; besides, δοκίμιον in 1 Pet. i. 7 cannot have that meaning. In that passage δοκίμιον is=the verification effected by proof ; see author 7 loco: and thus it is probable that this import is also here to be retained (Oecumenius = τὸ κεκριμένον, τὸ δεδοκιμασμένον, τὸ καθαρόν); τὸ δοκίμιον then is = δοκιμή in Rom. x. 4. The distinction, that in that passage δοκιμή is designated as the effect, but in this as the cause of ὑπομονή, is not against this view, for, as Tirmus well says: duae res saepe 5101 invicem sunt causa.” Most expositors, both ancient and modern, however, explain δοκίμιον here by exploratio, probatio, proof in an active sense; thus Didymus, Bede, Calvin, Laurentius, Beza, Piscator, Paraeus, Serarius, Paes, Hornejus, Baumgarten, de Wette, Kern, Wiesinger, Lange, etc. Then is valid what Bede says in reference to Rom. v. 4: Verborum differentia non sensuum in his ser- monibus esse probatur Apostolorum, since there @dérus, here proof by θλῖψις, is named as the cause of ὑπομονή. Though there is nothing against this idea, this explanation is wanting in linguistic accuracy.’ The meaning is, in essentials, the same, whether we read τῆς πίστεως or not; for the δοκίμιον 1 Theile : Calamitates, quae natura sua virtutis πειρασμοοί, eam sub examen discrimenque vocant, accedente demum hominis strenua opera ejusdem virtutis fiunt δοκίμιον eam purgantes, firmantes, commonstrantes. 5. Wiesinger incorrectly maintains: ‘‘ It is an erroneous idea that verification (τὸ dedoximeobos) produces ὑπομονή (so also Rauch in his Review); for the Christian always obtains more ὑσομονή, in which only he can reach the goal of per- fection, not because he is tried, but because he stands the test and is thus verified. 3 Cremer (see δοκίμιον) is hardly right when he maintained that ‘‘the means of proof are not only, e.g., the touchstone itself, but also the trace of the metal left thereon, therefore τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως (Jas. i. 8) is the result of the contact of πίστις with πειρασμοῖς ;” for we are to consider the πειρασμοί not as a touch- 44 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. of Christians consists in nothing else than that of their faith, by which they are Christians.—miotis is here not used objectively =id cui fides habetur, ipsa Jesu Christidoctrina (Pott), but subjectively, assured confidence in the gospel, whose contentS are Jesus Christ, as the necessary foundation of Christian conduct. — κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν] κατεργάζεσθαι is distinguished from ἐργάζεσθαι in that it expresses the actual accomplishment (Meyer on Rom. i. 27).— ὑπομονή is faithful endurance (μένειν) under (ὕπο) the temptations (πειρασμοῖς). Baumgarten: “enduring constancy ;” Theile: “ stedfastness,” perseverantia, quod majus est quam patientia." The import- ance of ὑπομονή for Christians is evident from Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13; comp. also Jas. v. 7 ff On the connection of ὑπομονή with ἐλπίς, see Cremer under the words ἐλπίς and ὑπομονή. Ver. 4. The verification of faith effected by the πειρασμοί produces ὑπομονή, and on this account temptations should be to the Christian an object of joy, as it depends on them that ὑπομονή is of the right kind. ‘This is indicated in this verse. Oecumenius rightly observes: σκόπει οὐκ εἶπε THY ὑπομονὴν ὁριστικῶς, ὅτε ἔργον τέλειον ἔχει, ἀλλὰ προστακτικῶς ἐχέτω: οὐ γὰρ προὐποκειμένην ἀρετὴν ἐξαγγέλλει, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐγγινομένην, ὡς χρὴ γίνεσθαι νομοθετεῖ. ----ἡἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω] The emphasis is not placed on ἔργον, —that ὑπομονή has an ἔργον is understood of itself,—but on τέλειον (Wiesinger). James wishes that the ἔργον of ὑπομονή among Christians be τέλειον, in order that they may be τέλειοι : as he, moreover, strongly emphasizes τέλειον εἶναι. In explaining the thought, de Wette confounds the abstract: (ὑπομονὴ) with the concrete (ὁ ὑπομένων), and understands by ἔργον τέλειον “the active virtue which the patient man stone, but as a test by fire. However, Cremer explained the whole idea correctly by ‘the verification of faith.”” His remark on δοκιμή is to be noted: that in it we are not to distinguish between the active and passive signification ; that it has rather a reflex sense, either the having proved true or the proving true. 1 Cicero, de inv. ii. 54: Patientia est honestatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ae difficilium voluntaria ac diuturna perpessio ; perseverentia est in ratione bene considerata stabilis et perpetua permansio. Schneckenburger strikingly observes : Si submissionem {πὸ dro...) urgeas, patientiam ac tolerantiam malorum, sin +o μένειν, constantiam et firmitatem, perseverantiam ac calamitatum ferendarum fortitudinem ab illecebris desciscendi inconcussam hoe yocabulo habebis expressam. CHAP. I. 4. 45 must perfectly have.” This explanation of de Wette agrees in essentials with the explanations of Erasmus, Calovius, Morus, Pott, Augusti, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, accord- ing to which ἔργον τέλειον is distinguished from ὑπομονή, and the moral activity which the Christian has to exercise with his ὑπομονή indicated. Thus Erasmus: quemadmodum in malis tolerandis fortis est et alacris, ita in bonis operibus exercendis sibi constet. Pott: perseverantiae fructus sit . perfectum virtutis studium. This interpretation is, however, incorrect ; it not only gives rise to unjustifiable changes of meaning, as that of ὑπομονὴ into ὁ ὑπομένων, or of ἐχέτω into παρεχέτω (Pott), or into κρατείτω (Schulthess), but gives also a thought which with the following ἵνα κτλ. would be tautological. Most. expositors (even Briickner,' in opposition to de Wette) refer ἔργον τέλειον to ὑπομονή itself; ἔργον = work, realization (Wiesinger) ; comp. 1 Thess. 1. 3: τὸ ἔργον τῆς πίστεως ; for the ὑπομονή of the Christian is not only a suffering, but even more agoing. This doing is to be τέλειον, that is, not only, as many interpreters explain, enduring to the end (Luther: “patience is to continue stedfast to the end;” Calvin: haec vera erit patientia, quae in finem usque durabit; similarly Jerome, Serarius, Salmero, Estius, Gomarus, Piscator, Piraeus, Hornejus, Carpzov, Semler, Hottinger, etc.), but complete, and that not only in respect of its internal condition,—so that it is wanting in no essential points of true ὑπομονή, ---πὖ also in respect of its activity (Lange”), so that it in no way yields to the πειρασμοῖς, which yielding occurs when a man by the temptations is determined to something which does ποῦ correspond with the principle of faith, Bouman: Haec ὑπομονή consummatum opus habet, quando ita se gerit, in quo habitat, homo, ut universam per vitam et animum et linguam et pedes regat ac moderetur. That ὑπομονή in this manner has an ἔργον τέλειον is necessary, in order that Christians may be perfect and entire, which as Christians they should be. This James indicates in the following words: ἵνα 1 “Nothing else can be meant than the perfect work of endurance, particularly as different stages of this are conceivable.” * Lange here arbitrarily understands by ἔργον τέλειον specially : ‘‘ the unreserved acknowledgment of their Gentile-Christian brethren, the open rupture with Jewish pride of faith and fanaticism.” 46 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι] ἵνα is not here ἐκβατικῶς (which Baumgarten and Pott regard as possible), but τελικῶς, in order that. De Wette and Wiesinger incorrectly refer it to the future judgment.— τέλειον and ὁλόκληροι are synonymous terms ; τέλείος is properly “that which has attained its aim,” ὁλόκληρος “that which is complete in all its parts, is entire.” Both expressions are found in the LXX. as the translation of Den (Gen. vi. 9; Ezek. xv. 5); besides this verse, ὁλόκληρος in the Ν T. only occurs in 1 Thess. v. 25 (ὁλοκληρία, Acts iii. 10) It is true that both τέλειος (in the LXX. and in the classics) and ὁλόκληρος (particularly in Philo, but not in the LXX.) are used with special reference to sacrifice; to which, however, there is here no allusion (against Kern). Still more arbitrary is the interpretation of Storr: qui superiores e certamine discedebant.— ἐν μηδενὶ λευπόμενοι] the negative expression added for strengthening the two positive expressions ; as in ver. 5: ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος, and in ver. 6: ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος. As regards the expression itself, ἐν μηδενί is not to be taken, with de Wette, as a supplement to λειπόμενοι, as the supplement to this verb is always in the genitive; therefore the expression has been correctly translated by Wiesinger and in this commentary, not by wanting nothing, but by wanting 7 nothing (which Lange has overlooked). The question, however, occurs, can λειπόμενοι be explained as=wanting? This idea is not contained in the verb by itself, and therefore can hardly be attributed to it when it stands absolutely, as here. It is therefore safer to take λείπεσθαι in its usual meaning, and thus, with Lange, to explain λειπόμενοι by coming short of, namely, short of the goal marked out to the Christian. It is incorrect, with Pott, to say: tota loquendi ratio ab iis qui cursu . . . relinquuntur et seperantur (so also Losner, Krebs, Storr, Augusti); for although the verb in classical writers has often this reference, yet there is here no mention of a relation to others, and accordingly the appeal to Polybius, p. 1202, ed. Gronov.: ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ρωμαίους εὐνοίᾳ παρὰ πολὺ 1 A limitation of this idea to moral perfection is not required by the context. Lange has the following strange remark: ‘‘The Jew was a symbolical κλῆρος of the household; as a Christian he was to become a real χλῇρος, and thus ὁλόκληρος." CHAP. I. 5. 47 τἀδελφοῦ λειπόμενος, does not suit. According to the meaning here given, λειπτόμενοι forms a strong contrast to τέλειοι. Ver. 5. εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται codias| is chiefly con- nected with ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι. εἰ is not = quoniam, quandoquidem (Estius, Laurentius), but the thought is hypo- thetical ; εἴ tus = ὅστις ; see Wahl on the word εἰ. ---- λείπεται σοφίας is to be explained as κτεάνων λειφθεὶς καὶ φέλων, in Pindar i. 2. 11, “without wealth and friends,” properly “left behind of, or falling short of;” accordingly without wisdom. Usually the meaning wanting, lacking, is given to λεύπομαι, which, however, is not linguistically justified. James by σοφία, as Wiesinger correctly observes, does not mean “an arbitrary part of Christian perfection,” but the essential foundation of Christian conduct, τὸ αὔτιον τοῦ τελείου ἔργου (Oecumenius) ; for σοφία is here the living insight, rooted in the πίστις, 1.6. the insight compelling to action in what is the Christian’s duty, both in whole and in its particular parts, especially in the πειρασμοῖς (ver. 2) (comp. the praise of wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon, in the Wisdom of Solomon, and in the Book of Ecclesiasticus). Wisdom can only be given by God (κύριος δίδωσι σοφίαν καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ γνῶσις Kal σύνεσις, Ῥτον. 11. 6), and asa divine χάρισμα it has an impress definitely distinguishing it from the wisdom of the world; see chap. iii. 15, 17." The connection does not constrain us, with Bouman and others, to conceive the idea of σοφία only in reference to the πειρασμοί (ver. 2), and to understand by it only the doctrine concerning the Christian conduct in the πειρασμοῖς, expressed in ver. 2 (Calvin: Sapientiae nomen ad circumstantiam praestantis loci restringo, acsi diceretr si haec doctrina ingenil vestri captu altior est, petite a Domino, ut vos Spiritu suo illuminet), or that conduct itself. The idea of σοφία is rather to be understood in its completeness (Theile, de Wette, Kern, Wiesinger). The reason why James here mentions it is because it was especially necessary to the Christian in his πειρασμοῖς ; Briickner: “James thinks here of wisdom (in itself of a more general acceptation), inasmuch as it is necessary rightly to estimate and rightly to resist the 1 The Etymologicum magnum thus gives the distinction between σοφία and γνῶσις : γνῶσις μέν ἔστι τὸ εἰδέναι τὰ ὄντα᾽ σοφία δὲ καὶ τὸ τὰ ὄντα γινώσκειν, καὶ τὸ τὰ δ, ᾽ γνωστὰ πράττειν, 48 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. trial, in order that it might not be converted into an internal temptation, instead of being the path to perfection.” *— aiteitw παρὰ «.T.r.] the same construction in Matt. xx. 20; Acts ill. 2; 1 John ν. 15.— τοῦ δίδοντος Θεοῦ] instead of τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ δίδοντος, as Codex A reads. By the selected order of the words here, not only is the idea of giving emphatically placed near to the request, but also the participle almost becomes an attributive adjective; God is indicated as the Giver absolutely. Accordingly—as Baumgarten, Gebser, and others correctly remark—no definite object as τὴν σοφίαν (Bouman) is to be supplied. — πᾶσιν and ἁπλῶς are added as a more detailed statement; τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν is from the con- text to be supplied to πᾶσιν (Calvin, Estius, Piscator, Laurentius, ete.) ; or, better still, οἷς δίδωσι. The adverb ἁπλῶς, only here in the N. T., is either to be understood as an ethical additional statement of δίδοναι = ἐν ἁπλότητι (Rom. xii. 8) (so Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Theile, Bouman, uncertainly Wiesinger), or = simply, without further ceremony (so de Wette).” In the latter case it is prominently brought forward that God in the giving had only this in view. It is incorrectly rendered benigne (Bede, Vorstius, and others), afiuenter (Erasmus, Grotius, and others), or as equivalent to συντόμως, καθάπαξ (Hesychius). By μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος ---- ἃ5 καί 5]ιοννβ--- πλῶς is not more closely defined, but a new point in the mode of the divine giving is added, and so that He does not reproach him to whom He gives, does not abuse him. ὀνειδίζειν is generally taken in the more special sense of upbraiding (Luther: “and upbraideth no man”); for which the expression in Demosthenes is appealed to: τὸ τὰς ἰδίας εὐεργεσίας ὑπομιμνήσκειν καὶ λέγειν μικροῦ δεῖν ὅμοιόν ἐστι τῷ ὀνειδίζειν ; still more surely does Plutarch, de wud. 33, speak for this meaning: πᾶσα ὀνειδιζομένη χάρις ἐπαχθὴς Kat ἄχαρις; also in Ecclus. xviii. 18, xx. 15, xli. 22, the word ‘ Lange, indeed, defends the explanation of Calvin, but he interprets the idea of σοφία differently from Calvin, defining it as ‘‘the right perception of the signs of the times, and of the christological fulfilment of the theocracy in the church as well as in the faith of individuals.” * Both of these explanations come essentially to the same thing, for ‘‘he that giveth with simplicity will simply give ; it will be a pure, unmingled giving, without any admixture” (Stier). Lange, without reason, maintains that in this commentary ἁπλῶς will refer not to the giving, but to the gift. — τὰ CHAP. I. 8. 49 appears to have this more special reference." Still there is no proof that James did not take it in its more general sense. Semler: non tantum significat molestam commemorationem beneficiorem, sed etiam qualemcunque reprehensionem (so also Schneckenburger, de Wette).? It is incorrect to explain ὀνειδίζειν as equivalent to aliquem ignominose cum repulsa dimittere (Morus, Zachariae, Carpzov, Storr, Augusti, Stolz, Hottinger) ; the refusal of a petitioner may be considered as a καταισχύνειν of the same, but ὀνειδίζειν never occurs in this sense, not even in Ecclus. xx. 15. The reason why James subjoins the particular statement ἁπλῶς «.7.A. is by it to encourage to αἰτεῖν (Zwinglius: ut mentes alliciat, ut ad hune unum in omni necessitate adcurrant) ; perhaps also with “a side elance to the rich” (ver. 10, chap. v. 9 ff), who do not give ἁπλῶς, and when they do give, give only ὀνειδίζοντες (Wiesinger). — καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ] impersonal: “it shall be given him;” namely, what he asks; here, wisdom. It is erroneous directly to supply ἡ σοφία to δοθήσεται as the subject (Lange), because James here evidently wishes to emphasize the relation of the giving to the asking, and accordingly the object is suppressed; comp. on this thought particularly 1 Kings iii, 9-12 (2 Chron. i. 10-12). Ver. 6. A more particular statement how prayer must be made; aiteirw δὲ ἐν πίστει] With αἰὐἰτείτω the αἰτείτω in ver. 5 is resumed; 6é indicates the carrying out of the thought. — The prayer, if it is to be heard, must be a εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως, chap. v. 15 (comp. Ecclus. vii. 10: μὴ ὀλι- γοψυχήσῃς ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ σου). --- ἐν πίστει] that is, in the confident assurance of being heard; on what this is founded is not here expressed. The explanation of Calvin: fides est quae Dei promissionibus freta nos impetrandi, quod petimus, certos reddit (similarly Baumgarten), expresses what is in itself true, but is not here indicated by James. Some ancient commentators incorrectly supply to πίστει as a more definite 1In this sense exprobare is used in Latin, e.g. Cicero, de amic. : Odiosum sane genus hominum officia exprobantium. 2 Eustathius : ὀνειδίζειν οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐεργεσίας ἀναφέρειν σοῖς εὐεργετημένοις τς ὦ ἄλλις καὶ ἁπλῶ; ἀνοστά τινα καὶ ἐπσίμομφα λέγειν, The assertion of Lange is unfounded, that James, according to this exposition, would utter an untenable sentiment, “*because God, notwithstanding those who ask, often inflicts injuries on men.” Lange has not considered that the passage treats only of asking. MEYER. —JAMES, D 50 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. statement “Incod Χριστοῦ. ---- Τ]Ι6. object of the prayer (namely, τὴν σοφίαν) is not here named, where only the necessary condition of prayer is treated of. The remarks made by many expositors on the manner in which the Christian should ask for external good things are here inap- propriate. — μηδὲν διακρινόμενος) expresses the same idea as ἐν πίστει, only in a negative form; μηδέν is here, as frequently, adverbial = on no account, nulla ratione. διακρίνεσθαι is, according to N. T. usage, to doubt ; compare besides Acts x. 20, xi. 12: particularly Matt. xxi. 21: ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν, καὶ μὴ διακριθῆτε; Rom. iv. 20: οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ; Rom. iv. 23; it is τοῦ ΞΞ ἀπιστεῖν (Luke xxiv. 21), or ἀπειθεῖν (John iii, 36), but includes in it the essential character of ἀπιστία; while πίστις says “Yes” and ἀπιστία “No,” διακρίνεσθαι is the conjunction of “ Yes” and “No,” but so that “No” has the preponderance; it is that internal wavering which leans not to πίστις, but to ἀπιστία. The deep-lying ground of it is pride, and so far Theophylact is right in saying διακρινόμενος δὲ ὁ μεθ’ ὑπεροψίας αἰτῶν, ὑβριστὴς ὁμολογουμένως, ὁ διακρινόμενος ; whereas Oecumenius, in the words: λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ, ὅτι πῶς δύναμαι αἰτησαί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ λαβεῖν, ἡμαρτηκὼς τοσαῦτα εἰς αὐτόν, brings out a point which belongs not to διακρίνεσθαι, but to a yet weak faith." Comp. with this passage Hermas ii. 9: tolle a te dubitationem et nihil omnino dubites petens aliquid a Deo.— The following words: ὁ yap διακρινόμενος K.T.., are annexed to the preceding διακρινόμενος, more clearly explaining it (in figurative language) with reference to the exhortation αἰτείτω «.7.A.; but the reason of this exhortation is given in ver. 7. The first γάρ, accordingly, has the meaning of namely, whereas the second has that of for. According to 1 As weak faith is to be distinguished from διακρίνεσθαι, so also is the doubt, of which the believer is conscious as a trial. Calvin strikingly remarks : Fieri quidem non potest in (hac) carnis intirmitate, quin variis tentationibus agitemur, quae sunt veluti machinae ad labefactandam nostram fiduciam: ita nemo reperietur, qui non sensu carnis suae vacillet ac trepidet. Sed oportet ejusmodi tentationes fide tandem superari, quemadmodum arbor, quae firmas radices jecit, quatitur quidem venti impulsu, sed non revellitur, quin potius suo loco stabilis manet.—Whilst the daxpiouevos, according to the proper meaning of the term, will not believe, it is the longing of the tried to be confirmed in the faith. SS. se Ul CHAP. I. 6. 51 this interpretation, the relation of the thoughts expressed in vv. 6 and 7 is more correctly recognised than when we say that the first γάρ assigns the reason why we should pray nothing doubting, but that this thought is only brought to a con- clusion in ver. 7 (Wiesinger, and so in the earlier edition of this commentary, where it is said that the sentence taken together would read: ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος, ἐοικὼς κλύδωνι... μὴ οἰέσθω, ὅτε λήμψεταί τι κιτ.λ.). Lange incorrectly supposes that the first yap has a more limited meaning, whilst it declares the διακρινόμενος as incapable of praying aright ; whereas the second yap refers in a wider sense to the unbelieving condition of the man to God, and therefore is to be rendered by also.— ἔοικε] only here in the N. T. and in ver. 23. — κλύδων θαλάσσης) only here in the N. T. and in Luke viii. 24 (κλυδ, τοῦ ὕδωτος) ; usually κῦμα. The verb κλυδωνίζεσθαι occurs in Eph. iv. 14; Isa. lvii, 20, LXX. The point of comparison is contaimed in the subjoined words: ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥυπιζομένῳ] The verb ἀνεμίζεσθαι is entirely an ἅπαξ Ney. occurring nowhere else, equivalent to ἀνεμοῦσθαι, found in classical language (see Hegesippus 6: ἁλὸς ἤἠνεμω- μένης) = agitated, 1.0. agitated by the wind. The verb ῥυπίζειν (only here in Ν. T.) is also elsewhere used to denote the agitation or excitement of water by the wind ; see Dio Chrysostom, xxxiii. p. 368 B: δῆμος ἄστατον κακὸν καὶ θαλάσσῃ πάνθ᾽ ὅμοιον, ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμου ῥυπίζεται; Philo, de mundo: πρὸς ἀνέμου ῥυπίζεται τὸ ὕδωρ. Heisen incorrectly explains ῥιπίζεσθαι as equivalent to calefieri et accendi; the word never has this meaning, although used of the kindling of fire’ The two expressions (which Lange incorrectly denies) are synonymous, and are placed together only for the sake of strengthening the idea. The opinion that ἀνεμίζ. refers to agitation coming from without, and ῥυπίζ. to agitation coming from within (Bengel), is without foundation; also the assertion that the former 1 Theile correctly rejects this explanation, saying: ‘‘ Hoc, quamquam undae spumantes ventis revera incalescunt Latinisque etiam ebullire aestusque dicuntur, longius tamen petitum est.”—The verb ῥιπίζειν comes either from ῥιπίς = (1) follis (a bellows) ; (2) flabellum, having the meaning both of kindling (the fire) and of fanning (for the sake of cooling); or from ῥιπή = vibration, which is also used of wind ; thus ῥιπὴ Βορέαο, Il, xv. 171; ῥιπαὶ ἀνέμων, Sophocles, Ant. 137 ; also ῥιπή = storm, Pind. P. ix. 49. The original import of the German verbs schwingen, bewegen, is thus entirely equivalent to dvewiGeu. 52 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. word denotes the cause and the latter the effect (Theile, Wiesinger) is not entirely correct, as ἀνεμίζεσθαι itself expresses the effect.— By this image the mind of the doubter is characterized as unsteady and wavering, to which a calm and sure rest is wanting.’ Comp. Isa. lvii. 20, 21, LXX.: οἱ δὲ ἄδικοι κλυδωνισθήσονται Kal ἀναπαύσασθαι ov δυνή- σονται, οὐκ ἔστι χαίρειν (οἷ) τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν: Ver. 7. μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω] On γάρ, see ver. 6; it is neither the simple particle of transition (Pott), nor equivalent to ergo (Calvin), nor is it to be explained, with Winer [E. T. 558], according to its derivation from ye and dpa, by thus indeed ; but is the reason for the exhortation in ver. 6; hence jor. — The warning: μὴ οἰέσθω, supposes the fancy of the doubter, that he will receive something from God in answer to prayer; similarly Matt. iii, 9: μὴ δόξητε. ---- ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος] refers back to ὁ διακρινόμενος. Although not in ἐκεῖνος (in itself), yet in the whole mode of expression, there is something disparaging. — By λήμψεται, instead of δοθήσεται (ver. 5), is not intended to be indicated, that the fault of not being heard lies not with God but with man; rather he receives not, because God gives not. — τί naturally refers to what the doubter asks; thus scil. αἰτουμένων. The definite object (wisdom) above spoken of is not here meant; for the particular thought is founded on a general declaration. By κύριος Christ is not to be understood, but, as in chap. iy. 10, v. 4, 10, according to O. T. usage, God. — The designation of God as the Lord naturally suggested itself to James, because he was here speaking of the power of God manifested in giving or not giving; it is not, as Lange thinks, chosen in order to characterize God as “Jehovah the living covenant- God, who has now fully manifested Himself in Christ.” Ver. 8 contains neither the subject to λήμψεται (Baum- garten), nor is it to be understood as an exclamation = vae 1A doubtful petitioner offers not to God a steady hand or heart, so that God cannot deposit in it His gift,” Stier. * Lange supposes that James has used these expressions with a conscious reference to the Ὁ, T. symbols, according to which the sea is ‘‘the emblem of the national life, agitated hither and thither in pathological sympathies,” whilst iu his time ‘‘ these waves of the sea” had already begun to roar. 3 The form λήα ψεται, for which Ms, authorities decide, is not classical Greek; the Ionic form is Adupouas CHAP. I. 8. 53 homini inconstanti (Pott). Many expositors consider ἀνὴρ δίψυχος as the subject and ἀκατάστατος the predicate, want- ing the copula (Luther: “a doubter is unstable ;” so Calvin, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Lange, and others) ; but according to this construction the idea dipuyos falls too much into the background, and also the train of thought would be too unconnected. It is better to take both ἀνὴρ δίψυχος and ἀκατάστατος K.T.. as in apposition to ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. It is true that the character of the doubter has already been given in ver. 6 by ἔοικε «.7.r., but, on the one hand, only figuratively, and, on the other hand, without giving promi- nence to his ethical character, which James now introduces in order strongly to confirm the thought expressed in ver. 7 ; which exposition is far from being “a feeble tautology” (Lange). Less stress is to be put on the want of the article (Schneckenburger, de Wette), as it would be here hardly suit- able. Correctly Winer, p. 497 [E. T. 670]: “he, a double- minded man;” so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Bouman, and others. Only according to this construction is the full mean- ing given to the idea δύψυχος. The word is not to be taken merely as another expression for διακρινόμενος (Luther, Beza, Grotius, Cremer, and others; Luther directly renders it “a doubter”), but it characterizes the inward nature of the doubter. According to the mode in which δισώματος, δικάρδιος, δίγλωσσος, and similar words are formed, δίψυχος (which occurs neither in the classics nor in the LXX. and the Apocrypha, but besides here only in chap. iv. 8, and the Church Fathers) properly denotes having two souls; it thus describes the doubter as a man who has, as it were, two souls contending against each other: one of which is turned to God, and one of which is turned away from God (thus to the world) ; who, accordingly, will be at the same time φίλος τοῦ Θεοῦ and φίλος τοῦ κόσμου, although φιλία τοῦ κόσμου is ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ (chap. iv. 6) This double-mindedness (or what is the same thing, division of soul) expresses the 1 Oecumenius limits the idea too specifically to a care divided about the present and the future: dipuyov ἄνδρα τὸν ἀνεπέρεισσον, τὸν ἀστήρικτον λέγει, τὸν μήτε πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα παγίως, μήτε πρὸς τὰ πάροντα ἀσφαλῶς: ἡδρασμένον, ἀλλὰ Tho: κακεῖσε ἀγόμενον καὶ περιφερόμενον, καὶ ποτὲ μὲν τῶν μελλόντων, ποτὲ δὲ τῶν παρόντων ἀντεχόμενον, In the classics related ideas are διάνδιχα μερμερίζειν, Hom. 7|.1. 189, 54 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. wavering to and fro, between πίστις and ἀπιστία generally, so particularly also in prayer; therefore it is called, Constitut. Ap. vii. 11: μὴ γίνου δίψυχος ἐν προσευχῇ εἰ ἔσται, ἢ οὐ, and Clemens Romanus: ταλαίπωροι οἱ δίψυχοι, οἱ διστάζοντες τὴν ψυχήν; comp. Ecclus. i. 28: μὴ προσέλθῃς αὐτῷ (κυρίῳ) ἐκ καρδίᾳ δίσσῃ. --- δίψυχον εἶναι is to be understood neither as the reason (Wiesinger) nor as the result (Lange), but as the characteristic nature of διακρίνεσθαι. ---- The word ἀνήρ is here as in Matt. vii. 24; Ps. xxxii 2, LXX. Lange thinks that James used it because the dangers of which he warns them are more especially the dangers which threaten the men among the Jews. — As a second apposition James adds: axa- τάστατος ἐν πασαῖς ταῖς ὅδοις αὑτοῦ] for where there is a want of unity in the internal life, it is also wanting in the external conduct. The dhépvyos, being actuated sometimes by one impulse and sometimes by another, is wnsteady and incon- stant in his intentions and actions (ἐν ταῖς ὅδοις αὑτοῦ ; comp. Ps. xci. 11; Jer. xvi. 17; Prov. iii. 6, etc.); he walks not on one path, but as it is said in Ecclus. ii. 12: ἐπιβαίνει ἐπὶ δύο τρίβους The word ἀκατάστατος is found only again in chap. iii. 8 and in the LXX. Isa. liv. 11 as the translation of YD; the substantive ἀκαταστασία occurs in chap. iii. 16, besides in Luke and in the Epistles to the Corinthians. — The reason why the doubter is not heard is accordingly the disunion in which he is with himself, both in his internal and in his external life; God gives the heavenly gift of wisdom, which according to its nature is ἁγνή, only to him who ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ (Matt. xxii. 37), has given to God an undivided dis- position. Vv. 9, 10. James subjoins to the idea that the doubter and frequently : διάνδιχα θυμὸν ἔχειν, Hesiod, O. 13; Ψυχὴ avapuorres, Phaed. 93 ¢ (opp. ψυχὴ ὁμονοητικῆ, el Resp. Vili. 554), ete. In the Hebrew, aby abn, so in 1 Chron. xii. 33, where a) ab-xba is equivalent to pow anda, ver, 38 ; that expression has another meaning in Ps, xii. 3. | Schneckenburger incorrectly explains ἀποκατάστατπος here of the fate of the doubter: parum constantiae experitur in omnibus, quae ipsi contingunt, sua culpa sorte varia conflictatur, and 030; == fortuna ; also Heisen at least includes this idea: omnia vitae consilia ac facta quin et fata. This certainly is a possible explanation in itself, but it does not suit the context. The meaning attached to the word by Lange, ‘‘ seditious disturber,” cannot be proved to be correct by iii. 16. CHAP. I. 9, 10. 55 should not think that he should receive anything, the exhor- tation to the lowly brother; δέ non solum apponendo, sed opponendo gravius hortatur (Theile). At first view the natural sense is, with de Wette, Wiesinger, and most expositors, to take ὁ ἀδελφός as the general idea, which is specified by ὁ ταπεινός and ὁ πλούσιος. According to this view, ταπεινός is not equivalent to ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, Matt. xi. 29, but, in opposi- tion to πλούσιος, must be taken in its proper sense: afilictus, particularly poor ; on the other hand, ὁ πλούσιος is the earthly rich, equivalent to opulentus, fortunatus, affluens rebus ex- ternis. The exaltation (τὸ ὕψος), in which the brother of low degree is to glory, can naturally only be the heavenly dignity, which the Christian by his faith in Christ possesses, and whose future completion is guaranteed to him by the promise of the Lord; and, corresponding to this, by ταπείνωσις is to be understood the lowliness, which “belongs to the rich man as a Christian through Christ” (Wiesinger), which is essen- tially the same with his exaltation. There is nothing against this idea in itself; the same oxymoron would be contained in the expression, were we to say, according to 1 Cor. vii. 22: “the δοῦλος rejoices in his ἐλευθερία, and the ἐλεύθερος in his δουλεία. But the context is against this explanation: not only because the distinction of Christians into rich and poor would be here introduced quite unexpectedly, but also because vv. 2 and 12 show that the connection of the ideas in this section is the reference to the πειρασμοί which Christians have to endure. Several expositors have assumed this refer- ence in the idea ταπεινός ; thus, among moderns, Theile, whilst to the explanation of Morus: carens fortunis externis omninoque calavaitosus, he adds: πειρασμῶν περιπεσών, ver. 2; δεδιωγμένος ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, Matt. v.10; πάσχων διὰ δικαιοσύνης, 1 Pet. iii. 14; but by this the simple contrast between ταπεινός and πλούσιος is destroyed; for then ὁ πλούσιος must be taken as the rich Christian who had not suffered persecution, which would be evidently meaningless. If, on the other hand, the rich man who shares the lot of persecution with the poor is to be understood (as Laurentius explains it: dives, sc. frater, qui ipse erat una cum paupere fratre in dispersione, direptionem bonorum suorum propter Christi evangelium passus; similarly Erasmus, Hornejus, and 56 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. others), such a reference is not to be found in the idea ταπεινός in itself; if one puts it into the idea ταπείνωσις, so that by this is to be understood the suffering condition of persecution, in which the πλούσιος is placed, or by which he is threatened (Gebser: “he rejoices in his lowliness, into which he may be brought by persecution 7), then there is no reason to find in ταπεινός the idea of poverty expressed. Thus, then, in this view the train of thought, referring it to πειρασμοί, becomes indistinct and confused; and yet this reference is required by the context. But also what directly follows is against the idea of considering the πλούσιος as well as the ταπεινός as a Christian (ἀδελφός) ; for, apart from the fact that such a rich man would require no such pressing intimation of the perish- ableness of riches as is contained in the following clauses, it is carefully to be observed that in the words ὅτε... παρε- AevoeTat, and in ver. 11: οὕτω καὶ x«.7.r., the subject is ὁ πλούσιος and not ὁ πλούτος, as that explanation would render necessary; Winer: dives non habet, quo glorietur, nisi ab humilitate sua, nam divitiae mox periturae sunt; so also de Wette, Theile, Wiesinger, and others. This change of the subject is evidently unjustifiable. James says, not of riches, but of the rich man, παρελεύσεται, μαρανθήσεται, which evi- dently is only valid of the rich man who forms a contrast to ταπεινὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Briickner, in order to avoid the change of subject, explains it of “the rich man according to his external relations;” but this reference is not only arbi- trarily introduced, but it weakens the train of thought. That such a bad sense should be given by the author to the idea o πλούσιος, is evident both from chap. iig6;%7> where he repre- sents the πλούσιοι as the persecutors of the Christians, and from chap. v. 1-6, where they are threatened with condemna- tion; besides, the word is elsewhere used in the sacred Serip- tures in a bad sense; comp. Luke vi. 24-26; Isa. lii. 9, where WY is parallel with DY; Ecclus. xiii. 3: πλούσιος > / Ν > / oe / / ΔΑ ἠδίκησε... πτωχὸς ἠδίκηται; xvii. 18: τί κοινωνήσει λύκος lal © ΄ Ν Α, a / » / / ἀμνῷ ; οὕτως ἁμαρτωλὸς πρὸς εὐσεβῆ... τίς εἰρήνη πλουσίῳ πρὸς πένητα. If ὁ πλούσιος stands in relation of contrast to ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινός, then the Christian condition cannot be understood by ταπείνωσις, or scarcely with Bouman : animi, nihil sibi arrogantis, modestia; but only the CHAP. I. 9, 10. OF destruction described in the following words: ὅτε «.7.X., into which the rich man on account of his pride has fallen; comp. Luke vi. 24—26.". The verb to be supplied is neither ato xv- νέσθω (Oecumenius, Estius, and others) nor ταπεινούσθω, but καυχάσθω (comp. Winer, p. 548 [Εἰ T. 777]). This certainly does not appear suitable, but the expression of James has its peculiar pointedness in this, that the ταπείνωσις, to which the rich man is devoted, is indicated as the only object of his boast- ing” To this irony (if it be called so)—which already the author of the commentary on the Lamentations in Jerome’s works, and after him Lyra, Thomas, Beza, and others have recognised in our passage—less objection is to be taken, as this was so natural to the deeply moral spirit of James, in oppo- sition to the haughty self-confidence of the rich man opposed to the lowly Christian.— For a more exact explanation of these two verses, the following remarks may suffice. The connection of ver. 9 with the preceding is as follows: let the brother of low degree glory amid his temptations in his exalta- tion (Gunkel). The idea καυχᾶσθαι is neither exhausted by laetari, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, 1 Pet. i. 6, Matt. v. 12 (Gebser), nor by commemorare, praedicare (Carpzov); it indicates rather elorying, proceeding from the confident assurance of superiority ; Theile: notio gloriandi involvit notas 1 gaudendi, 2 confi- dentiae, 3 externe expressi.—o ἀδελφός, according to the above explanation, refers only to ὁ ταπεινός, not to ὁ πλούσιος, which rather forms the contrast set over against that idea. By ὁ ταπεινός is not indicated a kind of ἀδελφοί, but is the characteristic mark of true Christians. It is incorrect to take ταπεινός here as entirely equivalent to πτῶχος ; it goes beyond the idea of πτῶχος, indicating the Christian according to his entire lowly condition in the world, which also is not in- 1 According to Lange, the expressions ὁ ταπεινός and ὁ πλούσιος are to be taken in a prophetico-symbolical sense, so that the first ‘‘designates the Jewish Christian and the Jew absolutely in their low oppressed theocratic condition as contrasted with the heathen world and the secular power, or still more exactly the theocrat, inasmuch as he deeply feels his condition ;” the second, ‘‘again, designates the Jew and the Jewish Christian, inasmuch as he sees the hopeless situation of the Jewish people in a brilliant light, inasmuch as he is not only rich in the con- sciousness of his Jewish prerogatives, but also in chiliastic and visionary expec- tation,” etc. This interpretation requires no refutation. * A similar connection is found in Phil. iii. 19: ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν. 58 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. applicable to him who is perhaps rich in worldly wealth, especially as these riches have no true value for him. Comp. moreover, 1 Cor. i. 26: οὐ πολλοὶ δυνατοί, οὐ πολλοὶ εὐγενεῖς. Ταπεινός is the Christian, in so far as he is despised and persecuted by the world (τεταπεινωμένος καὶ κατησχυμμένος, Ps. Ixxiv. 21, comp. 1 Cor. i. 27), is inwardly distressed (ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενος, ἔξωθεν paxat, ἔσωθεν φόβοι, 2 Cor. vii. 5), and walks in humility before God; the opposite of all this is comprehended in πλούσιος. On ὕψος, Theile rightly remarks : sublimitas . . . non solum jam praesens sed etiam adhuc futura cogitari potest = ζωή illa, quae in coelis perficienda in terris jam est. Incorrectly, de Wette understands by this “ present exaltation;” as little also does ὕψος indicate only “ the stedfast courage of the Christian” (Augusti) ; and still less is it equivalent to divitiae, as Pott thinks, who finds only the thought here expressed: ὁ ταπεινός dives sibi videatur.— By ἐν is not to be understood the condition iz which (Schneckenburger), but, according to the prevailing linguistic usage of the N. T., the object wpon which the glorying is to take place; comp. Rom. v. 3.—The words ὅτε ὡς ἄνθος χύρτου παρελεύσεται announce wherein the ταπείνωσις of the rich consists. As regards the construction, it forms one simple sentence. Baumgarten incorrectly construes παρελεύσεται with ὃ πλούσιος, and considers ὅτε ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου, sc. ἐστι, aS ἃ parenthesis, by which an epigrammatic sharpness is conveyed to the preceding sentence. The figure, which is further drawn out in ver. 11, is of frequent occurrence in the O. T., whilst with the quickly fading grass and its flower is not only man generally (comp. Job xiv. 2: ὥσπερ ἄνθος ἀνθῆσαν ἐξέπεσεν ; Ps. cili. 15: ἄνθρωπος ὡσεὶ χόρτος... ὡσεὶ ἄνθος τοῦ ἀγροῦ οὕτως ἐξανθήσει; Isa. xl. 6, 7: πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος, καὶ πᾶσα δόξα ἀνθρώπων ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου" ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσε; comp. 1 Pet. i. 24), but also specially, as here the ungodly’ (comp. Ps. xxxvii. 2: ὡσεὶ χόρτος ταχὺ ἀποξηρανθήσονται, Kal ὡσεὶ λάχανα χλόης ταχὺ ἀποπεσοῦνται; see also Ps. xc. 6), compared. — ἄνθος is here, not as in Isa. xi. 1, LXX. translation of ἽΝ) = germen, surculus (Hottinger), 1 Lange observes: ‘‘ This is not here the image of the ungodly, but is to be understood as a historical figure with reference to the decay of the O. T. glory!” CHAP. I. 11. 59 but the flower ; however, the combination V8" /*¥ is not found in Hebrew; in Isa. xl. 7 it is TIN YY. Παρέρχεσθαι, in the meaning of destruction, often occurs in the N. T. (so also in the Hebrew 729); also in the classics: Soph. Zrach. 69: τὸν παρελθόντ᾽ ἄροτον. Ver. 11. A further expansion of the image. The aorists ἀνέτειλε, ἐξήρανε, etc., do not precisely stand for the present (Grotius, Piscator, Hottinger, and others), but represent the occurrence in a concrete manner as a fact which has taken place, by which the description gains in vividness (comp. Isa. xl. 7), which is still more vividly portrayed by the simple succession of finite verbs. See Winer, p. 248 [E. T. 346, 347] and p. 417 [E. T. 590]; A. Buttmann, p. 175. It is only confusing to convert avétesre . . . ἐξήρανε into ἀνατείλας or ἐὰν ἀνατέλλῃ .. . ἐξήρανε. ---- By the word καύσων is often in the LXX. (comp. besides Ezek. xvii. 10, xix. 12, Hos. xiii, 15: Jer. xviii. 17; Jonah iv. 8; where ἀγέμος or πνεῦμα is added, particularly Job xxvii. 21; Hos. xii. 1) meant the hot east wind (8%P), which, blowing over the steppes of Arabia, is very dry and scorching to vegetation (see Winer’s Reallexicon: word, Wind); here, however, as in Isa. xlix. 10 (Ν᾽ closely united with Wmv), Ecclus. xviii. 16 (comp. also Ecclus. xliii. 3, where it is said of the sun: καὶ ἐναντίον καύματος αὐτοῦ τίς ὑποστήσεται), Matt. xx. 12, Luke xii. 55, it has the meaning “heat, burning” (against Grotius, Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger, Winer, Wahl, Lange, Bouman, and others), as the parching effect is attributed not to the καύσων as something different from the sun, but to the sun itself.‘ It is arbitrary to explain it as if it were written: ἠγέρθη γάρ, ἅμα τᾷ ἀνατεῖλαι Tov ἥλιον, 0 καύσων; as Gebser says: “the burning wind rising with the sun is the image.” Laurentius incorrectly under- stands by the sun “ Christ,” and by the rising of the sun “the day of the Lord;” thus the whole is an image of the judgment destroying the rich, yet so that the individual parts are to be retained in their appropriate meaning.” — καὶ 1 Neither the article before καύσωνι:, nor the observation that ‘with the rising of the sun and the development of its heat the vegetation is not forthwith imperilled,” forms a valid reason against this explanation (against Lange). * That ‘‘ with the sun of a finished revelation was developing the hot wind of 60 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. eEnpave κι] The same expressions in Isa. xl. 7.— ἐκπίπτειν, tc. not simply the withering (Isa. xxviii. 1, 4, LXX.), but the actual falling off of the flower, is a conse- quence of the blighting of the plant.— 1 εὐπρέπεια] the opposite of ἀπρέπεια is used in the classics chiefly of external appearance; in the N. T. it is an dm. Xey. — τὸ πρόσωπον = DB, Ps. civ. 30; comp. Luke xi. 56; Matt. xvi. 3: species externa. αὐτοῦ refers, not as the first αὐτοῦ, to τὸν χόρτον, but to τὸ ἄνθος, on which the emphasis rests (comp. ver. 10, de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman). — οὕτω] thus quickly, thus entirely (Wiesinger); καί is not purely superfluous (Wiesinger), but, referring back to the image, heightens the comparison. — ὁ πλούσιος... μαρανθήσεται)] It is to be observed that here also ὁ πλούσιος and not ὁ πλοῦτος is the subject. μαραίνεσθαι, in the N. T. an az. dey., is found in the LXX. as the translation of U2’, Job xv. 30; in the same meaning in the Wisdom of Solomon ii. 8. The figurative expression is explained by what goes before. — ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὑτοῦ] not “on his journeys” (Laurentius, Piscator, Herder), also not “on his journeyings of fortune” (Lange); but = ἐν ταῖς ὅδοις αὐτοῦ, ver. 8 (comp. Prov. ii. ὃ, LXX.). The prominent idea is that the rich man, overtaken by judgment, perishes in the midst of his doings and pursuits, as the flower in the midst of its blossoming falleth a victim to the scorching heat of the sun. Luther’s translation: “in his possession,” is ex- plained from the false reading πορίαις. See critical notes. Ver. 12. Whilst the rich man is condemned in the judg- ment, the ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινός, who suffers the πειρασμόν pro- ceeding from the rich man, is blessed. This blessedness forms the conclusion of the series of thought begun at ver. 2. To μακάριος ἀνήρ (see Ps. i. 1, and frequently in O, T.) not ἔστω, but ἐστί is to be supplied. No special emphasis is to be put on ἀνήρ; comp. vv. 8, 20; incorrectly Thomas: beatus vi’, non mollis vel effoeminatus, sed vir ; and not less incorrectly Lange, who explains ἀνήρ here as he does in the Jaw, which scorched the glory of Israel” (Lange), is a remark which is here the more inappropriate, as according to it the sun and the hot wind are indicated as two different powers opposed to each other. 1 Lange, on the other hand, observes ‘‘that a fallen flower is still to lose its beauty ” cannot be imagined ; but is it then to be imagined that the grass when it is withered and the flower has fallen from it is still to lose its beauty ? CHAP. I. 12. 61 ver. 8.— ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν] is not = ὃς πειρασμοῖς περιπίπτει OY ὃς πειρασμὸν πάσχει (Hottinger); comp. ver. 3 ; it is the man who does not succumb to the temptations which he has to endure. lLaurentius: aliud est ferre crucem, aliud preferre. To supply ὅταν περιπέση (Wiesinger) is unneces- sary. — The following sentence beginning with ὅτε adduces the reason of the μακαρισμός : for being approved, he will receive the crown of life. By δόκιμος γενόμενος] is given not so much the condition as the cause, why he that endureth temptation will receive the crown of life; the being approved is the consequence of ὑπομένειν πειρασμόν. ---- δόκιμος is not, with Krebs, Losner, Augusti, Pott, and others, to be referred as a figurative expression to the trial preceding the contests of athletes; but if a conscious figurative reference is to be assumed at all (which de Wette, Briickner, and Wiesinger not without reason consider as doubtful), it is to be referred to the purification of metals by fire (Hornejus, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Theile, and others’). In τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς] (“not the crown which is peculiar to eternal life, 1... which is imparted to it,’ Gunkel) τῆς ζωῆς is not the genitive of possession (Lange), but of apposition: ζωή, 1.6. the eternal blessed life, is itself the crown of glory with which he that endures is adorned; comp. Rev. 1.10; 1 Pet. ν. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 8. It is at least doubtful if there is here any allusion to the reward of the victor in the Greek games,—which is maintained by Zwingli, Michaelis, Hensler, Pott, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others, and contested by Semler, Augusti, Schneckenburger, Hottinger, Theile, Briickner, and others,— as even among the Jews, without any reference to a contest, a crown or diadem is regarded as the symbol of peculiar honour ; comp. besides Ps. xxi. 4 (Briickner), especially Wisdom of Solomon v. 16,17: δίκαιοι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ζῶσι... λήψονται τὸ βασίλειον τῆς εὐπρεπείας καὶ τὸ διάδημα τοῦ κάλλους ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου ; with Paul, on the other hand, such an allusion frequently occurs. The certainty of receiving this crown of elory is founded on the divine promise: ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο (ὃ κύριος) τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν] If ὁ κύριος is the correct 1 Lange asserts that this figurative reference is so far incorrect, as ‘‘ that figure presupposes the idea of refining, which, although contained in the trial or proof, is not identical with it ;” but the identity is not maintained. 62 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. reading, we are to understand not Christ (Baumgarten, Schneckenburger), but God (Gebser, Theile, Wiesinger). — The expression τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν (comp. Ps. xevii. 10, exlv. 20; Rom. viii. 28, etc.) intimates that ὑπομένειν πειρασμόν is a proof and testimony of love to God, and is accordingly a proof how careful James was to designate love as the essence of true faith (so also Lange); therefore the repetition of the same addition in chap. 11. 5. On the whole passage, comp. particularly 2 Tim. iv. 8. Ver. 13. To ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν James opposes ὃς πειράζεται ;' whilst the former gains ζωή, the end to which the latter approaches is θάνατος (ver. 15).— First James disclaims a vain justification of the latter, and then describes the process of πειράζεσθαι. The vain justification is intro- duced with the direct words of the πειραζόμενος : ὅτε ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, and then disclaimed by the expression: ὁ Θεὸς ἀπειραστός ἐστι κακῶν K.7...— By the direct transition from the preceding to this verse, it is supposed that by the πειραζόμενος spoken about, in contrast to ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν (ver. 12), is to be understood the person who does not endure the temptation, and consequently is not proved by it, but who succumbs under it, whilst he suffers himself to be enticed to falling away—to sin. Pott: qui tentatione vinci- tur, ad peccandum vincitur; Theile: agit Jacobus de turpi tentatione per tristem (tentationem); so also Olshausen, Schneckenburger, Kern, and others. This connection is denied by others ; thus Calvin says: de alio tentationes genere dis- serit; and Wiesinger in the strongest manner: “ this appears as the design of the apostle: to distinguish as much as possible those πειρασμοῦς and this πειράζεσθαι, to place the latter as totally different from the former.” But the close connection with the preceding constrains us to the opinion that James has considered both in reference to each other, the πειρασμοί occasioning the πειράζεσθαι which takes place when ἐπιθυμία is excited by it.” It is arbitrary to take the verb 1 When Lange meets this with the question : ‘‘ How could any one endure the temptation without having first been tempted?” he only shows that he does not understand the explanation here given. * It is to be observed that James designates the trials, on which he thinks in ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπίσητε, ver. 3, aS πειρασμοί, It may be said that they are not CHAP. I, 13. 63 metpatecOar in the clause: μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος, in another sense than in the following clause: ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζξομαι, as Hottinger asserts: hic verbum πειράζεσθαι bis dicitur sensu diversi; priori loco simpliciter: adversa pati; posteriori: malis sollicitari ad defectionem (similarly Grotius, Semler ; also Lange); for, according to this interpretation, the excuse: ὅτι κιτιλ., would not correspond to the supposition contained in μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος. In justification of this view, Matt. viii. 30 cannot be appealed to, where the same word (νεκρόν) is used in the same sentence in different meanings, namely, in a proper and figurative meaning, as here the relation is entirely different.— Some expositors (Pott, Schneckenburger, and others), without reason, paraphrase λεγέτω by “ cogitet, sibi persuadeat.” Since the words which immediately follow are introduced in the direct form, it is better to retain the usual meaning of λέγειν, by which it is in itself evident that the external speaking presupposes an internal, on which it is here natural to think. — James makes the πειραζόμενος thus briefly express the excuse, by which he would justify him- self: ὅτε ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, by which he transfers the ouilt from himself to God.t ὅτι is the form of quotation frequently occurring in the N. T., except with Paul. ἀπὸ Θεοῦ is emphatically placed first. ἀπό is not equivalent to ὑπό; the former points to the more distant, the latter to the nearest cause, though by later writers ἀπό with passive verbs is sometimes used as equivalent to ὑπό. Here, however, the usual signification of ἀπό is to be retained, for the πειραζό- μενος, introduced as directly speaking, would certainly not stigmatize God as the direct tempter (comp. Matt. iv. 1). See Winer, p. 332 [E. Τὶ 464]. James does not with these words this in themselves, but only in so far as the Christian is yet a sinner, and can thus be enticed by them into sin; when this happens, then the πειράζεσθαι, of which James here speaks, takes place. Stier: ‘‘That there is a necessity for our all being tested and appfoved through trial, springs from our sin; the tempting element in our trial, the evil in it, springs therefore from that and not from God.” 1 He might find a justification of this in the fact that πειρασμοί actually spring from God. See Meyer on Matt. vi. 13, and on 1 Cor. x. 13. Lange introduces inappropriate matter, maintaining in favour of the concrete relations supposed by him, that the Jews and Judaizing Christians with this word would justify their fanaticism against the Gentiles, particularly their separation from the Gentile Christians, as an affair of God (for His glory)! 04 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. refer to any particular doctrine of religion and philosophy, perhaps to the doctrine of the Pharisees and Essenes on εἷμαρ- μένη (Bull, Ittig, Schneckenburger, and others), or the doctrine of Simon Magus (Calovius), but only considers generally the peculiar bias of the natural man to charge God somehow with the blame of πειράζεσθαι, recognisable in the answer of Adam to the question of God.‘ James grounds the rejection of the idea contained in μηδεὶς... λεγέτω that the πειράζεσθαι proceeds from God, by a sentence comprising two members: ὁ yap Θεὸς... οὐδένα. The word ἀπείραστος, an ἅπαξ ey. in the N. T., has in classical Greek—in which, however, the form ἀπείρατος (ameipntos) almost always occurs—either the passive meaning wntempted, that is, what is not tempted or proved, or the active meaning: he who has made no trial, equivalent to inexperienced. Some expositors take the word in the second meaning; thus Schulthess: in Deum nulla malorum experentia; de Wette, Briickner, and others.” But, on account of the close connection with πειράζειν, the word has here, as most expositors assume, an ethical meaning. Yet it is incorrect to explain it actively, with Luther (God is not a tempter to evil; Vulgate: intentator), because this clause would then be tautological with the following. It is rather to be taken passively: wntempted of evil, by which the idea passes from tentatus to that of tentabilis; Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 242, 243]. By the Church Fathers God is often named simply ὁ ἀπείραστος ; so Ignat. ad Philipp.: τί πειράζεις τὸν ἀπείραστον ; Photius, contra Manich. iv. p. 225: πειράζειν ἐπιχειρήσασι Tov ἀπείραστον. By this predicate the holiness of God, which is raised above all temptation to evil, is indi- cated, and is the motive likewise to the following thought.” 1 Many expressions in Greek authors show how natural this is to man ; comp. Il. «. 86: ἐγώ δ᾽ οὐκ αἴσιός εἰμι ἀλλὰ Ζεύς, καὶ μοῖρα ; Plaut. Aulul. iv. 10. 7: Deus impulsor mihi fuit ; Terent. Hunuch. v. 2. 86 : Quid, si hoc voluit quispiam Deus ?—Such an excuse suggested itself to the Jews the more as it appeared justified by the language of the O. T. Comp. Ex. xx. 16. On the contrary, Philo (Quod. deter. pot. 177 D) remarks : οὐ ὡς ἔνιοι ray ἀσεβῶν, τὸν Θεὸν αἴσιον τῶν κακῶν φῆσι Mwiens. Still more fully in Schneckenburger. * Buttmann, p. 148 [E. T. 170], contests this meaning, which rather belongs to the word ἄσειρος. But passages, as Hom. 1]. ad Ven. v. 133: ἀδμήσην μ᾽ ἀγάγων καὶ ἀσπειρήτην φιλότητο; ; Theognis, 772: πολλοὶ ἀπείρηποι δόξαν ἔχουσ᾽ ἀγαθῶν, show that ἀπείρατος actually has that meaning. Ὁ Lange maintains, in reference to the interpretation given above, that in this CHAP HT 1% 65 — κακῶν is not masculine, but neuter; not misery (Oecumenius), but ευϊϊ. ---- πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα] expresses the conse- quence of the preceding and the pointed contrast to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράξζομαι. πειράζει is placed first for the sake of emphasis. By αὐτός, which most interpreters pass over, is brought for- ward not God’s action in contrast to “being tempted” (Theile : ipse quoque non tentat idem ille Deus, qui tentari nequit ; Wiesinger: “He, self-active;” so also Lange), but shows that the πειράζειν indeed takes place, but from another cause (ἡ ἴδια ἐπιθυμία) than from God. The meaning of the whole verse is as follows: Let no man, when he is tempted (inwardly enticed) to evil, say, From God I am tempted: for God suffers no temptation; but (δέ) as to the temptation, He (God) tempteth no man: but every man is tempted, etc.” As regards the apparent contradiction of this with other passages of the Holy Scriptures, where the sins of men are referred to God as their reason (Gen. xxil. 1; Deut. viii. 2, etc.), Calvin correctly remarks: Quum Scriptura excoecationem vel obdura- tionem cordis tribuit Deo, neque illi initium assignat, neque facit mali auctorem, ut culpam sustinere debeat. In his autem duobus solum Jacobus insistit. Ver. 14. That “ πειράζεσθαι proceeds not from God,” is the thought of ver. 13. Whence comes it then? The answer is given in this verse: “ Hvery man is tempted, when he ws drawn out and allured by his own lust.” The words ὑπὸ τῆς ἴδ. ἐπιθυμίας belong not to πειράζεται (Theile, Wiesinger), but to ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Knapp, Grashof, Hottinger, de Wette, Briickner, Lange, commentary ἀπείρ. xax. is explained as equivalent to ‘‘ God has no experience of evil,” and that it is said that the passive construction: ‘‘ not tempted,” “‘ not temptable,” is against grammatical usage and the connection ! In ἃ very strange manner he thinks it is here designed to strengthen the warning : Let no man say ; for this saying, like all fanaticism, was a tempting God, and therefore vain and impious, because God does not suffer Himself to be tempted. 1 Inapposite uniting of various explanations by Theile and Morus: ἀπείρ. κακ. dicitur, partim quoniam nullae miseriae possunt evenire Deo, partim quoniam per eas non potest inclinari ad peccandum, ad cupiditatem aliquam exercendam ; Deus igitur est expers miseriae omnis atque etiam peccati vel pravae cupiditatis, et quia est, neque tentatur a malis ipse, neque alium tentat. * The passage in Ecclus, xv. 11, 12, 20, is especially to be compared : μὴ εἴπῃς Ort διὰ κύριον ἀπέστην, μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι αὐτός με ἐπλάνησεν. Οὐκ ἐνετείλατο οὐδενὶ ἀσεβεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν ἄνεσιν οὐδενὶ ἁμαρτάνειν. See also] Cor. x. 18. Mryer.—JaAmes, E 66 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. and others), as otherwise these ideas would drag too much, and would receive their closer reference only by supplying something, as ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς (Wiesinger). James will describe πειράξεσθαι according to its process; he therefore places the idea first, and then gives in what follows how it occurs, con- sequently the construction meupaferar . . . ἐξελκόμενος requires not to be altered into πειραζόμενος... ἐξελκύεται (Schnecken- burger). — πειραζόμενος, as is evident from what goes before, is to be supplied to ἕκαστος ; it corresponds to οὐδένα, ver. 13. The attribute ἰδίας is emphatic, expressing the contrast to αὐτός in ver. 13. It is brought prominently forward because ἐπιθυμία has its ground not in God, but belongs to man, — By ἐπιθυμία is not denoted “innocent sensuousness,” but it occurs here, as everywhere in the N. T. (except where its specific object is named, as in Luke xxii. 15; Phil. 1, 23; 1 Thess. ii. 17), even without the addition of κακή, σαρκική, or some similar adjectives, i sensu malo ; yet it is not to be understood as original sin: “ the sinful tendency, the same as Paul calls ἁμαρτία in Rom. vii. 7” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. 1. p. 469; Wiesinger); rather ἐπιθυμία here is the same as in Rom. vii. 7, namely, lust for the forbidden action springing from original sin (which Paul designates as the ἁμαρτία which χωρὶς νόμου is “νεκρά, but by the commandment revives, and πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν κατεργάζεται). So also Briickner." — James does not here speak of the origin and development of sin in general, but he wishes to mention, in contrast to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, by what sinful man is tempted to the definite act of sin, so that he had no occasion to refer to 1 According to Hofmann’s explanation, the form of expression of James would be diametrically opposed to that of Paul; for what Paul calls ἁμαρτία, James would call ἐσιθυμία ; and what Paul calls ἐσιθυμία, James would call ἁμαρτία And how objectionable is it to say, with Wiesinger : ἐπιθυμία, when stirred up, produces those ἐπιθυμίας σαρκός in Gal. v. 16, 24, that ἐσιθυμεῖν and that ἐπιθυμία in Rom. vii. 7, 8. It is also incorrect, with Lange, to understand by 10.2 tod. “original sin itself in its concrete activity,” or ‘the folly which the individual encounters externally, over against which the lust belonging to him is objectively placed,” and to determine the same more definitely as the totality of those “ glittering, variegated, visionary expectations which seductively met both the Jews and the Jewish Christians, which had sprung from the matter of the chiliastic, world-lusting, spiritual pride.” James does not here speak of ἐσιθυμία as attacking an individual from outside, but only of that which is within him, CHAP, I. 15. 67 original sin. — With regard to the form of expression, Pott correctly says: ἐπιθυμία, ἁμαρτία et θάνατος personarum vim habent; imaginem meretricis suppeditant voces συλλαβεῖν, τίκτειν, ἀποκύειν, nec non et ἐξέλκειν atque δελεάξζειν. The two words ἐξέλκειν and δελεάζειν sind verba e re venatoria et piseatoria in rem amatoriam et inde in nostrum tropum trans- lata (Schneckenburger); this at least is valid of δελεάζξειν. The meaning: protrahere in littus (Pott, and also de Wette), does not here lie at the root of the idea ἐξέλκειν (ἅπαξ ery. in N. T.), for then it would require to be placed after δελεάζειν (as also Wieseler, Briickner, and Lange observe) ; Schulthess more correctly explains it: elicere bestias ex tuto ubi latent in locum hamis retibusque expositum,; but it is probable that James had not the original figure so definitely before his eyes. Many interpreters (Menochius, Grotius, Laurentius, Pott, Hottinger, Baumgarten, Theile, and others) supply ὦ bono to ἐξέλκ. and ad malum to δελεάξ,, or something similar; yet incorrectly, as the idea is rather that ἐπιθυμία as a harlot entices man, that is, his will, to herself; the ἐξ in ἐξέλκ. is thus to be explained, that man, enticed by the allure- ments of ἐπιθυμία, is enticed to forsake his former position (as the place where he remained hitherto concealed) ; Schneckenburger: statu quasi suo et loco se extrahi et dimoveri ipse patitur. It is incorrect to explain ἐξέλκειν as equivalent to προσέλκειν, or as an intensified form instead of ἕλκειν. The being taken captive by ἐπιθυμία is indicated by δελεαζόμενος. δέλεάζειν, in the N. T. used here only and in 2 Pet. 11, 2, 14, 18, is also among classical writers used figuratively only in sensu malo ; comp. particularly, Plato, Zim. Ixix. 6: ἡδονὴ μεγίστων κακῶν δέλεαρ; Plut. de ser. Nw. Vind.: τὸ γλυκὺ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ὥσπερ δέλεωρ ἐξέλκειν (ἀνθρώπους). Ver. 15. Continuing the image used in ver. 14, James in this verse describes what is the fruit which proceeds from δελεάζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας : Lust having conceived 1 60 Athenaeus, i. 8, ὁ, 8: διὰ τὴν ὁμιλίαν στοὺς ἐραστὰς προσελκυσασθωι, ΔΕ]. N. An. Vi. 31: ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς ἑλκόμενος. * Lange : “Τὸ draw off and to allure—German : Ablocken and Anlocken ; the man is first drawn out from his inward self-control and fortress, and then attracted (drawn to) by the allurements of the harlot.” 68 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. (1.6. become pregnant) bringeth forth sin, and sin when ἐξ ds completed bringeth forth death. The object of this representa- tion is not to give a doctrine of sin,—its origin and its end,— but by indicating the fruit of πειράζεσθαι, to demonstrate that it is not from God. By εἶτα the result of πειράζεσθαι, namely τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, is indicated as directly following upon it; συλλαβοῦσα forms the transition to it, which occurs by ἐπιθυμία taking the will of man captive; it, as it were, becomes pregnant, so that it bears sin. — συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει] corresponds to the Hebrew “OM 3M), which is uniformly in the LXX. translated by συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκε (Gen. iv. 5, 17, xxx. 17, and other passages). By ἁμαρτία without the article, the fruit of ἐπιθυμία, according to its quality, is indicated in an entirely general manner. Sin born by lust again carries in itself its own fruit (κύημα), which, having come to completion, (ἀποτελεσθεῖσα), is brought forth out of itself (ἀποκύει). According to de Wette, by ἁμαρτία in the first clause is to be understood “the resolution or znternal act,’ but in the second clause (ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα), “sin accomplished in the external act,” thus acts of sin. This, however, is incorrect, as —(1) by ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία the ἁμαρτία already mentioned is again taken up, and therefore must have the same meaning; and (2) ἀποτελεῖν ἁμαρτίαν cannot mean “sin accomplished.”? Wiesinger, with regard to τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, correctly observes : « ἁμαρτία is sin, but whether the internal or external act is not stated ;” yet ἀποτελεσθεῖσα added in the following clause shows that James considered ἁμαρτία as something gradually developed, for ἀποτελεῖν is not equivalent to τίκτειν (so that ἀποτελεσθεῖσα would be=reyGeioa, Baumgarten: “sin brought or produced into the world in such a manner”), but completed: thus ἡ ἅμ. arot.=“sin which has attained to its complete development.” It is not entirely corresponding to the idea of James when Calvin (with whom most recent critics— 1 De Wette incorrectly appeals to the expression ἀποτελεῖν ἐπιθυμίαν in Plato, Gorg. p. 503 D, and τελεῖν τὴν ἐσιθυμίαν, as there ἐπιθυμία and ἁμαρτία are not similar, but different ideas. When Wiesinger, against the explanation of de Wette, says that συλλαβοῦσα indicates that ‘‘ the will consents to the demand of the desire, which is the resolution or internal act,” it is, on the contrary, to be observed that these two are by no means identical, as the resolution is an act of the will, and thus is actually sin, whilst by συλλαβοῦσα is indicated a point preceding τίκτειν ἁμαρτίαν, CHAP. I. 15. 69 Kern, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, and others—agree) explains it as “the entire sinful life” (non unum aliquod opus perpetratum, sed cursus peccandi completus; vita impia et scelerata). As James considers ἁμαρτία itself personified, it is ἀποτελεσθεῖσα when it has grown to such fulness of power that it rules man’s whole life. According to this idea, it is indeed correct when several interpreters explain ἀποτελ. by adulta; thus Bouman: peccatum, quum ad adultam pervenit aetatem; yet, linguistically, this explanation is not to be justified, as ἀποτελεῖσθαι is not equivalent to adolescere. The explanation given in the earlier edition of this commentary, that by ἁμαρτία is meant the act of ‘sin, is erroneous, because such a limitation of the general idea is not indicated; on this account it is not correct to think on ἐπιθυμία and ἁμαρτία as a single definite lust and sin. — Briickner considers the addition of ἀποτελεσθεῖσα is made only “in order that ἁμαρτία, which was at first represented as a child, might again be represented as a mother.” This, however, is incorrect; the origin and growth (or, more correctly, the completion) of sin by no means occur “in reality together at one moment ;” sin bears death, which it carried in itself at the first, only when it is not interrupted in its development by a higher life- power, but has attained to its complete form.— By θάνατος, by which James indicates the fruit of completed sin according to its nature, is to be understood, not only temporary death (Pott: homines peccando mortales factos esse omnes con- sentiunt N. T. scriptores), but, as the opposite of the ζωή which God has promised, and will give to them who love Him, eternal death; see Rom. vi. 23: τὰ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας, θάνατος" τὸ δὲ χάρισμα Θεοῦ, ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Τῇ, therefore, nothing but θάνατος is the end to which πειράξεσθαι conducts, this cannot possibly have its reason in God, who works ζωή, and therefore it is absurd to say amo Θεοῦ πειράζομαι (ver. 13). — The expression azroxver (only here and in ver. 18 in the N. T.) is distinguished from τίκτευ only in this, that it indicates more definitely that ἁμαρτία from the begin- ning 1s pregnant with θάνατος. By the explanation: meretur mortem (Bede, Laurentius, and others), a relation is introduced foreign to the context. On the mode of writing ἀποκυεῖ and ἀποκύει, see Winer, p. 80 [E. T. 107]; Schirlitz, p. 184 f. 70 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Ver. 16 introduces the statement which follows as one particularly important. Not only the exhortation: μὴ πλανᾶσθε, but also the added address: ἀδελφοί pov ἀγαπητοί, shows how important this observation appeared to the author. A mew line of thought, unconnected with the preceding, does not indeed begin with this verse; μὴ πλανᾶσθε must not therefore be considered, with Hornejus, Gebser, and others, only as the concluding formula to what goes before. Theile correctly observes: ubi antecedentia respicit, nunquam finit cohortationem, sed ita interpositum est, ut continuet ac firmet, nunc illustrando, nune cavendo. The same formula is found in 1 Cor. vi. 9, xv. 33; Gal. vi. 7 (similarly 1 John iii. 7); in all those places it precedes a thought certain to the Christian conscience, by which a preceding expression is confirmed in opposition to a false opinion: this is also the case here. Grotius inserts an entirely foreign reference when he says: hoc vult: ne putate vestrum studium sufficere sine precibus; see Luke xviii. 1. There is here no reference whatever to prayer. Ver. 17. The sentiment in this verse, introduced by ver. 16, is designed for the complete rejection of ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι; the good comes from God, therefore πειράζεσθαι cannot come from God. The idea of the good is indicated by two synonymous expressions: δόσις ἀγαθή and δώρημα τέλειον. By δόσις, which has here not an active, as in Phil. iv. 5 (Bouman, Lange), but a passive signification (as frequently in classical Greek and in the Apocrypha), and by δώρημα, the same thing is indicated—in contrast to id/a ἐπιθυμία, ver. 14—as something given and presented, which thus proceeds not from man himself. By δώρημα τέλειον the idea already contained in δόσις ἀγαθή is heightened, δώρημα more definitely indicating the gift (δόσις) as a free present (which Gunkel incorrectly denies; see Rom. v. 16, where δώρημα is parallel with χάρισμα), and τέλειον the idea of the good (ἀγαθή) as morally perfect... It is arbitrary to refer the two 1 Whilst de Wette finds the emphasis only in the adjectives, Theile correctly remarks: Et substantiva et adjectiva differunt ita, ut posterius priore sit definitius ideoque majus. So also Wiesinger and Briickner. Lange by dap. ria. understands ‘‘the gift of God completed in Christianity ;” and by 300. ay. ‘everything which served to prepare this completed gift, especially in the old covenant,” CHAP. I. 17. 71 expressions to different gifts, and by δόσις to understand the gifts of the kingdom of nature or of the present life, and by δώρημα those of the kingdom of grace or of the future life. Also ἀγαθή is not, with Didymus, to be restricted to the idea of the useful. Several interpreters (Raphelius, Stolz, Rosen- ‘miller, Bengel, Augusti, Pott, Hottinger, and others) put an exclusive force on πᾶς, as if it were=non nisi, “nothing but ;” but the thought is weakened thereby. James designs to say not only—in contrast to the derivation of πειράζεσθαι from God—that only good (thus not evil) gifts come from Him, but likewise that good gifts all come only from God (thus from none else) (Stier); πᾶς is accordingly to be taken in its usual meaning; but ἀγαθή and τέλειον are to be emphasized. Schneckenburger arbitrarily explains it as if James had written: πᾶσα δόσις καὶ πᾶν δώρημα ἄνωθεν καταβαῖνον τέλειόν ἐστι. -- ἄνωθεν] = οὐράνοθεν (Acts xiv. 17, xxvi. 18 ; ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, John vi. 32, 33), is put first for the sake of emphasis. — ἐστε καταβαῖνον] are not, with Wolf, Bengel, Kern, Bouman, and others, to be separated, so that ἐστι is to be joined to ἄνωθεν, and καταβαῖνον is added as an epexegesis ; but to be united, and are put instead of cataBaiver, only that by the participle the quality of the verbal idea is more brought out; see chap. iii. 15; so also Wiesinger and A. Buttmann, p. 266 [E. T. 310]; Winer, p. 311 [E. T. 438], and Schirlitz, p. 317, on the other hand, regard the expression as entirely equivalent to «ataPaiver.— The expression καταβαῖνον is explained from ἄνωθεν. The explanation of Laurentius: non cadens, sed descendens, quia ordinarie bona sua dona dat, is far-fetched. — ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων] an epexegesis to the preceding. By τὰ φῶτα is to be under- stood neither spiritual light, whether knowledge (Hornejus), or joy (Michaelis), or goodness, wisdom (Wolf: omnis perfectio, bonitas, sapientia et prosperitas), or something similar, nor the spirits of light (Schol. ap. Matt.: ἤτοι τῶν ἀγγελικῶν δυνάμεων. ἢ τῶν πεφωτισμένων ἀνθρώπων ; Lange: “the whole series of organs of revelation from Abraham to Christ, as the representatives of all good spirits”). Nor is there here any allusion to the Urim and Thummim ‘On the accidental hexameter which the words race... τέλειον form, see Winer, p. 564 [E. T. 798}. 73 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. of the high priest (Heisen); but by it are meant, as almost all modern expositors recognise, the heavenly bodies (see LXX. Ps. cxxxv. (exxxvl) 7; Jer. iv. 23) = qworipes, LXX. Gen. 1. 14. God is designated as the πατήρ of these, because He is their Creator and Preserver. This designation, for which Job xxxvilil. 28 cannot be appealed to, is surprising, as: it is without analogy either in the O. or N. T. (otherwise with profane writers and Philo). It has, however, its ground in this, that James considers the light of the heavenly bodies as a reflection of the essential light of God. Since God is the Father of light, the symbol of the holy ones (Wiesinger), so He Himself must be light, and thus nothing dark (con- sequently not πειράζεσθαι), but rather only all that is light, can proceed from Him. As the Father of lights, God, however, outshines these: their light is changing; His, on the contrary, is without change. The following words: with whom there is no variation. nor shadow (in consequence) of change, express this idea; 1.6.,ϑ whilst with the stars a παραλλαγή or τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα occurs, there is nothing similar to this with God." According to Grotius, with whom various expositors agree, these expressions are termini technict of astronomy. But, in opposition to this, it is to be observed that παραλλαγή never occurs as an astronomical term (see Gebser i loco), and the astronomical signification of τροπή = solstitium, solstice (τροπαὶ Oepwat and χειμεριναί; comp. Wisd. vii 18: τροπῶν ἀλλαγάς), is not here suitable, as the sun is not mentioned specially, nor is an ἀποσκίασμα effected by the solstice. James here uses not the language of astronomy, but that of ordinary life (Wiesinger). — παραλλαγή is to be understood quite generally, variation. James adds to this general idea, in order to bring prominently forward that the essential light of God is not, as is the case with the stars, obscured by anything, the more definite idea τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. ἀποσκίασμα has not an active (de Wette: “casting a shadow”), but a passive signification, being shaded 1 Flatt (Spicil. observatt. ad ep. Jacobi): Auctor siderum nitidorum ipsis etiam nitidior et nitoris, nullis unquam tenebris interrupti, majori constantia fulgens. Similarly it is said of Wisdom : ἔστι yap αὕτη εὐπρεπεστέρα ἡλίου, καὶ ὑπὶρ πᾶσαν ἄστρων biow, φωτὶ συγκρινομένη εὑρίσκεται προτέρα, Wisdom of Solomon vii. 29. iti, ee CHAP, I. 18. 73 (so Brickner); and τροπῆς assigns the reason (ἀποσκίασμα quae oritur e τροπῇ, Schneckenburger): thus the shadowing of the stars, which is effected by their changeable position :' for that James has founded his idea in a change in the stars themselves is not probable.? Luther’s translation: “the change of light and darkness” (similarly Stolz: “changing obscuration ”), is only justified if it were said τροπὴ ἀποσκιάσ- patos. Deviating entirely from the above explanation, the Greek interpreters take ἀποσκίασμα =lyvos; Oecumenius: ἀντὶ Tov’ οὐδὲ μέχρις ὑπονοίας τινὸς ὑποβολή; Suidas: ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀλλοιώσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς ἴχνος" καὶ ὁμοίωμα φαντασίας; and following them several recent writers; Morus: ne tantillum mutationes; Rosenmiiller: no shadow of change; so Hensler and others. But in this signification ἀποσκίασμα never elsewhere occurs; also the here essential idea of obscuration (Bengel: ἀποσκίασμα, opponitur luminibus) would be lost.—-The form é (besides here in the N. T. a Dy Corvin o.5: Gals fi, 28:1; Col. ait! 11} 15. net; with Buttmann, 11. 375; Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 96]; Schirlitz, 171, and others, to be taken as a peculiar form of ἐν, but is the abbreviation of ἔνεστι (A. Buttmann, p. 64 [E. T. 727): comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5: οὐκ ἔνι ἐν ὑμῖν σοφὸς οὐδὲ εἷς (see Meyer in loco). ἔνι, however, is not, with Pott, to be explained as precisely equivalent with ἐστιν, yet the meaning of the pre- position ἐν is so weakened, as the verb could be construed with any other preposition, as here with the preposition παρά, which here, as frequently in the N. T., stands for “ what spiritually belongs to another, is in anothe:’s possession ;” Demosthenes, de cor. Ὁ. 318, 13: εἰ δ᾽ οὖν ἐστι καὶ παρ᾽ ἐμοί τις ἐμπειρία τοιαύτη. Ver. 18. Most interpreters subordinate the thought con- tained in this verse to the preceding, regarding it either as an example (Laurentius: loquitur Ap. in his verbis de gene- 1 Incorrectly Lange explains the expression : ‘‘of the obscuration of the earth effected by the diurnal phenomenal revolution of the sun, moon, and stars.” And the proper idea which James has in view is, according to Lange, that God “‘makes no revolution with the Old Testament which would cast a night- shadow on the New, nor does He suffer the New Testament to cast a night- shadow on the Old !!” ? Without reason, Baumgarten, Schneckenburger, and others assume that James here alludes to the astrological superstitions of the Jews. 74 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ratione spirituali ut sit quasi exemplum aliquod istorum dono- rum spiritualium, quae sunt desuper) or as a confirmation and a proof (thus Gebser, Kern, Wiesinger, Bouman; also Lange’) ; on the contrary, according to Theile and de Wette,’ its relation is that of co-ordination. But in both explanations the peculiar significance which this verse has in the context is mistaken. It is to be recognised as a principal thought, not only because the succeeding exhortations flow from it, but also because the preceding development only comes to its close in it; whilst only in βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς is not only the assertion ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράξομαι completely refuted, but also all the earlier mentioned assertions have their sure foundation. It is accordingly not a confirmation of ver. 17, but rather a special inference from the general idea of that verse. — βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς] The verb itself testifies that here the dis- course is of the new birth, and not of natural birth, for ἀπο- κύειν is synonymous with γεννᾷν ; but the man γεγεννημένος ἐκ Θεοῦ (1 John 111. 9; see also 1 Pet. 1. 25) is not man in himself, but man born again. Unsatisfactorily Pott explains ἀποκύειν = facere, efficere, since by this the specific idea of the verb, that the foundation of the life of him who is born again lies in God, and that he is θείας φύσεως κοινωνός (2 Pet. i. 4), is lost. —2as] not ws as men, nor us as Jewish Christians, but us as Christians. — The verse emphatically commences with βουληθείς, by which is expressed not a contrast to the merit of human works (Bede: non nostris, sed beneficio suae voluntatis ; similarly Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, etc.), nor to “the Jewish claims of righteousness” (Lange), but it is designed pro- minently to bring forward the thought that the new birth rests on the divine wil/—the work is that which God has peculiarly willed. But if this be the case, how can πειράζεσθαι proceed from Him? Without sufficient reason, Bengel, Kern, Schneck- enburger, Wiesinger, and others put the additional idea of love in Bovdnbeis.? — Oyo ἀληθείας] The instrument of ἀποκυῆσαι 1 Lange strangely designates the new birth as the effect of the δώρημα σέλειον which came down from heaven. 5 Theile: Deus, luminum pater, efiam parens est generationis nostrae. De Wette : In place of all good gifts, the gracious gift of the Christian salvation is likewise mentioned as a proof that God can be no tempter. 3 Bengel: voluntate amantissima. Schneckenburger: non merum volendi actum sed benignam et benigna voluntate ortam volitionem exprimit. The CHAP. I. 18. 75 is the Noyos ἀληθείας, that is, the gospel,’ which is so called because “ ἀληθεία in its entire reality is inherent in it” (Harless on Eph. 1. 13). The words: εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα TOV αὑτοῦ κτισμάτων] express the aim of this new birth, by which is not indicated what Christians, as those who are born of God, ought to become, but what they are, according to the intention of God.” By τινα added to ἀπαρχήν the mode of expression is indicated as figurative, for, as Calvin correctly remarks, twva similitudinis est nota, nos quodammodo esse primitias (so also Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, and others). Also Bengel recognises this, but he puts therein a false reference, observing: quaedam habet modestiam, nam primitiae proprie et absolute est Christus. Still more incorrect is it, with Lange, to explain τίνα, that James considered the angels of God as a different kind of first-fruits of creation. Laurentius correctly says: ἀπαρχή allusio est ad ritum legalem in Vetum Testamentum de consecratione primogenitorum, frugum, jumentorum et hominum (so also Calvin, Hornejus, Wiesinger, and others; unsatisfactorily de Wette: “chosen and holy”). The word has here, as everywhere in the O. T., and predominantly among the classics, a religious signification, namely, “the jirst-fruits dedicated to God ;” so that James by this expression indicates Christians, as a fruit dedicated to the service of God. But ἡμᾶς emphatically repeated shows that James does not here state the nature of Christians gene- rally, but what the position is which he and those Christians occupy who, according to Rom. viii. 23, possess τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος (see Meyer in loco). They are a kind of first- fruits of God’s creatures, because they, as being born of God, are dedicated to God first among all His creatures. The glorification, which is destined for the whole world, was first view of Oecumenius is evidently entirely perverted’: +d βουληθεὶς εἶπεν, ἐπιστομίζων τοὺς αὐτομάσως ὑποστῆναι τόδε TO πᾶν ληροῦντας. 1 If the want of the article should constrain us to translate λόγος ἀληθείας “a word of truth,” that is, a word whose nature is truth (see Meyer on 2 Cor. vi. 7), yet by this word of truth here the gospel can only be understood ; but it is more probable that the article is omitted because λόγος ἀληθείας, as an idea definite in itself, did not require the article to designate it. * According to Lange’s supposition, ‘‘this teleological mode of expression is chosen in order to indicate that the Jews should become what Christians already are.” This is purely arbitrary, as such a distinction is not indicated in the very slightest degree. 1G THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. imparted to Christians then living.’ In the N. T. ἀπαρχή is sometimes so used that the religious signification steps into the background (thus in 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23; Rom. viii. 23, xvil. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; otherwise in Rom. xi. 16 and Rev. xiv. 5); and accordingly several expositors explain the expres- sion of James as equivalent to of πρῶτοι τῶν κτισμάτων αὑτοῦ. But against this is, on the one hand, the added τινα, and on the other hand, the existing necessity of conceiving as added to κτισμάτων an attribute, as νέων or καίνων, since the expression τὰ κτίσματα Θεοῦ is not taken by itself, those who are born again, but generally, the creatures of God. It is still more arbitrary to take ἀπαρχή as equivalent to πρῶτοι, in the sense of τιμιώτατον (Oecumenius; Morus: omnium creaturarum carissimi et dignissimi; the favourites among His creatures), and then to refer the verse to the dignity of man generally, as the Scholiast explains: τὴν ὁρωμένην κτίσιν φησίν, 2 , \ » » 2 e a ἧς τιμιώτερον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔδειξεν By αὑτοῦ (Lachmann and Buttmann, αὐτοῦ; Tischendorf, ἑαυτοῦ), emphatically added, the creatures are indicated as God’s property. Ver. 19. To ver. 18 is annexed at first the exhortation to hear, and then in ver. 22 the more extended exhortation, not only to be hearers, but also doers of the word. By the read- ing ὥστε, the connection with the preceding is evidently expressed, ὥστε being with the following imperative, as in 1 Cor. 11. 21, Phil. ii. 12 = ctaque, therefore. This reading is, how- ever, suspicious, as not only predominant authorities declare for the reading ἔστε, but also ἔστε might be easily changed into ὥστε, in order to mark the thoughts in this verse as an inference from ver.18. It is true the δέ after ἔστω, conjoined with this reading (in B and C), appears to be harsh; but it . . Μ \ may be explained from this, that the sentence ἔστω... ταχὺς 1 It is, however, also possible that James by ἡμᾶς has had in view, not the distinction between the then existing and the later Christians, but only the dis- tinction between Christians and the other creatures, since Christians of all ages form the ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεισμάτων, until the commencement of the world’s glorifica- tion. Lange with truth brings forward the idea that if Christians are ἀπαρχή, they are sureties for the future glorification of the world; but that the first believers of Israel in their unity are sureties for the future conversion of the nation, is an introduced idea which is not indicated by James. * Thus Schulthess: divino rationis et orationis munere, cujus ex tot animan- tium generibus atque naturis homo solus est particeps, principatum dignitatis ei datum cernimus, CHAP. I. 19. fer εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι «.7.X. is introduced as being almost a proverbial expression. The reading of A: ἔστε dé... καὶ ἔστω, appears to be. a correction, in order to unite this verse more closely with the preceding. ἴστε may be either indicative (comp. Heb. xii. 17; usually οἴδατε) or imperative; it is at all events to be referred, not to what goes before,’ but to what follows, as otherwise τοῦτο, or something similar, by which it would be referred back to ver. 18, would require to be added. Semler explains it as an indicative, paraphrasing it: non ignoratis istud carmen ; Ecclus. v. 11: γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου κατὰ. As, however, the sentence in question is here expressed in different words, so it is not to be assumed that James would here refer to that passage in Ecclesiasticus. It is thus better to consider ἴστε as an imperative, as it then corresponds to μὴ πλανᾶσθε (ver. 16), and serves strongly to impress the following sentence on the readers, in favour of which also is the address ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, added here as well as there; see also chap. ii. 5: ἀκούσατε, a6. μ. ay. — The sentence is entirely general: let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. Whilst Laurentius and others consider this as a sententia generalis, which stands in no internal connection with the preceding, but is pressed upon the readers in its entire generality, most interpreters supply to ἀκοῦσαι directly taken from the preceding τὸν λόγον ἀληθείας ; thus Estius, Gataker, Gomar, Piscator, Hornejus, Baumgarten, Losenmiiller, Pott, Hottinger, Gebser, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others; but this is arbitrary, particularly as πᾶς ἄνθρωπος points to the universality of the sentence. However, the intention of James is not to inculcate it on his readers in its general sense, but he wishes rather that they, as Christians, should apply it to their Christian conduct; so that for them ἀκοῦσαι certainly refers to λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας (Heisen, Schneck- enburger,” Theile). ὑμῶν is therefore not to be supplied to πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, still we may say with Semler: pertinet ad Chris- tianos, quatenus sunt Christiani; but the expression is, as 1 De Wette explainsit : ‘‘ Ye know this, namely, that He has regenerated us ; ” but this, as he himself confesses, gives a wholly unsatisfactory sense. > Schneckenburger : quamvis de sensu dubitari nequeat, nempe de addiscendo λόγῳ ἀληθείας Caveas tamen vocem hance λόγον putes grammatice subaudiendam ; sed Jacobus regulam istam generalem . . . ita hic subnectit, ut eam ad rem christianam imprimis valere moneat. 78 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, part of the general sentence, likewise to be retained in its general meaning; but what holds good of all men, in a pecu- liar manner holds good of Christians. — The ideas ταχύς and βραδύς, in the N. T. only here (in Luke xxiv. 25, βραδύς has a different meaning), form a direct contrast; as in Philo, de conf. ling. p. 327 B: βραδὺς ὠφελῆσαι, ταχὺς βλάψαι (see Dio 0.32). By βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν added to the second clause, James announces what kind of speaking he means, namely, speaking ἐξ ὀργῆς. But from ver. 20 it is evident that by ὀργή | —which, as Cremer correctly remarks, denotes not the passive affection, but active displeasure directed toward any one—is to be understood sinful and passionate zeal. βραδύς is to be taken in both clauses in the same sense, which—as is often the case with expressions in figurative language—goes beyond the literal and direct idea of the word, as Hornejus correctly explains it in reference to the second clause: ita jubet tardos ad iram esse, ut ab eo nos prorsus retrahat. Several expositors refer both clauses, others at least the second chiefly or alone, to the conduct toward God, with or without an express refer- ence to ver. 19. But this is incorrect; the ὀργή to which James alludes is rather carnal zeal, which will censure its neighbour, whose fruit is not εἰρήνη, but ἀκαταστασία (chap. iii. 16). The warning is addressed to those Christians who misuse the gospel (the λόγος ἀληθείας) as the Pharisees did the law, not for their own sanctification, but for the gratification of their censoriousness and quarrelsome temper; see chap. 11]. Although James with this exhortation has specially in view 1 The circumstance is in favour of this close connection of these two last clauses, that if λαλῆσαι is here taken in a wider sense (as Gunkel thinks), then a different signification must be given to βραδύς in the two clauses, as ὀργή here, as the following verse shows, must be taken ina bad sense. Lange thinks that James does not absolutely reject ὀργή ; but whilst he understands by ὀργή eager- ness of passion to whieh one is led from eagerness in speaking by warmth, he evidently understands this as something to be entirely rejected. According to Bouman, the anger here is meant to which one is inflamed by the λαλεῖν of another. 2 On fpad. sis τὸ λαλ. Bengel remarks: ut nil loquatur contra Deum, nec sinistre de Deo ; and on ὀργή: ira sive impatientia erga Deum, iracundia erga proximum. Gebser explains ὀργή = anger, displeasure at God on account of the persecutions. Calvin also has this reference in view when he says: certe nemo unquam bonus erit Dei discipulus nisi qui silendo eum audiat;... non enim Deus nisi sedato animo audiri potest, as is evident from the note : (Jacobus) vult proterviam nostram corripere, ne. . . intempestive obstrepamus Deo, CHAP. I. 20. 79 the conduct of Christians in their assemblies, yet λαλῆσαι must not be restricted to the idea of mere teaching (Bede, Hornejus, Hottinger, de Wette, Briickner, and others). λαλῆς cat is ἃ more comprehensive term than διδάσκειν, which is included in it. Ver. 20 gives the reason of the exhortation βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν : for the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God. The preponderance of authorities decides against the reading κατεργάζεται, and in favour of ἐργάζεται. From the fact that δικαιοσύνην is twice in the N. T., namely Acts x. 35 and Heb. xi. 33, joined with the simple verb, it does not follow that ἐργάζεται is a later correction (against de Wette, Wiesinger), especially as κατεργάζεσθαι is also found united with abstract substantives, as in Rom. i. 27 with τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην, in Rom. ii. 9 with τὸ κακόν, and in Rom. vii. 18 with τὸ καλόν. With the reading ἐργάζεται, --- and also with κατεργάζεται, when this latter, as is frequently the case (see especially Rom. ii. 9, 10), is synonymous with the former, — δικαιοσύνη is equivalent to τὸ δίκαιον, as is frequently the case in the O. and N. T.; see Acts x. 35 above referred to, and the frequently occurring phrase: ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, Gen. xvili. 19; Isa. lvi. 1; Matt. maar asewk ions 115/29); τὰ ἢ: Rev) wat lili 4 Ocopiais added in contrast to ἀνδρός for the sake of a more exact statement, so that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is the righteousness willed by God* (similar to τὸ δίκαιον ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, Acts iv. 19; Luther: “the wrath of man works not that which is right before God”); so Beza, Hornejus, Wolf, Bengel, de Wette, Bouman, and others correctly explain it. The opposite of δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ ἐργάζεσθαι is ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθαι, chap. ii. 9 (comp. Matt. vii. 1 : ἐργαζ. τὴν ἀνομίαν; 1 Mace. ix. 23: épyal, τὴν ἀδικίαν ; also comp. Rom. ii. 10: ἐργαζ. τὸ ἀγαθόν ; Gal. vi 10). James was the more constrained to give prominence to this idea, as ὀργή itself and the words flowing from it were considered by the pharisaical disposition of 1 Tt is true the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ occurs not elsewhere in this sense ; but this can be the less an objection to it, as the relation in which the genitive Θεοῦ is placed to δικαιοσύνη is not entirely opposed to the genitive of relation, as is evident if we designate the dx. @, as that δικαιοσύνη which is actually so accord- ing to the determination of God, 80 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Christians, against whom this warning is directed, and of whom it was said: ζῆλον Θεοῦ ἔχουσι", ἀλλ’ ov κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, Rom. x. 2, as something that was pleasing to God. With the reading κατεργάζεται this verb may also be equivalent to effect, to bring about (as ver. 3). Gebser, Grashof, and others understand, in accordance with this view, by δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ: “the condition of justification before God;” but, on the one hand, an unsuitable thought is ex- pressed by this, and, on the other hand, a mode of expressing the idea δικαιοσύνη τοῦ Θεοῦ, peculiar to Paul, is without ceremony ascribed to James. But as little is it to be justi- fied when Wiesinger, following Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. ed. 1, p. 548 f.), finds expressed in the words of James, that “one by wrathful zeal effects not on others the δικ. Θεοῦ, 1... that state of righteousness in which God begets men by His word of truth”? Though δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ can denote the righteousness wrought by God, yet this idea is here unsuitable, since no man could entertain the opinion that his wrath could do what can only be effected by God. Also in this case James would only emphasize an impossibility of ὀργή, whereas he was required to bring prominently forward its rejection ; moreover, on others is inserted into the text.2 The same reasons are also decisive against the explanation of Briickner (“the wrath of man works not the righteousness which God accomplishes — this generally stated both in respect to the ἀνήρ and in respect to others on whom one strives to work ἢ), in which a twofold reference is arbitrarily assumed. Briickner correctly rejects the explanation of Lange, that James speaks against “the delusion of wrath, which imagines to administer 1 In the second edition (p. 628), Hofmann has indeed altered the words, but not the thought, in the explanation given in the first edition. When he defines the distinction in the use of the idea δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, in Rom. i. 17 and here, to consist in this, that Paul speaks of justification, in James of regeneration, the untenableness of his explanation is the more evident, for that ὀργή produces regeneration could occur to no one. * Contrary to the Biblical use of language, Oecumenius explains the expres- sion δικαιοσύνη as equivalent to ἕξις ἐν ψυχῇ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν ἰχάστῳ ἀπονεμητική. Pott wholly arbitrarily refers the verse to the teachers of the Christian religion, paraphrasing it: iratus nequit docere religionem christianum prout fas est Deoque probatur. — Several commentators (also Kern) to this verse cite Ecclus. 1, 21: οὐ δυνήσεται θυμὸς ἄδικος δικαιωθῆναι ; but incorrectly, since δικαίῳ θῆναι has an entirely different meaning from κατεργάζεσθαι δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ. CHAP. 1. 21. 81 and accomplish in the world the righteousness of God especially against unbelievers,” because there is no reference to this in the context; it is, moreover, linguistically unmain- tainable, as ἐργάζεσθαι does not mean “to administer and accomplish.” — ἀνδρός stands here as in vv. 8 and 12; it forms a contrast neither to the child (Thomas: ira fortis et deliberate non dicit pueri, qui cito transit), nor to the woman (Bengel: sexus virilis maxime iram alit), nor to ἄνθρωπος, ver. 19 (Lange). Ver. 21. James infers (6v0) from the thought in ver. 20 the exhortation ἐν mpaitnts δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον, with evident reference to ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας (ver. 18). He places before this exhortation the participial clause: ἀπο- θέμενοι... κακίας) laying aside all filthiness and abundance of wickedness, i.e. all filthy and abundantly prevalent wickedness. The word ῥυπαρία (am. Aey. in the N. T.) is here figurative: (synonymous with ἀκαθαρσία in Rom. vi. 19 and other places), as ῥυπαρός and ῥυπαρεύω, Rev. xxii. 11 (ῥυπαρός occurs in its literal sense in chap. 11. 2: ῥύπος in 1 Pet. iii. 21). Several interpreters (Calvin, MRosenmiiller, Baumgarten, Hornejus, Bouman, Lange, and others) take it here as standing alone, equivalent to moral uncleanness (see 2 Cor. vii. 1: πᾶς μολυσμὸς σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος), either generally “every immoral disposition,” or specifically as avaritia (Storr), or scortatio (Laurentius), or vitia intemperantiae, gulae et lasciviae (Heisen), or “ filth in a religious theocratical sense ” (Lange); but it is better to join ῥυπαρίαν with κακίας (Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others), so that the ethical judg- ment of the author on the κακία is thereby expressed (comp. Acts xv. 20; Rev. xvii. 4), equivalent to πᾶσαν κακίαν ῥυπαράν, or less exactly ῥυπαίνουσαν τὸν ἄνθρωπον (Schol. on Matt.); only the idea is more strongly brought forward by the substantive than by the adjective. The word περισσεία, united to ῥυπαρίαν by the copulative καί (not as Schnecken- burger thinks exegetical; in the cited passages, John i. 16 and 1 Cor, ili. 5, the position of καί is entirely different), foreign to classical Greek, has in the N. T. the signification abundance, properly: “abundance flowing over the measure,” which Lange incorrectly renders “ outflow, communication of life;” see Rom. v.17; 2 Cor. viii. 2, x. 15. Nevertheless Meryer.—JAMES. F 82 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. the word has been here taken in a meaning corresponding to ῥυπαρία, and has been explained as = περίσσωμα excremen- tum (Beza, Piscator, Erasmus, Schmid, and others), or also growth (Losner, Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger, de Wette). But both meanings are arbitrary. The defenders of the second explanation indeed appeal to the passage in Philo, de υἱοί. of. p. 854 B: weputéwverbe ... τὰς περιττὰς φύσεις (fortasse ἐμφύσεις, de Wette) τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ; but from this passage it does not follow that περισσεία can be explained de ramis in vite vel arbore abundantibus faleeque resecandis (Losner). It is equally unjustifiable when Kiittner, Michaelis, Augusti, Gebser, Bouman, and others explain περισ- cela κακίας as “ κακία surviving from earlier times,” and thus take περισσεία as synonymous with περίσσευμα (Mark viii. 8). Against all these arbitrary views Theile, Wiesinger, Briickner correctly retain the word in the same sense which it has elsewhere in the N. T., so that περισσεία κακίας is the abundance of κακία, 1... the abundantly existing κακία; only ἐν ὑμῖν is hardly to be supplied as if James had only his readers specially in view (Theile: quod lectoribus peculiare erat). — Kaxia is not here synonymous with πονηρία (1 Cor. v. 8) =vitiositas (Semler, Theile, and others), but, according to the context, in contrast with ἐν πραὕτητι, as in Eph. iv. 31, Col. iii. 8, Tit. 1: 3, 1 Pet. ii, 1, a more special idea, namely, the hostile disposition toward our neighbour which we call malignity (Cremer: malevolence, as social faultiness). Wiesinger inaccurately takes it as equivalent to ὀργή, as that is only one of the proofs of κακία; incorrectly Rosenmiiller = morositas." On ἀποθέμενοι, comp. Eph. iv. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 1; Heb. xii. 1.5 The participle precedes as a subordinate thought to δέξασθε, because in consequence of man’s sinful nature room can only be made for the good by the rejection of the 1 Meyer’s translation : malice (Rom. i. 29), malicious disposition (Col. iii. 8), would also not be entirely suitable, but too special. How Luther has under- stood the idea cannot be determined from his translation wickedness (Bosheit) ; since he thus constantly renders κακία, it may be taken in a general or in a special sense ; the word badness (Schlechtigkeit) does not occur with him. * To the assertion of Lange, that ἀποθέμενοι is not to be rendered putting off, because the reference is not figuratively to the putting off of filthy garments, but removing ; the passages Rom. xiii. 12 (ἀποθώμεθα.. . ἐνδυσώμεθα) and Eph. iv, 22, 24, and the etymology of the word are opposed. CHAP. I. 21. 83 bad. Also, where similar sentences are co-ordinate, the exhortation to ἀποτίθεσθαι precedes; comp. Rom. xiii. 12, Eph. iv. 22, 23, and also the exhortation of Christ: pera- νοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε, Mark i. 15.—JIn the positive exhorta- tion: ἐν πραὔτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον] ἐν πραὕὔτητι emphatically precedes, in contrast to the κακία from which flows ὀργή. πραὕὔτης (= πραότης) denotes a loving, gentle disposition toward our neighbour; comp. 1 Cor. iv. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 25, Tit. iii, 2, and other passages; the opposite is ὀριλότης (Pape’s Gr. Worterb.); incorrectly Calvin: hoe verbo significat modestiam et facilitatem mentis ad discendum com- positae. ἐν πραὕτητι does not therefore mean docili animo (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Hottinger), nor “with a modest dis- position, which recognises the good deeds of Christianity” (Gebser). Also ἐν wp. δέξασθε is not a pregnant construction, as if the sense were: monet... illo λόγῳ duce πραὔτητα exerceant (Schneckenburger) ; but James exhorts to the reception of the word ἐν πραὕὔτητι, in contrast to those who hear the word in order to use it as a weapon of hatred (condemning others). — Δέξασθε (opp. to λαλῆσαι, ver. 19) corresponds to ἀκοῦσαι, but expresses more than that, namely: “the inner reception, the taking hold of it with the heart;” comp. 1 Thess. i. 6. The object belonging to it: τὸν λόγον ἔμφυτον, can only be the same as what was called the λόγος ἀληθείας in ver. 18 (Wiesinger); it is neither “the reason innate in man” (Oecumenius: τὸν διακριτικὸν τοῦ βελτίονος καὶ τοῦ χείρονος " καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ λογικοὶ ἐσμὲν Kal λεγόμεθα ; see Constit. Apost. viii. 12: νόμον δέδωκας ἔμφυτον), nor the so- called inner light of the mystics, nor the gospel “in its sub- jective form of life” (Lange). The verb δέχεσθαι is opposed to these explanations. James designates the gospel a λόγον éuputov, inasmuch as it was no longer strange to the hearts of his readers as Christians; also because it was not merely transmitted (Hottinger: ἔμφυτος = traditus), but zmplanted.* The verb δέξασθε does not conflict with this, as the word by which the new birth is effected among Christians is to them ever proclaimed anew, and must by them be ever received anew, in order that the new life may be preserved and 1 Lange incorrectly explains the ἐν ὑμῖν to be supplied to ἔμφυτον “in and among you,” referring it to the Jewish Christians and the Jews. 84 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, increased in them. It is therefore not necessary, against the use of language, to change the idea: verbum quod implantatum or insertum est, into: verbum quod implantatur or inseri- tur, or to assume here a prolepsis, as is undoubtedly the case in 1 Cor. i. 8, Phil. 11. 21 (See Meyer zn loco), and 1 Thess. iii. 15 (Liinemann in loco), and with Calvin to explain it: ita suscipite ut vere inseratur (similarly Semler, de Wette, and others). The mode in which the adjective is united with the substantive is opposed to a prolepsis, which would be only imaginable were it said: τὸν λόγον ἔμφυτον ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, or something similar.— For the strengthening of the exhortation expreSsed, James annexes to τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον the clause τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν, by which, on the one hand, the value of the λόγος is prominently brought forward, and, on the other hand, is indicated what result ought to arise from the hearing of the word. By the verb δυνάμενον not the freedom of the human will (Serrarius : quod potest salvare, ut arbitrii libertas indicetur), but the power of the word is emphasized; it is, as Paul says, δύναμις Θεοῦ εἰς σωτηρίαν πάντι τῷ πιστεύοντι (Rom. i. 16). But if it has this power, man must receive it, and that in a right manner, so that it may prove its efficacy in him and save his soul. It is to be observed that James says this of his readers, whom he had previously designated as born again (ver. 18). Thus, according to James, Christians by the new birth do not as yet possess σωτηρία (the future salvation), but its obtain- ment is conditioned by their conduct. — Instead of tas ψυχὰς ὑμῶν, James might simply have written ὑμᾶς, but Schnecken- burger correctly warns: cave pro mera sumas circumscriptione personalis ; animi enim proprie res agitur; see chap. v. 20. Ver. 22. The exhortations given in ver. 19 form the 1 De Wette expresses himself doubtfully: ‘‘ Either the adjective is used pro- leptically, or, which I prefer, it is the word implanted by the second birth ; but by this also, on account of δέξασθε, a prolepsis occurs, ‘receive the word of truth, that it may grow in you by that new birth.’” But opposed to this, it is to be observed that the word is not implanted by the second birth, but that the second birth is the fruit of the implanted word. In conclusion de Wette remarks : ‘‘ It must be taken rather as a reference to the whole of Christendom than to individuals: the word implanted in us Christians.” But the indi- vidual is only a member of the church by having the word of God implanted in him. Briickner has given the correct explanation, : CdaP, 1. 22. 85 starting-point for what follows. The next section, to the end of chap. ii, is attached to the thought ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, which is continued in δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον. The word must be so heard and received that it produces a correspond- ing activity. James first expresses this thought briefly and definitely: “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” The verb yiveo@e is neither intended to express the successionem perpetuam horum exer- citiorum (Semler), nor to indicate that hitherto the readers had not been ποιηταὶ λόγου; this indication is contained in the whole exhortation, but not in the verb, which is to be trans- lated not by become, but by be; comp. chap. 111. 1; Matt. vi. 16, x. 16, xxiv. 44; John xx. 27; Rom. xii. 10. The par- ticle δέ unites this verse with the preceding as its completion. The readers ought to be ποιηταὶ λόγου, namely, of the λόγος ἔμφυτος (ver. 21), or of the λόγος ἀληθείας (ver. 18), the gospel, inasmuch as it requires a definite Christian conduct, and on this account in ver. 25 is expressly called a νόμος. On ποιηταί, comp. Jas. iv. 11; 1 Mace. ii. 67; Rom. 11. 13 (John vii. 19: ποιεῖν τὸν νόμον) ; in the classical language, ὁ ποιητὴς νόμου is the lawgiver. Theile correctly observes : substantiva plus sonant quam participia; the substantive expresses the enduring relation.—- In the reading μὴ ἀκροαταὶ μόνον, μόνον is closely united with ἀκροαταί: not such who are only hearers. The word ἀκροατής, in classical Greek “an attentive hearer,” occurs in the N. T. only here and in Rom. u. 13, but both times without that additional meaning. On the thought, comp. besides Rom. ii. 13 (where the same con- trast is expressed), Matt. vu. 21 ff.; Luke xi. 28; John xii. 17. — παραλογιξόμενοι͵Ἵ belongs to ite subject contained in γίνεσθε (de Wette, Wiesinger), decewving ig your own selves, and not as a more exact definition of ἀκροαταί, “hearers who deceive themselves” (Stolz, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange). The import of the word (besides here in the N. T. only in Col. ii. 4, in the O. T. Gen. xxix. 25, LXX.; synonymous ‘ Meyer certainly explains the imperative γίνον, γίνεσθε, uniformly by ‘‘ become thou,” ‘‘hecome ye;” but this meaning is frequently retained in a manner more or less forced ; comp. especially John xx. 27. The N. T. usage, to consider γίνου as equivalent to ἴσθι, is explained from the fact that the Christian must yet ever more become that which he as a Christian is. 86 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. expressions are found in ver. 26; Gal. vi. 3; 1 John i. 8) is to draw false inferences, to deceive by sophistical reasoning. The warning is directed against such who deceive themselves by sophisms on the utility of mere hearing. Ver. 29. This exhortation is confirmed by a comparison. Therefore: 671, which is not superfluous (Pott). This verse expresses the similitude; ver. 24 the tertiwm comparationis. A hearer, who is not a doer, is to be compared to a man who contemplates his bodily form in a glass. Hornejus, Rosen- miiller, Semler, Pott, and others, attach to the word κατανοεῖν the additional meaning of a transitory observation, against the etymology and the linguistic use of the word (comp. Luke xii. 24, 37; Acts vil. 51, 32, xi. 6). The point of transitoriness, or, more correctly, of transitory contemplation, is contained not in the verb, but in the situation, which in ver. 24 is prominently brought forward by καὶ ἀπελήχλυθεν. On the rhetorical usage of again resuming the foregoing subject (which is here expressed by εἴ tus κτλ.) by οὗτος, see Winer, p. 144 [E. T. 199]; A. Buttmann, p. 262 [E. T. 347]; on ἔοικε, see ver. 6; ἀνδρί, as in ver. 8, and frequently with James.|— τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ] By πρόσωπον is here meant not the whole form (Baumgarten, Hensler, Pott, Schneckenburger), but the face. By τῆς γενέσεως is “more plainly indicated the sphere of mere material perception, from which the comparison is taken, as distinguished from the ethical sphere of ἀκροᾶσθαι" (Wiesinger). γένεσις denotes not so much the natural /ife as the natural birth, so that the phrase is to be interpreted: the cowntenance which one possesses by his natural birth. See Eustathius in Od. ix. p. 663, 252— Whether αὐτοῦ belongs to the whole idea, or only to the genitive, is uncertain. Winer, p. 212, leaves it undecided ; Wiesinger is for the first rendering; but the union here (as well as in Col. i. 15) with the genitive appears to be more natural. Ver, 24. With this verse begins the explanation of the 1 The remark of Paes, approved of by Lange, is curious: viri obiter tantum solent specula intueri, muliebre autem est, curiose se ad speculum componere. * Lange argues against this explanation, whilst, mingling in a most confused manner the image employed with the thing itself, he explains πρόσωπον as ‘* the image of the inner man’s appearance according to his sinful condition.” CHAP, 1. 25. 87 image given in ver. 25 (therefore γάρ), whilst κατανοεῖν τὸ πρόσωπον τ. γεν. αὐτοῦ is again resumed by κατενόησεν ἑαυτόν. By ἀπελήλυθεν the point of the mere transitoriness of the contemplation in the glass only before presupposed is brought forward, and by ἐπελάθετο the result of such a contemplation is added, by which the points of application, which James employs, are brought out. The emphasis lies on ἀπελήλυθεν and εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο. The form of representation is here the same as in ver. 11. It is not a particular instance which may occur (Wiesinger), but a general statement which is here introduced in the form of a single incident, as the contemplat- ing oneself in the glass is always only a temporary and not a permanent state. The hearing of the word answers to κατανοεῖν ; the averting of the mind from what is heard to ἀπέρχεσθαι; and the being unconcerned about what is heard, by which the realization of the word in the life is prevented, to εὐθέως ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι. James can only think on man according to his ethical condition in relation to the demands of the divine will, as corresponding to πρόσωπον τ. y. or ἑαυτόν in the application. It is true that he does not definitely state this; but from this it does not follow that James, over- looking all other considerations, has had only in view gene- rally the contents of the word, because the comparison of the word with a glass, which gives to him who looks in it to see his own image, would be without meaning." On the use of the perfect (ἀπελήλυθεν) between the aorists, see Winer, p. 243 f. [E. T. 340].— On ὁποῖος ἦν, Wiesinger correctly remarks, “namely in the glass.” Ver. 25 does not give the simple application of the image, but rather describes, with reference to the foregoing image, the right hearer, and says of him that he is μακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ. In this description the three points named in ver. 24 are carefully observed: παρακύψας εἰς «K.T.A, answers to κατενόησεν (ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ), παραμείνας to ἀπελή- According to most interpreters, ‘‘the depravity of the natural man” is chiefly to be thought on; but this is not entirely suitable, as James addresses Christians who as such are no longer naturalmen. Ina wholly arbitrary manner is the reference inserted by some in καςένόησεν, to spots which disfigure the face. Wolf: de tralatitia speculi inspectione loquitur Apostolus ; talis vero efficit, ut maculas non perspicias atque adeo de iis abstergendis non cogites ; similarly Pott and others. 88 THE EPISILE OF JAMES. λυθεν, and οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς to ἐπελάθετο. The sentence consists of a simple combination of subject and pre- dicate ; γενόμενος is not to be resolved into the finite verb γίνεται (Pott). The predicate commences, after the subject is summed up, in οὗτος with paxdpios.— This is also the case with the textus receptus, where a οὗτος is put before οὐκ ἀκροατής ; for, since with this reading the first: οὗτος is simply resumed by the second οὗτος (before μακάριος), equivalent to hic, inquam, the words οὐκ ἀκροατὴς... ἔργου only serve to give a more exact designation of the subject, παρακύψας... καὶ παραμείνας being thus more clearly defined. Thus these words begin not the apodosis or principal sentence, as if James would here, in contrast to ver. 24, show that the right hearing and appropriation leads to the doing, (and thereby) to the blessedness of doing (against Wiesivger). Were this his object, he would have been obliged to put the finite verb instead of the participle γενόμενος, and a καί after ἔργου. The subject is accordingly: but whosoever looks into the perfect law of liberty and continueth therein, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man.— The aorist participles are explained from the close connection of this verse with the preceding, where the same tense was used. There is no copu- lative καί before the participial clause οὐκ ἀκροατὴς κ.τ.λ., because the doing of the law is the necessary consequence of the continued looking into it, and it would otherwise have the appearance as if παρακύπτειν and παραμένειν could take place without ποιεῖν following.’ The verb παρακύπτειν (properly bending oneself near an object in order to view it more exactly; uke »xxiv. ‘12; John xx.’ ΤΠ I Perearaias Ecclus. xiv. 29, xxi. 23) refers back, indeed, to κατανοεῖν, but is a stronger idea. James has fittingly chosen this verb as verbum ad imaginem speculi humi aut mensae impositi adap- tatum (Schneckenburger; see also Theile, Wiesinger). Luther inaccurately translates it: looketh through. As the accent is on παρα, the verb παραμείνας is used afterwards. By εἰς is ‘Lange agrees in essentials with this explanation, but he thinks that by it ‘‘the full energy of the idea is not preserved ;” it should rather have been said that ‘‘the παρακύψας and παραμείνας, as such, is ποιητὴ; ἔργου γενόμενος 5” but the looking in and continuing is evidently in themselves not identical with the doing of which James speaks, however necessarily the latter results from the former. CHAP, I. 25. 89 expressed not only the direction to something, but the intensity of the look into the inner nature of the law. παραμείνας (not continueth therein, as Luther translates it, but thereat) is added to mapaxtwas,—without the article, because the two points are to be considered as most closely connected,—aindi- cating the continued consideration of the νόμος, from which action necessarily follows. Schneckenburger incorrectly gives to the verb παραμένειν here (appealing to Acts xiv. 22; Gal. iii. 10; Heb. vii. 9) the meaning to “observe the law;” but the subject treated of here is not the observance, but “ the appropriation which leads to action” (Wiesinger), or “the remaining in the yielding of oneself to the object by contem- plating it” (Lange). By νόμος τέλειος ὁ τῆς ἐλευθερίας is meant neither the O. T. law, nor lex naturalis (Schulthess), but λόγος ἀληθείας (ver. 18), thus the gospel, inasmuch as it places before the Christian—by reason of redemption— the rule of his life. This evangelical νόμος, indeed, resembles the O. Τὶ νόμος in expressing no other will of God, but differs from it in that it only is the νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίας, the νόμος τέλειος. It not only confronts man as enjoining, but, resting on the love of God, it creates the new life from which joyful obedience springs forth voluntarily and unconstrained ; it gives ἐλευθερία, which the O. Τ νόμος was not able to give, and thus proves itself as the perfect law in contrast to the imperfect law of the Old Covenant. It is true that even in the O. T. the sweetness of the law was subject of praise (Ps, xix. 8-11); but the life-giving power belonged to the law only in an im- perfect manner, because the covenant on which it rested was as yet only one of promise and not of fulfilment. It is accord- ingly incorrect to explain the additional attribute as if James considered the O. T. law, according to the Pauline manner, as a ζυγὸς δουλείας (Gal. v. 1), for of this there is no trace.” Many expositors understand by νόμος τέλειος «.T.X. the gospel, as the joyful message of salvation, or the doctrina 1 Kern incorrectly maintains that this expression is formed according to the Pauline phraseology : νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Xp. Ἰησοῦ, Rom. vill. 2 ; νόμος τῆς πίστεως, Rom. 111. 27 ; vopeos Χριστοῦ, Gal. vi. 2; as if James must have borrowed the designation of what was to him the cardinal point of Christian life from another, and could not himself originate it. 2 It is to be observed that even in the so-called apostolic council at Jerusalem James did not, as Peter, call the law a ζυγός. 90 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. evangelii, or simply gratia evangelii, namely, in contrast to the O. T. economy, which, however, corresponds neither to the language of James nor to his mode of contemplation.— In the additional participial sentence, the ideas ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς and ποιητὴς ἔργου are opposed to each other. ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (the word, foreign to classical Greek, is in the N. T. a ἅπ. Aey.; it is found in Ecclus. xi. 27 ; among classical writers: ἐπιλήσμη, ἐπιλησμοσύνη) is = axp. ἐπι- λήσμων, a hearer to whom forgetfulness belongs. To ποιητής, ἔργου is attached in order to make still more prominent the idea of activity, which indeed is already contained in ποιητής. The singular does not properly stand for the plural (Grotius : effector eorum operum, quae evangelica lex exigit), but .“is designed to import that it here results in something, in the doing of work” (Wiesinger). Those ideas, which appear not to correspond, yet form a true antithesis, since the law is inoperative on the forgetful hearer, but incites him who is an attentive hearer to a corresponding activity of life. James says of him who is thus described: he (οὗτος) is blessed in his deed. ποίησις in N. T. ἅπ. λεγ., in Ecclus. xix. 20: ποίησις νόμου. The preposition ἐν is not to be exchanged with &a, for by ἐν the internal connection of doing and blessedness is marked; Briickner: “the blessing innate in such doing is meant.” ἔσται is therefore not to be referred to the future life; but it is by it announced what is even here directly connected with the ποίησις ; James, however, certainly con- sidered this μακαριότης as permanent. The thought here expressed refers to the last words of ver. 21, completing them, showing that the λόγος has the effect there stated (σῶσαι τὰς ψυχάς) in him who so embraces it that it leads him to ποίησις. Ver. 26. Whilst James—in contrast to the hearers who fail in proof by works—will describe the true θρησκεία (ver. 27), he first refers to the false θρησκεία of those who— slothful in action—are ταχεῖς εἰς TO λαλῆσαι (ver. 19). Lf any 1 Laurentius adds to the last words of the verse: sc. non ex merito ipsius operis, sed ex promissione gratuita ; but this is a caution foreign to the context. Lange inappropriately intermingles ideas, when he reckons to this ποίησις parti- cularly confession, and thinks that James above all things indicated that the Jews should confess Christ, and that the Jewish Christians should fully confess their Christian brethren from the Gentiles. CHAP. I. 26. 91 one thinks to serve God, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, his worship is vain. — εἴ τις δοκεῖ] δοκεῖ here denotes (as in Matt. vi. 7, xxiv. 44; 1 Cor. i. 18; otherwise in 1 Cor. vii. 40) the false opinion which one has of something ; it is not=videtur (Calvin, Gataker, Theile, and others) ; Luther correctly translates: “if any one imagines.” — θρῆσκος εἶναι] θρῆσκος, which elsewhere occurs neither in the N. T. nor in the classics (the substantive besides here and in ver. 27, in the N. T. in Col. 11. 18 and Acts xxvi. 5), is not equivalent to εὐσέβεια, inasmuch as it refers to external worship, the mani- festation of εὐσέβεια, without, however, having in itself the secondary idea of mere externality. Incorrectly Theile= religiosus singulatim cujus nimia, nimis externa est religio, superstitiosus. In an arbitrary manner, Schneckenburger infers from the adjectives καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος (ver. 27) that it is here said of θρησκεία, quam in accurata Ilustrationum observatione constantem putabant Judaei ac Judaeochristiani,* of which there is no trace in the whole Epistle. The following words: μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν τὴν γλῶσσαν αὑτοῦ, indicate in what the θρησκεία of the readers consisted. It is incorrect, with Rosenmiiller, Theile, and others, to supply exempli causa, and, as most interpreters do, to resolve the participle by although ; James will blame those who reckon zeal in speaking as a sign of θρησκεία The verb χαλιναγωγεῖν, in the N. T. only in James, is also found in classical language only in the later classics; comp! the expression in Plato, de leggy. ii.: ἀχάλινον κεκτημένοι TO στόμα. ---- By the second participial sentence: ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὑτοῦ, James expresses his judgment— already indicated by the expression μὴ yadwayoyav—on the opinion of serving God by λαλεῖν ἐν ὀργῇ. Pott correctly: 80. eo quod nimian docendi licentiam et linguae extemperantiam 1 Some Catholic interpreters, Salmero, Paes, and others, refer the expression to the observance of the so-called consilia Christi, particularly to voluntary circumcision for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. * Rauch also thinks that ‘‘the participles must certainly be resolved by although ;” but by this explanation all indication is wanting of that on which those blamed by James rest θρησκεία ; also what follows (ver. 27), where the nature of true θρησκεία is given, forms no appropriate antithesis to this verse. Briickner explains it : ‘‘ whosoever seeks worship in striving by teaching to work on others ;” here the participle is correctly resolved, but the full meaning is not given to the verb. Correctly Lange : ‘‘ those who by their fanatical zeal wanted to make good their pretensions of being the true soldiers of God.” 92 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. pro vera θρησκείᾳ habet. The clause belongs not to the’ apodosis (Schneckenburger), but, as in form so in meaning, is closely connected with the preceding participle. The expression ἀπατᾷν καρδίαν αὑτοῦ corresponds to παραλογί- ζεσθαι ἑαυτόν (ver. 22), but is a stronger form, although it does not indicate only the consequence resulting from zeal (Lange); comp. Zest. Napht. 111. p. 665: μὴ σπουδάζετε... ἐν λόγοις κενοῖς ἀπατᾷν τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. Erasmus incorrectly explains ἀπατᾷν by sinere aberrare. The apodosis, which emphatically begins with τούτου, declares that such a θρησκεία is not only without fruit (Baumgarten), but without actual contents, is thus foolish and vain, corresponding to the thought: ὀργὴ δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ ov (κατ)εργάζεται (ver. 20). Ver. 27. To θρησκεία μάταιος is opposed θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ]. Καθαρός and ἀμίαντος are synonymous expressions (Pott, Theile, and others); the second word does not add any new idea to the first. Some expositors (Baumgarten, Bengel, Knapp, Wiesinger) arbitrarily refer the first word to what is internal, and the second to what is external. The second word ἀμίαντος (which oécurs only here and in Heb. vil. 26, xiii. 4; 1 Pet. i. 4), corresponding to its connection with paiva, μιάσμα, brings more vividly forward purity as a being free from that by which the holy is defiled. The purity of true θρησκεία is, by the words παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ K.T.r., marked as absolute. παρά, in the judgment of, equivalent to ἐνώπιον, as in 1 Pet. ii. 20; comp. Winer, p. 352 [E. T. 493]; Schirlitz, p. 540. That by this “the attitude of a servant before the face of the commanding lord” (Lange) is indicated, is a pure fiction. To τῷ Θεῷ is emphatically added καὶ πατρί, by which ¢he relation of God, which the author has chiefly in view, is expressed: that of love. God, by reason of His love, can only esteem that worship as pure which is the expression of love. The contents of pure worship is given in the following infinitive clauses, according to its posi- tive and negative side ; still James evidently does not intend to give an exhaustive definition, but he merely brings forward —in reference to the wants of his readers—two chief points. Hermas, I. 2, mand. 8, gives a description of these two sides of worship, comprehending as much as possible all particulars. The first point is: the visiting of the widows and the fatherless CHAP. 1. 27. 96 in their affliction, as a manifestation of compassionate love. If it is said that the particular here stands for the universal (the species pro genere, Hottinger, Theile, and others); yet it is to be observed that elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures com- passion is adduced as the most direct proof of love. The verb ἐπισκέπτεσθαι here, as in Matt. xxv. 36, 43, Jer. xxiii. 2, Zech. xi. 16, Ecclus. vil. 35, refers to the visiting of the suffering, in order to help them. By the explanation: “ to be careful of them” (Lange), the view of a concrete instance is introduced ; opdavoi are placed first, in close connection with πατρί, as God in Ps, Ixviii. 6 is expressly called ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ὀρφανῶν; see also Ecclus. iv. 10: γίνου ὀρφανοῖς ὡς sratnp. — The words ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν are not an idle addi- tion, but mark the condition in which the orphans and widows are found, to show the necessity and object of ἐπισκέπτεσθαι. —AIn the second infinitive clause, which is added with rhetorical emphasis, ἀσυνδετῶς,, to the first, ἄσπιλον stands first as the chief idea. The same expression is in 1 Tim. ° vi. 14; 2 Pet. iii. 14 (in its proper sense, 1 Pet. 1. 19). The addition ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, more exactly defining ἄσπιλον τηρεῖν, is neither dependent merely on τηρεῖν (Ps. xu. 8, exli. 9) nor merely on ἄσπιλον, but on the combined idea. The sense is: to preserve himself from the world (ἀπό = ἐκ, John xvii. 15; comp. also the form προσέχειν azo, Matt. xvi. 12), so that he is not polluted by it (so also Lange). By κόσμος not merely earthly things, so far as they tempt to sin (Schneckenburger), nor merely sinful lusts (Hottinger), nor δημώδης Kal συρφετὸς ὄχλος, ὁ κατὰ Tas ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης αὑτοῦ φθειρόμενος (Oecumenius; according to Laurentius and others, the homines mundani atque impii), are to be under- stood; but the idea κόσμος comprehends ail these together ; it denotes the whole earthly creation, so far as it is cut off from fellowship with God and stands under the dominion of 1 The combination ὀρφανοὶ καὶ χῆραι is found only here in the N. T.; it often occurs in the O, T. and Apocrypha, where sometimes épfavei and sometimes χῆραι are named first. * The asyndeton is thus explained, that James considered the visiting of the orphans, etc., as keeping oneself unspotted from the world, being in contradic- tion with the peculiar charms of the world. Lange observes: ‘ the two clauses are not simply co-ordinate, but the second is the reverse side or sequence of the first, its pure antithesis,” 94 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ἄρχων τοῦ κόσωου (1 John v. 19); thus especially the men who serve it in and with their sinful lusts—but also all earthly possessions by which sinful lust is excited, and to which it not only conforis itself, but converts them into the instru- ments of its activity. Christians by means of their divine birth, effected by the word of truth (ver. 18), are indeed taken out of the κόσμος, they are no longer members of it; but, on the other hand, both by the sin which is still in them (chap. iii. 2) and by their external intercourse, they stand in connec- tion with the world, on which account they have to preserve themselves from its contaminating influence. This preserva- tion, as it is a work of God (John xvii. 15), so it is likewise a work of man (1 Tim. v. 22), and therefore a task which believers must continually strive to perform. CHAP. IL 95 OH AP TE EC Vir. 2. The genuineness of the article τήν before συναγωγήν (Rec. after A G Καὶ δὶ, corr. Tisch.) is, since B C 8, pr. omit it (Lachm.), at least doubtful. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Rec. καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε, after A G8, several vss. Oecumenius, Bede (Lachm.), Tisch. has, after B C K, οἷο, adopted ἐπιβλέψητε 62; which reading is the original cannot be determined.— The αὐτῷ of the Ree. (after G K) is already rightly omitted by Griesb.; A B Cx, etc., do not have it ; it was inserted for the completion of the expres- sion (against Reiche). In the second clause of the verse the Rec., after C** GK 8, reads στῆθι ἐκεῖ ἢ κάθου ὧδε; In A C* ὧδε is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.) ; B reads στῆθι ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ The latter reading is recommended by the sharper contrast of στῆθι to the preceding κάθου; but it is also possible that in this lies the reason of its origin ; if ἐχεῦ belongs to στῆθι, ὧδε after κάθου could be easily inserted, partly from the preceding κάθου ὧδε καλῶς, partly to introduce the antithesis to éxe7; but, on the other hand, the original ὧδε might also be omitted as superfluous (on account of the following ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπ.). Nothing can with certainty be decided.— For the addition of μου before τῶν ποδῶν, adopted by Lachm., only A and the Vulg. chiefly speak. Almost all other authorities are against it.— Ver. 4. According to the Rec. this verse commences with καὶ od διεκρίθητε (thus G K, etc, Tisch. 7); in A B** C8, many min. and vss. καί 15 wanting (Lachm. Tisch. 2); οὐ is also wanting in the original text of B: the omission of χαΐ may indeed be more easily explained than its insertion, on account of which Reiche and Bouman consider it as genuine; but the most important authorities are against it; the reading in B is to be considered as a correction (Buttmann),— Ver. 5. rod χόσμου (τούτου) Is a reading evidently explanatory (against Reiche, Bouman), instead of τῷ κόσμῳ, whose genuineness is, moreover, attested by A* B C*s; the same also with the reading ἐν τῷ xéouw.— Ver. 10. Instead of the reading τηρήσει... σταΐσει, attested almost only by G K, the conjunctives τηρήσῃ... πταίσῃ are to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch. (against Reiche and Bouman). Ver. 11. The Ree. εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, φονεύσεις δέ, found only in K, several min. Theoph., Tisch. and Lachm. read the present 96 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις ; thus A C8; according to Tisch. also B, but according to Buttm. B has μοιχεύεις, φονεύσει. Reiche and Bouman retain the 766. as the original reading. — Ver. 13. The fee. dvinews (after G, etc.) is, after A B K δὰ, very many min. Oecumenius, to be changed with the certainly entirely unusual form ἀνέλιεος (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.); in the mode of writing this word there is, however, great variation, the forms ἀνήλεος, ἀνίλεος, ἀνεί)ιεος, ἀνήλεως, ἀνήλιος Occurring in different Mss. It is surprising that no ms. has the classical form ἀνηλεής or ἀνε)εής. ---- According to the Rec. κατακαυχᾶται is connected with the preceding by καί, which, however, is found only in min. ; A, some min. etc., have instead of it, after xaraz. the particle δέ (Lachm. ed. min.), which, however, appears only to have been inserted to avoid the asyndeton. There are many variations of κατακαυχᾶται; A has κατακαυχάσθω; ΟὟ; χατακαύχασθε, read- ings which owe their origin to the difficulty of the thought. — Instead of ἔλεος (after κατακαυχᾶται), Rec., after A 1) (ed. Mai) δὲ, etc. (Lachm. Tisch. Buttm.), C G Καὶ and B (apud Bentley), and many min. have the form ἔλεον, a nominative form which occurs indeed in the classics, but not in the N. T. — Ver. 14. Instead of the Rec. ri τὸ ὕφελος, attested by A C** G Καὶ 8, almost all min. Theoph. Oecumenius, Lachm. has: adopted si ὄφελος, after B C. On the distinction, see exposition. — Whether after the ec. we are to read, with Tisch., λέγῃ ris, or, with Lachm., τὶς λέγῃ, cannot with certainty be decided; BG K®& attest the former, A C the latter reading ; yet the latter appears to be a correction. — Ver. 15. After ἐάν the particle δέ is omitted in B®; since its later insertion is not easy to be explained, the ec. is to be retained as the correct reading. After λειπόμενοι Lachm. (after A Οὐ, etc.) reads ὦσιν, which, how- ever, is a later addition. — Ver. 16. Also here Lachm., after B C**, has omitted the article τό before ὄφελος. --- Ver. 17. Instead of the Rec. ἔργα ἔχη, ἔχῃ ἔργα is to be read, with Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. ete., after almost all authorities. — Ver. 18. The Rec. ἐκ τῶν ἔργων is attested by too few authorities (G K, some min.) to be considered as genuine; Griesb. has consequently correctly adopted χωρὶς τῶν zpy., attested by A B C8, etc. Almost all recent critics and interpreters, also Bouman, retain χωρίς as the original reading ; Reiche and Philippi certainly judge otherwise. With the reading ἐκ falls also the pronoun σου after ἔργων, which Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly omitted ; it is wanting in A BR, several min. vss. etc., whilst C G K, ete., have it. — Also after τὴν πίστιν Tisch., after B CR, ete. has rightly omitted the pronoun you (A G K, Lachm.); it appears to be added in order to bring more prominently forward the contrast to the first τὴν πίστιν σου. ---- Ver. 19. The Ree. is ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστι; soG. In the CITAP, 11. 1. 97 most important MSs., however, εἷς stands first; soin ABCs in favour of this reading is also the line of thought; yet the difference is found that ἐστιν in A δὲ precedes (Lachm.), and in B C follows ὁ Θεός (Tisch.); which reading is the original cannot be decided, yet the former appears to be a correction. 3 omits ὁ before Θεός. --- Ver. 20. Instead of the Rec. νεκρά, after A C** G Καὶ 8, several min. vss. Theoph. Oecumenius, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ἀργή, after B ΟἿ etc., which is preferred by Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange; whereas Reiche and Bouman prefer the ec. It is possible that, in order to avoid the trequent repetition of νεκρά (see vv. 17, 26), the word ἀργή-- ἀεργη, as corresponding to χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, was substituted ; but it is also possible that the reference to that verse occasioned the displacement of ἀργή ; it is difficult to arrive at a sure decision. — Ver. 24. The particle τοίνυν after ὁρᾶτε is already correctly omitted by Griesbach, being wanting in A B CR, οἵο. --- Ver. 25. Instead of ἀγγέλους, C G, etc., have κατασκόπους, which, however, is evidently borrowed from Heb. xi. 31. Ver. 1. In close connection with the thought contained in chap. 1. 27, that true worship consists in the exhibition of com- passionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depre- ciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love. — After the impressive address ἀδελφοί μου, he first expresses the exhortation with reference to that conduct, that their faith should not be combined with a partial respect ofw persons. Schneckenburger regards the clause as interrogative,. remarking: interrogationis formam sensus gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern); incorrectly, for although the inter- rogation with μή may not always require a negative answer, yet it is only used when the interrogator, with every inclination to regard something as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case ; comp. Winer, p. 453 f. [E. T. 641]; Schirlitz, p. 966. This is inadmissible here, as the fact mentioned in what follows, the προσωποληψία of the readers, was un- doubtedly true. jy... ἔχετε is thus imperative, asi. 16, iii. 1. — The plural προσωποληψίαις is used because the author thinks on individual concrete instances in which the general fault manifested itself (Hornejus: multiplex illud malum in vita est); comp. Col. 111. 22; 2 Pet. iii, 12. For the explanation of προσωποληψία (only here and in Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. ii. 35), foreign to classical Greek, see Matt. xxii. 16 ; MryeEer.—JAMES. G 98 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Luke xx. 21; Gal. 11. 6 (see Meyer im loc.); from the O. T. Ley. xix. 15; Deut. 1. 17, and other places (the verb προσω- ποληπτέω, Jas. ii. 9; the adjective, Acts x. 34). The phrase ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχειν τ. πίστιν is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as ἔχειν tiva ἐν ὀργῇ, ἐν αἰτίαις, ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει (Rom. i. 28), for James intends not to reproach his readers, that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith free from προσωπο- ληψία. Also ἔχειν does not stand for κατέχειν, whether in the meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius: detinere velut captivam et inefficacem); but ἔχειν ἐν expresses the relation of internal connection thus: Have not your faith, so that ἐξ as as it were enclosed in προσωποληψίαις, 1.0. combined with it. Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a distinction of persons according to their external relations.— De Wette’s opinion is incorrect, that πίστιν ἔχειν here is to be understood of “the management of the concerns of faith.” — Faith is more exactly described as ἡ πίστις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης]. Most expositors (particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, de Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger) take τοῦ κυρίου as a genitive of object, and make τῆς δόξης, as a second genitive (besides ἡμῶν), dependent on κυρίου; thus: “the faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ.” Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8; Ps. xxix. 3: ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης), nor the dependence of ¢wo genitives (ἡμῶν and τῆς δόξης) on one substantive (κυρίου), see Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238], has anything against it; yet this construction cannot be held to be correct, because the name ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which follows τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend on κυρίου; if James had in- tended such a combination, he would have written either τὴν πίστιν Ino. Χριστοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης, or τ. π. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης, Ino. Χριστοῦ It is evidently an entire mistake to construct τῆς δόξης with προσωποληψίαις, 1The genitive, indeed, not unfrequently is separated from the word which governs it; see Phil. ii, 10; Rom. ix. 21; and Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238]; but in that case the intervening word is never in apposition with the preceding idea, with which it is completely concluded. CHAP. 11. 2, 3. 99 whether it be taken as = opinio (Calvin: dum opum vel bono- rum opinio nostros oculos perstringit, veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Heisen: quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make τῆς δόξης depend on Χριστοῦ ; thus Laurentius, who explains it the Christus gloriae = gloriosus; so also Bouman; also Lange : “the Messiah exalted in His glory above Judaistic expectations.” Decisive against this construction are—(1) the close connec- tion of ᾿Ιησοῦ and Χριστοῦ, as when those two names are so directly united as here, Χριστοῦ is purely nomen propriwm ; (2) the N. T. mode of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after Χριστοῦ by a genitive dependent on it; also in this case the article τοῦ before Χριστοῦ would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions) τῆς δόξης was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on τὴν πίστιν, and τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. “I. Xp, as the genitive of the subject, in the sense: “faith in the glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christ,—founded on Him,’ namely, τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς, Rom, vil. 18. This con- struction, although grammatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler, with Bengel, to regard τῆς δόξης as in apposition with ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp.; still the idea δόξης is too indefinite. The passages cited by Bengel, Luke ii. 32, Eph. i, 17, 1 Pet. iv. 14, Isa. xl. 5, are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justification of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite τῆς δόξης as a genitive of quality, not with Χριστοῦ only, but with the whole expression τοῦ κυρ. nu. Ino. Xp., by which δόξα is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus Christ which belongs to Him, the exalted One. Similar expressions are ὁ οἰκονόμος (Luke xvi. 8), ὁ κριτής (Luke xviii. 6), τῆς ἀδικίας. At all events, τῆς δόξης is added in order to mark the contrast between the προσωποληψία paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ. Vv. 2, 3. In these verses the conduct of the readers, which occasioned the exhortation of James (ver. 1), is described ; hence the confirming γάρ. Both verses together form the protasis, on which ver. 4 follows as the apodosis; whilst they in form appear by their connection with δέ (according to the fec. by Kav) as co-ordinate sentences, in thought ver. 2 is sub- ordinate to ver. 3; ver. 2 assigning the circumstances under 100 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. which the conduct described in ver. 3 occurred. — Hammond, Homberg, Baumgarten, Michaelis, and Herder assign even ver. + to the protasis; but incorrectly, as in that case the conjunctive would be required in that verse as in vv. 2, 3. As regards the matter itself, the fault is not directed against the rulers of the congregationn—the presbyters and deacons (Grotius, Pott, Schulthess, Hottinger)—but, as the address ἀδελφοί μου (ver. 1) shows, it is entirely general. It was not the custom in the time of James for the deacons to point out places to those who entered their assemblies (Constit. Apost. ii. 56, 58).— The instance (ἐάν) which James states is, as regards the matter, not a hypothetical assumption, but a fact ; and certainly not to be regarded as a solitary instance which only once took place, but as something which often occurred, that even in their religious assemblies the rich were treated with distinction, and the poor with disdain. It is not sur- prising that James in the description employed the aorist, since he generally uses that tense to represent that which is habitually repeated as a single fact which has taken place; see chap. i. 11, 24.— The words εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν] show that it is an entrance into the religious assemblies of the congregation that is here spoken of. It cannot be inferred from the usual signification of the word συναγωγή that a Jewish synagogue is here meant (Semler, Schneckenburger, Bouman); opposed to this is ὑμῶν ; besides, the Christians would certainly not have the right to show seats to those who entered into such a place of worship; but, on the other hand, by συναγωγή here is not to be understood the religious assembly (de Wette). The whole description, both εἰσέλθῃ and the pointing out of seats, shows that συναγωγή denotes the place where the Christian congregation assembled for worship.’ That James calls this by the word which was appropriate for Jewish places of worship, cannot be regarded in his mouth as anything surprising. Hammond, Baumgarten, Storr, Herder, and others most arbitrarily understand by συναγωγή the judi- ''The word συναγωγή occurs in the N. T. in both meanings ; usually it desig- nates the religious place of meeting of the Jews; but that it also denotes the assembly, Acts xiii. 43 shows ; see also Rey. ii. 9. In the Apocrypha of the O. T. it has only the last meaning, and, indeed, in a general sense ; see Wahl, Clav. Apocryph. συναγωγή, CHAP, Il. 2, 3. 101 cial assemblies of the congregation and their elders. Accord- ing to Lange, the name of the Jewish place of worship is here a symbol “of the religious fellowship of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion ;” this opinion is not less unjustifiable than the view connected with it, that “a literal understanding of what follows cannot be thought of.” — The rich man is here described as ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ, and the poor man as πτωχὸς ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι, the difference between them being represented to the eye in their clothing. — χρυσο- δακτύλιος] a purely ἅπ. Aey.= χρυσόχειρ (Lucian, in Tim.: πόρφυροι καὶ χρυσόχειρες περιέρχονται ; in Nigrin.: τῶν δακτυ- λίων πλῆθος ἔχων). On λαμπρός, used of clothes, see, on the one hand, Luke xxiii. 11 (comp. with Matt. xxvi. 28), and, on the other hand, Rev. xv. 6. Raphelius: nullum certum colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum seu rubrum seu album sit, seu alius generis. The counterpart of the ἐσθὴς λαμπρά is the ἐσθ. ῥυπαρά of the poor man. — purapds] in its proper meaning only here in N. T.; in Zech. 111. 3, 4, it is also used of garments. Are Christians or non-Christians meant by these incomers? Most expositors consider them to be Christians only, whether they belonged to the congregation or came there as ξένοι (guests). But the following reasons decide against this view :—1. They are distinguished by James from the brethren addressed, and are not indicated as brethren, which yet, particularly in reference to the poor (ver. 5), would readily have suggested itself as a strong confirmation of their fault. 2. In vy. 6, 7, the rich are evidently opposed to Chris- tians (ὑμῶν, ὑμᾶς, ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς), and reprimanded for their conduct towards Christians (not merely toward the poor), which if rich Christians had been guilty of, would certainly have been indicated as an offence against their Christian calling. That those who were not Christians might and did come into the Christian religious assemblies is a well-known fact ; see 1 Cor. xiv. 22, 28. The view of Weiss (Deutsch. Zeit- schryft f. christl. Wissensch. etc., 1854, No. 51), that the rich man was not a Christian, but that the poor man was a Christian, is supported by no feature in the description ; in that case James would certainly have indicated the dis- similarity of relation; then “must ver. 5 ff. bring it forward as the gravest offence, that the brother chosen by God is 102 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. slighted for the sake of the rich who were not Christians” (Wiesinger '). Ver. 3 describes the conduct of the church toward the two incomers. Many ancient expositors understand this as a figurative representation of the preference which was gene- rally given in the congregation to the rich; this is arbitrary. The whole description points rather to something which James has actually in view; but in reprimanding this, he condemns partiality generally, which certainly showed itself in many other ways. By the descriptive words ἐπιβλέψητε.... THY λαμπράν, which precede εἴπητε (in reference to the poor there is only εἴπητε), is indicated in a lively manner the admiring look at the external glitter; ἐπιβλέπειν, emphatice sumendum est (Pott) ; the rich man is characteristically described as ὁ φορῶν τὴν ἐσθ. τ. λαμπράν; the splendid garment is that which attracts the eye, the character of the man is entirely over- looked; φορεῖν, a secondary form of φέρειν, is also in Matt. xi. 8 used of garments; by the article before λαμπράν this idea is strengthened as the chief idea.— The contrast is sharply expressed in the different address to the one and to the other; already they are distinguished from one another by ov... σύ, and then κάθου and στῆθει, ὧδε and ἐκεῖ, καλῶς and ὑπὸ TO ὑποπόδιόν μου, are opposed. The form κάθου (instead of κάθησο) is foreign to classical Greek; see Winer, p. 75 [E. T. 981. --- καλῶς refers to comfort (Wiesinger) ; it is not =honorifice (Wahl) ; and still less is it to be resolved into “Be so good as” (Storr). A place is pointed out to the rich man, where he can be comfortably seated, whilst to the poor man it is said stand there. The second clause, separated from the first by 7, is not a special address, but the two clauses form one saying, whilst after ἤ a thought is to be supplied, as “ Tf thou wilt rather sit;” by the addition of these words the depreciation of the poor is yet more strongly marked. — ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιον) means not wader, but below my footstool (Wiesinger), by which the floor is pointed out as the fitting 1 Lange considers the mode of expression symbolical ; by the rich man is meant the Jewish Christian, who, as wearing a gold ring, boasts of his covenant rights ; and by the poor man is meant the Gentile Christian. According to Hengstenberg, the meaning is precisely the reverse. Both opinions are un- justified. CHAP, II. 4. 103 place for the poor to sit (Bouman). “The expression involves contempt: as it were under one’s feet. Not on the footstool” (Lange). The word ὑποπόδιον (not wnicum, as Wiesinger asserts) belongs only to the later classics. Often in N. T., and also in LXX. Ver. 4 forms the apodosis to vv. 2 and 3, and rebukes what is blameable in the conduct. described. Expositors greatly differ in the explanation of this verse, according as they explain the verb διεκρίθητε, and understand οὐ as a pure negation, or as an interrogative particle. It is best to take διεκρίθητε, in form indeed passive, in meaning as the aorist middle, as in Matt. xxi. 21, Mark xi. 23, Rom. iv. 20, and to give to the verb here the same meaning which it has constantly in the usage of the N. T.; so that it denotes the doubt, which consists in the assertion of thoughts at variance with faith; see on chap. 1.6. But then the sentence must be taken as interrogative: Did you not then doubt among yourselves ? i.e, Have ye not fallen into a contradiction with your faith (ver. 1), according to which external glory and riches are nothing, whilst ye by your conduct have attached a value to them? To this question the second is added, to which the preceding ov is also to be referred: and became ye not (thus) judges of evil thoughts? This second question indicates the direct consequence of διακρίνεσθαι. James calls them κριταί, because in their conduct they expressed their judgment on the rich and poor. The genitive διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν is not the genitive of object,’ but of quality. διαλογισμοί is here, as predominantly in the N. T. ὧν malam partem (see especially Luke v. 21, 22), thoughts of doubt ana unbelief ; the bad meaning is here heightened by πονηρῶν. Other explanations are as follow :— (1) διακρίνεσθαι = separare: then the sentence is interrogative ᾿ς ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ev ἀλλήλοις (Gebser, Schulthess, Semler, Erasmus Schmid, etc.); the verb being either passive: nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti ac separati? or middle: nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos? “Do you not separate, divide yourselves among yourselves ?” (Lange). ' Elsner : iniquas istas cogitationes approbastis ; Bengel : judices approbatores, malarum cogitationum i, 6, divitum, foris splendentium, sed malis cogitationi- bus sentientium. 104 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. (2) διακρίνεσθαι = discrimen facere. (a) The verb active—(a) interrogative ; nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos ? (Laurentius, Grotius, Wolf, Hottinger, Knapp). In this ex- planation ἐν ἑαυτοῖς --- ἐν ἀλλήλοις; Schneckenburger, however, explains ἐν ἑαυτοῖς --Ξ ἴῃ animis vestris; but then the meaning: discrimen facere, would pass into an act of the judgment, “ statuere.” (3) Negative: “Then partly ye would not have distinguished (according to a sound judgment) among your- selves, and partly also ye would have judged after an evil manner of thinking (thus an error of the understanding and of the heart) ” (Grashof). —(b) The verb passive: dupliciter peccatis, primo: inter vos ipsos non estis discriminati h. 6. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia (Oeder). (3) daxpivecda:—=judicare. (a) The verb active—(a) interro- gative: nonne judicastis, deliberastis ipsi? “ Are ye not your- selves persuaded how wrong this is?” (Augusti). (8) Negative : non discrevistis justa dubitatione, considerantia et aestimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non minus, quam diviti ἘΠ Luther combines this rendering with that under 2: “And ye do not well consider, but ye become judges, and make an evil distinction.” Here also comes in the explanation of Oecumenius: τὸ διακριτικὸν ὑμῶν διεφθείρατε, μηδεμίαν συζήτησιν ποιήσαντες πότερον τιμητέον... ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως, ἀδιακρίτως, καὶ ἐν προσωποληψίῳ τὸν μὲν ἐτιμήσατε. . . τὸν δὲ ἠτιμάσατε.----(Ὁ) The verb passive —(a) interrogative: Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati ἢ. 6. convicti estis? Paraeus; so also Bouman: nonne igitur in vestris ipsorum jam judicati estis animis 7 (8) Negative: et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra (Heisen). Differently Caje- tanus: haec faciendo non estis judicati in vestibus et divitiis et paupertate ; laying the chief stress on ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. (4) daxpivecdas—=dubitare, to entertain doubts. (a) Lnier- rogative: et non dubitastis apud vosmet ipsos? et facti estis iniqui judices? “Should you not yourselves have entertained doubts? Should you actually have passed evil-minded judg- ments?” (Theile). (ὦ) Negative: non dubitastis apud aninum, ne subiit quidem haec cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, certo apud vos statuistis id jure ac bene fieri. All these explanations are untenable, because they proceed upon a meaning of διακρίνεσθαν foreign to the usage of the N. T. Besides, several require arbitrary completions, and many do not correspond to the context. Briickner, de Wette, and Wiesinger have also here correctly maintained the mean- ing to doubt. De Wette: “Have you not then become doubtful in your faith?” Wiesinger: “Πᾶν you not CHAP. II. 5. 105 forsaken the law of faith, which recognises only one true riches?” With the reading of B (omitting οὐ) the thought is the same; the interrogative (ov), however, serves for the heightening of the thought, the readers themselves being thereby charged to pronounce the judgment. The καί of the Receptus stands as in Mark x. 26, Luke x. 29, 1 Cor. v. 2, with the question suddenly introduced. Or, since in the N. T. no other passage is found where καί is placed before a question forming the apodosis of a protasis beginning with ἐάν (on 2 Cor. ii, 2, see Meyer), it is to be explained from the fact that one would make ver. 4 a part of the protasis ; see above. Ver. 5. With this verse the proof of the reprehensibleness of the conduct found fault with commences: James showing that the conduct toward the poor is in contradiction with the mercy of God directed to the poor, and that the conduct toward the rich is in contradiction with their conduct toward Christians. The impressive exhortation to attention precedes ἀκούσατε with the address ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί: see chap. 1.16,19. The proof itself (as in ver. 4) is expressed in a lively manner in the form of a question: Has not God chosen those who are the poor of the world (1.6. accounted as such) to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him ?——The verb ἐξελέξατο is to be retained in its usual acceptation, in that which it has in 1 Cor. i. 27. Wiesinger, without sufficient reason, will understand it here as equivalent to “God has so highly honoured the poor;” and Lange incorrectly maintains that “the word here rather signifies calling with reference to ethical good behaviour to the divine revelation.” — The correct reading: τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ, is to be explained in the same manner as the expressions ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ, Acts vii. 20, and δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ, 2 Cor. x. 4 (see Meyer on these passages, and, Winer), jp 190. [E.) Π 2067: Al. Buttmann; poo 150 [ΕΔ T. 179]}). The world esteems those as poor who possess no visible earthly riches. Wiesinger prefers to explain the dative as the dative of reference, thus “poor in respect of the world;” yet the former explanation, which also Briickner and Lange adopt, in which 6 Θεός and τῷ κόσμῳ form a sharp contrast, is more appropriate, and more in correspond- 106 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ence with the meaning of the word κόσμος with James. In the Receptus πτωχοὺς τοῦ κόσμου the genitive is to be understood as in the expression τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου, etc., 1 Cor. 1. 27; see Meyer in loco.— πλουσίους ἐν πίστει] is not in apposition with τοὺς πτωχοὺς (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Hottinger, Gebser, Bouman, Lange, and others),! but the completion of ἐξελέξατο, stating to what God has chosen the poor (Beza, Wolf, Morus, Knapp, Storr, Schneckenburger, Kern, Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others); see 2 Cor. 11, 6.—By ἐν πίστει, as in the expression πλούσιος ἐν ἐλέει, Eph. ii. 4 (see 1 Cor. i. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18), the object is not stated wherein they are rich (Luther: “ who are rich in the faith”), but the sphere within which riches is imparted to them; similarly Wiesinger explains it: “rich in their position as believers.” James wished primarily to mark the contrast that the poor are appointed to be rich, namely, so far as they are believers; the context gives the more exact statement of their riches: riches in the possessions of the heavenly kingdom’ is meant; this the following clause indicates.—Calvin: non qui fidei magnitudine abundant, sed quos Deus variis Spiritus sui donis locupletavit, quae fide percipimus.” — The expression ἡ βασιλεία occurs also else- where, without the addition of τοῦ Θεοῦ or similar terms, as a designation of the kingdom of God, eg. Matt. xiii. 38. No stress rests on the article τῆς (= ἐκείνης), as the relative ἧς referred to it. The relative clause serves not for a more definite statement of the idea βασιλεία, as if by it this βασιλεία was to be distinguished from another, but the statement ἐξελ.. . . κληρονόμους τ. βασιλείας is confirmed, as a kingdom founded on the promise of God.— From the expressions κληρονόμος and ἐπηγγείλατο of the relative clause, it is evident that James considered here βασιλεία as the future perfected kingdom of God, not “the joint participation in the υἱοθεσία of the Jews” (Lange). On ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο K.7d. see the remark on i. 12. The addition of this clause shows 1 If σλουσίους is taken as in apposition, then here riches in faith forms the reason of the choice ; but by this the keenness of the thought contained in the oxymorum is entirely blunted: it is also arbitrary to separate the two ideas σλουσίους and κληρονόμους united by καί. * Kern: ἐν σίστει indicates that it is faith itself which makes the Christian inwardly rich. CHAP. 11. 6. 107 that with James faith and love to God are most closely connected. — James puts τοὺς πτώχους, to whom οἱ πλούσιοι are opposed, as the object of ἐξελέξατο. He accordingly (the article is not to be overlooked) divides men into these two classes, the poor and the rich, and designates, not the latter, but the former, as those whom God has chosen and appointed to be rich in faith,’ namely, to be heirs of the kingdom; not as if all the poor received the κληρονομία, but his meaning is that those whom God has chosen belong to this class, whereas those belonging to the class of the rich had not been chosen. James did not require to point out the truth of this statement; the Christians, to whom he wrote, were a living testimony of it, for they all belonged to that class; and although some among them were πλούσιοι, yet, on the one hand, what Christ says in Matt. xix. 23-26 holds good, and, on the other hand, 1 Cor. i. 26—28 is to be compared. — With this divine choice the conduct of his readers stood in direct contradiction when they treated a poor man—thus one who belonged to the class of those chosen by God—contemptuously, and that on account of his poverty. What directly follows expresses this contradiction. Ver. 6. ὑμεῖς δέ] contrast to Ocos.— ἠτιμάσωτε] contrast to éfexéEato. The aorist is used with reference to the case stated in vv. 2, 3, which is certainly of a general character (Wiesinger).” — τὸν πτωχόν, not = pauperem illum, but, to be understood generally, the poor man as such. ‘That we are here specially to think on the Christian poor, is an incorrect supposition. — With οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι] James turns to the rich as the class opposed to the poor, in order to poimt out from another side than he had already done the reprehensibleness of the conduct denounced. Already from this opposition it is intimated that not the Christian rich, but the rich generally 1 It is to be observed that ἐξελέξατο does not here refer only to σ'λουσίους, as if πίστις Were to be considered as the condition on which the πσωχοί were chosen to be rich, but to the combined expression πλουσίους ἐν πίστει, SO that also πίστις is to be considered as an effect of the divine choice. The same view lies at the foundation of what Paul in 1 Cor. i. 30 (see Meyer iz loco) and elsewhere often expresses. * According to Lange, the aorist is used to point to ‘‘the historical fact in which Judaizing Jewish Christians have already taken part with the Jews, namely, the dishonouring of the Gentile Christians.” 108 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. —not exactly only “the rich Gentiles or the Romans” (Hengstenberg)—are meant. This is also evident from what is said of them, and by which their conduct is designated as hostile to Christians (ὑμῶν) who belong to the poor.’ κατα- δυναστεύειν] only here and in Acts x. 38, frequently in the LXX. and Apocrypha (see particularly Wisd. of Sol. ii. 20), means “to use power against any to his hurt.” Related ideas are κατακυριεύειν and κατεξουσιάζειν, Matt. xx. 25. This exercise of power against the Christians might take place in various ways; what follows: καὶ αὐτοὶ ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς κριτήρια, mentions one chief mode. — καὶ αὐτοί] emphatically put first—even they (Theile).— ἕλκειν] indicates the violence of the conduct (so in the classics). The courts of judgment (κριτήρια, as in 1 Cor. vi. 2, 4) may be both Gentile and Jewish; certainly not Christian. It is arbitrary, and not corresponding to the expression ἕλκειν, to think here on a process quibus pauperes propter debita in judiciis vexabant (Hornejus; also de Wette and others).— Since James so strongly contrasts αὐτοί and ὑμᾶς, the former cannot possibly be regarded as a part of the latter. Ver. 7. The description of the conduct of the rich is stiil continued ; they not only do violence to Christians, but they even revile the holy name of Christ. Do they not (even) blaspheme that fair name which has been called upon you ? The pronoun αὐτοί is put here as in ver. 6; incorrectly Theile = hi potissimum. — The expression τὸ ὄνομα ἐπικαλεῖται ἐπί τινα] is borrowed from the O. T., where it often occurs, and in the sense that one becomes the property of him whose name is called upon him; particularly it is said of Israel that the name of God was called upon them; see Deut. xxviii. 10 (where instead of ἐπί the dative is put); 2 Chron. vii. 14; Jer. xiv. 9, xv. 16; Amos ix. 12; see also Gen. xlviii. 16; Isa. iv. 1. Accordingly, by the name which is called upon Christians is not meant the Christian name (Hensler: nomen fratrum et sororum), also not the name πτωχοί, but the name of Him only to whom they as Christians belong—the name of Christ (de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, and 1 If James had the Christian rich in view, he certainly would not have omitted to point to the contrast between their conduct to the poor and their Christian calling, CHAP. II. 8, 9. 109 others); from which, however, it does not follow (as Wiesinger correctly observes) that James here alludes to the name Xpictiavoi.— By the addition of the attribute καλόν the shamefulness of βχασφημεῖν is still more strongly marked. — In support of the hypothesis that the rich are Christians, many expositors (also Briickner and Wiesinger) here arbitrarily explain βλασφημεῖν of indirect blasphemy, ὁ.6. of such as takes place not by words, but by works; but βλασφημεῖν is never thus used in the Holy Scriptures; not one of the passages which Wiesinger cites proves that for which he adduces them ; βλασφημεῖν always denotes blasphemy by word. — This word also proves that the rich who are not Christians are here meant (thus also Lange, who, however, will understand particularly the Judaists); which is also evident, because James otherwise would rather have written τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ αὐτούς instead of τὸ ἐπικλ. ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. -- By the thought in this verse James indicates that Christians, by showing partiality to the rich, not only acted foolishly, but were guilty of a violation of the respect due to the name of Christ. Vv. 8, 9. With these verses James meets the attempt which his readers might perhaps make to justify their con- duct toward the rich with the law of love; whilst he, granting to them that the fulfilment of that law is something excellent, designates προσωποληπτεῖν directly as a transgression of the law. This explanation, which among ancient expositors, parti- cularly Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Laurentius, Hornejus, and among the moderns Hottinger, Theile, Wiesinger have recognised as the correct one, is justified both by the particle μέντοι and by the phrase καλῶς ποιεῖτε. ---- μέντοι has in the N. T., where besides the Gospel of John it only elsewhere occurs in 2 Tim. 1. 19 and Jude 8, always the meaning yet, nevertheless ; but this meaning is not here suitable, as ver. 8 contains no con- trast to what goes before.” It is therefore to be retained in 1 Were it here asserted that the blaspheming of the name of God or of Christ was occasioned by the wicked works of Jews or Christians, this would be indicated not by the active verb, but by the passive with διά ; see Rom. ii. 24; Tit. 11. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 2; Isa. 111, 5. Moreover, even then blasphemy (namely, of the Gentiles) could only be expressed by words. * Briickner finds the contrast in love being the reverse of partiality ; but μέντοι does not simply express the opposite, but the adversative meaning of the particle in the N. T. is of this nature, that it only occurs when the sharp con- 110 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. its original classical meaning, assuredly, certainly, and points out that James grants something to his readers, having, however, in view the contrast which he expresses in the following εἰ δὲ κτλ This is also indicated by the expression καλῶς ποιεῖτε (see ver. 19), which is evidently too feeble for an earnest enforcement of the law of love. Wiesinger correctly observes that the hypothetical dilemma carries in itself unmistakably an ironical character.? James calls the law ἀγαπήσεις «.T.X., which is cited from Ley. xix. 18, νόμον βασιλικόν, because it is the most excellent of all laws, cete- rarum legum quasi regina (Knapp; so also Theile, Wiesinger, de Wette, Bouman, and others), inasmuch as all other laws are contained in it; see Rom. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14 (1 Tim. i. 5; Matt. xxii 39). It is far-fetched to explain the attribute βασιλικόν, because it was given by God the great King (Raphelius, Wetstein, Wolf, Baumgarten), or by Christ (Grotius), or because it applies to kings (Michaelis), or quia reges facit (Thomas; Lange combines all these explanations) ; also Calvin’s remark is to be rejected as too artificial: regia lex dicitur, ut via regia, plana scilicet, recta et aequabilis, qui sinuosis diverticulis vel ambagibus tacite opponitur. — νόμος is here (see also ver. 9), as in Jer. xxxi. 33 (Heb. vui. 10, x. 16), used of a single commandment, instead of ἐντολή (which Lange wrongly denies). The expression τελεῖν νόμον is found only here and in Rom. ii. 27; it is a stronger expression than τηρεῖν νόμον (ver. 10).—xKata τὴν γραφήν] is not to be combined with βασιλικόν, nor is the mode of τελεῖν thereby stated, but it is the simple formula of citation. Ver. 9 is in sharp contrast to ver. 8, calling the conduct of his readers, in opposition to their pretext, by its true name, and designating it directly as sin. The verb προσωποληπτεῖν is a complete dz. Xey.; James uses this word with reference to the exhortation in ver. 1. On ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθαι, see trast to an ‘‘although” is to be filled up or expressed; it is arbitrary to explain it as equivalent to ‘‘on the contrary.” 1 Some interpreters explain μέντοι here, contrary to linguistic usage, as equivalent to igitur, 2 When de Wette, against this explanation, says: ‘‘ How could those blamed appeal to this law for their partiality?” it is to be observed that they seek thereby to justify only their conduct to the rich, by which certainly they leave their conduct to the poor unjustified. CHAP, II. 10. 111 Matt. vii. 23; Acts x. 35; Heb. xi. 99. Theile: gravius fere est quam ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖν, ἁμαρτάνειν. For the sake of heightening this judgment, James adds the participial sentence ἐλεγχόμενου κτλ. : being convicted by the law as transgressors. If the προσωποληπτοῦντες appealed to a law, it is precisely the law by which they are convinced as transgressors, so that they are without excuse. By ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου is meant not a single commandment, neither the above- mentioned law of love, nor specially a commandment for- bidding respect of persons, as Deut. xvi. 19 (Lange), but the law generally; so also παραβάται is general: not as transgressors of one commandment, but of the law generally. Ver. 10. Confirmation of the last expressed thought: For whosoever kept the whole law, and yet sinned in one (com- mandment), he is guilty of all (commandments). The con- junctives τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ, certified by authorities, are not to be considered as an error of the scribe (as Winer, 5th ed. Ῥ. 356, was inclined to assume); but the particle ἄν is here, as frequently in the N. T. contrary to classical usage in hypothetical sentences, omitted when ὅστις stands, because “the universality was already sufficiently indicated by the pronoun (Buttmann, p. 197 [E. T. 2297). ἀνθρώπῳ is not, with Schulthess, to be supplied to ἐν ἑνί, but νόμῳ, with Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, Lange, and others, “from the preceding collective idea νόμος. The following πάντων forbids us, with Schneckenburger and Kern, to understand évé as neuter. It is in entire conformity with the character of the thought as a general sentence to take ἑνί quite generally, and not, with Theophylact, Oecumenius (τοῦτο περὶ ἀγάπης εἴρηκε), Schol. Matthaei, p. 188 (ἐν ἑνὲ πταίσειν ἐστὶ, TO μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην), and some recent critics (Semler : in hanc unam et primam), to refer it to a definite command- ment, particularly to that of love.” By this general sentence James seeks to confirm the thought that respect of persons 1 Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 386], explains the omission of ἄν, because in the writer’s conception the case is altogether definite ; but then the future indicative would be put ; also the case here stated, namely, that one may transgress one command- ment and yet keep the whole law, is a case which cannot be imagined. 5 Still more arbitrarily, Grotius, Morus, Stolz, and Jaspar limit the general expressions ἕν and πάντων to such commandment, to the transgression of which the punishment of death is assigned. 119 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. includes in itself the transgression of the whole law, although it appears to be directed only against a single commandment. — The word πταίειν is found in the Ν T. only in a figurative sense; the construction with ἐν is only in this place; in chap. iii. 2 the reference of ἐν is different. By γέγονεν πάντων (sc. νόμων) ἔνοχος, James declares the transeressor of one commandment to be guilty of the transgression of all, — ἔνοχος} is here, as in 1 Cor, xi. 27, used with the genitive of the thing against which one sins, in the guilt of which one is thus involved.’ The same thought is also found in the Rabbinical writings, e.g. Cod. Talm. Schabbath, fol. Ixx. 2 ; I. Johanan: Quodsi faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium est singulorum reus; see Wolf. Ver. 11. The truth of the above thought is founded on the fact that all commandments proceed from one lawgiver. — ὁ yap εἰπών" μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, εἶπεν καί: μὴ φονεύσῃς] Baumgarten finds the reason why James adduces these two commandments, μὴ μοιχεύσῃς and μὴ φονεύσῃς, in this, because “the trans- gression of these two was punished with death ;” Wiesinger, on the other hand, because “ μοιχεύειν was never laid to the charge of the readers, whereas μὴ φονεύσῃς had the command of love as its essence ;” and Lange, because “to the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was likewise the prohibition of apostasy to heathenism, and the prohibition of murder was likewise that of uncharitableness towards our neighbour.” But the reason is rather because these two commandments are the first of those which refer to our duties to our neighbour (thus Briickner). That μὴ povyevons precedes the other has its reason in ancient tradition; see on both points Mark x. 19; Luke xviii. 20; Rom. xiii. 9 (see Meyer in loc.); Philo, de decal. xii. 24, 32. With the words that follow: εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύεις x.7T.r., James draws the inference from the preceding. ‘The negative οὐ after εἰ with the indicative is 1The punishment with ἔνοχος is usually in the genitive, with Matt. xxvi. 66, Mark iii. 29, xiv. 46 ; yet also in the dative, Matt. v. 21. In classical language, the thing against which one sins is with ἔνοχος only in the dative, whilst the crime itself of which the man is guilty, as well as the punishment which he has to suffer, is added in the genitive. 5 Koster (Stud. u. Krit. 1862, 1) to this passage cites the corresponding expression of Livy (Hist. xxxiy. 8) referring to the lawgiver: unam tollendo legem ceterae infirmantur. CHAP. II. 12. Ls not surprising in the N. T. usage, the less so as here only a part of the conditional sentence is denied; see Winer, p. 423 ff. [E. T. 601]; Al. Buttmann, p. 296 ff. [E. T. 346 f"]. With the apodosis γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου James refers to ver. 9; consequently not ἔνοχος, as in ver. 10, but παραβάτης is put. — The reason of the judgment here expressed is contained in ὁ εἰπών... εἶπε καί. Since the law is the expression of the will of Him who gave it, the transgression of a single portion is disobedience to the one will, and consequently a transgression of the whole law. Bengel: unus est, qui totam legem tulit; cujus voluntatem qui una in re violant, totam violant. James might indeed have confirmed the idea by the internal connection of all commands, and by pointing out that the transgression of one commandment reveals a want which makes the fulfilment of the other commandments impossible ;” but as he does not do so, these considerations are not to be arbitrarily introduced into his words. Ver. 12. To what has hitherto been said the general exhortation is annexed: So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. A new section does not here begin, as Wetstein, Semler, and others assume; but with this and the following verse the course of thought commenced at ver. 1 is concluded; not until ver. 14 does the thought take a new turn. The connection with what has gone before ? According to Buttmann, the negative οὐ ‘here, even according to classic usage, is the more necessary, ‘‘ when to the negative predicate another, still in the protasis, is immediately so appended with an adversative particle that the entire emphasis falls upon this second part” [E. T. 346]. It is indeed said in Thuc. 1. 32: εἰ μὴ μετὰ κακίας, δόξης δὲ μᾶλλον ἁμαρτίᾳ. .. ἐναντία τολμῶμεν ; but here the relation is different, as the contrast δόξης x.7.a. could be left out without injury to the thought, which is evidently not the case with James, * Augustine, in his Epistle to Jerome on this passage (Opera Hieronym., Franef. iv. p. 154 ff), says: Unde fiet omnium reus, si in uno offendat, qui totam legem servaverit? An forte quia plenitudo legis charitas est, qua Deus proximusque diligitur, in quibus praeceptis charitatis tota lex pendet et prophetae, merito fit reus omnium, qui contra illam fecit, in qua pendent omnia? Nemo autem peccat, nisi adversus illam faciendo.—Ticinus thus well expresses the unity of the law : lex tota est quasi una vestis, quae tota violatur, si vel unam ex ea partem demus ; quasi harmonia, quae tota corrumpitur, si vel unica vox dissonet; and Gataker: quasi catena aurea, quae tota rupta est, si unicum nexum abrumpas. What Gunkel says is indeed correct: ‘‘ The solidarity consists in this, that God has given with the equal obligation the one as well as the other commandment ;” but the point of equal obligation is not here brought forward by James. MryYeERr.—JAMES. H 114 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. is to be thus explained, that ver. 13 evidently points to the respect of persons with regard to the poor, and refers to chap. i. 27.-- οὕτως] “is not to be referred to what precedes, but to the following ὡς, thus: so as is necessary for those who,” ete.; thus in former editions. But by this explanation the thought is too abruptly introduced; therefore it would be more correct to refer οὕτως to what precedes (οὕτως, 1. according to the rule stated in ver. 10 f., Briickner), and to take ὡς not as an explication, but as “a confirmation” (Lange). — James takes up not only the doing (ποιεῖτε), but also the speaking (λαλεῖτε), to which not only the conduct of his readers, specified in ver. 2 ff, but their sinful volubility of tongue generally led; see i. 19, iii. 1-12. The repetition of οὕτω serves for the heightening of the thought; διά here is the same as in Rom. 11. 12; see also John xii. 48, v. 45; correctly Wiesinger: “the law is a means because a measure;” incorrectly Kern: vi ac jure leges. The νόμος ἐλευθερίας is also here not the gospel, as the publication of the grace of God, or the Christian religion (Semler, Pott, Gebser), also not specially the νόμος βασιλικός mentioned in ver. 7 as a single command, but it is the same as is mentioned in chap. i. 25.1 The demand which James here expresses is that Christians as such, who shall be judged by the νόμος ἐλευθερίας, must regulate by it the whole course of their lives. From what has directly gone before, one might infer that James wishes particularly to warn against the pretext combated in ver. 10, but ver. 13 shows that he has rather in view the want of compassionate love, forming the heart and pulse of the νόμος ἐλευθερίας, which was renounced by his readers in their ἀτιμάζειν τὸν πτωχόν (ver. 6). Ver. 13 refers back to chap. i. 27, and concludes the section, appending to διὰ νόμου ἐλ. κρίνεσθαι a closer defini- tion: for the judgment is unmerciful against those who exercise no mercy; mercy rejoices against judgment.— That which in the judgment passes sentence on Christians, who shall be judged διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας, is thus mercy. Against the 1 Kern: ‘‘James, by the expression διὰ ν, ἐλ., reminds them that the νόμος for Christians is indeed according to form a new one, being converted into a willing impulse, but that it does not on this account cease, according to its nature. to be the rule of moral action, and thus also of judgment.” See CHAP. II. 14. 110 unmerciful the judgment will be unmerciful. On the form ἀνέλεος, see critical notes; in Rom.i. 31 it is ἀνελεήμων ; thus also in LXX. Prov. v. 9, xi. 17. Luther incorrectly translates it: “it will pass an unmerciful judgment ;” ἀνέλεος is not an attribute, but a predicate. — Many expositors incorrectly explain ἔλεος = ἀγάπη ; the former is a species of the latter, although James puts the chief stress upon it; see chap. i. 27. — The concluding sentence is subjoined ἀσυνδέτως; see chap. 111. 2, iv. 12. “ Asyndeton dicti pondus auget.” In the verb κατακαυχῶᾶται (only here and in chap. ili. 14 and Rom. xi. 18), cata, on which the genitive κρίσεως depends, expresses the opposite tendency. Kpiow according to its nature threatens to condemn the sinner (thus the believing Christian does not cease to be a sinner), but mercy has the joyful confidence (καυχᾶται) that it will overcome the threatening power of judgment..— By a conversion of the abstract idea ἔλεος into the concrete, “the merciful man,’ the peculiar impress is taken from the expression, and a lax interpretation is introduced. On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 7; Prov. xvii. 5; Tob. iv. 7-11. Several expositors (Calvin, Cappellus, Wolf, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Bengel) incorrectly supply the genitive Θεοῦ to ἔλεος, by which a thought is introduced entirely foreign to the context. Ver. 14. After James, proceeding from the exhortation to receive the word (Tov... λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχάς) in meekness, had enforced the necessity not only to be hearers but also doers of the same, and with reference to the respect of persons practised by the readers had designated the exercise of compassionate love as true θρησκεία, he now, in close connection with the preceding, opposes the opinion that πίστις which has no works (χωρὶς ἔργων) can save (σῶσαι). The section from ver. 14 to ver. 26 treats of this ; for the correct understanding of which it is to be held fast that James considers πίστις as the necessary ground of σωτηρία, which is evident from chap. 1. 18-21, but of course 1 The explanation of Wiesinger, that James intends to say “‘that mercy has nothing to fear, rather that she confounds the terrors of the judgment by her confidence with which she is assured of grace beforehand, and glories in it,” is not entirely suitable, inasmuch as an objective idea (κρίσις) is thus converted into a subjective (the terrors of the judgment). 116 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. that πίστις which is not without works. In combating the above delusion, James adopts his characteristic mode of first stating in clear and well-defined language the fundamental thought on which all the rest depends, and he does so by the introduction of brief interrogative sentences which reject that false opinion. He commences with the words τέ τὸ ὄφελος ; see ver. 16 and 1 Cor. xv. 32. The article is not superfluous: What is the use which arises from i, vf, ete.; without the article (according to B and C) it means: What kind of use is it= what use is it? thus frequently with the classics. With regard to the construction with ἐάν, see Matt. xvi. 26; 1 Cor. xiii. ὁ. The following words: ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, show that James had in view one who trusts for σωτηρία, because he has faith, although works are wanting to him. Many expositors place the emphasis on λέγῃ, as if it was thereby indicated that this assertion was a mere preteat, the person introduced as speaking not in reality possessing faith. Gataker: emphasis hic est in voce dicendi ; intelligit istos fidem quidem jactare, non tamen habere; similarly Vorstius, Piscator, Wolf, Baumgarten, Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, Stier, Lange, Philippi (Glaubensi. I. p. 298 ff.); also de Wette translates λέγῃ by “pretends.” This is in- correct, for the sequel does not give the lie to this λέγειν, but, on the contrary, it is granted that the man may have faith without having works. Besides, it is self-evident that James did not require to say that a faith, which one has not, cannot save him. That it is not simply said ἐὰν πίστιν τις ἔχη, is explained from James’ lively mode of representation, by which he introduces his opponent as appealing to his πίστις It is also incorrect to emphasize the want of the article before πίστιν (Schneckenburger: recte articulo caret = to have faith, quum reyera non habeat τὴν πίστιν, ver. 1; ita omissio articuli jam quodammodo scriptoris judicium est). The article is here wanting, as is often the case in the N. T. where the word expresses something definite in itself (thus Briickner), particularly when it is to be brought forward according to its quality. Also πίστιν must not be precisely explained as = * λέγῃ is the more appropriate, as a faith without works, as James indicates in ver. 18, is something which cannot be proved, of which he who possesses it can only give information by λέγειν. CHAP. II. 14. {7 nuda notitia, nor hardly = nuda professio; for those whom James combats could not possibly think that they by their faith possessed only the so-called theoretical faith, but rather - they considered it the whole and complete faith. Also this faith was not defective in point of confidence, which Lange should not have denied, for they thought to be saved thereby; although this was not true confidence, but an empty reliance on Christ ;* they indeed believed, but they did not receive Christ in themselves as a principle of a new life; the object of their faith remained to them purely external, and thus they wanted those works which spring from living faith.” — ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ] ἔργα is here indeed entirely general, but accord- ing to the context those works are meant which are proofs of living faith, by which the νόμος ἐλευθερίας is fulfilled on the eround of πίστις. ---- After ἔχῃ a simple comma (Gebser) is not to be put, but a note of interrogation ; the verse contains two questions, the second interrogative sentence μὴ δύναται k.7.X. confirming the judgment contained in the first, that it profits nothing to have faith without works. Some expositors incorrectly put a special emphasis on the article before πίστις (Bede: fides δία, quam vos habere dicitis; or, that faith which has no works; so also Lange). The article here has not vim pronominis demonstrativi, but is used because there is a resumption of the previous idea (πίστις) ; see chap.i. 3 and iv. 15. It is also incorrect to supply out of what goes before the more precise definition of faith: quae non habetur revera sed dicitur tantummodo et jactatur (Theile), or to supply μόνη (Pott), or to understand by πίστις here bare notitia. Recourse has been had to these explanations, because it was thought that James otherwise denied to faith its saving power, which is not to be assumed. But the force of αὐτόν has been overlooked. If this pronoun be taken into con- ‘It was otherwise with them than with those Christians who indeed con- sidered the teaching of the gospel as true, and did not doubt to be saved, but who rested their hopes not on Christ as the object of faith, but on their sup- posed righteousness, i.e. on their good works ; for James entirely denies good works to them, and never indicates that they appealed to their supposed good conduct. ? For the view here rejected an appeal is incorrectly made to ver. 19, as those thought to have in their faith the guarantee of their σωτηρία, whilst their faith only produced φρίσσειν to the demons. 118 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. sideration, it is evident that James does not affirm generally that faith cannot save, but that it cannot save him whose faith, on which he trusts, is destitute of works; for αὐτόν refers back to the subject τὰς, that is, to the person whom James has introduced as speaking —o@cat] as in i. 21, is used here of the attainment of future salvation; the expres- sion is explained from the fact that eternal condemnation belongs to sinful man as such, and thus requires a deliver- ance in order to be saved. The idea σωτηρία generally signifies in the N. T. the future salvation; see besides other passages, particularly 1 Thess. v. 8, where σωτηρία is desig- nated as the object of ἐλπίς. Certainly the present state of salvation of Christians may also be called σωτηρία, but it is evident from the connection with what precedes that James has not that in view, but the complete salvation (against Lange). Vv. 15, 16. James illustrates the idea that faith is depen- dent for its proof on works, otherwise if these are wanting it is dead and profits nothing, by an example of compassion, which also, if without the corresponding works, is dead and © can profit nothing. The representation of this similitude has the same form as the description of the case mentioned in vy. 2 and 3: first, the statement of the circumstances, and then of the conduct. The particle δέ (Lachmann, Tischendorf) is not merely transitional (metabasis, Wiesinger), but is to be explained from the fact that in this verse the argument against the opponent brought forward commences (Schnecken- burger, de Wette).— Those requiring help are by the name ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφή characterized as members of the Christian community, in order to bring out more strongly the obligation to active assistance. — By the words γυμνοὶ... τροφῆς their destitute condition is described. There is no need to in- terpret γυμνός by male vestitus (Laurentius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Theile, Wiesinger) ; it is rather nudus, naked, but is certainly also so used when there is no absolute nakedness, but when the clothing can hardly be considered as clothing. On λευπόμενοι, see chap. i. 4, 5. — ἐφήμερος] in the N. T. az. λεγ., is neither =diurnus (Morus: quod in unum diem sufficit) nor = hodiernus (Hottinger); but ἡ ἐφήμερος τροφή is = ἡ καθ᾽ CHAP, Il. 16, 17. 119 ἡμέραν ἀναγκαῖα τροφή (Pott, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger). Ver. 16 describes the conduct towards those requiring help.— τις ἐξ ὑμῶν] is to be taken generally, and is not, with Grotius, to be limited to those qui fidem creditis sufficere ad salutem. — The address: ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ} expresses a friendly wish at departure; similar to πορεύεσθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, Acts xvi. 36; Judg. xviii. 6. ὑπάγειν εἰς εἰρήνην (Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50, and other places) is somewhat different, where εἰρήνη and ὑπάγειν are not yet conceived as united. — With θερμαίνεσθε with reference to γυμνοί, warming by clothing is specially to be thought of (see Job xxxi. 30; Hag. 1 6); but it is inaccurate to explain the verb itself as equivalent to vestiri (Laurentius, Baumgarten, Pott, Bengel, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile). — θερμαίνεσθε and χορτάζεσθε are not imperatives of the passive, and to be taken in an optative sense (Hottinger: utinam aliquis beneficens vobis vestimenta largiatur ; similarly Grotius, Morus, Theile), but imperatives of the middle: Warm yourselves, satisfy yourselves; only thus does the contrast appear pointed and definite; that they are not properly to be con- sidered as commanding, but as exhorting, is of itself evident. The plural μὴ δῶτε δέ is explained from ἐξ ὑμῶν ; τὰ ἐπιδη- Seva (ἅπ. Ney.) = τὰ ἀναγκαῖα (Gloss.: τὰ πρὸς τροφὴν ἁρμόδια ; Suidas: ἀφορμαὶ εἰς τὸν βίον ; see Herod. ii. 174; Thue. ii. 28 ; Cicero, Of: i. 8 : necessaria vitae praesidia); the things necessary for the support of the body, namely, clothing and food. The question τί τὸ ὄφελος ; brings forward that such a sympathy which is χωρὶς ἔργων profits nothing, has no efficacy; to this neither egentibus (Hottinger) nor dicentibus (Gomar, Baum- garten, Semler) is to be supplied. Ver. 17. Application of the similitude. The verse forms one sentence, of which ἡ πίστις is the subject and νεκρὰ ἐστίν is the predicate; neither after πίστις (Pott) nor after ἔργα (Michaelis) is a colon to be put. After ἔχῃ the idea con- tinually (Baumgarten) is not to be supplied. πίστις has here the same meaning as in ver. 14.— From the fact that James calls faith dead if it has not works, it is evident that by these works is not meant something which must be added to faith, but something which grows out of faith; the épya here treated of are works of faith, in which are the germs of faith. νεκρά 120 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. is here not to be explained by operibus destituta, but = inanima, equivalent to a dead body ;* correctly, de Wette: “dead, that is, without the power of life; thus not primarily to be referred to its effects, but to be understood as its internal nature ;” however, James thus designates a faith without works to prove that it od δύναται σῶσαι and οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖται. ---- The more precise statement καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν has been variously understood. Grotius considers it as simply pleonastic; some critics sepa- rate it from vexpd and take cata = against (Moller= καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, we. sibimet ipsi repugnat; Augusti: contra semet ipsam); others unite it with πίστις (Knapp = fides sola; Baumgarten: “in so far as faith is alone”). But καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς belongs evidently, as its position shows, to vexpa (de Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange). It is thus emphatically stated that a faith without works is not only dead in reference to something else, but dead in reference to itself. It serves for the intensification of the idea νεκρά, yet not so that by it the existence of a πίστις without works was denied (against Schneckenburger). Ver. 18. The words ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις, with which this verse begins, apparently introduces an objection, as in 1 Cor. χν. 35; by which under tis a certain one is to be considered as an opponent of the thought above expressed, who with ov addresses James, and by κἀγώ denotes himself. But against this explanation the sentiment itself is opposed; for as James reproaches those, against whom he argues, that they have indeed faith but not works, he could not possibly put into the mouth of his opponent, that the same had works, but he (James) had faith. The opinion of Pott, that od... κἀγώ = ἄλλος Kal ἄλλος, cannot be justified (so also Bouman: hic... ille). By that explanation it would require to be said: σὺ ἔργα ἔχεις, κἀγὼ πίστιν ἔχω, namely, in the sense: If thow place all stress on works, Z am not the less entitled to place all stress on faith. Kern attempts to remove the difficulty by taking the first sentence: ov πίστιν ἔχεις, as a hypothetical 1 The comparison of faith without works to a dead body is found among the old interpreters in such a manner that it formed a controversy between Catholic and Protestant interpreters ; whilst Lorinus says: mortuum corpus verum corpus est, ut sine operibus et charitate fides, Laurentius remarks : sicut homo mortuus non est verus homo, ita nec fides mortua vera fides, CHAP. II. 18. T2t protasis, and the second, on the other hand, κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω, as the apodosis, and explains it: “If thou hast faith, so have I also works, because, as thou sayest, faith and works cannot be separated.” But to this explanation is opposed not only the fact that James has not in what has gone before properly expressed the inseparableness of faith and works, but has only presupposed it; but also that the opponent should appeal to works, whilst James considers him as a person who has no works.’ With these difficulties it is not to be wondered at that almost all expositors have decided for the view that ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις is not here to be taken as the form of an objection, and that by τις not an opponent of James is meant, but a “vir sapiens et intelligens,’ to whom James assigns the part of carrying on the argument in his stead against his opponent. Wiesinger: “ ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις cannot here be possibly taken, as in 1 Cor. xv. 35, Rom. ix. 19, as an objection, for, as ov πίστιν ἔχεις already shows, the person introduced as speaking is on the side of James, and like him combats faith without works.” Accordingly, with ov the same opponent is addressed whom James had hitherto in view, and with κἀγώ the person called tis designates himself as agreeing with James. But against this explanation there are many objec- tions. 1. It cannot be denied that the words ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις have most decidedly the character of an objection. 2. If they are not so understood, then ἀλλ᾽ is not only an interrup- tion, but inexplicable; Hottinger, indeed, maintains: ἀλλά hic non adversativum esse per se patet; but who will agree with him in this? De Wette assumes that by ἀλλά here is expressed not primarily the contrast with what immediately precedes, but with the error already combated. Wiesinger has, however, correctly rejected this opinion, which is the less to be justified “as the error has not yet been per se expressed.” ἀχλά roust at all events be referred to what directly precedes. According to Schneckenburger, it refers ad negationem, quam notitio νεκρός involvit, quasi dictum foret: ista fides non est 1 The explanation of Knapp, that the first words are interrogative : tune quia ipse fide cares, propterea eam contemnis ? and to which the answer is then given : immo vero plus habeo, quam quantum tu et habes et postulas, fidem videlicet cum factis conjunctam, is correctly relinquished by himself, as it is too artificial to be considered as correct. 12 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. fides, sed dicat aliquis; but that πίστις, if it has not works, is not πίστις at all, is so little the opinion of James that he ascribes a πιστεύειν to the devils (ver. 19); νεκρά is here arbitrarily explained as = nulla, and not less arbitrarily is it observed on πίστιν ἔχεις : “interlocutor ad hominis errorem descendens fidem, quam profitetur, eum habere swmit,’ since James does not the least indicate that the words σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις are to be understood in the sense: “I will even assume that thou hast faith.” The opinion of several critics, that ἀλλά is here (= quin etiam) “a correction of the preceding judement, heightening it” (Wiesinger), and indicates “that the opinion that a faith without works is dead is here surpassed” (Gunkel), is of no avail, as the opinion contained in this verse on faith without works is evidently not, as Briickner falsely thinks, stronger than that which is expressed in ver. 17 with νεκρά ἐστιν Accordingly, all attempts at the explanation of ἀλλά do not attain their object. 3. With this explanation it is entirely uncertain how far the speech of tvs extends, and where James again resumes; and accordingly the greatest uncertainty here occurs among expositors. 4. Lastly, it cannot be perceived why James should express his own opinion in the person of another who is designated by the entirely indefinite term τίς. Wiesinger and most expositors do not touch on this point at all. Baumgarten thinks that James speaks here in the words of a stranger, in order the better and the more freely to convey the notion of erroneous- ness in severer terms. But this is a pure fiction; that James did not shun from expressing himself freely and strongly the whole Epistle is a proof.’ These objections are too important 1 Wiesinger observes: The person introduced as speaking not only confirms what was said before, but goes beyond it ; not only that such a faith is dead, but that it cannot even prove its existence without works: i ts nothing. But with these last words Wiesinger inserts a thought into the words which they by no means contain, the same thought which, according to Schneckenburger, is contained in νεκρά ἐστι. * The pointing ἀλλ᾽, ἐρεῖ τις, σὺ x... (Schulthess, Gebser, Rauch) does in no way remove the difficulty, and has also this against it, that the closely-united formula ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ σις is thus disunited. 3 Lange thinks to remove the difficulty by ascribing to the words ‘‘a grand prophetical character,” whilst by τὶς is meant ‘‘the Gentile-Christian world,” which has proved ‘‘ by its works of faith that it has had the true faith, whereas Ebionism, with its want of consistency in Christian works of love, has proved that CHAP. II. 18. 123 to permit us in spite of them to rest on the above explana- tion. But, on the other hand, the difficulties which arise if ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις is taken as a form of objection appear to be invincible. They are only so, however, when it is assumed that the person introduced with σύ as speaking means James, and with κἀγώ himself. But this assumption is by no means necessary. Since James introduces tus as speaking, so both words σύ and κἀγώ can be understood as well from the stand- point of James as from that of the speaker; that is to say, that with σύ the opponent with whom James argues, and against whom he asserts that πίστις without works is dead, is meant, and with ἐγώ James himself. The meaning, then, is as follows: But some might say in answer to what I have just stated, defending thee,’ thow (who hast not the works) hast faith, and JZ, on the other hand (who affirm that faith without works is dead), have works;* my one-sided insisting on works is no more right than thy one-sided insisting on faith, By this explanation, which has nothing linguistically against it, not only is the nature of ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ tis preserved, but it expresses a thought entirely suited to the context, whilst the following words give the answer by which this objection is decidedly repelled. This answer is in form not directed to the person introduced as speaking, but to the opponent with whom only James has properly to do, and whom he in his lively style can now the more directly address, as the objection made was the expression of his soul. The meaning of this answer is as follows: Hast thou actually, as that person says, faith, and if this is to be of use it must its orthodoxy was not a living faith.” But, apart from the arbitrariness of this interpretation, ἀλλά is by it referred not to the preceding declaration, but falsely to the erroneous opinion of zis (ver. 14). 1 The view of Stier, that by the speaker a Pharisaical Jew is to be understood, who takes occasion from the inoperative faith of Christians to mock the Christian faith in general, has been rightly rejected by Wiesinger. If James had meant by zs a Jew, he would have called him such. * This is a form of expression which frequently occurs. Thus, if one speaks with Charles, and says to him: Henry says thou hast found the book which I have lost. Briickner, indeed, thinks that this example is not appropriate, but he does not give his reasons for saying so. Lange calls the explanation here given artificial, but he does not say in what its artificial character consists. The objections which Lange brings against it are founded on his having read erroneously defending himself instead of defending thee. 124 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. manifest itself, but this without works is impossible; thou canst not even show thy faith without works; as for myself, who have works, these are a proof that faith is not wanting, for without faith I could do no works. On δεῖξον, Schnecken- burger correctly remarks: vide ne verbo tribuas significationem exhibendi et manifestandi (per vitam), sed retine primam et simplicem comprobari quasi ante judicem.— τὴν πίστιν σου is said because the opponent ascribed faith to himself (ver. 14); thus “the faith which thou sayest thou hast” (Wiesinger). -- With the reading of the Rec. ἐκ τ. ἔργων (instead of χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων) the words are to be taken as ironical (so also Lange), as the supposition is that works are wanting to him. — With these words not faith generally, but living faith which saves is denied to the opponent; if the same is not proved by works, it is dead. — In what James says of himself, ἔργα are the works which proceed from faith, as these could not otherwise authenticate it. It is to be observed that in the first clause τὴν πίστιν, and in the second ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, stand first, because these ideas are the points on which the whole turns. Ver. 19. James shows, in the faith of demons, with whom it produces trembling, how little faith without works effects salvation. With σὺ πιστεύεις, which is not, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be taken as a question, it is granted to the opponent that he possesses faith. From the fact that what is specifically Christian is not named as the object of faith, it is not to be inferred, with Calvin, that in this entire section not the Christian faith (de fide) is spoken of, but only de vulgari Dei notitia. Expositors correctly assume that this one article of faith is only adduced as an example. ‘The selection of precisely this article on the unity of God is not to be explained because “ the Jewish Christians were particularly proud of it, so that it kept them back from fully surrendering themselves to the Christian faith” (Lange), but because it distinguished revealed religion from all heathenism. However much the position of the individual words vary (see critical notes), yet the unity of God appears in all as the chief idea; comp. particularly, Deut. vi. 4; Neh. ix. 6; Isa. xliv. 6, xlv. 6; Matt. xxiii. 9; Mark xii..29, 32; Rom. i..30; 1 Cor. vii. 4, 65 and, in this Epistle, chap. iv. 12. In Hermas, I. 2, mand. 1, CHAD. 11. 20. 1235 it is said: πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ Θεός. — De Wette, with whom Philippi coincides, thinks that by the construction with ὅτι the faith which the opponent has is characterized as merely theoretical; but it is, on the other hand, to be observed, that a construction with εἰς or ἐν here, where the unity of God is to be adduced, could hardly have been used (so also Briickner).— James grants, by the words καλῶς ποιεῖς, that this faith is something in itself entirely good (see ver. 8). Several expositors, as Calvin, Semler, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman, find in the expression a trace of irony, which others, as Laurentius, Baum- garten, Grotius, Pott, Gebser, de Wette, deny. Though not in the statement by itself, yet in the whole expression there is something ironical (Lange, Briickner), which, in the combina- tion of πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν (as Wieseler remarks), rises to sarcasm. This sarcasm is, moreover, to be recognised in demons being placed in opposition to the opponent. — καί before τὰ δαιμόνια is not to be explained by ἀλλὰ καί (Pott), or atqui (Theile) ; by the insertion of a contrary reference the peculiar severity of the expression is only weakened. That James, in his reference to the wnity of God, mentions the demons, is in accordance with the view that the heathen divinities are demons; comp. LXX. Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. xev. 5, ev. 37; 1 Cor. x. 20; and Meyer in loco: As these are the occasion of polytheism, so they are hostilely opposed to the one God; but, in their usurped lordship over the heathen world, they tremble before the one God, who will again rescue the world and judge them. It is wholly arbitrary to take τὰ δαιμόνια = daemoniaci (Wetstein), or to think on the demons in the possessed (Semler, Gebser, Schneckenburger). Pott incorrectly paraphrases the καί between πιστεύουσιν and φρίσσουσι by καὶ ὅμως : the simple copulative meaning of the word need not here be altered. φρίσσειν, an ἅπ. dey., is used particularly of the hair standing on end (Job iv. 15), and is therefore a stronger expression than δεδοικέναι and ; τρέμειν. Ver. 20 introduces the following proof from Scripture, that faith without works is dead, and accordingly cannot have δικαιοῦσθαι as its consequence. The question θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι expresses the confident assurance of victory over the opponent ; 126 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. the address ὦ ἄνθρωπε xevé, deep indignation at him. Kevos does not here indicate intellectual defect (Baumgarten = stupid, incapable of thinking; Pott = short-sighted), but the want of true intrinsic worth, in opposition to the imaginary wealth which the opponent fancies he possesses in his dead faith. The word is only here used in the N. T. of persons. The ὦ, placed first, which is frequently used in reproof,—see Matt. xvii. 17; Luke xxiv. 25; Rom. ix. 20 (Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 228]), — intensifies the censure. The thought is essentially the same whether νεκρά or ἀργή is read. — ἀργός] equivalent to idle, vain, that which profits and effects nothing,’ is also used of a capital sum which lies idle, and therefore bears no interest, thus is a dead capital. Not because ἀργή “deserves the preference with a view to the sense” (Wiesinger), but only because it is difficult to consider it as a gloss, is it to be con- sidered—against the authorities which testify for νεκρά (see critical note)—as the original reading. — As χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων stands here instead of ἐὰν μὴ ἔργα ἔχῃ (ver. 17), the article ἡ is not to be supplied before χωρίς (against Beza, Baumgarten, and others). Ver. 21. The testimony to which James first appeals is what happened to Abraham. The reference to Abraham is completely explained from his historical importance, and which is also indicated by ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν. --- ἡμῶν] because both James and his readers belonged to the nation of Israel sprung from Abraham. By the question with ov the thought is characterized as such to which all—thus all the opponents— must assent: Was not Abraham our father justified by works ? The participial sentence which follows declares what works procured for him justification: when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar ? —'The reference to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and especially to his declaration in Rom. iv. 1 ff, has misled expositors into many arbitrary explanations of this verse, and particularly of the word ἐδικαιώθη. ‘In order to have a sure foundation for interpretation, two things are to be examined,—(1) the context, and (2) the linguistic usage. 1 It is inaccurate to take ἀργός as equivalent to ἄκαρπος (Frank; unproductive) ; as this indicates the condition, that, on the contrary, the conduct of the subject. They are united together not as identical, but only as related ideas, in 2 Pet. i, 8. CHAP. II. 21. 127 (1) As regards the context, the question treated in this whole section is, How the Christian is saved; comp. the question in ver. 14: μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν ; and the con- nection of that section with the preceding, where the discourse % about the divine judement (ver. 12: κρίνεσθαι; ver. 13: ἡ κρίσις). As James appeals to Abraham for his assertion that faith without works cannot save, it is evident that by ἐδικαιώθη he cannot mean something which happened to Abraham from himself, but only something which happened to him from God; so that the meaning cannot be, “ Abraham justified himself by his works,” but only that “God justified him on the ground of his works.” (2) As regards the lin- euistic usage, δικαιοῦν corresponds to the Hebrew ΡΝ Π, which, as a judicial term, has the meaning: to declare one PIS by an acquittal from guilt, and is opposed to YW (LXX.: κατα- γινώσκειν, καταδικάζειν) = to declare one YY by a sentence of condemnation; comp. Ex. xxiii. 7; Deut. xxv. 1; 1 Kings way a2: 2 Chron. “viz 23; Prov. xvik Do; Isa wo25;1.8; 1π|. 11; in the Apocrypha, comp. Ecclus. x. 29, xiii. 22, xxii. 11, xxxiv. 5, xlii. 2. δικαιοῦν has also the same meaning in the N. T., where, especially (besides the passages treating of the Pauline doctrine of justification), Matt. xii. 37, Rom. ii 13, Luke xvii. 14 are to be compared. This judicial meaning of the word is here to be retained. It is true, as δικαιοῦν (similarly the English word “to justify”) occurs not only in the judicial sense, but, also more generally, as also PSI, in the sense “set forth as righteous”® (comp. Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 29; 1 Philippi erroneously maintains that the question here treated, is to prove that faith has to manifest itself by works if it is to be regarded as true faith. But James designates the faith of his opponents as νεκρά, not merely because it has no works, but because it cannot effect the σωτηρία which they expected from it. 2. Correctly, Wiesinger: “In ἐδικαιώθη the passive sense is decidedly to be retained, and, indeed, a Deo. ..; not of the human judgment is the discourse here and in ver. 23, but of the divine ; as it treats of the proposition in ver. 14, that only an active faith can save.” This is the more to be maintained, as the thought, that faith has to justify itself before men as living, is so void of importance that James could not lay such stress upon it. * This is the prevailing meaning of psn, which is differently modified according to the different circumstances to which it is referred. It is chiefly used of a judicial sentence, whether of God or of a human judge, by which one is declared p18; yet it also occurs in another reference, namely, of every agency 128 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. tom. iii. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16), the passage has been explained : “ Abraham has been proved righteous,” or, “has proved him- self righteous” (so already Calvin, and, in recent times, Philippi). But this explanation is unsuitable, since, accord- ing to this view, justification did not happen to Abraham from God (as must be conceived according to the context), but from his works; thus it was Abraham who justified himself by his works, 1.0. proved himself to be righteous.’ If we hold . fast to the judicial meaning, then it is to be observed that, in the conception of the word, neither anything about the disposi- tion of him who is the object of the declaration of righteousness, nor about the ground of justification (whether it rests in the judge or in the conduct of him who is justified), is indicated. For this reason the explanation of Wiesinger: a Deo justus agnitus, is incorrect, as the idea of a ratifying recognition of the already existing condition is not contained in the word. As little is it to be vindicated when Hofmann thinks that δικαιοῦσθαι here imports: “ to become a δίκαιος, inasmuch as he then answered to the will of God relating to him ;” for, on the one hand, by this a meaning (namely, being made a righteous person) is ascribed to the word which it has not ; and, on the other hand, no one can make himself a righteous person by his works, but only can prove himself to be such. which causes one to appear as righteous, whether that agency is exercised by the person in question or by others. The N. Τὶ δικαιοῦν corresponds to this usage. Strictly taken, it is accordingly not correct to translate δικαιοῦν by ‘* proved to be righteous,” or ‘‘ approved to be righteous,” as the ideas proving and approving, according to their proper and strict meaning, are not contained in it. Comp., however, the excellent treatment of the word in Cremer’s dictionary. 1 Philippi explains the words: Abraham was justified before men by works, as a justified man before God by faith. But here there are evidently introduced into the idea δικαιοῦσθαι a series of more precise statements which are not con- tained in it. The explanation of Briickner is simpler, who considers ἐδικαιώθη to indicate: ‘‘that moral righteousness which displays itself on the ground of the activity of faith;” but also this interpretation is not to be considered correct for the reasons above stated. The unsuitableness of this and similar interpretations is particularly evident from ver. 24. It is also to be observed, that in these explanations the passive is converted into the middle voice. In the O. T., it is true, the hithpael of pty is translated in the LXX. by the preterite passive of δικαιοῦν (see Gen. xliv. 16) ; but in the N. T. the passive of this verb never occurs in this meaning; the middle import is here rather expressed by the active with the reflex pronoun ; comp. Luke x. 29, xvi. 15. ? The following explanations are also incorrect: ‘‘ he was loved as a righteous man” (Grotius) ; ‘‘he was made a partaker of the favour of God and of all the CHAP. II. 21. 129 James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared righteous (by God) ἐξ ἔργων. By ἐξ ἔργων the reason is specified, on Abraham’s part, on account of which a declaration of righteousness was granted to him. By these works are to be understood not all the works which Abraham has done, nor his whole pious life, but, as the clause dvevéyxas ᾿Ισαὰϊκ k.7.2. shows, the actual offering of his son Isaac on the altar. The plural ἐξ ἔργων is used because the category, at first entirely general, is specified which here comes into consideration. It may appear surprising that James here should emphasize pre- cisely that offering as the reason of the declaration of righteous- ness, since in the O. T. narrative (Gen. xxii.) a δικαιοῦσθαι οἵ Abraham is not mentioned. What James has in view is not “the judgement of God there; Gen. xxii. 12 comp. with ver. 16 ff.” (Wiesinger) ; for in these words, which, moreover, only serve as an introduction to the declaration which follows, nothing is addressed to Abraham, but only it is testified of him that God in his action has recognised his fear of God. Not in this, but only in what God addresses to him on account of it, because He has recognised him as a God-fearing man, can James have found the declaration of Abraham’s righteousness. This is the bestowal of the promise (vv. 16-18) by which it is expressly said, “ because thou hast done this thing” (ver. 16), and “because thou hast obeyed my voice” (ver. 18); by which is definitely brought forward that the promise was granted on account of his obedience—that is, on account of his works. What importance, with regard to the promise, the obedience of Abraham had in the eyes of God is clearly brought out from Gen. xxvi. 5, where God ratifies this same promise with Isaac in these words: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws ;” and not less is it to be observed when it is said in Zcclus. xliv. 20: ὃς συνετήρησεν νόμον ὑψίστου... καὶ ἐν blessings springing from it” (Theile); ‘‘ his justification was ratified by man” (Baumgarten). The translation: ‘‘he was pardoned” (Pott), is inaccurate, because the idea of pardon always supposes a crime, which δικαιοῦν does not. Also the explanation of Lange is arbitrary : δικαιοῦν, in the N. T. deeper sense, denotes that ‘‘God declares righteousness in the theocratical forum before the theocratical congregation conceived as permanent;” for how can the precise statement be contained in the simple verbal idea, before whom the declaration of righteousness was made ? MEYER.—J AMES. I 130 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστός" διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὅρκῳ ἔστησεν αὐτῷ κι. It is true that the same promise was made to Abraham at an earlier period, and that before he had done anything (Gen. xii. 2, 3); but the difference is, that after the offering of his son it was imparted to him as an inalienable blessing on account of this action, and that at the close of his theocratic historical life. In this James could rightly recognise a formal declaration of Abraham’s righteousness on the part of God. — On the construction ἐδικαιώθη ἐκ, comp. Matt. xii. 37: ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, where the λόγοι are reckoned as that on the ground of which acquittal (or condemnation) takes place. — The words: ἀνενέγκας .. . ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον] are not, with Luther, to be translated: “when he had sacrificed his son upon the altar ;” for ἀναφέρειν joined with ἐπί, with the accusative, is not to sacrifice, but to bring as a sacrifice to the altar (comp. 1 Pet. 11. 24); it is therefore incorrect to supply the idea wild (Estius: cum obtulisset = offere voluisset). Hottinger falsely explains ἐπὶ τ. θυσ. = before the altar. To the name ᾿Ισαάκ is emphatically added τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ; comp. Gen. xx. 16. Ver. 22. The direct inference from the preceding. Since the necessity of faith to the attainment of salvation was not contested by those with whom James disputed, but only the necessity of works; and since James (ver. 21) had adduced the example of Abraham to prove that only a faith which is not ἀργή and χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων profits: in this verse it can only be intended to represent how important to Abraham were his works, but not how important to him was his faith. This thought is thus clearly and evidently expressed in the second hemistich: καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων κιτιλ. On the other hand, the first hemistich: ὅτε ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, has been generally understood by expositors as if the necessity of faith was intended to be brought forward. In this meaning Bengel says: duo commata, quorum in priore, si illud, fides, in altero operibus cum accentu pronunciaveris, sententia liquido percipitur, qua exprimitur, quid utravis pars alteri conferat. According to this, James would have expressed in the first hemistich, that faith was not wanting to Abraham, that rather it was this from which his works sprung, that accordingly Abraham was justified ἐξ ἔργων, because they CHAP. II. 22. 131 were works of faith. The same explanation is given by Erasmus, Tremellus, Beza, Baumgarten, Gebser, Pott, Kern, and others ; also by Hofmann and Wiesinger. But the con- text is against it, as this thought does not follow as a conse- quence from ver. 21. Those expositors have accordingly understood the passage more correctly who find in the words in question the meaning that the πίστις of Abraham was not dead but operative; Estius: operosa fuit, non otiosa, non mortua (so Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, and others), although their interpretation is inaccurate in particulars. — συνήργει] If συνεργεῖν is taken in its strictly literal sense: “to be a συνεργός, to labour or to work along with” (1 Cor. xvi. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi 1), and is translated: “faith wrought with his works,” the idea of James (according to the usage of the word συνεργεῖν in this meaning) would be, that whilst works wrought, faith participated in their work." But this thought does not correspond with the context, and is, moreover, not in itself to be vindicated, since faith and works are not two principles working along with one another.— Kern, with whom de Wette coincides, takes τοῖς ἔργοις as the dative of reference, and explains it: “faith wrought to his works, 1.6. was the operative principle for the production of works.” This gives, indeed, a suitable enough thought, but linguistic usage is against the explanation ; besides, it is not the case that “συν has only a vague reference, or, to speak more correctly, no reference at all” (Hofmann). On this account other inter- preters, as Hofmann, Wiesinger, Briickner, also Philippi, correctly take συνεργεῖν here in the meaning of: to help (Rom. viii. 28; 1 Macc. xii. 1). The support which faith gave to works is to be found in this, that as it operates to their pro- duction, so also to their accomplishment in correspondence with the will of God? By this explanation a special emphasis 1 In the first edition of this commentary it is said: ‘‘ Faith was the συνεργός of his works—that is, it operated not by itself, but with his works. James will here make prominent that with Abraham both were combined, the emphasis, however, according to the context, being placed on τοῖς ἔργοις." This explana- tion, which has found favour with von Oettingen and Rauch, is, however, not tenable, as, on the one hand, linguistic usage is against it, and, on the other hand, it was not insisted on by James that the faith of Abraham wrought not alone, but that it was no inactive (inoperative) faith. 3 The explanation of Hofmann (with whom Wiesinger and Briickner coincide): 132 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. is placed on the expression συνήργει, it being thereby brought prominently forward that the faith of Abraham was not apyos (a-epyos), but exercised an activity, namely, the activity men- tioned as helpful to works. Against Lange’s explanation: “faith manifested itself operatively at one with the works,” besides not being linguistically justified, Briickner rightly re- marks that here the discourse is not concerning a co-operation of these two points. — The second hemistich is not in anti- thesis with the first, but constitutes its complement ; whilst the faith of Abraham aided his works, faith itself received by works its completion. — ἐτελειώθη] is by many interpreters understood as declarative; Gomarus: jides est causa, opera effectus; causa autem non perficitur a suo effectu, sed perfecta declaratur, ut fructus boni arborem bonam non efficiunt, sed indicant. The same explanation is adopted by Calvin, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Gebser, Bengel, Philippi,’ and others. Also Wiesinger indicates the same meaning with the remark: “faith could not be proved complete if it were not already so in itself, for the complete work presupposes the complete faith ;” but τελειοῦσθαι does not signify to be proved, but to be com- pleted? Certainly the meaning of James cannot be, that faith hitherto incomplete was completed by works, as something which was externally added to faith, since faith is the impulse to the works; but as little is it his meaning, that faith is already complete (τέλειος) before works, and is by works only ‘*that his action would not have been what is represented in an act of willing obedience, unless faith had assisted to its performance,” has this against it, that the principal thought would not thereby be expressed, but must be added, Philippi correctly : Abraham’s faith was no inert faith, but was helpful to his works, namely, to their production and accomplishment, 7.e. it assisted him to the performance of good works. 1 Philippi incorrectly appeals for this meaning to 1 John ii. 5, and to ἔσεσές in Luke vi. 35. 2 Also Hofmann’s explanation: ‘‘ The τελείωσις of his faith consisted not in this, that it attained from incompleteness to completeness, but in this, that by the action, in which it proved itself, it attained to its complete formation—to its historical accomplishment,” cannot be reckoned as appropriate, because σελειοῦσθαι never means ‘‘to be completely formed,” if by this expression a becoming complete is not intended. Lange agrees with the above remark, only he introduces something strange when he says : ‘‘ Abraham by his faith-offering attained typically and ideally the τελείωσις, which the Jewish Christians were to attain by the full proof of Christian brotherly love out of faith, and which with them all Israel was to attain.” CHAP. 11. 23. 133 proved or demonstrated to be so; but faith and works are in his view so closely connected, that faith only when it produces works or by works (ἐξ ἔργων) becomes ever more completely that which it should be according to its nature and destina- tion, and in so far only by works attains to its completion ; for as the power of love grows and is completed by the practice οἵ works of love, so does faith grow and is completed by the practice of works in which it manifests itself." Thus was Abraham’s faith only completed when he stood the severest test, and brought his son as an offering upon the altar.’ Ver. 25. Since what was said of Abraham in the preceding appears to conflict with the Scripture, Gen. xv. 6, James was obliged to solve this apparent contradiction, therefore he adds to what he has said: and (thus) the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “ But Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness; and he was called a friend of God.” Most expositors (also von Oettingen) explain πληροῦν by com- probare, confirmed, and find here the thought expressed, that by Abraham being justified ἐξ ἔργων, the scripture: “ that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” received its confirmation. But in this explanation of the word πληροῦν there is an arbitrary weakening of the idea. πληροῦν signities neither in the N. T. nor in classical usage: “to confirm,” but always “to fulfil” (see Cremer) ; with regard to a saying, the realization of the thought expressed in it by an action follow- ing is indicated by πληροῦν, whether that saying be in the ' Luther (in his introduction to First Peter, published by Irmischer, vol. Lxx. p. 223f.) says of the fruits of faith: ‘* Although they belong to our neighbour, that he may be profited thereby, yet the fruit is not external—faith becomes stronger thereby. It is an entirely different strength than that of the body, for this decays and is consumed ; but this spiritual strength, the more one uses and exercises it, the stronger it becomes ; it decays when one does not exercise it.” See also the appropriate remarks of Hengstenberg (Evang. Kirchenz. 1866, p. 1124 ff.). * When it is objected against this explanation, that faith must already have been perfect in order to produce the perfect work, it is to be observed, that it is in the nature of living faith always to be becoming stronger, in and with the production of works, and thus to perfect itself in its nature more and more. Briickner, indeed, grants that the practice of works has a strengthening reflex efficacy on faith, but observes that by this cannot be meant that faith was not before already sufficient to justify Abraham. But to this it is to be observed, that James does not derive the justification (meant by him) of Abraham from his faith preceding works, but from his faith made perfect by works. 134 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. form of a prediction or not. This meaning of the verb is also here to be recognised, and indeed so much the more as James uses the formula with which not only in the N. T. but also in the O. T. (1 Kings ii. 27; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22; 1 Mace. ii. 55) generally the fulfilment of a proper prediction, and always the real proof of an earlier spoken thought, is expressed. — The scripture which was fulfilled is Gen. xv. 6, where it is said not only that Abraham believed Jehovah, but that He (Jehovah) reckoned it to him for righteousness. James (as also Paul in Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6; see also 1 Mace. ii. 52) cites the passage according to the LXX., where the passive ἐλογίσθη is used instead of the active 52v’n; whilst he only deviates from the Greek text in this, that he (as also Paul in Rom. iv. 3) uses ἐπίστευσεν δέ instead of καὶ ἐπίστευσεν ; it is to be observed that in the corresponding passage, Ps. evi. 31, the passive 2VNA) is also in the Hebrew. — Instead of the expression used in these passages, the form: min? "3B? ΠΡῚΝ I man, is also found in the O. T. Deut. xxiv. 13 and vi. 25 (where the LXX. incorrectly translate PTS by ἐλεημοσύνη). The contrary of this is indicated by the expres- sion : nop op) avinn, Prov. xxvii. 14.— All these expressions import a judgment which God pronounces to Himself on ἃ. definite conduct of man, by which He either reckons it for righteousness or for a curse; with Abraham it was his faith on account of which God declared him a righteous person, — But in what does James see the fulfilment of this scripture, that testifies this judgment of God on believing Abraham ? Evidently in what he had already said, namely, that Abraham ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, and which he indicates by what follows: καὶ φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη ; for these words—since they belong not to the scripture—are co-ordinate not with καὶ ἐλογίσθη, but with καὶ ἐπληρώθη «.7.r. It is true God regarded Abraham as His φίλος (φίλος Θεοῦ is not, as Hofmann and Philippi think, God’s friend, who loved God, but God's friend whom God loved") the instant he reckoned his faith to him for righteousness ; but he was called so at a later period, namely, only at the time that he was declared righteous by God on account of his works. The expressions ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ eis 1 Lange comprehends both ; but at all events, according to the context, the reference given above is to be recognised as the prevailing one, CHAP. 11. 23 135 δικαιοσύνην and ἐδικαιώθη are not regarded by James as equivalent, but according to his representation the former was imparted to Abraham purely on account of his faith (éic- tevoev), but the latter only when his faith was completed by works, thus on account of his works (ἐξ ἔργων), so that thereby that scripture was fulfilled. It is true this scripture is abstractly no promise; but as it notifies facts which point to later actions in which they received their full accomplishment, James might consider it as a word of promise which was fulfilled by the occurrence of these later actions,’— The appellation of Abraham as a φίλος Θεοῦ is not indeed found in the LXX.; but in 2 Chron. xx. 7, Jehoshaphat calls him in his prayer 7208 (LXX.: ὁ ἠγαπημένος cov), and in Isa. xli. 8 God Himself calls him ‘258 (LXX.: ὃν ἠγάπησα) ; comp. also Ges. Asar. v. 11: διὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν ἠγαπημένον ὑπὸ cov; also it was not unusual for the Jews to call him φίλος Θεοῦ: to Gen. xviii 17, the LXX. have added to ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραάμ the words τοῦ παιδός μου, for which Philo puts τοῦ φίλου pov. It is evident from what has preceded that we cannot, with Grotius, Hornejus, Pott, and others, explain ἐκλήθη = factus est, fuit. XEMARK.— When de Wette explains πληροῦν by realized, this is so far inappropriate, as πληροῦν does not directly refer to the fact itself, but to the saying of scripture, and as neither of πιστεύειν of Abraham, nor of ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικ., can it be said that it “was something not yet wholly real, but the full realization of which occurred only at a later period.” For although both point to a later period, yet there was in them something which had actually taken place, as Lange correctly adduces. Hofmann also gave an incorrect reference to the word, explaining it : “ In the offering of Isaac it was proved that God had rightly estimated the faith of Abraham when He counted it for righteous- ness ;” for, on the one hand, there was no need of a proof that God had rightly estimated something, of which there is no indica- tion in James, and, on the other hand, πληροῦν has not the mean- ing of confirming or proving.? In opposition to the explanation 1 Namely: the faith with which Abraham received the promise of God points to the later obedience, and the divine reckoning of his faith for righteous- ness points to the declaration of righteousness imparted to him by God at a later period after proof of his obedience. * Also in Briickner’s explanation: ‘‘ Both the fact that Abraham believed God, and that this faith was reckoned to him by God for righteousness, was confirmed and proved in the offering of Isaac, leading to this that Abraham ἐξ 136 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. of Philippi: “the scriptural expression concerning Abraham’s justification by faith was, because His justification by faith is in itself a thing invisible as it were, an unfulfilled prophecy, until it became visible through proof by works,” it is, apart from the unjustifiable insertion of ‘as ἐξ were,” to be observed that Abraham’s act of obedience, happening ata later period, confirmed indeed his faith (thus that ἐπίστευσεν τῷ Θεῷ), but not the righteousness adjudged to him on account of his faith (that ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικ.), and accordingly ἐπληρώθη would be suitable only for the first half of the scriptural expression. It is peculiar that, according to the explanation of Philippi, the same meaning: “to be proved,” is in essence ascribed to the three words—6éizasoiobas, τελειοῦσθαι, πληροῦσθαι. Ver. 24. An inference universally valid from the adduced example of Abraham: “Ye see that by works a man is justified (declared righteous), and not by faith alone.” — ὁρᾶτε] is not imperative (Erasmus, Grotius), but indicative; Griesbach, Schott, Schulthess incorrectly understand the sentence as a question, which it is as little as in ver. 22.— ἐξ ἔργων] is emphatically placed first, because the chief stress is upon it. — δικαιοῦται] has the same meaning as in ver. 21. James thus infers from the foregoing that the declaration of man’s righteousness proceeds ἐξ ἔργων, and, with special reference to his opponents, he adds: οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον." The chief emphasis is on μόνον ; for as little as James in ver. 14 has not said that faith cannot save (σῶσαι), so little will he here say that a man is not justified ἐκ πίστεως (rather πίστις is to him the presupposition, without which the attainment of salvation cannot be conceived, as without it the ἔργα, ἐξ ὧν δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος are impossible); but that the faith, which justifies, must not be χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων. μόνον is therefore not to be united with οὐκ (Theile: appositionis lege explenda est oratio: non solum fide, sed ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη," the idea πληροῦν receives not its right meaning. Lange has here in essentials adopted the correct meaning. 1 Philippi, according to his explanation of ἐδικαιώθη, ver, 21, must find here the thought expressed, that ‘‘ faith alone without works cannot prove a man before men to be a believer, and justified by faith ;” but this thought is in fact so self-evident, that James would not have thought it necessary to state it as a consequence from the history of Abraham. The idea opposed to ἐξ ἔργων should not be ix πίστεως, but must be ix λόγων (comp. λέγη, ver. 14); moreover, the simple δικαιοῦται ἄνέρωπος cannot possibly denote: ‘‘a man is justified as a believer whom God, on account of his faith, has justified.” CHAP, II. 95. bag etiam operibus . . . nempe cum fide conjungendis), but with πίστεως (Theophylact, Grotius, Knapp, Hottinger, Wiesinger, and others); comp. 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. x1. 23; Gal. i. 23; Phil. 1. 26. The declaration of righteousness, which James intends, is not that by which the believer on account of his faith receives the forgiveness of his sins, but, as is evident from the connection of the whole section, that which occurs to the believer, who has proved his living faith by his works, at the judgment (ἐν τῇ κρίσει, ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι), and by which he receives σωτηρία (ver. 14). When James, in reference to this, appeals to what happened to Abraham, there is nothing unsuitable, for why should not that which God has done in a definite instance be regarded as a type and testimony of what He shall do at the future judgment? Moreover, this is completely appropriate, since to Abraham, by the address to him after the offering of Isaac, the promise which was before made to his faith, was rendered unchangeably firin at the close of his theocratic life. The present δικαιοῦται is explained, because the thought was to be expressed as a universal sentence. Ver. 25. To the example of Abraham, that of Rahab is added: But was not in like manner Rahab the harlot justified by works? The form of the sentence is the same as in ver. 21.—opolws δὲ καί] does not signify “even so” (as Frommann explains it in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 97), but by ὁμοίως the similarity of what Rahab became a partaker with what happened to Abraham is brought forward, whilst by δέ the diversity of the relation is indicated. This diversity is noted by the addition ἡ πόρνη. Rahab, namely, was a ' See remarks by the author in the April number of the Erlang. Zeitschrift Sitr Protest. Frank, in his reply (in the same, p. 220), combating the reference of δικαιοῦται to the final judgment, says: ‘If there was in the life of Abraham a justification by works, which may be considered as the type and testimony of the final acquittal, so there occurs also in the life of Christians such acts of justification by works, that they may also be regarded as a testimony and type of their future justification before the judgment-seat of God.” To this it is to be replied, that such an act of justification is here treated of by which the accounting of his faith for righteousness already imparted to the believer comes to its termination, as was here the case with Abraham. But this act, as - concerns Christian believers, occurs not in their earthly life, but only at the judgment. Philippi also incorrectly says that the reference to the judgment is not indicated, since it is sufficiently indicated by the whole context ; see remarks on ver. 14. 138 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, πόρνη ; nevertheless, on account of the works which she did (namely, her works of faith), she was declared righteous. Thus, by the addition of this example, the truth that a man is justified ἐξ ἔργων is yet further confirmed.’ The article ἡ is not, as some expositors think, demonstrative i/a; and πορνή means neither mulier cibaria vendens, nor caupona vel hospita (Lyranus, Grotius), nor idololatra (Rosenmiiller).—tmodeEapévn τοὺς ἀγγέλους x«.7.X.] This participial sentence mentions the ἔργα, on account of which Rahab was justified. The cor- rectness of the assertion, that Rahab was justified on account of her works, consists in this: that, according to the nar- rative contained in Josh. ii. and vi., life was on account of them granted to her, she was formally delivered from that punishment which befell Jericho; see Josh. vi. 24. Thus James could with right appeal for the truth of what was said in ver. 24 to this fact, since also the future declaration of righteousness will be an acquittal from punishment. — In Heb. xi. 31 the deliverance of Rahab is ascribed to her πίστις, but so that her action is likewise mentioned as the demonstration of it. Theile explains ὑποδεξαμένη ΞΞΞ clam excepit ; but Wiesinger correctly observes: “The secondary meaning clam is not contained in the word, but in the cir- cumstances ;” see Luke x. 38, xix. 6; Acts xvii. 7. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the simple verb δεξαμένη is used, and the ayyehou” are there more exactly designated as κατάσκοποι. ἐκβάλλειν is not simply emittere (Schneckenburger), but has the secondary meaning of force =¢hrust out ; comp. Luke viii. 54; John ii. 15; Acts ix. 40. It denotes the pressing haste with which she urged the messengers to go out of the house. 1 Bede assigns as a reason why Rahab is here adduced as an example : ne quis objiceret Abrahamum ejusque fidem excelsiorem esse, quam et quivis christianus imitatione eam adsequi possit. Grotius thinks: Abrahami exemplum Hebraeis ad Christum conversis sufficere debebat, sed quia etiam alienigenis scribit, adjunxit exemplum feminae extraneae (similarly Hofmann) ; and Schnecken- burger observes : novum additur exemplum e sexu muliebri sumtum. All these meanings are, however, arbitrary, as there is no indication of them in the words before us. This holds also good against Lange, according to whose opinion Rahab is here to be considered ‘‘as a representative of the Gentile Christians in their works of faith,” * Lange strangely supposes that James has chosen this expression “in allusion to the fact that the Gentiles of his time were ready to receive the messengers of the gospel.” CHAP. 11. 26. 139 ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ] we. by another way than from that by which they entered the house, namely, dua τῆς θυρίδος, Josh. ii. 15. For the local dative, see Winer, p. 196 [E. T. 273]. Ver. 26 is added as a reason (γάρ), primarily indeed, to what directly goes before (ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη), but thereby likewise to the universal sentiment contained in ver. 24. James here repeats the same judgment which he has already expressed (ver. 17) on πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ; yet heightens it by the comparison with σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος : for as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. — τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος] By σῶμα is to be under- stood the human body, and by πνεῦμα the vital principle animating it, by which it lives; whether James has con- templated πνεῦμα definitely as the intellectual spirit of man (as “the principle of the morally-determined and God- derived life peculiar to man”), or generally as the breath of life proceeding from God (see Gen. vi. 17, LXX.: πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐν ἢ ἐστὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς; Rev. xi. 11, xiii. 15), remains uncertain. With the body without the spirit, which is νεκρός, James compares (οὕτως is not “the sign of assurance = even so certainly,” Baumgarten) faith without works (the article τῶν denotes works as those which belong to mics, its correspond- ing works), which is also νεκρός. This comparison appears so far incongruous, as the relation of ἔργα to πίστις does not correspond with that of πνεῦμα to the σῶμα, since ἔργα are the fruit, and not the source of πίστις Therefore some interpreters have by ἔργα understood not works themselves, but love (Theile), or “the innermost life of faith in its outwardly operative and visible manifestation” (Frank); but such an exchange of ideas is not to be justified. Already some of the older expositors, as Gomar, Piscator, Laurentius, Wolf, and others, and recently Philippi (Theile is undecided), explain πνεῦμα =breath. This, however, is even linguistically objectionable, as πνεῦμα in the N. T. occurs in the meaning of breath proceeding out of the mouth only in 2 Thess. 11. 8, a passage in accordance with the O. T.; but also in sense this explanation is not justified, for although “the breath is the proof of the existence of life in the body” (Philippi), yet the 1 Lange denies the apparent incongruity, because ‘‘ the spirit also, in virtue of its actuality, effects the higher visibility of the body !” 140 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ideas breath and works have too great disparity between them to be parallelized with each other. It is more natural, with de Wette, Kern, Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Weiss, to assume that James intends not to compare the single members with each other (σῶμα with πίστις, and πνεῦμα with ἔργοις), but to make prominent that a faith which is χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, is thereby proved to be like to the body, in which the πνεῦμα, the source of life, is wanting—which is thus only a dead body. With this sentence, in which the idea expressed in ver. 17 is strongly confirmed, James closes this section, as from this it is self-evident that faith without works cannot effect justifica- tion for man, and consequently not σωτηρία, and therefore profits nothing (ver. 14). 1. The doctrine of James in this section is according to expression in opposition with that of the Apostle Paul (James: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον; Paul, Gal. 11.16: οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως; James asks: ᾿Αβραὰμ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαίωθη; Paul, in Rom. iv. 2, says: εἰ᾿Αϑραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἐχεῖ καύχημα, ἀ).)} οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν). It is asked whether also the sentiment of the one contradicts that of the other. Until the time of Luther, the conviction prevailed that the two agreed in thought. This is maintained in recent times by Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Lange, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others. Luther, on the contrary, was of opinion that the doctrine of James decidedly contradicted that of Paul; and the same view has been ex- pressed in recent times by de Wette, Kern, Baur, Schwegler, and others, also Rauch. (Thee is a middle view, that there is indeed a diversity of doctrine between Paul and James, but that this does not exclude a higher unity; thus Schmid, Weizsiicker (Reuter’s Repert. Oct. 1855), Lechler, and others. — Already Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede have, for the sake of harmonizing the difference, asserted that the ἔργα of James are different from those of which Paul speaks; Paul intends opera legis (Oecumenius: τὰ χατὰ νόμον σαβϑατισμῶν zal περιτομῆς καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγνισμῶν) ; James, on the contrary, opera jidei (Oecu- menius: ἔργα τὰ πίστιν βιβαιοῦντα). This is indeed true. Paul has to do with Judaizing opponents who maintained the necessity of circumcision, and consequently of all legal works ; but James, with such Christians who trusted to simple πέστις, and thought that this would secure their salvation, although destitute of corresponding works. Paul had thus to prove that ἔργα τοῦ νόμου Were not necessary ; James, that ἔργα τῆς πίστεως were necessary. Nevertheless, this recognition of the different CHAP. 11. 26. 141 relations does not suffice to an actual harmonizing of the difference ; for it has with truth been maintained that, according to the doctrinal system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works of law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede, but follow justitication.— Accordingly a different meaning of the term πίστις has been adopted, and it has been maintained that by πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων James under- stands only bare speculation (Oecumenius: ἡ ἁπλῆ συγκατάθεσις), the frigida et nuda notitia, or indeed even the falsa professio fidei. This is certainly not entirely suitable, though Paul does not know by name a πίστις νεκρά. But although it were correct, yet the recognition of this distinction does not suffice to reconcile the difference; for Wieseler is decidedly right when, against Schmid, Olshausen, Neander, and others, he remarks, that it is one thing to say, 70 be justified by faith which is proved by works, and another thing, 70 be justified by works in which faith is proved. Already by Calvin, Calovius, Gerhard, and others, and in recent times particularly by Hofmann, Wiesinger, Brickner, Lange, Philippi, and others, the wished- for reconciliation has been attempted to be brought about, by ascribing a different meaning to the word δικαιοῦσθαι in James from what it has in Paul; that James speaks not de actu, but de statu justificationis. But either thereby a meaning is assigned to the word which it never has, or there results trom it in James an idea inappropriate to the connection; see ex- position of the verses in question. Hengstenberg (Brief des Jakobus in the Evang. Kirchenz. 1866, No. 91-94) correctly maintains that δικαιοῦσθαι has with Paul and James the same meaning; but when he attempts to prove the agreement of the two modes of expression by the supposition that, as there are different stages of faith, so there are different stages of justifi- cation, and that James speaks of a more perfect justitication than Paul in the passages in question, this cannot be admitted, since it contradicts the nature of divine justification to conceive it as advancing from an imperfect to a more and more perfect stage. Even the justification at the last judgment is in itself not more perfect than that by which God in this life absolves the believer from his sins; the distinction consisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a present blessing, and that in all its fulness, which by the latter was conferred on him as a blessing yet future.’ 1 It is incorrect when Hengstenberg says : ‘‘ If by faith is understood genuine living faith, and by works genuine works proceeding from faith, justification by faith and justification by works can be taught without contradiction ;” since the justification of which Paul speaks is the reason and not the consequence of works of faith : on which account even Riggenbach (‘‘On Justification,” ete., in 142 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. The exposition given in the above pages has shown that the idea of the word δικαιοῦσθαι with James is none other than what it is with Paul, but that by it James has in view the justifica- tion that places believers at the last judgment in the full enjoy- ment of salvation, whereas Paul denotes by it the justification that puts believers already in this world in a gracious relation toward God. Only on this supposition does James say what he designs to say; for if δικαιοῦσθαι (so also σώζειν, ver. 14) refers to the judgment of God still in the future for believers, the proof that it has ἔργα for its essential condition effectually hits the opponent who thought to be able to obtain σωτηρία by an inoperative faith.— That the doctrine of James so under- stood is in agreement with that of Paul follows from the following remarks:—(1) James here evidently says nothing against the Pauline doctrine of justification, smce his ἐξ ἔργων does not refer to being placed in a new relation to God, of which there is no mention. The inquiry, by what this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his Epistle at all; yet it is to be observed that to him the foundation of the Christian life is zferic, and that he designates the new birth (chap. i. 18) as a work of God, which only takes place through the will of God, and indeed so that God implants the word of truth in man. That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction, but in agreement with Paul’s doctrine of justification, requires no proof. (2) The doctrine of Paul con- cerning the future judgment of believers does not conflict with what James says of δικαιοῦσθαι, although he does not use that expression in reference to it (except in Rom. 1. 13). It is to be observed, that Paul very definitely distinguishes the justify- ing act of God, by which the forgiveness of sins is adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the judicial act of God by which σωτηρία will either be adjudged or denied to the justified. Justification (so called by Paul) is conditioned on the part of man only by πίστις; the future σωτηρία will only be adjudged to him in whom πίστις has proved itself to be a working principle. As, on the one hand, it is incorrect to affirm that, according to Paul, he only is justified by πίστις with whom it does not remain inactive; so, on the other hand, it is incorrect to think that according to him no reference is taken of ἔργα in the judgment of God.’ Wiesinger, in proof that the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, Part II.) has not been able to approve of this assertion of Hengstenberg. It is also no less incorrect when Hengstenberg, in spite of ἐξ ἔργων... οὐκ ἐκ σίσσεως μόνον, ver. 24, thinks that ‘‘in James also faith alone is represented as justifying,” since James does not give the name of justification to God’s act of grace which is effectual in man only through faith. 1 By this it is not intended to be denied that Paul often combines the two CHAP. 11. 96. 143 Paul denies the justifying (the word taken in his sense) efficacy of an inoperative faith, adduces the passages, Rom. viii. 4, 13, xiii. 8-10; 1 Cor. vi. 7-11, 13; Gal. v. 6, 19-21; Eph. 11. 8-10; Col. 1. 10; Tit. 1. 14; but it is, on the contrary, to be observed that in none of these passages (except Eph. ii. 8, in the words ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως) 15 the discourse of being justified (δικαιοῦσθαι, in the sense of Paul). All these passages, however, prove that Paul makes the attainment of σωτηρία, or the future inheritance of the kingdom of God, conditioned on the ἔργοις of the justified. It is to be observed that in Gal. v. 6, πίστις OF ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη does not (as is almost universally assumed) refer to δικαιοῦσθαι, but to ἀπεκδέχεσθαι ἐλπίδα dixcso- σύνης, thus to the hope of those who are σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Further, in 1 Cor. vi. 11, the Christians, to whom Paul says ἀπελούσασθε, ἡγιάσθητε, ἐδικαιώθητε,, are exhorted to consider that the ἄδικοι shall not inherit the βασιλεία Θεοῦ; also, in Gal. v. 25, it is indicated that the ζῆν πνεύματι, which is peculiar to believers, must also be a στοιχεῖν πνεύματι; and lastly, Paul in 2 Cor. v. 10 says expressly that we all (that is, Christians who as such are δικαιωθέντες) must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὼ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἅ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγωθόν, εἴτε κακόν. From these passages, which might be greatly multiplied, it is not to be denied that Paul, as he definitely excludes every co-operation of human works in justification,’ so he no less definitely represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice of ἔργα τῆς πίστεως (see Hengstenberg, Lvangel. acts as one act of divine salvation, and also that he frequently refers the final salvation (not less than justification) purely to the grace of God. The problem is rather this, that, on the one hand, the final salvation is represented as a pure act of God’s grace, but, on the other hand, the final judgment is as definitely represented as an act carried into effect zara στὰ ἔργα; as by Paul, so in the Scriptures generally. The solution of this problem, however, belongs not to our present subject. 1 By ἡγιάσθητε and ἐδικαιώθητε a change of man’s disposition is not in itself designated, but the change of his relation to God effected by God. Meyer in loco incorrectly gives to the word δικαιοῦσθαι a meaning (namely, ‘‘to be made righteous”) which it has elsewhere neither with Paul nor in any other passage of the N. T. ? Even with the recognition of this undeniable fact, Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith is not always understood in strict precision. This is particularly the case when it is said, that according to Paul faith justifies, so far as it is a principle of new life, whereas it is rather the case that, according to him, faith is a principle of new life, because it justifies. Only when this is mis- understood can it be said, on the supposition that Paul and James understand by δικαιοῦν the same divine act, that between them there is no fundamental, but only an unessential contrast. See remarks of the author in the Zl. Zeitschr. April number, 1862, p. 214 f., where among other things it is said: ‘‘The reason of justification is not the ethical nature of faith, but solely and entirely 144 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, Kirchenztg. 1866, p. 1119 ff.).1 But if this is the case, then in reference to this point there occurs a difference between Paul and James, not in thought, but only in expression; namely, Paul denotes by the word δικαιοῦν that declaration of righteous- ness or acquittal by God, by which the believer is placed in a new filial relation to God; whilst James means that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which he who is born again as a child of God receives the σωτηρία imparted at the judgment ; but with both δικαιοῦν means “to declare righteous,” “to acquit,” but not “to prove one righteous,” or “to convert him into a righteous man.” So also, in what both say concerning Abraham, there is no difference in sentiment; the only difference is that ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην and ἐδικαιώθη are considered by James as two points, whilst Paul considers the second to be equivalent to the first. 2. If from what has been said it follows that the doctrine of James is not in contradiction with that of Paul, then every reason for the opinion that James wrote his Epistle with refer- ence to Paul falls to the ground. The employment of the same expressions by both is indeed surprising, but it is to be observed that these expressions have their origin neither in Paul nor in James, but already occur in the Ὁ. T. Paul uses the expres- SIONS δικαιοῦσθαι, δικαιοσύνη, δικαΐωσις, Chiefly in a relation foreign to the O. T., to which, however, he was led by the words ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην. James, on the contrary, uses them not in the appheation peculiar to Paul, but in the manner in which they are used in the O.T. Also the reference to Abraham by James is not to be explained on the ground that Paul confirms his doctrine of justification by what happened to Abraham; for, since James designed to appeal for his assertion to an O. T. type, it was entirely natural that his glance should first fall on Abraham; also the distinction is to be observed that James used Abraham only as an example, whereas Paul, as Schleier- macher correctly observes, “referred to him his entire peculiar system of doctrine, whilst he would trace back to him the special covenant of the people with God.” — From all this it follows that James neither designed an attack upon the Pauline doctrine itself, for in this case he would have been obliged to demonstrate the necessity of ἔργα νόμου, nor also an attack upon the merit of Christ or Christ Himself with whom faith, that is, faith in Christ, places us in connection. We are not justified for the sake of faith, but through faith (διὰ τῆς xicrsws) for the sake of Christ: thus it holds good for the justifica- tion which is by faith alone, that every reference to works is entirely excluded.” 1 The objection of Philippi, that the declaration of righteousness in the judgment takes place not ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, but only κατὰ τὰ ἔργα, is contradicted by the word of Christ, Matt. xii. 37. CHAP. II. 26. 145 a misunderstanding of it, for then he would have been obliged to show that his readers could only regard themselves as δικαιω- θέντες, When their faith was to them an impulse to the practice ot good works ;* rather the Pauline doctrine was unknown to him, since otherwise he would necessarily have conformed to Paul’s mode of representation. By this likewise the opinion is confirmed, that the composition of the Epistle belongs not to the later, but to the earlier apostolic times; see on this Sec. 4 of the Introduction, and the treatise of Weiss mentioned above; also his bibl. Theol. p. 124 f. 1 How the deductions of James are to be directed against a misunderstanding of the Pauline doctrine, if δικαιοῦσθαι has with him the meaning of ‘‘to be proved,” is in fact not to be understood, so much the less as the justifying power of faith assuredly does not depend on its being proved by works before men. Mryrr.—JAMES. 146 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, CHAPTER ΤΥ. Ver. 3. Instead of the Rec. Ἰδού, found only in some min., Griesbach has, after C, many min. etc., adopted ἤδε; however, εἰ 6¢ is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Wiesinger, de Wette, and others, after A B G K δὰ, many min. vss. etc. Not only does the preponderating weight of authorities testify for this, but also its difficulty. — Instead of πρὸς τὸ πείθεσθαι, Lachm. and Tisch. (approved by de Wette, Wiesinger, not by Bouman) have adopted εἰς τὸ =. (so B Ο &).—Lachm. has retained the Ree. αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν, after BG KX, etc.; Tisch. on the contrary, reads ἡμῖν αὐτούς, after A C.— Ver. 4. Instead of σκληρῶν ἀνέμων (A G, etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀνέμων σκληρῶν, after BC Καὶ 8, which according to authorities is to be considered as the correct read- ing. — Ver. 5. Lachm. and Tisch. 7 read μεγάλα αὐχεῖ (A C*) instead of the Rec. μεγαλαυχεῖ (Tisch. 2); attested by B C** G K κα, almost all min. — Whether we are to read, with the Ree., ὀλίγον πῦρ, or, With Lachm. and Tisch., ἡλίκον πῦρ, cannot with certainty be decided by authorities, since A* C* GK, etc., are in favour of the former, and A** B C8 of the latter reading. The latter reading, however, merits the preference, as it is not to be understood how ὀλήγον, suitable for the thought, should be exchanged for the difficult reading ἡλίκον; without sufficient reason, Kern, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman' would retain the reading of the Lec.— Ver. 6. Before the second ἡ γλῶσσα the Ree., after several min. etc., has οὕτως, which already Griesbach considered suspicious, and, after A B C KX, etc., is according to Lachm. and Tisch. to be erased ; it was evidently inserted in order to lighten the difficult construction; also de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, and others consider it spurious ; Reiche decides otherwise.— After γενέσεως δὲ only has ἡμῶν, which is evidently an interpretation. — There is great variation with regard to the sequence of the words δύναται, ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι (thus the Ree. after G; retained by Tisch.); B C, etc., read δωμάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων (Lachm.),and A Καὶ δ᾽, etc., read δύνατα, δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπων. It is evidently indifferent for the sense. — Instead 1 Bouman thinks that ἡλίκον arose from the following ἡλίκην; but it is more correct to assume that even on this account it was changed for the easily under- stood ὀλίγον, CHAP, III. 147 of the Rec. ἀκατάσχετον after C G K, etc., probably should be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., ἀκατάστατον, after A B X, etc. (approved by Wiesinger and Lange, rejected by Reiche and Bouman). — Ver. 9. The Ree. τὸν Θεόν after G K, etc., 15. to be changed for the better attested reading τὸν χύριον, after A B C x, etc., Lachm. Tisch.: the alteration is easily accounted for..— Ver. 12. According to the Ree. the last clause begins with οὕτως, after C** G K 8, some min. and vss., which already Griesbach considered suspicious; it is, according to the testi- mony of A B C, to be erased as an insertion. — The words which follow in the Rec. (after G K, etc.) are οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καὶ γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. ‘This reading, whose spuriousness was already recognised by Griesbach, is, as a correction for the sake of explanation, to be changed for οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ: attested by A B C, etc., and adopted by Griesbach, Lachm. Tisch. and others. ὃὲ reads οὐδέ. --- Ver. 13. Whether after ἐν ὑμῖν a comma is to be placed, with Lachm. and Buttm., or, with Tisch: and the Rec., a note of interrogation, see the explanation of the verse. — Ver. 14. Instead of é τῇ καρδίᾳ, δὲ has the plural ἐν ταῖς xapoiais. —In the same MS. τῆς ἀληθείας instead of after εύδεσθε stands after κατωκαυχᾶσθε. ---- Ver. 16. After ἐκεῖ, δὲ has inserted xa/,— Ver. 17. The κα of the Rec. between ἀδιάκριτος and ἀνυπόκριτος is, according to A B C καὶ, etc., to be erased as an insertion; so also in ver. 18 the article σῆς before δικαιοσύνης, according tt ABCG Καὶ κα, ete. With chap. ui. James passes to the treatment of a new theme, to which the conduct of the Christians, to whom this Epistle was directed, likewise gave occasion. It is that which was already indicated by βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι in chap. 1. 17, and by μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ in chap. 1. 206. The more unfruitful faith was in works corresponding to it (especially the works of compassionate love), the more did “the loquacious teaching and ruling of others” (Wiesinger) prevail. Words had taken the place of works. This section, which is closely united with the preceding, treats of this; yet without “any hidden indication contained im it that it was the doctrine of faith which was an object of controversy ” (de Wette); for in the whole Epistle there is not the slightest indication of controversies in the churches in question. The fault refers to the same with which Paul in Rom. ii. 17 ff. blames the Jews, only that with these Christians πίστις, which ' Bouman erroneously thinks that Θεόν was changed for κύριον in order that a mention of Christ might once take place. 148 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. was to them something entirely external, took the place of νόμος. The moral relation was essentially the same. The warning (as in chap. 11. 1) stands first, and the reason assigned for it follows: “ Be not in great numbers teachers, my brethren, considering that we will receive a heavier judgment.” Calvin, Piscator, Laurentius, Baumgarten, and others arbitrarily refer this warning to the unauthorized judging and condemning of each other; by this explanation the idea διδάσκαλοι does not receive its proper meaning. On the other hand, we are not to think of persons rushing into the proper muwius docendi (Bede, Semler, Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, and others), but on the free teaching in the congregation which was not yet joined to a particular office, but appertained to every one who felt himself called to Τῦ.---- πολλοί belongs not to γίνεσθε (πολλοὶ γίγνεσθαι -- multiplicari, Gen. vi. 1; Schneckenburger), but is either the subject (de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman) or forms the predicate united with διδάσκαλοι. In the first case, however, γινέσθωσαν would more naturally stand instead of γίνεσθε ; also from the second construction a more important thought arises; therefore it is to be explained: “Be not many teachers,” that is: “ Be not a multitude of teachers” (Lange). It is inaccurate to explain πολλοί = πάντες (Grotius); it is false to explain it = nimii in docendo (Baumgarten : “be not excessive, vigorous judges ”). The verb γίνεσθε has here the same meaning as in chap. i. 22. — With εἰδότες «.7.d.] James points to the reason of μὴ... γίνεσθε; yet εἰδότες being closely joined to the imperative is itself hortatory: considering. In the phrase κρῖμα λαμβάνειν, κρῖμα has in the N. Τ᾿ usage undoubtedly the meaning con- demnation ; comp. Matt. xxii. 13 (Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47); Rom. xiii. 2; but also elsewhere the word occurs in the N. T. almost entirely in this meaning, which Lange incorrectly denies (see Cremer). Because James includes himself, many expositors have been induced to take κρῖμα here as vox media (so also Lange), but it is to be considered that James does not use this expression as if the sentence of condemnation could not be removed (see chap. ii. 13); only this is evident to him, that the severer (μεῖζον) the condemna- tion, so much the more difficult is it to be delivered from its execution. The comparative μεῖζον (not = too great, Pott) is CHAP, 111. 2. 149 explained from a comparison with others who are not teachers. Ver. 2. The reason (yap) of the preceding; yet not so much of the warning: μὴ... γίνεσθε (Schneckenburger), — this is conditioned by εἰδότες «.7.X.,—as rather of the thought μεῖζον κρῖμα ληψόμεθα; namely, so that the first clause refers only to κρῖμα ληψόμεθα, and only that which follows to the idea μεῖζον ; whilst in the expression εἴ τις x.7.r. the idea is contained, that as οὐ πταίειν ἐν λόγῳ conditions τελειότης, sinful man is thus not in a position to bridle the tongue. Briickner incorrectly considers the clause εἴ tus κτλ. as the explanatory reason of the directly preceding sentence: “we all offend frequently, for whosoever offends not in word he only preserves himself from πολλὰ πταίειν." —The words πολλὰ πταίομεν ἅπαντες] are to be taken in their widest sense (Wiesinger, Briickner); by ἅπαντες (a stronger form than πάντες) neither the διδάσκαλοι simply are meant, nor is it = plerique (Grotius), and πταίειν points not expressly to errores, qui docentibus obvenire possint (Grotius), or to “speech which is used in teaching” (de Wette), but it comprehends all and every moral error of whatever kind it may be.'— πολλά] is adverbial, as in Matt. ix. 14. — To this first thought that which follows is annexed ἀσυνδέτως. --- εἴ τις] see chap. i. 5, 23, 26 = ὅστις. --- ἐν λόγῳ] is not to be limited to teaching proper (Pott -- ἐν διδασκαλίᾳ), but is equivalent to ἐν τῷ λαλῆσαι, chap. 1. 19; ἐν denotes the sphere within which the οὐ πταίειν occurs; otherwise in chap. 11. 10. On ov after εἰ, see on chap. li. 11.— To οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ, ἐστι is to be supplied ; οὗτος is emphatic ; what follows δυνατὸς «.7.r. is in apposition to τέλ. ἀνήρ; the word ἀνήρ is used here as in chap. i. 8.— The meaning is: Who- soever offends (sins) not in speech, and thus is able to bridle his tongue, proves himself thereby to be a perfect man who is able to rule also the whole body, that is, all the other members, so that it is subject to his will. James here places the body in opposition to the man “as a relative independent power 1 Briickner correctly asserts, against de Wette, that the subject in ἅπαντες has experienced an extension, and that the circumstance that in what follows ἐν λόγῳ πταίειν is particularly brought forward, requires for πταίξιν here a more universal meaning. 150 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. which offers moral resistance to the will of the Ego” (Wiesinger), which it is his task to bridle. The καρδία, indeed, is the fountain of evil deeds (Matt. xv. 19), but the lust which is rooted therein has so thoroughly appropriated the members of man, and as it were fixed its dwelling in them (Rom. vii. 23), that they appear as lusting subjects, and may be represented as such in lively concrete language. By such explanations as ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, equivalent to “the whole connection of the actions and changes of man” (Baum- garten), or = reliquae peccandi illecebrae (Pott), or = tota vita (Schneckenburger), the idea lying at the foundation does not receive its full meaning. Even the remark of de Wette, that τὸ σῶμα denotes “not only all organs proper, but even the affections,” is not to be retained; on which account Briickner adds: “the latter only in so far as they are expressed by the former.” The explanation of Lange is also arbitrary, that the body here denotes the organ and symbol of all other modes of human action, with the exception of speech. Laurentius rightly observes: nihil obstat, quo minus per totum corpus intelligamus caetera corporis nostri membra: manus, pedes, etc. Vv. 3, 4. Two comparisons by which the thought εἴ tis ἐν λόγῳ «.7.A. is illustrated and confirmed. It is incorrect when it is assumed that “James, with vv. 3 and 4, will primarily explain and establish by exampies the importance, maintained in ver. 2, of power over a little thing, as the tongue, for the government of the whole” (Wiesinger), and that the tertiwm comparationis is “a little thing does much” (Gunkel) ; for neither in ver. 2 is the smallness of the tongue mentioned, nor in ver. 3 is the smallness of the bridle brought forward. The examples adduced, which are closely attached to the preceding, are rather designed to prove how by the mastery of the tongue that of the whole body is possible ; it is, James will say, even as one rules the horse by the guidance of the bridle, and the ship by the guidance of the helm. Only in the second image does the smallness of that by which the steersman rules the great ship appear to James as something important, so that he dwells upon this point in what follows (so also Lange). Ver. 3. But if we put bridles in the mouths of horses, we CHAP, III. 4. L51 turn also their whole body. The clause καὶ ὅλον x.7.r. forms the apodosis to the protasis beginning with εἰ (Pott, Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman). Many expositors incorrectly attach this clause to the protasis, whereby Theile regards ver. 5 as the apodosis belonging to it, whilst others supply a thought as the apodosis; according to de Wette, this thought is, that “the tongue is not so easily tamed as a horse,” which is wholly unsuitable."— The particle δέ is not, with Theile, to be explained as closely connecting this verse to the following,’ for here and in ver. 4 nothing else than a contrast to ver. 2 is to be expressed; it is rather used here even as in chap. li. 15, simply distinguishing the case adduced for comparison from that for the sake of which it is imtroduced (Wiesinger). By τῶν ἵππων standing first, the view is at once directed to the object by which the sentiment ex- pressed is to be illustrated (comp. ver. 4). The genitive depends not on τοὺς χαλινούς (Theile, Lange, and others), but on τὼ στόματα (Oecumenius, Hornejus, Pott, Gebser ; Bouman wavers), for on this word the emphasis rests. τοὺς χαλινούς points back to χαλιναγωγῆσαι, ver. 2, by which apparently this image was suggested to James. — On the phrase: εἰς τὰ στόματα βάλλειν, comp. in Aelian: χαλινὸν ἵππῳ ἐμβάλλειν. — The words εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι ἡμῖν αὐτούς are for the pur- pose of accentuating the governing of the horse by the bridle put into its mouth. The apodosis καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα κ.τ.λ. corresponds to yadwayoyjcas καὶ ὅλον TO σῶμα, ver. 2.— μετάγειν] in the N. T. only here and in ver. 4, is =cir- cumagere. The tertiwm comparationis lies in εἰς τὰ στόματα ; for, as Bengel correctly remarks: in ore lingua est, and ov πταίειν ἐν λόγῳ, is identical with the bridling of the tongue in the mouth. Ver. 4. The second comparison is emphatically indicated by ἰδού. καί is either also or even so. Wiesinger prefers the second meaning, which certainly gives to the thought a * Bede supplies: quanto amplius decet, ut nobis ipsis frenum continentiae in ora mittamus ; Lorinus: si hoc in equis contingit, simile quid oportet circa linguam procurari ; Hottinger: eodem modo qui linguam coercere potest, toti corpori facile moderabitur. * Theile says: Ita a difficultate linguam moderandi transitus fit ad necessi- tatem: in memoriam vocatur, exigua saepe esse, quibus ingentia moveantur non solum in bonam (vy. 3, 4), sed maxime etiam in malam partem. 152 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. peculiar emphasis. The participles ὄντα... ἐλαυνόμενα are to be resolved by although. Both participial sentences bring forward the difficulty of guiding the ship, in order to cause the power of the small helm to be recognised. It is possible that in the second clause: καὶ... ἐλαυνόμενα, there is an allusion to the lusts moving man (Bede: venti validi.. . ipsi appetitus sunt mentium), or “to the temptations (πειρασμοί) of the world, coming from without” (Lange).— σκληρός] is also used of the wind in Prov. xxvii. 16 (so also Aelian, de animal. v. 15, 1x. 14; Dio Chrysostom, 111. p. 44 C). — The verb petayerat united with τὰ πλοῖα is the same as in ver. ὃ. The words ὑπὸ ἐλαχίστου πηδαλίου] mention by what this guidance takes place. On ὑπό, see chap. i. 14. By the addition of ἐλαχίστου a new point is ‘introduced which is retained in what follows. The superlative is for the purpose of bringing more strongly forward the smallness of the πηδάλιον in contrast to the great ship (τηλικαῦτα ὄντα). The counterpart is the little tongue (ver. 5).—The addition : whithersoever the desire of the steersman willeth, is not superfluous ; it expresses—in opposition to ὑπὸ ἀνέμων ἐλαυ- νόμενα ---- the free mastery of him who steers the ship, which he exercises over it by means of the helm, and corresponds to εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι x.7.r., ver. 3.— ὅπου] (instead of ὅποι, which does not occur in the N. T.) is found also in the classics united with verbs of motion, particularly with τιθέναι, but also with βαίνειν; Sophocles, Trach. 40: κεῖνος ὅπου βέβηκεν. By ὁρμή is not to be understood the external impulse, or “the pressure which the steersman exercises ” (Erasmus, Semler, Augusti, Stolz, Pott, Theile, Wiesinger), also not “the course of the navigator kept in action by the helm” (Lange); by both of these interpretations a meaning is imposed upon the word foreign to it. It rather indicates, as in Acts xiv. 5 (see Meier in loco), the cuger will, the desire of something (in Plato, Phil. p. 35 D, it is used as synonymous with ἐπιθυμία); thus Bede, Calvin, Grotius, Baumgarten, Gebser, de Wette, and others.— The participle ὁ εὐθύνων indicates him who sits at the helm and directs the ship; it is thus not -- ὁ εὐθυντήρ (Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger). Luther correctly translates it according to its meaning: “whether he wills who governs it.” — For corresponding CHAP. III. 5. 50 passages from the classics, see in Wetstein, Gebser, Theile ; particularly Aristotle, Quaest. mechan. 11. 5. Ver. 5. Application of the comparison, particularly of the second illustration, μικρόν pointing back to ἐλαχίστου. --- μεγαλαυχεῖν] which expresses the contrast to μικρόν, is not = μεγάλα ἐργάζεσθαι (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Laurentius, Pott, Bouman, and others), for the idea of doing is precisely not contained in the word, but it denotes proud conduct in word and behaviour, which has for supposition the performance of great things, and is always used in a bad sense. This certainly does not appear to suit οὕτως, as in the preceding the discourse is not about talking, on which account Lange prefers the reading μεγάλα αὐχεῖ; but also this expression = “ boasteth great things,” does not exclude, but includes that secondary meaning, for why would not James otherwise have written simply μεγάλα ποιεῖ But οὕτως is so far not unsuitable, as the performance of great things—as they are spoken of in the foregoing—forms the reason of the boasting of the tongue. On a mere ‘énanis jactatio it is not natural here to think. This first clause already points to what follows, where the destructive power of the tongue is described. This description begins with a ficure: “ What a fire kindles what a forest.” In justification of the reading ἡλίκον (instead of ὀλίγον), de Wette (with whom Briickner agrees), translating ἡλίκον πῦρ: “what a great fire,” observes, “ that the burning of the forest is contemplated in its whole extent.” But the verb ἀνάπτει, as Wiesinger correctly observes, is opposed to this explanation; also this clause forms the transition from the foregoing to what follows, and therefore must still contain the reference to μικρόν, which certainly is afterwards laid aside. This does not, however, constrain us to the rejection of the reading ἡλίκον (against Wiesinger and Bouman), since this word, which indeed chiefly emphasizes greatness, can also be used to give prominence to smallness; see Pape. The older expositors, according to its meaning, correctly explained the quantus of the Vulgate by qguantulus ; thus Cajetan., Paes, and others ; the same explanation by Lange. If Briickner thinks that it is not appropriate to take ἡλίκον here in this signification, owing to the following ἡλίκην, it is, on the contrary, to be 154 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. observed that precisely the opposition of the same word in a different signification is entirely in accordance with the live- liness of the sentiment. — On the use of ἡλίκος in the interro- gative explanatory sense, see A. Buttmann, p. 217 [Εἰ T. 253]. Erasmus, Laurentius, Grotius, Baumgarten, Augusti explain the word ὕλη by materia, lignorum congeries, as it has in Ecclus. xxviii. 10 the signification of fuel ; but the image is evidently much more lively and graphic when ὕλη is retained in its usual meaning: forest. Corresponding descriptions in Homer, Jl. xi. 155. Pindar, Pyth. 111... 66; see also Ecclus. xi. 32. Philo, de migr. Abrah. 407 A. In Stobaeus it is said: Parva facula cacumen Idae incendi potest. Ver. 6. Application of the image: Also the tongue is a fire, the world of unrighteousness ; the tongue sets itself among our members, as that which defileth the whole body and kindleth the wheel (of life) revolving from birth, and is kindled of hell. As a (little) fire setteth a forest in conflagration, so also the tongue kindleth the whole life of man. Such is the de- structive power of the tongue, that whosoever knows how to bridle it may with truth be called a perfect man (ver. 2).— Several interpreters divide the first clause: καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, Into two corresponding parts, supplying the idea ὕλη to ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας; thus Morus: igni respondet lingua, materiae seu silvae respondet mundus improbus. Mani- festly wholly arbitrary ; rather the words ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας form an apposition to ἡ γλῶσσα, by which the power of the tongue similar to destructive fire is explained. κόσμος has here the same meaning as in LXX. Prov. xvii. 6 : ὅλος κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων ;\ thus the multitude comprehending the indi- vidual: consequently ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας is the fulness of unrighteousness. The tongue is so called because, as the organ of ὀργή, it includes a fulness (not exactly the sum- total) of unrighteousness which from it pervades the other members (ὅλον τὸ σῶμα). Calvin correctly, according to the sense: acsi vocaret mare vel abyssum (Luther inaccurately: “a world full of wickedness”). This is the explanation of most expositors. Bouman correctly explains the definite article: famosus iste mundus iniquitatis. The following are other i Tt is to be observed that the LXX. often translate the Hebrew Sly by κόσμος ; see Gen. ii. 1; Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3; Isa. xxiv. 21, xl. 26. CHAP, III. 6. 155 explanations :—(1) Oecumenius takes xooos—ornament, and explains: ἡ γλῶσσα κοσμεῖ τὴν ἀδικίαν διὰ τῆς τῶν ῥητόρων εὐγλώττου δεινότητος : similarly Wetstein, Semler, Elsner, Rosenmiiller, Storr, Lange* (Wahl is doubtful). But κόσμος never signifies in an active sense that which puts an ornament on another, but always the ornament itself, that wherewith a person adorns himself (or another). (2) Bretschneider like- wise takes the word as equivalent to ornament, but supplies ws, and explains: ut ornatus (mulierum) inhonestus 50. in- quinat mentes, sic lingua deprehenditur inter corporis membra id quod totum corpus inquinat ; yet evidently more arbitrarily than the foregoing explanation. (3) Theile retains the usual meaning of the word world, and explains: lingua (est ignis), mundus (vero est) improbitatis 1. e. improbitate plenus, nimi- rum ob illam ipsam linguae vim; but apart from the inad- missible supplements rendered necessary, and the harshness contained in this combination of the genitive, this explanation is to be rejected, because by it the words would contain an assertion on the nature of the world, instead of on the nature of the tongue. (4) Estius, indeed, is right in his comprehension of the idea, but he arbitrarily understands it as causative: quia (lingua) peccata omnigena parit; so also Herder: “the mainspring and the cause of all unrighteousness.” Gebser introduces something foreign into the explanation, taking κόσμος =the wicked world. .Clericus, Hammond, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and Hottinger, without any sufficient reason, think that the words are to be expunged from the text as spurious. — Whilst almost all expositors refer ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας to what pre- cedes (to which, according to the reading of the Lec. which has οὕτως before the following ἡ γλῶσσα, it necessarily belongs), Tischendorf has put a point after πῦρ but not after ἀδικίας ." and Neander translates: “As a world full of unrighteousness, the tongue is among our members;” so also Lange construes 1 Lange, indeed, grants that κόσμος is not an active idea, but he yet thinks that we must return to the original signification of the word, and he then explains it: “‘the tongue is the form of the world, worldliness, or worldly culture, because it is that which sophistically, etc., gives to unrighteousness its worldly . and even splendid form.” But is not the idea so explained taken in an active sense ? * Lachmann and Buttmann have, by leaving out the punctuation, left the pointing to the expositor. a ΕΟ ΟΣ TNE EPISTLE OF JAMES. it. But this construction is not only difficult, but isolates too much the first thought ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, which only has a correct meaning when it is closely connected with what follows. — The new clause accordingly begins with ἡ γλῶσσα, and καθίσταται has its necessary supplement in what follows : ἡ σπιλοῦσα κτλ. --- καθίσταται] can neither here nor in chap. iv. + mean τέ stands: the perfect only has this meaning, but not the present; it means: 7 sets itself, it appears (Wiesinger). Also the explanations are false: “it is so placed” (Pott) ; collocata est (Beza, Piscator, Schneckenburger) ; “it becomes (such)” (de Wette, appealing to Rom. v. 19), and “it rules” (Lange, appealing to Heb. viii. 3). Theile arbitrarily completes the idea: haud raro. The words which follow mention how the tongue appears among the members— as that which defileth the whole body. ‘The idea σπιλοῦν, to which certainly πῦρ is not suited, is suggested by the apposition ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας. Only with the following participle does James carry on the image of fire ; it is artificial to assume in σπίλοῦν a reference to it. Bengel: maculans, ut ignis per fumum; comp. on this passage Eccles. v. 5. Neither the double καί (for how often the several καί succeed each other in a simple copulative sense!) nor the omission of the article before the two participles (comp. chap. iv. 11, 14) proves that the participles which follow καὶ φλογίζουσα and καὶ φλογιζομένη are subordinated to σπιλοῦσα (Wiesinger). This construction could only be considered as correct if the two participles analyzed the idea σπιλοῦσα Or. τ. σῶμα into its individual parts or confirmed it; but neither of these is the case here; they rather add to this idea two new points. The object τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως, belonging to φλογίζουσα, has found very different explanations. The word τροχός, according to its etymology, denotes something running, and, although used of other rotatory orbs, as particularly of the potter's wheel, it is especially used as a designation of a wheel, 1 Kings vii. 30 ff; Ezek. 1. 1ὅ, 19, 20. The word γένεσις can here be only in the same sense as in chap. 1. 23 ; the compound idea: the wheel of birth, i.e. “the wheel revolving from birth,” is a figurative designation of human life; comp. Anacreon, Od. iv. 7: τροχὸς ἅρματος yap ola βίοτος τρέχει κυλισθείς. Thus Gebser in particular correctly explains it: CHAP. III. 6. 157 “the wheel which is set in motion from our birth, 1.6. a poetical description of life;” so also Briickner and Bouman. The explanations of Oecumenius (τροχός ὁ βίος ὡς εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀνελιττόμενος), Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, Pott, Neander, amount to the same thing. Also Estius, Grotius, Carpzov, Michaelis understand life, only deriving this idea in a different manner. They explain τροχός (for which Grotius would read TpoYos)—=cursus, yéveots—=natura, and cursus naturae—vita ; by this explanation, however, the figurative nature of the expression suffers. Wiesinger (with whom Rauch agrees), deviating from this explanation, prefers to understand by it the whole body (ὅλον τὸ σῶμα), τροχός denoting either the wheel (by which, then, τροχὸς τ. γεν. would be the revolving wheel of existence, of life, namely, of that to which the tongue belongs), or (which Wiesinger prefers) the circumference (thus τροχ. τ. γεν. would be the circumference of being, ic. the circumference belonging to the tongue from birth, native to it). But, on the one hand, it is not to be supposed that James, after using the ordinary expression ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, should express the same thing figuratively without the least indication of the identity of meaning; and, on the other hand, it is opposed to the first interpretation that the body is not to be represented as a wheel, and to the second that τροχός is taken in a sense which it never has, for it never means the circumference, but at the most the rownd border which incloses something. Other expositors go beyond the restriction of the expression to the life of the individual,—which is evidently required by the foregoing ὅλον τὸ odma,—either, with Wolf, appealing to the Hebrew ninbin 2303, explaining it: indesinens successio hominum aliorum post alios nascentium (thus Lambert, Bos, Alberti, Augusti, Stiudlin),' or taking τροχός = κύκλος, γένεσις --- κτίσις, and accordingly tpoy. τ. γενέσεως --- “ the circle of creation;” thus de Wette, and among the earlier interpreters Beza (in the edition of 1565), Crusius, Coccejus. All these ideas are foreign to the context. If the first explanation drags something “foreign” into it, the second bears besides “a monstrous character” (Wiesinger). Still less is the explanation of Lange to be justified: “the wheel of the 1 Already the Syriac version translates: incendit proventus generationum hostrarum, quae currunt sicut rotae. 158 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. development of life, primarily of the Jewish nation, and then further of all mankind,” since γένεσις never denotes develop- ment of life. The following are other explanations which are refuted by their arbitrariness and rarity’:—(1) that of Semler, who explains it ordo generandi, according to the expression occurring in Plutarch: ποταμὸν τῆς γενέσεως ἐνδελεχῶς ; (2) that of Bengel rota sive sphaera superior est ipsa natura humana rationalis; gehenna vero est pars profundior cor; lingua in medio ex infe- rioribus inflammatur et superiora inflammat ; (3) that of Meyer (Observatt. ad ep. Jacobi), who takes the expression = sanguinis orbis seu circulato; lastly, (4) that of Kype, who assumes the rota poenalis is figuratively meant cujus radiis illigabantur rei, and accordingly φλογίζειν τὸν τροχ. τ. γενέσεως Means: augere vitae hujus cruciatus. The verb φλογίζειν is in the N. T. da. λεγ.; in the LXX. it is found in Ex. ix. 24; Num. xxi. 14; Ps. xcvii. 3, and other places. The figurative expression, which refers back to πῦρ, indicates the fatal effect which the tongue, from which the pollution of the whole body proceeds, exercises on the life of man, whilst it pervades the same by its passionate heat. James so. presents it, that being ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, and thus concentrating in itself (or in word) a fulness of un- righteousness, it forms, as it were, the axle round which the wheel of life moves, and by which it is set on fire. Morus incorrectly understands φλογίζειν “de damnis, quae lingua dat ;” but the discourse is not concerning the injury which man suffers, but concerning his moral conduct; still less corre- sponding is the explanation of Michaelis, according to which φλογίζειν = to inflame, and that in the words of James the thought is contained: “lingua saepe alii excitantur, ut insano studio mala ingrediantur.”. The representation that the tongue defiles the whole body and sets the life on fire is, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, not to be justified by the remark that all sins have their foundation in the sins of the tongue, but rests on the observation that ὀργή, before it manifests itself in other ways, first and foremost appears in word, and thus the tongue is its most direct organ. The second participial sentence 1 The view that James considered the tongue as the source of all sin is erroneous, since he, however prominently he brings forward the destructive " CHAP. ΤΠ 1, 8: 159 states whence the tongue receives this destructive power (φλογίζειν), by which also the idea that it is κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας finds its justification. The participle φλογιζομένη is to be re- tained in the sense of the present ; it has neither the meaning of the perfect, as if the tongue had been only once set on fire by yeévva, nor is it, with Grotius, Mill, Benson, Semler, Storr, Rosenmiiller, to be taken as future, and to be referred to future punishment. The expression yeévva, except in the Synoptics, is only found here; in Matt. v. 22, xviii. 9, Mark ix. 47, it is used for a more exact description of the genitive τοῦ πυρός. The thought that the tongue is set on fire of hell is not to be explained away either by ex inferno being para- phrased by Theile by igne diabolico, and this by igne foedis- simo ac funestissimo; or by being explained with Morus: tantus est ille ignis, ut ex geennae igne videatur esse incensus. James means that as ἐπιθυμία (or more precisely ὀργή), whose most direct organ is the tongue, has its origin from the devil, it is thus from hell (see ver. 15). Also in the O. T. the injurious effects of the tongue are described; see Ps, lii. 4, exx. 3, 4, Prov. xvi. 27, and other passages (Ecclus. v. 13 ff, xxvii. 11 ff.) ; yet in all these passages the discourse is only on the evil which is inflicted by it on others, or on the punishment which befalls the man who misuses it. This peculiar thought of James has its counterpart in no passage of the O. T. Vv. 7, 8. In these verses the untameable power of the tongue is adduced. The particle γάρ here indicates neither simply the transition (Pott), nor is it to be referred to peya- λαυχεῖ (Wiesinger), separated from it by vv. 5, 6, nor only to the last thought, φλογιζομένη «.7.r..(Lange); but it is used as a logical particle, whilst the truth expressed in these verses substantiates the judgment contained in vv. 5,6. ‘The rela- tion of these two verses to each other is, that ver. 8 contains the principal thought, and ver. 7, on the other hand, a thought subordinate to it, which is only added in order to make that thought more emphatic. The meaning is: Whereas man tames all animals, yet he cannot tame the tongue. By φύσις power of the tongue, yet never asserts this, The restriction to ὀργή is justified by the Epistle itself. See i. 19, 20, 26, ii. 9, 10, 13 (the opposite ἐν πραύτητι σοφίας}; 14, etc, According to this, in this edition the text in some places has been rectified. -“ 160 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. is to be understood not the genus (Augusti, Gebser, Bretsch- neider, Schneckenburger), but the qualitas naturalis, and in such a manner that James has in view not the relation of the individual man to the individual beast, but the relation of human nature to animal nature in general, however this may differ in the different kinds of animals. The totality of beasts is expressed by four classes, which are arranged in pairs, namely, quadrupeds and birds, creeping beasts and fishes. — θηρία] are not “beasts generally” (Pott), nor specially “ wild beasts” (Erasmus, Vatablus, Piscator, Baumgarten, Theile, Bouman). — τὰ ἑρπετά] are neither terrestrial animals generally (Pott, Hottinger), nor only serpents (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and others), but it is used here in the same meaning as in Gen. i. 24, 25 (LXX. ἑρπετά, as the translation of #7); see Acts x. 12; Rom. i. 23. — ἐνάλια] (Gr. Ney.) denotes either fish simply, or likewise all worms living in the water; Luthe1 incorrectly translates it “sea wonders,” and Stier “sea mon- sters.” There is here the same classification as in Gen. ix. 2 in the LXX. (which may have been before the mind of James): τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς, τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὰ κινού- μενα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οἱ ἰχθύεις τῆς θαλάσσης. The dominion of human nature over the brute creation is expressed by the verb dapatew (1... so to subdue, that what is subdued submits to the will of the subduer), because it supposes the subjection of something resisting (see Mark v. 4). That James only thought on wild animals does not follow from this. The perfect deda- μασται is added to the present δαμάζεται in order to repre- sent the present taming as that which had already taken place in the past. It is incorrect to resolve δαμάξεται into δαμά- ζεσθαι δύναται (Hottinger, Schneckenburger), for it treats not only of the possibility, but of the actuality.— τῇ φύσει τ. av@p.| is not the dat. commodi, but the dative used with the passive, instead of the construction with ὑπό. φύσις has the same meaning as before ; accordingly not ingenii solertia (Hor- nejus, Hottinger, Schneckenburger). Ver. 8. The chief thought is marked by δέ, as a contrast to the foregoing. With τὴν γλῶσσαν is meant not the tongue of others (Estius, Grotius, Hornejus, Baumgarten), but one’s own tongue (according to Lange, both are indicated, the last primarily). The remark of Bengel is also unsuitable: nemo CHAP, III. 9, 10. 161 alius, vix ipse quisque. The words οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαωάξειν (or more correctly, after BC: οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων, because the accent is on δαμάσαι) are to be under- stood in all their sharpness ; the weakening completion of the Schol. in Matthaei: εὐκόλως δηλαδὴ Kal ἄνευ πόνου, is false. By this thought, what was said in ver. 2 now receives its full light. The moral earnestness of the author urges him at the close to the exclamation: ἀκατάστατον κακόν x.T.r.; hence the independent form of this addition (see Winer, p. 471 [E. T. 668]). By ἀκατάστατον (unsteady, restless, see chap. i. 8) the unrest of the passions is indicated, not simply with reference to what follows, wnsteadfasiness (de Wette); comp. Hermas, Past. 11. mand. 2: πονηρὸν πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ καταλαλία, καὶ ἀκατάστατον δαιμόνιον. This reading is to be preferred to that of the Rec. ἀκατάσχετον (not to be tamed), “because it adds a new idea after οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι Suv. avOp.” (Wiesinger). — The image of the poisonous serpent les at the foundation of the second exclamation: μεστὴ ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου ; comp. Ps. exl. 4. Vv. 9, 10 are closely connected with the foregoing; but not as if “the unstedfastness of the tongue is further described” (de Wette), nor as if the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the purpose of prominently show- ing how the tongue, although it praises God, yet proves itself to be an ἀκατάστατον κάκον, μεστὴ τοῦ Gavat. It is to be observed that this expression, as the first person plural shows, refers to Christians among whom the εὐλογεῖν Tov κύριον occurs. James does not hesitate to include himself, knowing that naturally he was entirely the same as others." James first places beside each other, by a simple copulative conjunction, the two contradictory acts which man performs by the tongue, namely, the εὐλογεῖν τὸν κύριον and the καταρᾶσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώ- πους. The preposition ἐν is instrumental, as in Luke xxii, 29 and elsewhere. By the repetition of ἐν αὐτῇ in the second clause, the antithesis is yet more strongly marked. εὐλογεῖν 1 Lange finds a difficulty in James including himself, ‘‘ which is to be solved either by taking the second clause as a question expressive of surprise, or by hearing James speak as the representative of his people in the name of the guilty people.” But both suppositions are equally impossible ; the context contradicts the first, and the fact that James could have no reason to consider himself as the representative of the Jewish people contradicts the second, MEYER. —JAMES, L 162 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. and καταρᾶσθαι are correlate expressions, since the former, as the translation of the Hebrew 972, has properly the mean- ing “to bless;” in reference to God, as here, it means laudibus celebrare, to praise; comp. Ps. exlv. 21, and other passages. —The combination of τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα (instead of the Ree. τὸν Θεὸν κ. 7.) as a designation of God (for by κύριος is not here to be understood Christ) is unusual; comp. chap. i. 27. This twofold name designates God on the side of His power and on the side of His love (comp. Matt. xi. 25).— In the second clause the important description: τοὺς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ γεγονότας, is annexed to τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, by which the contradiction of the action described still more pointedly appears. The thought and expression agree with Gen. i. 26. Also, according to this, sinful man is still a being created after the image of God. Were the expression merely to be referred to what man originally was, but which he has ceased to be, the point of James’ saying would be broken. Bengel correctly observes: remanet nobilitas indelebilis. Ben- son, Pott, Gebser, and Semler arbitrarily restrict the contents of this verse to the conduct of those who set themselves up as teachers.’ Ver. 10. First a repetition of the saying in brief expressive combination, by which the accent is placed on αὐτοῦ. With the words οὐ χρὴ ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι, James adds the con- demnation of the conduct described. — The impersonal verb χρή is in the N. Τὶ dz. Aey.; the usual word is δεῖ, from which it does not differ in meaning. —tadta οὕτως) The union of these two words serves for the sharpening of the idea; ταῦτα designates the contents; οὕτως, the form of the action; incor- rectly Bengel: ταῦτα bona; οὕτω adjunctis malis. Ver, 11. Illustration of the unnaturalness of the conduct mentioned by an image taken from nature: Does the fountain from the same hole send forth the sweet and the bitter ?— ἡ πηγή] The article is not here for the sake of liveliness (Schneckenburger: articulus fontem quasi ante oculos pingit), 1 Semler’s view is very strange: hi inter publicas Dei laudes, etiam exsecra- tiones et tristia omnia praeibant in Romanis / It is equally a mistake when Lange refers the expression chiefly to Christians, and specially to Jewish Christians, ‘in whom the likeness of God, that is, the actuality and visibility of the image, has reappeared.” CHAP, III. 12. 163 but is used because πηγή is generically considered. — ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ὀπῆς] ὀπή, the hollow, Heb. xi. 38, Ex. xxxiii, 22, Obad. ver. 3, is here the hole from which the water of the fountain streams forth. ἡ πηγή refers to man; ἡ ὀπή, to the mouth, The chief accent is on αὐτῆς, which points back to ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόματος, ver. 10.— Bpvew] an ἅπ. Rey, properly to sprout forth, then to overflow, is here used transitively, to cause to flow forth. — τὸ γλυκύ and τὸ πικρόν indicate, indeed, the two different kinds of water, yet linguis- tically τὸ ὕδωρ is not to be supplied; the former refers to εὐλογεῖν, and the latter to καταρᾶσθαι. With this verse James says only that happens not in nature, which occurs in the case of man, out of whose mouth proceed blessing and cursing. The following verse first expresses the im- possibility. Ver. 12. This verse shows, by examples taken from nature, that from one principle opposite things cannot be produced, but that any cause can only bring forth that which cor- responds to its nature. Semler incorrectly paraphrases the first question: μὴ δύναται συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι: an fieri potest, αὖ ficus, cujus est dulcis natura, producat amaras oleas; for that here the contrast of sweet and bitter (which only the last clause of the verse resumes) is not designed to be expressed, is evident from what immediately follows: ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα, Where James would otherwise have mentioned the olive instead of the vine. The idea is rather that nothing can bring forth that which is not corresponding to its nature.’ Consequently the opinion of de Wette, that here ‘¢histles (according to Matt. vii. 16), or something similar, instead of ἄμπελος would be more appropriate, is incorrect. To the question follows as its conclusion the negative clause: οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, which is so construed as if the former sentence, not only in meaning, but also in form, was a negative one; οὔτε (δ: οὐδέ) and the omission of δύναται are thus to be explained.” — ἁλυκόν is the subject, and γλυκὺ 1 Comp. Arrian, Hpikt. ii, 20: πῶς γὰρ δύναται ἄμπελος μὴ ἀμπελικῶς κινεῖσθαι ἀλλ᾽ ἐλαϊκῶς, ἢ ἐλαία πάλιν μὴ ἐλαϊκῶς ἀλλ᾽ ἀμπελικῶς ; ἀμήχανον, ἀδιανόητον ; comp. also Plut. de trang. an. p. 472 E. ? Buttmann (p. 315 [E. T. 367]), following Lachmann, praef. Ὁ. xliv., assumes a corruption of the passage. 164 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ὕδωρ the object; ποιῆσαι is used in the same signification as before ; thus: Nor can bitter bring forth sweet water. The opposite ideas ἁλυκόν and γλυκύ are emphatically placed beside each other. James hereby indicates, that if from one mouth the bitter (namely, the κατάρα) and also the sweet (namely, the εὐλογία) proceed, this is not only morally reprehensible, to which ver. 10 points, but is something impossible ; accordingly, the person who curses man, who is made after the image of God, cannot also bless (praise) God, and that thus if the mouth yet express both, the εὐλογεῖν can only be mere seeming and hypocrisy (Lange)." Ver. 13. With this verse apparently begins a new section, which, however, stands in close connection with the warning in ver. 1, whilst the true wisdom is here contrasted with the false wisdom of which the readers boasted, and by which they considered themselves qualified to teach. Also here in the words: τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν, the chief point is again placed at the beginning. These words are usually understood as a direct question (Tischendorf and Winer, p. 152 [E. T. 211]); on the other hand, Lachmann has only placed a comma after ὑμῖν, which is approved by Al. Buttmann (p. 217 [E. T. 252]); an cnversio structuwrae then here takes place; whilst “the direct interrogative form, owing to the construction which follows, passed naturally over into the meaning of the kindred relative clause.” Certainly in the N. T. the direct question is frequently used instead of the indirect, indeed instead of the relative pronoun; also in the usual meaning “the disruption of the clauses, as well as the asyndetic transition to δειξάτω without any subject,” is surprising. But, on the other hand, the discourse by the direct question evidently gains in liveliness, as it is, more- ὁ 1 Gunkel incorrectly thinks that ver. 12 only discloses the unnaturalness of the conduct denounced in ver. 10, for μὴ δύνα ται evidently expresses impossibility. It is also to be observed, that in the last clause of ver. 12 ἁλυκόν (ὕδωρ) is con- sidered as the fountain which cannot bring forth γλυκὺ ὕδωρ, and accordingly points to the bitter disposition, from which only that which is bitter (namely, the bitter κατάρα), but not that which is sweet (namely, the εὐλογία), can pro- ceed, Lange correctly observes, ‘‘that the multiplying of examples has the effect of illustrating the general application of the law of life here laid down ;” but he strangely supposes that ‘‘the individual examples have a symbolical meaning ;” the fig-tree, the symbol of a luxurious natural life ; the olives, the symbols of spiritual life, ete CHAP. III. 13. 165 over, peculiar to the diction of James; see, however, Ecclus. vi. 34, to which Schneckenburger appeals in support of the incorrect opinion that τίς is here the indefinite pronoun. — σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων] The same combination of these two words is found in Deut. i. 13, iv. 6, LXX., as the translation of the Hebrew i232) 039; comp. also Hos. xiv. 9. If James here considered these two synonymous ideas as different, σοφός is to be referred to the general, and ἐπιστήμων to the particular. Wiesinger refers the former to the intelligence, and the latter to the practical insight into the correct judgment of any given case; others differently. — That whosoever is actually wise is to show it by action, is the chief thought of the following sentence. The construction of δειξάτω with ἐκ and the object following on it, reminds us of chap. 11. 18: δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν, but the relation is not entirely the same. In that passage πίστις is the invisible, which is to manifest itself as the visible by ἔργα ; but here both ἡ καλὴ ἀναστροφή and ta ἔργα αὐτοῦ are visible; the former is the general, the latter is the particular, which as individual special manifestations proceed from it. The verb δείκνυμι means here, as there, not to prove or demonstrate, but to show. The addition ἐν tpaitnts-—which is to be connected neither with τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ nor with τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς, forming one idea, but belongs to δειξάτω, more exactly defined by ἐκ τῆς... avtod—has the principal accent, as mpavtns σοφίας, 1.0. the meekness springing from wisdom, and therefore peculiar to it (opposite of ὀργή), is the necessary condition under which the showing forth of works out of a good conversation alone is possible. The mode in which the individual ideas of the sentence are united together is certainly somewhat surprising, but it is explainable from the fact that James placed together all the points which occurred to him as briefly as possible. James might have put τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ as the object belonging to δειξάτω ; but instead of this he puts τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, in conformity with the importance which works have to him, in which as faith (11. 10) so also wisdom manifests itself. He then makes the idea σοφία to follow in the adverbial addition ἐν πραὕὔτητι codics. The sentence might also be divided by a point after ἀναστροφῆς ; then the first clause would mean: let him show it out of a good con- 166 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, versation ; and the second clause might either be taken as an addition dependent on δειξάτω (so Neander: “works per- formed in meekness suitable to wisdom”), or a verb would have to be supplied. However, the detachment of the second clause decides against this construction. ὡς σοφοῦ is not, with Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, to be supplied to αὐτοῦ, as the reference to wisdom is contained in the additional clause; but also αὐτοῦ must not be referred to σοφός (his works, that is, of the wise man), but it refers to the subject contained in δειξάτω (thus Lange and Briickner). The whole idea πραὕτης σοφίας is neither to be resolved into πραεῖα σοφία (Beza, Grotius, Baumgarten, Semler, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger), nor into πραὕτης σοφή (Laurentius), but to be explained: “the meekness which is proper to wisdom, and proceeds from it” (Wiesinger), or “in which σοφία evidences itself” (Lange). With the emphasis on πραὕτης James passes on to βραδὺς eis ὀργήν (chap. i. 29), of which what follows is a further explication. Ver. 14. As meekness belongs to wisdom, so he who has in his heart ζῆλος πικρός and ἐριθεία boasts of wisdom without any right. As this was the case with his readers, James now directly addresses them: εἰ δὲ. .. ἔχετε] To ζῆλος, zeal, which is here, as frequently, used in a bad sense,—is added the adjective πικρός for the sake of strengthening it, perhaps with reference to vv. 11 and 12 (Grotius, Pott, Gebser).— ἐριθεία] has in the N. T. the meaning controversial spirit, or, more definitely, partisanship ; comp. Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 20 (see Meyer on both passages); Gal. v. 20; Phil. i. 17, ii. 3; in 2 Cor. xii 20 and Gal. v. 20 ἕζῆλοι and θυμοί are united together as plurals. — ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν] in contrast with the word of his readers, boasting of their wisdom.—JIn the apodosis: μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας) neither the first nor the second verb is to be converted into a participle; certainly xara in the first verb refers to κατὰ τῆς adn@., and so far already contains the idea of lying, but James designed prominently to bring forward this, and therefore he adds καὶ ψεύδεσθε to κατακαυχᾶσθε. On κατακαυχᾶσθε, comp. chap. ii. 13 (see 1 Luther inaccurately translates the passage : ‘‘ who shows with his good con- versation his works in meekness and wisdom.” CHAP, IIL 15. 167 Winer, p. 417 [E. T. 590, note 1]). In κατακαυχᾶσθε the reference is to others, in ψεύδεσθε to one’s own conscience (Lange). In order to avoid the tautology in ψεύδεσθε and κατὰ τ. ἀληθείας, Wiesinger understands by ἀληθεία “ truth in an objective Christian sense—the Christian truth, by the possession of which they fancied themselves σοφοί 7 But, on the contrary, it is to be considered that that which, logically considered, appears as mere tautology, receives another import, when not only the understanding but also the disposition is recognised as a factor of the construction ; so it is here; compare, moreover, Isocrates, de pace, p. 165: διαψεύδεσθαι τῆς ἀληθείας. Ver. 15. The character of the σοφία from which bitter zeal and partisanship proceed. — οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ σοφία] αὕτη is not to be separated from 7 σοφία, but forms along with it the subject. Luther incorrectly translates: “for this is not the wisdom,” etc. By αὕτη ἡ σοφία is meant that wisdom by which man has ζῆλον πικρόν in his heart, or that from which it springs; the predicate to it is: οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη. ---- οὐκ ἔστιν] emphatically precedes, and the participle takes the place of an adjective (de Wette, Wiesinger, Winer, p. 313 [E. T. 439]). Gebser, Pott, Schneck- enburger incorrectly explain ἐστιν κατερχομένη = κατέρχεται. On the idea ἄνωθεν κατέρχ. comp. chap. 1. 17.— As an ungodly wisdom it is characterized by three adjectives which form a climax: ἐπίγειος, ψυχική, δαιμονιώδης. ---- ἐπίγειος] expresses the sharpest contrast to ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, that wisdom being designated as such which belongs not to heaven, but to carth. That it is sinful (“ taking root in a whole life of sin,” Kern, Wiesinger) is not yet expressed. James calls it ψυχική] inasmuch as it belongs not to the πνεῦμα, but, in contrast to it, to the earthly life of the soul; see Meyer on- 1 Cor. ii. 14, and author’s explanation of Jude 19. These two first ideas are abstractly not of an ethical character, but they become so by being considered in contrast to the heavenly and the spiritual. It is otherwise with the third idea: da- μονιώδης. This word (dz. Aey.) = devilish, betokens both the origin and the nature, and is to be taken not in a figura- 1 According to Lange, the theocratic truth is to be understood which the Jewish zealots professed to protect. 168 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. tive, but in its literai sense; comp. ver. 6, chap. iv. 7; incor- rectly, Hottinger: impuro genio magis quam homine digna. — The explanation of Hornejus contains arbitrary statements : tervena, quia avaritiae dedita est, quae operibus terrenis inhiat; animalis, quia ad animi lubidines accommodatur; dacmoniaca, quod ambitioni et superbiae servit, quae propria diaboli vitia sunt; and equally so that of Lange, who finds here characterized “ Judaistic and Ebionite zealotism,’ and refers émuy. to “the chiliastic claims to the dominion of the earth.” ? Ver. 16. Reason of the judgment expressed in ver. 15. With the introductory words: ὅπου yap ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία, James points back to ver. 14; with the following words: ἐκεῖ x.7.r., he names the fruit of ζῆλος and ἐριθεία; these are ἀκαταστασία and πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα; ἀκαταστασία) 15 uproar, disorder ; comp. Prov. xxvi. 28 ; στόμα ἄστεγον ποιεῖ ἀκαταστασίας. An uproarious disorderly nature proceeds not from God: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλ᾽ εἰρήνης, 1 Cor. xiv. 99. --- To this special idea, which is particularly brought forward on account of the condition of those to whom James writes, the general idea: every evil deed, is added, in order to lay stress on the fact that zeal and partisanship bring along with them the corruption of the whole moral life. Of a wisdom which effects this, it must naturally hold good what is said of it in ver. 15.— The supposition of Kern (Tiib. Zeitschr. 1835, 11. 59), to which de Wette assents, that the here presupposed controversies between Jewish and Gentile Christians are alluded to, is properly rejected by Briickner. Ver. 17. The character of the true wisdom, which (in contrast to ver. 15) is designated as ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία] comp. with this expression, Prov. ii. 6; Wisd. of Sol. vii. 25, 26; Philo, de profug. p. 571: σοφία ἄνωθεν ὀμβρηθεῖσα ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ; de nom. mut.: οὐράνιος copia. — πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνή ἐστιν] By πρῶτον μέν this characteristic is distinguished from the rest, which are introduced by ἔπειτα, because it belongs to its nature, “ designates its internal quality ” (Kern). It is ἁγνή] 1... καθαρὰ καὶ ἀρυπαρός, μηδενὸς τῶν σαρκικῶν ἀντεχομένη (Oecumenius); thus free from all impurity. Lange explains ἁγνή by consecrated ; incorrectly according to 1 Without any justification, Schwegler finds here an allusion to the wisdom of the Gnostics, CHAP, III. 17. 169 N. T. usage; even in the classics, the reference to the gods sufficiently often steps into the background. — In the series of characteristics following after ἔπειτα, which describe σοφία according to its manzfestations (Kern), the first three are named which indicate the contrasts to ζῆλος and ἐριθεία : εἰρηνική] peaceful (comp. εἰρηνοποιός, Matt. v. 9): ἐπιεικής) fair, mild ; see on 1 Tim. iii. 3 (not = yielding): εὐπειθής)] ἅπ. Dey. (opposite ἀπειθής, Tit. iii, δ): easy to persuade, that 15, pliant, not contending in party-strife.— Then follows μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν] by which it is described as rich in active love: ἐλέους is particularly mentioned, because compassion is the most direct proof of love; comp. chap. i, 27, ii, 13; καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν forms the contrast to πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα. ---- The series closes with two words—united by similarity of sound—aé:axpitos, ἀνυπόκριτος, which ex- press the contrast to everything of an uncertain and hypo- critical nature. ἀδιάκριτος] is differently explained according to the different meanings of the root διακρίνεσθαι ; Luther renders it wnpartial; Lorinus, Hornejus, Grotius (“sine partitione, nempe iniqua”), Baumgarten, Estius, Schulthess, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger, Lange (“not separatistic, not sectarian”), and others understand it in the same sense ; Beza explains it by “ quae non discernit homines ;” similarly Gebser wndivided, that is, those who have the true wisdom do not separate from each other; the explanation of Pott: pacificus, agrees with this; the Vulgate, on the other hand, renders it non gudicans; and Semler: nec temere judicans de aliis Christianis, qui suo more vivunt. It is best to start from the meaning of διακρίνεσθαι as it occurs in the N. Τὶ, to doubt, and accordingly, with de Wette and Wiesinger, to take aédsdxpitos = expers omnis cujuscunque ambiguitatis et dubitationis (similarly Wetstein = non duplex).' ἀνυπόκριτος] is wnhypocritical, upright; see Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6.— These two characteristics are also added with special reference to the state of things among the readers. On ἀδιάκριτος, see 1 The same signification is also adopted by Neander, when he says, having man in view: ‘‘ James requires inner unity of soul, assured conviction, so that the soul be not driven to and fro by extraneous considerations, and by con- flicting doubts. James’ meaning is hardly to be described in one word. The notion of impartiality or simplicity is most in accordance with it.” 170 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. chap. i. 6-8, ii. 4; on ἀνυπόκρυτος, chap. i. 22, 26, ii. 1.— All the characteristics are attributed to true wisdom from the ‘effects which it produces among those who are partakers of it; since it makes them pure, peaceable, etc.; the virtues of which it is the source belong to it. Ver. 18. As in ver. 16 the fruit of ζῆλος, and thus of false wisdom on which it is founded, is named, so in this verse is the fruit of true wisdom, which is εἰρηνική. ---- καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης . σπείρεται is a pregnant expression for: the seed, which yields the fruit of righteousness, is sown (Weisinger, Bouman, Lange). δικαιοσύνη] is not justification (Gebser, Schnecken- burger), but righteousness or uprightness. The genitive is that of apposition, and announces wherein the καρπός consists. This καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης forms the antithesis to ἀκαταστασία καὶ wav φαῦλον πρᾶγμα, ver. 16. δικαιοσύνη is by various expositors incorrectly referred to the future life. — σπείρεται] is to be retained in its literal meaning, from which there is no reason to depart, when the pregnant form of the expression is kept in view. Briickner converts the idea without justifi- cation into that of dispersing, 7c. of profuse spending ; Pott falsely explains σπείρεται by δεῖ σπείρεσθαι. The sower is not to be considered as God (Briickner), for from the whole context the discourse is not concerning the conduct of God, but of the Christian. The addition ἐν εἰρήνῃ is not to be combined with καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης (Rauch) or with δικαιοσύνης (Kern: righteousness before God, which manifests itself in peace with God) as one idea, but it belongs to the verb, and announces the condition by which only the seed sown yields the fruits of righteousness ; it is in antithesis to ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία, ver. 16. — De Wette incorrectly takes ἐν εἰρήνῃ = εἰς εἰρήνην, in hope of peace. — τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην] (= εἰρη- vorrotots, Matt. v. 9) is either the Dativus actionis (Wiesinger, de Wette, formerly in this commentary; Lange uncertainly) announcing who are the sowers, or Dativus commodi (Brickner, Bouman) announcing for whose use the καρπὸς dix. is sown ; in the latter case the ποιοῦντες εἰρήνην are likewise to be considered as sowers (de Wette considers it possible that the Dativus commodi may by its importance have supplanted ὑπὸ τῶν «.7.A.). The latter explanation is more corresponding to the context, as it is already indicated in ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται that CHAP. IIT. 18. Al: the sowing can only be by such as are in possession of σοφία εἰρηνική, and it was particularly brought forward that the righteousness springing from the seed is only imparted to those who make peace. Accordingly, the meaning of the sententious expression is: that the seed of righteousness sown in peace yields righteousness only to the peaceable. This explanation agrees in essentials with that of Wiesinger and Bouman, also of Lange, who, however, blends with it some- thing foreign to it, and thinks on the future harvest of righteousness. Deviating from this, de Wette renders it: “The fruit (conduct, moral action) of righteousness is in hope of peace, as the seed of the heavenly harvest sown by them who practise peace.” Briickner: “ The fruit (the produce) of righteousness is in peace dispersed (namely, by God) for them who practise peace.” Kern: “ That which springs up for the peaceable as the fruit of their sowing, that is, of their peace- ful conduct, is righteousness before God, which manifests itself in peace with God.” 179 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, CHAPTER IV. Ver. 1. Before μάχαι, πέϑεν is to be repeated, after A B C καὶ, etc. (Lachm. Tisch.). — Ver. 2. After καὶ πολεμεῖτε, οὐκ ἔχετε is to he read, according to almost all testimonies (A B G K, ete.) ; only a few min. insert δὲ (the reading of ec.) ; several “others (CR, etc.) read καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε; recommended by Griesbach, guaranteed by Reiche; the insertion of the particle is explained from endeavouring more closely to connect the following with what goes before. — Ver. 4. Instead of the Rec. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες, after G K, etc. A B, several vss. Bede have only μοιχαλίδες (Lachm. Tisch.) : &, pr. read only μοιχαλίδες, but corrected μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλ. Theile, Lange, Briickner (also Reiche) cor- rectly consider the simple feminine as the original reading ; otherwise de Wette, Bouman, and others. — Tisch. 7 remarks : loco identidem considerato non possum quin teneam etiamnum lectionem jam in ed. anni 1841 a me defensam; see on this the exposition, Shas a τούτου after κόσμου, and instead of the genitive rod Θεοῦ the dative τῷ Θεῷ. --- Ver. 5. On the pointing of this verse, see exposition. — Instead of the Ree. κατῴκησεν, after G K, all min. vss. Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede (Tisch.), Lachm. has, after A B 8, etc., adopted κατῴκισεν. -- Ver. 7. A B®, very many min. etc., have, after ἀντίστητε, the particle δέ (Lachm.), which is wanting in G K, many min. ete. (Rec. Tisch.); probably the δέ was omitted to give to the sentence an independent form; so also Lange; Bouman other- wise: δέ fulciendae orationis caussa inculcatum est. — Ver. 10. The article τοῦ is to be omitted before κυρίου, according to the testimony of A B Καὶ x, etc. — Ver. 11. Instead of zai κρίνων, Ree. after G K (Reiche, Bouman), etc., is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read ἢ χρίνων, according to the testimony of A B, several min. vss. etc. — Vet. 12. After A Β δὲ, many min., almost all vss., the words zai xpirng are, with Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. etc., to be added to ὁ νομοθέτης ; they are wanting in the Ree. (after G K, etc.); so also, according to the testimony of almost all autho- rities, the particle δέ 15 to be added after ot. — Instead of the Ree. tz κρίνεις, after G K, etc. (Bouman), ὁ κρίνων is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read, after A Τὸ δὲ, several min.; also recom- mended by Griesbach ; and instead of the Lec. τὸν ἕτερον, likewise CHAP. IV. 1. 173 with the same editors, τὸν πλησίον is to be read, after A BX, etc. — Ver. 13. The Elz. ed. reads σήμερον ἢ αὔριον (thus in Br, Lachm.); but A G K, very many min. etc., have the reading adopted by Tisch.: σήμ. καὶ αὔριον, which must be considered genuine, as 7 appears to be a correction for the sake of simplifi- cation. — The Sec. (ed. Steph.) has the conjunctives πορευσώ- μεθα, ποιήσωμεν, ἐμπορευσώμεθα, κερδήσωμεν, after G K, several min. ete. In A the two first verbs are in the conjunctive; in 8 only the first verb, the others in the indicative ; B, very many min. Vulg. and other vss. have only the indicative; so Lachm. and Tisch. The conjunctive appears to be a correction. — ἕνα, following éwaurév, is omitted by Lachm.; the omission is, how- ever, too slightly attested by Bx, Vulg. etc., and, besides, is easily explained as the statement of time here expressed by ἕνα appeared unsuitable. — Ver. 14. Before τῆς αὔριον Tisch. reads, after G Καὶ 8, the article τό (fec.); Lachm., after A, σά; Butt- mann, after B, has omitted the article; he has also omitted the words γάρ and ἡ after ποία, according to his statement after B (which Tisch. has not remarked), so that his reading is: οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον ποίω ζωὴ ὑμῶν; See exposition. — After ἀτμίς Lachm., according to A, Vule., has omitted the particle γάρ; it is, however, probably genuine, and only removed from the text as interrupting the sense. — Instead of the Ree. ἐστίν (after G, etc.), which is defended by Reiche and Bouman, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted ἐστε; attested by A B K, very many min.; the change into ἐστίν is easily explained. In®& the words ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε are entirely awanting. — The Ree. ἔπειτα 4: is a correction of the more difficult ἔπεισα καί, attested by A B K δὶ, etc.; G has ἔπειτα δὲ καί, --- Ver. 15. Buttmann reads θέλῃ instead of θελήσῃ, against the testimony of all authorities. — The indicative Cjoouey .. . ποιήσομεν (Lachm. Tisch., after A Bx, etc.) is to be preferred to the Rec. ζήσωμεν... ποιήσωμεν (after GK, ete.), not only according to authorities, but on account of the thought (Wiesinger, Lange). In some mss. and vss. ζήσωμεν... ποιήσομεν 15 found; this reading is incorrectly defended by Fritzsche (Leipz. Lit. Z., and Winer and Engelhardt’s newes krit. Journ. V. 1826), Theile, Reiche, Bouman, and others ; Winer, p- 256 [E. T. 357], prefers to read both times the conjunc- tive ; see exposition. — Ver. 16. Instead of καυχᾶσθε, δὲ alone has κατακαυχᾶσθε. ---- Instead of the form ἀλαζονείαις (B** K, Lachm. Tisch. 2, Buttm.), Tisch. 7 has adopted the form ἀλαζονίαις (Α ‘B* G). Ver. 1. The section beginning with this verse is in close connection with what goes before, pointing to the internal reason of the disorders in the congregations referred to. The 174 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, sudden transition is to be observed from the sentiment directly before expressed, that righteousness prospers only in peace, to the impressive question: πόθεν πόλεμοι x.7.r.] an answer to which follows in a second question “appealing to the con- science of the readers” (Wiesinger).— πόλεμοι... payar] synonymous terms, only to be distinguished by the first denoting the general condition, and by the second the single phenomena (Wiesinger, Lange, Bouman: πόλεμος = vehe- mentior dimicatio, μάχη = minus aperta concertatio); correctly Laurentius: non loquitur apostolus de bellis et caedibus, sed de mutuis dissidiis, litibus, jurgiis et contentionibus. Several expositors, as Pott, Schulthess, Schneckenburger, arbitrarily limit these πόλεμοι to contentions between teachers; according to de Wette and Wiesinger, contentions concerning mewm and tuum are to be understood; but in what follows the olject is not stated, but the cause of the contentions and dis- sensions among the readers.'— The repetition of πόθεν is explained from the liveliness of the emotion with which James speaks. — ἐν ὑμῖν] among you.—The demonstrative οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν emphatically points to what follows; Bouman: graphica rei significatae est informatio, qua primum intento tanquam digito monstrantur, deinde diserte nominantur ai ἡδοναί; Michaelis incorrectly assumes this as a separate ques- tion = οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, John xviii. 36. By ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν the internal reason of these dissensions is dis- closed. ἡδοναί is here by metonymy = ἐπιθυμίαι; they are lusts directed to earthly riches; not “a life of sensual indulg- ence as realized lusts” (Lange). — τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν] The lusts have their seat—as it were their encampment (Wiesinger)—in the members (see on chap. iii. 2);” they, however, do not rest there, but according to their nature wage war (στρατεύονται). Estius (with whom Bouman agrees) incorrectly explains it: cupiditates, tanquam milites, membris vestris, ut armis utuntur ad opera peccati, by which ἐν is falsely understood. Calovius, Baumgarten, and 1 According to Lange, James has in view all the hostile dissensions of the Jewish people (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Alexandrians, Samaritans) and of the Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc. ). * Incorrectly Laurentius: Per membra hie intellige non tantum externa membra, sed et internos animi affectus. Still more strangely Lange explains τὰ μέλη as ‘‘ the members of individuals and the members of the people.” CHAP, IV. 2. 175 de Wette, after 1 Pet. ii, 11 and Rom. vii. 23, supply κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς or τοῦ νοός ; but if James had meant the fight of the lusts against the soul or the’ reason, he would have more plainly expressed it. Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange, and others (Briickner comprehends both) understand it of the strife of the desires against each other; but this is evidently a foreign thought. According to Wiesinger, “ the strife arises and is carried on because the ἐπιθυμεῖν has as its opponent an οὐκ ἔχειν... ov δύνασθαι ἐπιτυχεῖν, against which it contends.” But it is better to refer the στρατεύεσθαι to everything which hinders the gratification of the desires. As in what follows ἐπιθυμεῖτε refers to at ἡδοναί, and φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε to the idea στρατεύεσθαι, James appears chiefly to have intended the opposing strivings of others against which the ἡδοναί con- tend. From this internal war arose the πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι.ἷ Ver. 2 describes in a lively manner the origin of these external strifes. The stages are ἐπιθυμεῖτε... φονεύετε Kal ζηλοῦτε... μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε: the second succeeds the first because it is without result, and the third the second for the same reason. — ἐπιθυμεῖτε] here in a bad sense referring to τῶν ἡδονῶν, ver. 1. It is evident that the object to be thought on is worldly possessions; James does not mention the object, because he only required to express “the covetous impulse” (de Wette). It is unsatisfactory to think only on the desires of individuals, James rather describes the conduct of the churches to whom he writes; these, discontented with their low position in the world, longed after earthly power to which, as the church of God, they thought they had a claim. This striving made them consider persecution as a reproach ; on the contrary, James exhorts them to count it as a joy (chap. 1. 2). This also produced among them that respect of persons toward the rich of the world for which James blames them. This was also the source of internal division; the aftiuent in the church despising the poor instead of imparting to them of their wealth, and only striving after an increase of their riches; whilst the poor grudged the rich their possessions, and accused them of being the children of the world. Thus in these churches occurred the same strife which prevailed among the 1 Comp. Plato, Phaedr. xv.: καὶ γὰρ πολέμους καὶ στάσεις καὶ μάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο σαρέχει ἢ τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἱ πούτου ἐπιθυμίαι ; consult also Cicero, εἶα fin. bon. i. 18. 176 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Jews, and was the source of factions among them. — By Καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε] the uselessness of ἐπιθυμεῖν is expressed, and also the motive to φονεύειν καὶ ζηλοῦν is assigned; it is unneces- sary here, with Gebser, Hottinger, de Wette, to explain ἔχειν =to receive ; it rather means: to have, to possess. The mean- ing is: from the desire follows not the possession, namely, of what is desired. — govevere καὶ ζηλοῦτε] As here the external action is not yet described, but the internal disposition, φονεύειν cannot here be taken in its literal meaning, as Winer (p. 417 [E. T. 5897), Lange, Bouman think. Many expositors, as Carpzov, Pott, Morus, Augusti, Gebser, Schneckenburger, and others explain it adverbially: “even to murder and kill- ing ;” but the position of the words contradicts this explana- tion; if the idea ζηλοῦτε was to be strengthened by φονεύετε, it must be placed first. Other expositors, as Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Hornejus, Laurentius, Benson, Schulthess, Hottinger, and others, solve the difficulty by the conjectural reading φθονεῖτε ; but this reading has not the slightest support in authorities. Nothing remains, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, than to explain φονεύειν here, with Estius, Calovius, also de Wette (who, however, wavers), according to 1 John iii. 15, of internal hatred,’ and “to justify this word by the boldness of the expression prevailing in this passage ; comp. πόλεμοι Kal μάχαι, στρατεύεσθαι, μοιχοί (more correctly μουιχαλίδες),᾽ Wiesinger. It is true that then an anti-climax would seem to occur; but this is only in appearance, as in point of fact ζηλοῦν (hostile zeal already ready to break out in word and action) presupposes internal goveveww.”? —xai οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν) namely, that for which you hate and envy. What follows on this are πόλεμοι, therefore James closes with μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε, in which likewise the answer to the question πόθεν πόλεμοι, πόθεν μάχαι is contained (Wiesinger). With οὐκ ἔχετε, which does not stand in the same relation to μάχεσθε x.7.d. as καὶ od Suv. ἐπιτυχεῖν does to gov. κ. 1 Stier in his exposition remarks: ‘‘James means hatred, but he speaks of killing and murdering, namely, in a spiritual sense, in order to designate hatred as an attack on one’s neighbour;” his translation: ‘‘ye smite’ (instead of Luther's : ‘‘ye hate”), is not, however, justified by this. * The explanation of Oecumenius is peculiar, but not to be justified : φονεύειν ‘ s ‘ « ~ ‘ ᾿ ΄ ~ , , ’ Σ , a φυσι Tous THY ἑαυτῶν Ψυχὴν AMOXTIVIUITAS ταις TOAUN DHS ταυταιξ ἐπιχερήσεσι, “ὡς καὶ ὁ πρὸς τὴν εὐσεβ:ιωαν αὐτοῖς πόλεμοξ. CHAP, IV. 3 Lye ζηλ.,.1 James resumes the foregoing οὐκ ἔχετε and ov δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν, in order to assign the reason of this “ not having,” G \ \ \ ᾽ a e a etc.; the reason is διὰ TO μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς, thus the want of prayer.” That prayer for earthly things is heard, is not an opinion peculiar to James, but a divine promise ; in which only this is to be observed, that the prayer must be no κακῶς αἰτεῖσθαι ; see the following verse. Ver. 3. James apparently again resumes the last expres- sion, whilst he now grants αἰτεῖτε to his readers; but as he designates this their asking as κακῶς αἰτεῖσθαι, he does not consider it as an actual prayer, so that the foregoing declara- tion is nevertheless true. It is therefore inaccurate to resolve αἰτεῖτε into “or even if you ask.” *— On the interchange of middle and active forms, see Winer, p. 229 [E. T. 321]. The middle form naturally suggested itself in ver. 2, prayer for others being not the point under consideration; but in the next clause, as James wished to lay stress on the active side— of prayer in antithesis to λαμβάνειν---- 6 used the active form. “ Hgotistical praying for oneselt ” (Lange) is incorrectly under- stood by the middle.— καὶ ov λαμβάνετε] emphasizes the uselessness of their asking, the reason of which is assigned by the following: διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε. κακῶς finds its explana- tion in the following wa; your prayer is therefore evil, because it has no other object than δαπανᾷν ἐν tats ἡδοναῖς. Incorrectly Gebser: “for your prayer must implore only for true heavenly blessings.” The discourse is here rather of the temporal condition ; this, James observes, continues with you a poor and depressed one, because ye ask for a better one only in order to be able to indulge your lusts. — δαπανᾷν] to 1 Accordingly, not a comma is to be put after πολεμεῖτε, but a full stop; thus Tischendorf and Lachmann. Stier incorrectly explains it: ‘‘it thus remains at the close as at the beginning, Ye have not.” 2 In this passage the exposition of Lange reaches almost the climax of arbi- passas Ρ ε trariness. He here assumes a fourfold gradation—(1) desiring ; (2) murdering and envying ; (3) fighting and warring; (4) asking and not receiving; and corresponding to these—(1) not having ; (2) not receiving ; (3) an increased not having ; (4) an increased not receiving. The first stage denotes Judaism full of chiliastic worldly-mindedness up to the time of the N. T.; the second, the attitude of the Jews toward the Christians; the third, the Jewish war; and the fourth, Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem. 3 Semler very strangely paraphrases it: scio, quosdam vel publicis precibus (et exsecrationibus, ili. 9) eam in rem parcere, mala omnia precari imperatori ct inagistratui Romano, Merynn. —JAMES. M 178 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. expend, spend (Mark v. 26); here, in a bad sense, to squander, to lavish. Suidas: λαμπρῶς ζῆν καὶ σπαθᾷν ; the object to the transitive verb is “that for which you pray.” ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑμῶν] not with, but 7m your lusts. Wahl incorrectly explains δαπανᾷν év = sumtum ponere in aliqua re, 1.6. τεθέναι τὰ χρήματα ἔν τινι; this meaning combines δαπανᾷν with εἰς. The sense is not “for the gratification of your lusts” (Baumgarten), but governed by your lusts. Ver. 4. povyarides] The Rec. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες has not only the most important authorities against it, but is also easily explained, because the term was taken in its literal sense, which is expressly done by Augusti, Jachmann, and Winer. The context, however, proves that the literal meaning is not here to be retained. If the idea is used in a figurative sense, according to the view which prevails in Ps. lxxiii. 27 (Isa. lvii. 3 ff.; Ezek. xxiii. 27), Hos. 11. 2, 4, and other passages of the O. T. (comp. also Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 4; as also 2 Cor. xi. 2; Rev. 11. 22), and as the context requires, then every reason for a distinction of sex ceases. Theile, Lange, Briickner have therefore correctly declared for the reading μοιχαλίδες. Theile’s opinion: non minus recte singuli homines scorta dicuntur, quam totum genus atque universa aliqua gens scortum, is so far inappropriate, as the expression μουχαλίδες used “ of individuals in the church of God is certainly singular ” (Wieseler); it is here to be referred not to individuals, but to the churches to whom James writes (not “the Jewish factions into which Judaism was sundered,” Lange); so also Briickner. These, according to the conduct described by James, had ‘fallen away from God, and therefore James, full of moral indignation, addresses them with these certainly severe words. — οὐκ οἴδατε, ὅτι points the readers to their own conduct.— 1 φιλία τοῦ Kocpov] By κόσμος expositors understand either worldly goods (Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger) or worldly desires (Didymus, Laurentius), or both of these together (de Wette, Stier); and by ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, the inclination of the heart diverted toward worldly things. But it is more correct to take κόσμος in the same sense as in chap. i. 27 (see explana- tion of that passage), and to understand ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου of reciprocal friendship; yet so that active conduct toward CHAP. IV. 4. 179 the world here predominates. The Christian who aims at worldly glory conforms himself (contrary to the admonition in Rom. xii. 2) to the world, attaching himself to its pursuits, and is thus inclined to it with his heart, his endeavour at the same time being to be esteemed and not despised by the world. The explanation of Piscator: amicitia cum impiis, is in essentials correct. The term φιλία (ἅπ. Ney. in N. 1.) does not suit the usual explanation..— ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ] expresses as φιλία τοῦ κόσμου a reciprocal relation; yet here also the active reference predominates, on account of which most expositors explain it directly by ἔχθρα εἰς Θεόν (Rom. viii. 7), although Pott gives also the explanation: ad ejusmodi agendi rationem nos abripit, quae Deo displicet, nosque privat amore divino. Lachmann, following the translation of the Vulgate : inimica, has adopted the reading ἐχθρὰ, by which, however, the peculiar force which consists in the opposition of the two. substantives is removed.— From the judgment here expressed concerning the φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, James infers the sentiment. that follows: οὖν, therefore. — ὃς ἂν οὖν βουληθῇ κιτ.λ.] By the usual explanation οἵ φιλία τ. κόσμου, and of the corre- sponding φίλος τοῦ κόσμου, βουληθῇ is at all events discon- certing. Whilst some expositors urge that by it designed and conscious intention is designated (Baumgarten),and others oppose it to the actual deed,’ and find the idea expressed that even the simple inclination to the love of the world (de Wette: “ whosoever has perchance willed to love the world”) effects. ἔχθρα tod Θεοῦ, Schneckenburger, on the contrary, says: verbi βουληθῇ cave premas vim. With each of these explana- tions the expression retains something strange, which also is not removed by distinguishing, with Lange, the “formal ” and the “material intention,” and understanding βουληθῇ only of the latter. But it is different as soon as κόσμος is 1 According to Lange, the friendship with the world consisted ‘in the chiliastic desire of the enjoyment of a worldly glory which was only coloured with hier- archical piety.” * Laurentius states this opposition in the most definite terms: non si tantum est inimicus Dei, qui est ipso opere amicus mundi, sed etiam ille, qui cum non possit, vult tamen . . . et sic voluntate implet, quod ipso opere non potest. 3 Similarly also Wiesinger: ‘‘James brings under the same judgment not only the decided and expressed love to the world, but even the inclination to step into such a relation to the world.” 180 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, considered not as an aggregate of things but of persons, since then φιλία, as above remarked, consists in a reciprocity. The meaning is: Whosoever, although a Christian, giving himself up to the pursuits of the world, will live in friendship with it, and thus will be not despised but esteemed and loved by it, has directed to it his wish (βουληθῇ) ".---λὸ (thereby) is con- stituted an enemy of God ; ἐχθρὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ] is likewise used in the sense of reciprocal relation, although here the passive meaning predominates. — καθίσταται] has here the same meaning as in chap. 11]. 6 (so also Lange); it is generally rendered incorrectly = ἐστί ; inaccurately by Theile — fit, sistitur ; by Schneckenburger = stands there as ; by Bouman — constituitur divino in judicio. Vv. 5, 6. The views of expositors differ widely in the interpretation of these verses. At first sight the words following λέγεις appear to be a quotation from the Ὁ. T. which James has in view. That of the older and some of the more recent expositors assume this to be the case, although they differ from each other, some combining πρὸς φθόνον directly with λέγει, but others including it in the quotation Against this explanation, however, is the circumstance that the words supposed to be here quoted nowhere occur in the O. T. Such a passage has accordingly been sought for, where a similar thought is expressed, but almost every expositor has fixed upon a different passage. Many expositors seek to remove the difficulty by supposing that James does not here quote any single definite passage, but only a sentiment contained in the O. T. generally, or in several of its expressions. Opposed to this idea, however, is, first; the uncertainty whether James will confirm by it the statement contained in what precedes or in what follows; and secondly, the formula of quotation pointing to a definite passage, par- ticularly as λέγει is ποῦ --- λαλεῖ, But, moreover, the clause μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν is against the view here indicated, since these words cannot be reckoned as part of the quotation, because James only afterwards quotes the Ὁ. T. passage from which they are derived; but, also, they cannot be considered 1 In essentials Estius correctly says: Terribilis valde sententia adversus eos qui suas actiones et studia componunt ad gratiam humanam. Hoc enim vere est esse amicum hujus seculi, CHAP, IV. 3, 6. US as a statement of James not belonging to the quotation, because δέ closely connects them to what directly precedes. Remark.—tThe various O. T. passages which have been con- jectured are as follows:—Gen. iv. 7 (Rauch); Gen. vi. 3, 5 (Grotius) ; Gen. vill. 21 (Beza, Ernest Schmid); Num. xi. 29 (Witsius); Ps. xxxvil. 1 and Ixxiii. 3 (Lange); Ps. exix. 20 ff (Clericus); Prov. xxi. 10 (Michaelis); Song of Solomon vii. 6 (Coccejus); from the Apocrypha Wisdom of Solomon vi. 12 (Wetstein), and others. Benson supposes that James has in view the N. T. passage, Matt. vi. 24; Stiiudlin, that he has in view that passage and also Gal. v. 17; Storr, the latter passage only ; and Bengel,1 Pet.ii.1 ff. Semler thinks that the passage is here cited from the “Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs ;” and Gabler, that the words are borrowed from a lost prophetical book. In recent times, Engelhardt (Remarks on Jas. iv. 5, 6, in the Ztschr. f. d. Luth. Theol., by Delitzsch and Guericke, 1869, Part 11.) has expressed the opinion that Isa. Ixii. 8-11, Ps. exxxii. 12, 13, and Hos. 1. 2, 15, form the groundwork of these words of James. Wolf, Heinsius, and Zachariae refer the words to the thoughts contained in what follows; Theile, de Wette, Briickner (also first edition of this commentary), to the thoughts contained in what precedes—that the friendship of the world is enmity with God. If the words πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ «.7.r. do not form the quotation belonging to ἡ γραφὴ λέγει, it is to be assumed that James here already had in view the scripture adduced after διὸ λέγει in ver. 6, but that he did not yet state it, because the sentiment expressed in those words obtruded itself upon him in confirmation of od κενῶς (Wiesinger). πρὸς φθόνον cannot, as Gebser and others suppose, be united with λέγει; for if one takes it to be equivalent to de invidia or contra invidia, there is this against it, that in what goes before there is no mention of envy ; or if it is taken adverbially, then it appears as an appendage drageing after οὐ κενῶς, which would be added the more unsuitably, because, as de Wette correctly remarks, it cannot be perceived what meaning can be attached to the assurance that the scripture does not speak enviously. Most expositors rightly refer it to ἐπυποθεῖ, which, without the addition, would be too bare; it is added to this idea as an adverbial and more exact statement =i an envious, jealous manner, for the sake of strengthening it. It is linguistically incorrect to explain πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν = Lee THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ἐπιθυμεῖν κατὰ φθόνον, Gal. v. 17 (thus Luther: “ the spirit lusteth against envy ;” Bengel, Stier; also Lange: “the spirit longeth over against and in opposition to envy”), since πρός, although it may be used in a hostile relation (Luke xxiii. 12; Acts vi. 1), yet does not ὧν itself express a hostile reference. The explanation of many ancient and some recent expositors (Bede, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hottinger, Gabler, Bouman, and others), taking πρὸς φθόνον --- αα invidiam, is also unsuitable ; for, on the one hand, ἐπιποθεῖν is not = proclivem esse, and, on the other hand, it is contradicted by the connection in which there is not the slightest allusion to envy. With the correct explanation of πρὸς φθόνον, τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν (κατῴκισεν) ἐν ὑμῖν is either subjective, “the Spirit of God,” or objective, “the spirit of man.” In the first case ἐπιποθεῖ has no object. De Wette, Briickner (so also Schneckenburger and some of the other expositors) supply ἡμᾶς as the object. Engelhardt, on the contrary, will supply no object, thinking “the supposed translation of the verb 83? is conclusive against an object ;” but 83? requires an object no less than ἐπυποθεῖν, as it is, as well as the other, a relative (not an absolute) verb. By this interpretation ἐν ὑμῖν is to be understood of Christians, in whom the Holy Spirit (according to Engelhardt: “by the covenant of baptism”) has taken up His abode. In the second case, the subject is not expressed. Wiesinger supplies ὁ Θεός. There is no difficulty in this completion, the less so as the preceding ἡ γραφή, which, in connection with λέγει, is personified (comp. Gal. iii. 8, προιδοῦσα ἡ γρωφή), points to God, with whom it is, as it were, identified. This second explanation would deserve the preference before the first, as it is not apparent why James here, instead of simply God, should name the Holy Spirit, whom he has not elsewhere mentioned in his whole Epistle, and because the specification of an object belonging to ἐπιποθεῖ, which is essentially required for the thought, can scarcely be wanting. Certainly, in this second interpretation, ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν added to πνεῦμα is difficult, not so much on account of the formation of the expression, as because this addition appears to be a very unimportant remark. But it is otherwise with the reading κατῴκισεν, as then the relative clause marks “the right of propriety as the ground of explanation of envious CHAP. IV. 5, 6 . eS love” (Wiesinger). According to this view, the passage is to be explained: Or think you that the seripture says in vain —(rather God) enviously desires the spirit which He has made to dwell in us, but He gives tie greater grace—wherefore rt says, etc. —It is yet to be remarked that δοκεῖν has the same meaning as in chap. 1. 26; κενῶς, that is, without contents, corresponding to the truth; comp. κενοὶ λόγοι, Eph. v. 6 (Plato, Lach. 1966). The adverbial import of πρὸς φθόνον is justified by the usage of the Greek language; see Pape’s Worterb.: the word πρός: Winer, p. 378 [E. T. 529]; Buttmann, p. 292 f. [E. T. 340]. The verb ἐπιποθεῖν is also elsewhere in the N. T. construed with the accusative. The idea that God cherishes an “envious and loving longing” (Wiesinger) after the spirit of man, corresponds to the circle of ideas in the O. T., from which also the preceding μουχαλίδες is to be explained. ReMARK.—The principal objections of Engelhardt—that the two members of the 5th and 6th verses are not in congruity, and that the scripture adduced in ver. 6 does not prove the thought expressed in ver. 4—are solved by the observation that the friendship of the world, in which man opposes himself to the will of God, is pride, and that those to whom God gives grace are none other than the humble, who disdain to be the arrogant friends of the world. It is erroneous when Engelhardt denies that an emphasis rests on οὐ κενῶς, so that the grammatical construction forbids to make the idea πρὸς φθόνον x.7.A. intervene as a contrast to χενῶς ; the asyndeton form is, besides, wholly suitable to James’ mode of expression; moreover, Engelhardt on his part finds himself constrained to supply a transitionary thought before μείζονα δὲ δίδωσι. That James does not quote the scripture intended by him directly after the first λέγει, but defers it because he wished to emphasize that it was not vain and empty, may well surprise us, but it is to be explained from the liveliness peculiar to James. Moreover, in Rom. xi. 2-4, although not in the same, yet in a similar manner, the passage quoted is separated from the form of quotation: τί λέγει ἡ γραφή, and in such a manner that the formula itself is taken up again by an ἀλλά, referring to the intervening remark, before the intended passage. When Engelhardt thinks that the words in consideration are to be recognised as the quotation, because they are words which do not elsewhere occur in James, apart from this being anything but conclusive, it is, on the contrary, to be observed that πνεῦμα understood of the human spirit \ 184 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. already occurs in chap. 11. 26, and that the words πρὸς φθόνον ἐσιποθεῖν do not occur in the passages of the O. T. which James, according to Engelhardt’s opinion, had in view. Ver. 6. The words μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν are explained from the fact that James already had in his view the passage of the O. T., afterwards quoted, from which these words are taken. The subject is the same as in the former sentence. The comparative does not express the comparison with the blessings which the world gives (Bede: majorem gra- tiam dat quam amicitia mundi; thus also Tirinus, Gebser, Pott, Winer, Schneckenburger, Kern), or after which those: invidi atque arrogantes, quos reprehendit, Jas. vy. 2—4 (Bouman), longed for; also it does not indicate “the greater measure of the comforting and satisfying Spirit as related to the longing Spirit” (Lange: “but he gives grace greater than the longing”), but “ μείζονα suggests a comparison with a case in which there is no πρὸς φθόνον euro.” (Wiesinger, so also de Wette); incorrectly Bengel: eo majorem, quo longius recesseris ab invidia. — 610]= therefore, because it is so (de Wette). ἡ γραφὴ is to be supplied to λέγει. Kern in- correctly takes λέγει impersonally: ἐΐ is said. The passage is Prov. 111. 34, and is verbally quoted according to the LXX., except that here, as also in 1 Pet. v. 5, ὁ Θεός is put instead of κύριος. The ὑπερήφανοι are those who, whilst they in striving after high things (ta ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες, Rom. xii. 16) will be the friends of the world, are not ready to bear the reproach of Christ. That these are ἐχθροὶ tod Θεοῦ, the scripture confirms by ἀντιτάσσεται. --- Opposed to these are the ταπεινοί, that is, the lowly, those who τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι, Rom. xii. 16, seek not the friendship of the world, but humbly bear the cross of Christ. That these are φίλοι τοῦ Θεοῦ the Scripture confirms by δίδωσιν χάριν." Comp Ecelus. 111. 19, 20. 1 The difficulty of the passage has induced some expositors to have recourse to arbitrary emendations ; thus Erasmus and Grotius explain the words from διὸ λέγει to χάριν asa gloss from 1 Pet. v. 5. Hottinger (with whom Reiche agrees), on the contrary, is inclined to erase the words from μείζονα to λέγει, and to insert a δὲ between ὁ and Θεός. Also Liicke, according to Gebser, considered those words a kind of gloss and error librarii to ἡ γραφὴ λέγει and τοῖς rar. δί).. ver. 6, and that the context is to be thus construed: πρὸς φβόνον. . . ἐν ὑμῖν κα δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γρ. λέγει : ὃ Θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις κι τ... CHAP) BERKS 185 Ver. 7. From the sentiment expressed in the preceding, James infers (οὖν) several exhortations expressive of the duty of humility. — ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ Θεῷ] The exhortation is addressed to the ὑπερήφανοι: because God ἀντιτάσσεται them, they are to ὑποτάσσειν to God. In Schneckenburger’s explanation: plena obedientia vos Deo committite, ut sitis δοῦλοι Θεοῦ, obedientia is incorrectly emphasized. Calvin’s is better: subjectio ista, quam commendat, hwmilitatis est ; neque enim generaliter hortatur, ut pareamus Deo, sed requirit submissionem.’ — ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ] This exhortation is closely joined to the preceding; submission to God means resistance to the devil. This requirement was so much the more appropriate, as the readers wished to be the friends of the κόσμος, whose ἄρχων is the devil. — καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν] comp. Hermas, I. 2, mand. 12 (ed. Hefele, p. 380): δύναται ὁ διάβολος παλαῖσαι, καταπαλαῖσαι δὲ οὐ δύναται. ἐὰν οὖν ἀντίστῃς αὐτῷ, νικηθεὶς φεύξεται ἀπὸ σοῦ κατῃσχυμμένος. Calvin: Quamvis continuos insultus repetat, semper tamen exclusus discedit.— καί after the imperative commencing the apodosis; so also in Matt. vii. 7 and frequently. 1 Pet. v. 5-9 is to be compared with this passage, where upon the quotation of the same O. T. passage follow exhortations to humility before God, and to resistance to the devil. Ver. 8. In contrast to the last exhortation and promise is the exhortation ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ, united in a similar manner with a promise. Whilst the devil is to be kept at a distance by resistance, we are to draw nigh to God. “ἐγγίζειν is not to be limited to prayer, but is to be understood generally of man’s, turning to God” (Wiesinger). Comp. on ἐγγίζειν, Isa. xxlx. 13; Heb. vii. 19.— καὶ ἐγγιεῖ ὑμῖν] corresponding to the preceding φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν. Similar expressions in 2 Chron. xv. 2; Isa, lvii. 15; Zech. i. 3.— But in order to draw nigh to God, conversion from the former nature is necessary ; therefore xa@apicate yeipas ... ἁγνίσατε καρδίας. 1 On account of its strangeness, we give here Semler’s remarks on this passage : Jacobus, Paulus, Petrus, Judas, uno quasi ore id confirmant, opus esse, ut Romanis et sic Deo se subjiciant (in which Lange finds no fault were it only said : ut Deo et sic Romanis) ; and afterwards: τῷ διαβόλῳ, qui per πνεῦμα φθόνου vos suscitat adversus magistratum Romanum ; similar also, of course, Lange, 186 ὺ THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, The cleansing of the hands consists in withdrawing them from evil and in employing them in good works ; the sanctifica- tion of the heart, in contending with impure desires, and in the cultivation of a holy disposition. The external and the internal must correspond; comp. Ps. xxiv. 4: ἀθῶος χερσὶ καὶ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ. Pott erroneously supposes the first expression to be a symbolical designation of μετάνοια, and denies its reference to the externa vitae integritas (Carpzov). The reason why James names the hands is not only because they are the principal organa operandi, but also because that he, with éyyifew τῷ Bcd, does not think exclusively on as see 1 Tim. ii. 8. On dyvicate καρδίας, comp. 1 Pet. 1. 22; 1 John 11]. 3.— ἁμαρτωλοὶ... δίψυχοι) This address, designating the present condition of the addressed, shows the necessity of μετάνοια ; ἁμαρτωλοί, because instead of God, who chose them for His possession, they serve the lusts (ἡδοναῖς, ver. 1) of the κόσμος, corresponding to μοιχαλίδες, ver. 4; δύψυχοι, because they would at the same time be Christians. De Wette’s explanation is too weak : ye undecided (between God and the world); Schneckenburger’s remark : hie sensu latiore sumendum quam, i. 8, is incorrect, for διακρίνεσθαι there has its reason in the Christian giving his heart to the world instead of to God; see Test. Aser. III. Ῥ. 691: of διπρόσωποι οὐ Θεῷ ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτῶν δουλεύουσι. ---- Calvin correctly remarks: non duo hominum venera designat, sed eosdem vocat peccatores et duplices animo.* Ver. 9. The μετάνοια required in ver. 8 does not take place without ‘grief and mourning for guilt. The conscious- ness of the iter is the road to the former; therefore the summons now to this mourning: tadaimwpiycate καὶ πεν- θήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε. The repetition of καί is an expression of emotion ; ταλαιπωρεῖν] in the N. T. da. λεγ. (the adjective in Rom. vii. 24; Rev. iii. 17; the substantive in chap. v. 1; Rom. ii. 16), literally, to suffer external hardships, as im Micah 11. 4, is here used of the internal condition: to feel unhappy, wretched, as the adjective in Rom. vii. 27. Estius, ‘Kern: As James considers man in reference to the divine grace as the receiver, so, on the other hand, he takes into account the free self-activity of man as the condition by which a relation of unity of man with God takes place. CHAP το τς τὸ 187 Gagnejus, Grotius erroneously refer it to bodily castigations : affligite vosmet ipsos jejuniis et aliis corporis σκληραγωγίαιυς (Grotius) ; similarly Hottinger: sensum miseriae claris indiciis prodite; falsely also Beza: reprehendit ἀναλγησίαν in ad- versis. — πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε] the same combination in Neh. viii. 9; 2 Sam. xix. 1; and in the N. T. Mark xvi. 10; LIuke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 15, 19: wail and weep. Grotius incorrectly explains wev@jcate—lugubrem habitum induite, saccum et cilicia; there is not the slightest indication that James had in view the external signs of mourning in dress and ‘the like. If the foregoing exhortations point to a change of the lusts and joy of worldly life into godly mourning (τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν λύπην, 2 Cor. vii. 10), this is still more definitely expressed in what follows, by which James passes from the outward manifestation (γέλως... πένθος) to the internal state (yapa ... κατηφεια). ---- κατήφεια] ἅπ. Ney. (the adj., Wisd. of Sol. xvii. 4), literally, the casting down of the eyes, here indicates internal shame; in Plutarch, Them. 9, it is used synonymously with δυσθυμία. Compare with this the picture of the publican in Luke xviii. 13. Ver. 10. Conclusion—carrying with it an O. T. colouring —of the exhortation, in which what has hitherto been said is summed Ὁ. ---- ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον κυρίου] ταπεινώθητε in reference to ταπεινοῖς κιτιλ., ver. 0. ---- κυρίου] 1... Θεοῦ (comp. ver. 7), ποὺ Χριστοῦ (Grotius).— ἐνώπιον] not = ὑπό, 1 Pet. v. 6: ταπεινώθητε ὑπὸ τὴν... χεῖρα τοῦ Θεοῦ, but expresses that the self-abasement is to take place in consciousness of the presence of God, who gives grace only to the humble; comp. Ecclus. ii. 17: of φοβούμενοι κύριον... ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ταπεινώσουσι τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν. --- Kal ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς} is to be referred both to the present concealed and to the future manifested glory of the humble Christian (comp. chap. i. 9). The contrasted ideas ταπεινοῦν and ὑψοῦν often occur; see in the O. T. Job v. 11; Ezek. xxi. 26; in the N. T. Matt. xxiii. 12; Luke xiv. 11; 1 Pet. v. 6, and other places. Ver. 11. Without any indication of a connection with the preceding, James passes to a new exhortation, which, however, is so far closely attached to the preceding, inasmuch as humiliation before God carries with itself humility toward our 188 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, brethren. From the fact that this exhortation, although decidedly earnest, has yet undeniably a milder character than the former, and that James uses here the address ἀδελφοί, whereas before it was povyadides, ἁμαρτωλοί, δίψυχοι,, it is to be inferred that James now addresses, at least primarily, those who by the worldly ways of others felt induced to do those things against which he here exhorts them. — μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων] καταλαλεῖν only here and in 1 Pet. ii. 12, iii. 16 (the substantive in 2 Cor. xii. 30; the adjective in Rom. i. 30; 1 Pet. 11. 1), to speak in a@ hostile manner against one; Luther, “to slander:” ἀλλήλων] against each other. Estius, Semler, Pott, Gebser, Hottinger incorrectly restrict the exhortation to teachers.”>— ὁ καταλαλῶν K.7.2. assigns the reason of the exhortation. The two ideas κατα- λαλῶν and κρίνων are indeed closely connected, but are not equivalent, since καταλαλεῖν presupposes κρίνειν; they are here indicated as distinct ideas by %.— By the addition ἀδελφοῦ not only is the reprehensibleness of καταλαλεῖν emphasized (Schneckenburger: jam hoc vocabulo, quantum peceatur καταλαλιαῖς, submonet), but also the reason is given for the sentiment here expressed καταλαλεῖ νόμους By αὐτοῦ added to τὸν ἀδελφόν this is brought out more strongly, whilst also the brotherly union is more distinctly marked than by the simple ἀδελφοῦ ; incorrectly Bengel: fraterna aequalitas laeditur obtrectando; sed magis judicando, — καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον] By νόμος the same law is here meant as in chap. i. 25, ii. 9, ete.: the law of Christian life, which according to its contents is none other than the law of love, to which ἀδελφοῦ and τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ already point. By reviling and condemning one’s brother, the law of love itself is reviled and condemned, whilst it is thereby disclaimed as not lawfully existing, and, as may be added, its tendency to save and not to destroy is condemned (Lange). The explanation of de Wette, that there is here a kind of play of words, in which is contained only the idea of contempt and disregard of the 1 Lange incorrectly observes that there is no reason to sce here a transition from one class to another. But it is not here maintained that James has in view a sharply exclusive distinction of different classes of his readers. 3 Wiesinger correctly says that we are not here to think of a contest between Jewish and Gentile Christians ; Lange incorrectly asserts that the primary reference here is to the internal divisions of Judaism, CHAP. IV. 12. 189 law, is unsatisfactory.’ Grotius, Baumgarten, Hottinger quite erroneously understand by νόμος the Christian doctrine, and find therein expressed the sentiment, that whosoever imposes upon his neighbour arbitrary commandments designates the Christian doctrine as defective, and in so far sets himself up as its judge.” — With the following words: εἰ δὲ νόμον κρίνεις k.T.A., the further consequence is added: but if thow judgest the law, thow art not a doer of the law, but a yudge. — The particle dé serves to carry on the thought: οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόμου, 1.6. thou thereby departest from the attitude which becomes thee ; for the law is given to man that he might do it, but whosoever thinks he has right against the law, cannot be a doer of it, and consequently assumes a position which does not belong to him (Wiesinger), which position is, as the sequel says, ἀλλὰ κριτής. Baumgarten, Gebser, Neander, Wiesinger, Lange, and others supply the genitive νόμου to κριτής: meorrectly, for (1) this would make this sentence and the one preceding it tautological; (2) it dilutes the idea κριτής in its contrast to ποιητὴς νόμου: and (3) the sequel which is added to this idea κρίτης, adverts not to the judging of the law, but to the judging of the man. The meaning is: Whosoever judges the law constitutes himself a judge, giving a law according to which he judges or pronounces sentence upon his neighbour. But this is not the province of man. The following verse tells the reason why it is not so. Ver. 12. One is the lawgiver and judge, (namely) He who can rescue (save) and destroy. The chief accent lies on εἷς, in opposition to men who presume to be judges. — ὁ νομοθέτης Kal κριτής] The idea νομοθέτης is here introduced, because the 1 The opinion of Stier is mistaken: ‘‘ Whoever improperly and officiously notes and deals with the sins of other men, throws blame thereby upon the law of God, as if it were not sufficient ; for he acts as if he supposed it necessary to come to the help of the law.” * Lange, in accordance with his view, supposes the reference to be to the Jewish ceremonial law, although he does not explain νόμος as equivalent to doctrine. Also Bouman thinks that James has here in view the judicia de aliena conscientia ; but James does not indicate that among his readers disputes took place de sabbati veneratione, de licito vel illicito ciborum usu, etc. Augustine here arbitrarily assumes an attack upon the Gentile Christians. Cor- rectly Laurentius: Is qui detrahit proximo, detrahit legi, quia lex prohibet omnem detractionem, sed et judicat idem legem, quia hoc ipso quod contra prohibitionem legis detrahit, judicat quasi, legem non recte prohibuisse. 190 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, judging belongs only to Him who has given the law, and is adduced against those who by judging their neighbour act as lawgivers, whereas their duty is to obey the given law. The explanation of Morus is false: legislator et judex est una eademque persona; and Theile infers from this something entirely foreign: unus est legislator... idem utriusque legis auctor: et severioris mosaicae et liberalioris christianae... isque etiam judex ... et legitimus et idoneus, idque et utriusque legis et eorum qui alterutram sequuntur; of all which there is here no mention.—o δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι] serves for a more precise statement of the subject εἷς (so also Briickner, Lange, Bouman); it mentions who this One is, and in such a manner that it is also announced why He and He only can be νομοθέτης καὶ κριτής. Schneckenburger correctly observes: ὁ dvvapevos ... articulus appositionis sig- num, ad subjectum εἷς pertinentis grammatice ; but incorrectly adds: ita autem ut, quoad sensum, melius in propriam resolvatur sententiam. Not only grammatically, but also ac- cording to the sense, ὁ δυνάμενος, etc., is to be most closely united to eis; therefore also Luther’s translation: “there is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to condemn,” is incorrect. — ὁ δυνάμενος] is not, with Schneckenburger, to be resolved into 6 ἔξεστι, but is to be retained in its literal meaning. Bengel correctly remarks: nostrum non est judicare ; praesertim cum exequi non possimus.— On cdcat, see chap. ii. 14; on ἀπολέσαι, particularly Matt. x. 28. — σὺ δὲ tis εἶ] expresses the insignificance of man, in contrast to ὁ δυνάμενος κιτιλ. (Schneckenburger), thus: “Thou who hast no power to save and to destroy ;” comp. Matt. x. 28. — The same question in Rom. xiv. 4, ix. 20.2— ὁ κρίνων] Schnecken- burger: “thow appos. ad pron. σύ; qui articuli hance vim 1 Most expositors in the interpretation of this passage have failed in precision, being satisfied with giving only its general meaning. They appear for the most part to regard ὁ δυνάμενος x.7.2. as an attribute of ὁ νομοθέτης (the Rec. omits καὶ κριτής); thus de Wette translates it: ‘‘One is the lawgiver and judge, who is able to save and to destroy.” Wiesinger gives here only a paraphrase which is wanting in definiteness: ‘‘Judging us and our brethren belongs to Him alone (namely, to Him who as lawgiver is not under, but above the law), and He proves His exclusive right by His power to save and to destroy, with which He confirms His judicial sentence.” 2 Yet is the σύ here to be understood in definite antithesis to another, namely to God, on which account also δέ is added. It has therefore a more independent CHAP. IV. 12. 191 nescierunt, loco participii posuerunt ὃς κρινεις."----τὸν πλησίον] without the personal pronoun, as in Mark xii. 33; Rom. xiii. 10, xv. 2. The Ree. τὸν ἕτερον perhaps arose from Rom. ii. 1. Ver. 13. The apostrophe commencing with this verse, and continued until chap. v. 6, has a character plainly distinguished from other portions of the Epistle—(1) by ἄγε νῦν repeated ; (2) those addressed are neither directly designated as ἀδελφοί, as is elsewhere the case with James (with the single excep- tion of chap. iv. 1 ff), nor are yet characterized as members of the Christian church; (3) only their forgetfulness of God is described, and their judgment is announced without any call being added to desist from their practice and be converted ; so that this apostrophe contains not the sheghtest exhortation to repentance, as is the case with those addressed in ver. 8 as ἁμαρτωλοί and δίψυχοι. All this is a sufficient proof that James has in view, as Oecumenius, Bede, Semler, Pott, Hottinger, and others have correctly remarked (differently Gebser, Schnecken- burger, de Wette, Wiesinger; Theile considers that Jewish Christians and Jews are here addressed), not so much the members of the church, as rather the rich (ot πλούσιοι, v. 1), of whom it is already said in chap. ii. 6, 7, that they oppress the Christians and blaspheme the name of Christ, and who are already, in chap. 1. 10, opposed to “the brother of low degree.” The severe language against them in an Epistle directed to Christians is sufficiently explained from the fact that, with many among them, as follows from ver. 1 ff., the same forgetfulness of God had gained ground. Also the first section (vv. 13-17) is of such a nature that the fault therein expressed affected many of the readers not less than the arrogant Jews.’ In this section, those addressed are at first characterized only according to their presumptuous security in their striving after earthly gain. — dye viv] ἄγε, occurring in the N. T. only here and in chap. v. 1, is a summons, which also, with classical writers, is joined with the plural meaning than in the passages adduced from the Epistle to the Romans. In this there is reason for the editors Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Buttmann here placing a comma after εἶ, but not in those other passages. 1 Lange agrees with this in essentials, affirming that this section was princi- pally addressed to the Jews ; whereby he certainly proceeds from the erroneous supposition that the Epistle was directed to the Jews generally by the hands of the Jewish Christians. 192 TIIE EPISTLE OF JAMES. (Winer, p. 458 [E. T. 649]).— νῦν] serves not only for strengthening (de Wette, Wiesinger), but likewise for connec- tion with what goes before. As in what follows there is no summons to do anything, some expositors suppose that aye vov is designed only to excite attention; Grotius: jam ego ad vos; so also Pott, Theile: age, audite vos. Others supply a thought ; thus Schulthess: πῶς ποιεῖτε, or μὴ καλῶς ποιεῖτε, and the like. De Wette thinks that the summons to lay aside the fault is indirectly contained in the reproof. Wiesinger suggests ver. 16 as the material for the designed imperative clause. It is more correct to assume that James has already here in view the imperative clause in chap. v. 1,—«Aavcate .. ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν «.7.d..—placed after ἄγε νῦν again resumed; thus Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger ; similarly Lange, according to whom ἄγε viv “refers to the announcement of the judgment, which comes out quite clear in chap. v. 1, but is here darkly and menacingly alluded to.” — οἱ λέγοντες) ye who say. λέγειν is to be retained in its usual signification ; comp. chap. ii, 14. Theile, without reason, explains it: qui non solum cogitare soletis sed etiam dicere audetis. — σήμερον καὶ αὔριον] announces the precise duration οἵ the intended journey—not when it should commence, but how long it should endure. With this explanation there is no difficulty in καί; otherwise ἤ (as the ec. reads) must stand. In καί there lies a greater confidence (Theile), as according to it a definite plan is fixed upon also for the morrow. Accord- ing to Wiesinger, different instances are here taken together, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (so already Bengel: unus dicit hodie, idem aliusve cras, ut commodum est); according to this, καί would have to be explained: “and relatively” (see Meyer on that passage); but the indefiniteness contained therein does not suit the certainty with which these people speak. Lange’s meaning is unjustified: “that αὔριον is used for the undefined future subsequent to to-day.” — πορευσόμεθα] The indicative we shall journey expresses the certain confidence more strongly than the conjunctive let us journey; see critical remarks. — εἰς τήνδε THY πόλιν] Luther: into this and that city. This explanation is also in Winer, p. 146 [E. T. 201], who adduces for it τήνδε τὴν ἡμέραν in Plutarch, Symp. 1. 6. 1; but Al. Buttmann (p. 90 [E. T. 103]), on the other hand, correctly CHAP. IV. 14. 193 asserts that the pronoun in that passage, as everywhere amony Greek authors, has its full demonstrative meaning, and that therefore it must be understood in James in the same sense ; thus Schirlitz (p. 222) observes that the pronoun is here used δεικτικῶς ; see also Liinemann’s remark in Winer, ed. 7, p. 153 ; still it is not to be explained, with Schneckenburger: in hance urbem, quae in conspectu quasi sita est; but, with Theile: certa fingitur, quae vero verie eligi potest. Those intro- duced as speaking mean each time a definite city ; but as this differs with different persons, James could only indicate it in an indefinite manner, and he does so by the pronoun by which each time a definite city is pointed to; thus into the city which the traveller had chosen as his aim. By πορεύεσθαι εἰς τ. πολ. is indicated not merely the going into the city, but also the journey to the city in which they would remain. — καὶ ποιήσομεν x.7.r.] we will spend there a year; ποιεῖν with a designation of time, as in Acts xv. 33, xx. 3, oO and other places; in the O. T. Prov. xiii. 23 ; see also Nicarch. epigr. 35 (Jacobs’ ed.): ἐν ταύτῃ πεποίηκα πολὺν χρόνον. Luther incorrectly translates it: “and will continue there a year ;”! for ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα is not the accusative of duration, but the proper objective accusative. The reading éva fittingly expresses the confidence with which those introduced as speaking measure out their time beforehand, but not “ their restless and unsteady conduct ” (Lange). — καὶ ἐμπορευσόμεθα καὶ κερδήσομεν] Bengel: καί frequens ; polysyndeton exprimit libidinem animi securi. — ἐμπορεύεσθαι] = to traffic ; the final aim is designated by κερδήσομεν. That aim is worldly gain, which, in carnal security, is recognised as certain to be realized, so that it cannot fail. Kern correctly remarks: “ Traffic is introduced only by way of eaample, as characterizing man’s doings with reference to the carthly life as contrasted with the life in God.”? Ver. 14. James opposes to carnal security the uncertainty 1 Stier correctly : ‘‘ will spend there a year.” The opinion of Lange, that ** ποιεῖν along with a definition of time may likewise have indicated that the time in question is busily employed,” is contradicted by 2 Cor. xi. 25. ? Lange indeed assents to this; but he thinks that the apostle, with a pro- phet’s glance, evidently describes beforehand the fundamental trait of the diabolically excited worldliness of his people, as it afterwards became more and more developed. MEYER. —J AMES, N 194 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. of the future and the transitoriness of life. — οἵτινες = ut qui; correctly Wiesinger: “ Ye who are of such a character that,” etc. — οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ (τὰ) τῆς αὔριον] indicates the ignorance of what the next day will bring forth; comp. Prov. iii. 28, xxvii. 1: μὴ Kavy@ τὰ εἰς αὔριον, od yap γινώσκεις τί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα: thus whether life will still last. What follows shows that James had this chiefly in view. — ποία yap ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν ;) yap gives an explanation of οὐκ ἐπίστασθε. — ποία] as in 1 Pet. ii. 20, how constituted? with the sub- sidiary meaning of nothingness. By the reading adopted by Buttmann: οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον ποία ζωὴ ὑμῶν, the genitive τῆς αὔριον is dependent on ποία ζωή ; thus, “ Ye know not how your life of to-morrow is circumstanced.” This idea is evidently feebler than the usual reading, for it is sup- posed that they yet live on the following day, which according to the other reading is denoted as doubtful. — ἀτμὶς yap ἐστε k.T..| γάρ refers to the idea lying at the foundation of the preceding question, that life is entirely nothing. — ἀτμίς (in the N. T. only here and in Acts 11. 19, in an O. T. quota- tion), literally breath; thus in Wisd. of Sol. vii. 25, synony- mous with ἀπόῤῥοια, has in the O. T. and the Apocrypha chiefly the meaning of smoke; thus Gen. xix. 28: ἀτμὶς καμίνου; so also Ecclus. xxii. 24 ; Ezek. viii. 11: ἀτμὶς τοῦ θυμιάματος ; Ecclus. xxiv. 15: λιβάνου ἀτμίς: see also Joel iii. 3; Ecclus. xlii. 4; in the classics it also occurs in the meaning of vapour. According to Biblical usage, it is here to be taken in the first meaning (smoke) ; thus Lange; Luther translates it by vapour; de Wette and Wiesinger, by stewm.-—éore is stronger than the Rec. ἐστι; not only their life, but also they themselves are designated as a smoke; as in chap. i. 10 it is also said of the πλούσιος, that he shall fade away as the flower of the grass. — By ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον... abavfouévn] the nature of the smoke is stated. — πρὸς ὀλίγον] = for a little time; ὀλέγον is neuter. — καί is to be explained: as it appears, so it also afterwards vanishes. In the corresponding passages, Job viii. 9, Ps. cii. 12, exliv. 4, the transitoriness of life is represented not under the image of ἀτμίς (Wiesinger), but of a shadow; differently in Ps. ci. 4. Ver. 15. After the reason has been given in ver. 14 why it was wrong to speak as in ver. 13, this verse tells us how we CHAP. IV. 15. 195 ought to speak. — ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς] is closely connected With οἱ λέγοντες, ver. 13, so that ver. 14 forms a parenthesis : Ye who say, To-day, etc., instead of saying, ἐὰν ὁ κύριος κτλ. — According to the reading ζήσομεν καὶ ποιήσομεν (instead of the Rec. ζήσωμεν καὶ ποιήσωμεν), it is most natural to refer καὶ ζήσομεν not to the protasis (as Tischendorf punctuates it), but to the apodosis (Lachmann and Buttmann; so also Wiesinger and Lange); for, first, it is grammatically more correct * to make only the conjunctive θελήσῃ dependent on ἐάν, and to take the two indicatives together; and, secondly, from this construction the striking thought results, that not only the doing, but also the life, as the condition of the doing, is dependent on the will of God: it is, accordingly to be translated : Jf the Lord will, we shall both liwe and do this or that. Correctly Wiesinger: “It appears to be more suitable to the sense to take ἐὰν ὁ x, θελ. as a single condition, and not to complete it by a second.” On the other hand, most expositors retain the reading of the fec., but they construe it differently. De Wette refers καὶ ζήσωμεν to the protasis, and takes the second «caf as belonging to the apodosis: “If the Lord will and we live, we shall,” etc.; so also Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, and in general most expositors (also Winer, see critical remarks; on the contrary, Al. Butt- mann, p. 311 [E. T. 362], prefers the indicative). Schnecken- burger, indeed, refers καὶ ζήσωμεν to the ,protasis, but he connects it more closely with ἐὰν θελήσῃ: si Deo placet ut vivamus tum faciemus (similarly Grotius and Hottinger), which, however, cannot be linguistically justified. Bornemann (in Winer and Engelhardt’s' MN. krit. Journ. VI. 1827) com- mences the apodosis with καὶ ζήσωμεν, and explains it: “ Let us seek our sustenance.” Winer correctly observes that this explanation (which Briickner erroneously ascribes to this commentary) lacks simplicity, and is not supported by Biblical usage.” Bouman and others (see critical notes) refer ζήσωμεν naturally to the protasis, and ποιήσομεν to the apodosis. The 1 The indicative future after ἐάν is only found with absolute certainty in Luke xix. 40. See Al. Buttmann, p. 192[E. T. 222]. 2 The opinion which Winer, in ed. 5, p. 331 f. [see E. T. 357], has expressed, that perhaps no apodosis is to be assumed, James only intending to say that we should always resolve never to speak decidedly, he has in later editions correctly relinquished. 196 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, meaning which this reading, unsupported by authorities, gives appears to be suitable, but yet is not correct, for it would be more correct to have said: ἐὰν ζήσωμεν καὶ ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ. — The indicative is to be preferred to the conjunctive in the apodosis, as a reciprocal call to definite action corresponds less with the context than the resolution to do something. Ver. 16 expresses the conduct of those addressed in contrast to ver. 15; and in such a manner that the judg- ment upon that conduct is also expressed. — νῦν δέ] here, as frequently, where the reality in opposition to what is set before a person is emphasized; see 1 Cor. v. 11, xiv. 6.— καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις ὑμῶν] By ἀλαζονεία is to be understood the arrogant self-reliance on the duration of earthly prosperity; see explanation of 1 John 11. 16. De Wette inaccurately explains it by bragging; Theile, by arro- ganter facta, dicta; Schneckenburger, by pertness ; Wiesinger, by “those arrogant expressions affecting complete indepen- dence;” Lange, “by vain and arrogant self-exaltation;” and others differently. The plural is used, because such haughti- ness manifests itself differently under different circumstances. — ἐν] here used differently than in chap. i. 9: the ἀλαζονείαι are ποῦ the object, but the reason of the boasting, that from which it proceeds (against Wiesinger), and καυχᾶσθαι is designated from the standpoint of James: that haughty and presumptuous language in ver. 13; comp. Prov. xxvii. 1. — With the following words: πᾶσα καύχησις x.7.r.] James definitely expresses his reprobation.— τοιαύτη] not every boasting in itself (chap. i. 9), but every boasting which pro- ceeds from ἀλαζονεία, which is founded in it and connected with it, is wicked. Ver. 17. With the general sentence: Whosoever knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin, James concludes what he has hitherto said. — odv] is used in the sense of conclusion, but indicates that the concluding thought is the result of what has gone before. — καλὸν ποιεῖν) belong together, de- pendent on εἰδότε ; not “ whosoever knows the good that is to be done,” which would be to take ποιεῖν as an epexegetical infinitive. Wiesinger correctly remarks: “καλόν is not the idea of good, in which case the article would be put, but that which is fair, in contrast to an action which in its moral CHAP. IV: 17. 197 nature is πονηρόν. That the discourse is concerning a sin of omission as such, to which this sentence is commonly referred (Bengel, Jachmann, and others), is rightly contested by de Wette and Wiesinger.'— ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστίν) De Wette: “In the sense of reckoning; John xv. 22; Luke xii. 47 f.” (so already Estius, also Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, ind others). —avr@ is here put, as frequently in the N. T., especially after the participle; comp. Matt. v. 40; see Al. Buttmann, p. 125 [E. T. 1435]. With regard to the con- nection in which this sentence stands with the preceding, most expositors understand it as enforcing that to which James has formerly exhorted his readers, and refer εἰδότι to the knowledge which they have now received by the word of James. But against this is the objection, that if this expression be referred to all the previous exhorta- tions (Kstius: jam de omnibus satis vos admonui, vobis bene nota sunt), this would not be its proper place, because later on more exhortations follow; but if it is only referred to the last remark (Grotius: moniti estis a me, ignorantiam non potestis obtendere, si quid posthac tale dixeritis, gravior erit culpa; so also Pott, Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger), we cannot see why James should have added such a remark to this exhortation, as it would be equally suitable to any other. {t is accordingly better to refer εἰδότε to the already existing knowledge of the subject just treated of; namely, the un- certainty of human life is something so manifest, that those who notwithstanding talk in their presumption as if it did not exist, as if their life were not dependent on God, contrary to their own knowledge, do not that which is seemly, but that which is unseemly, and therefore this is so much the more sin unto them. 1 “Since καλόν is the antithesis of πονηρόν, and not some positive good as beneficence, the defect of which is not πονηρόν, as de Wette correctly remarks, μὴ ποιοῦντι does not merely signify a sin of omission, but the omission of καλόν is necessarily a doing of πονηρόν. * When Lange, in arguing against this explanation, maintains that the word refers to the better knowledge of the readers, of evangelical behaviour in general, the definite connection of thought, in which here the general sentence is placed, is not properly considered by him. 198 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. CHAPTER V. Ver. 4. Instead of εἰσεληλύθασιν the form εἰσελήλυθαν is, with Tisch. and Lachm., to be preferred (on this form see Ph. Buttm. Ausfihrl. Gr. Gr. ὃ 87, 8, Note 5, and Winer, p. 70 f. [E. T. 93]).— Ver. 5. The ὡς of the Rec. (after G K, etc.) before ἐν ἡμέρῳ 15, according to the testimonies of A B 8, to be regarded as an explanatory addition, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be left out ; so also Wiesinger, Lange, Briickner; Reiche and Bou- man, however, judge otherwise.— Ver. 7. The ec. after the second ἕως has the particle ἄν (soin δὲ and many min.). Tisch. has omitted it, as, according to his statement, it is not found in A BGK, etc. ; Lachm. has retained it (according to Tischendorf’s note: ex errore); so also Buttmann, who adduces no authority for its omission. Already Griesbach regarded ἄν as suspicious. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted ὑετόν; it is in A G K, etc., but is wanting in B ἐξ, etc.; its addition is easily explained, par- ticularly as in the LXX. it is never wanting with πρώϊμος καὶ ὕψιμος. --- Ver. 9. The address ἀδελφοί, in A B, etc. (Lachm. Tisch.), stands before, in G 8, etc. (Mec.), after κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων; in K, etc., it is entirely wanting. Instead of χκατακριθῆτε the simple verb κριθῆτε is, with Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be read, according to almost all authorities ; so also the article ὁ before κριτής (which in the Rec. is wanting, against almost all authorities) is to be adopted. — Ver. 10. The address according to the Ree. is ἀδελφοί μου (G K, &, etc.); in A B, etc., wou is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.) ; its correct position is after λάβετε, not after χαχοπαθείας. ---- Instead of κακοπαθείας, S alone reads καλοκαγαθίας. ---- Before τῷ ὀνόματι, BS, etc., have the preposition ἐν (Lachm.): a correction apparently for the sake of simplifica- tion. — δὲ alone omits τῷ. --- Ver. 11. It is difficult to decide whether we are to read, with the Rec. and Tisch., ὑπομένοντας (G K, ete.), or, with Lachm. and Wiesinger, ὑπομείναντας (A Β δὶ, etc.); yet the reading of the Jc. appears to have arisen from an endeavour to generalize the reference of the idea: Bouman certainly judges otherwise.—The Jee. εἴδετε, after B* (teste Majo) K &, etc., Oecumenius (Lachm.), is as a correction to be changed for the more difficult reading ἤδετε, attested by A BG, ete. (Tisch.),— After ἐστιν the Rec. has ὁ κύριος, according to A B CHAP. V. 1. 199 (in B, however, the article is wanting) 8, several min. vss. etc. (Lachm.); Griesbach regarded it as suspicious, and Tisch. has omitted it, after C K, many min. etc.; the omission can easily be explained from the fact that κυρίου directly precedes (so also Lange; Bouman wavers).— Ver. 12. The reading εἰς ὑπόκρισιν (Ed. Steph., after G K, etc.) has probably arisen from the original ὑπὸ κρίσιν, these two words being taken as one, and then a preposition placed before them.— Ver. 14. The αὐτόν after ἀλείψψαντες is wanting in B; it was omitted as being self- evident. — Lachm. and Tisch. have, after A and some min., left out the article τοῦ before κυρίου; yet G K δὲ, many min. etc., attest its genuineness; in B also κυρίου is wanting ; nevertheless Buttmann has received it, but without the article. — Ver. 16. The reading of the Rec. is ἐξομολογεῖσθε ἀλλήλοις τὰ παραπτώματα, καὶ εὔχεσθε x.7.A. (Lisch.) ; instead of which A B read ἐξομολογεῖσθε οὖν ἀλλήλοις τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ προσεύχεσθε x.7.A. (Lachm.); for ow also K δὲ, several min. Vule. etc. testify: accordingly οὖν is to be considered as genuine; yet precisely this οὖν might mislead. one to find in this verse an extension of the thought going before, and on this account to change the new expressions with the preceding, and thus, instead of παραπτώματα, to put again ἁμαρτίας, and instead of εὔχεσθε, for which also & testifies, and to put again προσεύχεσθε, whereas the opposite change cannot be well explained. — Ver. 18. The Rec. ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν is found in B G K, almost all min. etc. (Tisch.); A, on the contrary, has ἔδωκεν ὑετόν (Lachm.) ; so also &, but with τόν before ὑετόν. It is possible that this change was occasioned by the following ἐβλάστησεν τὸν καρπόν. --- Ver. 19. Tisch. has omitted the pronoun μου after ἀδελφοί, yet the most important authorities, A Β Καὶ x, etc., attest its genuineness. —& alone has, instead of the simple τῆς ἀληθείας, the combination τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας. ---- Ver. 20. The reading γινώσκετε in B is occasioned by the address ἀδελφοί. Instead of the Rec. ψυχήν, after G K, many min. (Tisch.) Lachm. and Buttm. have adopted ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. This αὐτοῦ is found in A δὲ, some min. vss. ete. B has it, probably by an error of the scribe, not after ψυχήν, but after θανάτου. ---- B has as sub- scription ᾿Ιαλώβου; A: ᾿Ιακώβου ἐπιστολή ; others differently. Ver. 1. That here the same persons are meant as in chap. iv. 13, and not others, has already been observed on that passage: by ἄγε νῦν, the aye νῦν of that passage is again resumed.'— οἱ πλούσιοι] see chap. 1. 10, ii 6, 7; the 1 Whilst de Wette, Wiesinger, and others understand by the rich here addressed Christians, Stier has correctly recognised that such are here addressed. “‘who are outside of the Christian church,” namely, those already mentioned 200 TUE EPISTLE OF JAMES. expression is not to be taken in a symbolical, but in its literal meaning (against Lange).—«davoate ὀλολύζοντες κ.τ.λ.} κλαύσατε is not here to be understood, as in chap. iv. 9, of the tears of repentance (Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, de Wette, and others), for there is no intimation of a call to repentance. Correctly Calvin: falluntur qui Jacobum hic exhortari ad poenitentiam divites putant; mihi simplex magis denuntiatio judicii Dei videtur, qua eos terrere voluit absque spe veniae.’ James already sees the judgment coming upon the rich, therefore the call κλαύσατε ; that for which they should weep are the ταλαιπωρίαν which threatened them.?—— The dmperative is not here used instead of the future (Semler: stilo prophetico imperat, ut rem certissimam demonstret, jlebitis; Schneckenburger: aoristus imperativi rem mox certoque eventuram designat), but is to be retained in its full force. The imperative expresses not what they will do, but what they shall even now do, because their ταλαι- πωρίαι are nigh. The union of the imperative κλαύσατε with the participle ὀλολύξοντες is not an imitation of the frequent combination of the finite verb with the infinite absolute of the same verb in the Hebrew (Schneckenburger), since here two different verbs are united together (de Wette, Wiesinger) ; also ὀλολύζειν has not the same meaning as κλαίειν, but, as expressive of a more vehement affection, is added for the sake οἵ. strength. ὀλολύζειν frequently in the O. T., Isa. xiii. 6, xiv. 31, xv. 3 (ὀλολύζετε μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ), and in other places, and indeed chiefly used in reference to the impending divine judgment (Isa. xiii, 6: ὀλολύξετε, ἐγγὺς yap ἡμέρα κυρίου. Calvin: est quidem et suus poenitentiae luctus, sed qui mixtus consolatione, non ad ululatum usque procedit. —éni ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν) for your miseries, 1.6. the in chap. ii. 6, 7, who practise violence on you, the confessors of the Lord of glory. His remark is also striking: ‘‘To them James predicts as a prophet, and entirely in the style of the old prophets, the impending judgment.” 1 Wiesinger indeed concedes the point to Calvin, but only in words; for “the design of James, as in the case of the prophets of the O. T., is certainly nothing else than that of moving them by such a threat if possible yet to turn.” If James has this design in these words, he has certainly not indicated it. * That James by this intends the end of the Roman Empire (Hengstenberg), is proved neither from the Epistle of Peter, nor from Rey. xviii., nor from any other indications in this Epistle. CHAP. V. 2. 2.04 miseries destined for you, namely, the miseries of the judgment ; see ver. 3: ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ; ver. 7: ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου. Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Mill, Benson, Michaelis, Stier, Lange, Bouman refer this to the then impending destruction of Jerusalem; they are so far right, as the de- struction of Jerusalem and the last judgment had not as yet been distinguished in representation ;+ but it is incorrect to refer it to the judgment itself, rather than to the miseries which will precede the advent of Christ ; or with Hottinger, to find here only a description of the inconstancy of prosperity. — ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις] not sc. ὑμῖν (Luther: your misery which will come wpon you ; so also de Wette, Lange, and others), but the impending, already threatening miseries ; comp. Eph. ii. 7. Ver. 2. Description of the judgment destroying all riches: ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπεν] In a _ prophetical manner the future is described as having already taken place (Hottinger, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, and others). By πλοῦτος is not here—as Estius, Raphelius, Wolf, Semler, Gebser, Bouman on account of σέσηπεν think —to be un- derstood such things (fruit, etc.) as undergo literal rotten- ness, but is to be understood generally; and σέσηπε as a jiguratwe expression denotes generally the destruction to which riches is abandoned. The explanation of Calvin is incorrect: hic immensa divitum rapacitas perstringitur, dum supprimunt, quicquid undecunque possunt ad se trahere, ut inutiliter in arca computrescat (similarly Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, Bengel, Theile *); James “does not here intend to give the natural result of covetousness, and thus the reason of the judgment, but the effect of the judgment breaking forth” (Wiesinger).? James describes the reason from ver. 4 and onwards. — The verb σήπω, to cause to rot, in the passive 1 Wiesinger: ‘‘The question whether James thought on the destruction of Jerusalem or on the advent of Messiah is an anachronism ; for to him both of these events occur together.” * Theile, who takes the preterite in its literal sense, thus explains the passage : divitiae a vobis coacervatae perierunt nulla vestra aliorumque utilitate . . . atque ideo yos coram judice perdent. Ita causa additur istarum calamitatum per- ferendi, gravi oppositione eorum quae per absurda et impia ipsorum avaritia jam facta sunt eorumque, quae pro justa Dei retributione adhuc fient. 3 In agreement with his explanation of σπλούσιοι, Lange understands also πλοῦτος ina symbolical sense, namely, the externalized Judaistic righteousness— ** connected, of course, with worldly prosperity.”’ His assertion is also incorrect, 202 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. and second perfect to corrwpt,is in the N. T. az. Xey., but often occurs in the LXX.; comp. Job xxxiii. 21, xl. 7; as here in a general sense (= φθείρεσθαι) it is found in Ecclus. xiv. 19.—xal τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν «.7.r.] The general idea πλοῦτος is here and in what follows specialized. — σητό- βρωτος] imoth-caten, in the N. T. dz. dXey., does not occur in the classics, but in Job xiii. 20, LXX.: ὥσπερ ἱμάτιον σητό- βρωτον ; comp. Isa. li. 8. σκωληκόβρωτος in Acts xii. 23 is similarly formed. Ver. 3. Continuation of the description of the judgment: ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν Kal ὁ ἄργυρος] a further specification of riches, κατίωται] in the N. T. ἅπ. Ney. (Ecclus. xii. 10), equivalent to the simple verb, only in a stronger signification. Correctly Hornejus: loquitur populariter, nam aurum proprie aeruginem non contrahit ; so in the Epistle of Jeremiah 11, where it is said of gold and silver images: ov διασώζονται ἀπὸ ἰοῦ ; see also in the same, ver. 23. With too minute accuracy, Bret- schneider justifies the use of the verb here, that we are to think on gold and silver vessels which are alloyed with copper (similarly Bouman). It is no less incorrect, with Pott, to weaken the idea κατίωται, that it is to be understood only of amisso auri et argenti splendore, de mutato auri colore ex flavo in viridem; against this is ὁ ἐός directly following. Wiesinger thinks that because κατίωται is here used figura- tively, it is a matter of indifference that rust does not affect gold; but the ideas must suit each other in the figurative expression. The verb is rather here to be justified by the fact that since rust settles on metals generally, James in his vivid concrete description did not scrupulously take into consideration the difference of metals, which, however, is not to be reckoned, with de Wette, as a “ poetical exaggeration.” } --- καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν (namely, Tod χρυσοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀργύρου), εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται] Most expositors agree with the ex- planation of Oecumenius: καταμαρτυρήσει ὑμῶν, ἐλέγχων τὸ that here not the last judgment, but ‘‘the natural immanent judgments of sinners” are meant. 1 Lange strangely thinks that it is here intended to bring out the unnatural fact that the princes of Israel are become rebellious and companions of thieves : “Tt is as unnatural for gold and silver to be eaten up with rust, as for the glory of Israel to be as corrupted as the glory of other nations corrupts, which may be compared to base metals.” CHAP. V. 3. 203 ἀμετάδοτον ὑμῶν ; accordingly, “The rust which has collected on your unused gold and silver will testify to your hardness, and that to your injury = κατ᾽ ὑμῶν. But since the pre- ceding xatiwtas describes the judgment overtaking earthly glory, ἰός can only be understood with reference to it; correctly Wiesinger: “the rust is a witness of their own destruction ; in the destruction of their treasures they see depicted their own.”* Augusti superficially explains it: “will convince you that all riches are transitory.” After their riches are destroyed, the judgment seizes upon them- selves ; therefore καὶ φάγεται Tas σάρκας ὑμῶν. The subject is 6 éos, “the corroding rust seizes also them, and will eat their flesh” (Wiesinger). The figurative expression, although bold and peculiar, is not unsuitable, since ἐός is considered as an effect of judgment. φάγεται] is not the present (Schneckenburger), but in the LXX. and N. T. the ordinary future for ἔδεται; see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Sprach. ὃ 114 [E. T. 58], under ἐσθίω ; Winer, p. 82 [E. T. 110]. The object tas σάρκας ὑμῶν belonging to φάγεται is neither --ἰ ὑμᾶς (Baumgarten), nor yet in itself indicates “ bloated bodies ” (Augusti, Pott: corpora lautis cibis bene pasta) ; also Schneckenburger lays too much stress on the expression, explaining it: emphatice, quum ejusmodi homines nihil sint nisi σάρξ. According to usage, at σάρκες denotes the fieshy parts of the body, therefore the plural is also used with reference to one individual; comp. 2 Kings ix. 36: κατα- φάγονται οἱ κύνες Tas σάρκας ᾿Ιεζάβελδ ; further, Lev. xxvi. 29 ; Judith xvi. 17; Rey. xix. 18, 21; in definite distinction from bones, Micah iii. 2,3. It is to be remarked that in almost all these passages the same verb is united with the noun.’ The context shows that what is spoken of is not “the consuming of the body by care and want” (Erasmus, Semler, Jaspar, Morus, Hottinger, Bouman), but the punishment of 1 Stier incorrectly understands by rust ‘‘the guilt of sin which cleaves to mammon.” 2. Although σάρκες in itself indicates only flesh according to its separate parts, yet the expression is here chosen in order to name in a concrete manner that which is carefully nourished by the rich. According to Lange, ai σάρκες are “‘the externals of religious, civil, and individual life;” and the thought of James is that ‘‘the rotten fixity described as rust in its last stage transforms itself in the fire of a revolutionary movement !” 204 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. the divine judgment (Calvin, Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others). ‘The words ὡς πῦρ may be united either with what goes before or with what follows. Most expositors prefer the first combination ; yet already A, the Syriac version (where ὡς is wanting), and Oecumenius in his commentary put a stop after ὑμῶν. Grotius, Knapp, and Wiesinger, considering this construction as correct, accordingly explain it: tanquam ignem opes istas congessetis ; Wiesinger states as a reason for this, that without the union with os πῦρ the words ἐθησαυρίσατε x.7.r. give too feeble a meaning. But this is not the case, since the chief stress rests on ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (so also Lange); also James could not well reckon riches as a fire of judgment. Besides, in the O. T. the judgment is frequently represented as a devouring con- suming fire, which was sufficient to suggest to James to add ὡς πῦρ to φάγεται; see Ps. xxi. 10, LXX.: καταφάγεται αὐτοὺς mop; Isa. x. 16,17, xxx. 27 (ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ ὡς πῦρ ἔδεται); Ezek. xv. 7; Amos v. 6.1. The sentiment is: After the judgment has overtaken the wealth of the rich, it will attack themselves. Kern gives the sentiment in an unsatisfactory manner: “The destruction of that which was everything to the rich will punish him with torturing sorrow, as if fire devoured his flesh.” That the ταλαιπωρίαι already draw near is said in ver. 1, and James by the words ἐθησαυ- ρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις indicates that the judgment is close at hand, so that this time is the last days directly pre- ceding the judgment ; accordingly, the heaping up of treasure appears as something so much the more wicked. Estius, Calvin, Laurentius, and others incorrectly supply to the verb the word ὀργήν in accordance with Rom. ii. 5 (comp. Prov. i. 18). The object to be supplied to θησαυρίξειν, which is often used absolutely (comp. Luke xii. 21; 2 Cor. xii, 14; Ps. xxxviii. 7), is contained in the verb itself, and also follows from what has preceded. The preposition ἐν is not used instead of εἰς, and ἔσχαται ἡμέραι are not the last days of life (Wolf: accumulavistis divitias extremae vitae parti pro- visuri; Morus: cumulastis opes sub finem vitae vestrae), but 1 Pott: Aerugo describitur, quasi invadat membra divitum, eaque quasi, ut metallum, arrodat atque consumat et quidem . . . ὧς σῦρ, tanquam flamma membra quasi cireumlabens carnemque lento dolore depascens. CHAP. V. 4. 205 the ‘last times which precede the advent of Christ (ver. 7), not merely the final national judgment (Lange). Jachmann most erroneously takes the sentence as interrogative : Have ye collected your (spiritual) treasures on the day (ie. for the day) of judgment, in order to exhibit them ? Ver. 4. Description of the sins of the rich to the end of ver. 6, by reason of which they become lable to the judgment. The first sin mentioned is their injustice toward those who work for them. — idov] an interjection often occurring in the N. ἽΝ to draw attention to the object in question. — τῶν ἐργατῶν] emphatically put first; comp. the proverb: ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὑτοῦ (1 Tim. v.18). τῶν ἀμησάντων (ἀμᾷν = θερίζειν, in the N. T. da. rey.) τὰς χώρας ὑμῶν] χώρα = fields, as in Luke xii. 16; John iv. 35.— In the following words, expositors conjoin ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν with ἀπεστερημένος (ἀποσ- τερέω, to keep back, Plato, Gorg. 5196, so also LXX. Mal. iii. 5 ; Ecclus. xxxiv. 27); whilst they either explain ἀπό = ὑπό, or, as Wiesinger, retaining the distinction of the prepositions, observes, that “not the direct origin, but the proceeding of the act of robbery from them is indicated” (comp. Winer, p. 332 [Εἰ T. 464]; Al. Buttmann, p. 280 [E. T. 326]). But it would be more suitable to join ἀφ ὑμῶν to κράζει (so also Lange); the kept back hire crieth from the place where it is; comp. Gen. iv. 10: φωνὴ αἵματος... Bod... ἐκ τῆς γῆς; Ex. ii. 23: ἀνέβη ἡ βοὴ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων. The chief stress is put on ὁ ἀπεστερημένος ; the same kind of conjunction as in chap. iv. 14. The injury of our neighbour, by diminished payment or withholding of the wages due to him, was expressly forbidden in the law; comp. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14; Jer. xxii. 13; particularly also Mal. ili. 5: ἔσομαι μάρτυς ταχὺς ἐπὶ... τοὺς ἀποστεροῦντας μισθὸν μισθωτοῦ ; comp. also Job xxx. 38, 39; Tob. iv. 14; Ecclus. xxxiv. 27 (ἐκχέων αἵμα 6 ἀποστερῶν μισθὸν μισθίου). ---- κράζει] Calvin: vindictam quasi alto clamore exposcit; comp. Gen. iv. 10.— In the following words it is stated that the cry has been heard by God; comp. on this expression, particularly Ps. xviii. 7 ; Isa. v. 9: ἠκούσθη εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαὼθ ταῦτα; besides Gen, ΤΠ 21 ae lax τ 2.9 ii. 9, απ: 22 fo Ape xxii. 7, and other passages. By the designation of God as κυρίου σαβαώθ, His power as the Lord of the heavenly hosts 206 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. is emphasized; the reference occurring in the O. T. likewise to the earthly hosts is here evidently not admissible (against Lange) ; it is the transference of the Hebrew Nix2s 717, often occurring in the LXX., particularly in Isaiah; in other places the LXX. have κύριος παντοκράτωρ, 2 Sam. v. 10, vii. 27, or κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων, Ps. xxiv. 10.— James, in his graphic style, instead of the general word labourer, mentions specially the veapers, not on account of their multitude (de Wette), but because their laborious work in the sweat of their brow most strongly represents the work which is worthy of wages. Thus Calvin not incorrectly observes: quid est indignius quam eos, qui panem ex suo labore nobis suppeditant, media et fame conficere? It is more remote to explain it thus: “ because selfish hard-heartedness is here most sharply stated, when even the joy of the harvest does not induce them to give to the poor their hardly-earned portion ” (Briickner).* Ver. 5. A second sin of the rich, namely, their luxurious and gluttonous life, which forms a sharp contrast to the toil- some life of the labourers. — érpudyjcate .. . ἐσπαταλήσατε] synonymous terms: τρυφᾶν, in the N. T. az. Aey., in the LXX. Neh. ix. 25; Isa. Ixvi. 11 (Isa. lvii. 4). σπαταλᾷν, only here and in 1 Tim. v. 6; in the LXX. Ezek. xvi. 49; Amos vi. 4, and other places. Hottinger thus states the distinction between them: τρυφᾷν deliciarum est et exquisitae voluptatis ; o7a- ταλᾶν luxuriae atque prodigalitatis ; comp. the description of the rich man in Luke xvi.19. These and the following verbs are in the aorist, not “ because the conduct of the rich is described as viewed from the day of judgment” (1st ed. of this commentary ; similarly also Wiesinger), for “ this does not suit the present ἀντιτάσσεται" (Gunkel), but because James will mark the present conduct as a constant occurrence. The addi- tion ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] forms a sharp contrast to the preceding εἰς Ta ὦτα κυρίου σαβαώθ. Whilst the Lord in heaven hears the complaints of the unjustly oppressed, the rich on earth enjoy their lusts, undisturbed by the wrath of God, which shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous- ness of men (Rom. i. 18), — ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν] does - > Here also Lange comes in with his symbolical interpretation, understanding by the harvest ‘‘ the time when the theocratic seed of God in Israel has ripened unto the harvest of God,” and by the reapers “‘ the apostles and first Christians.” CHAP. V. 5. 207 not add a new idea to the preceding, but brings forward the fact that the rich in their luxurious living find the satisfaction of the desires of their heart. Luthevr’s translation: “Ye have pas- tured your heart,’ does not sufficiently correspond to the idea τρέφειν; something bad is evidently denoted by it. Since τρέφειν is literally “to make firm, thick,” it is best here to render it by “to satzate.” Other expositors translate it by “to fatten ;” Lange, by “to make fat.’ τὰς καρδίας is equivalent neither to τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν nor to buds; comp. Acts xiv. 17, and Meyer on that passage;' Winer, p. 141 [E. T. 195].— ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς} corresponds to the preceding ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. These last times are designated by James with reference to the rich as ἡμέρα σφαγῆς, the day of slaughter, because the sentence of death, which they have incurred, will be directly executed upon them at the approach of the παρουσία of Christ (comp. ver. 7) and the judgment; so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, only the latter arbitrarily under- stands by the day of slaughter, the day of Israel’s judgment, comprehending the time from the death of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem. This designation of the day of judgment is also found in the O. T., particularly Jer. xii. 3, LXX.: ἅγνισον αὐτοὺς cis ἡμέραν σφωγῆς αὐτῶν; xxv. 34. By the reading ὡς before ἐν ἡμέρᾳ od. a comparison occurs, namely, with the beasts who are to be slaughtered, so that Pott after ws directly supplies θρέμματα. De Wette explains it: “Ye have pastured your hearts as in the day of slaughter; ze. according to the comparison with beasts, who on the day on which they are to be slaughtered feed carelessly and devour greedily ;” so also Bouman. But the idea “ carelessly and ereedily” is introduced; also the comparison is unsuitable, since beasts on the day of slaughter do not eat more greedily than on other days. Other expositors, as Wolf, Augusti, Hottinger, and others, take ἐν as equivalent to εἰς ; Hottinger: corpora vestra aluistis, tanquam pecora, quae saginari solent ad mactationem; but this change of prepositions is arbitrary. Several expositors, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Laurentius, Bengel, and others, understand by ἡμέρα σφαγῆς the day of sacrifice ; Calvif® a addit similitudinem, sicut etc., quia solebant in sacri- 1 Meyer: ‘‘ The heart is filled with food, inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, the pleasant feeling of satisfaction, is in the heart.” 208 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, ficiis solemnibus liberalius vesci quam pro quotidiano more ; the meaning then is: tota vita vestra est quasi perpetuum epulum ac festum continuum (Laurentius) ; but that expression never elsewhere occurs in ¢his signification. Had James thought on the sacrificial feast or the like, he would have expressed it more definitely; besides, by this explanation the reference to the judgment is entirely awanting, and only the luxurious life is described; but this contradicts the character of the whole section, for if James, from ver. 4 onwards, assigns the reason of ταλαιπωρίαι, he does this not without an earnest pointing to the judgment and its nearness. Ver. 6. The third sin, the persecution of the just, by which the ungodliness of their disposition is most strongly indicated. By δίκαιος is not meant Christ (Oecumenius,' Bede, Grotius, Lange), for, on the one hand, there is nothing in the context to indicate this, and, on the other hand, the present avtitac- σεται is opposed to it; also, if this were the case, the per- fect must be put instead of the aorist, as here only one deed is mentioned, not, as before, a repetition of deeds. Wiesinger, in an unsatisfactory manner, explains τὸν δίκαιον by the inno- cent. Not merely the unjust conduct of the πλούσιοι founded on covetousness is here intended to be described, but the reason of persecution is implied in the expression τὸν δίκαιον itself; comp. Wisd. of Sol. ii. 12—20; as also 1 John iii, 12. The singular is to be taken collectively, and the expression absolutely, as in ver. 16. Several expositors assume that the verbs κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε, are not meant in their literal sense; but evidently without reason. κατεδικάσατε shows that here primarily judges are meant ; yet the accusers, if these are to be distinguished from them, are not to be considered as excluded, since their accusation points to nothing else than to a sentence of condemnation.” The 1 Oecumenius, indeed, says: ὠναντιῤῥήτως τό, ἐῷον. τ. δικ., ἐπὶ σὸν Χρισσὸν dva Pee ρέται ; but he thinks that James likewise understands by this: σοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς τὰ ὅμοια παρὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων παῤόντας ; and he closes with the remark: ἴσως δὲ καὶ σροφητικῶς τὸ περὶ ἑαυτὸν ὑπεμφαίνει πάθος, 2 Wiesinger correctly observes that φονεύειν is here not to be explained accord- ing to Eccius. xxxi. 21: φονεύων τὸν wAnciov ὁ ἀφαιρούμενος «τὴν iuBiwowsebut he maintains without reason that the death of the just is not to be considered as the direct design of the σλούσισι, but only as the result of their oppressions. Also de Wette thinks that the killing is not to be understood literally, but of CHAP. V.-7. 209 asyndeton sharpens the climax, which is contained in the addition of the second verb to the first. Bouman directs attention to the paronomasia between κατεδικάσατε and δίκαιον. -- οσοοὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται) opposes the calm patience of the just to the violence of the wicked: he doth not resist (comp. Acts xviii. 6 ; Rom. xiii. 4 ; Jas.iv. 6). Schneckenburger: οὐκ ἀντιυτ. sine copula et pronomine ponderose additur. The present is explained from the fact that in what goes before not a single instance, but the continued conduct of the rich is described, and opposed to this is placed the similarly continued conduct of the δίκαιοι. Lange, by the reference of τὸν δίκαιον to Christ, misinterprets the force of the present, arbitrarily attributing to the verb the meaning: “ He stands no longer in your way ; He does not stop you (in the way of death); He suffers you to fill up your measure.” — It is unnecessary to supply in thought ὅς or yap; also οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται is not to be converted into od δύναται ἀντιτάσσεσθαι (Pott). For the correct construction there is no reason, with Bentley, for con- jecturing ὁ κύριος instead of ov, or, with Benson, to take the sentence as interrogative, and to supply ὁ κύριος. The object of the addition of the clause is not so much the more strongly to mark the violent conduct of the rich, as rather by implication to point to the proximity of the vengeance of God, who inte- rests Himself in the suffering just, as is definitely asserted in the previous verses. With this verse are to be compared, besides the already cited passage in Wisd. of Sol. 11. 12—20, particularly Amos ii. 6, 7, v. 12 (καταπατοῦντες δίκαιον), vui. 4, which testify for the correctness of the explanation here given. Ver. 7. Exhortation to the brethren to patient waiting, on to ver. 11.— μακροθυμήσατε οὖν] μακροθυμεῖν ; literally, to be long-suffering to those who do an injury; opposed to ὀξυθυμεῖν ; see Meyer on Col. i. 11. On its distinction from ὑπομένειν, See on 2 Tim, iii. 11; here the meaning appears to run into that of ὑπομένειν ; comp. the following μακροθυμῶν aud ver. 8; but it is here well put, in order to exclude the feeling of disquieting doubt; comp. Heb. vi. 12, 15.— οὖν] refers to the preceding sentiment (also to that indicated in οὐκ extreme violence, deprivation of liberty, and the like. This interpretation is, however, occasioned by the assumption that the rich are Christians. Mryrr.—JAMEs, O 210 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν), that the judgment is near (de Wette, Wiesinger '). — ἀδελφοί contrast to the πλούσιοι. ----- Patience is to endure ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου. On ἕως as a preposition, see Winer, p. 418 [E. T. 590]. As regards the meaning which ἕως here has, Schneckenburger correctly observes: non tempus tantum sed rem quoque indicat, qua ἡ θλῖψις μακροθύμως toleranda tollatur. By παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου, according to constant Christian usage, is to be under- stood the advent of Christ (Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman), not the coming of God (Augusti, Theile, de Wette) ; although James by κύριος chiefly designates God, yet he also ~uses this name for Christ, chap. i. 1.— The exhortation is strehgthened by the reference to the patient waiting of the husbandman (the same figure in Ecclus. vi. 19). As he waits (ἐκδέχεται) for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with reference to it, until it has received the early and latter rain, so should the Christian patiently wait for the precious fruit of his labour, for which he hopes. The καρπός is desig- nated as τίμιος, because it is its preciousness which occasions the μακροθυμία. By μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, ἐκδέχεται is more definitely stated, since that verb does not necessarily include in itself the idea here intended. On ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ = in reference to the καρπός, comp. Luke xviii. 7.—o γεωργός is not the subject of λάβῃ (Luther), but ὁ καρπός (Stier). — The question whether we are here to read ἕως with or without ἄν (see critical remarks) cannot be answered from the usage of the N. T.; see Matt. x. 11, and, on the other hand, Luke xii. 59. According to Tischendorf, the authorities are decisive for the omission of ἄν. See Al. Buttmann, p. 198 f. [E. T. 230 11" -- (ὑετὸν) πρώϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον) the autumnal and spring rains ; see Deut. xi. 14; Jer. v. 26; Joel 1. 23; Zech. x. 1: not “the morning and the evening rain” (Luther); see Winer’s Realwirterb. under “ Witterwng.” ὃ 1 Schneckenburger correctly observes: ad judicii divini propinquitatem respicit ; but the remark is erroneous : neque eam infitias, si quis pariter versui 6 hune jungat, ita ut exemplo τῆς μακροθυμίας ad eandem animi lenitatem usque servandam excitentur. 5 It is peculiar that in the parallel sentences, Ex. xv. 16, Jer. xxiii. 20, at first ἕως stands and then ἕως ἄν. 8 In a peculiar manner Oecumenius allegorizing says: πρώϊμος ὑετός, ἡ ἐν νεότησι Mira δακρύων μετάνοια " ὄψιμος, ἡ ἐν τῇ γήρᾳ. CHAP. V. 8, 9. 211 Ver. 8. Resumption and completion of the exhortation. The καί after μακροθυμήσωτε is explained from the reference to ὁ γεωργός. ---- By the asyndeton addition στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, the conduct which is the condition of paxpo- θυμία is emphasized. Not weak, but strong hearts are able to cherish μακροθυμίαν ; on this expression, comp. 1 Thess. iii 18: 1 Pet. v.10. The strengthening is indeed, on the one hand, an affair of God; but, on the other hand, it depends on the man himself, just like everything else that is obtained by the man surrendering himself to the love of God working in him. — ὅτε ἡ παρουσία «.7.r.] Calvin: Ne quis objiceret, nimium differri liberationis tempus, occurrit dicens, prope instare Dominum, vel (quod idem est) ejus adventum appro- pinquasse. — On the expression, comp. especially 1 Pet. iv. 7. Ver. 9. To the preceding exhortation a new one is added: μὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί, κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων, Since with impatience in affliction a sinful irritability of the sufferers toward each other is easily conjoined. στενάζειν κατά is to be understood neither of invidia alienis bonis ingemiscente (Grotius), nor of impatientia mutuis lamentationibus augenda; it rather denotes the gemitus accusatorius (Estius, Calvin, and others), without, however, necessarily supposing a provocatio ultionis divinae malorumque imprecatio (Theile, and similarly Calvin, Morus, Gebser, Hottinger, Lange, and others) united with it. Augusti incorrectly renders it: “Give no occasion to one another for sighing.” — From κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων it does not follow that the πλούσιοι (ver. 1 ff.) belong to the Christian church (against de Wette and Wiesinger); the reference here is. rather to the conduct of Christians toward each other under the oppressions to which they were exposed by the πλούσιοι. ἢ — Since στενάζειν κατά involves the judging of our brother, and is opposed to that love of which Paul says: μακροθυμεῖ, xXpnoTeveTal,... οὐ παροξύνεται, ov λογίζεται TO κακόν... πάντα ὑπομένει, James adds the admonition ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε (comp. Matt. vii. 1), and then, for the purpose of strengthening 1 Hornejus : Quos ad manifestas et gravissimas improborum injurias fortiter ferendas incitarat, eos nunc hortatur, ut etiam in minoribus illis offensis, quae inter pios ipsos saepe subnascuntur, vel condonandis vel dissimulandis promti sint. Contingit enim, ut qui hostium et improborum maximas saepe con- tumelias et injurias aequo animo tolerant, fratrum tamen offensas multo leviores non facile ferant. 312 TILE EPISTLE OF JAMES, the warning, points to the nearness of the Judge. The κριτής is none other than the Lord, whose παρουσία is at hand. As His nearness should comfort Christians in their distress, so it should lhkewise restrain them from the renunciation of love to one another (comp. chap. 11. 13). Incorrectly Theile: non tam, qui impatientius ferentes certo puniat (quamquam nec hoc abesse potest), quam: qui vos ulciscatur, ut igitur ne opus quidem sit ista tam periculosa impatientia (so also de Wette) ; for ὁ κριτής evidently points back to ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε." -- On πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν] 1.0. he stands already before the door, on the point of entering, see Matt. xxiv. 33; Mark xiii. 29 (Acts v. 23). Vv. 10,11. Old Testament examples adduced for the sake of strengthening the exhortation to patience. — ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε] ὑπόδειγμα (instead of the classical παράδειγμα) here, as frequently in the N. T. and LXX., an example, a pattern ; in sense equivalent to ὑπόγραμμον, 1 Pet. ii. 21; τύπος, 2 Thess. iii. 9 (εἰς τὸ μιμεῖσθαι). ----- τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας] κακοπάθεια, in the N. T. dz. λεγ., is not synonymous with μακροθυμία = vexationum patientia (Hottinger), but denotes suffering, affliction, synonymous with ξυμφοραί, Thue. vii. 77; in 2 Mace. ii. 26, 27, it is used in a somewhat attenuated sense. Schneckenburger arbitrarily combines it with the following words into one idea= τῆς ἐν κακοπαθείᾳ μακροθυμίας ; by this combination the point of κακοπάθεια is weakened. On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 12. — By the relative clause οὗ ἐλάλησαν (ἐν) τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου, belonging to τοὺς προφήτας, is indicated that the prophets, as servants of God, stand opposed to the world, even as believing Christians do. The dative τῷ ὀνόματι (see critical remark) is not to be explained, with Meyer (see on Matt. vii. 22), “by means of the name, 1.6. that the name of the Lord satisfied their religious consciousness and was the object of their confession;” but, as is commonly understood = ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου (Wiesinger: jussu et autoritate; de Wette: “ by virtue of the name”); this is evident from the fact that the Hebrew ΠῚ ΠῚ DWa 727 is translated in the LXX. not only 1 Wiesinger, indeed, recognises that the statement is added as a warning ; but yet he thinks that the chief idea is: ‘‘ Ye may with perfect calmness leave the judgment to Him” (so also Lange). CHAP. V. 11. 2T3 by ἐν (τᾷ) ἀν. κυρίου (Dan. ix. 6) or by ἐπὶ τῷ ov. (Jer. xx. 9), but also by λαλεῖν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου (Jer. xliv. 16). Ver. 11 assigns a new reason for the exhortation: Behold, we count happy them who endure; the μακαρίζειν of them is founded on the consciousness that God does not leave them unrewarded (Matt. v. 12), which is clearly manifested in the life of Job, on which account James, in conclusion, refers to him. By the reading τοὺς ὑπομένοντας the idea is to be taken quite generally ; whereas by the better attested reading τοὺς ὑπομείναντας it is to be limited to sufferers of the past time ; the latter is more in conformity with the context (Wiesinger). The “restricted reference” to τοὺς προφήτας (Grotius, Baum- garten, Pott, Hottinger, Theile) is not to be justified. — τὴν' ὑπομόνην ᾿Ιὼβ ἠκούσατε] ὑπομόνη is not = perpessio (Storr), but the patience which Job displayed both in his afflictions and in his replies to the contradictions of his friends; Tob. 1. 12-15 (Vulg.; the text in the Greek ed. Tisch. reads differently) refers to the same example; also in Ezek. xiv. 14, 20, Job is mentioned as a righteous man along with Noah and Daniel. —xovcate] may refer specially to the: reading in the synagogue, but may be understood generally. —- καὶ τὸ τέλος κυρίου] is, according to the connection given above, to be referred to and explained of the issue in which the sufferings of Job terminated: finem, quem a Domino habuit ; so that κυρίου is the genit. subj. or causae (2 Cor. x1, 26); thus most expositors explain it. Others, as Augustin, Bede, Lyra, Estius, Thomas, Pareus, Wetstein, Lange, assume that by τέλος κυρίου the death of Christ is to be understood. Against this is not only the concluding clause, but also the context, which points to the end to which the pious sufferer is brought by the mercy of God, and on account of which he is accounted happy; apart altogether from the improbability that James should connect the example of Christ immediately with that of Job.2— With the reading εἴδετε this can only be 1 Also in union with other verbs the LXX. translate py‘g sometimes by the simple dative ; thus Ex. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 5: καλεῖν τῷ ὀνόματι ; Jer. xii. 16: ὀμνύειν τῷ ὄν. μου; See also Isa. xli, 25, xliii. 7, xlv. 4. Though this usage were not decisive, yet it would be most natural to explain the dative σῷ ἐνόματι --- through the name, by which the name of the Lord would be conceived as the objective power by which the prophets were induced to speak. 2 In a most unsatisfactory manner Lange seeks to justify this, by observing 214 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. understood of “indirect seeing, namely, of clear perception by hearing” (de Wette). The better attested reading, however, is Were, and it can only be regarded as an oversight that Wiesinger translates this iSere by “audiendo cognovistis,” as it is not the indicative, but the imperative. The imperative is here certainly surprising, and was on that account changed into the indicative. Tischendorf has connected ἔδετε with what goes before, and then it is to be explained: Ye have heard of the patience of Job, look also at the end which the Lord gave. The connection with what follows would, how- ever, be more suitable: Ye have heard of the patience of Job and the end which the Lord gave ; see (i.e. recognise from this) that the Lord is πολύσπλαγχνος and οἰκτίρμων. Such an imperative, introduced ἀσυνδέτως, is not foreign to the style of James; comp. chap. i. 16,19. With the Receptus, and also with the union of ἔδετε with τὸ τέλος κυρίου, ὅτι is not a particle of proof = for (de Wette, Wiesinger, Lange), since in the preceding words no thought is expressed which would be confirmed by this clause;* but an objective particle that ; a twofold object is joined to the verb, the second definitely bringing forward the point indicated in the first; arbi- trarily Theile translates it and certainly. — The subject to ἔστιν is at all events ὁ κύριος, which, according to the most important authorities, is to be retained as genuine. — πολύ- σπλαγχνος] is a complete az. Aey. “coined after the Hebrew 22 10” (Wiesinger), which the LXX. translate πολυέλεος, see Ex. xxxiv. 6, etc.; in Eph. iv. 32, 1 Pet. 111, 8, is the related expression εὔσπλαγχνος. ---- οἰκτίρμων] in the N. T. only here and in Luke vi. 36 (comp. Col. 11. 12: σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ). frequently in O. T.; comp. with this passage, particularly Ex. xxxiv. 6; Ps. 6111. 8; and Ecclus. 11. 7 ff— The reference to the mercy of God was to impress the readers, in their sufferings, with the hope that the reward of their patience would not fail them, and to encourage them to stedfast endurance. that James ‘‘ did thus connect the example of Abraham with that of Rahab.” It is evidently inappropriate to place together Job as ‘‘ the great sufferer of the Old Testament,” with Christ as ‘‘the great sufferer of the New Testament.” 1 Τὴ a peculiar but highly arbitrary manner, Lange refers ὅσ to what directly precedes, uniting it with τὸ rides κυρίου in the sense that it is thereby specified what Christ was able to efiect in entering upon His sufferings. CHAP. V. 12. DS Ver. 12. The warning contained in this verse against swearing is in no other connection with the preceding than what lay in the conduct of the readers. The Epistle of James was occasioned by manifold faults in the churches, and there- fore he could not conclude without referring to the inconsiderate swearing prevalent among them. It is as little indicated that he refers to the warning against abuse of the tongue (chap. iii.; Hornejus) as that this swearing arose from impatience, against which the preceding verses are directed (against Gataker, Wiesinger). How important this warning was to the author the words πρὸ πάντων δέ show, by which it is indicated that it of all other exhortations is to be specially taken to heart. James assigns the reason of this in the words iva μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. ---- The warning μὴ ὀμνύετε is more exactly stated in the words μήτε τὸν οὐρανόν, μήτε τὴν γῆν, μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον. It is to be noticed that swearing by the name of God is not mentioned. This is not, as Rauch along with others maintains, to bé considered as included in the last member of the clause, but James with μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον has in view only similar formulae as the above, of which several are mentioned in Matt. v. 35, 36. Had James intended to forbid swearing by the name of God, he would most certainly have expressly mentioned it; for not only is it commanded in the O. T. law, in contradistinction to other oaths (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20; Ps. Ixiii. 12), but also in the prophets it is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God (Isa. lxv. 16; Jer. xii. 16, xxiii. 7,8). The omission of this oath shows that James in this warning has in view only the abuse, common among the Jews generally and also among his readers, of introdueing in the common every-day affairs of life, instead of the simple yea or nay, such assevera- tions as those here mentioned; so that we are not justified in deducing from his words an absolute prohibition of swearing in general," as has been done by many expositors of our Epistle, 1 Rauch says: ‘*One should give honour to the truth, and freely and without prejudice recognise that according to the clear words of the text here, as in Matt. v. 34 ff., a general and unconditional prohibition of all oaths is expressed.” To this it is replied that honour is given to the truth when one is not taken by appearance, but seeks without prejudice to comprehend the actwal meaning. In opposition to the view that Christ by the prohibition of oaths, in Matt. νι. 33 ff, has in view the ideal condition of the church, Wiesinger with justice 216 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, and especially by Oecumenius, Bede, Erasmus, Gebser, Hot- tinger, Theile, de Wette, Neander (comp. also Meyer on Matt. ν. 33 ff.); whereas Calvin, Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, Pott, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Schneckenburger, Kern, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange,’ and others, refer James’ pro: hibition to light and trifling oaths. The use of oaths by heaven etc., arises, on the one hand, from forgetting that every oath, in its deeper significance, is a swearing by God; and, on the other hand, from a depreciation of the simple word, thus from a frivolity which is in direct contrast to the earnestness of the Christian disposition. The construction of ὀμνύειν with the accusative τὸν οὐρανόν, etc., is in accordance with classical usage, whereas the construction with ἐν and εἴς (in Matt.) is according to Hebraistic usage.— To the prohibition James opposes the command with the words ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ vai ναὶ καὶ τὸ ov ov, which do not express a new exhortation (Schneckenburger), but the contrast to ὀμνύειν τὸν οὐρανόν, ete. Most expositors (Theophylact, Oecumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Kern, Stier, and others) find here a command to truthfulness expressed ; but incorrectly, as in the foregoing μὴ ὀμνύετε a reference to the contrast between truth and falsehood is not in question at all. De Wette correctly explains it: “let your yea be (a simple) yea, and your nay (a simple) nay” (so also Estius, Piscator, Hottinger, Neander, Wiesinger, and others ; comp. Al. Buttmann, p. 142 [E. T. 163]).? Not the sentiment itself, but its form only is different from Matt. v. 37 (see Tholuck and Meyer in loco).— The form ἤτω (1 Cor. xvi. 22 ; Ps. civ. 31, LX.X.) instead of ἔστω is found in classical Greek only once in Plato, Rep. 11. p. 361 (see Buttmann, Avsfihrl. Gr. ὃ 108, Remark 15 [Εἰ T. 49]; Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 95]).— observes: ‘‘ It can no longer be said, in reference te owr passage, that only an . ideal requirement is expressed calculated for entirely different circumstances than those which were in reality, for there can be no doubt that James demands for his requirement complete practice under the actual and not the ideal cireum- stances of his readers,” 1 Lange by this understands more exactly: ‘‘ conspiracy, which is a swearing accompanied by hypothetical imprecations or the giving of a pledge.” More- over, his view of the design of the Epistle misled him to find the reason of this prohibition in Jewish zeal to enter into conspiracies. * Lange would unite the two points together ; and he is so far not in the wrong, as Janes presupposes truthfulness. CHAP. V. 13, 14. 27 iva μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε] assigns the reason why one should not swear, but should be satisfied with the simple yea or nay. According to its meaning, the expression is equivalent to ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε, ver. 9. There is nothing strange in mimtew ὑπό] ; comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 39; Ps. xviii. 39. By κρίσις is to be understood judicium condemnatorium. The swearing for- bidden by James subjects to the judgment, because it is founded on and in every instance promotes frivolity. Ver. 13. If one among you suffers, let him pray; tf one is of good courage, let him sing psalms. This exhortation stands in no assignable connection with what goes before. The suffer- ings to which ver. 7 ff. refer are those of persecution; but κακοπαθεῖν has here an entirely general meaning. On account of the following εὐθυμεῖ, many expositors (Beza, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Hottinger) incorrectly explain κακοπαθεῖν — “ to be dejected” (Vulgate: tristatur quis). It rather means to be unfortunate, to suffer, in which aegritudo animo is certainly to be considered as included. Pott incorrectly takes it as equivalent to the following ἀσθενεῖν, which is only a particular _ kind of xaxoradeiv.— προσεύχεσθαι] denotes prayer gene- rally; there is no reason to limit it here to petition.—parrew | literally, to touch, used particularly of stringed instruments ; in the LXX. the translation of 183) and W!= to sing psalms ; comp. particularly 1 Cor. xiv. 15. Both joy and sorrow should be the occasion of prayer to the Christian. The form of the sentence is the same as in 1 Cor. vil. 18, 27. Meyer: “The protases do not convey a question, being in the rhetori- cally emphatic form of the hypothetical indicative ;” see Winer, p. 152 [E. T, 213], p. 255 [E. T. 355], p. 478 [E. T. 678]. Ver. 14. From the general κακοπαθεῖν a particular instance, that of sickness, is selected. ἀσθενεῖν] --- aegrotare, as in Matt. x. 8, Luke iv. 40, and many other passages ; the opposite: ὑγιαίνειν. -- By ἀσθενεῖ τις James hardly means any sick person, but only such a person who under the burden of. bodily suffering also suffers spiritually, being thereby tempted in his faith.— The sick man is to call to himself the pres- 1 Lachmann has after the sentence containing the hypothesis put a mark of interrogation. Al. Buttmann, p. 195 [E. T. 226], rightly declares this to be unnecessary, but has in his edition of the N. T. adopted the same punctuation. 218 TIIE EPISTLE OF JAMES. byters of the congregation. προσκαλεσάσθω] in the middle expresses only the reference to himself; not that the call is by others, which is here taken for granted. — τοὺς πρεσβυτέ- ρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας] the presbyters of the congregation, namely, to which the sick man belongs. It is arbitrary to explain τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους as unum ex presbyteris (Estius, Hammond, Laurentius, Wolf); the whole body is meant (Wiesinger), as the article shows; not some of its members, as Theile considers possible. The following words: καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν x.7.2., express the object for which the presbyters are to come; they are to pray over him, anointing him in the name of the Lord. The prayer is the chief point, “as also ver. 15 teaches: ἡ εὐχὴ τ. πίστεως x«.7.r.” (Wiesinger) ; the anointing is the act accompanying the prayer. ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν] is generally inaccu- rately explained as equivalent to pro eo, pro salute ejus; ἐπί with the accusative expresses figuratively the reference to something, similarly as the German diber with the accusa- tive; thus κλαίειν ἐπί twa, Luke xxiii. 28. How far the author thought on a local reference, he who prayeth bending over the sick, or stretching forth his hands over him, cannot be determined; see Acts xix. 13.— With the prayer is to be conjoined the anointing of the sick, for what purpose James does not state. According to Mark vi. 13, the disciples in their miracles of healing applied it, when at the command of Jesus they traversed the Jewish land; but the reason of their doing so is not given, nor at a later period is there any mention of it im the miracles of the apostles." Probably James mentions the anointing with oil only in conformity with the general custom of employing oil for the refreshing, strengthening, and healing of the body,” since he refers the miracle not to the anointing, but to the prayer, and, presup- posing its use, directs that the presbyters should unite prayer with it, and that they should perform it ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (τοῦ) κυρίου, that is, in a believing and trustful mention of the name of Christ (less probably of God). That ἐν τῷ ov, κυρ." 1 Meyer in loco considers this anointing, as also the application of spittle on the part of Jesus Himself, as a conductor of the supernatural healing power, analogous to the laying on of hands. But in this the distinction is too little observed, that according to general custom oil, but not spittle, and the laying on of hands, was applied to the sick. * See Ilerzog’s Real-Encycl. on Ol, Oelung, Salbe. CHAP. V. 15. 219 cannot mean jussu et auctoritate Christi is evident, because there is no express command of Christ to employ it. Gebser incorrectly unites this particular with προσευξάσθωσαν; Schneckenburger with both verbs; it belongs only to ἀλεί- ψαντες (de Wette, Wiesinger). The question why the presbyters should do this is not to be answered, with Schneckenburger: quia τὸ χάρισμα ἰαμάτων (1 Cor. xii. 9) cum lis communicatum erat; for, on the one hand, it is an arbitrary supposition that the presbyters possessed that χάρισμα, and, on the other hand, there is here no mention of it; incorrectly also Pott: quia uti omnino prudentissimi elige- bantur, sic forte etiam artis medicae peritissimi erant. Bengel has given the true explanation: qui dum orant, non multo minus est, quam si tota oraret ecclesia; and Neander: “the presbyters as organs acting in the name of the church.”? Ver. 15 mentions the result of the prayer conjoined with the anointing. — καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως] That the prayer of the presbyters must proceed from faith was not asserted in the preceding, but was evidently presupposed; it is now directly characterized as such. τῆς πίστεως is gen. subj. : the prayer which faith offers; inaccurately Schneckenburger : preces fide plenae. πίστις is used here in the same significa- tion as in chap. 1. 16; it is sure confidence in the Lord, in reference to the case in question. Grotius, Gomarus, Schneckenburger, Theile, and others define the prayer more closely, as that of the presbyters and of the sick man. On the other hand, Wiesinger refers ἡ εὐχὴ τ. 7. to προσευξάσ- θωσαν, accordingly the intercession of the presbyters ; so also de Wette. This is correct; it is, however, to be observed that James has certainly supposed as self-evident the prayer of the sick man who called the elders. The following words: σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα, state the effect of the prayer of the presbyters. — τὸν κάμνοντα] takes up again ἀσθενεῖ τις. κάμνειν, in the N. T. except here only in Heb. xii 3 in a figurative sense, has even with classical writers very commonly 1 It is well known that the Catholic Church, besides Mark vi. 13, specially appeals to this passage in support of the sacrament of extreme unction. Chem- nitz, in his Hxamen Cone. Trid., has already thoroughly shown with what incorrectness they have done so. Even Cajetan and Baronius doubt whether James here treats of that sacrament, as he does not speak of the sick unto death, but of the sick generally. See Herzog’s Real-Encycl. on the word Oelung. 220 TUE EPISTLE OF JAMES. the meaning to be sich.— σώσει] equivalent to will recover. This meaning is required by reference to τὸν κάμνοντα, and to the context generally; the word occurs in the same signifi- cation in Matt. ix. 22; Mark v. 23; John xi. 12, and else- where. — By the following clause: καὶ ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος. what is said is more exactly specified; the prayer of faith effects σώζειν, by which the Lord (apparently Christ) on its account helps; ἐγείρειν, to raise wp from the sick-bed, sev Mark i. 51, etc.; not “to raise up from sickness” (Lange ; “to cause him to recover,’ de Wette); the word never occurs in this meaning in the N. 'T.— A particular case is added to the general. κἂν ἁμαρτίας ἢ πεποιηκώς) κἄν is not, as is done by most expositors, but against linguistic usage,’ to be resolved by and {7}, but by even if (so also Lange). By the sins here meant are such as formed the special reason of the sickness. Accordingly, the meaning is: even if he has drawn his sickness upon himself by special sins (unsatisfactorily Lange: “if his sickness has become by them very severe ”). By ἢ πεποιηκώς the effect of the sins is represented as existing. — The apodosis ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ expresses that even in this case the healing will not fail. The forgiveness of sins is here meant, which is confirmed by the removal of the special punishment produced by the particular sins. The explanation of Hammond is evidently entirely erroneous: non tam a Deo, quam a Presbyteris, qui aegroto peccata ipsis confitenti .. . absolutionem dare tenentur. As regards the construction of the sentence, κἂν πεποιηκώς may be joined to what goes before, and ἀφεθήσεται considered as an asyndeton addition: and the Lord will raise him wp, even if he has com- mitted sins... (for) it will be forgiven him. But the usual construction, according to which ἀφεθήσεται is simply the apodosis to κἂν κιτ'λ., is to be preferred on account of the close connection of ideas; thus: even if he hath committed sins, it will be forgiven him; by which the idea is included in ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ, that he will be healed of his sickness. -- τὸ πεποιηκέναι is to be supplied from the preceding to 1JIn no passage of the N. T., except perhaps Luke xiii. 9, is the καί ἴῃ κἄν the simple copula uniting two sentences, but it has everywhere the meaning though, even. The N. T. usage is here in conformity with the classical ; see Pape on the word xe». . CHAPS Wits: 221 ἀφεθήσεται (Bengel, Theile, Wiesinger). —- The promise (σώσει . ἐγερεῖ) so positively expressed by James is founded on his confidence in the Lord, who hears believing intercession, so that it is not in vain. It is certainly surprising that James gives this assurance without any restriction. Although we cannot say, with Hottinger: si certus et constans talium precum fuisset eventus, nemo unquam mortuus esset, since the nature of the condition, on which James makes the event dependent, is not considered; on the one hand, it is self- evident that true πίστις includes the humble πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω GAN ὡς σύ (Matt. xxvi. 39); and, on the other hand, it is to be observed that although James here evidently speaks of bodily sickness and its cure, yet he uses such expressions as point beyond the sphere of the corporeal to the spiritual, so that even when the result corresponds not to the expectation in reference to the bodily sickness, yet the prayer of faith does not remain unanswered in the higher sense. Ver. 16 annexes a new thought to what has been said, which is, however, as the strongly attested οὖν shows, in close connection. From the special order James infers a general injunction, in which the intervening thought is to be con- ceived that the sick man confessed his sins to the presbyters for the purpose of their intercession; Christians generally are to practise the same duty of confession toward each other. It is incorrect, with Chrysostom (de sacerd. 1. I.) and several ancient and other expositors, to refer the injunction contained in this verse to the above-mentioned relation of the presbyters and the sick to each other, and accordingly to paraphrase it, with Pott: ὑμεῖς ἀσθενούντες ἐξομολογεῖσθε τοῖς πρεσβυτέ- ροις τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν καὶ ὑμεῖς πρεσβύτεροι εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀσθενούντων ; for by this not only is violence done to the language, but also an intolerable tautology arises. ἀλλήλοις can only be referred to the relation of individual believers to each other, so that Cajetan correctly says: nec lic est sermo de confessione sacramentali. ‘Some expositors 1It must be designated as arbitrary when Lange understands this passage also as symbolical, and thus interprets it: ‘‘ If any man as a Christian has been hurt, or become sick in his Christianity, let him seek healing from the presbyters, the kernel of the congregation. Let these pray with and for him, and anoint him with the oil of the Spirit ; such a course, wherever taken, will surely restore him, and his transgressions will be forgiven him.” 292 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. incorrectly restrict the general expression παραπτώματα to such sins which one commits against another; Wolf: de illis tantum peccatis sermo est, quae alter in alterum commisit, quorumque veniam ab altero poscit; Bengel: aegrotus et quisquis offendit, jubetur confiteri; offensus orare. The passage treats not of human, but of the divine forgiveness ; and thus of sins not as offences against our neighbour, but as violations of the law of God.'— καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων) To ἐξομολό- γησις intercession for one another is to be conjoined; indeed, the former takes place in order that the latter may follow. The contents of the prayer is naturally the divine forgiveness, but the aim to be attained thereby is ὅπως ἰαθῆτε. The word ἰᾶσθαι is in the N. T. used both literally and figuratively (Heb. xii, 13; 1 Pet. 11. 24). After the example of several expositors (Hottinger, de Wette, Wiesinger), the first meaning has hitherto in this commentary been ascribed to ἐαθῆτε, on account of the connection of this verse with what goes before ; but since among ἀλλήλοις are certainly to be understood not only the sick, and James indicates by nothing that his injunc- tion refers only to them, it is more correct to take ἐαθῆτε here, in its proper reference to παραπτώματα, in a figurative sense (Estius, Carpzov, Grotius, Gebser, and others) ; whether James likewise thought on a bodily healing taking place in the cases occurring (Schneckenburger, Kern) must remain undetermined. — It is to be remarked that the prayer of the presbyters does not exclude the common intercession of the members of the church, and that the efficacy attributed to the latter is not less than that attributed to the former. — πολὺ ἐσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη]}] is added by James for the purpose of strengthening the above exhortation; the asyndeton connection is with him not remarkable. ‘The stress is on πολὺ ἰσχύει, consequently it stands first. δίκαιος, equivalent to the Hebrew P'S, is, according to the Christian view of James, he who. in faith performs the works of νόμος ἐλευθερίας. ---- With regard to ἐνεργουμένη, expositors have introduced much that is arbitrary. Most take the participle as an adjective belonging to δέησις, and then attempt to explain the expression δέησις ἐνεργουμένη. Oecumenius leaves the word itself unexplained, but he lays stress on the point that the prayer of the 1 Lange primarily understands by this ‘‘the sins of the Judaizing disposition.” CHAP, V. 17, 18. 223 righteous is only then effectual when he, for whom it is offered, συμπράττῃ διὰ κακώσεως πνευματικῆς with the suppliant. Michaelis explains it: preces agitante Spiritu sancto effusae; Carpzov: δέησις διὰ πίστεως ἐνεργουμένη ; Gebser understands prayer in which the suppliant himself works for the accomplishment of his wish; similarly Calvin: tunc vere in actu est oratio, quum succurrere contendimus lis, qui laborant. According to the usual explanation, ἐνεργουμένη is assumed to be synonymous with évepyns or ἐνεργός (ἐκτενής, Luke xxii. 44; Acts xii. 5), “strenuus,” “intentus,’ “earnest,” etc., and this qualification of the prayer of the righteous man is attached to πολὺ ἰσχύει as its condition; Luther: “if it is earnest ” (so Wiesinger, and similarly Erasmus, Beza, Gataker, Hornejus, Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Hottinger, Schnecken- burger, Theile, Bouman, and others). This explanation, how- ever, has not only, as Wiesinger confesses, N. T. usage against it, but this qualification cannot be taken as the condition of πολὺ ἰσχύει, but is rather the statement of the characteristic nature of the prayer of the righteous man. It would be more correct to adhere to the verbal meaning of the participle (so Pott, whose paraphrases, however: πολὺ ἰσχύει [δύναται] ἐνεργεῖν, or: πολὺ ἰσχύει καὶ ἐνεργεῖ δέησις, are arbitrary), and to explain it: the prayer of the righteous man availeth much, whilst i works (not: “if it applies itself to working,” de Wette), ὁ. ὧν its working. That it does work is assumed ; that, besides working, it πολὺ ἰσχύει, which James brings forward and confirms by the following example of Elias." Vv. 17, 18. James, wishing to show in the example of Elias the power of prayer, observes beforehand on the objection that, owimg to his peculiar greatness (see Ecclus. xlviii. 1-15), the example of Elias was inapplicable to ordinary men, that ᾿Ελίας ἄνθρωπος ἣν ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν. -- ἄνθρωπος] is not here pleonastic (Schneckenburger), but denotes the point on which James insists, which is still more strengthened by ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν. This idea contains no reference to the sufferings which Elias had to endure (Laurentius, Schneckenburger, Bouman), but signifies only of like disposition and nature; see Meyer on Acts xiv. 15; 1 Lange translates: ‘‘which is inwardly effectual (working),” and thinks that ἐνεργεῖσθαι expresses a passive-active working. "994 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, comp. also Wisd. of Sol. vill. 3, and Grimm on 4 Mace. ΧΙ, 13. Lange inappropriately explains it “similarly econ- ditioned.” Gebser assumes a contrast to “δίκαιος, strangely explaining it: “having the same sentiments and passions as we; James inferred how much more will the prayer of a δικαίου avail.” — The history, to which James refers, is con- tained in 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1, 41 ff. The account of James differs in two points from the O. T. narrative; first, the point on account of which James appeals to Elias, namely his twofold prayer, is not mentioned; and, secondly, it is stated that it began to rain in the third year. Both in 1 Kings xvi. 1 and in xviii. 41, Elias only announces what will take place; in the first passage, that it will not rain these years, and in the second passage, that it will soon rain. Neither in what Elias says of himself in 1 Kings xvii. 1: WED ‘AT W, nor in what is related in 1 Kings xviii. 41, is it stated that Elias offered up such a prayer as James mentions; for although in ver. 42 Elias is represented as praying, yet it is not hinted that the rain took place in consequence of his prayer, since rather the promise of rain (ver. 1) preceded the prayer. Yet those state- ments, and particularly the word of Elias in 1 Kings xvii. 2: 127 ‘BIDS °3, are to be considered as the foundation of the statement of James, whether he followed a tradition (see Ecclus. xlviii. 2, 3) or a view pecuhar to himself. — With regard to the second deviation, the same statement concerning the duration of the drought is found in Luke iv. 25 (see Meyer in doco), and in the Jalkut Schimoni on 1 Kings xvi., where it is said: Anno xiii. Achabi fames regnabit in Samaria per tres annos et dimidum anni. It is certainly correct, as Benson remarks, that if the rain, according to the word of Elias, was stayed at the beginning of the rainy season, and it again began to rain in the third year at the end of the summer season, the drought would continue in all three and a halt years ; but according to the statement of James, the drought began with the prayer of Elias, and continued from that three and a half years. Accordingly, Wiesinger is wrong in finding in the remark of Benson a sufficient reconciliation of the difference.’ — προσευχῇ προσηύξατο] the same construction as ' It is otherwise with regard to Luke iv. 25, where the simple duration of time during which it would not rain is stated. James has erred in making the CIIAP. V. 18—20. 22a θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε, Gen. ii. 17, LXX., as the Greek rendering of the Hebrew union of the infinite absolute with the finite tense, which the LXX. usually express by the union of the participle with the finite tense (see Winer, p. 317 f. [E. T. 427]). This addition of the substantive serves to bring out the verbal idea (de Wette), not to denote that the prayer of Elias was earnest (Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange), but that nothing else than his prayer produced the long drought. — τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι] the genitive of design after προσηύξατο, because the contents of the prayer agreed with its object. This construc- tion corresponds to the frequent use of ἵνα with verbs of asking in the N. T.; see Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 410]. — βρέχειν] is here used, as in the later classics, impersonally ; otherwise in Matt. v. 45; Gen. 11. 5, xix. 24. Baumgarten incorrectly supplies ὁ Θεός as the subject. — καὶ οὐκ «.7.d.] the result of the prayer. Schneckenburger: quis non sentit pondus dictionis τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, καὶ οὐκ ἔβρεξεν ; comp. Gen. i. 3, fiat lux, et facta est lux. — ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] not on the land, ie. Palestine (Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Stolz, Lange, and others), but on the earth (Luther); comp. Luke iv. 25 (Gen. vil. 12). Ver. 18. The second prayer of Elias, and its result. —o οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν] a popular form of expression ; comp. Acts xiv. 17. — καὶ ἡ γῆ «.7.X.] contains not a further description, but added to mark more strongly the effect of the prayer: heaven and earth acted according to the prayer of Elias. — ἐβλάστησεν] properly an intransitive verb ; so in Matt. xiii. 26; Mark iv. 27; Heb. ix. 4. The first aorist here, as frequently in the later classics, in a transitive signification ; comp. Gen. 1. 11, LXX. With respect to the form, see Winer, p. 77 [E. T. 92]. — τὸν καρπὸν αὑτῆς) Schneckenburger: fruges suas i. e. quas ferre solet. Vv. 19, 20. To the exhortation to mutual confession and intercession is annexed “ the reference to an important matter —the reclaiming of an erring soul” (Wiesinger). Ver. 19 forms the supposition; this is expressed in two co-ordinate prayer of Elias mentioned by him precede this whole period ; whereas what is mentioned in 1 Kings xvii. 1, is that it commenced after the summer during which it had not rained. According to Lange, the reconciliation consists in this, that in 1 Kings xviii. only the duration of the real famine is stated, which did not begin until one year after the announcement of the drought ; but there is no indication of this statement. MtyEr.—J AMES. P 226 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. sentences, of which the first is subordinate in thought to the second: “if any convert one who has erred from the truth.” — πλανηθῇ) the passive aorist here, as frequently in the signification of the middle. — ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας] With this is meant not a single practical aberration, but an alienation from the Christian principle of life, an inward apostasy from the λόγος ἀληθείας by which the Christian is begotten (Jas. i. 18), disclosing itself in a sinful course of life (so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange’). — καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ] sc. ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ; comp. Luke i. 16, 17. Ver. 20 forms the apodosis. — γινωσκέτω] The τίς men- tioned in the second half of the preceding verse is the subject —the converter and not the converted. The remarkableness of the repetition of the subject after ὅτε disappears, when it is considered that the idea to be taken to heart is expressed as a sentence which is universally valid? Calvin rightly draws attention to the fact that the tendency of the verse is to excite zeal for the conversion of the erring. — The word ἁμαρτωλόν is to be retained in its general signification, and not to be referred simply to τὸν πλανηθέντα ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ; it denotes the genus to which he that errs from the truth belongs as species. — ἐς πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ] not = ex erroris vita (Schulthess); correctly Luther: “from the error of his way.” πλάνη states the nature of the way on which the ἁμαρτωλός walks, and forms the contrast to ἀλήθεια. ----- σώσει ψυχὴν [αὐτοῦ] ἐκ θανάτου] 1... he will save a (his) soul from the death to which otherwise it would have fallen a prey. The future is here used because James “has in view the final result of such a saving deed” (Wiesinger). On ψυχήν, comp. chap. i. 21; on the reading of the Receptus Estius remarks: absolute posita emphasin habet. But probably ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ is the correct reading. θάνατος, eternal destruction, as in chap. i.15. Lange strangely explains it as “ the moral dissolu- tion of the ontological life eternally self-generating itself.’ — καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν] is to be understood not of the 1 Arbitrarily, Lange defines the aberration more precisely ‘‘ as an aberration into Judaistic and chiliastic doings and fanatical and seditious lusts.” * Wiesinger: “ ὁ ἐπισσρέψας is not to be taken as equivalent to he who, in strict reference to the subject of γινωσκέτω, but expresses the general idea that every one who converts a sinner performs a great work ; it is the general state- ment, under which he who is designated by γινωσκέτω subordinates his doing.” CIIAP. V. 20. A sins of the converter, who by his good work obtains forgive- ness, whether on the part of God (Zacharias, ep. I. ad Bonifac. ; Bede, Erasmus, Bouman, and others) or on the part of man (Augusti: “his own offences will not be remembered”), but of the sins of the converted (so most expositors). The words are an echo of Prov. x..12 (comp. 1 Pet. iv. 8), although it is doubtful if James had this passage actually in view ; especially καλύπτειν here does not, as a strict translation of the Hebrew mBD—see Neh. il. 36 (LXX. ed. Tisch. iv. 6); Ps. xxxii. 1, Ixxxy. 3,—signify to forgive, but the figurative expression is used by James in the sense that the sins of the converted are by the converter covered or concealed from the eyes of God, i.e. their forgiveness is effected. By πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν are meant not the sins which the ἁμαρτωλός would otherwise commit (Jaspar: peccata adhuc patranda), and which were now prevented by his conversion (Pott: multa futura impediet), but the multitude of sins which he committed before his con- version. Lange thinks: “this restriction misapprehends the progressive nature of guilt;” but how could sins which have not been committed be forgiven?” That the mention here is not of human, but of divine forgiveness, the close connection. of the idea with the preceding σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου shows. Correctly Wiesinger: “ καλύψει carries on further the σώσει ψυχήν, and states the ground of this salvation.” 1 De Wette takes objection to the strong expression πλῆθος, as he thinks that the reference here is only to aberration, and not to a vicious life; and on this account he will consider, along with this, the sins of those who stand in reciprocal action with him who has erred, and were or might have been injured and led astray by him; but without reason; especially πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν cor- responds entirely to the idea πλανηθῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας, provided it be not arbitrarily weakened (so also Briickner). 2 “Tn order to give prominence to the noble historical import of the Epistle, which has been only too much missed and neglected,” Lange maintains that James here, at the conclusion, invites the believing part of his people to engage in intercession and in ‘‘ the work of salvation, that many individuals may be saved from death, and a multitude of sins might be atoned for.” " ΜΝ ae Mavi .» JT γῇ ΝΣ 23) Vine De te thie: b's Wats ἜΤ Ν Ε ΨΓΗ͂ yt . A J 8 ‘ ‘ pI ἃ be i ty } Φ Π ᾿ τὰ ve i δὼ he | 5 ᾿ \ | eit itl }1}1}}} ᾿ ΠῚ bi) b miu Wal ria Ohh ii j . ᾿ Ἂ ; . \ ie Γ i] j Pon : Υ ' tok eps ay νῇ “γε οι 7 ἵ wad y ἢ ΔῊ ὯΝ ΠΟ] f Δ Ὁ" CRIME eh APOC fel? IR role et ‘ γ 5: Ἵ = 4 { . -» | a XL. > ‘ Τ᾿ > 7 ' J ‘ re «, ει 4 - ta j ' ai - Π i f Ue | " ut - ‘4% 4) > Γ ὁ i ‘at Ν 4 Ι i if h 4 i¥ 7 a wa ΕΝ ΟΝ ἢ ἂμ fea 1 ie oie ai Ahi | ἐπ ΠΥ | j t ‘ é i ἐ wih χε Lae 7 Aue (yee aan αἰ ΤΠ. iAP i ] Sida an oe oer τ Mae δὲ ᾿ Phas ΓΤ Ἶ ΓΝ ἔ ᾿ j Ι Ὗ ba BE ry , εἶ ) } i THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ENTE ODU € TPO SEC, 1—CONTENTS AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE. wea, EADING IDEAS.—The entire development of Ἢ the argument of the Epistle is based upon the single fundamental conviction of the antagonism subsisting between the “ world” and “ believers.” - Whilst the former are under the power and dominion of the devil, the latter are in fellowship with God. Those who belong to the world are the children of the devil, the others are the children of God. 'The objective basis of believers’ life-fellowship with God is the mission of the Son of God, originating in His love, for the reconciliation of the world, or the incarnation of the Son of God (the Eternal Life which was with God from eternity), and His self-sacrifice unto death; its subjective 2 basis is faith in this fact of the divine love. Whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, belongs no more to the world, bus has been born of divine seed, a child of God. »|The Christian must therefore, above all things, be on his guard against the false doctrine which, making a distinction between Jesus and the Son of God (or Christ), denies the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, — and, conse- quently, the fact of the revelation of divine love, —and thereby abolishes the ground of the life-fellowship with God. —In the communion which the believer, anointed with the ‘Holy Ghost, enjoys with God in Christ, he possesses not only true knowledge, but also righteousness. Whilst the world is dominated by darkness, and those who belong to it know not whither they go, believers walk in the light. Enlightened by Ξ 229 230 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. the Holy Ghost, they know God in the truth of His being, and are able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. At the same time their life is in sharpest contrast to sin. The latter is so opposed to their nature, that, as those who are born of God, they do not, nay, cannot sin, but, on the con- trary, in harmony with the pattern of Christ, do righteousness ; whereas those who belong to the world, as children of the devil, commit sin, which is the principle of their life. It is true the Christian is conscious that he also still has sin; but inasmuch as he does not deny, but, on the contrary, confesses it openly, the blood of Christ cleanses him ; and, further, in the consciousness that Christ, the Righteous One, is his Paraclete with the Father, he also purifies himself, as Christ is pure. — The essence of the believer’s righteousness 15. love to God, which manifests itself in obedience to His commandments, the sum of which is love to the brethren.— Whilst the world, following the example of Cain, who hated and slew his brother on account of his righteous life, hates the children of God, and in the spirit of hatred incurs the guilt of murder, the believer, imitating the pattern of Christ, feels himself bound, not in word only, but in deed as well, to love his brother, and to give his life for him if necessary. In love like this he possesses evidence of his divine adoption, and therein eternal life. Whilst the world continues in death, he has passed out of death into life; and in this new life he is free from fear and full of joyful confidence. He knows that his prayers are heard of God, and looks forward with con- fidence to the day of judgment, when he shall not be put to shame, but shall be like God, inasmuch as he shall see Him as He is.—The period still continues during which the world manifests its antagonism to the believer, who is also tempted by the devil; but in his faith, which is the victory over the world, he has vanquished these enemies, and the devil can accomplish nothing against him. Moreover, the world has already begun to vanish; it is the last time, as the appearance of Antichrist clearly proves—soon Christ shall appear, and with Him the perfecting of His own. 2. Line of Argument.—At the outset we have an introduc- tion, in which the apostle announces the appearing of that Eternal Life which was with the Father to be the theme of INTRODUCTION. Dad. his apostolic message, and indicates the perfecting of his _ readers’ joy, in their communion with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, as the end aimed at in his Epistle, chap. i. 1-4. The letter itself he begins with the thought that God is Light (1. 5), from which he infers that if a man asserts that he has fellowship with God, whilst walking in darkness, it is a lie (1. 6); and, on the other hand, that the fellowship of Christians with each other, and purification through the blood of Christ, are conditioned by a walk in the light (i, 7). In connection with the purification mentioned, he urges that whosoever claims to be without sin deceives himself, and makes God a liar, whereas in case of an honest confession of sin God manifests His faithfulness and justice by forgiving the sin and cleansing from it (i. 8-10); and with this consciousness, in case he sin, the Christian may comfort himself, since he has Jesus Christ the Righteous, who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, as his Paraclete with the Father (11. 1, 2). In ver. 3 the apostle returns again to the starting-point in his argument, by showing that (just as fellowship with God can only be enjoyed whilst walking in the light) the knowledge of God can only exist in obedience to His commandments, and the being in Him in following after Christ (11, 3-6). The command involved in this for the readers, says the apostle, is the old one which they had heard from the beginning, and which he now once more impresses on them because the darkness is already - beginning to vanish. He then describes (ii. 7, 8) walking in the light as walking in brotherly love, whereas the man who hates his brother is in darkness (11. 9-11); and turns directly to his readers, whom he addresses as true Christians who have obtained forgiveness, known the Father, and conquered the evil one (ii. 12-14), in order to warn them against love of the world and seduction by false teachers. The exhorta- tion: “love not the world,” he bases on a reference to the incompatibility of love of the world with love of God, and on the passing away of the world and its lust Gi. 15-17). The necessity for this exhortation the apostle discovers in the fact that it is the last time, as the appearance of the antichrists shows (11. 18). The line of thought thus passes on to the consideration of these antichrists. The apostle mentions, 252 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIN, first of all, their relation to the Christian church. “They have,” he says, “gone out from us, but they were not of us;” and he then describes them, after the interjectory remark that his readers, as the anointed of the Holy One, know the truth, as those who deny that Jesus is the Christ (zc. as deniers of the identity of Jesus and Christ), whereby they deny the Father as well as the Son (ii. 19-23). After an exhortation to his readers to abide by what they had heard from the beginning, whereby they should continue in the Son and in the Father, and enjoy everlasting life, he expresses his con- fidence towards them that the unction they had received remains in them, that therefore they require no human teacher; and exhorts them to abide in Christ in order that they may not be put to shame at His coming (11. 24-28). In like manner as the apostle, in chap. 1. 5, inferred from the light-nature of God that only the person who walks in light can have fellowship with Him, so now he argues from the righteousness of God, that only the person who practises righteousness is born of Him (ii. 29). But since Christians are the children of God, and as such entertain the hope οὗ one day being like Him, therefore this hope is, as it were, an incentive to them to purify themselves even as Christ is pure, and consequently to avoid sin, which is disobedience to the law; and this is all the more since Christ has appeared for the very purpose of taking away sin, and is Himself free from it. From the sinlessness of Christ it follows that who- soever is in Him does not sin; but, on the contrary, whosoever sinneth hath not truly known Him (iii. 1-6). The apostle, having pointed out that he alone is righteous according to the pattern of Christ who doeth righteousness (iii. 7), sharply con- trasts those who commit sin, as children of the devil, with those who are born of God, and therefore cannot sin, because the divine seed remaineth in them (iii, 8-10), and then indicates, as the righteousness which the children of God practise, that brotherly love which he describes as the theme of the message which Christians had heard from the beginning (iii. 10, 11). Warningly does the apostle point to the world, which, following the type of Cain, hates the children of God, and is in death; whereas the believer shows by love that he has passed from death unto life (iii. 12-15). The pattern of INTRODUCTION. 5 Christian love is Christ; as He gave His life for us, so also must the Christian give his life for the brethren; nor may he content himself with a mere apparent love, but must love in deed and in truth (iii. 16-18). Love like this bears its own blessing with it; he who practises it knows that he is of the ~~trath, and, whilst he overcomes thereby the accusation of his own heart, he has confidence towards God in the consciousness that God hears his prayers because he keeps the command-..._, ments of God (ili. 19-22). With the foregoing the apostle then immediately connects the idea that God’s commandment embraces a twofold element, viz—(1) that we believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ; and (2) that we love one another (111. 23); and then proceeds, after remarking that whosoever obeys the commandments of God stands in com- munion with Him (he in God, and God in him), and is conscious of this fellowship through the Spirit given him of God (iii. 24), to a further reference to the false teachers, which he commences with the warning: “ Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” He gives the characteristic mark of the Spirit that is of God, and also of the spirit of Antichrist, assures the believers of victory over false teachers, and presents the difference between them and the true apostolic teachers: “They are of the world, wherefore they speak of the world, and the world hears them; we are of God, whosoever knoweth God heareth us” (iv. 1-6).— Without introducing any ideas to mark the transition thereto, the apostle now utters the exhortation: “Let us love one another,” which he establishes by saying that love is of God, or—as he also says—that God is love. God has proved His love by sending His Son to be a propitiation for our sins; but if God has loved us so much, we ought also to love one another. When we do this, then God is in us, and lets us know that He is by His Spirit (iv. 7-13). Having pointed out that the manifestation of the love of God is the substance of apostolic testimony, and faith therein the condition of fellowship with God, the apostle once more utters the thought that God is love, in order to urge that communion with Him can consist only in love, and that this love manifests itself as perfect by our having confidence on the day of judgment, since love drives 204 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. out all fear (iv. 16-18). But if the love of God compels us to love Him in return, we must remember that we really love God only in case we love the brethren; for the man who does not love the person whom he sees, cannot possibly love God whom he does not see (iv. 19-21). That the believer loves the brethren, the apostle then infers from the fact that he is born of God; for if, as such, he loves God who has begotten Himself, he must also necessarily love those who are begotten of God, ze. his own brethren (v. 1); and he is conscious of this love in that he loves God and keeps His commandments. After remarking that love to God consists in keeping His commandments, and that God’s commandments are not hard to the believer, because being born of God he conquers the , world by faith (v. 3-5), the apostle proceeds to refer to the divine evidence of the belief that Jesus is the Son of God. He describes the latter as having come by water and blood, and in proof of this appeals to the testimony of the Spirit. This testimony is all the stronger imasmuch as it is a three- fold one, viz—that of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. If human evidence is accepted, much more ought the witness of God to be received. To the believer, however, this witness ‘is not merely an external, but also, at the same time, an inward thing, viz—the eternal life which has been given him in the Son of God (v. 6-12). As already previously, so also here again, the apostle sets forth, as a main element in the believer’s eternal life, his confidence that God hears his prayers, and couples with this the exhortation to make intercession for the brother who may chance to sin. At the same time, however, he distinguishes between the case of the man who sins unto death and the man who does not, and explains that his precept anent intercession only refers to those who do not sin unto death (vy. 13-17).— In bringing his Epistle to a close, the apostle once more announces, in three propositions, its leading thoughts, viz—that he who is born of God does not commit sin; that they, the Christians, are born of God, whilst the world, on the other hand, belongs to the evil one; and that they have received, through the Son of God, the faculty to recognise Him that is true as the substance of their Christian consciousness. After the remark, that being in Christ we are in Him that is true, and that INTRODUCTION. 235 He is the Son of God and eternal life, the Epistle closes with the exhortation: “ Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” Dew! Concerning the various theories as to the construction of the Epistle, compare especially Erdmann, Primae Joannis ep. argumentum, ete., 1. 1855; Liicke’s Kommentar, § 4, 3d ed. 1856; and Luthardt’s Programm: de primae Jo. ep. composi- tione, 1860. Pre-Reformation commentators hardly troubled themselves about the construction of the Epistle at all. After the Reformation, the theory which first prevailed was that a | systematic, logically arranged sequence of ideas of any kind is , entirely absent from the work (Calvin: sparsim docendo et exhortando varius est). After the time of Matth. Flaccius, some expositors assumed that it was made up of a number of isolated aphorisms, only loosely jointed together, and in which various subjects were discussed; though others (Calvin, Hunnius), notwithstanding, laboured to show a close sequence of ideas in accordance with a dogmatic plan. The most ingenious attempt of this kind was that made by Bengel, who, basing his argument upon the passage in v. 7 (Receptus), traced the construction of the Epistle to the dogma of the , Trinity ; a view adopted also by Sander. The right point of view from which to gain an insight into the structure of the Epistle was first discovered by Joach. Operinus in his work, Johannis ap. paraenesis ad primos christianos de constanter tenenda communione cum patre ac filio ejus Jesu Christi, ete., Gotting. 1741, in which he shows that the purpose which John himself has announced in the preface is the same by which he was led in the composition of the Epistle throughout. Nearly all modern expositors, with the exception of a few of the earlier ones, have followed in the path opened up for them by Operinus. But with regard to the coupling of the ideas, ananimity has not been attained. Whilst Liicke, in dividing the argument into eight groups of ideas, approaches at least the aphoristic method, the other modern commentators have laboured to prove a more stringent arrangement of the thoughts conveyed in the book. It is plain, however, on closer study of the work, that none of these attempts has really succeeded. The Epistle has indeed been divided into different sections, and to each section 236 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. a separate superscription been given, expressive of the main idea which informs the entire argument of that particular portion; but, on the one hand, the same ideas are found repeating themselves in the various sections, and, on the other, the leading thought suggested for a particular section does not invariably so inform that portion, that it might serve as the point of departure for studying its details. In the first edition of this commentary it is asserted—following the view of de Wette—that the Epistle from chap. i ver. 5 till chap. v. ver. 17, may be divided into three groups of ideas, distin- guishable from each other by the fact that at the outset of each, as it were, a chord is struck which, more or less, gives tone to the melody throughout the entire part which it marks. As keynotes for the three sections suggested, the three truths are indicated—1st, God is light, i. 5; 2d, Christ (or God) is righteous, 11. 28 ; and 3d, God is love. But that these key- notes actually sound throughout the whole of the parts they are respectively supposed to lead, is not, and cannot be proved. ReMARK.—That the theories respecting the argument sug- gested by other commentators, ancient as well as modern, are insufficient, has been shown by Luthardt in the work already quoted; the same remark, however, applies also to the construc- tion which he himself—following in the lead of Hofmann (Schriftbew. 2d ed. 11. 2, p. 353 ff.)}—has proposed, and which divides the Epistle into the following five parts:—1i. 5-ii. 11; 11. 12-27; ii. 28-111. 24a > 11. 24b-iv. 21; v. 1-21. For, when he thus defines the contents of the third part: salutis futurae spes christiana quantum afferat ad vitam sancte agendam, ex- ponitur, it is manifestly inappropriate, since the apostle through- out the entire section only refers to the Christian hope in 11. 2, from which it is plain that this is not the informing main idea of it. Again, when he represents the fourth part as treating of the Holy Ghost, his view is indeed so far correct, that, especially in the beginning, the discourse does turn upon the Spirit of God; but from iv. 7 onwards the development of the argument proceeds independently, without any reference to the Spirit, and only in ver. 13-—and even then merely in passing— is there any mention of Him made whatever. Much more decidedly does the apostle refer to Him in v. 6 ff, which pas- sage, however, according to Luthardt, belongs not to the fourth, but to the fifth part, in which the subject treated of is faith. But even this definition is doubtful, since faith is discussed not only in v. 1ff., but also, and very distinctly, long previously, in INTRODUCTION. Pts Ai) ii. 23 and iv. 13-16. Braune hardly attempts a disposition of the Epistle at all. It is true he divides it into four parts, namely—lIntroduction, 1. 1-4; first main division, i. 5-i1. 28; second main division, 11. 29-v. 11; conclusion, v. 12-21. He also suggests leading chief topics for the two main divisions (viz. for the first, God is light; for the second, Whosoever is born of the righteous God doeth righteousness). But he only indicates as leading main topics the ideas which the apostle expresses in 1. 5 and ii. 29, that is, at the beginning of the pas- sages which Braune has marked as the chief sections, without showing how these thoughts inform the various groups of ideas which follow them. He contents himself with pointing out the simple sequence of the ideas as they follow each other in the development of the argument. In order to understand the construction of the Epistle, the following three points are especially to be observed :—1st, The apostle’s object is to preserve the readers in the fellowship of God, that their joy may be perfect. 2d, That the apostle, in order to achieve his end, unfolds especially the ideas that fellowship with God is only possible in the case of one whose life, rooted in faith in Jesus Christ, and harmonizing in holi- ness with the nature of God, is in love, and that the Christian is not only bound to such a life, but also in virtue of his divine birth (which has placed him in a relation of absolute antagonism to the world, which is ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ) is im- pelled by an inward necessity to lead it. 3d, That the apostle developes these ideas under the conviction that the antichristian le is present in the world, and also that the second advent of Christ is rapidly approaching. Keeping these elements in view, it depends upon the identification of the various points in the unfolding of the argument in the Epistle when the latter takes such a turn that a new feature may be said to enter and to inform the discourse which follows. Nearly all commentators are agreed, and rightly, \that the verses from chap. i. ver. 5 to chap. ii. ver. 11 form one / self-contained group of ideas. The informing and ruling idea of this passage, however, is not a distinct and specific doctrinal proposition, intended to be explained in its several parts, but rather the antithesis to that indifferentism which ignores the antagonism between fellowship with God and a life in sin, in opposition to which the apostle urges that only the man who 238 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIN. walks in light—or who keeps the divine commandments and loves his brother—is in communion with God, and knows Him. The close relation in which these propositions stand to each other is shown also outwardly by the phrases: ἐὰν εἴπωμεν K.7.r., Chap. i. 6, 8, 10, and ὁ λέγων x.7.X., ii. 4, 6, 8, which are only found here, and is proved by the fact that ii. 10, 11 manifestly refers backwards to 1. 5, 6. — The argu- ment takes a new turn, as most commentators also have noticed, with 11. 12, in which the apostle, after reminding his readers of their happy experiences in salvation, and indicating these as the ground of his writing to them, in direct exhorta- tion warns them against the love of the world. .With this warning is coupled the reference to the antichrists which has impelled the apostle to exhort his readers to abide by what they had heard from the beginning, because thus alone can they abide in the Son and in the Father, and enjoy everlasting life, so that they may not be put to shame on the day of judgment. The last turn in the argument shows how closely the apostle has kept in view, throughout this exhortation, the intention of the entire Epistle ((. 4). Moreover, the fact that the ἀντίχριστοι----ὃἃβ the apostle himself asserts subsequently —are ἐκ Tod κόσμου, justifies our joining together in one whole the warning reference to the antichrists, and that against the love of the world. — In the foregoing the apostle has indeed shown that if Christians are to glory in their communion with God they must walk in the light (that is, in obedience towards God, and in love towards the brethren), abstain from fellow- ship with the world, and faithfully abide by the Word of God ; but he has not yet shown how they stand, in accordance with their nature, in antagonism to sin, and therefore also to the world. To this proof he proceeds in ii, 29, from which onwards he explains in detail how Christians as such are born of God, and therefore the children of God, who necessarily sanctify themselves in the hope of the future glory, do right- eousness and abstain from sin, nay, cannot sin, because the divine seed remains in them; whilst, on the other hand, those who commit sin, and therefore belong to the world, are the children of the devil. This explanation the apostle gives from ii, 29-iii. 10, where, with the words καὶ ὃς μὴ ἀγαπῶν x.7.A., he begins to discourse about brotherly love. But that INTRODUCTION. 239 a new section, properly speaking, does not open herewith, notwithstanding that the conception of the divine birth recedes into the background, appears not only from the nature of the connection with the foregoing, but also from the fact that the apostle at the outset holds fast to the contrast which he had so sharply defined at the close of the preceding—directing the attention of his readers to Cain, who was ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, as the representative of the world. The immediate transition from the conception of the δικαιοσύνη to that of the ἀγάπη cannot excite surprise if we consider that to the mind of the apostle the latter was not something added to the former, but is the “δικαιοσύνη. itself in its practical manifestation. The propositions which treat of love, and in which the line of argument is so plainly defined by the intention of the work, hang so closely together down to ver. 22, that although one new element after another is introduced, still it is tages ἦν to make a new section until, in ver. 23, to the conception of brotherly love there is added that of faith in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God. This, however, dare all the less be overlooked, since in the whole discussion hitherto’ the element of faith, so weighty for the purpose of the work, has nowhere been exhaustively considered, nor even the word πιστεύειν been once introduced. It is true the apostle seems immediately afterwards to pass on to something else, since in iv. 1-6 he discourses of the difference between the anti- christian spirit and the Spirit of God, and in iv. 7-21 of the love of the brethren ; nevertheless, on closer examination it is manifest that in these sections the reference to faith is main- tained throughout. In the section iv. 1—6, namely, the ὁμολο- γεῖν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν κιτιλ. is given as the characteristic of the Spirit of God. This ὁμολογεῖν, however, is nothing else than the belief εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τ. υἱοῦ Θεοῦ I. Χριστοῦ, express- ing itself in words. That the apostle, while he would exhort his readers to hold fast their faith, first of all calls on them to try the spirits, need not surprise us when we think of the danger threatened to believers by the false teachers that had arisen. It may appear more strange that in ver. 7, with the exhortation ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, there is a transition to a train of thought that treats of love; but it is to be observed, not only that in 11. 23 ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους is closely con- 240 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIN. nected with πιστεύσωμεν «.7.r., but also that the further statements about love serve exactly to explain its connection with faith. The thought of the apostle is this: He only lives in God who loves God: God can only be loved because He is love ; God has revealed Himself as love by the sending of His Son to be a propitiation for sin, therefore love to God is con- ditioned by faith in this act of the divine love. But while the believing Christian, who as such is born of God, now loves God, his love extends also to his brethren who, as he is, are born of God. In the development of these ideas, not only do the preceding statements of the apostle about brotherly love obtain their special confirmation, but the necessity of faith for fellowship with God is also set forth, so that the apostle in what follows, after referring to the world-overcoming power of faith, can proceed to treat of the divine evidences for faith, and emphasize the fact that the believer has eternal life, and therein possesses παῤῥησία πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. The ideas from iii. 23 to ν. 17 are so grouped into a whole, as indeed may be perceived in them, that v. 13 (οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς TO ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ) plainly refers backwards to ui. 23, in addition to which it is to be observed that the concluding thought here bears the same reference to the purpose stated in 1. 4 as the con- cluding thought of the preceding group. From this explanation it is clear that, if we lay aside the preface, i. 1-4, and the conclusion, v. 18-21, three points are to be noticed in the Epistle, at which the development of ideas takes such a direction that a newly-introduced point of view dominates what follows, and that the ἐῶσι therefore divides itself into four leading sections, ὅπ. 115i 12-28; ii, 29-11. 22, anne li. 23-—v. “17. In order to fulfil in his readers the purpose of his writing, the apostle in the first section attacks the moral indifference which endangers — them; in the second he warns them of love of the world and of Antichrist ; in the third he shows that only a righteous life of brotherly love corresponds to the nature of the Chris- tian; and in the fourth he points them to faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as that which is testified by God to be the basis of Christian life.” 1 We may also unite the first and second sections more closely in one whole ; for the former contains the premises for the warning uttered in the latter. In St” INTRODUCTION. 241 3. Motive—From chap. ii. 18 ff. and iv. 1 ff it is to be understood that the appearance of the false teachers, spoken οὐ by him as ἀντίχριστοι, furnished the special motive for ‘the production of this Epistle. These are neither different false teachers (according to Storr, Sabians and Docetans ; according to Sander, Ebionites and Docetans), nor even “ ¢rwe Jews as deniers of the Messiahship of Jesus” (Loffler, Dzssert. hist. exeg. Joannis Ep. I. gnosticos impugnari negans, 1784, and Commt. theol., ed. Velthusen, vol. I.), nor “ practical false teachers, proceeding from heathenism” (Baumgarten-Crusius),. nor “such men as partly had suffered shipwreck of their faith, and partly did not practise worthily the Christian belief in their lives” (Bleek); but Docetans, and indeed such Docetans as denied the identity of Jesus and Christ, and so adhered to that false doctrine which Irenaeus ascribes to Cerinthus in the words: Cerinthus ... subjecit, Jesum... fuisse... Joseph et Mariae filium... post baptismum descendisse in eum... Christum,.. . in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu. Not only the passages named, but also v. 5, 6, 1. ὃ, Hi. 29, iv. 15, point to this form of Docetism only (so also Braune). Without foundation is the view of several commentators (Sander, Liicke, Ewald, also Thiersch, Hilgen- feld, who, however, is not definitely decided, and others), that the polemical purpose of the apostle was equally, or even alone, directed against the stricter Docetism which ascribed to Christ only an apparent body, on behalf of which appeal is erroneously made to 1 John i. 1, iv. 2; 2 John 7.— That the former Docetans had a distinct antinomian direction, or in their darkness of knowledge in regard to duty felt them- selves elevated to a moral course of life (Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Guericke, Ewald, etc.), cannot be inferred from the moral exhortations of the apostle (comp. Briickner) ; it is much rather to be observed, that nowhere in these exhortations does the apostle refer to the antichristians, and that where he does mention them he nowhere characterizes them as Anti- nomians,* the threefold division which then arises, the conclusion of each part points to “the joy of which the Christian partakes in fellowship with God. 1 In opposition to the view that the passage, ili. 4, bears evidence for the Antinomianism of the false doctrine, Neander (Gesch. d. Pflanzung der Kirche Mryer,—1 Joun, Q 242 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. According to Liicke and Erdmann, the Epistle was occa- sioned not only by the appearance of the antichristians, but also by the critical state of the churches to which it is addressed (which Erdmann describes as a state of moral depravity). But although some of it, especially the anti- thetical import of the section, 1. 5-ii. 11, indicates that in the case of many indifference to holiness of life was not wanting, yet nowhere do we find any blame expressed in regard to the moral condition of the churches on the whole. The apostle does not exhort his readers to return to the moral earnestness originally displayed by the Christians, but to perseverance in that which they are and have. SEC. 2.—FORM AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. 1. The Form—While the mass of ancient writers regarded this composition as a letter, Heidegger first speaks of it in his Enchiridion bibl. 1681, p. 986, as: brevis quaedam chris- tianae doctrinae epitome et evangelii a Joanne scripti suc- cinctum quoddam enchiridion. Similarly Michaelis judges, who understands it as a “ treatise,’ and indeed as the second part of the Gospel; so also Berger (Versuch einer moralischen Hinl. ins N. T.) and Storr (Ueber den Zweck der evangel. Gesch. εν. Briefe Johannis), only that the former speaks of it as the practical, the latter as the polemical part of the Gospel. Even Bengel (Gnomon, 2d ed.) thinks it is to be called rather a libellus than a letter; his reason is, that a letter ad absentes mittitur, Joannes autem apud eos, quibus scribebat, eodem tempore fuisse videtur. Reuss (die Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. 7. p. 217) expresses himself similarly, when he would prefer to call it “a homiletical essay, at the most a pastoral, the readers of which are present,” rather than an epistle. But, in opposition to these views, the work proves itself by the form of its contents to be a real epistle. The author shows himself throughout in the most lively interchange of thought with his readers; and even though not infrequently the objective development of thought predominates, as is durch d. Ap. p. 877) rightly remarks that the apostle against Antinomians would have had to say: Whosoever transgresseth the law committeth sin, for transgression of the law is sin. INTRODUCTION. 243 peculiar to a treatise——which, however, is found no less in other Epistles of the N. T.—yet the language always returns involuntarily to the form of an address, in which is specially to be observed “the oft-recurring distinctive epistolary for- mula: ταῦτα γράφομεν, or γράφω, or even ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ---- ἴῃ contrast particularly with the formula in the more general historical writing, the Fourth Gospel: ταῦτα γέγραπται with- out wiv, xx. 31; comp. xix. 35 and xxi 24” (Liicke). Diisterdieck rightly remarks that “the epistolary nature expresses itself in the whole import and progress of the work,” inasmuch as in it “there dominates that easy natural- ness and freedom in the composition and presentation, which ‘corresponds with the immediate practical interest, and with the practical purpose of an epistle” (comp. Bleek, Hinl. wm d. N. T. p. 589, and Braune, Hinl. § 5).—The absence of a blessing or a doxology at the close occurs also in the Epistle of James, and there is nothing strange in it; but it is rather striking that the epistolary introduction is also wanting to ᾿ the work, as the author neither mentions himself nor the readers to whom he is writing; in the Epistle to the Hebrews, however, such an introduction is also omitted. We must explain this want in this way, that, on the one hand, the “apostle presupposed that the readers would recognise him as “the author of the Epistle without his naming himself in it, _ and, on the other, that he did not intend it for a single church or for a limited circle of churches! The description of this work as a second part of the Gospel is so much the more jarbitrary, as each of those works forms in itself a completed 4 ἢ whole. — The view of some critics and commentators (Augusti, “ who calls the Epistle a summary of the Gospel; Hug, From- mann in the Studien wnd Kritiken, 1840, Heft 4; Thiersch in Versuch zur Herstellung des hist. Stdpktes. p. 78, and die Kirche im apostol. Zeitalter, p. 266; Ebrard in Kritik der evangel. Geschichte, p. 148, and in his Commentary), that the 1 In opposition to Ebrard, who, admitting the epistolary character of the work, thinks that this want may be easily explained if the epistle ‘‘ had no individual aim in itself, but depended on something else,” inasmuch as “ by its form it bears the nature of a sort of preface or of an epistola dedicatoria,” it is to be remarked that the Epistle, from its whole character, cannot be at all compared to a preface, and that in an epistola dedicatoria this want would be just as striking as in any other epistle. 244 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Epistle is a companion-work of the Gospel, is opposed by the contents of the Epistle, which follow an individual aim, as well as by the complete absence of a distinctly indicated reference to the written Gospel.t In opposition to Reuss, according to whose view the Epistle “was destined to bring home to the readers of the Gospel the practical side of the Gnosis there laid down,’ it is to be observed that neither is ‘the practical side wanting in the Gospel, nor the Gnosis in the Epistle. 2. The Character.— The same peculiarity of conception, development of thought, and form of expression, which characterizes the Gospel of John, penetrates the Epistle also, and distinguishes it from all other Epistles of the N. T. There dominates in it the same spiritual tendency, and the same preference for the concrete and abstract ideas: ὃ ἣν κιτιλ., POS, ζωή, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ἱλασμός ; ποιεῖν THY ἁμαρτίαν, π. τὴν ἀνομίαν, π. τὴν δικαιοσύνην; εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ἀχηθείας, ete.; the same combination οἵ antitheses: φῶς... σκοτία ; ἀλήθεια... ψεῦδος ; ἀγαπᾶν... μισεῖν ; ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός ἡ ay. τοῦ κόσμου; ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην... π. τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ; τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ... τὰ τ. τοῦ διαβόλου; τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας... τ. TY. τῆς πλάνης; ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον... ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον ; ζωή... θάνατος, etc.; the same continuation of the thought by the resumption of an idea that has preceded, and the accompanying and corre- spondingly unusual application of the relative pronoun; the same juxtaposition of the positive and negative expression of a thought. Both works, as Ebrard brings out, bear the same impress, not only in style and construction, but also in the sphere of ideas and in the dogmatic views ; comp. also Ewald, Die Joh. Schriften, I. p. 429 ff.— With regard to the Epistle 1 Ebrard derives the proof for his opinion from i. 1-4 and from ii. 12-14, referring ἀπαγγέλλομεν in the former passage, and the thrice-repeated ἔγραψα in the latter, to the writing of the Gospel. That this is without adequate ground, comp. the commentary on these ; but even if this reference were correct, yet the description of the Epistle as a ‘sort of dedicatory epistle ” would still remain unjustified, for its purpose is clearly quite other than to dedicate the Gospel to its readers. We would then have to call every epistle, in which reference is made to another work, a dedicatory epistle. Even the designation ‘‘companion-work ” is unsatisfactory, because it does not at all appropriately state the true character of the Epistle in accordance with its actual contents. INTRODUCTION. 245 specially, here, in contrast to the dialectical development of thought, which is characteristic of the Pauline Epistles par- ‘ticularly, the individual propositions follow one another in gnomon. fashion,’ and unitedly form groups of ideas, which are sometimes strung together without any mark of the transition.” Even the proof of an idea takes place in the simplest manner by reference to a truth self-evident to the Christian consciousness. By the peculiar manner of con- ° nection of the ideas arises the appearance of rather frequent repetition of the same thoughts ; but on closer observation it is evident that even where the negative expression follows the positive, or vice versd, generally both expressions do not say the same thing, but that in the second a new element is taken up, a new direction is prepared for. Characteristic is the simplicity and plainness of statement. . Whether the apostle states divine truths by themselves, whether he dis- courses in exhortation or in warning to his readers, his language always retains the same calmness and precision. He nowhere shows a disposition excited by passion. Every- -where the stillness of a heart reposing in happy peace is inirrored, and having this he is sure that the simple utterance of the truth is enough to procure for his discourse an entrance into the minds of his readers. At the same time, a firm, manly tone pervades the Epistle, in contrast with every weak fanaticism of sentiment, which is so little characteristic of the apostle, that he, along with the internal character of life, constantly urges that the reality of it is proved by action. It is also worthy of notice that, on the one hand, he speaks to his readers as a father to his children, but, on the other hand, does not ignore the fact that they are no longer minors, to whom he has some new information to give, but are quite like himself, and are, like himself, in possession of all the truth which he utters, of all the life which he is anxions, 1 Comp. on this, Ewald, D. Joh. Schriften, I. p. 441. * Diisterdieck finds the peculiarity of the manner of development and state- ment of thought in the Epistle in this, ‘‘that the ideas move, combine, and circle round certain leading propositions as points of support and connection.” But it might be more appropriate to perceive it in this, that the apostle by single leading thoughts strikes as it were chords, which he allows to sound for a while in the thoughts deduced for them, until a new chord results, which leads to a new strain. 246 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. not to produce in them for the first time, but only to main- tain in them. Against the reproach that the Epistle bears “the clearest traces of the feebleness of old age” (S. G. Lange), or that—as Baur says—“it is wanting in the fresh colour of direct life,’ that “the tenderness and fervour of John’s manner of conception and representation have relaxed far too much into a tone of childlike feebleness, which loses itself in indefiniteness, falls into continual repetitions, and is lacking in logical force,” it must be maintained that the Epistle bears the impress of directness, freshness, definite- ness, and vigorous clearness in no degree less than the Gospel of John." SEC. 3.—GENUINENESS. According to the testimony of antiquity, the Epistle was written by the Apostle John, which is confirmed by the Epistle itself, in so far as that the author, in the whole tone in which he speaks to his readers, and in particular expressions (i. 1, 111. 5, iv. 14), may be recognised as an apostle, and that the agreement with the Gospel of John favours the conclusion that both works proceed from the same author. Eusebius (HZ. £. iii. 24, 25) rightly reckons it among the Homologoumena ; and Hieronymus (de viris illustr. ὁ. 9) says: ab universis ec- clesiasticis eruditis viris probatur.—In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, it is true, the Epistle is not considered in a definite way, but the passage found in Polycarp, cap. vii: πᾶς yap ὃς av μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυ- θέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν, etc., may be recognised as ἃ “ natural use of 1 John iv. 2,3” (Diisterdieck), by deduction from particular resemblances to some expression or other of the Epistle;? and Eusebius (17. £. iii. 39) states of Papias: κέχρηται 1 Hilgenfeld rightly states, in opposition to Baur, that the Epistle belongs to the most beautiful writings of the N. T., that it is specially rich and original ἐς exactly in what relates to the subjective, inner life of Christianity ;” ‘that the fresh, vivid, attractive character of the Epistle consists exactly in this, that it conducts us with such a predilection into the inner experience of genuine Christian life.” 2 In the Ep. ad Diognet. several expressions appear, which point back to John’s mode of thought ; so cap. Vi.: Xporievol ἐν κόσμῳ οἰκοῦσιν, οὐκ εἰσὶ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ κόσ- μου; Cap. Vile: 6... Θεὸς .νν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὸν λόγον σὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἀπερινόητον ἀνθρώποις ἰνίδρυσε ; Cap. X13 οὗσος ὁ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ; as also in the Shepherd of Hermas, INTRODUCTION. | 247 δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως. ---- By the Fathers of the church: Tertullian (adv. Prax. c. 15; Scorp.c. 12; adv. Mare. iii. 8 : de Praescript. c. 33; de carne Christi, c. 24), Irenaeus (adv. Haeret. 111. 16), Clemens Alex. (Strom. 1. ii. ο. 15, 1. iii. ὁ. 4, 5,6; Paedag. ii. 11, 12, etc.), Origen (in Euseb. H. £. vi. 25), Cyprian (de orat. Dom. and Hp. 25), passages are frequently quoted from it, often with explicit mention of the apostle. Dionysius Alex. uses it, along with the Gospel, to prove the spuriousness of the Apocalypse; the Peshito and the Mura- torian Fragment’ also testify to its genuineness. That the Alogi rejected it, as Epiphanius conjectures, and that Marcion did not admit it into his canon, is of no importance; just as little is the highly obscure account of Cosmas in his Topogr. Christ. 1, vii., according to which some maintain that all the catholic Epistles were composed, not by apostles, but by pres- byters; and the remark of Leontius Byz. (contra Nestor. et Euiychian. 111. 14) in regard to Theodore of Mopsv.: epistolam lib. ii. mand.9: πιστεύει σῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι πάντα τὰ αἰτήματά cov, & αἰτῇ, λήψῃ (comp. 1 John iii. 23, iv. 15) 3 lib. τι. mand. 12: εὐκόλως αὐτὰς (.6. τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ) φυλάξεις, καὶ οὐκ ἔσονται σκληραί (comp. 1 John v. 3). 1 By the words : epistola sane Jude et superscriptio [superscripti ; or, accord- ing to Laurent, Neuéest. Studien, pp. 201, 205: superscriptae = ‘‘ provided with superscriptions ”] Joannis duas [iluae] in catholica habentur, are not meant, as Braune supposes, the first and second, but the second and third Epistles. When, however, it is previously written : Quid ergo mirum, si Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in epistolis suis proferat dicens in semet ipso ; quae vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus et manus nostrae palpaverunt, haec scripsimus, this is a clear evidence for the composition of the First Epistle by the Apostle John. The reviewer of the first edition of this commentary, in the theol. Literaturblat zur allg. Kirchenztg. 1855, No. 92, thinks, indeed, that in the words: quarti evangeliorum Joannis ex discipulis, the Presbyter John is indicated as the author of the Gospel, because it is not said ex apostolis ; but that the author of the Wrag-' ment indicates by the expression discipuli such disciples of Jesus as were not apostles, can neither be proved by the fact that Papias (in Euseb. H. 1. iii. 39) calls the Presbyter John a disciple (μαθητής) of Jesus, nor by the fact that after- wards ‘‘ ex apostolis” is added to characterize Andrew. If the author of the Fragment had regarded as the author of the Gospel, not the apostle, but the Presbyter John, he would certainly have expressed this definitely. The expres- sion ex discipulis presented itself to him here so much the more naturally, as he had immediately before spoken of Luke, and said of him: Dominum nec ipse vidit in carne. — Rightly, therefore, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, and others (comp. also Meyer in his Comment. on Gospel of John, and Laurent as above) have regarded the Murat. Fragm. as evidence for the apostolic origin of the Epistle. 248 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum catholicas abrogat et antiquat ; comp. on this Liicke’s Comment. Introd. § 8, 4, p. 135 ff, 3d ed. —The genuineness continued unchallenged until first Jos. Scaliger came forward with the assertion: tres epistolae Joannis non sunt apostoli Joannis; since then it has been variously disputed. Sam. J. Lange, indeed, recognised the unanimous testimony of antiquity as too significant to permit of denial of the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, but he nevertheless regarded it as a writing not worthy of the apostle; Claudius (Uransichten des Christenth. p. 52 ff.) went further, explaining it as the performance of a Jewish Christian, which was revised by a Gnostic. Bretschneider (in his Probabilien) and Paulus ascribe it to the Presbyter John, while they, however, at the same time maintained the identity of the author of the Epistle and the author of the Gospel; Horst (Musewm fiir Religions- wissensch. Henke, 1803, vol. I.) declared himself against this. — The later Tiibingen school cannot, in consequence of their conception of the development of Christianity, regard either the Gospel or the Epistle as the work of the apostle; the admission of the genuineness of one of these writings would overthrow their whole historical construction. Since, therefore, the adherents of this school are agreed in denying the genuine- ness of both writings, they nevertheless explain in different ways the relation of them to one another. K. R. Kostlin (Lehrbegr. des Ev. etc.) and W. Georgii (Ueber die eschatolog. Vorstellungen der N. T. Schriftsteller ; Theol. Jahrb., Tiibingen 1845) ascribe both writings (even the second and third Epistles) to the same author. After Zeller, who in his “ Beitriigen zur Einl. in die Apokalypse” (in the Zheol. Jahrb., Tiibing. 1842) presupposed the identity of the author in his review of Kostlin’s writings (Theol. Jahrb. 1845), and K. Planck (“Juden- thum und Urchristenth.” in the Theol. Jahrb. 1847) had inti- mated the opposite view, the former position was strongly defended by Baur (“Die Joh. Briefe,” in the Theol. Jahrb. 1848, 3) and by Hilgenfeld (Das Evang. u. die Briefe Joh. 1849, and “ἃ. joh. Briefe” in the Zid. theol. Jahrb. 1855, Part iv.); but with this difference, that the former explains the Epistle as the copy, the latter as the pattern of the Gospel. For the non-identity of the authors, it is specially advanced that in the Gospel a “more ideal and internal,” in the Epistle, INTRODUCTION. 249 on the other hand, “a more material and external” mode of thought dominates. This difference is to be chiefly recognised in the eschatological ideas. While the author of the Epistle expects a visible “material” (!) Parousia of Christ, the evan- gelist is held to know only of a “ reappearance of Christ in the spirit of His disciples,” and of a merely “ present” judgment, because for him “the future has already become the present.” How incorrect, however, this assertion is, is proved by passages such as Gospel of John v. 28, 29, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, in which distinctly enough a futwre day of resurrection of the dead and of judgment by Christ is spoken of (comp. Weiss, p. 179 ff.) ; and as in this the Gospel is quite in agreement with the Epistle, so, on the other hand, the Epistle expresses, no less distinctly than the Gospel, the idea of a resurrection, already accomplished in belief, of Christians from the dead.'| The fundamental conceptions, therefore, are the same in both writings; the only difference is, that in the Epistle the thought is expressed that the ἐσχάτη ὥρα is already,—but in the Gospel there was plainly no room for the expression of this thought. — For that difference between the material and the ideal conception, Baur appeals, moreover, to 1 John v. 6 comp. with Gospel xix. 34, and Hilgenfeld (1849) to 1 John i. 5, 7. Baur asserts that in place of the ideal import which the two symbols, blood and water, have in the Gospel, the sacramental appears in the Epistle. This assertion, however, is based on a false interpretation of both of those passages, since neither has the circumstance recorded in the Gospel xix. 34 the meaning: “that death (of which the blood is the symbol) is the neces- sary preliminary condition under which alone the Spirit (of which the water is the symbol (!)) can be communicated to the believer;” nor is 1 John v. 6 to be directly interpreted of the coming of Christ in or through the two sacraments, In the article of Hilgenfeld, quoted above, he thinks that ‘‘ there is unde- niably a different representation of the last day, when the author of the Epistle exhorts his readers so to deport themselves that they may meet the judgment day without shame, and when, on the other hand, the evangelist excludes believers from the judgment ;” but neither of these views is at all exclusive of the other ; it is only to be remembered that the future judgment for those who here already have passed from death into life, who here already possess the ζωὴ αἰώνιος (1 John v. 13), is such that for them it is not a judgment in that sense in which it is a judgment for the wicked. bo σι oO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Besides, it is rather strange to call the conception of water and blood as the two sacraments, a material one. — Hilgenfeld thinks that when in 1 John i. 5, 7 it is said of God that He is φῶς, nay, that He is ἐν τῷ φωτί, a representation is expressed which “has too much the ideas of matter and of space in it for the evangelist to have any connection with it,’ since he uses φῶς only as predicate of the Logos. But from the application which is made in the Epistle of the thought there expressed, it is clear that the writer of the Epistle, in the idea φῶς, did not think less of anything than of something “ pertaining to matter and space.” That alleged difference, therefore, does not exist; the ground- less pretence of it proves neither the hypothesis of Baur, that the Epistle is the performance of an imitator of the Gospel, nor that of Hilgenfeld, that it belongs to an earlier stage of development than the latter. Nevertheless, according to Baur, we may recognise the imitative hand, not only in the character of the whole Epistle (see on this Sec. 2), but in the pas- sages 1. 1—4 and v. 6—9; according to Hilgenfeld (1849), the earlier stage of development may be perceived in the O. T. conception expressed in the Epistle, and in its view of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit. In regard to the passage 1. 1- 4, Baur says: “in all the features, in which the author himself would give us a picture of his personality, the pre- meditated most anxious concern cannot be mistaken, to be regarded as one person with the evangelist ;” but that those verses are only to serve “ to give a picture of the personality of the author,” is a groundless supposition of Baur. In the other passage (v. 6—9 comp. with John viii. 16 ff.) Baur sees nothing but a mere playing on words, “ for the μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ has the same subject as the μαρτυρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and the latter differs from the former only in this, that the three: spirit, water, and blood, are counted as three, and it therefore consists of nothing else than the numerical relation of those three to one another, which again is immediately annulled when it is said that it is God that bears witness in those three.” But this entire conclusion is purely fanciful ; for,on the one hand, the μαρτυρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων is not at all spoken of, in regard to its subject, as identical with the μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ; and, on the other hand, in the mention of INTRODUCTION. PAS | the former μαρτυρία the numerical relation is not alluded to by a single syllable. — Hilgenfeld asserts that the Epistle stands in amore intimate relationship to the O. T. law than the Gospel does. The proof of this is supposed to le in the passages 1 John iii. 4 and ii. 7, 8; but with regard to the first passage, the idea ἀνομία in no way hints at the Mosaic law; and besides, if the author attached a higher importance to the Mosaic νόμος than the evangelist, he would somewhere state its signification ; this, however, he is so far from doing, that the idea νόμος never appears in his work at all, With regard to the second passage, Hilgenfeld, indeed, admits that ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς refers to the transition to Christianity, but thinks that “this old commandment of love is not set forth as it is in the Gospel, as an absolutely new one which first receives its rule through the love of the Saviour to His people;” but, apart from the explanation of that passage itself, the imme- diately preceding verse, and, moreover, what is written in iii. 16 and iv. 7 ff. about love, shows how unfounded is the assertion of Hilgenfeld. It is not anything better with the remark of Hilgenfeld (1849), that “the greatest probability is in favour of the statement that the idea of the personal Logos is still foreign to the Epistle, whilst it is distinctly expressed in the Gospel;” this Hilgenfeld infers from this, that for description of what is loftier in Christ the expression ὁ λόγος is not used in the Epistle’ But even if in the expression o λόγος τῆς ζωῆς the idea λόγος had the meaning of “ doctrine,” yet the supposition of Hilgenfeld would still be unjustified, since it cannot be denied that ἡ ζωὴ (ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος), whereby the superhuman that appeared in Christ is indicated, is con- sidered by the writer of the Epistle as hypostatic nature, nor that the vids τοῦ Θεοῦ is identical with Him who in the Gospel is called ὁ λόγος. Nay, the whole Epistle in the most unmis- takeable manner presupposes the hypostatic nature of the Son of God. — That, finally, the writer of the Epistle ascribed no personality to the Holy Spirit, can neither be proved by this, that he does not call Him ὁ παράκλητος, nor by this, that He indicates Him by the expression χρίσμα; the words τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι TO μαρτυροῦν especially, 1 John v. 6 comp. with John 1 In the article of 1855 this is merely noticed, without the former inference being drawn from it. bo Ct bo THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOLIN. xv. 26, presuppose His personality.’ For proof of the non- identity Baur finally appeals to this, that the “ representation of Christ as the παράκλητος, 1.06. the interceding High Priest, accords more with the sphere of ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews than with that of the Gospel, that thereby interven- ing thoughts are inserted into John’s view of the relation of Jesus to those who believe on Him, which lay far from the horizon of the evangelist.” But if Baur were right in this assertion, then there would exist not only a difference between the Epistle and the Gospel, but a difference between the Epistle and itself, since, apart from those representations, quite the same view of the relation of Jesus to believers dominates in the Epistle as in the Gospel ; with regard, however, to those representations, they are not peculiar to the Epistle to the Hebrews only, but are a common property of the apostles, as they are expressed in the Epistle to the Romans (comp. chap. 11. 25 and vill. 34) with no less distinctness than in the former. The reasons adduced by Baur and Hilgenfeld are therefore unable to shake the conviction of combined antiquity, that both writings come from one and the same author. That each of the works—along with all unity of conception and of expression—has its own peculiarities, is naturally caused both by the difference of their object, and by the living activity of the Spirit from whom they both proceeded. It is also to be observed, that in the Gospel it is chiefly the Master, in the Epistle the disciple, that speaks,—a fact to which the Tiibingen critics can certainly attach no importance. There is, however, the further question as to the character of the reasons which are said to be opposed to the genuineness of the Epistle, and to prove that the author of it could not be the Apostle John. When S. G. Lange says that on account of “its lack of all individual references, its slavish imitation of the Gospel, the too great generality of the thoughts, the traces of the feeble- ness of old age, the non-reference to the destruction of 1 In the article of 1855, Hilgenfeld finds the difference only in this, that in the Epistle the Holy Spirit is not called παρώκλησος, but χρῖσμα and σπέρμα. Along with this he admits, however, that the Gospel, in the expression ἄλλος rapa- πλήτος shows an agreement with the Epistle, in which Christ is spoken of as παράκλη τος. INTRODUCTION. 9 Jerusalem,” he only reluctantly regards the Epistle as the ‘work of an apostle; these reasons are of such arbitrarily subjective character as to require no refutation. Of greater importance, indeed, is the frequently-expressed assertion, that the Epistle refers to circumstances which first belong to a vy. time later than that of the apostles. As such Bretschneider regarded the doctrine of the Logos and the Docetism con- tended against in the Epistle; but “without the previous existence and assurance of a canonical doctrine of the Logos, the patristic doctrine from Justin on would be almost inex- plicable” (Liicke), and that Docetism—to which the Jewish as well as the heathen speculation must be added, when, without giving itself up, it amalgamated with Christianity — first belonged to the post-apostolic age, is historically an unjustifi- able assertion. — After Planck (in the article already quoted) advanced the view, that the author of the Epistle moves in the Montanist sphere of thought, as he “seeks to transform the external Jewish-Christian mode of conception into the deeper, more internal mode of John,” Baur developed it further. He explains the Epistle directly as a writing belonging to Montanism. His proofs of this are—(1) the thought that the fellowship of Christians is sinless, holy ; (2) the mention of the χρῖσμα, and (3) the distinction between venial and mortal sins. But how weak are these reasons! If the Montanists considered themselves as the Spirituales, in contrast to the rest of the Christians, who in their eyes were Psychici, this is plainly something very different from the representation of the Epistle that believing Christians—in contrast to the unholy world—form a holy fellowship. If the Epistle says that Christians possess the holy χρῖσμα, there lies therein nothing but an allusion to the custom, first mentioned by Tertullian, of anointing candidates for baptism with holy oil, And if in 1 John v. 16 the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον is distinguished from the ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον, this distinction is of a very different character from the Montanist distinction between venial and mortal sins. Baur, indeed, maintains that in the Epistle the same sins are called mortal sins as in Tertullian; but while Tertullian represents as mortal sins: homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blas- phemia, moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi 254 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Dei, Baur arbitrarily selects only three of these, namely idolatry, murder, adultery or fornication, which are alleged to be spoken of in the Epistle as mortal sins. To idolatry, namely, not only chap. v. 21, but also chap. iii. 4, is alleged to refer; to murder, chap. iii. 15;* and to πορνεία, which is nowhere mentioned in the Epistle itself, the superscription that appears in Augustin (corrupted from πρὸς παρθένους) : ad Parthos.— The hypothesis so feebly established (comp. Liicke’s incisive refutation in the 3d ed. of his comment.) of the Montanism of the writer of the Epistle, found in Hilgen- feld an opponent in the Tiibingen school itself. In opposition to 17 Hilgenfeld has attempted to show that not only the false doctrine of the antichristians who are contended against in the Epistle, but also many of the views of the author him- self, would go to prove that the appearance of the Epistle is to be fixed at the time immediately preceding that in which Gnosticism was at its prime. As Gnostic elements in the system of the Epistle, Hilgenfeld specifies the idea of the σπέρμα (iii. 9); the thought that we should not fear, but only love God (iv. 18, 19), and the idea of the χρίσμα (ii. 20); but these ideas are so essential to the Christian consciousness, that it cannot at all be thought of without them. At the most, the expressions σπέρμα and χρῖσμα might seem strange, but the former so naturally suggested itself in connection with the idea of being born of God, and of God’s being in him who is born of Him,’ and the latter 1 Baur himself admits that with regard to these two points the author does not mean ‘*the outward action,” but ‘‘ altogether the inner character of the moral sentiment ;” but if that be the case, then it is clear that his position is not in Montanism, but outside it, since in Montanism it is precisely actions, and indeed particular, definite actions, that are referred to in that distinction of sins. Tertullian (de pudicit. c. 19): Cui non accidit, aut irasci inique et ultra solis occasum, aut et manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, aut verecundia aut necessitate mentiri. In negotiis, in officiis, in quaestu, in victu, in visu, in auditu quanta tentamur, ut si nulla sit venia istornm, nemini salus competat, ete. 3 Hilgenfeld urges especially that it is impossible to conceive that a Montanist author would not have known to begin with the idea of the Paraclete; and also that the idea of special mortal sins already occurs in the Περίοδοι Πέτρον (Rec. iv. 36), which belong to the pre-Montanist psuedo-Clementine literature. 5 In his article of 1855, Hilgenfeld attaches the chief importance to the idea of the σπέρμα, and tries to deduce from 1 John y. 1, that according to the repre- sentation of the author of the Epistle, ‘‘ being born of God is to be regarded as INTRODUCTION. 255 from the antithesis of the Christian to the ἀντίχριστος͵--- especially with the O. Τὶ type of anointing—that a deriva- tion of them from Gnostic fancies is entirely unjustified ; quite apart from the fact that these ideas play quite another part in the Gnostic systems from that which they fulfil in this Epistle. Even if it be conceded to Hilgenfeld further, that the false doctrine contended against is Gnostic, yet it cannot be admitted that Gnosticism also, as regards its beginnings, belongs first to the post-apostolic time. Hilgenfeld rightly says that the features alluded to by the author of the Epistle do not mark a completely definite Gnostic system, but wrongly, that therefore the doctrine of Cerinthus must not be thought of, because this represents a form of Gnosis as yet quite incom- plete. The whole character of the polemic of the writer of the Epistle shows, however, that he has to do with a system of Gnosticism which, in comparison with the systems of the second century, had a form still incomplete. For there is only one point which he brings forward, namely Docetism, and indeed that form of it which consists of the distinction of the Son of God from the man Jesus, and therefore the same as was propounded by Cerinthus; comp. Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, 1. Ὁ. 314 ff—That this Docetism was associated with an antinomian sentiment “which set itself far above all the moral laws of life,” by no means follows, as has already been remarked in Sec. 2, from the polemic of the Epistle. — Against the assertion of Baur, that even the form of the polemic is decisive against the genuineness of the Epistle, since “nothing further is said than just that the false teachers of Docetism are antichristians,” it is to be observed that the main force of the apostle’s polemic throughout does not con- the presupposition of Christian faith,” and therefore that the σπέρμα is, accord- ing to him, ‘‘the metaphysical ground of existence” from which faith proceeds. But if the distinction between the τέχνα τοῦ Θεοῦ and the τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου has, according to the author, a metaphysical ground lying beyond faith, and if the former, by virtue of the extpu« which is peculiar to them by nature, cannot sin —how does this accord with the Soteriology which is so clearly expressed in the Epistle, and according to which Christ is the ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, and the blood of Christ cleanses us ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας ?—In this article also Hilgen- feld derives the ‘‘repeated assurance that God is love,” from the influence of Gnosticism on the author, without any regard to the close connection with the fundamental essential truth of Christianity in which this is brought forward by the author, 2580 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ~sist in negation, but in the positive presentment of the truth, in the light of which the antagonistic doctrine is manifested as a lie (see on this the excellent exposition of Thiersch, Versuch, etc., p. 255). The spuriousness of the Epistle (as also of the Gospel, and of John’s two other Epistles) also follows, according to Hilgen- feld (article of 1855), from the relation of these writings to the Apocalypse. While, namely, he presupposes the genuineness of the latter, he maintains that “the contrast between it and the Epistles must not be ignored,” and that “ the latter occupy a middle place between the two most extreme contrasts of the Apocalypse and the Gospel.” The contrast is seen, according to him, Ist, in the language (in the Epistles not indeed an Attic, but an easy and versatile Greek style; in the Apoca- lypse, on the other hand, a strongly Hebraizing impress) , and 2dly, in the sphere of thought, although he recognises “between the spheres of thought on both sides very essential points of contact.” But against these instances it is to be observed—1. That the composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John is by no means so surely established as Hilgen- feld assumes, and is certainly not to be proved by stating that it is the product of a still judaistically-narrowed mode of conception; 2. That in the explanation of the Hebrew- coloured style of the Apocalypse, attention is to be paid to the fact that it stands in close connection with Ὁ. T. pro- phecy; 3. That the appearance of the contrast, alleged by Hilgenfeld, between the spheres of thought on both sides, disappears when with the necessary critical impartiality they are taken hold of with consideration of the entire individual elements which constitute them." 1 Hilgenfeld proceeds uncritically in his demonstration of the contrast between the spheres of thought, inasmuch as he not only adduces, as antithetical, ideas which are not so, but also ascribes to one or the other writing views which are not contained init. The former is, for example, the case when he thinks that the idea of an angry God, as is peculiar to the Apocalypse, and the idea of a God who is love, as we find it expressed in the Epistle, contradict one another ; or when he asserts that the conception of the divine justice, according to which it is shown as the punishment of the wicked, is in contradiction to that, aecord- ing to which it appears as the forgiveness of sins ; when he supposes a contrast between the representation of the apocalyptic judgment and the idea of the spiritual victory of the Christian over the devil and the world, accomplished by means of morality and faith. He does the latter when, for example, he says INTRODUCTION. 2p As the internal tests, which have been asserted to be opposed to the genuineness of the Epistle, do not prove the alleged spuriousness, as the Epistle much rather bears on the face of it quite the impress of an apostolic writing, as it also —as even Hilgenfeld admits—*“belongs to the writings of the N. T., the genuineness of which was never disputed in the ancient church, and the chain of witnesses who have made use of it begins as far back as Papias,” the composition of it by the Apostle John is as surely established as it can ever be. SEC. 4.—THE READERS; TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 1. The Leaders, — Augustin says in his Quaest. Evang. ii, 39, when he is quoting the passage 1 John iii. 2: scriptum est a Joanne in Lpistola ad Parthos; this more particular determination of the Epistle is also found (only, however, in the Benedictine edition of Augustin’s works) in the superscription of his treatises on the Epistle; and similarly in Possidius, in his Jndiculus operum S. Augustini, as he introduces those treatises with the words: de ep. Joannis ad Parthos sermones decem. The same _ statement, it is true, frequently appears later; thus in the work of Vigilius Tapsensis (end of the fifth century), published under the name of Idacius Clarus, contra Varimadum Arianum ; in Cassiodorus, de institut. divin. script. ο. 14, who, however, refers the words ad Parthos to all the three Epistles; in Col. 62 of Griesb. and in several lat. codd. (see Guericke, that the Apocalypse considers ‘‘ the political world-power of the Roman Empire” as Antichrist, whereas the name ἀντίχριστος is never once mentioned in the Apocalypse ; or when he ascribes to the Epistle the idea of a metaphysical antagonism between the children of God and the children of the devil, which is found in the Gnostics. — For the rest, it must not be denied that the difference in character between the Apocalypse and the other writings of John is consider- able enough to allow the view, that it does not proceed from the same author, to appear not unjustified. While that difference, on the one side, is often not sufficiently estimated, on the other side, with the object of bringing it more clearly out, the mistake is not infrequently made, of not keeping strictly enough within the truth. But, as may hold good of the origin of the Apocalypse also, the Gospel and the First Epistle of John are too strongly attested, both by their whole character and by the external evidences, as writings of the Apostle John, to allow their genuineness to be denied on account of the Apocalypse. Me&yer.—1 Joun. R 258 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOUN. Gesammigesch. des N. T. 1854, p.486, note 2); but the whole Greek Church, and similarly the Latin Church before Augustin, knows nothing of it. It is therefore of no importance even for the determination of the original readers of the Epistle (against Grotius), nay, it cannot even be said that in it was retained an old tradition in regard to the determination of the Epistle or the activity of John (Baumgarten-Crusius), and still less that it “refers to its designation for Further and Central Asia, as formerly Persian lands” (Guericke as above, p. 487). It might no doubt be possible that Augustin thereby expressed iis own conjecture (Michaelis), but then he would hardly have proceeded with the Epistle under this designation without further remark. Perhaps a mistake is at the bottom of it. Some critics assume a corruption of the reading in Augustin; Serrarius conjectures as the original reading: ad Pathmios; Wetstein: ad sparsos; Semler: adpertius. Most explain the words as originating in a Greek expression; quite arbitrarily, Paulus (Heidelb. Jahrb. 1832, p. 1071) thinks they might have arisen through misunderstanding of a probable inscription πρὸς πάντας ; it is more natural to have recourse, with most critics, to the Greek word παρθένος, and to regard ad Parthos as originating in πρὸς παρθένους. Whiston considers πρὸς παρθένους as the description of the yet uncorrupted, virgin condition of the churches of John ; according to Hug’s view, the inscription of some manuscripts of the Second Epistle: πρὸς πάρθους (i. πρὸς παρθένους), was transferred to the First Epistle, because that designation was regarded as unsuitable to the Second Epistle ; Gieseler (Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch. 4th ed. vol. I. Pt. 1, p. 139, note 1), with whom Locke (3d ed. p. 52 1) agrees, supposes that the inscription of the First and of the Second Epistle was: ἐπιστολὴ ᾿Ιοάννου τοῦ παρθένου ; this is certainly not found in any codex of the Epistle, but the inscription of the Apocalypse in Cod. Cuelpherit. (80 of Griesb.) runs thus: τοῦ ἁγίου... ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ 1 Against this fact the strange remark of Bede in the Prologus super septem epistolas canonicas (printed in Care’s Script. eccles. hist. liter.): Multi serip- torum ecclesiasticorum, in quibus est S. Athanasius, primam ejus (i.e. Joannis) epistolam scriptam ad Parthos esse testantur, cannot of course be regarded as of any weight. INTRODUCTION, 259 παρθένου ἠγαπημένου ἐπιστηθίου ᾿Ιοάννου θεολόγου. The simplest supposition might be that Augustin misunderstood the remark of Clemens Alex. (Opp. ed. Potter. Fragm. 1011) that the Second Epistle was written πρὸς παρθένους (ad virgines)—(see Introd. to Second and Third Epistle, Sec. 1)— and then by mistake referred it to the First Epistle—But ‘whatever be the origin of this ad Parthos, it can be of no value as an historical evidence for the original place of destination of the Epistle. As John, according to the un- questionable accounts of antiquity, after the death of the Apostle Paul, took up his place in Asia Minor; and as in Asia Minor, as the Epistle to the Colossians testifies, heretical tendencies of Gnostic character already appeared at an early date,—it is to be assumed, with most critics, that the Epistle 13: was originally directed to the churches of Asia Minor; not to one of them (according to Hug, to that of Ephesus), but as ἐπιστολὴ ἐγκυκλική (Oec.) to several (perhaps to “ John’s Ephesian circle of churches,” Liicke), perhaps to all of those to which the personal activity of the apostle extended, for the Epistle would otherwise certainly touch at individual circumstances of the single church.’ It is clearly quite farbitrary to regard as its place of destination, with Benson, Palestine, or, with Lightfoot, Corinth. 2. The Place of Composition—tThis is just as little stated in the Epistle as the place of destination; the prevailing opinion, that John wrote it in Ephesus, has at least nothing against it. Hug and Ebrard, who regard it—though without tenable reason—as a companion work of the Gospel, suppose that it was written with the latter in Patmos; but even though the statement is found in some of the later Fathers, that the Gospel was written in Patmos, the move ancient tradition names Ephesus as its place of composition; comp. Meyer's Comment. on the Gospel, 3d ed. p. 39.—Hug appeals also to 2 John 12 and 13, 3 John 13; unwarrantably, however, for a want of writing materials is here in no way hinted at. 1 Hilgenfeld thinks that the Epistle was addressed to the whole of orthodox Christendom, in so far as it did not belong to the immediate sphere of the apostle’s labours ; but even if the apostle mentions no specific limit of his sphere of readers, such a limit is nevertheless indicated in the warning reference to the Docetan heresy. 260 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, ὃ. The Time of Composition—That the Epistle belongs, _ not to the earlier, but to the later apostolic time, 1.6. the time after the departure of the Apostle Paul, is not to be disputed. -The whole tone in which it is written leaves us in no mistake as to the advanced age of the writer; moreover, the somewhat prolonged existence of the Christian churches to which it is addressed is brought out pretty clearly; and there is the additional fact that the antagonism between Jewish and Gentile Christianity is no longer the subject, and that the Docetism therein opposed points also to the later time. With this corresponds the tradition, according to which it was written by John during his sojourn in Ephesus. As, how- ever, the tradition states indeed the end (Iren. Huer. iii. 3, 4, in Euseb. iv. 14: ᾿Ιωάννου δὲ παραμείναντος αὐτοῖς μέχρι τοῦ Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων), but not the beginning of this sojourn, the time of composition of the Epistle is only indefinitely fixed by it. This much only seems to be indisputable, that John first settled in Ephesus after the death of the Apostle Paul, in order from there to direct the churches of Asia Minor, especially those in the proconsulate ; against which, the view that he remained in that city until the destruction of Jerusalem (Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, VII. p. 202 ff.) lacks any certain ground. The composition of the Epistle before the destruction of Jerusalem, Grotius, Hammond, and Diisterdieck infer from chap. 11. 18 ; Ziegler, Fritzsche, and others, from the circumstance that that event, so important for Christianity, is not mentioned in the Epistle. But i. 18 refers, indeed, to the nearness of the Parousia of Christ, not, however, to the fall of Jerusalem; that even later the time reaching to the Parousia of Christ was considered as_ the “last time,’ is shown by the passage in J/gnat. ep. ad Ephes. 6. xi: ἔσχατοι καιροὶ λοιπὸν αἰσχυνθῶμεν, φοβηθῶμεν τὴν μακροθυμίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα μὴ ἡμῖν εἰς κρίμα γένηται. And that the destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned might be explained in this way, that when the Epistle was written a considerable time might have already elapsed since that event. Most commentators place the composition in the time after the destruction of Jerusalem, especially because, as they think, the state of the churches brought ont in the Epistle was such as was appropriate only to the end of the apostolic age. INTRODUCTION. Zio But even this conclusion is at least not quite sure, since even already Paul in his later Epistles had to take notice of moral indifferentism, nay, Antinomianism and Gnostic error ;* and the disturbing influence of the judaistically-inclined Christians on the Gentile-Christian churches must be regarded as already overcome by the labours of the Apostle Paul, inasmuch as even Paul himself does not combat it in his later Epistles in the way in which he had done in the earlier ones#—Thiersch appeals, in favour of a comparatively late appearance of the Epistle, to this, that according to chap. 11. 19, “ the separation of the heretics from the Christian community was already accomplished,” though they still, according to the Epistle οὗ Jude, revelled at the Agapae; but, on the one hand, it is to be observed that from the former passage it is not clear how far a formal separation was at that time already carried out (the church-forming activity of the heretics belongs first to the second century); and, on the other hand, it is at least uncertain whether John and Jude had to do with heretics of the same kind, for the one class are depicted as Antinomians, the other as Docetans——Ebrard fixes as the time of com- position the year 95 aer. Dion.; his reasons for this are: the Epistle was written at the same time as the Gospel, as its dedicatory Epistle; the Gospel was composed at Patmos ; John was at Patmos in the 15th year of Domitian; but these _/premisses lack any certain foundation—By most critics it is ‘considered that the Epistle was written later than the Gospel, and that the latter was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. As regards the first part, appeal is made in its favour especially to this, that in the Epistle reference 15 sometimes made to the Gospel. This, however, is not the case ; there is (as Bleek, as above, also remarks) in the whole Epistle not a single passage which assumes the written Gospel as known” (Guericke). It would seem on the face of it more probable that John, induced by the false teachers, first wrote 1 Still it cannot remain unobserved, that the heretics, against whom Paul directs his polemic, are never accused of Docetism ; that Cerinthus probably appeared only towards the end of the apostolic age ; and that the heretical error which the Ignatian Epistles contend against was of specially Docetan character. * Reuss (as above, p. 218) rightly says: ‘‘ For us the Epistle requires the Gospel as a commentary ; but as it once had this in the oral instruction of its author it is not thereby proved that it is the later.” ho σὺ 2 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ‘the Epistle to warn and exhort the churches entrusted to him, and then wrote the Gospel for entire Christendom, as “a consecrated record of the historical foundation of salvation ” (Thiersch), than that he first wrote the latter and then the former." Some of the very passages by which it is thought the dependence of the Epistle upon the Gospel can be proved seem to tell in favour of this. The passage, 1 John i. 1—4, appears, when compared with Gospel i. 1 ff, to be not the later, but the earlier one, since the apostle in the former is still striving to give to the idea the suitable expression, whereas in the latter he has already found it. None the less, compared with the expression “6 λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο," is the expression “᾿]ησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθώς " the more indefinite, and therefore no doubt the earlier. Besides, the affinity of the two works permits the conjecture that the dates of their composition do not lie far from one another (comp. Bleek, p. 590; differently Briickner), especially as this appears not only in their peculiar character, but also in the form, to such an extent that not only do they both begin with a Prooemium containing the same ideas, but even the thoughts expressed at the close completely correspond with each other: Gospel of John xx. 31: ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται, ἵνα πιστεύσητε, ὅτι ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, and 1 John ν. 18 : ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε, ὅτε ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχετε οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.----ΑϑΒ regards the second point, no exact proof can indeed be drawn from the Gospel itself in favour of its composition after the destruction of Jerusalem ;” but, on the other hand, there lies in this no ground to contradict the old tradition, that John wrote it in his more advanced age. It is also not improbable that 1 What Thiersch (Versuch f. d. Kritik, p. 79) says generally: ‘‘As a general rule, the proposition may be proved to be historically true, that the writings of momentary design, to which most of the Epistles belong, appeared earlier, and the writings of permanent design, especially the Gospels, later,”—may also be applied to the relation of the Gospel and the Epistle of John. * From the use of ἦν in the passages of the Gospel of John xi, 18, xviii. 1, xix. 41, nothing can be inferred, as it is entirely explained ‘‘ by the context of historical narrative ;” on the other hand, however, the ἐστί, John y. 2, does not prove that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed at the time when John wrote this, for John in his account of the past event might represent to himself that which no longer existed as still existing (comp. Ebrard, Comment. p. 40 ff). INTRODUCTION. 208 it was not already circulated in the lifetime of the apostle; at least it is more natural to suppose that the 21st chapter was added to it immediately on its appearance than later, when it had already become a possession of the Christian churches." In that case, John composed the Gospel as a legacy for the age after his death ; hence, however, it would result as to the Epistle, that it also was written only in the advanced age of the apostle, although before the Gospel. True, the apostle nowhere says that his readers have heard the Gospel from him, often though he speaks of their acquaint- ance with it, nor is there any passage from which it could be proved that he himself already laboured among them in person ; but from this the conclusion cannot be drawn, that “ John composed the Epistle when he took up his place in Asia Minor after the death of the Apostle Paul, and indeed in order, by means of it as a pastoral Epistle, to introduce his labours there ” (1st ed. of this comment.); for, on the one hand, such a purpose of the Epistle is nowhere hinted at; and, on the other hand, that circumstance might arise from this, that the Epistle was not exclusively destined for those churches in which the apostle had already laboured by oral preaching, but was equally for others which he had not yet visited. On impartial consideration of all points, it appears probable that the Epistle of John was written in the last quarter of the apostolic age. 1 Ewald (Gesch. Israels, VII. p. 217 ff.) thinks that the Gospel was written about the year 80, but was first circulated later, shortly before the death of John, with the supplementary chap. xxi. added by him ; and that the First Epistle was written later than the Gospel, though independently of it, but was circulated earlier than it, immediately after its composition, For this, however, there is quite as little certain proof as there is for the opinion that both the Gospel and the Epistle of John were composed only at the special urgency of his friends. 264 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ᾽ / A Ιωάννου ἐπιστολὴ a In A B the superscription runs: Ἰωάννου (B.: -ανου) ἅ ; in other codd.: ἐπιστολὴ ᾿Ιωάννου πρώτη. The Rec. is: Ιωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐπιστο).ἡ καθολικὴ πρώτη. CHAPTER & Ver. 1. Instead of ἑωράκαμεν, Tisch. 7 has, both here and here- after, and 111. 6, iv. 20, accepted the form éop.; on this form, see Ph. Buttmann, Ausf. griech. Gramm. 1819, ὃ 84, Anm. 11, note; Al. Buttmann (p. 56) says: “The form ἑόρακα, it is true, is often presented by the mss., but has not, up to the present, been received by the editors.” — Ver. 2. Cod. B has betore ἑωράκαμεν the relative é, perhaps through mistake from vv. 1 and 3; even Buttm. has not accepted it. "= Ver. 3. awa γγξέλλομεν ὑμῖν} Ree, according to G K and several others, Copt. and others, Οθο. Aug. Beda (Tisch.) ; according to A B C, however, with Lachm., a zai is to be inserted after ἀπαγγέλλομεν,---ἰῦ seems to have been omitted as superfluous on account of the following ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς; In Thph. it reads: καὶ ᾿ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν; SO also 8, in which it reads: ἀκχηκ. καὶ ἑωράκ. καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν. ---- Ver. 4. Instead of γράφομεν ὑμῖν (Rec. Tisch. Lachm. ed. maj.), A* Bs read γράφομεν ἡμεῖς (Lach. ed. min. Buttm.); Liicke, de Wette, Ewald, and Reiche consider this reading as unsuitable ; diffe- rently Briickner ; the change of ἡμεῖς to juiv can at any raté be more easily explained than that of ὑμῖν to ἡμεῖς. --- ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν] “Ζύρο., according to A C K, several others, Copt. etc. ete. (Tisch.) ; Lachm., following B G8 and others, reads ἡμῶν ; hardly correct. — Ver. 5. zai ἔστιν αὕτη] according to B C G K wand others, Syr. Thph. Oee. (Tisch.), instead of the Rec. καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν, accord- ing to A, Vulg. (Lachm.). The Mec. is an alteration of the original reading; comp. li. 25, ili. 11. — ἀγγελία] so Lachm. and Tisch. (approved of by Reiche and most modern commentators), following almost the entire number of authorities: A BG K, by far the most of the others (Thph. in Comm. Oec.), instead of the Rec, ἐπαγγελία, which only a few codices support; perhaps C; according to Lachm. C has ἀγγελία; according to Tisch.: CHAP. I. 1—4. 265 ἐπαγγελία. Paulus considers ἀγγελία as an explanatory gloss from 11]. 11; so de Wette; but, on the contrary, ἐπαγγελία is a correction of d&yyeA‘a, which otherwise does not appear in the N. T. except in 11]. 11, where, however, the same correction is found. The original reading of 8 is ἀπαγγελίας ; later it corrects this to ἀγγελία ; others have corrected it to ἀγάπη τῆς ἐπαγγε- arias. Socin thinks that ἐπαγγελία should be read. — Ver. 7. Instead of ἀλλήλων, A* (2) Tol. some lat. codices, Aeth. Clem. Didym. Tert. read αὐτοῦ, which is plainly a correction, as ἀλλήλων does not seem conformable to the train of thought; see the comment. on this passage. After ᾿Ιησοῦ the Lec., following A G K and others, Vulg. etc., has Χριστοῦ, which is wanting in BCR; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; Reiche would have it retained; the addition is easily explained, comp. v. 3.— Ver. 8. Instead of οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν (Rec. after BG», Vulg. etc.), Lachin. and Tisch., following A Ο K and others, read ἐν 47 οὐκ ἔστιν; perhaps the former is a correction, after ver. 10. — Ver. 9. Instead of καθαρίσῃ is found, in A, ἢ. some min. (perhaps also in C**) : καθαρίσει, which, however, has too little evidence to be regarded as genuine. Vy. 1-4. Introduction of the Epistle: statement of the subject of the apostolic proclamation and of the aim of this writing. The construction of the periods is not carried out conformably to rule. The relative clauses beginning with 6 form the object of a verbal idea, which is just as little directly expressed as the subject which belongs to it; nay, more, with περί the period that was begun breaks off, and with καὶ ἡ ζωή (which refers back to the preceding τῆς ζωῆς) begins a new period consisting of two principal members. In the new sentence, ver. 3, the object, expressed in relative form, is placed before the finite verb, which contains in itself the subject. The parts of the sentence in ver. 1, beginning with 6, are co- ordinate with each other; it is grammatically impossible to take the first part as subject and the following parts as the predicate of it (Cappellus: quod erat ab initio hoc ipsum est, quod audivimus, etc.) ; as far as regards the sense, it is unsuit- able to find in ἐψηλώφησαν the verb which governs the preceding objective clauses (Paulus: “that which was, etc., which we have seen, our hands also have touched”). The governing verb cannot be contained in ver. 2 either, for the verbs of this verse have their object near them in τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. AS ὃ ἑωράκαμεν κ. ἀκηκόαμεν, ver. 3, shows 266 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. itself to be the resumption of the objective clauses of ver. 1, —only in more abridged form,—it is to be assumed that ἀπαγγένλομεν, ver. 3, 1s the verb which was before the apostle’s mind from the very beginning, from the immediate addition of which he was, however, prevented by feeling him- self constrained to define the object more precisely by the appositional addition περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. As he was then induced by τῆς ζωῆς to the parenthetical continuation in ver. 2, he made the finite verb follow after he had first resumed the object. Ver. 1. ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ κτλ. and the parenthetical sentence, ver. 2, it follows that John understands by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή, and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, which was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first from ὃ ἀκη- κόαμεν K.7.A, and ἐφανερώθη, and then especially from the comparison with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς the same subject is meant as is there spoken of as ὁ λόγος. The neuter form does not entitle us to understand by ὃ ἣν «.7.X., with the Greek com- mentators Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “ μυστήριον of God,” namely, ὅτε Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, or even, with Grotius, the “ res a Deo destinatae.” Nor does de Wette’s interpretation : “that which appeared in Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with the representation of the apostle, according to which the ζωή not only was manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of commentators interpret ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. ii. 13: τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς), but 6, cannot, with several commentators (Erdmann, Liicke, Ebrard’), 1 Liicke gives this explanation of the neuter: that John, ‘‘ seeking to express briefly the idea of the Gospel, combines in this idea the person of Christ, as the incarnate Logos, with His whole history and work.” — Erdmann first remarks: CHAP. I. 1. ΟΝ be found in this, that John means not only the person in itself, but at the same time its whole history, all that it did and experienced, for ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (synonymous with ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν, Gospel of John 1. 1) is decisive as to the historical mani- festation of Christ. Nor is it, with Diisterdieck, to be found in this, “because only this form (the neuter) is wide and flexible enough to bear at the same time the two conceptions of the one ... object, the conception of the premundane exist- ence and that of the historical manifestation,” for then each of the four 6’s would have to embrace in itself both these ideas, which, however, is not the case. But neither is it, with Hof- mann (Schriftbeweis, ed. 2, I. p. 112), this: “ because John just wants to describe only the subject of the apostolic proclamation as such;” for this is not the order, that John first describes the subject of the apostolic proclamation only generally, and “then” defines it more particularly, but ὃ ἣν am ἀρχῆς is itself the more particular definition of the subject of the pro- clamation. Nor, finally, is it, with Weiss, this, that the apostle does not here mean the Son of God Himself, but “ that which constituted the eternal being of the Son,” namely life; for, on the one hand, nothing here points to a distinction of the Son and His being, and, on the other hand, it is not the being of the Son which the apostle heard, saw, handled, but the Son Himself. The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea." True, the apostle could Forma neutrius generis generalis notio e contextis atque Joannis dicendi ratione facile definienda, ad personam Christi aperte referenda significatur, nec solum vis et amplitudo sententiae apte notatur, sed etiam illo ¢ quater repetito orationis sublimitati concinnitas additur; and then continues: Praeterea meminerimus, non solum Christi personam per se spectatam hic designari, verum etiam omnia, quae per vitam humanam ab eo perfecta et profecta, acta, dicta, etc. λόγον in eo apparuisse comprobant. — With this the opinion of Ebrard agrees, that ¢ shows that the person was not to be proclaimed qua person, not as an abstraction, but in its historical manifestation. Against this, however, it is a valid objection, that John in ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς has plainly in his view the Logos not in, but before its historical manifestation. — When Erdmann appeals, in favour of John’s refer- ence of the neuter to persons, to the passages, Gospel of John iii. 6, vi. 39, xvii. 2, 1 John iv. 4, it is, on the other hand, to be observed that in all these passages the neuter serves to combine the single individuals into a whole that embraces the entirety of them, which permits of no application to the use of δ΄ here. 1 Ebrard rejects this explanation as quite erroneous, and as being in contra- diction with the acceptation of the verse otherwise. The rashness of this 268 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself (not merely a living individual),—-comp. Gospel of John xiv. 6, —and as John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for him to write here 6 than és." By ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς Joln describes Christ as Him who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense, has been from all eternity; the imperfect ἦν, however, does not express the premundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which Christ had become the object of sensuous perception. — ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς] has frequently in the N. T. its more particular determination along with it, as in Mark xiii. 19, 2 Pet. ili, 4: τῆς κτίσεως, or it is easily dis- covered from the context, as in Acts xxvi. 4. In the passage 2 Thess. ii. 15, am’ ἀρχῆς corresponds to the expression used in Eph. i. 4: πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, and is identical with the German “von Ewigkeit her” (from all eternity), for which elsewhere is said: ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων (Eph. iii. 9), or similar words. Here it is explained by the following ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. ‘This existence of Christ with the Father precedes not merely His appearance in the flesh, but also the creation of the world, for according to John 1. 2 the world was made by Him; ἀρχή is therefore not the moment of the beginning of the world, as it is frequently interpreted, but what preceded it (comp. Meyer on Gospel of John 1. 1); Christ was before the world was, and is therefore not first from the beginning of the world, as Christ Himself in John xvii. 5 speaks of a δόξα which He had with the Father πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι." judgment is clearly evident from the question which he adds; ‘‘ Where would there be eyen the shadow of a grammatical reference of ¢ to ζωῆς ᾽ for a grammatical reference is not and could not be asserted. — Bertheau’s objection (Liicke, Comment. ed. 3, p. 206f.), that ‘‘we would still have to regard the neuter form as a general comprehensive expression which refers both to that to which the apostle ascribes a primeval existence and to that which he has heard with his ears,” ete., is not tenable, for it rests on the unproved assumption that 6 λόγο; «. ζ. is not identical with that which the apostle regarded as the object of the ἀκούειν x.7.2. 1 It is unsuitable to explain the ¢, with Braune, in this way, that the apostle, ‘‘in view of the mysterious sublimity . . . wrote in a flight and feeling of indefiniteness.” * That the λόγος before the creation of the world was im manent in God, Lut CHAP. I. 1. 269 The apostle says here az’ ἀρχῆς, because he is looking back from the time when Christ by His incarnation became the object of sensuous perception (similarly Ebrard). It is in- correct either to change the idea of εἶναι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς into that of existence in the predetermined plan,’ by which the words are strained, or to interpret ἀρχή here of the beginning of the public activity of Christ in the flesh (Semler, Paulus, and others), by which the connection with ver. 2 is ignored. — ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν K.T.r.] By the four sentences the apostle expresses the thought that that which was from the beginning was the subject of his own perception; the main purpose of them is not “to put forward that which is to be proclaimed about Christ as absolutely certain and self-experienced” (Ebrard), but to bring out and to establish the identity of that which was from the beginning with that which was manifested in the flesh, while he has at the same time in his view the Docetan heresy afterwards mentioned by him.” By the 6 with which these sentences begin, nothing else, therefore, is meant than by the 6 of the first sentence, namely Christ Himself (Briickner, Braune) ; and here the peculiar paradox is to be noticed, which lies in this, that the general (ἡ ζωή) is represented by the apostle as something perceived by his senses. It is erroneous to understand by each of these 6’s something different; thus by the first (with ἀκηκόαμεν), perhaps the testimony which was expressed by God Himself (Grotius), or by the law and the prophets (Oecumenius), or by John the Baptist (Nicolas de Lyra), or even the words which Christ uttered (Ebrard); by the second 6 (with ἑωράκαμεν), the miracles of Christ (Ebrard) ; by the third 6 (with ἐθεασάμεθα), tot et tauta miracula (Grotius), or even “the divine glory of Christ” (Ebrard); and by the o which is to be supplied with ἐψηλάφησαν, the by the accomplishment of the act of creation hypostatically proceeded from God (see Meyer on Gospel of John i. 1), is an idea nowhere hinted at in scripture. 1 Grotius : eae res, quas apostoli sensibus suis percepere, fuerunt a Deo desti- natae jam ab ipso mundi primordio. 2 Erdmann: Jam etiam clarum fit, cur tam diserte... testem oculatum et auritum se significare studeat, scilicet primum ut veritatem et certitudinem verbi aeterni in Christo manifestati sensibusque humanis percepti adversus con- trariam pseudodoctorum doctrinam ... confirmet, deinde ut sui praeconii apostolici fidem et auctoritatem in ipsa sensuum expericntia fundatam ab insolentia illorum vindicet. 270 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. resurrection-body of Christ (Ebrard), or, still more arbitrarily, the panes multiplicatos, Lazarum, etc. (Grotius) ; all these supplementary ideas, which have originated in the incorrect assumption that John refers here to “the various sides of Christ’s appearance in the flesh,” and which can easily be confounded with others, are utterly unjustified, since they are in no way hinted at in the context. John does not mean here to say that he has experienced this or that in Christ, but that he has heard, seen, looked upon, and handled Christ Himself. In the succession of the four verbs there les an unmistakeable gradation (a Lapide: gradatim crescit oratio) ; from ἀκηκόαμεν to ἑωράκαμεν a climax occurs, in so far as we are more certainly and immediately convinced of the reality of an appearance of sense by sight than by hearing; the addition of the words τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν is not, as Lorinus already remarks, a περισσολογία or βαττολογία, but there is in them “plainly an aiming at emphasis, as: to see with one’s own eyes” (Winer, p. 535, VII. p. 564). The third verb é@eaca- μεθα must not here be taken—with Bede and Ebrard—in the sense of spiritual beholding, by which it is removed from the sphere to which the other verbs belong; it is rather of similar signification with éwpaxayev—in this respect, that, equally with the latter, it indicates the seeing with the bodily eyes. The difference does not, however, lie in this, that θεᾶσθαι = μετὰ θαύματος καὶ θάμβους ὁρᾶν (Oecumenius, a Lapide, Hornejus, etc.), or = attente cum gaudio et admiratione con- spicere (Blackwell), by which significations are put into the word which are foreign to it in itself, but in this, that it has in it the suggestion of intention." It is to be remarked that ἐθεασάμεθα is closely connected with the following καὶ ai χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ; for ὅ is not repeated here, and both verbs are in the aorist, so that they thus go to form a sort of contrast to the two preceding clauses; whilst ἀκούειν and ὁρᾷν express rather the involuntary perception, θεᾶσθαι and ψηλα- φεῖν express acts of voluntary design,—the former the purposed beholding, the latter the purposed touching of the object in order to convince oneself of its reality and of its nature. As 1 This force Liicke brings out correctly : ‘*‘ Where the expressions are used as contrasted, ὁρᾷν signifies altogether the objective seeing, but θεᾶσθαι the designed, continued beholding.” CHAP. I. 1. oT both these parts of the clause remind us of the words of the risen Christ: ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε (Luke xxiv. 39), it is not improbable that John had in his mind the beholding and touching of the Risen One, only it must be maintained at the same time that Christ was one and the same to him before and after His resurrection. In this view, the transition from the perfect to the aorist is naturally explained in this way, that the apostle in the last verbs refers to single definite acts.’ The plural ἀκηκόαμεν «.7.d. is not plur. majestaticus, but is used because John, although he speaks of himself as subject, still at the same time embraces in his consciousness the other apostles as having had the same experience as himself. — περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς) is not dependent on any of the preceding verbs ;” it is also inadmissible to explain περί here, with Briickner, in the sense in which it is used in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 12, namely, in order to mark the transition to something new; not only the sense, but also the position of περί prohibits this signification ; it is an additional clause in apposition to the preceding descriptions of the object, by which it is stated to what ὃ jv ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὁ ἀκηκόαμεν refers. The expression ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς may be in itself a description of the Gospel (so it is taken by Grotius, Semler, Frommann, Ewald, de Wette, Briickner, Diisterdieck, etc.), and τῆς ζωῆς either gen. obj. (1 Cor.i.18; 2 Cor. v.19), or gen. qualitatis (Phil. ii. 16 ; Gospel of John vi. 68); but this acceptation is refuted, first, 1 Diisterdieck rightly remarks that the change of the tenses does not here originate in an indefiniteness. His view, however, ‘‘ that the transition from the perfect to the aorist is to be explained in this way, that the nearer the apostle’s discourse comes to the definite historical force of ἐφανερώθη, the more it takes the historical form,” is untenable, for ἀκούειν and δρᾷν stand to ἐφανερώθη In no other relation than θεζσθαι and ψηλαφεῖν. Briickner opposes the view indi- cated above, being of opinion that the perfect emphasizes ‘‘the certain effect,” the aorist, on the other hand, ‘‘the historical event ;” but why would John there emphasize the former and here the latter, if this were not to be explained by the distinction which we have stated ? 2 §. G. Lange construes περί with the first sentence: 4 ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, so that the sense that results to him, explaining ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς --ς “‘ from the beginning of His ministry,” and sivas = ‘‘fieri, to happen,” is: ‘‘ that which happened from the beginning in connection with our Lord, the Word of life!” — Not less extraordinary is the explanation of Paulus: ‘‘what in general was thus in regard to the Logos ; what we, in regard to Him, heard, saw, etc., that also, in regard to Him, these hands of ours have touched,” namely, ‘‘the human body which here contained Him as the Logos come down from above.” 272 TIE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. by the preposition περί, instead of which the simple accusative would have had to be put, for John proclaimed not about the gospel, but the gospel itself (ἀπαγγέλλομεν, ver. 3); then by the close connection of this additional clause with the preced- ing objective clauses; and, finally, by the analogy with the prooemium of the Gospel of John (ver. 1: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγος : ver. 4: ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ jv). These reasons, which are opposed to that explanation, are in favour of the explanation of Hornejus: hic non denotatur sermo s. verbum evangelii, sed Christus, which is also that of most commentators. The opinion of Diisterdieck, that “as John (according to ver. 2) considered the Logos itself as ἡ ζωή, ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, the λόγος in the composition ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς cannot again be the personal Logos,” is overthrown by this, that τῆς ζωῆς in itself is not the name of a person, but of a thing, just as in Gospel of John i. 4, ζωή in the clause ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ jv, and τὸ φῶς τ. avOp. in the clause καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἣν τὸ φῶς τ. avOp. Even ὁ λόγος is the name of a thing; not, indeed, that we should understand by it, first, “the word, which was preached by the apostles,” and then, because this has Christ as its subject, “ Christ Himself,’ as Hofmann (Schriftbew. ed. 2, I. p. 109 ff.) thinks, for the subject of a word cannot be called the Word (comp. Meyer on Gospel of John i. 1"), but ὁ λόγος signifies, in the province of religious thought, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the Word by which God expressed Himself ἐν ἀρχῇ. Though John of course knows that this Word is the personal Christ, yet in this expression in itself the idea of personality is not yet brought out. This being the case, we will have to understand the compound phrase: ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, first of all as the name of a thing;? so that John in this description, which in itself 1 The identification of the ideas: χήρυγμα (= λόγος) and 6 χηρυσσόμενος, by which, without enlargement, the former could be put where the latter is meant, is rightly opposed by Luthardt (Das Ev. Joh. Ῥ. 284 ff.); and what Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of his Schri/tbeweis, brings forward for his defence, does not refute the statements of Luthardt. But even the explanation of Luthardt, that Christ is called the Word because He ‘‘is the Word which God has spoken to the world, because He is the final and last word of all earlier words of God to the world,” cannot be justified, because, on the one hand, in the simple expression λόγος nothing is less indicated than that He is the final word, and, on the other hand, it must be acknowledged that Christ, not merely from His inearnation, but from the very beginning, is the Word in which life is, or the Word of Life. # Even Hofmann has rightly recognised this, although only from his inad-. CHAP. I. 1. Ze does not express the idea of personality, does not mean to say that that which was from the beginning, and which he has heard, etc., is the person that bears the name ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, but only defines more particularly the object, previously stated indefinitely, in so far that it is the Word of life, 1.6. the Word which has life in it (whose nature consists in this, that it is life), and is the source of all life (Braune); comp. John vi. 35, viii. 12, In agreement with this, Weiss says (p. 90) that 6 λόγος is here, as in the prologue of the Gospel, a description of the nature of the Son of God; but the assertion is incorrect, that the genitive τῆς ζωῆς describes the Word as “the Word belonging to life, necessary for life,” in favour of which he appeals incorrectly to the expressions ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (John vi. 35, 48) and ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου (John vi. 68). This explanation is refuted by this, that with it ἡ ζωή, ver. 2, must be taken in a different reference from that which τῆς ζωῆς has here.’— The personality of this Word, which has already been indicated by ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν x.7.2r., is still more definitely expressed in ver. 2 by the twofold ἐφανερώθη, in which ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν of ver. 3 finds its explana- tion. That in the expression ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς the emphasis lies on τῆς ζωῆς, is clear from this, that in ver. 2 it is not ὁ λόγος, but ἡ ζωή, that is the subject. The construction with περί is thus explained, that the apostle does not thereby mean to speak of the object of his proclamation, which he has already stated in ὃ ἣν am ἀρχῆς «.7.X., but only desires to add a more particular description of it, for which reason also it is not to be regarded as dependent on ἀπωγγέλλομεν. Braune incor- rectly takes it as “a new dependent clause parallel in its matter to the succession of relative clauses, which along with the latter comes to an end in ἀπαγγέλλομεν. Ebrard ground- missible interpretation of the idea ὁ λόγος : “8 ὁ λόγος is the word of the apostolic proclamation, ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is also not meant to be the proper name of a personal being, but the description of a thing, which requires the genitival attributive τῆς ζωῆς in order to be described according to its peculiar essence.” 1 This incongruity is concealed by Weiss in this way, that he takes ζωή — “‘knowledge of God ;” but it is not thereby removed, for Weiss understands by ζωῆ: here ‘*our knowledge of God,” but by ἡ ζωή in ver. 2, on the other hand, the knowledge of God which the Logos has.—It is arbitrary for Ewald to explain λόγος by ““ subject,” and, accordingly, περὶ τοῦ ary. τῆς ζωῆς by ‘in regard to the subject of life.” MryeEr.—1 Joun, 5 274 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. lessly finds in this construction the suggestion, that John considers as the object of his proclamation, not Christ “as an abstract single conception” (!), but “his concrete historical experiences of Christ.” Ver. 2. Without bringing to an end the thought begun in ver. 1, from the exact continuation of which he has already digressed in περὶ τοῦ λόγου τ. €, the apostle in this verse expresses the double thought, that the life was manifested, and that this eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested, has been seen and is declared by him; so that in this both ὃ ἦν am ἀρχῆς and ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, how the former, namely, could have been the subject of sensuous perception, find their more particular determination. This whole verse is of course parenthetical; but that it is not regarded by John as mere parenthesis (contrary to Diisterdieck) is clear, partly from the connecting καί, and partly from this, that in ver. 3 it is not ὃ ἦν am ἀρχῆς, but only ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν x.7.d., that is resumed, while the former is fully dealt with in this verse. — καί] is not put for yap, but is copulative, “not disjunctive, but conjunctive” (Liicke); the thought with which it is con- nected is that which lies in ὃ ἣν am ἀρχῆς, that the life, before it became subject of perception, was, as it is after- wards put, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα." ----ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη] Instead of a relative, the noun is repeated, as is peculiar to the diction of John; ἡ ζωή instead of ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, because the emphasis, as has been already remarked, is on ζωή, is analogous to Gospel of John i. 4, where also, after it is said of the λόγος : ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν, it is not ὁ λόγος, but ἡ ξωή, that is the subject of the following sentence.” It is plainly incorrect to understand by ζωή the doctrina de felicitate nova = evangelium (Semler), or, with others: the felicitas of believers ; but neither is S. G. Lange’s explanation, according to which ζωή = “ auctor vitae, the Life-giver,” sufficient, for Christ is so designated not merely according to the operation that proceeds from Him, but at the same time according to the peculiarity of His 1 Ebrard wrongly conceives the logical relation thus, that by καί the thought that is latent in the preceding verse: ‘‘that Christ was of eternal being, but became incarnate and was manifested,” is confirmed. 2 Groundlessly Baumgarten-Crusius asserts that ζωή ‘‘ has here more inner, spiritual meaning than in Gospel i. 14;” this is to mistake the meaning which the word has in that passage. CHAP. I. 2. 275 nature.’ — ἐφανερώθη] In what way the φανέρωσις took place is taught in chap. iv. 2 and John 1. 14. In this way, that the life which was in itself hidden appeared in the flesh or became flesh, did it become perceptible by sense, subject of the ἀκούειν, ὁρᾶν κατ. Ebrard rightly remarks: “the σὰρξ γίγνεσθαι indicates the objective event of the incarnation as such ; the φανερωθῆναι, the result of it for our faculty of per- ception.” — καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ κιτ.λ.] The object that belongs to the verbs is τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ; according to de Wette, Briickner, and Diisterdieck, this object is only attracted to ἀπαγγέχλομεν, and the object is to be supplied to both of the first verbs from what precedes (ζωή); but the two ideas μαρτυροῦμεν and amayy. are thereby unduly separated from each other; there is more in favour of supplying only an αὐτήν with ἑωράκαμεν (1st ed. of this comm., Myrberg), by which the idea of this verb is significantly brought out: “the life was manifested, and we have seen it;” but as in the context even this construction is not indicated, it is better, with most commentators, to connect τὴν ζωὴν τ. αἰών. also with ἑωράκαμεν. ---- By ἑωράκαμεν the apostle brings out that. the eternal Life which was made manifest and perceptible: was seen by himself; the verb μαρτυροῦμεν, which signifies the utterance of that which one has personally seen or experi- enced (comp. Gospel of John xix. 35; also 1 John 1. 34, iii. 92), is directly connected with this, and thereupon first. follows the more general idea ἀπαγγέλλομεν ; Baumgarten- 1 The chief elements which are contained in the idea ζωή are differently stated by the commentators ; Frommann mentions as such: “‘ the truth, per- fection, or the living and happy character of being ; ” Kostlin : ‘‘ the mightiness, blessedness, and endlessness of being.” If we keep to the scriptural mode of conception, the chief elements appear to be ‘‘ consciousness, activity, and happiness ;” true activity is only where consciousness is, and happiness is. activity which is not disturbed or hindered by any opposition. — Weiss wrongly infers from John xvii. 3, that by ζωή is to be understood only the knowledge of God, and it is erroneous for him to maintain that ἡ ζωή does not here signify Christ Himself, but ‘‘ His peculiar knowledge of God,” which He possessed even before His φανέρωσις. The relative clause ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν σπ΄ατέρα, which is con- nected with τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, is opposed to this interpretation ; inasmuch as it shows that here ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, and just as much ἡ ζωή, is to be considered as the same subject which John in the prooemium of the Gospel calls ὃ λόγος, and of which he says there that it ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. * Incorrectly a Lapide: quasi martyres i.e. testes Dei tum voce, tum vita, tum passione, morte et martyrio. 276 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIIN. Crusius incorrectly refers μαρτυροῦμεν specially to ἐφανερώθη and ἀπαγγέλλομεν to ἑωράκαμεν, with the assertion that “the former two have more objective, the latter more sub- jective meaning.” Myrberg’s explanation also: μαρτυρία est expertae veritatis simplex confessio, qua homo sibi ipsi potius, quam aliis consulat: ἀπαγγελία annuntiatio veritatis cog- nitae, qua aliis potius, quam sibi ipsi providere studeat, is without grammatical justification. — By ὑμῖν, ἀπαγγέχλομεν is put in reference to the readers of the Epistle; hence it does not follow, however, that it is to be understood only of the writing of this Epistle, and is therefore simply resumed by ταῦτα γράφομεν in ver. 4; but the former is the more general idea, in which the more special one of the writing of the Epistle is embraced; the γράφειν is a particular kind of the ἀπαγγέλλειν Ebrard incorrectly separates the two, by re- ferring ἀπαγγέλλομεν to the written Gospel of John, and γράφομεν to this Epistle. — τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον] The noun is here put for the pronoun αὐτήν, not only in accordance with John’s usual mode of expression, but because the idea of ζωή was to be more particularly defined by αἰώνιος. Baumegarten-Crusius erroneously explains ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος by “bestowing higher, unending life;” rather the ζωή, which Christ is, is marked by αἰώνιος as such as ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, or— still more comprehensively—as such as, though by the incar- nation it entered into time, is in itself nevertheless without measure of time, eternal (Briickner; similarly Braune). It is true, the idea ζωὴ αἰώνιος has elsewhere in the N. T. admittedly another signification, but this does not justify the explanation of Calvin: ubi secundo repetit: annuntiamus vitam aeternam, non dubito quin de effectu loquatur, nempe quod annuntiet: beneficio Christi partam nobis esse vitam. De Wette’s explanation also, that ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος is an idea “which hovers in the middle between the eternal true life which is to be appropriated by believers (John xvii. 3), and life in Christ, so that the first is to be considered in closest connection with ἀπαγγέλλομεν, but the second in reference to the reflexive ἥτις ἢν, can so much the less be held correct as the simple and clear thought of the apostle is thereby 1 Bengel’s interpretation : ‘‘ Z'estimonium, genus ; species duae : annuntiatio et scriptio; annuntiatio ponit fundamentum, seriptio superacdificat,” is inadmissible. CHAP, I. 2. 277 rendered complicated and obscure. Of that which the be- liever possesses in Christ there is here no mention at all, but only of Christ Himself; and, besides, that ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰών. is to the Apostle John not merely a subjective, but also an objec- tive conception, is proved by chap. v. 11.— ἥτις ἦν] ἥτις is more significant than the simple 7, inasmuch as it makes the twofold relative clause as containing a confirmation of the preceding statement: ἑωράκαμεν x.7.X., THY ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. — The imperfect ἦν also does not here indicate the intem- poral existence, but is used in reference to ἐφανερώθη : ere the ᾿ : \ \ L ζωή appeared, it was with the Father.— πρὸς tov πατέρα] comp. Gospel of John i. 1: πρὸς tov Θεόν. The preposition mpos is often combined with the accusative in the N. T. in the sense of “with:” comp. Matt. xiii. 56, xxvi. 55; but πρός with the accusative differs from πρός with the dative in this, that it describes being with one another not as a mere being beside one another, but as a living connection, a being in intercourse with one another (so also Braune); but we put too much into it, if we find the relationship of love directly expressed by πρός." John does not mean to bring out that the S«' (Christ) was connected with the Father in love, but that Christ already was, before He appeared (ἐφανερώθη) ; before He was ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ with men, He was therefore in heaven with God, and indeed in lively union with God as He afterwards entered into a lively communion with men. Quite 1 The statement of Ebrard is inapposite, that by ἥτις the subject-matter of the relative clause is stated as an already (from ver. 1) known and αὐ the same time acknowledged element of the substantive idea on which the relative clause depends. The right view seems to lie at the base of the explanation of Sander: “61 declare unto you eternal life, even as such as,” etc., at least it isnot touched at by the remark of Ebrard in opposition : ‘‘The meaning of John is plainly this, that the %. αἰών. is really and in itself one which was with the Father and was manifested to us, and is by no means represented as such merely in the pro- clamation of it.” Diisterdieck rightly says: ‘‘ By ἥτις the twofold extension of the predicate is connected with the subject 4 ζ. ἡ αἰών., not merely in simply relative manner, but in such a way that the extension of the predicate contains at the same time an explanatory and confirmatory reference ;” but it is difficult to admit that by virtue of ἥτις the καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν in its close connection with ἦν wp. τ. ver. is marked as the connecting link which unites to ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀ;χ. the accessory elements ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν x.7.2. 2 Besser: ‘‘The Word was with God, related to the Father in jilial love.” Still less justifiable is Ebrard’s explanation : “‘The ζωή was a life flowing forth indeed from the bosom of the Father, but immediately returning into it, floating in the inner circulation of the life of God.” (!) 278 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. erroneously, Socin, Grotius, and others understand the expres- sion of the concealment of the ζωὴ αἰών. in the decree of God. From the fact that John here calls God in His relation to Christ πατήρ, it follows that the sonship of Christ to God is to be regarded not as first begun with His incarnation, but as premundane. — καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν] is not a mere repetition of what has been already said, but in ἡμῖν a new element is added, by which ἑωράκαμεν and ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν x.T.X., ver. 1, find their explanation. Ver. 3. In the opening words of this verse: 6... ἀκηκόαμεν, the object expressed in ver. 1 is resumed, and the governing verb, which was there already in the apostle’s view, is added. The drift of this verse does not, however, lie in this, but rather in the final clause: ἵνα κατὰ. While John first meant to state what was the subject of his pro- clamation, namely, that it was that which was from the beginning and was perceived by his senses,—which he then more particularly defined in ver. 2,—he now wants to state the purpose of this proclamation of that subject. In this lies the reason why the object is resumed in abridged form, namely, in the form which the immediately preceding words (cal ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν) suggested. The ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, and similarly the ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, was not to be resumed; the former, because it has been fully dealt with in what follows it; the latter, because it was not here in the purpose of the apostle once more to bring out the reality of the sensuous appearance of Him who was from the beginning. That éwpd- kapev is placed before dxnxoawev —in which no artificial parallelism is to be sought for (against Ebrard)—resulted naturally from the interweaving of ἑωράκαμεν into ver. 2 (de Wette).— ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν) with ἀπαγγέλλομεν, comp. ver. 2.— καί (see the critical remarks) distinguishes the readers either from others to whom the apostle had declared the same thing (Spener, de Wette, Baumgarten- Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Braune, etc.), or from John (along with the other apostles). Lorinus: vos qui nimirum non audistis, nec vidistis, nec manibus vestris con- trectastis verbum vitae; so also Zwingli, Bullinger, Ebrard. The latter interpretation would be preferable, if the following καί before ὑμεῖς, to which the same reference is to be attri- = CHAP. I. 3. 279 buted, did not thereby become pleonastic.— ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] Many commentators, as Socin, Bengel, Russmeyer, Spener, and others, supply with κοινωνίαν as enlargement: “with God and Christ;” without adequate eround; the enlargement of the idea κοινωνία is μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν (Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Braune), whereby, how- ever, John does not mean “ the apostles and other Christians” (de Wette), but himself, although including the other apostles, who have also seen and heard the Word of Life. This κοινωνία is self-evidently the fellowship of spirit in faith and love, which was brought about by the apostolic preaching. — ἔχειν is neither to be explained, with a Lapide, by: pergere et in ea (κοινωνία) proficere et confirmari, nor, with Fritzsche, by: “to acquire ;” the word is rather to be retained in the signi- fication peculiar to it; the apostle simply indicates the having fellowship as the aim of the apostolic proclamation, quite apart from the question as to how the hearers of this are related to that.— καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα κ.τ.λ.] By ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα most commentators understand “the fellowship which the apostles and the believing hearers of their proclamation have with one another,’ and, according as 7 or ἐστί is supplied, have thus defined the thought of the verse, that the apostle states of this mutual fellowship that it either should be or is a fellowship with the Father and the Son. But as this view necessitates a scarcely justifiable enlargement of the idea κοινωνία (ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα 7 [or ἐστί] κοινωνία μετὰ τ. πατρ. x.7.r.), the explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius, who resolves ἡ κοιν. ἡ ἡμετέρα into ἡμεῖς ἔχομεν κοινωνίαν μετὰ τ. πατρ., deserves the preference (so also Ewald, Braune); taking this explanation, the κοινωνία meant here is not identical with that mentioned before, inasmuch as the distinction is marked both by the difference of the subject: ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς (which is contained in ἡμετέρα), ' This enlargement is involuntarily made by the commentators—although they do not mention it ; thus by Liicke, when he explains: ‘‘ that ye may have fellowship with us: but (not with us only, but—ye know) our fellowship with one another is also that with the Father and with the Son ;” similarly by Diisterdieck ; Ebrard also says: ‘‘It is the purpose of John in his ἀπαγγελία, that his readers may enter into fellowship with the disciples, and that this fellowship may have its life-principle in the fellowship with the Father and with the Son.” 280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIJIN. and that of the object: μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν and peta τοῦ πατρός. According to this acceptation, the apostle here brings out that he (along with the rest of the apostles) has fellowship with the Father and with the Son, and, no doubt, in order to intimate by this that his readers, if they have fellowship with him, are thereby received with him into that fellowship. It is at all events incorrect, with Augustin, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Ebrard, ete, to supply 7 with this sentence. In opposition to it are—(1) the structure of the sentence, for if it were dependent on ἵνα the verb could not be omitted ;* and (2) the thought, for as the apostles are already in fellowship with the Father and with the Son, it cannot be the aim of their ἀπαγγελία to elevate the fellowship which exists between them and those who accept their word into fellowship with the Father and with the Son. Therefore it is ἐστί that must be supplied, as Erasmus, a Lapide, Vatablus, Hornejus, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald Braune, ete., have rightly recognised. The conjunction καὶ . . δέ, which is pretty often found in the N. T., is used when the idea which is connected with a preceding one is at the same time to be contrasted with it; “the introduction of something jew is thereby intimated” (Pape, see on καὶ... δέ). Whether it be the connection or the contrast which is to be the more emphasized, this particle is never used to resume an idea with the view to a further expression of it. This usage therefore also proves that by ἡ κοιν. ἡ ἡμετέρα it is not the previously mentioned κοινωνία μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, but another fellowship, namely, the fellowship of the ἡμεῖς, 1.6. of John and the other apostles (not with one another, but) with the F ather and with the Son, that is meant. God is here called πατήρ in relation to τοῦ 1 The omission of ἐστί very often occurs ; on the other hand, ὦ is very seldom omitted in the N. T., only in 1 Cor, viii, 11 and 13 (still stronger is the ellipsis in Rom. iv. 16); thus even with Paul, who so frequently expresses only the outlines of the thought, the subjunctive of the substantive verb is almost never omitted ; how much less can it be held as omitted in a construction of periods otherwise quite conformable to rule, in the second part of the dependent clause ! 2 For the usage of xai... δέ, comp. Matt. xvi. 18; Mark iv. 36; Luke ii. 35 ; Actsiii. 24, xxii. 29; Heb. ix. 21 ; and in Gospel of John vi. 51, viii. 16, 17, xv. 27. Liicke wrongly says that the particle is used for the more exact defini- tion, expansion, and strengthening of a preceding thought, and that there is contained in it an ‘‘at the same time” or “‘not only... but also,” It must also be held as erroneous when Diisterdieck says: “ John has just spoken of a CHAP. I. 4. 281 υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. --- The full description of Christ as τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ serves to bring out the identity of that which was from the beginning with Him who became man. Ver. 4. After stating the subject and aim of his apostolic proclamation, the apostle intimates specially the aim of this Epistle. καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ὑμῖν] By καί, γράφομεν is made co-ordinate with ἀπαγγέλλομεν, the particular with the general, not the composition of the Epistle with that of the Gospel (Ebrard). ταῦτα refers neither merely to what pre- cedes (Russmeyer, Sander), nor merely to what immediately follows (Socin), but to the whole Epistle (Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck). With γράφομεν ὑμῖν, comp. 11. 1,12,v.13. The plural is used because John as an apostle writes in the con- sciousness that his written word is in full agreement with the preaching of all the apostles ; all the apostles, as it were, speak through him to the readers of the Epistle. — ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ἢ πεπληρωμένη] comp. With this John xv. 11, xvi. 13. The aim of the Epistle is the πλήρωσις of joy which it, as apostolic testimony to the salvation founded on the φανέρωσις of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος (ver. 2), was to produce in its readers. De Wette groundlessly thinks that the effect, namely, the perfected Christian frame of mind, is here put for the cause, namely, Christian perfection. It is rather very especially the perfect χαρά (not merely “the joy of conflict and victory,” Ebrard) that is the goal to which the apostle would lead his readers by this Epistle. With the reading ἡμῶν it is the χαρά ot the apostles—first of all of John—that is the goal, and no doubt the joy which for them consists in this, that their word produces fruit in their hearers.' Incorrectly Ebrard: “If ἡμῶν is right, then the apostle resumes the mutual ἡμετέρα: that our (common) joy may be full;” for, on the one hand, ‘fellowship with us ;’ now he wants to expand this idea further; therefore he continues : ‘and our fellowship ’—the new explanatory thought, however, forms a certain antithesis to what was previously said: but our fellowship is not so much the fellowship with ws as rather that with the Father and with the Son.” — Apart from the fact that xa}... δέ has not the force of such a restriction (not so much... as rather), who does not feel that, if John wanted to express this thought, he would have had to write not ἡμετέρα, but ὑμετέρα, or rather : αϑτη δὲ κοινωνία 2 1Theophyl. : ἡμῶν γὰρ ὑμῖν ποινωνούντων πλείστην ἔχομεν τὴν χαρὰν ἡμῶν, ἦν τοῖς δερισταῖς ὁ χαίρων σπορεὺς ἐν τῇ ποῦ μισθοῦ ἀπολήψει βραβεύσει, χαιρόντων καὶ τούτων « ~~ , ΕἸ ~ . v2 OT τῶν πόνων αὑτῶν HTOAaUOUGL, 282 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ἡμετέρα is not mutual (embracing the apostles and the readers), and, on the other, ἡμῶν would have to be referred to the ἡμεῖς that is contained in γράφομεν, but not to the more remote ἡμετέρα. Ver. 5—chap. 11. 11. After the apostle has indicated the fulness of joy, which is in the fellowship with the Father and with the Son, as the aim of his Epistle, he brings out in what follows, from the point of view that God is φῶς (ver. 5), in opposition to moral indifferentism, the condition under which alone that fellowship can exist. Ver. 5. This verse contains no inference from what precedes (καί is not=igitur, Beza), but the thought that lays the foundation for what follows. — ἔστεν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία] “and this is the message ;” ἔστιν is here put—contrary to its usual position, comp. 11. 25, iii. 11, 23, iv. 3, ete—before αὕτη “in order to mark the reality of the message” (Braune) ; αὕτη here —as elsewhere also—refers to what follows: ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ., by which the subject-matter of the message is stated, Calvin incorrectly, following the reading ἐπαγγελία : promissio, quam vobis afferimus, hoc secum trahit, vel hance conditionem habet annexam.—The word ἀγγελία only here and iii, 11 (where, however, it is also not unopposed); frequently in the LXX. 2 Sam. iv. 4; Prov. xii. 26, xxv. 26, xxvi. 16; Isa. xxvii 9; Jer. xlviii. 34. The reading ἐπαγγελία is more difficult with the meaning “ promise ;” yet this may be justified in so far as every N. T. proclamation carries with it a promise.’ De Wette prefers this reading, but takes ἐπαγγελία, following the example of Oecumenius, a Lapide, Beza, Hornejus, etc..— contrary to the constant wsws loquendi of the N. T.—2in the signification: “announcement” (Lange: “ teaching”). — ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] “from Him, that is, Christ.” Instead of ἀπό, it is more usual to have παρά, comp. John viii. 26, 40, xv. 15; Acts x,.22, xxviii. 22; 2 Tim. 11. 2:—egmeeeam the Epistle, not always (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius) indeed, but mostly, refers to God, while ἐκεῖνος refers always to Christ ; here it refers backwards to τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ "I. Xp. in ver. 3; Diisterdieck: “From Him, Christ, the Son of God manifested 1Spener: ‘* Promise ; inasmuch as, in what follows, a promise is really involved. God is not only a light in Himself, but to believers He is also their light. And that is the promise.” CHAP. ἃ 283 in the flesh (ver. 3), whom the apostle himself has heard (ver. 1 ff.), has he received the message about the Father.” In favour of the correctness of this explanation is also the following: ὅτι ὁ Θεός" ---- καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν] ἀναγγέλλειν - . 5 . is synonymous with ἀπαγγέλλειν, vv. 2 and 3, only that in ava the idea “again” is contained; Erasmus: quod filius annuntiavit a patre, hoc apostolus acceptum a filio renunciat. This ἀναγγέλλομεν refers back with peculiar subtleness to the preceding ἀγγελία, and thus testifies to the correctness of that reading (Diisterdieck). The subject is, as in vv. 2 and 3, John and the rest of the apostles. To reduce their proclama- tion to the word which they heard from Christ Himself serves to confirm its truth; comp. the combination of ἀκούειν and ἀπαγγέλλειν in ver. 3. Ebrard wrongly interprets this ἀναγγέλλομεν also of the proclamation of John which occurred in his Gospel, to which this Epistle is related as the concen- trating development.’— ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστί] φῶς is inappro- priately translated by Luther: “ὦ light;” the article weakens the thought; God is light, 27.2. God’s nature is light = absolute holiness and truth (comp. chap. iv. 8; Gospel of John iv. 24); for the signification of the symbolical expression “light,” compare especially Jas. 1. 19, 17.— As God is φῶς in absolute sense, so also all light outside of Him is the radia- tion of His nature, as all love flows forth from Him whose 1 The use of this pronoun even where the reference is obscure is caused by this, that John does not think of the Father without the Son, or the Son without the Father ; the thought therefore remains essentially the same, whether we refer it in the first instance to the Father or to the Son ; notwithstanding, however, the view of Socinus is unjustifiable, according to which, on account of the conjunctio inter Deum et Christum (which Socinus, moreover, holds not as a conjunctio essentiae, but only as a conjunctio voluntatis et rerum aliarum omnium), by αὐτοῦ is here to be understood equally God and Christ. * Bengel : Quae in ore Christi fuit ἀγγελία, eam apostoli ἀναγγέλλουσι ; nam ἀγγελίαν ab ipso acceptam reddunt et propagant. 3 According to Ewald, John is here quoting a definite utterance of Christ ; possibly, but not necessarily. 4 The fulness of the references contained in these words, Lorinus states in the following manner: Deus lux est, quia clarissime se ipsum percipit, omniaque in se ipso, utpote prima et ipsissima veritas ; quia summe bonus, ac summa et ipsissima bonitas; fidelis absque ulla iniquitate, justus et rectus, quia fons omnis lucis in aliis i. e. veritatis atque virtutis, non solum illustrans mentem, docensque quid agendum sit, verum etiam operans in nobis, ut agamus et sic radiis suis liberans mentem ab ignorantiae tenebris, purgans ἃ pravitate voluntatem, 284 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. nature is ἀγάπη ; comp. chap. iv. 7 ff.— καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία] The thought contained in the foregoing is emphasized by the negation of its opposite, which is here expressed in the strongest manner by οὐκ... οὐδεμία, in accordance with John’s diction (comp. chap. ii. 4, 18, ete.). — σκοτία : antithesis of φῶς: sin and falsehood; the same antithesis is frequently in the N. T.; comp. Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8 ff; 1 Thess. v. 4, 5. In opposition to the general prevalent explanation given here, Weiss thus explains the sense of this verse: “God is light, 6. He has become visible, capable of being known, namely in Christ, who certainly proclaims this truth; there is no more any darkness in God at all, ἐ6. no part of His nature remains any longer dark and unknown, He has (in Christ) become completely revealed.” This interpretation, to which Weiss is led by the erroneous supposition that the idea φῶς has in the Ν. T. no ethical reference,’ is refuted both by the form of expression, which exhibits φῶς (just as ἀγάπη, chap. iv. 8) as a description of the nature of God, and also by the train of thought, in so far as the truth expressed here forms the starting-point for all the following amplifications which bear on the ethical relationship of Christians. Besides, the apostle would have insufficiently expressed the thought, as he would have left out the essential ἐν Χριστῷ, which Weiss unjustifiably inserts. John rightly puts the truth that God is light, as the chief subject-matter of the ἀγγελία of Christ, at the top of his development ; for it forms the essential basis of Christianity both in its objective and in its subjective subsistence; in it there lies as well as judgment in regard to sin, so also salva- tion from sin by the incarnation and death of Christ, as well as necessity of repentance and faith, so also the moral exercise of the Christian life. Ver. 6. Inference from ver. 5. He alone has fellowship 1 The assertion that φῶς refers only to knowledge and not to the ethical state, is somuch the more untenable, as Weiss himself describes this knowledge as ‘the true knowledge of God, i.e. such that the entire spiritual life of man is absorbed in it, so that he is henceforth completely in God,” or ‘‘ in which the object of cognition is received into the whole spiritual life of man in such a way that it becomes a force, inspiring and determining, or ruling, the latter in its totality.” But even such a cognition must certainly be regarded as an ethical act. CHAP. I. 6. 285 with God, who does not walk in darkness. — ἐὰν εἴπωμεν] The same form of speech (ἐάν) is repeated from verse to verse (only with the exception of 11. 2) until chap. 11. 3; then appears the participle with the definite article: ὁ λέγων, ii. 4, vi. 9; ὁ ἀγαπῶν, ii. 10; ὁ μισῶν, ii. 11.— The use of the hypothetical particles, especially of ἐάν, is also found very often in the Gospel.’ On the 1st person plural, Lorinus says : suam quoque in hac hypothesi personam conjugit, ut lenius ac facilius agat; better Liicke: “By the communicative and hypothetical form the language gains, on the one hand, in refining delicacy, and, on the other, in more general reference and force ;” unsatisfactorily Ebrard: “The 1st person plural serves only to express the general ‘we.’” ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ) see ver. 3. Fellowship with God forms the innermost essence of all true Christian life. — καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν] comp. Gospel of John vill. 12, ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατεῖν is not merely “not to know whither we are going” (Luther), but to live in darkness, 1.6. in sin, as our element. According to Weiss, who denies to the σκότος, as well as to the contrasted φώς, an ethical reference, it is = “to walk in the unenlightened state;” but is not this just the very state in which the life is ruled by sin ?— Bengel, for more particular definition, rightly adds: actione interna et externa, quoque nos vertimus; such a walking in darkness is all life whose principle is not the love of God.’ — ψευδόμεθα καὶ ov ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν] for, τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; (2 Cor. vi. 14). ψευδόμεθα expresses the moral objectionableness of such a contradiction between the deed and the word. — The negative clause is not a mere repetition of the same thought, but introduces along with it a new idea: — ὅτι κοινωνίαν 1 ἐάν is used—as Winer says, p. 260, VII. p. 273—with the idea of an objec- tive possibility, 7.6. when the particular event is to be represented simply as objectively possible, and the speaker does not want to express his subjective view of it (whether he considers it probable, desirable, etc.). A Tertium non datur (Ebrard) is not contained in it. 2 That in περιπατεῖν there is a reference to the outward manner of life is self- evident, but that it only signifies this, as visible by the eycs of men, to the exclusion of the inner activity of life, is an unfounded assertion of Ebrard. The commentators rightly point out that this περιπατεῖν ἐν σκότει is different from ‘‘the failing and falling, through over-haste and weakness, in temptation and in conflict” (Gerlach) ; ‘‘it does not mean: still to have darkness in us” (Spener). 286 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ψευδόμεθα refers to εἴπωμεν ; οὐ ποιοῦμεν τ. ad. refers back to ἐν τ. ox. περιπατῶμεν ; for ποιεῖν τὴν ad. is not merely = ἀληθεύειν (Eph. iv. 15), but signifies the practice of ἀλήθεια in word and deed ; comp. John 11. 21, where it is contrasted with φαῦλα πράσσειν, and is used expressly of ἔργα. In the common interpretation, according to which it is = agere can- dide, sincere (Cyprian, Theodorus, Socinus, Grotius, ete.), τὴν ἀλήθειαν does not receive its due force; by the article the idea is specified in its complete generality and objectivity : “the true,” ze. that which corresponds to the nature and will of God (Briickner, Braune), although it must be admitted that the general idea is here used with special: reference to the desirable conformity between word and deed; emphasis is thereby given to the fact that in the case mentioned in ἐὰν k.7.d. the alleged κοινωνία with God is practically denied. In de Wette’s explanation: “to do that which corresponds to the nature of Christian fellowship,’ a meaning is given to the expression which is neither indicated in the word nor in the train of thought. Ver. 7. This verse does not merely repeat in its antithetical form the preceding thought, but contains also—as is peculiar to John’s lively fertility of ideas—an expansion of it. — ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περυπατῶμεν] is contrasted not only with the preceding (ἐὰν) ἐν τῷ σκότει περυπατῶμεν, but also with ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, ὅτε κοιν. ἔχ. μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (so also Ebrard), thus: “if we do not merely say that we have fellowship with God, and yet at the same time walk in darkness, but if we really walk ἐν τῷ φωτί" — ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν is not “to strive after likeness to God” (Liicke), but so to walk that the light (by which, however, we are not, with Weiss, to understand only knowledge) is the element in which our light moves; this, however, is a life which does not consist in striving after likeness to God, but which has this already as its own, or which is an ἔχειν κοινωνίαν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ with Him who is light. This unity between walking in the light and fellowship with God is even more clearly brought out by the following words: ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν TO φωτί] ws, because it is the same element in which the true Christian walks and in which God “ lives and works” (Diisterdieck, Briickner), inasmuch as the Christian has become θείας κοινωνὸς φύσεως (2 Pet. i 4). — αὐτός CHAP, I. 7. ΘΠ refers back to αὐτοῦ, ver. 6, and is put for Θεός. The idea “that God is in the lheht” is the same as this “that God is light ;” that which is the nature of God is also the element of His life; the expression used here is occasioned by the preceding ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν ; Ebrard incorrectly explains : “God has chosen for His habitation the spheres of the sinless, holy, and pure life of the angels and those made perfect ;” there is not the slightest hint at such a conception in the context. As Weiss denies to the expression φῶς an ethical reference, and explains ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν = “to walk in a state of right knowledge,” the clause ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί necessarily causes him a difficulty, which he can only solve by the supposition “that an idea similar to that in 1 Tim. vi. 16 was before the apostle’s mind, and that he institutes a parallel between the walk of the Christian in the light of true knowledge, and the dwelling of God in the brightness of His glory,” in which it is plainly ignored that the second ἐν τῷ φωτί must necessarily have the same meaning as the first ἐν τῷ φωτί. -- ἐστι is contrasted with περιπατῶμεν ; the former is peculiar to God, the latter to men; the former (being) to Him who is eéernal, the latter (walking) to him who is ¢emporal.— κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν pet ἀλλήλων] Several commentators wrongly deviate from the statement of the apostle, by interpreting as if “μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ " were used instead of wer ἀλλήλων, as indeed the reading of some is (see the critical notes); or by understanding—quite unsuitably — ἀλλήλων of God and men; so Calvin: quod dicit, societatem esse nobis mutuam, non simpliciter ad homines refertur, sed Deum in una parte, nos autem in altera; the same inter- pretation in Augustin, Beza, Socinus, Hornejus, Lange, Spener, Russmeyer, Ewald, etc. De Wette, it is true, interprets ἀλλήλων correctly, but supplies “ μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, thus: “we have fellowship one with another, namely with God ;” against this explanation are: first, that then John would not have mentioned the very leading thought; and, secondly, that a tautological idea results from it (Liicke), for a περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί is only possible through the κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, nay, even is the necessary proof of it. The subject here is much rather the fellowship of Christians with one another (Bede, Lyranus, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Semler, Liicke, Baum- 288 TIE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. varten-Crusius, Neander, Sander, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, Briickner, etc.), and indeed quite generally, not, as Bengel considers, so that the apostle and his readers (nos et vos) would be regarded as the two parts bound together. The brotherly fellowship of Christians with one another ἐν ἀγάπῃ presupposes therefore the walking in light, or in fellowship with God, of which it is the necessary consequence. — With such a walk a second element is, however, united, namely : καὶ τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. ---- τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ] is not a metonymical expression for “the consideration of His death” (Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius, etc.),’ but: the blood which Jesus (thus spoken of here as incarnate) shed as an offering at His death; or: the bloody sacrificial death of the Lord (Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune).” — τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] is “not merely added as a name of honour,’ but also not “ to indicate the close connection between the cause of God and Christ,” as Baumgarten-Crusius says, but in order to bring out the identity of the crucified One with the Son of God (so also the incarnation of the Son of God) ; compare chap. v. 6; at the same time, however, there lies in it an indication how the blood of Jesus can have the effect which the apostle attributes to it (so also Ebrard).— καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας] may mean either the cleansing from guilt, i.e. the forgiveness of sins (Bede, Socinus, a Lapide, Calov, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, Weiss, etc.), or cleansing from sin itself, its eradication (Liicke, Frommann, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Myrberg, Braune, Ewald, etc.), or, finally, both together (Spener, Hornejus, Bengel, de Wette, Briickner). According to ver. 9, where ἀφιέναι τὰς ἁμαρτίας and καθα- ρίζειν ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας are placed together and thus dis- tinguished from one another, the second view must be regarded as the correct one,’ as indecd the context also demands; for, 1 That the operation of the blood of Jesus on us is to be regarded as con- ditioned by faith is evident ; but there is no justification in this for paraphras- ing σὸ αἷμα by ‘faith in the blood.” 2 It is unjustifiable for Myrberg to say : quum hic sanguis nominatur, de toto opere Christi Mediatoris, immo de toto Christo Deum nobis et nos Deo recon- ciliante ac opus divinum in nobis operante cogitare debemus. 3. Against Erdmann’s assertion : ‘‘ Quum notio αἵματος J. Christi in s. seriptis “eque ac mors ejus semper vim expiandi habeat atque idem quod ἱλασμός signi- fivet (ii, 2), etiam h. 1. expiatio ab apostolo designatur, qua sola fieri potest, ut CHAP, i Τὶ 289 as the fact that even the believer has still continually sin is in opposition to the exhortation to περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί, the apostle had to point out that sin is ever disappearing more and more, and how, so that the walk which is troubled by it may still be considered as a walk in light, and that in spite of sin there may exist a fellowship with God, who is light. As περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί is given as the condition (not as the means, which the blood of Christ is) of καθαρίζεσθαι, and as the subject here therefore is not the change, wrought by the blood of Christ, of man from a child of darkness into a child of light, but the growing transformation of him who has already become a child of light, the present καθαρίζει is not to be turned into the preterite, but is to be retained as the present ; Spener: “ He purifies us ever more and more until the final perfect purity.” Comp. Gospel of John xv. 2. -- ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας, “from every sin ; sins are regarded as the single dark spots which still continually trouble the Christian’s walk in light. The καί which connects the two parts of the subordinate clause is explained by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Beza, Lange, Semler, etc. = nam. Sander recog- nises the grammatical incorrectness of this interpretation, but is of opinion that the second clause is to be taken as causal, as the basis and condition of the first; but even this is arbi- peccata nobis condonentur,” it is to be observed that in scripture the vis eapiandi only is by no means ascribed to the blood of Christ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. In opposition to the assertion of Weiss, that ‘‘we cannot imagine how the blood of Christ should effect a deliverance from sin,” it may be stated that a forgive- ness of sin which produces no deliverance from sin, is no true forgiveness ; comp. Tit. ii. 14. Forgiveness is here to be associated with the thought only in so far as it is the necessary presupposition of that deliverance. 1 In what this purifying efficacy of the αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ is founded, John does not here say ; but from the fact that in ver. 9 the ἀφιέναι cas ἁμαρτίας is put before the xaézpifev, and Christ in chap. ii. 2 is described as ἱλασμός, it follows, that according to John the purifying power is associated with the blood of Christ in so far as it is the blood of atonement. Ebrard improperly separates the two elements from one another, ascribing to the death of Christ ‘‘ the power of puri- fying our hearts from sin, because in Christ’s death sin is condemned ;” and, on the other hand, ‘‘the power of making atonement and obtaining forgiveness, because in Christ’s death the debt was paid and mercy procured.’ — When Frommann says: ‘‘The power that purifies from sin does not exactly lie in the blood of Christ itself, but in the love of God, of which Christ in His bloody death is the most speaking token, and of the existence of which He supplies the most unquestionable evidence,” this is clearly an inadmissible twisting of the apostle’s words. MrEYER.—1 JOHN, ui 290 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, trary. According to de Wette, “ καί connects directly with the idea of fellowship the progressive and highest perfection of it;” but this view is founded on the incorrect assumption that the subject of the first clause is fellowship with God. Ebrard thinks that John in these two clauses together expresses the idea of κοινωνία with God, while he “analyzes it forthwith into its two elements: the fellowship of believers with one another, and the fellowship and participation in the divine vital power;” but it is in the first place incorrect to describe the κοινωνία μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων as an clement of the κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and in the second place the purifying efficacy of the blood of Jesus can much less be regarded as an element of it; besides, Ebrard has clearly been induced to add the word “ participation,” through the perception that the idea of fellowship is quite unsuitable to the second clause. While the κοινωνία. μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ is manifestly presupposed before the περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί, these two clauses express rather the “double fruit of our walk in light, of our living fellowship with God, who is light” (Diisterdieck) ; but when John puts κοινωνία μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων first, he thereby indicates that it is the sphere within which the purifying power of the blood of Christ operates on each individual (Briickner, Braune). JBesides, it may be observed that the second clause is intended to point out the progressive growth of Christian life, and cannot therefore suitably precede the first clause. Ver. 8. Purification from sin presupposes the existence of sin even in believers; the denial of this is self-deception. — ἐὰν εἴπωμεν)] as in ver. 6; thereby is meant not merely “the speech of the heart” (Spener), but the actual expression and assertion. — ὅτε ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν] The view of Grotius, that this refers to sinning before conversion, and that ἁμαρτία therefore means the guilt of sin, is rightly rejected by Liicke, Sander, ete. — The question, especially of earlier commentators, whether ἁμαρτία is here original sin (or sinfulness, as Weiss still thinks) or actual sin (pecc. actuale), desire (coneupi- scentia) or deed, is solved by the fact that the idea is con- sidered quite generally by the apostle (so also Braune)—only, 1 Habere peccatum, non est: nunc in peccato esse, sed ob peccatum reum posse fieri. CHAP. I. 8. 201 of course, with the exception of the sin spoken of in chap. v. 16. The 1st person plural ἔχομεν is to be noticed in so far as the having sin is thereby represented as something that is true of ali Christians. The expression ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν describes in a quite general way the taint of sin; only of the absolutely pure, in whom no trace of sin exists, is it true that he ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχει ; the relation of this ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν to περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει (ver. 6), in which the will of man serves sin (or in which sin is the dominating prin- ciple of life), is therefore not that of contrast (say in this way, that ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν is a being tainted with sin, where no act of will takes place),' but is to be defined thus, that the latter (wepurareiv ἐν τῷ σκότει) is a particular species of ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν. Even though as Christians, who are born of God, we have no longer sin in the sense that zepur. ἐν τῷ σκότει is true of us, nevertheless we do not yet cease to have sin; if we deny this, if we maintain that we have no sin at all, then what John says in the following words is the case with us. ἑαυτοὺς tAavapev] not = “we are mis- taken,” which πλανώμεθα would mean;” but, as Sander explains: “we mislead ourselves, take ourselves astray from salvation (or better: from truth) ;” by that assertion, which is a lie (not an wnconscious mistake), the Christian (for the apostle is not here speaking of non-Christians) deceives him- self about the truth, for which he leaves no room in himself. Braune rightly observes that ἑαυτὸν πλανῶν emphasizes the self-activity, which the middle with its passive form leaves in the background. — καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν] is not a mere repetition of ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν, but adds to this another new element.— ἡ ἀλήθεια, as in ver. 6, is neither = studium veri (Grotius), nor = castior cognitio (Semler), nor 1 Even Ebrard does not correctly state the relation of the two expressions to one another, when he says that ‘‘in ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν man is not in ὡἁμαρσία, but ἁμαρτία is in man,” for plainly he also who is in ἁμαρτία has this in himself. 2 When Ebrard, in opposition to this, remarks that it cannot be asserted “that the middle rravzeéos means ‘to be mistaken,’ and πλανῶν ἕαυτόν, On the other hand, ‘to mislead oneself,’ ” this is not at all to the point, since it is not said that πλανᾶσθαι has always the meaning ‘to be mistaken,” but that the German ‘‘sich irren” [Engl. ‘‘to be mistaken ᾽ is expressed in Greek not by | σλανᾶν ἑαυτόν, but by πλανᾶσθαι. 292 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. even = uprightness, or truthfulness (Liicke in his 2d ed.), or, as de Wette explains: “the veracity of self-knowledge and self-examination ;”* but truth in its objective character (Liicke in his 1st ed. Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune). Baumgarten - Crusius rightly says: “ ἀλήθεια does not need to be taken in subjective sense, the subjective lies in οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν The expressions used here: ἑαυτ. πλανῶμεν and ἡ ad. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, are not milder (Sander) than the corresponding expressions in ver. 6 : ψευδόμεθα and od ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, but stronger (Ebrard), since in ἑαυτ. 7A, the self-injury, and in ἡ ἀλήθ. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν the negation of possession of the truth, are more sharply marked. Ver. 9. Not a mere antithesis of the previous verse, but an expansion of the thought; “there follows as conclusion not merely this, that we are then true, but the incomparably greater and surprisingly glorious thought that God then proves Himself actually towards us as the True, as the πιστὸς καὶ δίκαιος ᾿ (Ebrard).— ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν] ὁμολογεῖν does not mean to recognise (Socinus: confiteri signi- ficat interiorem ac profundam suorum peccatorum agnitionem),’ but to confess; of course it is manifest that the confession is not here spoken of as a purely outward act; still, at the same time, it is not sufficient to regard it merely as “an dnaward fact, which is founded on the whole internal tendency of the mind” (Neander); it is rather the real (even if not always vocal) expression of sins recognised within and confessed to oneself ; here also it is the word in which the inner life has to operate.’ — What are to be confessed are ai ἁμαρτίαι ἡμῶν, 1 Ewald’s explanation is also unsatisfactory : ‘‘truth about this relation of things, and therefore easily about every other also.”’ 2 Similarly Baumgarten-Crusius says: ‘‘oworeysiv is not exactly to confess, but to recognise, perceive, become conscious of, as opposed to the εἰπεῖν un ἔχειν éwapriay;”’ but it is just to εἰσεῖν that ὁμολογεῖν is exactly opposed only when it is taken in its natural signification. 3 It is quite clear that confession to God is meant ; when, however, Braune adds: ‘‘and indeed a confession so fervent and deep that it becomes public and regulated by the church,” he introduces an element which nothing here suggests. In genuine Catholic fashion a Lapide says : Quam confessionem exigit Johannes? Haeretici solam generalem quae fit Deo admittunt ; Catholici etiam specialem requirunt. Respondeo: Johannem utramque exigere, generalem pro peccatis levibus, specialem pro gravibus, CHAP. I. 9. 293 ic. the sins of Christians, which are the particular mani- festations of ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν (so also Braune); therefore the plural. — Ebrard rightly calls attention to the fact that John here mentions, as the subject of the confession, not the abstract ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, but tas ἁμαρτίας, 1... the definite, concrete, single sins committed ; “the mere confession in the abstract that we have sin would not have truth without the acknowledgment of the concrete particular sins, but would shrivel up into a mere phrase.” -- πιστός ἐστι καὶ δίκαιος It is true God zs both in Himself, He does not become so only when we confess our sins; but this confession is the condition on which He actually proves Himself to us as πίστος καὶ δίκαιος" These two epithets are indeed not of the same signification, but still, as their combination proves, of cognate meaning. God is called πιστός, inasmuch as He, as the promise- maker, also fulfils what He has promised, Heb. x. 23: πιστὸς ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος : Heb. xi. 11; espe- cially as He accomplishes in believers the promise of blessing, which lies for them in the fact of their call, by conducting them through manifestation of His grace to the goal of their calling (according to Ewald, “inasmuch as He keeps His promise already repeatedly given in the O. T.”), 1 Cor.i. 9: πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, δι’ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ; x. 18: 2 Cor.i. 18-21; 1 Thess. ν. 24: πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ὃς καὶ ποιήσει; 2 Thess. iii. 3. πιστός has this mean- ing here also, as results from the following ἵνα κατὰ, Ebrard incorrectly calls the reference of the faithfulness of God here to His promises and prophecies an introduction of foreign ideas, and says “the subject here is faithfulness to the nature of truth and light, akin to His own nature, and which pre- vails in us, inasmuch as we confess our sins.” —God is described as δίκαιος in the N. T., inasmuch as He, for the realization of His kingdom of grace, gives to every one— without rpocwroAnWia—what is due to him, according to 1 Even here Socinus, Grotius (Si fatemur nos in gravibus peccatis vixisse ante notitiam evangelii), and others understand ἁμαρτίαι of sins before con- version. 2 Semler’s interpretation is not satisfactory : ‘‘logice intelligendum est ; nec enim in Deo jam demum oritur nova ratio tanti praedicati, sed in his christianis succrescit nova cognitio tantae rei.” The subject is not our perception, but the actual manifestation of God. 294 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. the righteous judgment of God, in proportion to the position which he occupies toward God (or toward the kingdom of God), God being in this regarded as the Judge; the idea of the righteousness of God and that of His judicial activity are very closely connected; God is ὁ δίκαιος κριτής, 2 Tim. iv. 8; He judges ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, Acts xvii. 31 (Rev. xix. 11), or δικαίως, 1 Pet. 11. 23; His κρίσις is a κρίσις δικαία, 2 Thess. i. 5. ‘The relation of the δικαιοσύνη of God to His judicial activity is found throughout in the N. T., even where the former is the subject without the latter being expressly mentioned with it. As the manifestation of the δικαία κρίσις of God consists in the righteous distribution of punishment and of blessing, it follows that δικαιοσύνη is referred to not only where both of these are mentioned together (as in 2 Thess. 1. 5 seq.), but also where only one of the two is spoken of. God punishes as the δίκαιος, but He blesses also as the δίκαιος, no doubt in view of the realiza- tion of His kingdom, which depends upon the good obtaining the complete victory over the evil. Towards him who walks ἐν τῷ σκότει, God shows Himself δίκαιος in that He «ata- κρίνει him; towards him who walks ἐν τῷ φωτί, by ever more and more removing from him everything that hinders his perfect κοινωνία μετὰ tod Θεοῦ (namely, both his con- sciousness of guilt, and the ἀδικία which still clings to him), and by finally permitting him to inherit the perfect happiness which is prepared for those who love God (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8). Here God is called δίκαιος, inasmuch as His purpose is directed to allotting to those who, walking in light, confess their sins, that which is suitable for them, namely, the blessing mentioned in the following ἵνα «7.2. The meaning of δίκαιος is rightly stated by Baumgarten- Crusius, Diisterdieck, Briickner, and Braune;' on the other hand, it is incorrect to refer δίκαιος here to the punitive activity (Drusius: justus, quia vere punivit peccata nostra in filio suo), but also to explain it = bonis, lenis, aequus (Grotius, Lange, Carpzov, ete.), for δίκαιος never has this meaning in ' Ewald’s explanation is unsatisfactory, according to which God is here called just because He ‘‘ knows well and considers that He alone is the Creator, whilst we are His creation exposed to error and sin, and acts according to this just consideration.” CHAP. 1. 9. 295 the N. T.; it is here of cognate meaning with πιστός, because the allotment of blessing bestowed in accordance with the δικαιοσύνη of God has been promised by Him, and is accom- plished according to His promise; yet it must not therefore be regarded as synonymous with it (Hornejus: = in promissis servandis integer). Following Rom. 111. 26, some commen- tators have here interpreted it = δικαιῶν ; but this is so much the more unjustifiable, as that very passage by the juxta- position of the two ideas proves their different meaning. According to the Roman Catholic view, words refers to the peccata mortalia, δίκαιος to the peccata venialia.®?— ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας] ἵνα, not =“ so that” (Castellio : ita justus, ut condonet), has here (as in other passages of the N. T.) not retained strictly its idea of purpose (hence not: “in order that”), but it states what is the aim of the divine faithful- ness and justice to attain which these qualities operate on men; Luther therefore translates correctly: “that.” De Wette’s explanation, with which Braune agrees: “in the divine faithfulness lies the law or the will of forgiving sins,” is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as ἀφιέναι x.7.d. is not merely the will, but the operation of the divine faithfulness and justice. — τὰς ἁμαρτίας refers back to ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, 1 Τὴ the passage Rom. iii. 3-5, πίστις and δικαιοσύνη are also used as cognate ideas, but even here in such a way that δικαιοσύνη has not lost its reference to the judicial activity of God; Meyer on this passage explains δικαιοσύνη, on account of the contrast with ἀδικία, generally by ‘‘justice ;” but the former reference appears both in μὴ ἄδικος ὃ Θεὸς ὃ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν, and also in ver. 6 σῶς κρινεῖ ὃ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ? Not less inexact is it for Ebrard to say: ‘‘ God manifests Himself towards as as the δίκαιος, inasmuch as He is not only just, but also makes just,” since δικαιοῦν does not mean ‘‘to make just.” His assertion is also inappropriate, that here and in Rom. i. 17-iii. 26, ‘‘the justice of God appears as the source in Him from which His saving, sin-forgiving, and sin-overcoming action flows.” This source is rather God’s ἀγάπη manifesting itself as χάρις towards the guilt of men; there is a reference to that in chap. iii. 24 of the passage in Romans, but here the source of the salvation is not mentioned. — The interpretation of Calov : ‘‘justa est haec peceatorum remissio et ex justitia debita, sed Christo non nobis,” and that of Sander: ‘‘the Lord is just, inasmuch as He remits the sin of the sinner who appeals to the ransom paid in the blood of Christ, because it would be unjust to demand the payment twice,” introduce references into this passage which are foreign to it. 3 Suarez: Fidelis est Deus, cum condonat poenitentibus peccata mortalia ; justus, cum justis condonat venialia, quia, sc. justi per opera (!) poenitentiae, charitatis, etc., merentur de condigno hanc condonationem. 296 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. thus: “the sins confessed by us.” The remission, 1.6. the forgiveness, of sins is therefore, by virtue of the faithfulness of God, the first result of the confession; the second John describes by the words: καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας. Here the first thought is not repeated epexegeti- cally (Semler), or only in figurative manner (Lange); but the words express the same thing as the corresponding words of the 7th verse, with which the 8th and 9th verses are in closest connection (Diisterdieck, Braune ; Briickner does not explain himself definitely) ; καθαρίζειν has here the same meaning as there, and ἀδικία (not = poena peccati, Socinus) is synonymous with ἁμαρτία ; they are two different names for the same thing; comp. chap. v. 17.2 The order in which the two clauses that express the redemptive operations of God are connected together (Myrberg: ordo verborum ponit remissionem ante abrogationem), points to the fact that puri- fication takes place by means of forgiveness. — The context is quite decisive in favour of regarding as the subject of πιστός ἐστι κιτιλ. ποῦ Χριστός, but (with Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.) ὁ Θεός : for even though in ver. 7 the xaOapife is described as the operation of the αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and in chap. ii. 2, “I. Xp. is the subject, yet in this section ὁ Θεός is the principal subject; ver. 5, ὁ Θεός: ver. 6, αὐτός, even in ver. 7, Tov υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ; the blood of Christ, therefore, is regarded as the means by which God produces purification from sins. To hold, with Sander, that God and Christ together form the subject,’ is quite as 1 The Rec. xaéapice: corresponds to the passage Luke xxii. 30, where, accord- ing to the best attested Rec., ἵνα is followed both by the subjunctive first, and then by the indicative ; but not to the passage John vi. 40, cited by Ebrard, where the indicative is not regarded as dependent on ἵνα. On ἵνα with the indicative, comp. A. Buttmann’s Gramm. p. 202. Winer, p. 258 ff., VII. p. 271 ff. 2 While Weiss also interprets both expressions of the forgiveness of sins, he tries to repel the reproach of tautology by saying: ‘‘If sin committed is regarded as a stain, it is quite correct that God forgives us the sin, and thus purifies us from all unrighteousness, since by the very fact that God forgives it, sin has ceased to exist before Him, and at the same time also to stain us a true though this may be, however, it cannot serve to refute that objection, for as καθαρίζειν in this sense is not the result of ἀφιέναι, but the former consists in the latter, both clauses express only one and the same thought. 3In favour of conjoining Christ as the subject, Sander adduces the fact that just in the following chapter Christ is called δίκαιος ; but in this he overlooks CHAP. I. 10. 297 inappropriate here as in ver. 5 to understand by αὐτοῦ both together. Though, with John, God and Jesus Christ approach very close to a unity, yet they are always distinguished by him, and never represented as one subject. Ver. 10. Not a repetition, but “a strengthening of ver. 8” (Baumgarten-Crusius). As ver. 8 is connected with the end of ver. 7, so is this verse with ver. 9.— ἐὰν εἴπωμεν} as in ver. 8.— dtu οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν] is substantially synonymous with ὅτε dwapt. οὐκ ἔχομεν, only distinguished from it in this way that the former describes an activity, the latter a state (so also Braune); the expression used here is called forth by the plural τὰς ἁμαρτίας and the idea ἡ ἀδικία (ver. 9), by which the sinful character is more definitely specified as an activity than by ἁμαρτία in ver. 7. The perfect does not prove that ἡμαρτήκαμεν is meant of sins before conversion '(Socinus, Russmeyer, Paulus, ete.) ; the subject here, as in all the verses before, is the sinning of Christians; for to deny former sin could not occur to a Christian." The perfect is explained both by John’s usus loquendi, according to which an action lasting up to the present is often represented in this tense, and also by the fact that the confession every time refers to sins previously committed. —wevotnv ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν] corresponds to ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν ; it brings out that the Christian by the denial of his sin accuses God (αὐτόν, 1.6. Tov Θεόν) of lying. In ποιεῖν there lies, as Diisterdieck remarks, a certain reproachful bitterness; comp. John v. 18, viii. 53, x. 33, xix. 7, 12. This thought presupposes the declaration of God that even the Christian sins, which ver. 9 πιστός ἐστι κιτίλ. also suggests; for if God has promised altogether the different meanings which the word has in the two passages ; for in the verse before us δίκαιος is used of a relation to men, but in chap. 1]. 1 of the relation of Christ to the divine will ; and when Sander further says that in Heb. ix. 14 it is precisely stated of Christ that He purges the consciences, this is incorrect, since σὸ αἷμα ποῦ Χρισσοῦ is the subject there just as here in ver. 7 ; and there even more expressly than here God is specified as the author of the purification, for the αἷμα +. Xp. purges, because it is offered as a sacrifice σῷ Θεῷ. Moreover, it is not meant by this that forgiveness and cleansing could not be ascribed to Christ quite as much as to God, only it does not follow from this that ὁ Χριστός is the subject here. 1 Therefore it is also not correct to refer ἡμαρτήκ. to present and past, as Hornejus explains: si dixerimus nos non tantum peccatum nune non habere, sed nec peccatores unquam fuisse. 298 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Christians forgiveness of their sins on condition of their confessing them, the above declaration is thereby made on God’s side. — καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (1... τοῦ Θεοῦ) οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν] ὁ λόγος, corresponding to the thought ἡ ἀλήθεια in ver. 8, refers directly to the preceding ψεύστην x.7.r. ΤλΊΟΚΘΟ explains it correctly: “the revelation of God, especially the gospel of Jesus Christ” (so also Briickner, Diisterdieck, Braune); to understand by it (with Oecumenius, Grotius, de Wette, etc.) especially the O. T., is forbidden by the train of thought, for the subject here is not the sinfulness of man in general, but the ἁμαρτάνειν of Christians. Ebrard interprets ὁ λόγος τ. Θ. as the “self-proclamation of the nature of God, which has taken place both in the verbal revelations of the O. and N. T. and in the revelations of deeds,’ so that even the λόγος of Gospel of John i. 1 is to be regarded as included; but from the fact that the elements mentioned here are very closely connected, it does not follow that that idea has here, or anywhere else, this extensive signification. The words ov« ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν are erroneously explained by Baumgarten- Crusius: “we have given it up, or also: we are not qualified or fit for it;” it means rather: “it is not vividly imprinted in our hearts” (Spener); it has remained external to us, inwardly unknown. 1This has been more or less overlooked by the commentators (even by Diisterdieck and Ebrard), although it is also important for the understanding of chap. ii. 1, 2. But John may with justice assume that the word of God denies the absolute sinlessness of Christians, since—apart from the fact that even the O. T. does not depict the δίκαιοι as perfectly holy—in every evangelical announcement the παράκλησις is an essential element for believers, which pre- supposes their having and doing sin. CHAP. II. 299 CHAPTER: IL Ver. 2. Lachm., according to A B, Vule., has put ἐστι before ἱλιασμός. Instead of μόνον, B has μόνων, which, no doubt, is only to be regarded as a mistake. — Ver. 3. The original reading of Nis φυλάξωμεν, instead of rypauev; but it was afterwards corrected. — Ver. 4. A B®, a/., Clem. Thph. etc. (Lachm. min. Tisch. 7) read ὅτι after λέγων; it is wanting in C α K, al. (Tisch. 2); Lachm. maj. has ὅτι in brackets. It is possible that ὅτι was in later times omitted as an interruption. ws’ has with ἡ ἀλήθεια the addition: τοῦ Θεοῦ. ---- Ver. 6. οὕτως before περιπατεῖν (Ree. following Ο K 8, al. pl., Copt. etc., Thph. etc., Tisch.) is un- certain; A B, al., Vulg. (Lachm.) omit it; perhaps it was inserted to emphasize more strongly καθώς, etc. — Ver. 7. ἀγαπητο accepted by Griesb. on overwhelming authority instead of the Rec. ἀδελφοί (G K, etc.).— The addition ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς after ἠκούσατε (Rec. after G K, etc.), already regarded as doubtful by Griesb., is with justice deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (after A Β C8, αἰ; it was added from the preceding ; Reiche, it is true, thinks otherwise. — Ver. 8. ἐν iu] Rec. The reading ἐν ἡμῖν, recommended by Griesb., has in A too feeble evidence. — Ver. 10. Instead of ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν (Rec. after B G K, al., Tisch.), A C8, al., have οὖκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ (Lachm.). — Ver. 13. Instead of the Rec. γράφω ὑμῖν παιδία (K, al.), we must read, in accordance with A B C Οὐ δὲ, many min. vss. and Fathers: ¢ypa a ὑμῖν παιδίω (Lachm. Tisch. ; also recommended by Griesb.); see, further, on this passage. Instead of τὸν πονηρόν, ® erroneously reads τὸ σπονηρών. ---- Ver. 14. Instead of τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, B reads τὸ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, plainly following chap. i. 1; this, however, is not accepted by Buttm.; in B the addition τοῦ Θεοῦ is wanting after ὁ λόγος. --- Ver. 15. Instead of τοῦ πατρός (Rec. after BG K 8, al., Vulg. Syr. utr. etc., Oec. Thph. etc.), A C, αἱ. read Θεοῦ ; which reading is the correct one cannot be decided, as an intentional change of the one to the other cannot be proved. Ebrard considers Θεοῦ as original, but without adequate grounds. Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Rec. — Ver. 17. Although Griesb. approves of the omission of αὐτοῦ after ἐπιθυμία (follow- ing A), it must nevertheless be considered genuine. The ditficulty of it easily explains why it would be left out. In 309 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, some of the Latin Fathers there is found at the close of the verse the addition: quo modo et Deus manet in aeternum, which Bengel, without reason, is disposed to regard as genuine. — Ver. 18. The article before ἀντήχριστος is at least doubtful; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; it is wanting in B C x*, — Ver. 19. Instead of ἐξῆλθον the more unusual form ἐξῆλθαν is probably, with Lachm. and Tisch. (after A B ΟἹ), to be regarded as genuine. &, however, has ἐξῆλθον. ---- The generally prevailing reading: ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, has been changed by Buttm. into ann οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, according to his own statement, following B; Tisch. has not noticed this reading. In the following clause Tisch. reads: εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, after BC, al.; Lachm., on the other hand, has retained the fec.: εἰ γὰρ ἤσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, after A G Kx, al. pl., Vulg. etc. It is remarkable that even Buttm. —against the evidence of B—has the Sec. It cannot be de- cided which reading is the correct one.— Ver. 20. Buttm. omits καί before οἴδατε, according to B; the πάντες, instead of πάντα presented (according to the statement of Tisch. maj.) by B, has not, however, been accepted by Buttm. — Ver. 23. The words ὁ ὁμολογῶν... ἔχει are wanting (after G K, etc., Oec.) in the Ree. Calvin, Milius, Wolf, etc., do not consider them genuine; but they are sufficiently attested by A B Ὁ &, etc. etc., and with justice admitted into the text by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. — Ver. 24. The Rec. οὖν after ὑμεῖς is with justice deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following A B Cx, al., Vulg. ete.— ἐν τῷ πατρί) Rec. after A C αὶ K, al., Syr. utr. Sahid. a/., Thph. Oec. (Tisch.). Lachm. has omitted ἐν (after B, Vulg. οἷο). The omission of the preposition is perhaps explained by the fact that it appeared superfluous. & reads ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἐν: τῷ υἱῷ. —— Instead οἵ ἠκούσατε, 8 has both times the unusual reading ἀκηκόατε. ---- Ver. 25. Instead of 7%, Lachm. in his small ed., following B, has accepted ivf (Buttm.); in the larger ed., however, 47 is rightly found, which is defended by almost all the authorities. — Ver. 27. On the form ἐλάβατε, received by Tisch. 7, following B*, comp. Ph. Buttmann’s compl. Gram. § 96, note 9, and Winer, p. 68, VII. p. 71.— Instead of ἐν ὑμῖν μένει iS to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., which Griesb. previously recommended: μένει ἐν ὑμῖν (after A B CR, several vss. οἷο). Buttm., following B, has accepted, instead of ἀλλ᾽ ὡς, the reading ἀλλά, which probably arose through a correction. Instead of the Rec. τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα (A Ῥ ἃ K, etc., Thph. Oee. Hier.), retained by Lachm., with the approval of Bengel, Liicke, Briickner, τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα has been accepted by Tisch., following C, 4, 5, 7, al., which is approved of by Reiche and Braune ; δὲ has also αὐτοῦ, but instead of χρῖσμα, “ πνεῦμα; see the comm. — Instead of διδάσκει ὑμᾶς, Lachm. in his large ed. CHAP. II. 1. 301 reads 0:6. ἡμᾶς; probably a misprint, as it is not noticed either by him or Tisch. as a special reading. — meveire] Rec. after G K, al. (Tisch.); Lachm. has received instead of it the reading μένετε, recommended by Griesb., following A B CR, al. The overwhelming evidence of the authorities is in favour of this reading, which probably was changed at a later date in accordance with ver. 24; Reiche, however, has decided in favour of the Rec. ; Diisterd. Ewald, Braune, and now Briickner also, justly prefer wévere.— Ver. 28. The words at the beginning: καὶ viv... ἐν αὐτῷ, are wanting in 8.— Instead of ἵνα ὅταν (Ree. after G K, al., Thph. Oec. Tisch.) we must read, with Lachm., following A B Cx, al., Copt. Sahid.: ἵνα ἐάν. Instead of ἔχωμεν (Rec. after A G K, etc., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch., following B C, al., Thph., read σχῶμεν. δὲ ἢ has σχῶμεν; 8' has ἔχωμεν. The words ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ are read by & not before, but after παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. ---- Ver. 29. The Rec. ὅτι πᾶς (Lachm. Tisch. 2) is found in B G K, several min. vss. and Fathers; A C 8, al., Vulg. read ὅτι καὶ πᾶς (Tisch. 7); if καί, on which Tisch. (ed. maj.) observes: cujus addendi nulla causa erat; ex Johannis vero usu est, be genuine, it serves “to bring out the agreement of the conclusion with the premiss ” (Ebrard). Vy. 1 and 2 are most closely connected with what immediately precedes, and further determine and conclude it. Ver. 1. The apostle had considered, in chap. i. 7, the blood of Christ, in 1. 9 the faithfulness and justice of God—and both in reference to the forgiveness and purification of believers ; now he comfortingly points to Christ as the Para- clete, whereby the previous thought now obtains its necessary complement. First, however, he mentions the object of his previous statement.— Texvia μου] Similarly chap. 111. 18; without μου, 11. 12, 28, ii. 7. John chooses this form of address: tum propter aetatem suam, tum propter paternam curam et affectum (Hornejus). In regard to the verbal form, Lorinus rightly says: diminutiva nomina teneri ac blandientis sunt amoris signa. The Apostle Paul, in Gal. iv. 19, uses the same form of address, with special reference to the spiritual fatherhood in which he stood toward his readers. — ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν] ταῦτα is referred by Bengel to what follows, by Grotius to what follows and what precedes, by most com- mentators (Liicke, Baumgarten -Crusius, de Wette, Sander, Diisterdieck, Braune), correctly, to the latter only; it refers, however, not merely to the truth expressed in ver. 6, nor 302 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, merely to the “exhortation to self-knowledge and penitence ” (de Wette) whichis contained in the preceding, nor merely to the statement about forgiveness and cleansing; but to the “whole in its vivid harmony” (Diisterdieck, so also Braune)." —iva μὴ ἁμάρτητε] Statement of the object for which the apostle wrote what precedes; the direction which Calvin gives it: ne quis putet eum peccandi licentiam dare, quum de misericordia Dei concionatur, which is also found in Augustin, Bede, Calov, Bengel, Hornejus, Diisterdieck, Ewald, etc., 15. incorrect, since the sternness of the apostle against sin has already been sharply and definitely expressed, and the context, in which the subject previously was the forgiveness of sin, would not permit such a supposition to arise at all.? — καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ] καί is neither =“ however” (Baumgarten- Crusius), nor= sed (Vulg.); it connects as simple copula a new thought with the preceding one. By ἐών the possibility of sinning is admitted; Calvin incorrectly explains it: Con- ditionalis particula “si quis” debet in causalem resolvi; nam fierl non potest quin peccemus. Whether it is possible for the Christian not to sin, John does not say. Under the influence of the new spirit of life which is communicated to the believer he cannot sin; but, at the same time, in his internal and external mechanism there lies for him the possibility of sinning—and it is this which the apostle has in view. Socinus perverts the idea of the apostle when he interprets: si quis peccat 1. 6. post Christum agnitum et 1 Ebrard refers σαῦτα to the two sentences, i. 6, 7, and 8-10, in which these thoughts, involving an apparent contradiction, are contained—(1) ‘‘That we must by no means walk in darkness,” and (2) ‘‘that we must confess that we have and that we commit sin,” and thinks that this apparent contradiction is solved by ii. 1, in this way, that in contrast to those theoretical statements these two practical conclusions from them are here given, namely, (1) “‘that we are not to sin ;” (2) ‘‘that when we have sinned we are to reflect that in Christ we have an Advocate.” But against this it is to be observed—(1) that by such a changing of theoretical statements into practical precepts the problem mentioned above is really not solved ; (2) that the ideas expressed in i. 6, 7, and in i. 8-10, do not stand to one another in the relation of co-ordination, but the idea of i. 8-10 is subordinated to that of i. 6, 7; (3) that it is herewith presupposed that the apostle should have written : καὶ ἵνα εἰδῆτε, ὅτι, ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παρά xanrov ἔχομεν, Which, however, is incorrect, as the advocate-office of Christ is not mentioned in the preceding. 2 Socinus incorrectly renders ἁμαρσάνειν = manere in peccatis; Lofiler even more so = ‘‘ to remain unbaptized.” CHAP, Il. 1, 303 professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in peccatis manet, necdum resipuit, etc.; for, on the one hand, the true Christian may indeed sin, but cannot remain in his sins; and, on the other hand, Christ is not the παράκλητος for him who remains in his sins. Besser correctly: “If any man sin—not with wilful doing of sin, but in spite of the will in his mind, which says no to sin.” —mapdkdnTov ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα] From the 1st pers. plur. it follows that the preceding tus is used quite generally ; the apostle is speaking communicatively, and does not wish himself to be considered excluded.t It is unnecessary for the connection of this sentence to supply: “let him know that,” or: “let him comfort himself with the thought that,’ or any similar expression ; for it is precisely through the ἁμαρτάνειν of believers that Christ is induced to be their Paraclete. The verb ἔχειν indicates that Christ belongs to believers.” The word παράκλητος has both a general and a special forensic meaning; in the former, in which it is = “assister,” or “helper,” it is used in Gospel of John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, where the Holy Ghost is so called because by His witness He leads the disciples into all truth; see Meyer on John xiv. 16 ;* here, on the other hand, it is used in its forensic meaning =“ advocatus, patronus causae,” or even more special =“ intercessor,” and is in close connection with the following ἱλασμός, and refers back to the ἀφιέναι and καθαρίζειν of chap. i. 9; so that in Christ the typical action of the high priest interceding for the people has reached its complete fulfilment. The idea of the apostle therefore is—as almost all commentators recognise*—the same 1 Augustin : habemus dixit, non habetis ; maluit se ponere in numero pecca- torum, ut habeat advocatum Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo advocato et inveniri inter damnandos superbos. —Socinus thinks that the apostle speaks in the first person, non quod revera ipse esset unus ex illis, qui adhue peccarent, sed ut melius indicet, id quod affirmat pertinere ad omnes, quibus evangelium annunciatum est ; clearly erroneous. Grotius arbitrarily : habet ille advocatum, sed ecclesia habet, quae pro lapso precatur. Preces autem ecclesiae Christus more advocati Deo patri commendat. 2 Besser: ‘‘ He has made Himself ours, has given our faith an eternally valid claim on Him.” 3 In the fact that in the Gospel of John the Holy Ghost, but here Christ, is called παράκλητος, there is so much the less a contradiction, as in John xiy. 16 it is expressly put: ἄλλον παράκλητον, by which Christ signifies that He Him- self is the proper παράκλητος, and the Holy Ghost His substitute. 4 Ebrard, who here gives the same explanation, explains the expression in the 304 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, as is expressed in Rom. viii. 34 (ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), in Heb. ix. 24 (εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Χριστὸς... εἰς... τὸν οὐρανόν, νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), and in Heb. vii. 25. --- πρὸς τὸν πατέρα] πρός in the same sense as chap. i. 2.— God is called πατήρ, because the παράκλητος is the Son of God, and we also (believing Christians) have become through Him τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, chap. iii. 1, 2.— ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον] Christ is the Paraclete, not as the Logos, but as the incarnate Logos, who has shed His αἷμα (chap. i. 7) for the atonement,—and indeed inasmuch as He is δίκαιος ; δίκαιος is here also neither=lenis et bonus (Grotius), nor = δικαιῶν (see Wolf on this passage); but neither is it = fidelis atque verax, quatenus id praestat quod promisit, se scilicet suis adfuturum (Socinus); according to the usus loquendi, δίκαιος could be understood of (judicial) justice (Bede: justus advocatus, injustas causas non suscipit), but then the adjective would have had to be put with παρά- κλητον ; Ebrard incorrectly explains it = δίκαιος καὶ δικαιῶν ; but this explanation is so much the more unwarrantable, as δικαιοῦν is the very business of the παράκλητος; by the epithet δίκαιος, Christ is held up before the ἁμαρτάνουσι as one who by His nature is fitted to be the Paraclete of sinners, ue. as one who perfectly satisfies the will of God; who is “just and stainless, and without sin” (Luther). “Only as the Holy One, in whom the holy ideal of manhood is seen realized, can He intercede for sinners with the heavenly Father” (Neander). REMARK.—How Christ executes His office of Advocate with the Father, John does not say; a dogmatic exposition of it is not in place here, still it is important to mark the chief elements which are the result of the apostle’s statement. These are the following:—1. The Paraclete is Jesus, the glorified Redeemer Gospel of John= ‘‘Comforter,” os παρακαλεῖ (more correctly παρακαλεῖται, mid.), according to the Hebrew pn, LXX. Job xvi. 2; but in this passage it is not παράκλητος, but παρακλήτως, that is used; Hofmann’s explanation is also incorrect (Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 15 ff.) = ‘* Teacher” (comp. Meyer and Hengsten- berg on John xiv. 16). 1 This idea is not, as it might appear, in contradiction with John xvi. 26; for even in this statement a lasting intercession by Christ is indicated, since Christ ascribes the hearing of prayer in His name to Himself (xiy. 13) as well as to the Father. CHAP, IT. 1. 305 who is with the Father; therefore neither His divine nature alone, nor His human nature alone, but the Lord in His divine- human personality. 2. The presupposition is the reconciliation of men with God by His blood. 3. His advocacy has reference to believers, who still sin amid their walking in light; and 4. It is a real activity in which He intercedes for His people (that God may manifest in their forgiveness and sanctification His faithfulness and justice) with God, as His (and their) Father. If these points are observed, on the one hand, there is found in the apostolic statement no ground for a materialistic conception, which Calvin opposes in the following words: obiter notandum est, nimis crasse errare eos, qui patris genibus Christum advol- vunt, ut pro nobis oret. Tollendae sunt eiusmodi cogitationes, quae coelesti Christi gloriae derogant ;—but neither, on the other hand, is there any justification for doing away with the idea, as not a few commentators have been guilty of. Even Bede has not kept himself free from it, when he says that the advocacy consists in this, that Christ presents Himself as man to God, and prays for us non voce, sed miseratione, and there- fore considers the intercessio, not as an actio realis, but only as an actio interpretativa. But the idea is even more done away with, when the intercession is viewed only as the permanent effect of the redemptive work accomplished by Christ in the giving up of His life to the death, which is no doubt the opinion of Baumgarten-Crusius when he says: “The apostles certainly did not think of a special oral intercession, but of an interces- sion by deed, in His work.”’ Liicke rightly says: “The mean- ing of this form of representation is no other than this, that Jesus Christ also in His δόξα with the Father continues His work of reconciliation. If Christ were not the eternal Paraclete for us with God, His saving and reconciling work would be limited to His earthly life merely, and in so far could not be regarded as eternal and complete ;” but it is not to the point when he further puts it: “ Without the eternally active saving and reconciling spirit of Christ, without the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, Christ would not be a perfect, a living Christ ;” for John is not here speaking of the πνεῦμα of Christ, but of the personal Christ Himself. The explanation of de Wette, that the advocacy of Christ is the combination of the idea of the glorified and of the suffering Messiah, is also unsatisfactory, because it changes the 1 Similarly Kostlin (p. 61): ‘‘Christ is the eternal παράκλητος ; He does not however, pray the Father, but the sense of His office of Advocate is simply this, that for His sake the Father also loves those who believe on Him.” Frommann also (p. 472 ff.) finds in the statement of the apostle only a symbolical form of expression, by which the continuation of the atoning work of Christ in His state of exaltation is indicated, Mryer.—1 Joun. U 306 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. objective reality into a subjective representation. Neander rightly says: “When Christ is described as the Advocate, this is not to be understood as if only the effects of the work once accomplished by Him were transferred to Himself—John con- siders the living Christ as personally operating in His work, as operating in His glorified position with His Father, with the same holy love with which He accomplished His work on earth as a mediation for sinful man. It is by Him in His divine- human personality that the connection between man, saved and reconciled to God by Him, and God as the Father, is always brought about.” Comp. also Meyer on Rom. vii. 34, and Braune in the fundamental dogmatic ideas of the passage. Ver. 2. καὶ αὐτός -- οὔ ipse, idemque ille; καί is here also the simple copula, and is not to be resolved either into gwia (a Lapide) or nam.—avros refers back to “Ino. Χριστὸν δίκαιον, and the epithet δώκαιον is not to be lost sight of here ; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers αὐτός to God.— ἱλασμός ἐστι] The word ἱλασμός, which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. iv. 10, and here also indeed in combina- tion with περὶ τῶν ap. ἡμῶν, may, according to Ezek. xliv. 277 (ΞΞ- ΠΝ ΘΠ), mean the sin-offering (Liicke, 3d ed.), but is here to be taken in the sense of O22, Lev. xxv. 9, Num. v. 8, and no doubt in this way, that Christ is called the ἱλασμός, inas- much as He has expiated by His αἷμα the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ, it is true, is not de- manded by the idea ἱλασμός in itself but certainly is demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of Christ, in chap. i. 7, the cleansing power of which he is there speaking, because he knows that reconciliation is based in it, REMARK.—In classical Greek ἱλάσκεσθαι (as middle) 15 = ἵλεων ποιεῖν; but in scripture it never appears in this active significa- tion, in which God would not be the object; but in all the passages where the Septuagint makes use of this word, whether it is as the translation of 7183 (Ps. lxv. 4, Ixxviii. 38, lxxix. 9), or of nbp (Ps. xxiv. 11; 2 Kings v. 18), or of on) (Ex. xxxii 1JIn the Septuagint not only does ‘azeuss appear as the translation of the Hebrew amp (Ps. exxix. 4; Dan. ix. 9), but ἱλώσκεσθαι is also used=to be merciful, to forgive (Ps. lxy. 4, Ixxviii. 38, lxxix. 9),—quite without reference to an offering. — The explanation of Paulus, however: ‘He (i.e. God) is the pure exercise of compassion on account of sinful faults,” is not justifiable, because, in the first place, God is not the subject, and secondly, the ἱλασμός of Christ is not the forgiveness itself, but is that which procures forgiveness. CHAP. 11. 3. 907 14), God is the subject, and sin, or sinful man, is the object; i Heb. ii. 17, Christ is the subject, and the object also is τὰς ἁμαρτίας. The case is almost exactly similar with ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, which does not appear in the N. T. at all, but in the O. T., on the other hand, is used as the translation of 155 much more frequently than the simple form; it is only where this verb is used of the relation between men, namely Gen. xxx. 21 and Prov. xvi. 14, that the classical usus loquendi is preserved; but elsewhere with ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, whether the subject be God (as in Ezek. xvi. 63) or man, especially the priest, the object is either man (Lev. iv. 20, v. 26, vi. 7, xvi. 6,11, 16,17, 24, 30, 33; Ezek. xlv. 17) or sin (Ex. xxxii. 30; both together, Lev. v. 18, Num. vi. 11), or even of holiness defiled by sin (the most holy place, Lev. xvi. 16; the altar, Lev. xvi. 18, xxvii. 33, Ezek. xliii. 22); only in Zech. vii. 2 is found ἐξιλάσκασθαι τὸν κύριον, Where, however, the Hebrew text has nin’ 5 ΤΙΣ nibnd, ᾿Ιλιασμός, therefore, in scripture does not denote the reconciliation of God, either with Himself or with men, and hence not placatio (or as Myrberg interprets: propitiatio) Dei, but the justification or reconciliation of the sinner with God, because it is never stated in the N. T. that God is reconciled, but rather that we are reconciled to God.t Grotius, 5. G. Lange, and others take ἱλασμός --ἱλαστήρ; of course that abstract form denotes the personal Christ, but by this change into the concrete the expression of the apostle loses its peculiar character; “the abstract is more compre- hensive, more intensive; comp. 1 Cor. i. 30” (Briickner); it gives it to be understood “that Christ is not the propitiator through anything outside Himself, but through Himself” (Liicke, 2d ed.), and that there is no propitiation except 1 Comp. Delitzsch in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, on chap. ii. 17, p. 94ff. But it is to be noticed that Delitzsch, while he states correctly the Biblical mode of representation, bases his opening discussion on the idea of the ‘‘self-reconciliation of the Godhead with itself,” an idea which is not contained in scripture.—It is observed by several commentators that ἱλασμός, as distinguished from καταλλαγή = ‘* Versdhnung”’ (reconciliation), is to be translated by ‘‘Siihnung” or ‘‘ Versiihnung” (both = Engl. expiation, atone- ment). It is true, Verséhnung and Versiihnung are properly one and the same word, but in the usage of the language the distinction has certainly been fixed that the latter word denotes the restoration of the disturbed relationship by an expiation to be performed ; only it is inexact to assert that the idea iaacpos in itself contains the idea of punishment, since ἱλώσκεσθαι does not include this idea either in classical or in Biblical usage, and ἐξιλάσκεσθα,, though mostly indeed used in the O. T. in reference to a sacrifice by which sin is covered, is also used without this reference (comp. Ecclus. iii. 28). 308 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. through Him.’— The relation of ἱλασμός to the preceding παράκλητον may be variously regarded ; either παράκλητος is the higher idea, in which ἱλασμός is contained, Bede: advo- eatum habemus apud Patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris reddit; or con- versely: ἱλασμός is the higher idea, to which the advocacy is subordinated, as de Wette thus says: “ἱλασμός does not merely refer to the sacrificial death of Jesus, but, as the more general idea, includes the intercession as the progressive reconciliation” (so also Rickli, Frommann); or lastly, both ideas are co-ordinate with one another, Christ being the ἱλασμίός in regard to His blood which was shed, and the παράκλητος, on the other hand, in regard to His present activity with the Father for those who are reconciled to God through His blood. Against the first view is the sentence beginning with καὶ αὐτός, by which ἱλασμός is marked as an idea which is not already contained in the idea παράκλητος, but is distinct from it; against the second view it is decisive that the propitiation, which Christ is described as, has refer- ence to all sins, but His intercession, on the other hand, has reference only to the sins of the believers who belong to Him. There remains, accordingly, only the third view as the only correct one (so also Braune). The relationship is this, that the intercession of the glorified Christ has as its presupposi- tion the ἱλασμός wrought out in His death? yet the sentence καὶ αὐτός is not merely added, ut causa reddatur, cur Christus sit advocatus noster (Hornejus, and similarly Beza, Lorinus, Sander, etc.), for its independence is thereby taken away ; the thought contained in it not merely serves for the explana- tion or confirmation of the preceding, but it is also full of meaning in itself, as it brings out the relation of Christ to the whole world of sinners.— περὶ wav ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν] 1 The case is the same with the expression ἱλασμός as with other abstractions by which Christ is described, as ζωή, ὁδός, ἁγιασμός, x.7.2. Who does not feel that by these words something much more comprehensive is expressed than in the concrete forms : ὁ ζωοποιῶν, ὁ ὁδηγῶν, ὁ ἁγιάζων, κι -.λ. ? * Koéstlin incorrectly says (p. 180): ‘Christ is σαράκλητσος, while He is ἱλασμός, i.e. high priest, and at the same time sacrifice, a high priest who offers himself ; and ἱλασμός, while He is παράκλητος, i.e. a sacrifice which offers itself ;” for neither does παράκλ. describe the high-priesthood of Christ, according to its full comprehension, nor does ἱλασμός mean ‘* sacrifice.” CHAP, II. 2. 309 περί expresses the reference quite generally: “in regard to;” it may here be observed that ἐξιλάσκεσθαι in the LXX. is usually construed with περί, after the Hebrew Ὁ; ἼΒΞ, The idea of substitution is not suggested in περί. -- With τῶν ἅμαρτ. ἡμῶν, comp. chap. 1. 9; it is not merely the sins of Christians (ἡμῶν, ac. fidelium ; Bengel) before their conversion that are meant, but also those which are committed by them in their Christian life; comp. chap. i. 7. Ebrard’s opinion, that these words are added to (Nacpwos merely as a preparation for the following additional thought, is inadmissible; they rather suggest themselves to the apostle—and without regard to what follows—inasmuch as it is only by virtue of them that the idea obtains complete expression.— οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου] Expan- sion of the thought, in reference to the preceding περὶ τ. dp. ἡμῶν, in order to mark the universality of the propitiation. It is incorrect to understand by ἡμεῖς the Jews, and by κέσμος the Gentiles (Oecum., Cyril, Hornejus, Semler, Rickli, etc.); ἡμεῖς are rather believers, and κόσμος is the whole of un- believing mankind; so Spener, Paulus, de Wette, Liicke, Sander, Neander, Diisterd., Braune, etc. — Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with this interpretation, only he understands by κόσμος not mankind together (extensive), but successively (protensive) ; but this distinction is unsuitable. It would be preferable to say that John was thinking directly of the κόσμος as it existed in his time, without, however, limiting the idea to it. The interpretation of Augustin and of Bede, by which κόσμος is=“ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa,” is clearly quite arbitrary. The propitiatory sacrifice was offered for the whole world, for the whole of fallen mankind; if all do not obtain the blessing of it, the cause of that does not lie in a want of efficacia in it; Diisterdieck therefore rightly says: “The propitiation is of judicial nature; according to this, the propitiation for the whole world has its real efficacia for the whole world ; to the believing it brings life ; to the unbelieving, death.” Calvin quite improperly asserts: sub omnibus re- probos non comprehendit, sed eos designat, qui simul credituri erant et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant (similarly Beza); against this the statement of Bengel is sufficient: quam late peccatum, tam late propitiatio. The expressly 310 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. added ὅλου places the matter beyond all doubt. — With regard to the genitive περὶ ὅλ. τοῦ κόσμου, Winer says (p. 509, VIL p. 536): “instead of this, either περὶ τῶν ὅλου τ. κι, or, instead of the first words, περὶ ἡμῶν might have been written ; similarly Heb. ix. 7;” many commentators, on the other hand, supply τῶν directly, as Grotius, Semler, Wilke (Hermeneutik, 11. p. 145), de Wette, Diisterdieck; as the Vulg. renders: “pro totius mundi,’ and Luther: “fiir der ganzen Welt.” On behalf of this, appeal is made to passages such as John v. 36,’ Matt. v. 20; but the construction which appears in these passages is the well-known comparatio com- pendiaria, which does not occur here, as there is no comparison here at all; an oratio variata is therefore to be accepted, which was the more natural to the apostle, as the idea κόσμος includes in itself that of sin.? Vy. 3-11. Further antithetical statement of the believers’ walk in light; it is described as τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς Θεοῦ (vv. 3—6); this then is further defined as a περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε (ver. 6), and ἀγαπᾷν τὸν ἀδελφόν is emphasized as being the essence of this walk (vv. 7-11). Ver. 3. Semler would make a new section begin here: “after the foundation of salvation has been spoken of, there follows the exhortation to preserving the salvation ;” incor- rectly ; ver. 3 is closely connected with chap. i. 5, 6, and states in what the Christian’s walk in light consists ; therefore also it begins simply with «at. — ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν] ἐν τούτῳ refers to the following ἐάν : the object is stated by ὅτε ; the same combination is found in the Gospel of John xiii. 35 ; similarly in chap. iv. 13, where, however, the particle ὅτε is used instead of ἐών, and chap. v. 2, where ὅτων is used. A Lapide wrongly weakens the force of γινώσκομεν : non certo et demonstrative, sed probabiliter et conjecturaliter ; it is rather the anxiety of the apostle to bring out that the Christian has a sure and certain consciousness of the nature 1This passage is cited by Ebrard further, in order to prove his assertion : **This abbreviation for περὶ τῶν ὅλον τοῦ κόσμου needs no explanation” (!). * When Braune, who has accepted the explanation which is here given of the verse as a whole and in detail, says in reference to the oratio variata which occurs here: ‘‘it has not happened for the sake of the evil which attaches to the κόσμος, for this is true of Christians also (contrary to Huther),” he thereby shows that he has not correctly understood the above remark, CHAP, Il. 3. ow of the Christian life. This certainty is confirmed to him by unmistakeable facts, in which the truth of his knowledge attests itself. — ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν] αὐτόν seems to refer to the last-mentioned subject in ver. 2, therefore to Christ; so it is explained by Oecumenius, Erasmus, Grotius, Calov, Spener, Bengel, Semler, Johannsen, Sander, Myrberg, Erdmann, ete. ; but the deeper train of thought is opposed to this; John is not continuing the idea of ver. 2, but is going back to the fundamental thought of the whole section: “ He who has fellowship with God walks in the light;” the principal sub- ject is God, and to it, therefore, αὐτόν is to be referred; so Calvin, Beza, Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, de Wette, Briickner, Ebrard, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.’ — On ἐγνώκαμεν, which is not, with Lange and Carpzov, to be interpreted = “love,’ the commentators rightly remark that it is not a mere external, purely theoretical knowledge that is to be understood by it;? it is the /éving knowledge that is meant, 1.6. a know- ledge in which the subject (God) is really received into the inner life, and thought and action are determined by it,’ so 1 The reason brought forward by Ebrard: ‘‘it lies also in the idea of the com- mandments, that they are mentioned as commandments of the Father and not of the Son,” is not valid ; comp. Gospel of John xiv. 15, 21, 23, xv. 10. Ebrard, on the other hand, rightly points to ver. 6, where ἐκεῖνος (Christ) is distinguished from αὐτός. From this verse it also follows that John, in this section, is con- sidering Christ not as having given commandments, but as having walked according to the commandments of God. * Lorinus: cognoscere cum quadam voluntatis propendentis approbatione. — A Lapide: cognitione non tantum speculativa, sed et practica, quae cum amore et affectu conjuncta est, ac in opus derivatur.—Spener: ‘‘ This is not a mere knowing (1 Cor. viii. 1), such as may exist without love, but a knowledge which comes into the heart and fulfils His will with trust.” — De Wette : ‘‘ Knowledge of the heart, not of the mind, wherewith activity is also assumed.”— Liicke: *‘the knowledge of God in the highest sense ; not, however, in so far as it is identical with the love of God, but only in so far as it really impels men practi- cally to fulfilment of the divine commands, and thus reveals itself in growing love to the God who is known as the Light.” 3 Weiss not unjustly contends against the current view of γινώσκειν in John, in so far as the idea of knowledge is not kept pure in it from confusion with other ideas ; but when Weiss says that in John only ‘‘the knowledge that rests on immediate contemplation is to be thought of,” and observes that ‘‘ it lies in the nature of the case, that in this intuition and contemplation the object is received into the entire spiritual being of man as a—nay, as the determining power,” he not only agrees with the explanation given above, but defines the idea in such a way as not to deviate so very far from the commentators whom he opposes as his polemic would lead one to suppose. ΘῈ] THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. that ἐγνωκέναι is necessarily connected with the κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (chap. i. 6); still it is inexact to render ὅτε ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, with Oecumenius, directly by ὅτε συνεκρά- θημεν αὐτῷ, or, with Clarius, by societatem habemus cum eo. By ἐγνώκαμεν the element of consciousness in the fellowship, and with this its internal and spiritual side, is brought out. - ἐὰν Tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν] The expression τ. évTOX. τηρεῖν describes the obedience resulting from the internal faithful keeping of the commandments ;” it is incorrect, with Braune, so to press the idea τηρεῖν here, in its distinction from ποιεῖν, that merely “attention to the commandments” is to be understood by it; it rather includes in itself the actual obedi- ence. This obedience is not here regarded as the means of the knowledge of God, but as the proof of it; rightly Oecu- menius: διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἡ τελεία δεδείκνυται ἀγάπη ; only he should have said “γνῶσις " instead of ἀγάπη. Between both of those there is the same relationship as between fellow- ship with God and walking in light; for as the former is related to the knowledge of God, so is the latter related to the observance of the divine commandments, which is the concrete embodiment of ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν. Ver. 4. Inference from ver. 3, expressing the antithetical side. — ὁ λέγων «.7.A.] is used in the same sense as ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, chap. i. 6. Without reason, Braune considers that “in the singular there lies a progress in the development of the thought.” The statement that ἔγνωκα is used “ with mani- fest regard to the Gunostics” (Ebrard), is not to be accepted ; ὁ λέγων is rather to be taken in a quite general sense, comp. ver. 6, at the same time referring to the appearance of such a moral indifferentism among the churches. αὐτόν, as in ver. 3 = Θεόν. ---- ψεύστης ἐστί] = ψεύδεται, chap. i. 6; but in such a way that the idea is more sharply brought out by it (Braune). 1 [It is to be noticed, that to describe the Christian commandments John never uses νόμος (which by him is only used in reference to the Mosaic Law), but generally ἐντολαί (only now and then λόγος Θεοῦ or Χριστοῦ) ; and as verb, τηρεῖν, never ποιεῖν (except in Rey. xxii. 14).—In the writings of Paul, τηρεῖν ἐντολήν appears only in 1 Tim. vi. 14, and besides in the N. T. in Matt. xix. 17 (chap. XXViii. 20: τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν). ᾿ * The paraphrase of Semler may be given here merely for its curiosity : Si (nos Apostoli) retinemus et magnifacimus hane ejus doctrinam: Deum esse pariter omnium gentium. CHAP. II. 5. oike — καὶ ἐν τούτῳ κ.τ.λ.] as in chap. i. 8. — From the connection between the knowledge of God and the observance of His commandments, it follows that he who boasts of the former, but is wanting in the latter, has not the truth in him, but is a liar. Ver. 5. In this verse the apostle confirms the idea of ver. 3, in the form of an antithesis to ver. 4, and with the introduc- tion of a new element. — ὃς δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ (i.c. Θεοῦ) τὸν λόγον] The particle δέ, which refers not to ver. 3 (Liicke), but to the words καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν, ver. 4, shows that this verse stands in the same relationship to ver. 4 as chap. i: 7 to ver. 6; “ τηρῇ is with emphasis put first, and similarly αὐτοῦ before τὸν λόγον" (Braune).— αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος is synony- mous with αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ, vv. 3 and 4: “the essence of the divine commandments ;” a Lapide: Dicit verbum ejus in singulari, quia praecipue respicit legem caritatis; haec enim caeteras omnes in se comprehendit.— The predicate does not run: οὗτος ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν, but: ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται, whereby “a new side of the thought comes into view ” (Ebrard). — ἀληθῶς] “in truth,” opposed to appear- ance and mere pretence; it is emphatically put first, as in John viii. 31; with reference to the preceding ἡ ἀλήθεια (de Wette); and serves to bring out not a quality of the τετε- λείωται (Ebrard), but the actuality of the ἐν τούτῳ... τετελείωται (so also Briickner). — ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται)] ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ is not here, as in chap. iv. 9: “the love of God to us” (Flacius, Calovius, Bengel, Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Lange, etc.), nor: “the love commanded by God” (Episcopius), nor: “the relationship of mutual love between God and man” (Ebrard: “the mutua amicitia et conjunctio between God and the Christian”);* but: “love to God,” as in chap. ii. 15, iii. 17, iv. 12, v. 3 (Bede, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, de Wette- Brickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune, etc.). This interpretation is required by the context ; for “the love of God” appears here in place of the 1 Similarly Besser: ‘*‘ The love of God in us’ usually embraces both G'od’s love to us, by which, and our love to God, in which we live. This is the case in this passage also.” This interpretation can be just as little grammatically justified as that of Ebrard; neither a duplicity nor a mutual relationship is expressed in the phrase ἡ dy. τοῦ Θεοῦ. 914 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. “knowledge of God,’ vv. 3 and 4. As in the latter, so in the former also, consists fellowship with God. Both, love and knowledge, are so inseparably connected, and are so essentially one in their principle and nature, that the one is the condition of the other.1— The idea τετελείωται is not to be weakened, as in Beza: τελειοῦν hoc in loco non declarat perfecte aliquid consummare, sed mendacio et simulationi opponitur, ut hoc plane sit, quod dicimus: mettre en exécution; but it is to be taken in its constant meaning: “has been perfected,” as in chap. iv. 12, 17, 18. The objection, that nevertheless no Christian can boast of perfect love to God, does not justify an arbitrary change of meaning. The absolute idea τηρεῖν αὐτοῦ Tov λόγον demands for its counterpart an idea quite as absolute (so also Briickner).2 Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there love to God is perfect; in perfect obedience perfect love is shown. That the Christian has not attained this perfection at any moment of his life, but is ever only in a state of progress towards it, is no doubt true; but John is not here considering that aspect (so also Braune).*-— ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν) ἐν τούτῳ refers neither to the thought contained in ver. 6 (Socinus, Ewald), nor to ἡ ayamn... τετελ., but to the keeping of the commandments (so also Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Briickner, Braune). Obedience is the evidence for the know- ledge that we are ἐν αὐτῷ. --- ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν] The expression signifies the inward fellowship of life (differently Acts xvii. 28); it combines the preceding ἐν tovrm ... tered. and the former 1 Grotius, it is true, is not wrong when he says: Amor praesupponit cogni- tionem ; but it is just as correct to say: Cognitio praesupponit amorem. * Even Bengel’s interpretation: perfectum regimen nactus et perfecte cognitus est (viz. amor Dei erga hominem), does not correspond to the idea of the word. 3 Ebrard, it is true, wants the idea σεσελείωται to be retained unweakened, but finds himself compelled by his interpretation of ἡ ay. τ. @. to agree with Beza’s explanation, because ‘‘in the case of a relationship its perfection is nothing else than its conclusion.” Ebravrd’s opinion, that if ἡ ay. +. @.= ‘love to God,” John must have written ssasia ἐστίν instead of τετελείωται, is—besides being contrary to John’s usus loguendi—without foundation. 4 In Calvin’s explanation : Si quis objiciat, neminem unquam fuisse repertum, qui Deum ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo: sufficere, modo quisque pro gratiae 5101 datae mensura ad hane perfectionem aspiret, and in that of Socinus: ‘‘ Est autem perfectio ista caritatis in Deum et obedientia praeceptorum ejus ita intelli- genda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ei quicquam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejusmodi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos bonitate contentus esse voluit,” limitations are introduced which are foreign to the apostle’s train of thought. τ) CHAP. IL. 6. 315 © ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, and is identical with κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (chap. 1. 6), which it defines in its internal character. The knowledge and love of God is being in God (so also Briickner).' — Grotius, who understands αὐτῷ of Christ, enfeeblingly explains: Christi ingenii discipuli sumus. Ver. 6 gives the more particular definition of what the τηρεῖν of God’s commandments, and therefore the Christian’s walk in light, consists in. — ὁ λέγων] as in ver. 4; here, how- ever, with the infinitive construction. — ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν] ἐν αὐτῷ does not refer to Christ (Augustin, Hornejus, Wolf, Lange, Neander, etc.), but to God. — μένειν] instead of εἶναι, ver. 5. Both expressions are synonymous, it is true, but not identical (Beza); in μένειν the unchangeableness of the being is brought out. Bengel: Synonyma cum gradatione: illum nosse, in illo esse, in 1110 manere. Frommann (p. 187): “ The being and abiding in God signifies one and the same fellowship with God. The latter describes it merely as something con- stant, lasting, which accessory notion is not contained in the former expression.” — ὀφείλει] comp. chap. iii. 16, iv. 11, “is in duty bound,” refers back to ὁ λέγων ; it is not meant to be indicated here what is demanded in regard to the pévew év Θεῷ, but what is the duty of him who says that he abides in God—if he does not want to be a liar, in whom the truth is not, ver. 4.— καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε, καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν] By these words Christ is placed as a pattern before Christians, 7.e.in regard to His whole walk (which is elsewhere done in the N. T. only in regard to His self-abasement and to His conduct in suffering; see this commentary on 1 Pet. ll. 21); of what sort this was, John does not here say; from the connection with what precedes, however, it is clear that the apostle points to Him in so far as He kept the command- ments of God, and therefore walked in the light.” This reference to Christ as an example is frequently found in the same form 1 In substantial agreement with this Weiss says: ‘‘In vv. 3 and 4 it was stated that in the keeping of God’s commandments we recognise that we have known God. If, therefore, there is a continuous train of thought here, the being in God must only be a new expression for the knowing of God, or must be directly given along with it.” * Semler paraphrases : Si quis gloriatur, se suamque doctrinam semper con- venisse cum doctrina illa Christi, is sane debet etiam in humanae vitae modo non Judaismum praeferre (!). 316 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF TIE APOSTLE JOHN. (καθὼς ἐκεῖνος) in our Epistle; so iii. 3, 7, iv. 17; comp. also John xiii. 15, xv. 10, and passim. — περιπατεῖν describes not merely the disposition, but the action resulting from it. In the fact that John brings just this out (comp. especially chap. iii. 17, 18), it is evident how far his mysticism is removed from mere fanaticism. — On οὕτως, see the critical notes. Vy. 7-11. A more particular statement of the nature and import of τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ or of περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε. Ver. 7. ἀγαπητοί] Such a form of address does not neces- sarily indicate the commencement of a new section, but is also used when the subject of the discourse is intended to be brought home to the hearers or readers; this is the case here. — οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν] certainly does not mean: “T do not write to you of a new commandment ;” neither, however: “I write (set) before you” (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; for γράφειν has not this signification; it simply means: to write; when connected with an object, as here, it is = to com- municate or announce anything by writing; comp. chap. 1. 4. The subject of his writing the apostle calls an ἐντολή ; it is arbitrary to take the word here in a different meaning from that which it always has; thus Rickh: “ the whole revelation of divine truth as it has been brought to us in Jesus Christ ”* (similarly Flacius, Calovius, etc.); and Ebrard: “ the announce- ment, that God is light, chap. 1. 5;” ἐντολή means “ com- mandment;” this idea must not be confounded with any other. Most of the commentators (Augustin, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette- 3riickner, Neander, Sander, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, etc.) understand by it, according to vv. 9-11, the commandment of brotherly love ; others, on the other hand (Socinus, Episcopius, Calovius, Schott, Liicke, Fritzsche, Frommann, etc.), according to ver. 6, the commandment of following Christ. These two 1 Ebrard wrongly maintains that ἐντολή is ‘fa truth including directly in itself practical requirements.” Only the practical requirements contained in a truth can be—when regarded as ἃ unity—called ἐντολή, but not the truth which con- tains them in itself. It is true the demand of faith in the message of salvation may be described as ἐντολή, but not the message of salvation itself; here, how- ever, the context forbids us to take the expression in that sense (as Weiss), since neither in what precedes nor in what immediately follows is there a demand for faith expressed. CHAP. IL. 7. SF views seem to be opposed to one another, but they really are so only if we assume that John here wants to emphasize a single special commandment—in distinction from other com- mandments. This supposition, however, is erroneous; the command to keep the commandments (or the word) of God after the example of Christ, or to walk in the light, is no other than the command to love one’s brother. From chap. 1. 5 on, John is speaking not of different commandments, but of the one general commandment of the Christian life which results from the truth that God is light. It is to this com- mandment that reference is made when John, in order to bring it home to his readers, says: οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, so that by ἐντολή he does not indicate a commandment which he then for the first time is about to mention, but the commandment which he has already spoken of in what pre- cedes (only not merely in ver. 6), but defines more particularly in what follows, namely, in regard to its concrete import.’ Of this commandment John says, that it is not an ἐντολὴ EOE . . καινή;" in what sense he means this, the following words state: ἀλλ᾽ ἐντολὴν παλαιάν, ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ; it is not new, but old, inasmuch as his readers did not first receive it through this writing, but already had it, and indeed ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, 1.0. from the very beginning of their Christian 118 σ᾿ comp. chap. 111. 11; 2 John 5, 6; and, for the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ver. 24 (Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Piscator, Hornejus, Lange, Rickli, Liicke, de Wette-Briickner, Sander, Neander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune, etc.). The imperfect εἴχετε, instead of which we 1 This view is in accordance with that of Diisterdieck, who rightly remarks : *‘The solution of the problem lies in this, that the holy command to walk as Christ walked, fully and essentially resolves itself into the command of brotherly love;” it is also accepted by Braune. The objection of Briickner, that brotherly love is only a principal element, and not the complete fulfilment of following Christ, can only be regarded as valid if brotherly love is not viewed in its full, complete character ; comp. John xiii. 34, and also the statement of the Apostle Paul: πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, Rom. xiii. 10.— The instances adduced by Ebrard against the reference to brotherly love can only have any force if the command- ment which prescribes this is distinguished, as a special one, from the command to walk in light. 2 Certainly what John here says reminds us of the statement of Christ in John xiii. 84; nor can it be denied that John was here thinking of that, as well as in the passage 2 John 5; but from this it does not follow that οὐκ ivroa. καιν. γράφω vuiv does not refer to what precedes, but only to what comes after (ver. 9). 318 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. should expect the present, either refers back to the time before John had come to his readers, or is to be explained : “which ye hitherto already had.” The latter is the more probable. Some commentators weaken this interpretation, which is demanded by the context, and hold that John calls the commandment (namely, “the commandment of love ”) an old one, because it was already given by Moses; thus Flacius, Clarius, etc.; the Greek commentators even go beyond that, and refer it at once to this, that it was written from the very beginning in the heart of man ;* the latter Baumgarten-Crusius maintains, and says: “ here, therefore, the ethics of Christianity are represented as the eternal law of reason,’ in which he explains am’ ἀρχῆς “from the beginning of the history of man,” and regards “ye as men” as the subject of eiyere. — ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε] This addition serves for a more particular definition of the preceding; ἡ παλαιά is repeated in order to accentuate this idea more strongly. By εἴχετε it was only stated that the readers were in possession of the commandment; now the apostle defines it more particularly in this respect, that it is the word (not: “the chief substance of the word,” de Wette) which they had heard (comp. ver. 24, iii. 11, iv. 3), which, therefore, was pro- claimed unto them (comp. chap. 1. 2, 3), namely, by the apostolic preaching. The clause is therefore not to be taken, as Baum- garten-Crusius holds, as a correction of γράφω : “not by him was it first given; it is from the beginning of Christianity, the λόγος, ὃν ἠκούσατε, namely, from Christ ;” for ἠκούσατε does not refer directly to γράφω (Bengel), but to εἴχετε." On 1 In the scholia of Matthaei it is thus put: εἰ μὲν ᾿Τουδαίοις ταῦτα γράφει, εἰκότος, σὴν περὶ ἀγάπης ἐντολὴν οὐ καινὴν εἶναι φησί. πάλαι γὰρ αὐτὴν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ἐπηγγείλατο. Ei δὲ οὐκ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ἦσαν, μήποτ᾽ οὖν ἐντολὴ παλαιά... ἐστὶν ἡ κατὰ τὰς φυσικὰς ἐννοίας φιλικὴ διάθεσις, πάντες γὰρ φύσει ἥμερα καὶ κοινωνικὰ ζῶα ὄντες ἀγαπῶσι τοὺς πλησίον.---- Oecumenius and Theophylact combine the two together, holding that the Epistle was addressed to Jewish and Gentile Christians, 2 Wolf assumes a peculiar antithesis between the two sentences: Ratio fortassis aliqua reddi possit, cur ἔχειν et ἀκούειν ax’ ἀρχῆς sibi invicem subjun- gantur. Prius enim ad illos spectaverit, qui ex Judaeis ad Christum conversi erant ; illi enim jam ante praeceptum hoc de amore mutuo ex lege Mosis et prophetis cognitum habebant ; posterius respiciet ex-Gentiles, qui idem inter prima evangelicae doctrinae praecepta acceperant; this amounts, partly, if not altogether, to what the Greek commentators adduce for explanation of the expression vas. The arbitrariness of such an antithesis is self-evident. CHAP. IL 8. 319 the addition am ἀρχῆς (Rec.) after ἠκούσατε, which Ewald regards as genuine, see the critical notes. Ver. 8. πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν x.7.r.] Almost all commenta- tors hold that the ἐντολὴ καινή is the same ἐντολή as was the subject of ver. 7 ; differently Ebrard, who explains as follows: “ With ver. 7 begins a new section which continues to ver. 29, in which the leading thought is the position of the readers to the light as one which was already shining; by ἐντ. παλαιά is meant the clause, chap. 1. 5: ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι; by evr. καινή, on the other hand, the following clause: ἡ σκοτία παράγεται Kal TO φῶς TO ἀληθινὸν ἤδη daiver;' the relative clause 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς κιτιλ. belongs, by apposition, to the following sentence: 67+ ἡ σκοτία x.7.r., and states to what extent the essential true light has already begun to shine, namely, the fact that the light already shines has a double sphere in which it is ἀληθές, 1.6. actually realized, first in Christ, but then also ἐν ὑμῖν, ie. in the Ephesian readers themselves, and equally in all true Christians.” This explana- tion is, however, incorrect ; for—(1) the truth ἡ σκοτία παρά- yeTau x.T.d. can just as little be called an ἐντολή as the sentence ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι (see on ver. 7); (2) the relative clause, if it was to be a preceding apposition to ἡ σκοτία x.7.X., would have had to come after ὅτι ; according to the structure of the verse, 6 must necessarily be connected with what precedes; (3) it is a false idea, that that which the clause ὅτε ἡ σκοτία expresses was actually realized in Christ; the incorrectness of this idea is concealed in Ebrard’s interpretation in this way, no doubt, that he gives to ἐν αὐτῷ a different relation from that which he gives ἐν ὑμῖν, and changes the present παρά- yetas into the perfect. Nor is the opinion that we are to 1 The same view is found in Castellio, Socinus, and Bengel. The latter remarks on ἐντολὴν καινήν : praeceptum novum, quod nobis nunc primum in hae epistola scribitur; and on ὅτι : quod hoc est illud praeceptum, to which he then very strangely adds: amor fratris, ex luce. 2 Ebrard says: ‘‘ The eternally existing light is one which has already appeared ἐν αὐσῷ, in 50 far as in Christ the light objectivized has arisen for the world and has overcome the darkness, and ἐν ὑμῖν in so far as also subjectively to the readers the light of the gospel has arisen, and they also subjectively have been drawn from darkness unto light.” By ἐν ὑμῖν he means, therefore, the readers, in whom, i.e. in whose souls, the transition from darkness to light has taken place ; by ἐν αὐτῷ, however, not Christ, in whom, but the world, for which that has happened objectively, inasmuch as Christ entered as the light into the 320 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. understand by évt. wax. the commandment of walking in light, and by ἐντ. καινή, on the other hand, that of brotherly love (ver. 9), tenable, because these commandments, according to their import, are not two distinct commandments, but one and the same commandment. Still. more unjustifiable is the assumption of S. Schmid, that in ver. 7 the fundamental law of Christianity, namely, justification by faith, but here the commandment of Christian sanctification, is meant; and that of Weiss, that by ἐντολή, ver. 7, is to be understood the evangelical message of salvation, but here the commandment of love. The apostle, having in view here the same com- mandment as in ver. 7, says: “ Again a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in Him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.” The relative clause 6 ἐστιν «.7.d. serves not merely to establish the statement that the commandment is a new one (Socinus, Flacius, Morus, Hornejus, de Wette-Briickner, Liicke, ed. 2 and 3, ed. 1 of this commentary, Erdmann, etc.);! but the apostle thereby describes the commandment, yet not in a material way, so that 6 would be referred to the substance of it (Oecumenius, Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Semler, From- darkness of the world. Quite a different meaning, therefore, is here assigned to ἐν αὐτῷ from that which is given to ἐν ὑμῖν, as the difference in the relation from the antithesis of ‘‘ objective” and ‘‘ subjective” clearly shows.— It is not merely the change of the present παράγεται into the perfect that is the cause of this treatment, for it appears elsewhere in the commentary,—thus on p. 148: ‘‘ that which is true in Christ and in you, that the darkness is past,” etc.; p. 150: ‘similar to the new announcement, that the darkness is past,” ete.; p. 155: **Tt is the truth, that the darkness és past ;”’ against which, on the other hand, παράγεται is correctly explained on p. 159: ‘‘ the darkness is passing by, is ina state of passing away, of disappearing.” 1 For if ¢ ἐστιν κι τ. λ. is, according to the intention of the apostle, to be referred to the idea of the newness of the commandment, he would—first, have given this idea a more independent form than he has given it as a simple attribute of the object ἐντολήν depending on γράφω ; and, secondly, not have given the con- firmation of the statement (that the commandment is a new one) in a sentence which does not so much show the truth of this idea as merely state the sphere in which that statement is true; to which may be added, that the idea so resulting is itself so indistinct, that it requires, in order to be understood, an explanatory circumlocution, such as: ‘‘ that the commandment is a new one has its truth in Christ, inasmuch as it did not exist before Him,” etc. (ed. 1 of this comm.), Besides, an emphasis unwarranted by the context is placed on the idea of the newness of the commandment, especially if it is thought that the following ὅτι again serves to establish the thought expressed in the confirmatory clause (Liicke, de Wette, Briickner). CHAP, IL. 8. ΘΙ mann, Diisterdieck, οὔ), but only in a formal way, as that which is actually fulfilled in Christ and in his readers ; as the commandment in ver. 7 was also only defined in a formal way by ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. ----ὅ ἐστιν... ἐν ὑμῖν is the object belonging to γράφω, and ἐντολὴν καινήν is to be taken as the accusative of more particular definition; this construction of it is found in Ewald, only he explains ἐν αὐτῷ incorrectly by: “in the last-mentioned (in ver. 7) word of God;” most recently it has been accepted by Braune with the interpreta- tion here given. The sense accordingly is: that which is already true, 1.6. fulfilled, in Christ and in you, namely, the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. John xv. 10, where Christ says of Himself: ἐγὼ tas ἐντολὰς Tod πατρός μου τετήρηκα), I write unto you as a new commandment.” With this view it is self-evident that the apostle calls the old commandment a new one only in so far as he writes it anew to them. It is true a different reference has usually been given to καινή, by understanding it either of the constant endurance of the com- mandment of love (Calvin: novum dicit, quod Deus quotidie suggerendo veluti renovat; Joannes negat ejusmodi esse doc- trinam de fratribus diligendis, quae tempore obsolescat: sed perpetuo vigere), or to indicate that this commandment first entered into the world along with Christianity — whether emphasis was put more upon the substance of it (Liicke, de Wette, ed. 1 of this comm.), or upon the mere time of it 1 Diisterdieck, it is true, approves of Knapp’s paraphrase, which agrees with the above explanation: πάλιν (ws) ἐντολὴν καὶν, yp. ὑμῖν τοῦτο ὅ ἔστιν ἀληθές: 2.7.2.3 but, with the idea of a constructio ad sensum, refers δ to the preceding ἐντολήν, so that this forms the object of γράφω, which by the relative clause obtains its more particular definition. In opposition to this construction, de Wette has rightly observed that it has grammatical difficulty. When Diisterdieck, in reply to Liicke’s objection, that with that interpretation it would need to run ἥ ἐστιν ἀληθής, says that it is not the ἐντολή itself as such, but its substance in Christ, etc., that has been fulfilled, Ebrard’s observation is a sufficient answer: ‘‘ That which is required in the ἐντολή is nothing else than just the ἐντολή itself ; the requirement itself is fulfilled in Christ when its substance is fulfilled in Him.” 2 That John places before his readers anew as a commandment that which already has been fulfilled in them, is clearly not more strange than that he declares to them truths of which he himself says that they know them already (comp. ver. 21), Briickner admits that the construction here advocated is simple and clear, but groundlessly thinks that ‘‘ the strangeness of this form of speech” is not mitigated by the reference to ver, 21. Mryer.—1 Joun. x oan THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. (Diisterdieck) ;* but these constructions, not being indicated in the context, are purely forced. — On πάλιν, Erasmus says: et contrarietatem declarat et iterationem; hic autem non repetitionis sed contrarietatis est declaratio; with this inter- pretation almost all commentators agree, referring πάλιν to the idea ἐντ. καινήν ; but an antithetical construction is foreign to the word; it is=“ again, once more,” is to be connected with γράφω, and is explained by the fact that the readers have already heard the commandment, nay, even are already fulfilling it. Liicke and de Wette connect it directly with the verb, but in such a way that even they give to it an antithetical reference.2— ἐστὶν ἀληθές] ἀληθής signifies here the actual reality, as in Acts xii. 9 (see Meyer on this passage). — ἐν αὐτῷ] ἐν is to be retained in its special meaning, not = “ yespectu, in reference to,” nor is it used “of the subject im which something true is to be recognized as true (ver. 3)” (de Wette), for there is no mention here of any knowledge. That by αὐτός here not God (Jachmann), but Christ is to be under- stood, is shown by the context. Socinus incorrectly explains ἐν αὐτῷ = per se ac simpliciter. On the point that ἡμῖν is not to be read, see the critical notes. Grotius unjustifiably understands by ἡμῖν the apostles. — Neander has a wrong conception of the relation of ἐν αὐτῷ and ἐν ὑμῖν when he explains: “it takes place in reference to Christ and in reference to the church, therefore in reference to their mutwal relationship to one another.” — ὅτε ἡ σκοτία x.7.d.] ὅτι 15 not 1 On the basis of the right view of ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ver. 7, we find the nature of the newness of the commandment indicated just in this; this, however, is only the case if the temporal reference is retained in its purity. This Diisterdieck indeed insists on ; but this relation has only force if we regard at the same time the substance of the commandment, as Diisterdieck does. But nothing in the context indicates this new substance, and it is therefore very differently defined by the commentators. 2 Liicke does so when he says: ‘‘ In ver. 8, John continues correctingly thus : Again a new commandment I write unto you.” (In the edition of 1851, Liicke agrees with the usual acceptation: ‘‘Again—in contrast—a new commandment I write unto you;” see ed. 3, p. 249, note 1.)—-De Wette does not expressly give his opinion about σάλιν ; but when he thinks that John should properly have written: ‘‘again a new commandment I call it,” and when he then para- phrases it: ‘‘The commandment of love is an old and long-known one to you ; but (as it is altogether revealed as a new one by Christ) for you who partake in the newness of life it is in an especial manner a new one,” the antithetical reference is clearly brought out by him also. CHAP. IL. 8. oe used declaratively, nor in such a way as to be dependent on ἀληθές (“it is true that the darkness,” etc.), or on ἐντολήν (Castellio, Socinus, Bengel, Ebrard),—to both these views the structure of the verse is opposed,—but causally; this is rightly perceived by most of the commentators; but it is incorrect when they connect it with the immediately preceding 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς «.7.r., for the double-membered clause: ὅτε ἡ σκοτία... φαίνει, being a confirmatory clause, does not stand in a corre- sponding relationship to the thought: 6 ἐστιν ad... . ὑμῖν, which it is intended to confirm.’ By ὅτι «.7.X. the apostle rather states the reason why he writes to them as a new commandment that which is true in Christ and in them (Diisterdieck, Braune); this reason is the already commenced disappearance of darkness and shining of the true light. The contrasted words ἡ σκοτία and τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν are to be taken in ethical sense (Braune);? the former idea cignifies the darkness which consists in error and sin, as it exists outside the fellowship with God; the latter, the light which consists in truth and holiness, as it ς 1 With this connection of the thoughts, the double-membered clause: ὅσι ἡ σκοτία. .. φαίνει, must confirm both ἐστιν aa. ἐν αὐτῷ and also ἐστιν ar. ἐν ὑμῖν. Now, when Liicke makes the apostle to say, as a proof that the commandment to walk in light shows itself in Christ and in his readers as a new one: ‘‘ Not only in Christ Himself (ἐν αὐτῷ) has the true light appeared, but it has also shed itself abroad, dispelling the darkness in the minds of his readers (ἐν ὑμῖν), and is shining in them,” he attributes the thought really expressed by the apostle (1 σκοτία... φαίνει) only to ἐν ὑμῖν; while to ἐν αὐτῷ, on the other hand, he attributes an idea which the apostle has mot expressed. — Briickner says: ‘‘ The ἐν αὐτῷ refers to καὶ τὸ φῶς κι «..., the ἐν ὑμῖν rather to ἡ σκοτία x.7.a.;” but this reference of the one member of the confirmatory clause to the one element of the thought to be confirmed must be regarded as unjustified, although Briickner thinks ‘‘it can easily be imagined that the apostle in the one part of the con- firmation had in view rather the latter, and in the other rather the former part of the clause to be confirmed,” for such a different reference is in no way hinted at; besides, ἤδη is here altogether left out of view. Diisterdieck rightly establishes the proposition that the whole sentence: aané.... ὑμῖν, is to be regarded as confirmed by the whole sentence: ὅς, ἡ cx. ... φαίνει ; but when he then, in interpretation, says: ‘‘ Already the darkness is dispelled by the true light, which shines in truth in Christ and in His believers (in so far, namely, as brotherly love attained its most perfect manifestation in the walk of Christ, and is exercised by believers also),” it is only the second part of the confirmatory clause that is referred by him to ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, but not the first part; and this indeed is quite natural, since in Christ a disappearance of darkness is not imaginable. * It was to be expected that Weiss here also denies to the ideas σκοτία and φῦ; the ethical meaning, and wants to be understood by the former only error, 324 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. proceeds from Christ, who Himself is the true light. It is incorrect to understand here by τὸ φῶς τὸ dX., Christ Him- self (Bengel, Erdmann), as the contrast with ἡ σκοτία shows. ἀληθινός is an expression which is almost confined to the writings of John; outside them it is only found in Luke xvi. 11, 1 Thess. 1. 9, and three times in the Epistle to the Hebrews; it describes the light of which the apostle is speaking as the eternal, essential light, of which the earthly light is merely the transitory reflection; see especially Neander on this passage.— παράγεται is translated by the Vulgate as perfect: quoniam tenebrae transierunt; similarly by Luther: “the darkness is past ;” and Calvin directly says: Praesens tempus loco Praeteriti. This, however, is arbitrary ; the present is to be retained as such; it is used in the same sense as in 1 Cor. vii. 31: παράγει (see Meyer on this passage), so that we must interpret: “the σκοτία is in the state of passing away.” It is unnecessary to take παράγεταε, with Bengel, with whom Sander and Besser agree, as passive (Bengel: non dicit παράγει transit, sed παράγεται traducitur, commutatur, ita ut tandem absorbeatur); it is more natural to regard it as the middle form with intransitive meaning. With the meaning : “is in the state of passing,” corresponds the particle ἤδη with φαίνει, which is not=“now” (Luther), but by which the moment is described in which the darkness is retreating before the light, at which therefore neither has the darkness already completely disappeared, nor is the light completely dominant. Most of the commentators, both the older and more recent (Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette- Briickner, Liicke, Sander, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard), take this as referring to Christianity in general, in so far as by it, as the true light, the old darkness is being ever more and more overcome; but by the word ἤδη the apostle shows that in these words he is looking forward to a future time at which that victory will have been completely won, and which he regards as close at hand (so also Braune), The moment by the latter only the knowledge of God. Weiss himself, however, views them both so that they are of ethical—and not merely theoretical—character; and, moreoyer, as he admits that with the former error sin, and with the latter knowledge holiness, is necessarily connected, it is so much the more arbitrary to allege that John, in the use of these ideas, utterly ignored this necessary connection. CHAP. II. 9-11. Bede) in which he writes this is in his eyes, therefore, no other than that which immediately precedes the second coming of Christ, and which He Himself in ver. 18 calls the ἐσχάτη ὥρα, in which it is of the greater importance for Christians, by keeping the commandment, to show themselves as children of the light. The same train of thought essentially occurs here as afterwards in vv. 15-18 ; compare also the Pauline ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικε, Rom, xiii. 12. Vv. 9--11. Further definition of the life of light as life in love. — Ver. 9. ὁ λέγων] the same form as in ver. 4, to which the structure of the whole verse is very similar. ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι] stands in close relation to what immediately precedes ; although he alone is in the light who lives in fellowship with Christ, and belongs to the church of Christ, yet τὸ φῶς describes neither Christ Himself (Spener, etc.) nor “the church, as the sphere within which the light has operated as illuminating power” (Ebrard). Chap. i. 6, 7 may be compared. — In contrast with καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν is ver. 10, ὁ ἀγαπῶν a6. αὐτοῦ, in which the apostle states the substance of the τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ after the example of Christ. As φῶς and σκοτία, so μισεῖν τ. ad. and ἀγαπᾶν τ. ad. exclude each other; they are tendencies diametrically opposed to one another; human action belongs either to the one or to the other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one falls into that of the other; Bengel: ubi non est amor, odium est: cor non est vacuum. Here also John speaks absolutely, without taking into consideration the imperfect state of the Christian, as is seen in the hesitations between love and hatred. — τὸν ἀδελφόν Grotius interprets: sive Judaeum, sive aliegenam ; fratres omnes in Adamo sumus ; similarly Calov, J. Lange, etc.; by far the greatest number of commentators understand thereby fellow-Christians. Apart from its exact meaning and the wider meaning = brethren of the same nation (Acts xxiii. 1; Heb. vii. 5), ἀδελφός is used in the N. T. generally, in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles 1 Rickli: ‘‘John says this of the time in which they are living, and in which the great work of the Lord had had a wonderful, rapid progress of development. The true Light, the Lord in His perfect manifestation of divine truth, is already shining; . . . already the great morning is dawning for mankind. When the Lord shall return, then shall be the perfect day of God. Towards this mani- festation all believers walk.” 2 326 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. always, to denote Christians; but in many passages it is also=0 ὁ πλησίον or 6 ἕτερος ; thus in Matt. v. 22 ff., vii. 3 ff, xviii. 35; Luke vi. 41 ff.; Jas. iv. 11, 12 Gm Matt. v. 47 it describes our friendly neighbour). In the Gospel of John it is only used in the sense of relationship, except in chap. xx. 17, where Christ calls His μαθηταί “oi ἀδελφοί pov,” and in chap. xxi. 23, where οἱ a6. is a name of Christians. If, therefore, according to the usus loguendi of the N. T., ὁ ἀδελφός may certainly be=6 πλησίον, yet in the Epistles of Jokn, according to chap. ii. 11 (comp. Gospel of John xii. 34, xv. 12; besides, especially with chap. iii. 16, comp. Gospel of John xv. 13; there: ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι ; here: ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ), and according to chap. v. 1 (where the a6. is specifically called a γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ), we must understand by it the Christian brother ; so that John, therefore, is speaking, not of the general love towards men, but of the special relationship of Christians to one another ; comp. the distinction in 2 Pet. i. 7; Gal. vi. 10.— ἕως ἄρτι] “until now,’ refers back to ἤδη, ver. 9; the meaning is: although the darkness is already shining, such an one is nevertheless stil (adhuc) in darkness; on this peculiarly N. T. expression, see Winer, p. 418, VII. p. 439; A. Buttmann, p. 275; there is no reason for supplying “even if he were a long time a Christian” (Ewald). With the ἐν τ. ox. ἐστίν is contrasted, ver. 10: ἐν τῷ φωτὶ μένει; see on this ver. 6.51 That the “exercise of brotherly love is itself a means of strengthening the new life” (Ebrard), is not contained in the idea μένε. Even if the idea of ver. 10— in relation to that of the 9th verse—is brought out more distinctly by μένει, this is much more done by the words: «at σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. σκάνδαλον appears in the N. T. only in the ethical signification =“ offence,” ὁ... that which entices and tempts to sin; in the case of ἐν αὐτῷ, the preposition ἐν is generally either left unnoticed by the commentators (Grotius says, appealing to Ps. cxix.: est 1 Kostlin incorrectly finds the reason why he who loves his brother remains in the light, in this, ‘that the Christian life of the individual requires for its own existence the support of all others.” Of such a support the apostle is not speaking here at all, but the truth of his statement lies rather in this, that love and light are essentially connected with one another, CHAP. II. 9—11. Si metonymia et ἐν abundat. Sensus: ille non impingit) or changed in meaning; de Wette: “ὧν his case (for him) there is no stumbling; comp. John xi. 9 ff.;” similarly Baumgarten- Crusius, Neander, etc.; Liicke even says: “ἐν αὐτῷ can here only signify the outer circle of life,’ because “the σκάνδαλα for the Christian lie in the world, and not in him;” with him Sander agrees. For such changes there is no ground, since in the usage of the word the figure (the snare, or rather the wood that falls in the snare) has quite given place to the thing, and it is therefore unnecessary to say, with Diisterdieck, that “in the expression ἐν αὐτῷ the thing itself penetrates into the otherwise figurative form of speech;” the offence may be outside a man, but it may be 7 him also; comp. Matt. v. 29, 30. The preposition ἐν is here to be retained in its proper meaning (Diisterdieck, Ewald, Braune). The sense is: In him who loves his brother and thus remains in the light, there is nothing which entices him to sin. Some commentators refer σκάνδαλον to the temptation of others to sinning; so Vatablus: nemini offendiculo est; Johannsen: “he gives no offence ;” Ebrard: “there is nothing in them by which they would give offence to the brethren,” etc.; but in the context there is no reference to the influence which the Christian exercises upon others, and if John had had this relationship in his mind, he would certainly have expressed it;! this is decisive also against Braune, who would retain both references. Paulus quite unwarrantably refers ἐν αὐτῷ to τὸ φώς: “in that light nothing is a stumbling-block.” — The beginning of the 11th verse repeats—in a form antithetical to ver. 10— that which was said in ver. 9; but with further continuation of the ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ éaotiv.— The first subordinate clause runs : καὶ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ. The difference of the two clauses does not consist in this, that the representation passes over from the less figurative (ἐστί) to the more figurative (περιπατεῖ) (Liicke); for, on the one hand, περιπατεῖν is so often used of the ethical relationship of man, that it is scarcely any longer found as a figurative expression ; and, on the other 1 When Ebrard finds no obstacle in the thought that he who loves his brother does not by any act give offence to others, he should find no obstacle in the thought that there is nothing in him which becomes an offence to himself. 328 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. hand, the connection by καί shows that there is a difference of idea between the two expressions; this has been correctly thus described by Grotius: priori membro affectus (or better : habitus, Sander), altero actus denotatur (similarly de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Braune). Both: the being (the con- dition) and the doing (the result) of the unloving one belong to darkness; comp. Gal. v. 25. The second subordinate clause: Kal οὐκ οἷδε ποῦ ὑπάγει, is closely connected with περιπατεῖ; ποῦ, properly a particle of rest, is in the N. T. frequently connected with verbs of motion; comp. John vil. (35, xx. 2, 13; Heb. xi. 8; in the Gospel of John especially, as here, with ὑπάγειν ; see John iii. 8, viii. 14, ete.; in John xii. 35 it runs exactly as here: ὃ περυπατῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ οὐκ οἷδε ποῦ ὑπάγει. The translation: “where he is going,” is false, for ὑπάγειν is not: “to go,” but: “to go to.” Τὸ the unloving one, the goal whither he is going on his dark way, and therefore the direction of his way, is unknown. By this goal it is not exactly the final goal, 1.6. condemnation (Cyprian: it nescius in gehennam, ignarus et caecus prae- cipitatur in poenam), that is to be thought of, for the subject according to the context is not punishment; but by the figurative expression the apostle wants to bring out that the unloving one, not knowing whither, follows the impulse of his own selfish desire: he does not know what he is doing, and whither it tends. As a confirmation of this /ast idea, the apostle further adds: ὅτε ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ; τυφλοῦν does not mean “to darken,’ but “to make blind, to blind ;” this idea is to be retained, and is not, with Liicke and others, to be enfeebled by an interpolated “ tam- quam, as” (“in the darkness they are as if blind”), by which the clause loses its meaning; the apostle wants to bring out _ that, inasmuch as the unloving one walks in the darkness, the sight of his eyes is taken from him by this darkness, so that he does not know, etc. He who lives in sin is blinded by sin, and therefore does not know whither his sin is leading him; comp. John xii. 40 and 2 Cor. iv. 4. Vv. 12-14. After the apostle has depicted the Christian life in its essential features, he passes on to exhortation. To this these verses form the introduction, in which the apostle assures his readers that their Christianity is the ground of his CHAP. II. 12—14. 329 writing. The motive of this, which explains also the form of expression, is the earnest longing which inspires the apostle, that his readers may take home to themselves the following exhortation. — The apostle addresses them under four different names: texvia and παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι. By the two latter names they are distinguished according to the two cor- responding degrees of age ;* in the case of πατέρες the proper meaning is not to be strictly retained, but in contrast to νεανίσκοι it is = γέροντες or πρεσβύτεροι, the members of the church who are already in advanced age; thus Erasmus, Calvin, Socinus, Morus, Carpzov, Lange, Paulus, de Wette- Briickner, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc. — The νεανίσκοι are the younger members of the church; Calvin: tametsi diminutivo utitur, non tamen dubium est, quin sermonem ad omnes dirigat, qui sunt in aetatis flore et statu. The view of Augustine is to be rejected, that under the three names the same persons are addressed, whom the apostle only designates differently in different aspects: jilzoli, quia baptismo neonati sunt; patres, quia Christum patrem et antiquum dierum agnoscunt ; adolescentes, quia fortes sunt et validi. So also is the opinion that the apostle has in view, not the difference in age, but the difference in the degree, or even in the length of existence of Christian life; a Lapide: triplici hoc aetatis gradu triplicem Christianorum in virtute gradum et quasi aetatum repraesentat; ρθη enim repraesentant incipientes et neophytos; juvenes repraesentant proficientes ; senes per- fectos ; similarly Clemens, Oecumenius, further Gagneius, Cajetanus, Russmeyer, Grotius,’ etc. Some commentators (as Erasmus, Socinus, J. Lange, Myrberg) also refer the two expressions: τεκνία (ver. 12) and παιδία (ver. 13), to the differ- ence of age, and understand by them children, in the proper sense of the word; but more prevalent is the view that this is true of παιδία only, and that texvéa, on the other hand, is to be regarded as a form of address to all Christians ; Calvin: haec (namely, ver. 12) adhuc generalis est sententia, mox speciales 1 That “the distinction between church leaders and church members appears in the distinction between old and young” (Hilgenfeld), is in no way suggested. * Grotius: Partitur Christianos in tres classes, quae discrimina non secundum aetatem, sed secundum gradus diversos ejus profectus, qui in Christo est, intel. ligi debent, cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 11, 12; Heb. v. 13; Eph. iv. 18, 14. 330 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. sententias accomodabit singulis aetatibus; similarly Luther, Beza, Calov, Wolf, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Neander, Besser, Ebrard, ete. With the first view there arises a wrong succession, namely: children, fathers, young men, instead of: children, young men, fathers, or: fathers, young men, children ; and, moreover, since texvia is in the Epistle frequently the form of address to all readers, and not only with, but also without μου (see on ver. 1), so it is to be taken here also. Equally, however, by παιδία the apostle addresses all readers, as Liicke, de Wette-Briickner, Diisterdieck, Gerlach, Erdmann, Ewald, Braune rightly interpret. If we read before παιδία, with the Receptus: γράφω ὑμῖν, there certainly results, if παιδία is taken as alluding to children, a more accurate suc- cession: fathers, young men, ‘children; but (1) according to almost all authorities we must read, not γράφω, but ἔγραψα, and the former reading can only be explained in this way, that παιδία was understood in its proper sense, and it was thought that this clause must be brought into the closest connection with the preceding; (2) then in the repetition of the same succession in ver. 14 one member of it is wanting, as the children are not mentioned again; and (3) in ver. 18 παιδία is used as a form of address in reference to all readers ; comp. John xxi. 5. Against the two last reasons it might indeed be alleged, with Bengel, Sander, and Besser, that from ver. 14 to ver. 17 is still intended for the νεανίσκοις, and that then in ver. 18 the address to the children comes in, and that the sequel as far as ver. 27 refers to them. But against this construction is—(1) the dissimilarity in the form of the sentences that thereby results; (2) the absence of an exhorta- tion addressed to the fathers; (3) the unsuitable reference of the warning against false teachers specially to the children, with the additional remark: οἴδατε πάντα, ver. 20, and οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε, ἵνα τὶς διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς, even though the warning against false teachers in chap. iv. 1 ff. is referred without distinction to all readers; and finally, (4) the close connection of ver. 17 and ver. 18: ὁ κόσμος παράγεται (comp. ver. 8: ἡ σκοτία παράγεται), and ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί. --- According to the true construction of the sentences, they fall into two groups; in each group first all Christians, and then specially the older and the younger members of the church, are CHAP. II. 12-14. 591 addressed :- the correctness of this construction is shown also by this, that in reference to πατέρες, and equally to νεανίσκοι, in both groups the same thing is expressed, but in reference to all there are different statements. The arbitrary conjecture of Calvin (with whom Wall agrees), that both the clauses of ver. 14 are spurious, and interpolated temere by ignorant readers, requires no refutation. — The interchange of γράφω with the aorist ἔγραψα is peculiar, and is not to be explained by saying that ἔγραψα points to another writing of the apostle, whether it be the Gospel (Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schott, Ebrard, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, ὃ 336; Braune*), or even an earlier Epistle (Michaelis) ; both expressions rather refer, as most of the commentators have recognised, to this Epistle ; not, however, to the same thing, as some commentators sup- pose; thus Bengel, who regards the two expressions as syno- nymous, explains: verbo scribendi ex praesenti in praeterito transposito innuit commonitionem firmissimam, which cannot be grammatically justified ;* and Diisterdieck, who thinks that the “ different import of the present and of the aorist can only be sought for in the representation of the writing itself; that both times the apostle means the whole Epistle lying before him ; that by γράφω he represents himself in the immediately present act of writing, and by ἔγραψα, on the other hand, his readers, who have received the completed Epistle ;” opposed to this, however, is the fact that such a change of the mere form of representation would certainly be rather trifling. The 1 Even Ebrard regards the second triad as beginning with παιδία, although he understands by it children in age; there is a glaring inconsistency in this construction. 2 To this view the following reasons are. opposed :—1. That if the apostle in ἔγραψα had another writing in view than in γράφω, he would have expressed this distinctly ; 2. That thereby the train of thought of the Epistle is unduly inter- rupted, since the assertion of the reason why he had written the Gospel is here introduced without any connecting link ; 3. That then the emphasis contained in the threefold repetition of ἔγραψα remains inexplicable, whereas it is perfectly justifiable if the reference to something written in this Epistle is intended to stimulate the readers more earnestly to attend to the following exhortation. The view of Ebrard, that ‘‘ while the Epistle plainly could only be understood by grown people,” the Gospel ‘‘is even for children (παιδία) enjoyable and pleasing food,” scarcely any one will endorse ; although even Braune passes this over in silence. 3 When Buttmann (p. 172) thinks that the change of tense is entirely occasioned by the need for variation in a sixfold repetition of the verb, it may be observed against this, that then ver. 14a would be nothing but a repetition of ver. 13a. 332 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ἔγραψα must be referred to something else than the preced- ing γράφω; yet it is not, with Neander and Erdmann)! to be referred to that which is expressed in the clauses beginning with γράφω ; for, on the one hand, the clauses beginning with ἔγραψα have not the form of confirmation, and, on the other hand, there is no real cause apparent for the addition of such a confirmation ; it seems more appropriate when Rickli thinks that γράφω refers to what follows, and ἔγραψα to what pre- cedes ;” but opposed to this is the fact that ἔγραψα would then stand more naturally before γράφω. The correct view has been taken by de Wette, Briickner, and Ewald, who refer ἔγραψα to what was already written, and γράφω to the immediate act of writing, and hence to the Epistle in general; taking this view, it is quite in order for John to write γράφω first, and that he then refers specially by ἔγραψα to what has been already written is explained in this way, that this contains the prin- cipal grounds for the following exhortations and amplifications.’ —JIn each part a clause beginning with ὅτε follows the address; this ὅτε is not objective or declarative = “that” (Socinus, Lange, Russmeyer, Bengel, Paulus, Johannsen, Nean- der, Hilgenfeld, etc.), but causal: “because” (Calvin, Beza, saumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, de Wette- Briickner, Gerlach, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard,* etc.). The apostle does not ' Neander explains: ‘* As John had said : ‘I write unto you,’ so now he resumes confirmingly what has just been written, and says: “1 have written unto you,’ as if he would say: It is agreed. This that I am now writing to you, I have now written, it is settled, I have nothing else to say to you, this you must always allow to be said to you.” Erdmann: Pertinet hoc (Zypaya) neque ad superiorem epistolam, neque ad quidquam in hae ep. supra dictum, sed ad ea, quae modo verbo γράφω notata sunt. Similarly Paulus, who compares with this the expres- sion: ‘‘ His majesty decrees and has decreed.” 2 Liicke, following Rickli, thought that with the first part (ὅτι ἀφέωντα x.7.2.) corresponded the section ii. 15-17 in what follows, and i. 5-7 in what precedes ; with the second part (ὅτι ἐγνώκατε x.¢.4.), in the former ii. 18-27, and in the latter i. 8-ii. 2; and with the third part (ὅτι νενικήκατε x.7.a.), in the former ii. 28-iii. 22, and in the latter ii. 3-11; but he afterwards gave up this artificial, cruciform construction of the clauses, and explained the γράφω with ἔγραψα as belonging to the rhetoric of the author. See 3d ed. p. 265, note. 3 It is only if the signification of the section chap. i. 5-ii. 11 for the essentially hortatory Epistle is ignored that it can be said, with Ebrard and Braune, that with this view the antithesis of γράφω and ἔγραψα becomes a mere repetition or play upon words. ‘ Luther varies curiously in his translation ; in ver. 12 he translates ὅτε: “*that,” in ver, 13 ‘‘ for,” and in ver. 14 again ‘‘ that.” Sander thinks that in CHAP, II. 12-14. 900 want to say what he is writing, but why he is writing to them; comp. especially ver. 20, also vv. 21, 27, 111. 5, 14, 15, v. 18—20. The particular Christian experiences of his readers form the fundamental presuppositions of the Epistle; it is not anything new that the apostle declares unto them, but he reminds them of what they know, so that they may take it more seriously to heart.— The first thing that the apostle, addressing all, reminds them of is: ὅτε ἀφέωνταν ὑμῖν ai ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. The forgiveness of sins is the basis of all Christian life; therefore this 15 put first. — On the form used here, the perfect passive ἀφέωνται, see Butt- mann, Ausf. gr. Gr. § 97, Anmerk. 3, and ὃ 108, note 1; and Winer, p. 74, VIL. p. 77. The Vulgate and Luther incorrectly translated it as if it were the present: “are forgiven” (simi- larly Rickli and others; Paulus strangely interprets, deriving it from ad’ ἑάω -- ἀφ᾽ ἑῶνταιυ, dimittuntur).— διά with the accusative is not = “through” (this meaning, as is well known, it has only with the genitive, comp. Acts x. 43: ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν λαβεῖν διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ), but=“for the sake of ;” αὐτοῦ -- Χριστοῦ, not = Θεοῦ (Socinus, Paulus). According to most of the commentators, διὰ τ. ὄν. αὐτοῦ refers to the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins, and τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ signifies Christ Himself; thus Diister- dieck: “Christ who is what His name signifies;”* but this is contrary to the Biblical wsus loguendi; if by διά Christ is referred to as the author of salvation, the prepo- sition is always construed with the genitive; by διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, therefore, it is the subjective ground of forgiveness that is stated (de Wette-Briickner, Braune), in this sense: because His name is in you, 1.6. because ye believe on His name (comp. ver. 23: πιστεύειν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). The name is therefore not regarded as empty, but as the form vy. 14and 18 ὅτι is used causatively, but that in ver. 12 both ‘‘because” and ‘‘that” are contained in ὅτι. Erdmann takes ὅτι in the first three sentences objectively, but he leaves it undecided whether in the last three sentences it is to be taken objectively or causaily. 1 Similarly Sander: ‘‘ God forgives our sins for the sake of the offering which Christ made ; both of these—the person and work of Christ—are His name, for the sake of which we receive forgiveness.” Besser: ‘‘for the sake of all that Christ is, from the manger to the throne.” Ewald: ‘‘ because Christ is and is called Christ.” 332 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIIN. which includes the contents and reveals them; so that the subjective ground embraces in itself the objective.— In the second group it is said, in regard to the readers of the Epistle there called παιδία: yp. ὑμῖν... ὅτε ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα. By ὁ πατήρ we are not to understand, with Hornejus, Christ, inasmuch as believers per fidem in nomen ejus renati sunt, for such a designation of Christ has the constant wsus loquendi of Scripture against it, but God; for the name ὁ πατήρ is used here without any more particular definition, with clear reference to παιδία, and so God is here so called, not merely on account of His relationship to Christ, but equally on account of His relationship to those who, by faith in Christ, have obtained the forgiveness of their sins, and are thereby placed in the relationship of children to God. From this it is clear also how exactly ὅτε ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν ai ἁμαρτίαι and ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα correspond with one another. But in the fact that John ascribes to the believers both of these, he testifies to them that they are in possession of the fulness of divine peace and of divine truth. — In regard to the πατέρες, the apostle brings out the same thing in both groups, vv. 13 and 14: ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. Τῇ the forgiveness of sins and the knowledge of God are common to all, the knowledge of Him who is ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is specially appropriate to the older members of the church. When some com- mentators, as a Lapide, Grotius, (novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum ; Dan. vil. 9, xiii. 22), and others, understand by ὁ am ἀρχῆς God, they ignore the deeper connection which exists between the particular ideas; ὁ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is Christ, but not so called because He is the author of Christianity (Socinus: novi foederis et evangelii patefacti primum initium ; Semler: qui inde ab initio auctor fuit hujus melioris religionis), but because He is from all eternity ; ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is used in the same sense as in chap. i. 1. John brings out by this designa- tion of Christ the truth that Christ is subject of their know- ledge in the quality of His being herein mentioned; it is therefore incorrect to understand ἐγνώκατε of the personal knowledge of Him who was manifest in the flesh (Bengel, Schoettgen, etc.); the word has rather the same meaning as in ver. 3... John ascribes this knowledge to the fathers, 1 Neander: ‘‘A knowledge of Christ as the One who is from the beginning, CHAP, 11. 12-14. oue because he might with justice assume that they had not contented themselves with a superficial knowledge of Christ in His appearance according to the sense, but had looked more deeply into the eternal nature of the Lord.— In regard to the young men, it is said in both groups: ὅτι νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν ; not as if the same were not true also of the older members of the church, but John attributes this eminently to the young men, because ¢hey—in accordance with their age— had just recently obtained this victory, and their care there- fore must be specially this, not to lose again what had been lately won. That 6 πονηρός is the devil (comp. Matt. xiii. 19, 38, 39; Eph. vi. 16; 1 John iii. 12, v. 18, 19) the com- mentators have rightly recognised.' Carpzov suitably says: Viris fortibus et robustis tribuiter supra fortissimum et robustissimum victoria. In the second group some further subordinate clauses precede that word, which state the con- ditions under which the young men have attained their ‘victory: ὅτε ἰσχυροί ἐστε; ἰσχυροί, “strong in spirit,’ with special reference to the fight, comp. Heb. xi. 34; Luke xi. 21; Matt. xii. 29 (Diisterdieck); here also ὅτι is “ because,’ not: “that,” thus: “because ye are strong,’ not: “that ye are to be strong” (Paulus). — This conquering power of the young men is not their “own moral strength” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the effect of the Word of God; therefore John adds: καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, and only then brings in καὶ νενικήκατε «.T.X%.— The individual sentences are simply placed side by side in order to let each of them appear the more strongly in its own meaning. The train of thought, however, is this, that their strength has its ground in the Word of God, which is permanent in them (μένει), and that it is in this power that they have attained the victory.” This which results from the deeper communion with the personality of Christ. This is something else than the statement of a certain formula about the person of Christ.” 1 Even Semler admits this, but then observes: Est usitata Judaeorum descriptio, quae gravium peccatorum et flagitiorum magistrum diabolum designat, quam descriptionem non opus est ut Christiani retineant, quum non sint ex Judaeis. * Weiss groundlessly finds in what is said above an incorrect expression, and thinks that not the abiding, but the being, of the Word of God in them is the ground of their strength ; for to the Apostle John the being is really this only when it is a firm and abiding existence. 336 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. relation is correctly stated by Grotius, who explains the first καί by quia, the second by ob id. —o λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is not =Christ, but the word proceeding from God, 1.6. the Gospel, of which the personal Christ is no doubt the substance. Vy. 15-17. A warning against love of the world, which is directed neither specially to the children (Oecumenius: ἐπτόηται yap ἀεὶ τὰ παιδία περὶ TO φαινόμενον ἡδύ), nor specially to the young men (Bengel, Semler, Besser), but to all (Bede: omnibus haec generaliter ecclesiae filiis scribit). Ver. 15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον] The meaning of ἀγαπᾶν depends on that of the idea κόσμος. --- κόσμος is with John eminently an ethical conception = mankind, fallen away from God, and of hostile disposition towards Him, together with all that it lives for and has made its own; comp. on Jas. i. 27, iv. 4 (similarly Gerlach, Besser, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune’). The explanations that deviate from this are divided into three leading classes—(1) Those in which κόσμος is regarded as a total number of men indeed, but in a limited way; either = “the heathen world” (Lange), or more indefi- nitely: “the mass of common men” (Oecumenius : ὁ συρφετὸς ὄχλος, ὃς οὐ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχει ἀγάπην ἐν ἑαυτῷ ; Calovius: homines dediti rebus hujus mundi), or “the greater part of men” (Grotius: humanum genus, secundum partem majorem, quae in malis actionibus versatur) ; Storr limits the idea here “to that part of the world which the antichristians con- stituted.” (2) Those which understand κόσμος not of the human world itself, but of the evil dwelling in it; so says the Scholiast: κόσμον τὴν κοσμικὴν φιληδονίαν καὶ διάχυσιν λέγει, ἧς ἐστὶν ἄρχων ὁ διάβολος : Luther: “the world, ie. godlessness itself, through which a man has not the right use of the creatures ;” to this class belong also the explanations of Calvin, Morus, S. Schmid, Semler ;? but in this abstract sense 1 It might not be incorrect to suppose that John, when he here and after- wards in his Epistle places the κόσμος in sharp contrast with believers, specially understands the sum-total of those who, as the light has come into the world, love the darkness rather than light (Gospel of John iii. 13), and therefore not unsaved humanity as such, but those of mankind who resist salvation, while by ὅλος ὁ κόσμος (ii, 2) the whole human race, as needing salvation, is to be understood. ? Calvin ; Mundi nomine intellige, quicquid ad praesentem vitam spectat, ubi separatur a regno Dei et spe vitae aeternae. Ita in se comprehendit omne genus CHAP. II. 15. SOF the word never appears elsewhere; and besides, taking this view, difiiculties appear in the sequel which can only be over- come by arbitrary interpretations. (3) Those explanations in which κόσμος is regarded as the total of perishable (actual) things ; these things being regarded as purely physical, there lies in the idea κόσμος, in and by itself, no ethical meaning, but this appears only through the ἀγαπᾷν which is connected with it; the κόσμος as a creature of God is in itself good and irreproachable, but the love to the κόσμος, through which man centres his affections on it, and makes it the single aim of his activity, is to be blamed, because amid all association with earthly things it is not they, but God, that must be loved; thus there results for the command: μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, certainly an appropriate idea; but what follows in vv. 16 and 17 has induced almost all commentators who accept this view to give, nevertheless, to the idea κόσμος itself, more or less distinctly, an ethical reference; thus Liicke indeed says: “ὁ κόσμος is, as the sum total of the temporal and sensuous, in contrast (!) to the πνεῦμα, always only the objective sphere of evil, 19. to which it tends as ethical direction and disposition,” but immediately afterwards he explains the same idea “as the sum total of all sensuous appearances, which excite the desire of the senses ;” still more definitely de Wette says: “the sum total of that which attracts desire, the temporal, sensuous, earthly—regarded in contrast with God ;” but this connection of the ethical reference with the idea of actual things is itself rather unsuitable; not in the things, but in man himself, lies the cause of the seductive charm which things exercise upon him; besides, it is not possible to retain this conception of the word without modification to the end of the 17th verse." It is true some corruptelae et malorum omnium abyssum. Morus explains κόσμος by : malum morale ; S. Schmid by : corruptio peccaminosa ; Semler by: vulgata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas unice appetentium. Here may be enumerated also the interpretation of Erdmann : totus complexus et ambitus mali, quatenus hoc non solum toti generi humano, verum etiam propter hominum a Deo defectionem omnibus rebus humanis totique rerum naturae inhaeret. 1 Thus Liicke finds himself compelled in the case of rz» ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ to make an abstraction of the things themselves, and to understand thereby their ethical reference ; and here results the certainly unjustifiable thought that this ethical reference of things has its origin in the things themselves (ἐκ rod κόσμου). Still more decidedly, de Wette says that in the words ix τοῦ κόσμον ἔστί, ver. 16, Meyer.—1 Joun. oe Y 338 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. commentators’ distinctly say that John here makes a sort of play upon the word, but such an assumption does too much violence to the clearness and certainty of the thought for us to approve of it. The right view, therefore, is to take ὁ κόσμος here in the same sense that the word prevailingly has throughout John’s works, so that it signifies the world lying ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ: This κόσμος, this is the meaning of the apostle’s warning, is not to be the object of the ἀγάπη of believers. From this it follows that ἀγαπᾷν here means neither “to love too much,” nor “to love with unhallowed sense,” but love in the strictest sense of the word, consisting in a life of inner fellowship.? —pndé τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] As κόσμος is an ethical idea, natural objects as such cannot be meant by τὰ ἐν τ. x., but only these in so far as they are taken by the ungodly world into its service; or better, the apparently good things which the world pursues, or with which it delights itself, and which therefore belong to it, as riches, honour, power, human wisdom, and such like. Ebrard erroneously understands thereby “the different kinds of sinful impulse, thought, and action, eg. avarice, ambition, sensuaiity, and such like,” for either of these is plainly a love (although a false, unholy love) which cannot itself again be regarded as the object of love.—éav τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν κ.τ.λ.] By this sentence the apostle confirms the previous exhorta- tion, expressing the incongruity of love to the κόσμος with the ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός; Bede: Unum cor duos tam sibi ‘*6 χόσμος is not regarded as the sum total of earthly things, but as the sensuous life alienated from God, or as the sum total of worldly men who enjoy this ;” somewhat differently Briickner: ‘‘that the sum total of earthly evil, of the κόσμος, is here regarded rather of real things, is clear from the subordinate clause μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ x. ; in ver. 16 the personal aspect prevails.” Neander, on ver. 16, equally deviates from the explanation which he had given of ver. 15 ; in the latter he regards ὁ κόσμος as ‘‘the world and earthly things,” but in the former as ‘‘ the predominating tendency of the soul to the world, the growing worldliness of the soul, which blends itself with the world.” 1Thus a Lapide says (after he has assigned to the word three meanings, namely (1) homines mundani, in his proprie est concupiscentia ; (2) orbis sub- lunaris, in hoc mundo proprie et formaliter non est concupiscentia ; sed in eo est concupiscentia materialis i. e, objectum concupiscibile ; (3) ipsa mundana vita vel concupiscentia in genere) : omnibus hisce modis mundus hic accipi potest et Johannes nunc ad unum, nune ad alterum respicit ; dudit enim in voce mundus. * Liicke groundlessly thinks the idea of love must necessarily be weakened to that of ‘‘mere longing for,” if by κόσμος the human world is understood. CHAP. II. 16. 339 adversarios amores non capit. By ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός is to be understood neither the love of God to us (Luther IL, Calovius), nor the charitas quam Pater praescribit (Socinus) ; but, as by far the most of commentators (Bede, Beza, Grotius, Vatablus, Spener, etc., and all the modern commentators, even Ebrard, despite his erroneous interpretation of ver. 5), interpret, Jove to God.'—If πατρός is the correct reading, then the name Father is here to be explained from the filial relationship of Christians to God, and points to their duty not to love the world, but God.— Between the two sorts of ἀγάπη there is the same exclusive contrast as between the Θεῷ δουλεύειν and μαμωνᾷ δουλεύειν, Matt. vi. 24. Compare also Jas. iv. 4: ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν. Ver. 16. Confirmation of the preceding thought that love to the world is inconsistent with love to God. — ὅτε πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] Bede incorrectly explains the neuter here (as it certainly does appear elsewhere in John) as masculine: omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupiscentiam; most commentators regard the expression as identical with the foregoing τὰ ἐν TO κόσμῳ ; even Diisterdieck, who, in reference to the following ἡ ἐπιθυμία x.7.X., thinks that a “ change occurs from the representation of the objects of the love of the world to the subjective desire itself and its actual manifestations.” But even apart from the fact that the assumption of such a change in the form is only a makeshift, the expression of the apostle himself is opposed to this; for had he not meant by πᾶν τὸ ἐν τ. κ. Something else than by τὰ ἐν τῷ κ., he would have put the neuter plural here also. Besides, it must not be overlooked why the following: ἡ ἐπιθυμία x.7.r. could not be the apposition stating the sense of πᾶν τ. ἐν τ. x. (Frommann, p. 269).? Accordingly, the apostle means by this expression : all that forms the contents, 6.6. the substance of the κόσμος ; its inner life, which animates it (Braune); in what this consists, the following words state. ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς «.7.r.| Although the ideas ἐπιθυμία and ἀλαζονεία in them- 1 A combination of both interpretations : amor patris erga suos et filialis erga patrem (Bengel), is clearly unjustifiable. 2 According to Ebrard, πᾶν τὸ ἐν τ. x, is a resumption of τὰ ἐν r. x, ; as, how- ever, he understands by it various kinds of conduct, etc., that idea is rightly interpreted by him. Myrberg agrees with the interpretation given above. 340 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. selves denote a subjective disposition of man, yet several commentators think that here not this, but the objective things are meant, to which that subjective disposition is directed (Bengel, Russmeyer, Lange, Ewald), or that the other- wise subjective idea disappears into the objective (de Wette), or at least that both the subjective and the objective are to be thought of together (Lorinus, Briickner). But with the correct conception of the ideas κόσμος and πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ there is no apparent reason for such an arbitrary explanation, by which violence is done to the words of the apostle. — 1 ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός] The genitive is here not the genitive of the object, but, as is the case with ἐπιθυμία * always in the N.-T. (except 2 Pet. i. 10; on Eph. iv. 22 comp. Meyer on this passage), the genitive of the subject, hence not: “the desire directed towards the flesh,” but: “the desire which the flesh, ae. the corrupted sensual nature of man, cherishes, or which is peculiar to the flesh ;” comp. Gal. v.17: ἡ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ. -- Ebrard interprets, describing the genitive as that “of quality and reference,” for which he wrongly appeals to Eph. iv. 22, 2 Pet. ii. 10: “the desire which occurs in the sphere of the flesh ;” the apostle scarcely conceived the idea so indefinitely. The idea may be taken in a broader or in a narrower sense; the first view in Liicke (*fleshly, sensuous desire in general, in contrast to πνεύματι περιπατεῖν and ἄγεσθαι; comp. Eph. ii. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 11”), de Wette, Neander, Diisterdieck ; in the second, the desire of sensuality and drunkenness is specially understood; Augustine: desiderium earum rerwn, quae pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et caetera hujusmodi; similarly Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, etc.; Briickner limits the idea to “the lust of the flesh in the narrower sense ;” Gerlach specially to every sort of pursuit of enjoyment ;° and Ebrard to “ secual enjoyments.”*® The right explanation can be found 110 is arbitrary for Ebrard to say: ἐσιδυμία is here—as in John viii. 445 tom. vii. 8; Gal. v. 16, ete.—‘‘ that which one lusts after,” which indeed he again cancels by translating the word by ‘‘ lust.” 2 Even Bengel takes the expression (while, however, he understands it of the oljective things) in a narrower sense : ea quibus pascuntur sensus, qui appellantur Irvitivi: gustus et tactus. * This explanation results for Ebrard from the fact that he takes σάρξ here= σῶμα, and then describes the idea ‘‘ sensual” as identical with ‘‘ sexual” (1). CHAP. 11. 16. ey El only on the consideration of the following expression. — καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] 1... “ the desire that is inherent in the eyes, that is peculiar to them ;” the expression is explained in this way, that the desire of seeing something is attributed to the sense of sight 10561 This idea also is understood in a broader and in a narrower sense. As Liicke calls the eyes “as it were the principal gates of sensual desire for the external world,’ he identifies this idea with the preceding one; de Wette does the same, interpreting it (in objective aspect): “what the eyes see, and by what sensual desire is excited.” The connection by καί, however, which is further followed by a second καί, shows that the two ideas are to be definitely distinguished. Accordingly, most commentators justly regard ἐπιθ. τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν as the description of a special sort of ἐπιθυμία ; thus (against de Wette) Briickner in subjective and objective view: “the lust of the eyes, and, at the same time, that in which, as sensuous and earthly, the eyes delight.” Two different interpretations are found with a more exact definition. Very many commentators, as Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Hornejus, Estius, Lorinus, Wolf, Clarius, Paulus, Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, etc.’ hold, though with some modifications, the expression to be sub- stantially synonymous with πλεονεξία, avaritia. On behalf of this interpretation, appeal is made principally to several passages of the O. T., and especially to Eccles. iv. 8, v. 10, Prov. xxii. 5, xxvii. 20; but erroneously, for even thougl: the eye of the covetous or avaricious man looks with pleasure on his treasures, and eagerly looks out for new ones, still the possession or acquirement of wealth is to him the chief thing ; the striving for it, however, is not expressed by the phrase : ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. Still less justifiable is the explana- tion of Ebrard, who partly agrees with those commentators, but regards the idea of “avarice” as too narrow; and, with an appeal to passages such as Ps. xvii. 11, liv. 9, xci 8, xcii. 12, Prov. vi. 17, ete., maintains that by ἡ ἐπιθ. τ. of@. is meant “the whole sphere of the desires of selfishness, envy, and 1 Eprard strangely thinks that in this view the genitive ὀφθαλμῶν is regarded as objective genitive = ‘‘ the desire for eyes, i.e. for enjoyment of the eyes.” ? Sander also explains it of avarice, but would not exclude the curiositas in spectaculis, etc., regarding this, however, as merely collateral. 342 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. avarice, of hatred and revenge (!).” Other commentators, on the contrary, retain the reference to the pleasure of mere sight, but limit this too much to dramatic performances, ete. ; thus Augustine: omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris ; similarly Neander and others. Such a limitation, however, is arbitrary ; accordingly, others refer the expression to other objects of sight, thus Calvin: tam libidinosos conspectus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quae in pompis et inani splendore vagatur; but it is more correct to take the reference to these things in a quite general way, and, with Spener, to interpret: “all sinful desire by which we seek delight in the seeing itself” (so also Braune); besides, it is to be observed that ἡ ἐπιθυμία τ. ὀφθ. is not the desire for wealth, ete., which is excited by the sight (Rickli and others’), but the desire of seeing unseemly things, and the sinful pleasure which the sight of them affords.” Thus, this idea is quite exclusive of the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός; if the latter is taken quite generally, then the lust of the eyes is a particular species of it, which the apostle specially mentions in order to meet the idea that the desire of seeing anything can have nothing sinful in it. But, having regard to the simple juxtaposition of the ideas by καί, it is more correct to suppose that John conceived the ἐπιθ. τῆς σαρκός not in that general sense, but in the particular sense of the “lust for wealth and immoderate enjoyment,” so that the two ideas stand to one another in the relation not of subordination, but of co-ordina- tion, both being subordinate to the general idea of ἐπιθυμία. — καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου] ἀλαζονεία is usually translated by superbia, ambitio (Socinus: ambitio in honoribus quaerendis ac sectandis), and by similar words, and thereby is understood ambition, together with the pride and haughty contempt for others which are frequently associated with it ;* thus Cyril 1 Rickli interprets: ‘‘ the low, sensual style of thought, in so far as this is excited and fostered by the sight.” Diisterdieck understands by it specially covetousness and avarice; but at the same time observes that every sort of desire may be excited by the eye. * Bengel extends the idea beyond the limit which lies in the expression itself, when he explains: ea, quibus tenentur sensus investigativi: oculus, sive visus, auditus et olfactus. 3 Calvin: fastus aut superbia, cui conjuncta est ambitio, jactantia, aliorum contemptus, coecus amor sui, praeceps confidentia. CHAP. II. 16. 343 interprets (Homil. Pasch. xxvii.): ἀλαζονείαν τ. B. φησὶ τῶν ἀξιωμάτων ὑπεροχὴν καὶ TO ἠρμένον ὕψος κατά ye τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν. Thereby, however, its peculiar meaning is not assigned to the word. In the N. Τὶ ἀλαζονεία only appears in Jas. iv. 16 (in the plural); the adjective ἀλάζων in Rom. i. 30 and 2 Tim. ii. 2, in close connection with ὑπερήφανος, from which, however, it does not follow that the idea of ambition, thirst for glory, etc., is contained in it, but only that the ada. is related to ὑπερηφανία; in James is meant thereby—according to the context—the haughtiness which overlooks the wneertainty of earthly happiness, and ostentatiously relies on its permanence. In the same sense = ostentatious pride in the possession, whether real or pretended, of earthly good things, such as happiness, power, knowledge, etc., the word appears also in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp, Waisd.. v; 8,.xvu.. 73,2 Macc. ix..8, xv ὃς In classical Greek ἀλαζονεία has almost always the collateral meaning of the unreality of proud ostentation (Theophr. Charact. 23: προσποίησίς τις ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ὄντων πρὸς δόξαν ; Plato, Phacdr.: ἕξις προσποιητικὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἢ ἀγαθῶν τῶν μὴ ὑπαρχόντων ; antithesis οὗ εἰρωνεία), which has obtained in Hellenistic usage only in so far that the idea here also always refers to something by its very nature worthless and trifing, and in this way certainly includes a delusion or unreality. This meaning is to be retained here also, as is rightly done by Liicke, Sander, Besser, Braune ;* for examples in the Scriptures, comp. 1 Chron. xxii. 1 ff; Eccles. ii. 1 ff; Ezek. xxviii. 16,17; Dan. iv. 27; Rev. xvii. 4, xviii. 7, ete. The genitive τοῦ βίου serves for the more particular definition of the idea; βίος signifies in the N. T. either “temporal life” (1 Tim. ui. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 3, Fec.), or more commonly “ the support of life, the means” (chap. 111. 17; Mark xii. 44; 1 With this view Neander, Gerlach, and Diisterdieck substantially agree also ; yet their paraphrases do not keep precisely enough within the definite limits of the extent of the idea, as they include ostentation, ambition, etc. ; a definite distinction between this idea and imévuia is requisite.— Augustine not inaccurately describes the ἀλάζων thus: jactare se vult in honoribus, magnus 5101 videtur, sive de divitiis, sive de aliqua potentia. Ebrard wrongly denies that according to Hellenistic usage the element of pride is contained in the idea ἀλαζονεία ; neither in classical nor in Hellenistic usage has the word the meaning ‘‘ luxury,” which he maintains for it. ” 344 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Luke viii. 49, xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4); it never has the meaning “conduct of life” (Ebrard). Following Polyb. Hist. vi. 576: ἡ περὶ τοὺς βίους ἀλαζονεία καὶ πολυτέλεια, it is appropriate to take βίος here in the second meaning, and the genitive as objective genitive (so Liicke); as, however, σαρκός and ὀφθαλμῶν are subjective genitives, it is much more correct to take βίου also as subjective genitive, and accordingly to interpret: “the ἀλαζονεία peculiar to the Pios;”’ in the expression ἡδοναὶ tov βίου, Luke viii. 14, τοῦ βίου may also be the objective genitive, thus: “the pleasures which refer to the βίος, the temporal good;” but more probably it is the subjective genitive here also, especially if it be connected with the preceding ideas (see Meyer on this passage), thus: “ the pleasures peculiar to the present life.”? RemMARK.—It has almost become traditional to find the modes of appearance of the evil fully stated in this threefold form, corresponding to the triplicity which appears in the Greek writers, as in Pythag. Clinias: φιληδονία μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἀπολαύσεσι ταῖς διὰ σώματος, 7? εονεξία δὲ ἐν τῷ χερδαΐνειν, φιλοδοξία δὲ ἐν τῷ καθυπερέ- yew τῶν ἴσων τε καὶ ὁμοίων ; for other expressions, see Wetstein.” This threefold form, it has been thought, is found both in the fall and again in the temptation of Christ : ; thus Bede, following Augustine, says: Per haec tria tantum cupiditas humana tenta- tur; per haec tria Adam tentatus est.et victus; per haec tenta- tus est Christus et vicit; while a Lapide finds expressed in it even the contrast with the three Persons in the divine Trinity.* — Bengel opposes this view, and makes such a distinction between the ἐπιθ. τῆς σαρκός and the éad. τ. ὀφῦ., that he refers 1 The commentators for the most part express themselves somewhat vaguely ; de Wette explains : ‘‘the enjoyment, combined with pride of (earthly) life (not : of the good things of life) ;” Braune says that the genitive is to be taken as subjective genitive, and then interprets: ‘“‘the genitive +. βίου signifies the side on which ostentatious pride usually appears ;” Ewald translates: ‘*swind- ling in money,” which is not only indefinite, but even unjustifiable. 2 Ebrard justly denies that a division of sin as such is to be sought for here ; but his own view, that in that threefold form there is given a distribution of worldly conduct in its entire extent, and in this way, that first the relation of man to his own bodily and sensual nature is expressed, then the egotistical opposition to his fellow-men, and finally, his relation to them and complication with them, is, as resting on a false interpretation of the particular ideas, just as little to be justified. 3 The counterpart of these three forms of the sinful life is, according to a Lapide, the three primariae virtutes : continentia, charitas, humilitas, which coincide very exactly with the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. CHAP. 11. 16. 345 the former to the sensus fruitivi, the latter to the sensus inves- tigativi, but says of the ἀλαζονεία τ. 8.: arrogantia vitae est, quae cupiditatem foras educit et longius in mundum diffundit, ut homo velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu, etc.; and then observes: non concidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardi- nalia: voluptas, avaritia, superbia; sed tamen in his continen- tur. By the last clause Bengel shows, however, “that there is a trace of that scheme to be found even in him” (Diisterdieck). —Liicke has more decidedly expressed himself against it, inasmuch as he finds in that threefold form only “the three chief points of worldly lust” (according to the first edition, only “as examples”); and, moreover, the points “in which it pro- ceeds from the sensual desire to the climax of the ἀλαζονεία." But Liicke’s own interpretation of the particular ideas is opposed to such a progress, as he makes the first two ideas to coincide in regard to their substance, and thus no progress takes place from the one ἐπιθυμία to the other, nor is it, besides, in any way hinted αὖ by the apostle. — Liicke rightly contends that particular leading vices are the subject here; not individual vices, but the leading forms (Liicke'); or, as Briickner says, the leading tendencies of worldly sense are stated by the apostle in that threefold form. But in what relation do these stand to one another? According to JDiisterdieck, the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός forms the superior idea, to which the two other ideas, as mutually co-ordinate, are in subordination: “ The first-mentioned lust of the flesh, the most comprehensive and thorough description of the love of the world (ver: 15), embraces both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.” This is incorrect. For, on the one hand, the ἀγάπη to the κόσμος is not to be identified with the ἐπιθυμία. τῆς σαρκός, as the latter rather describes the inner nature of the κόσμος ; the apostle warns against that love, because in the χόσμος the ἐπιθυμία which is not of God dominates; the thought that is to be supplied is this, that love to the κόσμος necessarily implies an entrance into its nature; and, on the other hand, the apostle’s form of expression is utterly opposed to such a subordination; the two first-mentioned forms of worldly sense are by the same appellation: ἐπιθυμίω, closely con- nected with each other, and distinguished from the third, which is not called ἐπιθυμία, but ἀλαζονεία 3? it is unsuitable, however, to regard the latter as ἐπιθυμία; ἐπιθυμία is the desire directed to the attainment of any good—the lust for something (not exactly : 1 When Liicke calls those three not merely the leading forms, but also the principles and sources of the worldly sense, this is not correct, for the worldly sense does not spring from the ἐπιθυμία x.7.2., but the latter is the living motion of the former. ? Frommann (p. 270 ff.) justly remarks that the two leading forms are the 346 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. the lust or delight im anything), but the ἀλαζονεία is a definite behaviour in regard to the good which one possesses. The worldly man stands in a double relationship to the perishable good things; on the one hand, he aspires after them, whether he wants to possess and enjoy them or to delight himself with looking at them; on the other hand, he fancies himself great in them when he has them as his own.— That the whole sphere of sinful life is not here surveyed, Luther has noticed when he says: “The following three things are not of the Father, viz. : (1) hatred of the brethren; (2) the three idols of the world; (3) false and seductive teaching.” — Sander also brings out the same trichotomy of sinful corruption, appealing for it to chap. ii. 2-12, where the subject is the first, to vv. 15-17, where it is the second, and to ver. 19 ff., where it is the third. The apostle certainly mentions these different modes of the appearance of sin; but that the organism of the Epistle rests on this, is an assertion that goes too far. The following words: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς K.T.r.] eX- press the anti-divine character of the worldly nature of the ἐπιθυμία K.T.X.— πατήρ, as in ver. 15; κόσμος here quite in the same sense as before. — εἶναι ἐκ is, according to Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, not the description of the origin, but only of the connection and similarity; by this view, however, the depth of John’s conception is ignored ; the expression rather embraces both, but the second only as the result of the first (so also Ebrard); comp. John viii. 44. — By the addition of dAX ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί the antagonism between God and the world, as the source of the ungodly disposition, is brought out with peculiar distinctness. Ver. 17 adds a new element to the preceding, whereby the exhortation of ver. 15 is strengthened and confirmed. — καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται] is frequently taken by commentators, with an appeal to 1 Cor. vii. 31, as an expression of the transitori- ness of the world; either the present being changed into the future (Bede: mundus transibit, quum in die judicii per ignem in meliorem mutabitur figuram, ut sit coelum novum et terra nova), or the peculiar nature of the world being regarded as described in it (Oecumenius: τὰ κοσμικὰ ἐπιθυμήματα οὐκ ἔχει TO μένον τε καὶ ἑστώς, ἀλλὰ παράγεται) ; Diisterdieck ἐπιθυμία and the ἀλαζονεία ; that the ἐπιθυμία signifies the desire, and the ἀλαζο- viz the action, which in the attainment of the object desired has already found its satisfaction. CHAP. II. 18—27. S47 combines both; the apostle, according to him, expresses a truth “which holds good with ever present meaning, and which will thereby show itself some time in fact” (so also Ebrard and Braune). But ver. 8 and the following ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν make it more than probable that the apostle here also uses mapdyerat in the consciousness of the approaching second advent of Christ and the judgment on the κόσμος which is connected with it, thus: “the world is in the state of disappearing ; ” in 1 Cor. vii. 31: παράπει πὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου is said with the same feeling. — καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ] With the world passes away also the ἐπιθυμία which dwells in it; whereby the apostle briefly refers to the three- fold form previously named: αὐτοῦ is not genitive of the object (Liicke, Neander, Sander, Besser), but of the subject (Diisterdieck, Braune) ; though there is mention previously of an ἀγαπᾷν τὸν κόσμον, yet there is none of an ἐπιθυμία directed towards the κόσμος ; the contrary view rests on an erroneous interpretation of κόσμος. --- ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] antithesis to ὁ κόσμος, which in its ἐπιθυμία does not do the will of God. It is true, “ ὁ πατήρ is previously put as antithesis to the κόσμος, but it does not follow from this that the antithesis here is not to be taken as fully corresponding, and “ ἐπιθυμῶν " to be taken out of ἐπιθυμία (Liicke) ; the appearance of this arises only from the fact that κόσμος is taken as something concrete. The expression used by the apostle is synonymous with ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν Θεόν; for the doing of the divine will is the effect of love to Him. — μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα] antithesis of παράγεται; the expression signifies, as frequently, eternal, infinite endurance, comp. John vi. 51, 58, viii. 35, etc. That John regarded this abiding for ever as the eternally happy life in the fellowship of God is certain, but is not contained in the expression." To the κόσμος is assigned θάνατος, to the children of God ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Vv. 18--27. Warking against the antichrists, whose pre- 1 Ebrard arbitrarily explains that by αἰών is to be understood ‘‘the Aeon which will begin with the visible establishment in glory of Christ’s kingdom on earth,” and that ὃ ποιῶν... εἰς τ. αἰῶνα therefore means: ‘‘he who does the will of God shall remain till the establishment of the kingdom of Christ—he will be permitted to see the victory of Christ’s kingdom.” 348 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, sence shows that the last hour has come. Description of them, and exhortation to believers to continue in that which they have heard from the beginning, combined with the testimony that they have known the truth—This section stands in closest connection with the preceding one ; for, in the first place, the preceding exhortation is occasioned by the thought that it is ἐσχάτη ὥρα, as is evidenced by the appear- ance of the ἀντίχριστοι; and, in the second place, the ἀντίχριστοι, of whom the apostle treats here, are, as it is put in chap. iv. 5: ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. Ver. 18. The appearance of the ἀντίχριστοι shows that the last hour has come. — 7ra:d/a] not an address to the children (see on vv. 12-14), but to all readers.\— ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί] ἐσχάτη ὥρα may be the whole Christian era from the incarnation of Christ to His second advent. In the O. T. prophecy the appearance of the Messiah was promised N83 pn (Isa. 11. 2; Hos. 111, 5; Mic. iv. 1, LXX.: ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις; comp. also Acts 11. 16). Hence arose among the Jews the distinction of the two eras: 737 Dry (αἰὼν οὗτος) and δ 3Π peiy (αἰὼν μέλλων), the former the time up to the appearance of the Messiah, the latter embracing the Messianic time itself.—In the N. T. are found, partly the former idea that Christ has appeared in the last time (Heb. 1. 1; 1 Pet. i. 20), partly also the distinction of these two periods, but in this way, that the αἰὼν οὗτος does not close with the jivst appearance of Christ, but only with his Parousia, which coincides with the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος ; comp. Mark x. 30; Inke xx. 34, 35; Eph. i. 21.— Inasmuch as the period which begins with the birth of Christ is now the last preceding the συντέλεια, it may be described by the expres- sion ἐσχάτη ὥρα, as Calvin says: ultimum tempus, in quo sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersit praeter ultimam Christi revelationem. This view is the customary one with the older commentators; Semler agrees with it, but the context is opposed to it; on the one hand, it results from vy. 8 and 17 that the apostle is writing with a presentiment of the Parousia of Christ; and, on the other hand, the conclusion of 1 For the contrary, Ebrard appeals to the peculiarly childlike character of this section ; but plainly this bears no other character than the whole Epistle, of which Ebrard himself says that it could only be understood by adults. CHAP, II. 18. 349 this verse: ὅθεν x.7.d., shows that the apostle cannot here mean the whole period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second coming, but only a distinct time in it, namely, the time immediately preceding its termination; in favour of this also is the usus loquendi of the N. T.; comp. 2 Tim. my Ee Jas. ν 9: 1. Pet. αι τ: 2 ΠΟΙ ΒΟ alone. with which it is to be observed that, especially in the Gospel of John, the day of judgment is called ἡ ἡμέρα ἐσχάτη. Liicke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, Erdmann, Myrbere, Ebrard, etc., have therefore rightly interpreted the expression as a description of this time. The hesitation to admit that the apostle was mistaken in his expectation of the nearness of the advent, has given rise to many a false interpretation. Socinus and Grotius think that ἐσχάτη ὥρα is the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem ; this view approximates to that of Diisterdieck, according to which the last time before the commencement of the κρίσις is meant, which had its beginning at the destruction of Jerusalem. But the scruple is not overcome by this, for chap. 11. 28 shows that John regarded the παρουσία of the Lord as near, and not as distant, just as the other apostles, and especially also Paul, according to 1 Thess. iv. 15, in view of which even Diisterdieck finds himself compelled to admit this; Besser urges the want of the article, and translates: “a last time,” ze. the time before a special revelation of the judicial glory of Christ, in which the last hour before the universal final judgment is prefigured; but it is well known that the article is often wanting just with ideas which are definite in them- selves; to which it may be added that the idea of such a succession of different epochs, which are to be regarded as special revelations of the judicial power of Christ, is nowhere found expressed in the N. T.’ Oecumenius regarded it as likely that ἐσχάτη here is used = χειρίστη ; this explanation is found in Schoettgen (tempora periculosa, 1 Braune, who speaks of Calvin’s view and that of Besser as ‘‘ worthy of notice,” expresses himself somewhat vaguely when he says: ‘‘ The expression ἐσχάτη ὥρα is to be taken prophetically, eschatologically, and has a value con- nected with the history of the kingdom, evena historical reference to the Parousia of Christ, as the beginning of the second era of the world, but no chronological reference to the date of the commencement of this Paroxsia.” Clearly a quite arbitrary assertion, υ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. or » Ὁ pessima et abjectissima), Carpzov, and others (similarly Paulus: it is a late, ie. dark, and ever growing worse, time); whereas the distinction between these ideas is perfectly clear from 2 Tim. 11. 1: ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί, The result of an impartial exegesis therefore remains, that—as the other apostles—John also expected that the advent of the Lord would soon take place” It was only when the first generation of believers was already dead, without that expectation having been fulfilled, that in the conscious- ness of Christians the period till the coming of the Lord extended to an indefinitely distant limit, without, however, extinguishing the hope of His speedy advent; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 4 ff.; but that later still the time which began with the appearance of false teachers was regarded as the last, is proved by Ignatius, ep. ad Eph. c. xi.—xat καθὼς ἠκούσατε x.7.r.| With the observation that it is the last time the apostle con- nects the other, that in accordance with what his readers have heard, that the ἀντίχριστος would come, many ἀντίχριστοι have already come. LBengel supplies before καθώς : “et ita est,’ and after καί: “adeo” (et ita est, sicut audistis, nempe antichristum venire: atque adeo jam multi, etc.); these 1 Peculiar, but artificial, is Bengel’s interpretation, which, moreover, rests on the false opinion that the children are here specially addressed : ultima, non respectu omnium mundi temporum sed in antitheto puerulorum ad patres et ad juvenes. Tres omnino horae erant, quarum una post aliam et inchoavit, et conjunctim continuato cursu ad finem se inclinavit. Patrum itemque juvenum hora statim absoluta fuit. Hinc puerulis Johannes dicit: ultima hora est. Hae ultima hora nos etiamnum vivimus omnes. 2 In opposition to the ‘‘ prejudice” that the apostles regarded the advent as so near, Sander thinks that they could not possibly have imagined that ‘all the great changes, transformations, and developments,” to which 2 Thess, iii. 8, tom. xi. 25, 26, Luke xxi. 24-26 allude, could be accomplished within a genera- tion. But could not important events take place within a comparatively short period? As it was not the business of the apostles to foresee the course of history, it cannot be any reproach on them if they cherished the hope that the longed-for coming of the Lord would soon occur, especially as they formed out of this hope no peculiar doctrine, and did not venture to determine the time and the hour. The certainly extravagant assertion of Ebrard, that it would have been contrary to the order of God’s economy of revelation if John, at the time when he wrote his Epistle, had not expected the second advent of Christ in the near future, rests entirely on Ebrard’s views of the Apocalypse, from the visions of which, according to him, it could only be clear to the apostle for the first time that the ἔρχομαι of the Gospel of John xxi. 22 is to be understood of the coming of the Lord in a vision. CHAP. ‘Il. 18: pay! supplements are, however, unnecessary, for the καί before νῦν is not the simple copula, but serves to mark the appear- ance of the ἀντίχριστοι as a fact corresponding to the καθὼς ἠκούσατε K.T.A.: “As ye have heard, ete., so, accordingly, many ἀντίχριστοι are even now actually appearing. καθὼς ἠκούσατε, namely, by the apostolic declaration, which had been communicated to his readers (comp. vv. 7, 24) either by John, or even earlier, by Paul especially, according to Semler by Jewish teachers, who were spreading false rumours of the end of the world (!). ὅτε (ὁ) ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται καὶ «.T.r.] The present ἔρχεται is put for the future; it marks what is still future as a certainly occurring event; Ebrard incorrectly translates ἔρχεται by “is to come;” even in the passages cited by him: chap. iv. 3; Matt. xi. 3; Gospel of John xvi. 13; Rev. 1. 8 (why not 1. 4 2), ἔρχεσθαι does not express simply the idea of the future; besides, Ebrard inter- prets correctly: “ will one day appear.” — The prophecy that before Christ comes (hence before His Parousia) Antichrist will come, accordingly formed a part of the apostolic preach- ing, although it is not contained in the last discourses of Christ that have been handed down to us, for the ψευδοπροφῆται and the ψευδόχριστοι, whose appearance Christ foretells, ‘are not to be identified with the ἀντίχριστος. ---- According to the view which has prevailed from antiquity, the ἀντέχριστος and the πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι are to be distinguished in this way, that the latter are only the πρόδρομοι of the former, in which for the first time the antichristian spirit which already animates them will be revealed in his full perfection and energy ; Bengel, deviating from this, takes the expression ἀντίχριστος as a collective idea: ubi Joh. antichristum, vel spiritum antichristi, vel deceptorem et antichristum dicit, sub singulari numero, omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos innuit. Anti- christus. pro antichristianismo, sive doctrina, et multitudine hominum Christo contraria dicitur; with this interpretation Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Besser, and Myrberg agree. But neither here nor in iv. 1 ff. does John say that Antichrist has already come; here he merely indicates the fact that πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι γεγόνασιν as corresponding to the announcement 1 Diisterdieck : ‘‘ With the expectation ὅτι ὁ ἀντιχρ. ἔρχ.», founded on the apostolic teaching, corresponds the fact already begun: ἀντιχρ. πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν." 352 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. of the coming of Antichrist, and in the other passage it is merely stated that many ψευδοπροφῆται are gone out into the world, and that the πνεῦμα of Antichrist is already in the world. In the passage 2 John 7, “it is true that the explana- tory clause οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος Kal ὁ ἀντίχριστος refers 50 directly to the preceding πολλοὶ πλάνοι, that it appears that “the identity is thereby indicated” (1st ed.); but this direct con- nection may, no doubt, be explained in this way, that he who speaks through the many is, according to John, no other than the one Antichrist ; and even though John “ neither describes the ἀντίχριστοι as the πρόδρομοι, nor the ἀντίχριστος as the one in whom the principle that animates them is concentrated in highest potency,” it is to be remembered that John is speaking of the Antichrist here, not in doctrinal aspect, but only in order to show by the heretics, whom he calls ἀντί- χρίστου, that the πνεῦμα of Antichrist is already ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ." The name ἀντίχριστος is not found in the Scriptures outside of the First and Second Epistles of John; only in the later ecclesiastical literature does it appear frequently. -— That the prefixed ἀντὶ does not express the substitutionary reference (as in ἀντιβασιλεύς), but the reference of antagonism, is with justice now commonly recognised ; but the prevailing transla- tion: “enemy of Christ,” is grammatically inaccurate, as in substantive compounds formed with ἀντι (in the antagonistic sense) the substantive is an object which by ἀντι is described as standing in opposition to an object of the same kind. ‘Thus, an ἀντιφιλόσοφος is not an “ opponent of philosophy” (Ebrard), or of philosophers, but a philosopher who is opposed to other philosophers, a hostile philosopher; comp. ἀντιμαχητής, ἀντι- παλαιστής, ἀντίπολις, ἀντίῤῥησις, ἀντίῤῥοια κιτιλ Accord- ingly, ὁ ἀντίχριστος does not mean generally: the enemy of 1 Weiss justly maintains, against Frommann and Reuss, according to whom John has spiritualized or confused the dogma of Antichrist, that he in no way denies the reality of the Antichrist, although Weiss thinks that John regards the prophecy of the Antichrist as fulfilled in this, that the spirit of Antichrist has come into the world, and in the false teachers is denying the fundamentals of Christian truth. 2 From this it is clear that the rule laid down by Liicke, that ‘‘ the word com- pounded with ἀντι is the object of the opposition,” can by no means hold good for all compounds with ἀντι, inasmuch as the examples adduced by Liicke : ἀντί- ἐξιον ἄκρον, ἀντιβόρειος, ἀντήλιος, ἀντίθυρος, are not substantives ; and, in the second place, ἀντι does not express in them the idea of hostile antagonism. CHAP. 11. 18. 353 Christ, but the “ opposition Christ,’ i.e. that enemy of Christ who, under the false pretence of being the real Christ, seeks to destroy the work of Christ." Almost all commentators have correctly supposed that John understands by this enemy the same as Paul speaks of in 2 Thess. 11. 3; the features which appear in the description of the Apostle Paul and in the statements of John correspond too closely to permit of this being doubted; according to both, his appearance in the Church is preceded by a falling away (John says in ver. 19 of the antichrists: ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον ; Paul in ver. 3 speaks of an ἀποστασία connected with his ἀποκάλυψις); both ascribe to him a God-opposing, wicked nature (Paul calls him ὁ ἄνθρω- πος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ ἄνομος ; John puts the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντι- χρίστου in antithesis to the πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and says of the antichrists who are animated by the former, that they are é« τοῦ κόσμου) ; both characterize him as a liar, who seeks to establish the lie against the truth; according to both, he appears in the last time before the Parousia of Christ; even the names correspond with each other, for even though the name ἀντίχριστος contains an important feature which is not expressed in the name ὁ ἀντικείμενος, yet this very feature comes out so distinctly in the Pauline description, that it is clear how suitable John’s appellation of that enemy is; when, namely, Paul describes him as the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, and afterwards says of him that he ἀποδείκνυσι ἑαυτόν, ὅτι ἐστὶ Θεός, this points to the fact that he will represent him- self as the incarnate God,—-and this is just what is indicated in the name ἀντίχριστος. REMARK.—On the various views of the Antichrist, see Liine- mann on 2 Thess. 1]. 1-12, p. 204 ff, and Diisterdieck on this passage. — The Greek Fathers regard the Antichrist usually as a man who, as an instrument of the devil, imitates the true Christ, comp. Hippolyt. de consummat. mundi, ο. vi. 14, ¢. xlviii. ; Cyril, Catech. xv.; yet there is also found the incorrect view that he is the incarnate devil himself (comp. Theodoret, Zpit. div. 1 While Briickner agrees with the explanation given here, it is opposed by Braune ; but he does not pay attention to the grammatical vindication. Besides, it is to be observed that the more particular definition of ‘‘ false pretence ” does not lie in the word itself, but certainly in the fact, since there is only one Christ ; it is different in the case of the wor] ἀντιφιλόσοφος. Mryver.—1 Joun. Zz, 354 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. decret. α. Xxiii., and Comment. in Dan. ii. ; Hippolyt. ¢. xxii). — Like the Parousia of Christ, so the appearance of Antichrist also belongs still to the future; of antichrists, as they had appeared in the time of John, there has never since been any lack ; but the Antichrist has not yet come, and it was equally arbitrary for Grotius to regard Barkochba, or others Mohammed, or Luther the Pope, or Catholics Luther,.and so on, as Anti- christ. — Not merely rationalistic writers, but also Liicke, de Wette, Neander, and others, distinguish form and idea in John’s representation of the future appearance of the Anti- christ. As the fundamental idea, they regard the thought that, equally with the development of Christianity, the evil will gradually increase more and more in its contest against Christ, until at last, when it has attained its highest summit, it will be completely conquered by the power of Christ. As the Form they regard the representation that this highest energy of the evil will finally appear in one single person. For such a dis- tinction it is difficult, however, to show any justification, as Scripture itself gives no suggestion of it ; it is therefore rightly rejected by Diisterdieck, Braune, Briickner. In the words: καὶ viv ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, the apostle mentions the fact in which the expectation: ὅτι ὁ ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται, is beginning to be realized. The ἀντί- χρίστου are the heretics who accept the lie described in ver. 22 ; but they bear that name because the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου animates them, and thus the Antichrist himself is already revealing himself in them. γεγόνασιν is not = coeperunt esse (Erasmus), but: “they have become,” 1.6. they are already in existence. By means of the subordinate clause ὅθεν γινώσκο- μεν «.7T.r., the connection between the two first parts of the verse is to be recognised. Ver. 19. Relation of the ἀντίχριστοι to the Christian Church. — ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν] On the form of the second aorist with a, see Winer, p. 68 (VIL p. 71). — By ἡμῶν we are not to understand the Jews (Grotius, Eichhorn, Rickli), nor the apostles (S. Schmid, Spener, Besser, and others), but Christians in general, as the Church of Christ. ἐξῆλθαν is taken by several commentators = prodierunt (Vul- gate, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, and others), finding the 1 Ebrard finds himself compelled by his interpretation of σαιδία not to include in ἡμεῖς those addressed, but to say: ‘‘ the apostle puts himself and the Church in contrast to the little ones whom he addresses.” CIIAP, II. 19. 355 idea of origin expressed in it; this is incorrect; the following μεμενήκεισαν shows that it is rather to be taken in the sense of secessio (so Augustin, Bede, Erasmus; and among the moderns, Liicke, Dusterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, and others). By the emphatic position of ἐξ ἡμῶν it is brought out that the antichrists were previously μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, and belonged there- fore to the Christian Church. How far this separation had been formally accomplished, John does not say; but it is contained in ἐξῆλθαν that they had taken up an antagonistic position, not merely to the apostolic doctrine (Beza: ad muta- tionem non loci sed doctrinae pertinet), but to those who by their faithful observance of the unadulterated gospel proved themselves to be the children of God (as also Braune).— ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν] ἀλλ᾽ expresses the contrast to the preceding thought: although they went out from us (and therefore were connected with us), yet they were not of us. εἶναι ἐκ expresses connection in the most complete reality, thus: they were not of us, viz. in such a way that they would have really belonged to us, as common members of one body, in which one soul lives; in contrast to which the εἶναι μετά contained in the following μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ex- presses the outward fellowship as distinguished from the former idea. Even here ἐκ does not depart from its original meaning (see on ver. 16), for he only truly belongs to the Church of the Lord who in regard to his inner life has pro- ceeded from it, 6. from the Spirit ruling in it." The imper- fect ἦσαν embraces the whole previous period during which the antichristians were connected with the believers, and does not merely refer to the time immediately preceding their separation (Episcopius, Socinus).— That they were not ἐξ ἡμῶν, John proves by the words: εἰ yap ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμε- νήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. The ἀντίχριστοι belonged therefore to the Christians for a while; they were per’ αὐτῶν, although not ἐξ αὐτῶν, for in this case they would also have remained 1 Diisterdieck : ‘‘ That those antichrists left the fellowship of the believers, follows from μεμενήκ. av μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν; but the original, inner, ethical relationship of those men who went out from the bosom of Christian fellowship and fell away from it, is indicated by the different meaning in which the same phrase ἐξ ἡμῶν appears, on the one hand, with ἐξῆλθαν, with which μεμενήκ. x.7.2, is to be com- bined ; and, on the other hand, in the expressions οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν and εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ nye.” 356 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. pet αὐτῶν. Here, too, John proceeds on the idea that the μένειν is the evidence of the εἶναι. On the pluperfect with- out the augment, see Winer, p. 67 (VII. p. 70).— ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν κιτ.λ.}] ἀλλά refers back to ἐξῆλθαν, or to the thought: od μεμενήκασι μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν: “but they have not remained with us.’ Less simply Diisterdieck interprets: “they have not remained with us, but (ἀλλά) they have been separated from us, in order that.” Such a double supplement is not necessary, for ἀλλά is not necessarily the antithesis of a negation. — By ἵνα x«.7.d. it is not the result (Paulus), but the purpose that is stated,—the purpose, namely, of their separation or not remaining, which was willed by God; the purpose is that it might be manifest that they are not ἐξ ἡμῶν. The connection of φανερωθῶσιεν with the following ὅτε οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν is not quite regular; Socinus construes ov and πάντες together: non omnes—nulli i. e. nemo ex illis est ex nostro numero; this is incorrect, ov πάντες is not = nulli, but = nonnulli; de Wette rightly supposes the con- junction of two thoughts, viz. (1) ἵνα φανερωθῇ, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν ; and (2) wa φανερωθῶσιν, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν, only de Wette should have put the second thought first, for John’s immediate intention was, as the plural φανερωθῶσιν shows, to speak only of the ἀντίχριστοι, but then he extends his idea so as to introduce the new subject πάντες ; the sense is: it was to be made manifest in the ἀντίχριστοι that they were not—and therefore that all who were μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν were not—éé ἡμῶν (so also Braune*),— For the work of the Christian Church it is necessary that it shall be manifest who really belongs to it and who does not; this κρίσις is the pur- pose for the sake of which God has so arranged it that those ἀντίχριστοι should go out; comp. with the idea in 1 Cor. ΧΙ by REMARK.—In the words: εἰ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν wed ἡμῶν, this thought is contained: He who really belongs to the Church never leaves it; he who leaves it shows thereby that 1 Myrberg interprets : sed (egressi sunt) ut manifesti redderentur ; nam non omnes sunt de nobis ; but incorrectly, for (1) φανερωθῶσιν requires a more parti- cular definition ; and (2) the idea: non omnes sunt de nobis, cannot serve to establish the idea φανερωθῶσιν. According to Hilgenfeld, πάντες is to be referred only to the antichrists : ‘‘ that they all were not of us ;” but this is refuted by the position of πάντες. CHAP. 11. 20, 21. 357 he did not really belong to it. This confidence of the apostle in the preserving love of the Lord, and in the faithfulness of those whom He has saved, seems to be opposed to the idea brought out in Heb. vi. 4 ff, that even those who were once . enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, etc., may fall away. But, as constantly in his Epistle, so here also John speaks absolutely, without taking into view the state of gradual development, from which, however, it does not follow that he does not recognise it. The one circumstance that he exhorts believers as such to abide in Christ, shows that he would not deny the possibility of their falling away; only it is—justly—certain to him that he who does not abide had not yet with his whole heart entered into the fellowship of the Lord, but, even though touched by His love, and exhibiting the trace of love towards Him, had nevertheless not broken completely with the world. Ebrard thinks that the apostle means only, that temptation by this particular lie (namely, by Gnosticism) is only possible with those who in their inner being were previously strangers to Christianity ; but even though John here speaks of particular Auntichrists, yet the general thought is at the basis of the words εἰ ἦσαν uttered in reference to them; otherwise the apostle would have definitely pointed out the difference of these apostates from others to whom the word has no reference. — Augustin, Calvin, Beza, etc., find in the words a confirmation of their doctrine of predestination, but only by inserting in them ideas which are foreign to them, since the subject here is neither a donum perseverantiae nor a distinction of the vocati and electi. Vy. 20, 21. Testimony that the believers, to whom the apostle writes, know the truth. — καὶ ὑμεῖς χρῖσμα ἔχετε] The apostle writes this neither as a captatio benevolentiae (Lange), nor as a justification of the brevity of his writing on the fore- going subject (a Lapide), nor for the purpose of quieting his readers, “ who at the appearance of so many Antichrists might possibly be alarmed for the safety of their own faith” (Liicke), but in order to make the warning contained in his words in reference to the antichristian lie the more forcible; see on ver. 12. Most commentators take xaé here as particula adversativa (so even de Wette ; more cautiously Liicke: “the logical relationship of this verse to ver. 19 is that of an antithesis, therefore καί becomes logically adversative ”) ; the incorrectness of this view is recognised indeed by Diisterdieck and Ebrard, yet they maintain the antithetical reference of 358 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. this verse to the preceding one; and of course in itself there is nothing against the supposition of a connection of adversa- tive ideas by the simple copula; but that an adversative relationship occurs here is very much to be doubted, for the apostle did not now need to say to his readers that they, as such as have the χρίσμα, were in opposition to the antichrists, and, besides, in the sequel that idea is not further followed up.' It is more suitable to the context to connect the first part of this verse closely with the second, and in this two- claused sentence to find the presupposition stated for what is said in the following verse (so also Briickner). — χρῖσμα appears in the N. T. only here and in ver. 27; according to Greek wsus loguendi, it is the anointing oil; as in the O. T., for example Ex. xxix. 7, xxx. 31. “In the O. T. the holy anointing oil is constantly the type of the Holy Spirit, both where anointing appears as a figurative action (besides the passages quoted, in 1 Sam. x. 1 ff, xvi. 13, 14) as well as where it appears in figurative language (Ps. xlv. 8 ; Isa. lxi. 1). But that which in the O. T. is presented in type and shadow, in the N. T. has appeared in truth and substance” (Besser) ; χρίσμα is therefore a symbolical expression for the Holy Spirit, as χρίειν, moreover, is frequently used of the gift of the Holy Spirit; comp. Acts iv. 27, x. 38; 2 Cor.i. 21. With this most of the commentators agree, only that χρῖσμα is usually incorrectly explained as the act: “ unctio, anointing,” and this is then taken as a description of the Holy Spirit ; so by Augustin, and even by de Wette, Ewald, Sander, and Erdmann. It is erroneous to understand χρῖσμα of the “ true tradition about Christ, vividly transmitted, proceeding from the apostles ” (Kostlin, p. 243), or of the working of the Holy Spirit (Didymus: charitas, quae diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum; Socinus: divinum beneficium cogno- scendi ipsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus; Emanuel 1 By this, however, it is not meant that the apostle, when he turns to his readers with ὑμεῖς, does not contrast them at all with the antichrists, but only that he does not do it in this sense, that he wishes thereby to emphasize a con- trast between them. Had the apostle intended this, he would certainly not have used καί, for in such antitheses καί is only suitable when the predicates exactly correspond with one another (e.g. they have τὸ πνεῦμα rod ἀντιχρίστου, and ye have τὸ πνεῦμα O20); but even then usually δέ is used (comp. Matt. v. 21, 22, and many other passages), or no particle at all (comp, John iii. 31, ete.). CHAP. II. 20, 21. 359 Sa: christianismus), or of the act in which the Spirit is given to Christians, thus of baptism (Ewald) or of confirmation. Oecumenius wrongly finds here (ἐλάβετε διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τὸ χρῖσμα τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸ εἰς πᾶσαν THY ἀλήθειαν ὁδηγοῦν ὑμᾶς θεῖον πνεῦμα) an allusion to the old custom of anointing the candidate for baptism; this custom does not belong to the apostolic age, but was probably first introduced by this passage, as Bengel has observed.’ It is, on the whole, less likely that John was here thinking of the communication of the Spirit by means of baptism, as is usually supposed, than that he was thinking of that by means of the preaching of the gospel (Diisterdieck), as in the whole context there is nothing to suggest the former.’ That John uses just the word χρῖσμα is not without meaning; as in the O. T. not only kings, but also priests and (sometimes) prophets were anointed, he reminds believers thereby “of their high honour, calling, office, and glory” (Sander).? If it be the case that there is also an allusion in it to the name of the Antichrist (Bengel, Diisterdieck), then the apostle wanted to bring out that believers in possession of the χρίσμα are enabled fully to know the antichristian ψεῦδος in its contradiction to the ἀλήθεια ; see ver. 21. — ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου] For ἔχετε, in 1 As Bengel thinks that this whole section is addressed to the children, he says: Eam unctionem spiritualem habent τὰ παιδία pueruli; namque cum baptismo, quem susceperunt, conjunctum erat donum Spiritus s., cujus signi- ficandi causa ex hoc ipso loco deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo corpora baptizatorum ungerentur. — How in modern times this passage is misused as a proof of the post-apostolic origin of the Epistle, see the Introduction, sec. 3. 2 As quite arbitrary interpretations, we may further mention here that of Semler and that of J. J. Hess (Flati’s and Susskind’s Magaz. vol. xiv.) ; the former, on the false assumption that the Epistle is addressed especially to the presbyters also, explains χρίσμα by: legitima auctoritas docendi, and adds: χρῖσμα est idem ac χάρισμμω illud, cujus auctor spiritus s., qui per apostolos impertitur doctoribus ; and the latter understands by it the instruction which the Churches of Asia Minor received about Antichrist through the Apocalypse. 3 Neander: ‘* That which in the Old Covenant was connected only with individuals to whom in some way the guidance of God’s people was entrusted, with individuals who thereby were singled out from the mass of the rest of the people, this under the New Covenant is connected with the people of God in general. . . . There are therefore no longer among the people of God any such distinctions as there were in the Old Covenant between kings, prophets, priests, and people. . . . They are one kingly priestly race, whose nobility and high destination all share ; all are prophets by virtue of that common enlightenment by the Holy Spirit.” 360 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ver. 27, ἐλάβετε is put; the possession rests upon a reception, and this, indeed, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου; ὁ ἅγιος is—following the correct interpretation of χρῖσμα---ποὗ the Holy Spirit (Didy- mus, Lorinus, Semler), but either God (Rickli, Besser, Neander: “@mo indicates the source ;” which, however, is not always the case)—comp. John xiv. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 19: τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ Ocod,—or more probably, as most commentators think, Christ ; comp. John xv. 26: ὁ παράκλη- Tos, ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός : and John vi. 69, where Christ (according to the overwhelming authorities) is called ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ; in favour of which is the fact that John, in ver. 29, calls Christ δίκαιος, and in chap. iii. 3, ἅγνος (comp. also Acts iil, 14; Rev. iii. 7). — That the bestower of the χρίσμα is called by John ὁ ἅγιος (whether it be God or Christ) arises from this, that the anointing with the Spirit is an act of making holy, 1... of separation from the world; but he only can make holy who himself 7s holy. — καὶ οἴδατε πάντα] Bengel, according to the sense, explains xaé correctly by: et inde; the possession of the χρῖσμα is the reason of the εἰδέναι πάντα. ---- πάντα is not masculine (Syrus: omnes ; Bede: discernitis inter probos et improbos), but neuter. Calvin rightly says: omnia, non universaliter capi, sed ad praesentis loci circumstantiam restringi debet; still it must not be restricted merely to those things (quae sunt) necessaria agnoscendis antichristis et cavendis illorum insidiis (Bengel), but it embraces along with these τὴν ἀλήθειαν in general (ver. 21); comp. John xiv. 26, xvi. 13: πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. In the possession of the whole truth Christians are also enabled to distinguish lies and truth.’ Ver. 21. οὐκ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν] does not refer to the whole Epistle (Beza), but to that which is said of the antichrists ; comp. ver. 26.” — ὅτε οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀλήθειαν x.7.d,] ὅτι = because (comp. vv. 12—14); the apostle does not want to teach the anointed Christians for the first time the truth which was revealed in Christ, but he is writing to them because they know it; a Lapide: non ut haec vos doceam, sed ut doctos 1 The genuinely Catholic interpretation of Estius is worthy of notice : habetis episcopos et presbyteros, quorum cura ac studio vestrae ecclesiae satis instructao sunt in iis, quae pertinent ad doctrinae christianae veritatem. * Ebrard refers this ἔγραψα also arbitrarily to the Gospel of John. CHAP, 11. 22, 22. 361 — confirmem. — καὶ ὅτε πᾶν ψεῦδος «.7.X.] This ὅτε is not co- ordinate with the preceding one, but is dependent on οἴδατε. Luther, correctly according to the sense: “but ye know it, and know that,” etc. — πᾶν ψεῦδος, quite generally, though with special reference to the antichristian doctrine; ψεῦδος : “ not merely error, but lie” (de Wette)—the absolute antithesis of ἀλήθεια; Lange quite arbitrarily thinks that the abstract is here put for the concrete: “that no false teacher can be a genuine Christian.” It is incorrect to take πᾶν... οὐ as a Hebraism = οὐδέν ; οὐ belongs rather to the predicate. — ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστι] ἐκ here also indicates the source, and does not express merely the connection (de Wette, Baumgarten- Crusius). Because the lie is not of the truth, so also it has no connection with it; Lorinus: ex vero non nisi verum sequitur, et verum vero consonat. Whence the le, which is not ἐς τῆς ἀληθείας, originates, Christ says in John viii. 44: The truth is from God, who is Himself the truth ; the lie from the devil, who is not in the truth. Vv. 22, 23. The existence of the antichrists and their relationship to the Christian Church having been previously stated, there follows now the more particular definition of the antichristian lie. — τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης ;] The interrogative form, with which John addresses his readers who know the truth, is explained by the vividness of the feeling with which the apostle is writing; similarly in chap. v. 5. He passes from the abstract (πᾶν ψεῦδος) directly to the concrete (ψεύστης). The definite article: ὁ ψεύστης (Luther incor- rectly : a liar), brings out the idea in clearer distinctness : the liar κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 1... he in whom the lie appears in concrete personality (so also Braune), identical with ὁ ἀντίχριστος, which is denied by Jachmann through mistake of John’s idea. The thought is weakened by the supposition that the apostle is speaking here comparatively (Grotius: quis potest major esse impostor?). Nor is SBengel’s interpretation satisfactory: quis est «dliws mendacii imposturaeque reus ? with which Diisterdieck agrees, when he paraphrases: “ What sort of a lie I mean, ye know very well. Who are the liars ? Are they not those who deny, etc.?” The apostle certainly has the particular lie of the antichrists of his time in view, but this he regards as the one chief and fundamental lie “in 362 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. which all ψεῦδος is comprised” (Liicke). The explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius is plainly quite erroneous: “ what else is a false doctrine than, etc.?” nor is that of Ebrard less so, as he finds in this catechetical (!) question intended for children this meaning: “on whose side is the lie?” with which he then supplies the corresponding question: “and on whose side is the truth ?” — εἰ μὴ 6 ἀρνούμενος] εἰ μή, often after a negation, may also stand after a question, as in this a nega- tion is contained; comp. Luke xvii. 18; Rom. xi. 15; 1 Cor. 11. 11; 2 Cor. 1.2; 1 John v. 5; it corresponds to the German: “als nur” (English: “but only,” “except”), and limits the general thought to a particular one; the sense accordingly is: No other is the liar but he who, ete. Accord- ing to Ebrard, εὐ μή must here only have the meaning of “than,” because the question here is, which of the two dogmatical tendencies (!) belongs to the lie; that the apostle here has in view two parties, namely, the antichrists and the believing Christians, and asks which of them is in possession of the truth, is a pure fiction, for which there is not the slightest evidence in the text. ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν 6 Χριστός) On the construction of the negative idea ἀρνεῖσθαι with the following ov«, by which the negation is more strongly emphasized, see Kiihner, 11. p. 410.— The le of the Anti- christ consists in the denial that Jesus is ὁ Χριστός, 1... in the denial of the identity of Jesus and Christ, whereby is meant, according to ver. 19 and chap. iv. 3, not the Jewish unbelief, that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but the Gnostic heresy of the distinction between Jesus and Christ, which forms the sharpest contradiction to the apostle’s doctrine that Jesus is the λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος. It is erroneous to find here a reference to two different kinds of heresy; on the one hand the denial of the divine, on the other the denial of the human, nature of Jesus;! for John speaks only of one lie. — οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ἀντίχριστος] οὗτος refers back to ὁ ἀρνούμενος : the liar who denies the identity 1 So Tertullian (de Praescript. ce. 33): Joh. in ep. eos maxime antichristos vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne venisse et qui non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei; illud Marcion, hoe Ebion vindicavit. Similarly Besser: ‘‘ That Jesus was not the Christ, the Christ not Jesus. Either the Word that was from the beginning was separated from this Jesus, or the flesh was denied to the eternal Word.” Comp. Introd. sec. 3. CHAP. I. 236 300 of Jesus and Christ, he is the Antichrist. It is natural to take ὁ ψεύστης and ὁ ἀντίχρ. here in general signification, and to find therein a justification for Bengel’s conception of John’s idea of Antichrist; but as the lie of the antichrists proceeds from the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, it may be ascribed to the Antichrist himself; the individual antichrists are the mouth by which he speaks.—6 ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ Tov υἱόν] is not to be connected with οὗτος, so that the sense would be: this one, who denies the Father and the Son, is the Antichrist; but as a clause of more particular definition subordinate to 6 ἀντίχριστος. “John hereby adds a new element which states the full unhappy consequence of that Antichristian lie” (Diisterdieck; similarly Braune). The apostle wants to bring out here that the denial that Jesus is ὁ Χριστός is in its very essence a denial of the Father and of the Son. He who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, directly denies the Son, for the Son is no other than ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός (neither an Aeon named Christ that did not become man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or, according to John i. 14, the Logos) ;* but he who denies the Son denies also the Father, and not merely inasmuch as Son and Father are logically interchangeable ideas, but because the nature of the Father is only manifested in the Son, and all true know- ledge of the Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false image of their own thoughts—an εἴδωλον." Ver. 23. Confirmation of the last stated thought in two ' Weiss correctly brings out the distinction between the ideas Χριστός and υἱός, When he observes that ὃ Χριστός is a historical conception to the apostle, and that it is enough for him that that proposition of the false teachers denies the Messiahship of Christ, from which all belief in Him must take its starting- point, in order to arrive at the recognition that Jesus is the Son of God, and thus in the Son to recognise the Father. * That such commentators as proceed on rationalistic assumptions have not been able to interpret the thought of the apostle is quite natural. But even others have got a more or less indistinct view of it by putting, as Diisterdieck rightly says, ‘‘ the ideas of John too directly into dogmatic forms (and, indeed, into those defined by the Church) ;” or by ignoring the realism of the apostle, and regarding what he considered in an objectively real way as a mere element of the subjective consideration ; or, finally, by bringing out one-sided references instead of giving the ideas the due force of their entire comprehension. 364 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIN, clauses, which express the same idea, only in different form.’ — πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱόν, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει] ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἱόν is in meaning synonymous with ἀρνεῖσθαι, ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός. The assertion that John here con- founds with the idea of Christ that of the Son, ze. of the eternal Logos (de Wette and others), is erroneous; it is not Christ apart from Jesus that he regards as the Son, but Christ in his identity with Jesus (Diisterdieck, Briickner). — Instead of saying in the second part of the first clause: καὶ ἀρνεῖται, corresponding to the first part, John says: ovdé .. . ἔχει, which has a wider import, for ἔχειν is to be taken emphatically = “ to possess in living fellowship ” (Diisterdieck) ; the explanation of Beza is insufficient: nec patrem esse credit (better, a Lapide: habere in mente et fide, in ore et confes- sione); the thought of the apostle is utterly eliminated when, with Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius, ἔχειν τ. πατέρα is explained by: “to know the will of God;” erroneously Storr also: “ to him is the Father not gracious.” — In the following words: ὁ ὁμολογῶν «.T.r., Which are wanting in the Recepta (see the critical notes), ὁμολογεῖν forms the antithesis of ἀρνεῖσθαι; it means a confession which is the expression of faith (Matt. x. 32; Rom. x. 10). In regard to the construction, Ebrard rightly remarks: “That τὸν υἱόν is dependent on ὁμολογῶν, and not along with καὶ tov πατέρα (as in 2 John 9) on ἔχει (in which case ὁμολογῶν would be used absolutely), clearly results from the preceding words, to which these form the antithesis.” Vv. 24, 25. Exhortation to the faithful keeping of the gospel. Ver. 24. ὑμεῖς] By the Recepta ὑμεῖς οὖν the correct relationship of this verse is taken away ; it is not a conclusion from what immediately precedes (Diisterdieck, Braune), but with the emphasized ὑμεῖς it is put in contrast with what is said of the false teachers; Theophylact: ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν οὕτως" ὑμεῖς δὲ ἅπερ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς φυλάττετε παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς. ---- In regard to the construction : ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω, Beza and Socinus, it is either an attraction (ὑμεῖς ὃ HK. for ὃ ὑμεῖς ἠκούσ., so also Bengel: anti- theton est in pronomine ; ideo adhibetur trajectio; de Wette: “ὑμεῖς is properly no doubt the subject of the relative clause 1 Braune, rightly : ‘‘ Here is the progress from the denying to the having, and from the particular (ὁ ψεύστης) to the general (#és).” CHAP. II. 24, 25. 365 placed first ;” Jachmann)' or an ellipsis (ὑμεῖς = quod ad vos attinet); Paulus and Ebvrard regard ὑμεῖς as the pure vocative; but it is more correct to admit an anacolouthon which has its natural origin in this, that the apostle’s thought in opposition to the false teachers was first directed to his readers, but equally also to the word which they had heard from the beginning; accordingly the apostle begins with ὑμεῖς, but does not follow it up by μένετε ἐν or a similar expression, but by ὃ ἠκούσατε K.7.r., aS a new subject; comp. Winer, p. 506; VIL. p.534; Buttmann, p.525. The same anacolouthon in ver. 272 With ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, comp. ver. 7; thereby, of course, the whole gospel is meant, but here specially the fundamental doctrine of it: that Jesus is the Christ. — ἐν ὑμῖν] Theophylact interprets ἐν by παρά; Luther: “among;” but the preposition must be retained in its proper meaning; for upon that it depends that what was heard “abides in the soul as something that determines the life” (Neander; comp. John xv. 7), because only then does that take place which the apostle expresses in the sequel. — καὶ ὑμεῖς... μενεῖτε] The καί before the concluding clause brings out more clearly its corresponding relationship to the preceding clause; here it is so much the more significant, as in both clauses the same verbal idea μένειν is used: If the Word remain in you, ye also will remain in the Son, ete? That our remaining in the Son is the immediate result of the Word remaining in us, is explained by the fact that “the words of Christ substantially contain nothing else than a self-revelation or explanation of His person and His appearing, and similarly the evangelical proclamation of the apostles is only the copy of this preaching of Christ Himself” (Weiss). ἐν τῷ υἱῷ is put first, because fellowship with the Father is conditioned by fellowship with the Son. 1 ' The idea of an attraction is erroneous, because “ ὑμεῖς, if attracted to the relative clause, would be too strongly emphasized in this position” (Winer). * Myrberg’s reply, that ὑμεῖς is rather to be regarded as nominative absolute, is met by the fact that the use of the nominative absolute is precisely an anacolouthon. * Diisterdieck : ‘‘ By καί before ὑμεῖς John specifies the promised consequence which will correspond to the cendition which is stated, while at the same time he brings out the nice point which is contained in the significant interchange of ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ and ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ vig. . 4 μενεῖτε." 366 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Ver. 25. Kai αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία κ-τ.λ.] αὕτη may be referred either to what precedes, or to the concluding words of this verse: τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. In the first case the meaning is: and this remaining is what He has promised, namely, eternal life. Gagnejus: “ Manere in filio et patre promissio est, quam nobis pollicitus est orans pro nobis patrem Dominus Joh. xvii. 20. Bene ergo ait de hoc Johannes: haec est promissio, quam pollicitus est nobis, quae quidem est vita aeterna; vita enim aeterna est manere in Deo eoque frui hic per gratidm, in futuro per gloriam ;” τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον then forms an apposition, by which that very remaining is described as happiness; this view in Oecumenius, and among modern commentators in Sander, Besser, Weiss. In the second case the thought is: “ and eternal life is the promise which He has given us;” taking this view, a new thought, it is true, enters with ver. 25, and it requires something to be supplied to connect it with the preceding, perhaps what a Lapide gives: si in ipso maneamus (Spener: that is the promise if we remain in the Word, and consequently in the Father and the Son); but nevertheless it is, in accordance with the analogy of John’s mode of expression, to be preferred ; comp. chap. 1. 5, v. 14; similarly also chap. 111. 23, v. 11; in the last two passages the connection with what precedes appears clearly enough by both being connected with the same idea, whereas here there is no previous mention of the ἐπαγ- yerta; but even here the connection is not to be mistaken, because the ζωὴ αἰώνιος is directly connected with the μένειν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ K.7.X. This second interpretation in ἃ Lapide, Grotius, Lorinus, Russmeyer, Spener, Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, and others. — καί is not used here αἰτιολογικῶς (Oecumenius), but is the simple copula. — ἡ ἐπαγγελία: “the promise.” Liicke unnecessarily con- jectures that instead of this perhaps ἀπωγγελία is probably to be read, or that ἐπαγγελία has here the meaning: “ proclama- tion,’ for neither is it the case that the idea of the promise refers only to the distant future life, nor, according to John, that Christ does not bestow any promise.’ — αὐτός is Christ, 1 From this passage it is clear that with John ζωὴ αἰώνιος and the knowledge of God are not by any means, as Weiss thinks, identical ideas, for if John here, according to the view of Weiss, describes the abiding in the Son and in the CHAP. 11. 26, 27. 367 Φ who in this whole passage forms the centre round which all the statements of the apostle move. — On the accusative τὴν ζωήν, which has occurred through the attraction of the verb in the relative clause, comp. Winer, p. 552; VII. p. 583; Buttmann, p. 68. Vv. 26, 27. Conclusion of the section on the antichrists. Ver. 26. ταῦτα refers to all that the apostle has written about the antichrists from ver. 18 down. In calling them here of πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς, he gives it to be understood that their efforts were directed to seduce the Church from the truth of the gospel to their lie; that their purpose had actual effect (Braune) is not indicated by the verb. — Ver. 27. In the first part of this verse the apostle testifies to his readers that they do not need any teacher, in which he goes back to what he had already expressed in vv. 20, 21.— καὶ ὑμεῖς] καί is here used just as in ver. 20.— On the anacolouthon, see on ver. 24. -- τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] τὸ χρῖσμα is, with Braune, to be regarded as the accusative, for the juxtaposition of two nominatives could not be explained ; the apostle probably had an ἔχετε in his mind, instead of which, however, he then wrote μένει ἐν ὑμῖν; αὐτοῦ, tc. Χριστοῦ; so the context demands; αὐτός, ver. 25. Herein lies a proof that τοῦ ἁγίου in ver. 20 is to be understood of Christ. — ἐν ὑμῖν μένει] The indicative, instead of which the imperative is used in ver. 24, expresses the certain confidence of the apostle. — καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε] This sentence, which by καί is made co-ordinate with the preceding, stands to it in the relation of conclusion; meaning: since, as is not to be doubted, the Spirit is in you —and abiding—you do not need; Bengel describes this rela- tion correctly by: et ideo.— ἵνα tis διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς} ἵνα is used here, as not unfrequently in the N. T., in an enfeebled signification ; only in an artificial way could the original force of purpose of this particle be here retained; while this force sometimes passes over into that of object, this is still further weakened, so that the clause beginning with iva is the object Father as the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, he then mentions what this consists in, as something plainly transcending the idea of knowledge; but if αὕτη is directly connected with τὴν ζ. «. «αἰών,, then the abiding in the Son and the Father is considered as the condition of the ζωή ; it is impossible, however, for it to be the condition of knowledge, for it rather presupposes the latter. 368 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. which completes the idea of the verb; so it is here; comp. especially Heb. v. 12: χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς ; in other passages yp. ἔχειν is used even with the simple infini- tive, Matt. 111. 14, xiv. 16; 1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 9; with ἵνα as here, John xvi. 30.'— Several commentators suppose here a reference to the false teachers, so that in the words of the apostle there lies a warning against those who wish to impose themselves on the Church as teachers; so a Lapide, Spener, (τίς =“ who may make pretence of a new revelation ”), Sander, Gerlach, Besser, and others. But it is more appropriate (ac- cording to ver. 21) to refer the apostle’s word to a teaching proceeding from himself or other apostolic teachers ; so Hor- nejus, de Wette-Briickner, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, ete. -——only we must not restrict the generally expressed thought merely to instruction about the false teachers, even though it is intended with special reference to that.” Believers need no human teacher in order that the divine truth may be made known to them. ‘They have received, with the word which was declared unto them (ὃ ἤκουσαν), the χρῖσμα, which leads them els πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ; therefore the apostle frequently in this Epistle emphasizes the fact that he does not want to dnstruct them, but is writing to them what they already know (οἴδατε πάντα, ver. 20). John thereby assumes believing readers, in whose hearts that which they have heard from the beginning is preserved true and uncorrupted. Nothing xew therefore can be proclaimed to the believers, but only that which they already possess in faith may be brought to a clearer conscious- ness.— ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα κ.τ.λ.7 In this second part of the verse the first question is about the construction. Liicke, Ewald, de Wette, Neander, Diisterdieck, Braune (and _ pre- 1 At the most it may be said that ἵνα is used with the verb χρείαν ἔχειν, because that of which one is in need may be regarded as the object.of his need; on the other hand, it is unsuitable when Braune says: ‘‘ the teaching is here regarded as the object and purpose for the sake of the position of him who is to be taught.” * Liicke paraphrases the passage: ‘‘ The reason why I do not write any more about the false teachers, is that I assume that that holy unction of the Spirit remains in you; and if that is so, you do not need that any one shall instruct you further on the subject.” * Several commentators rightly remark here, that in the statement of the apostle there is no foundation for the error of the ‘‘ enthusiasts,” inasmuch as John does not separate the teaching of the χρῖσμα and the apostolic word from one another, but places them in the closest connection. CHAP. II. 26, 27. 369 viously Oecumenius and Theophylact) think that the whole to the end of the verse forms one period, in which the premise GAN ὡς... διδάσκει is resumed by the words καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμῖν, and has its conclusion in mevetre (or μένετε) ἐν αὐτῷ, and in which the words καὶ ἀληθὲς... ψεῦδος contain a parenthetical adjunct. The difficulty that in the resumed premise καί is put instead of ἀλλά, καθώς instead of ὡς, and the aorist ἐδίδαξεν instead of the present διδάσκει, can cer- tainly be easily got over by the fact that the apostle wanted not simply to repeat the thought, but at the same time to bring out a new phase of the subject; but the additional περὶ πάντων, Which does not stand in any relationship whatever to the conclusion μενεῖτε (μένετε), is decidedly opposed to this construction ; to this is added that ἀλλά indicates that the apostle wants to express a contrast to the ov χρείαν ἔχετε K.7.X., that is, a clause in which the teaching of the χρῖσμα is de- scribed as such as removes the need of any other (human) teacher; finally, that the subordinate clause καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ψεῦδος conjoined with ἀληθές ἐστι raises this thought above the level of a mere parenthetical adjunct, and stamps it as a leading thought. For these reasons it is preferable, with Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Briickner, Besser, and in general most of the commentators, to divide the whole into two parts, and to regard καὶ ἀληθ. ἐστι... ψεῦδος as the conclusion of the first part; Luther: “ but as the anoint- ing teaches you all things, it is true, and is no lie; and,” etc.' — ὡς refers not so much to the form and fashion, as to the substance of the teaching.-— τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα] τὸ αὐτό is not idem semper, non aliud atque aliud, sed sibi constans et idem apud sanctos omnes (Bengel; so also Erdmann), but: just the same χρῖσμα, namely ὁ ἐλάβετε. Still the reading αὐτοῦ might be preferable, for it seems unnecessary to emphasize the fact that the χρίσμα is the same that they have received, and no other. — περὶ πάντων is used in the same sense as πάντα, ver. 20. — καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι κιτ.λ.] καί before the conclusion, as in 1 Ebrard makes ὡς dependent upon ἔγραψα, ver. 26; it is true he himself admits that this gives a ‘‘laxe and legere form of speech,” but he thinks that there is ‘‘ nothing strange” in this, because the apostle is speaking to children in quite childlike language. But what child’s understanding would be capable of supplying with the words: ‘‘ but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,” the thought: ‘‘ sc, I have said to you” ? MEYER.—1I JOHN 2A 370 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ver. 24: “ then it is also true,” etc.; it brings out prominently the idea adnbés; ἀληθές is referred to τὸ χρῖσμα by Liicke, de Wette, Briickner, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Ewald, Braune, and others ; but the substantive ψεῦδος is opposed to this connection, for it cannot be referred to τὸ χρῖσμα, inasmuch as it is con- sidered by John as a person (διδάσκει), and must neither be arbitrarily explained, with Beza, by ψευδές, nor, with Braune, be separated from ἀληθές (“ and there is no lie in it”); Oecu- menius, Theophylact, Luther, Neander, Besser, Erdmann, and others, have therefore rightly referred ἀληθές κτλ. to that which the χρῖσμα teaches. Because this is true, and is no ψεῦδος, therefore believers do not need any teacher besides, but they may rely entirely upon the teaching of the χρῖσμα. To this thought the apostle further adds a new one, in which he goes back to the end of ver. 24.— καὶ καθώς] καθώς, as distinct from ὡς, means: “in proportion as.”’— ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς] namely, ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. ---- μένετε (μενεῖτε) ἐν αὐτῷ] The Recepta μενεῖτε is taken by Socinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Semler, and others, in the sense of the imperative; others retain the future meaning, as in ver. 24; thus Beza says: mihi videtur omnino servanda Futuri propria significatio ut est optime sperantis ; as the apostle thereby expresses his good confidence, the future accordingly has the vim consolandi (Bengel). The correct read- ing, however, is μένετε, which, corresponding to the preceding ᾿ μένει and ἔχετε, is not imperative (Ewald, Braune), but indicative (Briickner), and as such it expresses the firm conviction of the apostle that they, according to the constant instruction of the χρίσμα, abide ἐν αὐτῷ, 1.6. in Christ (Erasmus erroneously : -- ἐν τῷ χρίσματι, and Baumgarten-Crusius: “in the teaching which the χρῖσμα communicates to them”). In favour of this view is also the exhortation of ver. 28 herewith connected." Ver. 28 concludes the section beginning at ver. 18, but serves at the same time as an introduction to the following section. — καὶ νῦν] cannot, it is true, be explained, with Paulus, by “even now already,” but neither can it be ex- plained, with most of the commentators, exactly by igitur, or a similar word; here it rather introduces, as it frequently 1 Myrberg on ver. 28: Sperantis verba illa sunt, quae paullo ante legantur ; haec adhortantis, quod novum quoddam initium dicendi indicat. CHAP. 11. 28. 371 does, the following exhortation as a deduction from the present circumstances. Incorrectly Ebrard: “And now (namely, after I have spoken to the παιδίοις) I turn to you” (namely, to the whole Church): a supplement of that kind cannot be justified from the passages quoted by Ebrard; John xvi. 3; Acts x. 5, xxii. 16. — rexvia] as in ver. 1. — μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ] quite the same thought as in ver. 27. Rickli’s view is incorrect, that in ver. 27 it is “the abiding in the confession that Jesus is the Christ, but here another abiding, namely, the abiding in righteousness,” that is meant. — ἵνα ἐὰν gavepoOn| ἐάν is distinguished from ὅταν (Recepta) in this way, that it describes not the time, but only the actuality of the manifestation of Christ. The davépwors of Christ is His Parousia occurring at the end of the ἐσχάτη wpa; comp. Col. iii. 4. By the same word the first appearance of Christ on earth is also elsewhere described ; see chap. iii. 5, 8. ἔχωμεν (σχῶμεν) παῤῥησίαν] The communicative form of expression indicates that John tacitly includes himself also under the exhortation: μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ. --- παῤῥησία: the confidence of the believer at the day of judgment ; chap. iv. 17.— καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] Elsewhere also παῤῥησία and αἰσχύνεσθαι are contrasted with one another; so Prov. xiii. 5: ἀσεβὴς αἰσχύνεται καὶ οὐχ ἕξει παῤῥησίαν; comp. also Phil. 1. 20. αἰσχυνθῶμεν is either used in the passive sense, in which case the original meaning “to be shamed” passes over into this, “to be put to shame” (see Meyer on Phil. i. 20); then ἀπό (which is not = ὑπό) describes Christ as the one from whom this αἰσχύνεσθαι comes, namely, by means of His judgment of condemnation; or it is used in the middle sense: “to be ashamed,’ in which case ἀπό is not = coram (Luther, Ewald), but =“away from,’ thus: “to draw back from Him with shame ;” so Calvin, Beza, Episcopius, de Wette, Liicke (who adduces Sir. xxi. 22: ἄνθρωπος δὲ πολύπειρος αἰσχυνθήσεται ἀπὸ προσώπου), Diisterdieck, Ebrard.2 The second view de- ' Sander introduces here a foreign reference, when he thinks that John includes himself as if he would also have to be ashamed if on that day his children, whom he begot through the gospel, should come short. Similarly a Lapide: ne pudefiamus utrique, sc. tam vos, si a doctrina Christi aberretis, quam nos Apostoli et Pastores, quod vos in ea non conservaverimus, Lorinus : conjungit seipsum discipulis, spe de illorum gloria adgaudens. ? Braune thinks that the passive meaning is to be retained: ‘‘ For we shall 372 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. serves the preference, on account of the corresponding contrast with ἔχειν παῤῥησίαν. ---- ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ] expresses definitely the reference already implied in φανερωθῇ: “at His (Christ’s) coming;” παρουσία, ἴπ John only here, fre- quently appears in this sense in the N. T.; comp. Matt. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 37,:39; 1 Cor. xv. 23:5, 1) Thess.) See elsewhere. Ver. 29. With this verse the third section begins, which continues to chap. i. 22, and consists of two groups: (1) ver. 29-111. 10a, and (2) 111. 100-22.— After the apostle has warned them against the love of the κόσμος, and against the false teachers (who are ἐκ tod κύσμου), he shows the obligation of Christians to δικαιοσύνη, in which they reveal themselves as τέκνα Θεοῦ, in contrast to the τέκνα διαβόλου. Ver. 29. The apostle now goes on to indicate how it is consistent with the nature of Christians, as those that are born of God, to do righteousness, — ἐὰν εἰδῆτε] Here also the apostle directs himself to his readers’ own consciousness, as he does not want to teach them anything new, but only to state what they already know for their more earnest consideration. — ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστι. The present ἐστι is not used, either here or in iii. 5, iv. 17, for ἦν (Storr). It is doubtful whether the subject is Christ (a Lapide, Lorinus, Bengel, Rickh, From- mann, Myrberg, 1st ed. of this Comm., etc.) or God (Baum- garten - Crusius, Neander, Gerlach, Késtlin, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, and others). In favour of the former is the fact that previously, not only in ver. 25 by αὐτός, and ver. 27 by ἐν αὐτῷ, but also in ver. 28 by φανερωθῇ, ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, and ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Chirist is clearly meant ; for the /atter, that in the following ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται the pronoun refers back to the subject of δίκαιός ἐστι, and the idea γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ Χριστοῦ never appears in the writing, and, moreover, John, in what follows, calls Christians τέκνα Θεοῦ, and in ver. 9 makes use of the expression γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. iv. 7, v. 1, 4,18). From the predicate δίκαιος nothing can be inferred, as this attribute is not draw back and tremble, but we shall be rejected and cast out ;” but the meaning above stated, and accepted also by Braune, does not suit the passive idea; besides, the correspondence with the idea ἔχειν παῤῥησίαν demands the middle signification of the word, CHAP. 11. 29. 373 assigned by John both to God (i. 9) and Christ (ii. 1). As, with John’s peculiar blending of the Father and the Son (or of God and Christ), it would not be easy to explain how he can pass from the one to the other without specially indicat- ing it, it appears more safe, in accordance with the constant mode of conception and expression in the Epistle, to supply as the subject of δίκαιός ἐστι God, than Christ. It is inappro- priate, with Storr, Liicke, and others, to refer δίκαιος to Christ, and ἐξ αὐτοῦ, on the other hand, to God, because the thought of the apostle would thereby lose its peculiar force (Bengel : justus justum gignit)..—-The statement that God is δίκαιος corresponds with the statement that He is φῶς (chap. i. 5); it does not follow from ver. 28 that by δίκαιος here the justitia judicialis is to be understood; Erdmann: quum ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ad δίκαιός ἐστι, referendum sit, hoc justitiam Dei sensu judiciali significare nequit, sed absolutam ejus '‘sanctitatem. — γινώσκετε] is here not to be regarded as the indicative (Beza, Bengel, Semler, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, and others), but, as its position between μένετε (ver. 27) and ἔδετε (chap. 111. 1) shows, as the imperative: “then know, ie. observe and reflect,’ with Vulgate, Grotius, Russmeyer, Baum- garten-Crusius, de Wette, Liicke, Erdmeyer, Ebrard, Braune, and others. — ὅτι πᾶς... γεγέννηται) The same relationship in which, according to chap. i. 6, κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ Θεοῦ and περιπατεῖν ἐκ TH φωτί stand to one another, exists between γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην (so also Braune), inasmuch as the latter is the practical proof of the former, so that every one who practises righteousness— but no one else (Bengel: omnis et solus)—is born of God. That when Episcopius describes the nasci ex Deo, not as the condition, but as the result of the exercitii justitiae, he per- verts the thought of the apostle, needs no proof. The right interpretation in Bengel, Neander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erd- mann, Myrberg, Ebrard, Briickner, Braune, Weiss.2, By τὴν ‘Sander would leave the question undecided ; still he correctly states the alternative : ‘If δίκαιος must be referred to Christ, so also must ἐξ αὐτοῦ, But if the latter cannot be, if ἐξ αὐτοῦ can only be referred to God, then δίκαιος must also be referred to God.” * The thought that only he who is born of God can practise righteousness, is not exactly expressed here by John, but it is suggested in the preceding πᾶ:. When Liicke in his 2d ed. says: ‘‘ We might have properly expected ὅτι πᾶς 6 374 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. δικαιοσύνην it is plainly righteousness, in the full extent of φ the idea, that is described; with the expression ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, compare the synonymous idea ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθεια (chap. i. 6); similarly in Hebrew ΠΡῚΝ ney; Gen. avi δ: iva, 1 ; Ps.’ xiv..15.5 inthe ay, τ comp. "Matt Ἷ " ποιεῖν an “emphasis is τ which must not be overlook at comp. chap. 111. 18; for now is the truth of the experience - ἢ and of the word fr proved in deed.— In ἐξ αὐτοῦ yey. we must retain ἐξ in its proper meaning; explanations which & weaken it, such as that of Socinus: dei similem esse, or of Rosenmiiller: amari a deo, are of course to be rejected (Braune) ; the relation of the perfect γεγέννηται to the present ποιῶν is to be observed." ~~ γεγεννημένος ἐξ avrov, ποιεῖ σὴν δικαιοσύνην ; but John would appear to have the purpose of exciting in his readers the consciousness of sonship to God in Christ, therefore he states the reversed relation,”—this is erroneous, since it is rather ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην that has the chief emphasis ; in his 1st ed. Liicke correctly stated the thought of the apostle. 1 The definition of Weiss : ‘‘ The being born of God is the act by whine the known nature of God, and therewith God Himself, who indeed is received into our entire spiritual life as the object of that intuitive knowledge, operates deter- miningly, mouldingly, regeneratingly, upon our spiritual and moral being,” is in various aspects unsuitable ; for (1) it is not so much the act of God as rather the activity of man, his knowledge, which is represented as causing the being born of God ; (2) it is erroneous to describe the birth as producing, since the birth is the result of the generating activity ; (3) it is no doubt true that the birth is brought about by knowledge, for it is only by producing in man the knowledge of His nature that God produces in him the new birth ; but, on the other hand, it is just as true that the knowledge of God is conditioned by the being born of God: only he who is born of God knews God ; there are two grades of the know- ledge to be distinguished, namely, the knowledge as condition, and the knowledge as result, of being born of God,’ CHAP, III. aps CHAPTER Sie, Ver. 1. Instead of δέδωκεν, A G read the aorist: ἔδωκεν; the Rec. ᾿ς 1s, however, sufficiently attested by the majority of authorities. _—The reading ivi in B is not even accepted by Buttm, rightly ; for it no doubt owes its existence merely to the con- nection with the 2d pers.: “dere. — After χληθῶμεν is found in A BCR, many min. and vss., in Thph. Aug. Bede, the addition : καὶ ἐσμέν; the Vulg. and other Latin vss. have: et simus; Oecum. in his comm.: ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τέκνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τε καὶ κληθῆναι, and Thph. in his comm.: γενέσθαι τε καὶ λογισθῆναι. According to these authorities, the addition must be regarded as genuine (Lachm. Diisterd. Ewald, Briickner); Tisch. (follow- ing G K, many min. Copt. etc.) has not accepted it; many eritics (thus even Reiche) explain it as a gloss; this it certainly may be—taken from ver. 2; but the overwhelming weight of authorities is in favour of its genuineness. Diisterdieck thinks that the omission originated in a false explanation of χληθῶμεν. — Instead of ἡμᾶς, 8 has ὑμᾶς. ---- Ver. 2. After o7damev the Ree. has 62 (G K, ete., Syr. Copt. etc., Thph. Oec. etc.), which, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B Cx, several min. etc., is to be deleted; its insertion is easily explained by the apparent antithesis to the preceding. — Ver. 4. The Rec. ἡ ἁμαρτία is certified by all the authorities; Lachm. omits ἡ, but, as Tisch. observes, sine teste, for even B, to which Lachm. appeals, reads ἡ ἁμαρτία. After ἐστιν, δὲ (sol.) reads xai, which, scarcely genuine, serves to connect more closely the two ideas ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία. — Ver. 5. Instead of οἴδατε, 8 (sol.) reads οἴδαμεν, which makes no essential difference in the thought.—rd¢ ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν] fee. following C G K 8, etc. Syr. etc., Thph. Oec. Bede (de Wette); Lachm. and Tisch. omit ἡμῶν, following A B, etc., Copt. Theb. etc., Tert. Aug. ete. The genuineness of ἡμῶν is certainly doubtful; perhaps it was omitted at a later date, to generalize the idea τὰς ἁμαρτίας - Reiche regards it as genuine. — Ver. 6. With the reading ἑόρακεν in Tisch. 7, comp. chap. i. 1.— Ver. 7. Instead of the Ree. τεκνίω (in B G KX, etc., vss. min. Thph. Oec. Tert. etc., Lachm.), Tisch. has accepted παιδία, after A C, etc., Copt. etc.; it is difficult to decide; it is possible that rexviz 15. a correction for παιδία, a form of address unusual in the Epistle. That παιδία, as Ebrard thinks, is a correction, 876 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. because in the section beginning with the address va:d/« (chap. ii. 18) the conclusion is περὶ τῶν πλανώντων (ver. 25), and here the same verb (μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς) follows the address, has little probability in its favour.— Ver. 10. Lachm. in his larger ed. has instead of the Mec. ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, which he had retained in his smaller ed., the reading ὧν δίκαιος, attested by no cod., but only by the Vulg., some other vss. and several Fathers (Or. Tert. Cyp. etc.); clearly without adequate reason. — The Codd. A C K, ete., have before δικαιοσύνην the article σήν, probably inserted in correspondence with ver. 7 and chap. ii. 29. — Ver. 11. Instead of the Rec. ἀγγελία, C δὰ, etc., some vss. read ἐπαγγελία ; probably in accordance with chap. 1]. 25; de Wette considers it the original reading, just as chap. i. 5; scarcely correct. — Ver. 13. δὲ has before μὴ θαυμάζετε: “zai,” clearly added for the purpose of closer connection. — ἀδελφοί] according to A BCR, 27, etc., Vule. etc., Aug. Oros. etc.; recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm. Tisch. ; the Rec. adds μου, after G K, etc. — Ver. 14. After σοὺς ἀδελφούς ἐξ reads ἡμῶν, probably a later addition to complete the thought. — ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφόν] Lec. following C G K, Thph. Oecum. ; τὸν ἀδελφόν is, however, a later addition; it isnot found in A Bx, etc., Vulg. etc., Aug. etc. ; justly omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; its insertion is easily explained; Reiche, however, is of a different opinion. — Ver. 15. Instead of αὐτοῦ, as Lachm. and Tisch., or αὑτοῦ, as most of the editors read, B has ἑαυτοῦ. --- ἐν αὑτῷ (or better: ἐν αὐτῷ, Tisch.), Rec. after BG K, etc., Thph. Oec. — Lachm. has accepted ἐν ἑαυτῷ, the reading of A C 8, etc. — Ver. 16. Instead of τιθέναι (Lec. according to ἃ Κα, eic., Oec.) we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the overwhelming evidence of A B C καὶ, ete. the aorist dias. — Ver. 18. After rexvia the Rec. (following α K, etc.) has μοῦ, the genuineness of which, however, is justly doubted by Griesb. — The article τῇ before γλώσσῃ, which is omitted by the Ree., is with certainty attested by almost all authorities; it is wanting, however, in 8.— Before ἔργῳ the «1066. has omitted ἐν, only on the evidence of K; almost all the authorities attest its genuine- ness; as the co-ordinate ideas are without ἐν, it was natural to omit the preposition with ἔργῳ also. — Ver. 19. Before ἐν τούτῳ the Rec., following C G Καὶ &, most min. vss. etc., reads χαΐ, which is also accepted by Tisch. Lachm. has omitted it; it is wanting in A B, etc., Vulg. Copt. ete.; it is, however, probably genuine; omitted because it seemed unsuitable for the con- nection. — Instead of γινώσκομεν, Fec., following G K, ete. Vulg. etc. (Tisch.), A B C8, etc.’ several vss. etc., read γνωσόμεθα ‘ Liicke, whom Sander copies, says that C does not testify in fayour of γνωσόμεθα, but according to Tischendorf it certainly does, CHAP. III. 1. She (Lachm.); as the latter is the more difficult reading, and besides has the most important authorities in its favour, it is to be regarded as genuine, with Ewald, Briickner, Braune, contrary to the opinion of Liicke, de Wette, Reiche; Bengel and de Wette think that the following πείσομεν has led to the change of the present to the future; but it is just as likely that the indicative is a correction of the copyists, in accordance with the frequently-occurring formula: ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν, 11. ὦ, 11]. 24, iv. 2, ν. 2 (Erdmann).— τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν] Rec. following A** C G KX, almost all min., several vss. Thph. Oecum. Bede ; retained by Tisch. and Lachm. (in his larger ed.); in the small ed. Lachm. has: τὴν xapdiev ἡμῶν, after A* B, Syr. etc.; the plural was apparently altered to the singular in accordance with ver. 20. — Ver. 20. Instead of ὅτι ἐάν, Lachm. and Buttm. read: 6 τι ἐάν ; see on this the explanation of the verse. — The ὅτι before μείζων, Which Lachm. had omitted in his small ed. (following A, etc., Vulg. etc., Oec. etc.), he has again rightly accepted in the larger ed. The change of it to ἔτι, which Henr. Stephanus would read, is arbitrary. — Ver. 21. The genuine- ness of ἡμῶν (fec.) after ἡ καρδία is uncertain; it 15 found in C G K 8, ete. (Tisch.), but is wanting in A B, etc., Vulg. ete. (Lachm.). — The ἡμῶν after καταγινώσκῃ is Wanting in B and C; it is, however, hardly spurious, as it is indispensable for the sense. Instead of ἔχομεν, attested by almost all the authorities, B has ἔχει, originating in a false reference to καρδία. ---- Ver. 22. Instead of ὃ ἐάν, B reads ὃ ἄν. — Instead of the active form: αἰτῶμεν, there is found in & the middle form: αἰτώμεθα. ---- In opposition to the Ree. rap αὐτοῦ (G K, etc.), dx’ αὐτοῦ deserves the preference, according to the authorities (A B C 8, etc., Lachm. Tisch.). — The reading τηρῶμεν In δὲ instead of τηροῦμεν is no doubt only a clerical error. — Ver. 23, πιστεύσωμεν] Ke-. following BG K, al. pl., Oec. Tisch.; the reading of A CR, etc., Thph., on the other hand, is πιστεύωμεν ; recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm., probably a change in accordance with the following present ἀγαπῶμεν; so Reiche thinks. — After ἐντολήν, ἡμῖν 15 wanting in G K, ete. (omitted by Tisch.). The most important authorities attest the genuineness of 744%; Reiche, however, regards it as a later addition. — Ver. 24. [ἢ δὲ the καί 15 wanting before ἐν τούτῳ ; in the same cod. οὗ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν is found instead of the Ree. οὗ ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν. Ver. 1. From the ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται (chap. 11. 29) the apostle goes on to the thought that he and his readers are children of God, whence he deduces the necessity that exists for them of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. First, however, he points his readers to the love of God, through which they have 378 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. become children of God, inviting them to the consideration of it by ἴδετε. -- ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ] what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us. ποτωπός (later form for ποδαπός, properly =from whence?) in the N. Τὶ, never in the direct question, is strictly, it is true, not = quantus, but = qualis (comp. Luke 1. 29; 2 Pet. iii. 11), but is frequently used as an expression of admiration at anything especially wonderful (comp. Matt. viii. 27; Mark xiii. 1; Luke vii. 59), so that the meaning of qualis passes over into that of quantus; and so it is to be taken here also.— ἀγάπην διδόναι only here; διδόναι is more significant than ἐνδεικνύναι or a similar expression; it means: “to give, to bestow.” God has made His love our property (so also Braune). It is quite incorrect to take δεδόναι = destinare, and, weakening the thought, ἀγάπην as metonymous for “ love- token” (Grotius), or for effectum charitatis (Socinus).’ The reference which Calvin finds in the word, when he says: quod dicit datan esse caritatem, significat: hoc merae esse liberali- tatis, quod nos Deus pro filiis habet, is not indicated by John. — On ἡμῖν a Lapide remarks: indignis, inimicis, pecca- toribus. — The name ὁ πατήρ points to the following τέκνα Ocod.— iva τέκνα Θεοῦ κχληθῶμεν] Paulus,de Wette, Liicke, etc., retain ἵνα in its original meaning ; “ the greatness of the divine love,” says Liicke, “lies in the sending of the Son” (chap. iv. 10). This thought is correct in itself; but the apostle is not | here thinking of the sending Christ; it is therefore arbitrary to supply it; here there is in his mind only the fact that we —as believers—are called the children of God: “ This is the proof and the result of love” (Spener); ἵνα is accordingly used here in modified signification, synonymous with ἐν τούτῳ, ὅτι, only that by wa the τέκνα O. «dy. is more definitely described as the purpose (not, however, as the object of an act distinguished from it) of the love of the Father ; 1A Lapide interprets ἀγάπην in the Catholic interest: i.e. charitatem tum activam (actum amoris Dei quo nos mire amat), tum passivam nobisque a Deo communicatam et infusam. Videte quantam charitatem... nobis... praestitit et exhibuit Deus, cum... charitatem creatam nobis dedit et infudit, qua filii Dei nominamur et sumus. — Very appropriately Luther, in his Scholia : usus est Joannes singulari verborum pondere: non dicit, dedisse nobis Deum donum aliquod, sed ipsam caritatem et fontem omnium bonorum, cor ipsum, ete, CHAP. IL, 1. 379 Ebrard unsuitably gives the meaning by the explanation ποτ. ay. δέδωκεν nu. ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ βούλεσθαι ἵνα x.T.r., inasmuch as the love of God is bestowed on us, not in His will, but in the act which is the outcome of it. — καλεῖσθαι is erro- neously explained by Baumgarten-Crusius = ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν γενέσθαι, John i. 12, s0 that the sense would be: “that we have the right to dare to call ourselves God’s children” (Neander) ; it is very common to take καλεῖσθαι = εἶναι, Augustin: hic non est discrimen inter dici et esse; this is so far correct as the name, which is here spoken of, inanis esse titulus non potest (Calvin), for: “ where God gives a name, He always gives the nature itself along with it” (Besser); the εἶναι is included in the καλεῖσθαι; yet the very fact of being called is significant, for it is only in the name that the being is revealed, and it is through that giving of a name that the separation of believers from the world is actually accomplished. iva... κληθῶμεν is usually translated: “that we should be called.” Ewald adds: “at the day of judgment,” but it is not the future, but the present, that is here spoken of; κληθῶμεν is therefore not to be. taken as the subj. fut., but as the subj. aor.: “that we were named, and therefore are called.” Braune would explain the apostle’s expression in this way, that being children of God is “a work only gradually accomplished, an operation;” incorrectly, for “being the children of God” is certainly “a simply stated fact;” comp. the καὶ ἐσμέν and ver. 2. Instead of τέκνα αὐτοῦ, John says τ. Θεοῦ, because he wants to state the full name itself. The view of Baumgarten-Crusius has less in its favour, that the apostle contrasted πατήρ and Θεοῦ in order to indicate: “He bestowed it on us lovingly, that we should be connected with the Godhead, inasmuch as the former describes the divine will, the latter the divine nature.” — καὶ ἐσμέν, which according to the majority of authorities is scarcely a mere gloss (see the critical notes), says John in an independent form, not depending on ἵνα (the Vulgate erroneously = simus),’ 1 Ebrard thinks that ἐσμέν may be dependent upon ἵνα, not certainly according to Buttmann’s, but according to John’s grammar ; incorrectly, for the present indicative after ἵνα is not surely attested in John even by a single passage, whilst it is unmistakeably in Paul, 1 Cor. iv. 6 and Gal. iv. 17 (comp. in addition, Al. Buttmann, p. 202, note) ; it therefore appears most probable that 380 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. in order still more specially to bring out the element of being, which was certainly contained already in «An@dpev. — Not in order to comfort believers in regard to the persecutions which they have to suffer from the world (de Wette, Liicke, etc.), but to specify the contrast in which believers as τέκνα Θεοῦ stand to the world, and the greatness of the love of the Father who has given them that name, the apostle continues: da τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς) διὰ τοῦτο refers back to the preceding thought (Bengel, de Wette, Briickner, Braune) ; thus: therefore, because we are children of God; the follow- ing ὅτι then serves to confirm the reason why the world does not know us as children of God. It is true, διὰ τοῦτο might be also directly referred to ὅτε. (Baumgarten-Crusius, also perhaps Liicke, Ewald); but with this reference the sentence would come in too disconnectedly. — With ὁ κόσμος comp. chap. 11. 15.— ov γινώσκει means: “does not know us,” Le. our inner nature, which we as τέκνα Θεοῦ possess, is to the world something incomprehensible ; to it, alienated from God, what is godly is strange and inconceivable; comp. John xiv. 17. Many commentators unnecessarily deviate from this proper meaning of the word; thus Grotius, who interprets it =non agnoscit pro suis; Semler = nos rejicit, reprobat ; Baumgarten-Crusius = μισεῖ (“ therefore the world cannot endure us, because it cannot endure Him—God ”), — ὅτε οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν] “ for it did not know Him” (namely, God or the Father); S. Schmid erroneously explains ἔγνω by: credere in Deum; Episcopius by: jussa Dei observare; John’s idea of knowledge is to be retained, as in the case of γινώσκει, so also in ἔγνω (Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune). Ver. 2. After emphatic resumption of ἐσμέν, the apostle indicates the yet concealed glory of the τέκνα Θεοῦ. He begins with the address ἀγαπητοί, which occurs to him here the more readily as he feels himself most closely connected with his readers in the common fellowship with God (so also καὶ ἐσμέν is added by John, not indeed as a triumphant exclamation, but as an utterance about the actual present state of his readers, confirming the preceding. If ἐσμέν 15. regarded as dependent on ἵνα, we are compelled to weaken the idea κληθῶμεν, for Ebrard’s supposition that in κληθῶμεν is contained the relationship of God to us, or the element of ‘‘ being reconciled,” and in ἐσμέν, on the other hand, ‘‘ our relationship to God, or the element of the conversion and renewal of our nature,” lacks any tenable ground. CHAP. III. 2. 981 Diisterdieck). — νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμέν] νῦν is used in reference to the future (οὔπω) ; it is here a particle of time, not = “ now, in consequence of that decree” (de Wette); a contrast with what immediately precedes (Liicke: “amidst all mistake on the part of the world, we are nevertheless really now the children of God;” so also Diisterdieck and Braune) is not suggested by it. Hereby the present glory of the believing Christian is described ;* before the apostle mentions the future glory, he observes that this is yet concealed: καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα] φανεροῦσθαι may, as Ebrard re- marks, mean both: “to be actually revealed,” ov: “for the knowledge to be revealed;” most commentators rightly take the word here in the first meaning; it is true, Ebrard main- tains that this explanation is grammatically impossible, because davepow, as governing a question, can only have the meaning of theoretical revelation; but this assertion is unfounded, for in the N. T. wsus loquendi (nay, even in the classics) the interrogative τίς, sometimes τί, confessedly appears where, according to the rule, the relative should properly be used ; comp. Winer, p. 152; VII. p. 158 f.; Al. Buttmann, p. 216; and especially if the thought involves an assumed question, as is the case here.” That φανεροῦσθαι cannot here be under- stood of the theoretical revelation is clear—(1) from the fact that no ἡμῖν is put with it, which Ebrard arbitrarily inserts when he interprets: “it has not yet been revealed to ws, no information about it has yet been communicated to us;” (2) from the fact that the apostle himself immediately after- wards says what Christians will be in the future; (3) from the fact that a confession of present ignorance is at variance with the natural connection ; from the fact that with this view a very artificial thought results for the following words: οἴδαμεν k.7.X. ; 1 De Wette incorrectly remarks on ἐσμέν : ‘by destiny, by faith and aspira- tion or idea ;” John rather signifies by ἐσμέν the actual reality. * Acts xiii. 25 is especially to be compared. According to Buttmann, the interrogative is used for the relative only after predicates which have a certain similarity with the verba sentiendi, etc., thus especially after ἔχειν (Mark viii. 1, 2); yet this similarity is sometimes at the least very remote, thus with δοθή- σεται, Matt. x. 19, and with ἑτοίμασον, Luke xvii. 8, where Buttmann finds him- self compelled to supply a connecting verb. Besides, a similarity with the verba sentiendi is not to be denied to the verb φανεροῦσθαι, even if it does not describe the theoretical revelation, for the coming out of concealment includes the be- coming visible. 382 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. see below. — By οὔπω ἐφανερώθη x.7.d. the apostle accordingly states that the future condition of those who at present are τέκνα Θεοῦ is still concealed, has not yet come to light (comp. Col. iii. 3; Rom. viii. 18)... This future state is, it is true, something different from the present, yet it is not absolutely new, but is that “ which is latent and established in the pre- sent” (Diisterdieck, Braune). — οἴδαμεν ὅτε ἐὰν φανερωθῇ «.T.r.] By οἴδαμεν the apostle expresses his own and his readers’ consciousness of that which, as τέκνα Θεοῦ, they will be in the future. — With φανερωθῇ we must supply τί ἐσό- μεθα, the meaning is the same as it previously has; so it is correctly explained by Didymus, Augustin, Socinus, Grotius, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Semler, Liicke, Diister- dieck, Erdmann, Braune, etc. As Ebrard similarly supplies τί ἐσόμεθα, but understands φανερωθῇ here also of the knowledge, there results for him this thought: “we know rather that when it shall be made known to us, we shall even already be like Him,” in which “the emphasis is made to rest on the con- temporancousness of the theoretical φανεροῦσθαι with the actual ὅμοιοι ἔσεσθαι ;” but in this interpretation, which suffers from unjustifiable supplements, a reference is brought out as the chief element of the thought which is in no way indicated, and is foreign to the context.— Some critics supply with φανερωθῇ as subject Χριστός, as in chap. ii. 28, so Syrus, Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Calov, Semler, etc. (Myrberg at least thinks that this is not omnino improbabile); this is, however, erroneous, as in this φανερωθῇ what immediately precedes is clearly resumed. It is self-evident that this revelation will take place ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ Χριστοῦ ; comp. 11. 28. —dpovor αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα] αὐτῷ, ic. Deo, cujus sumus filii (Bengel) ; the idea remains, indeed, essentially the same if αὐτῷ is taken = Χριστῷ (Storr), but the context decides in favour of the first explanation. The apostle says: we shall be to God ὅμοιοι, not ἴσοι, because likeness to God will not be unconditioned, but conditioned by the nature of the creature, as a creature ; in so far ὅμοιος may be translated by “ like,” only this idea 1 Ebrard groundlessly asserts that this view amounts to a tautology: ‘‘ our future state is still future,” for according to it the apostle rather expresses the thought that the future condition of the σέκνα Θεοῦ will be distinguished from the present ; in which, plainly, there is not the slightest tautology contained, CHAP, 111. 2. 383 has something indefinite in it, and therefore Sander not unjustly says “that thereby the point of the thought is lost.” As John himself does not more particularly define this future ὁμοιότης of man with God, the commentator must not arbitrarily restrict the general idea on the one side or the other, as, for instance, by the reference to the “ light-nature of God” (Ebrard), or the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (Diisterdieck), or the δόξα Θεοῦ (de Wette’). — Ore ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν, καθώς ἐστι] This sentence states the logical ground of the foregoing; Calvin correctly: ratio haec ab effectu sumta est, non a causa; so that the sense is: “ because we shall see Him as He is, we therefore know that we shall be like Him” (Rickli; so also Socinus, 8. Schmidt, Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.). It is a different thought in 2 Cor. iil. 18, according to which Bengel explains: ex aspectu, simi- litudo (similarly Irenaeus, adv. haer. iv. 38, says: ὅρασις Θεοῦ “εριποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας), according to which the sense is: “the beholding is the cause of the likeness” (Spener; simi- larly Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Neander, Késtlin, Diis- terdieck, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, etc.). But John does not here want to explain whence the ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ comes to the believer, but on what the οἴδαμεν is based. The certain hope of the Christian is that he shall see God. In that hope there lies for him the certainty that he will one day be like God; for God can only be seen by him who is like Him.? When Rickli remarks on ὀψόμεθα: “not a bodily vision of Him who is Spirit; it is the spiritual behold- ing, the knowledge of God in His infinite divine nature” (similarly Frommann, p. 217), or when others interpret this ὁρᾷν simply by “to know aright,” and similarly, this is con- trary to the sense of the apostle ; for as the word itself indeed shows, an actual seeing is meant. For man in his earthly 1 Baumgarten-Crusius and others quote on this passage 2 Pet. i. 4: κοινωνοὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως ; this is (as Briickner also remarks) unsuitable, for in this ex- pression the author of that Epistle does not say what the Christian will be one day, but what he already is ; it therefore corresponds rather to the τέκνα Θεοῦ, * To Diisterdieck’s question, Why then did not the apostle write: ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν, ὅτι ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα ὃ it isa valid reply: because he did not want to represent the beholding of God, but likeness to God, as the purpose of the divine love. The justification of the rejected explanation by 2 Cor. iii. 18 is inappro- priate, because John describes the future condition of the children of God, not as a becoming like, but as a being like (ἐσόμεθα). 384 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. body, God is certainly invisible; but it is different with the glorified man in his σῶμα πνευματικόν (1 Cor. xv. 44); he will not merely know (the believer has knowledge already here), but see God; and, moreover, no longer δι ἐσόπτρου ἐν aiviy- ματι, but πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, 1 Cor. xiii, 12. Compare on the seeing of God, Matt. v. 8; 2 Cor. v. 7; Rev. xxii. 4. — By καθώς ἐστι the entire reality of the nature of God: “as He is, not merely in a copy, etc., but in Himself and in His nature, His perfect majesty and glory” (Spener), is described." The relation of the single parts of this verse is usually regarded by the commentators as adversative; cer- tainly νῦν and οὔπω form an antithesis, but the connecting καί shows that the apostle considered the first two thoughts less in their antithesis to one another than in their co-ordina- tion, imasmuch as it occurred to him to emphasize them both equally: both that believers are now really τέκνα Θεοῦ, and also that a glory as yet concealed—namely, likeness to God— awaits them. Between the third and fourth parts also a sort of antithesis occurs (hence the Recepta δέ), but here also the apostle is not anxious to bring out this contrast, but rather to add to the negatively-expressed thought, for its confirma- tion, the positive substance of Christian consciousness ; comp. de Wette-Briickner, Braune. Ver. 3 shows the moral effect of the Christian hope; not the condition with which the fulfilment of it is conneeted, as Liicke thinks. The same combination of ideas, only in the form of exhortation, occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 18 and vil. 1; 2 Pet. ili. 13, 14. — πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ] namely, the hope of one day being like God.” “Τὴ the case of πᾶς ὁ ἔχ. we can, as in 11. 29, bring out the converse in the meaning of the apostle: every one... and only such” (Diisterdieck). 1 Calvin : Deus nunc se nobis conspiciendum offert, non qualis est, sed qualem modulus noster eum capit. Weiss rightly observes that the emphasis is laid on καθώς ἐστιν; but it is incorrect for him to place this in contrast with His mani- festation in the Son ; for God has not revealed Himself in Christ otherwise than καθώς tors.—As a curiosity the explanation of Oertel may be given here: ‘‘ One day after several centuries, mankind, which now belongs too much to the spirit of barbarism, will become more glorified, more ennobled, and more happy, and thus attain to the perfect knowledge of the plan of God and the purpose of Jesus.” * Ebrard groundlessly would understand by ἐλσίς the treasure which is the object of the hope. CHAP. III. 4. 385 The phrase ἔχειν ἐλπίδα ἐπί with dative only here; Acts xxiv. 15: ἔχ. ἐλπ. els Θεόν; but ἐλπίζειν ἐπί with dative : Rom. xv. 12 and 1 Tim. vi. 17.— αὐτῷ, 1... Θεῷ] God is regarded as the basis on which the hope is founded. The idea of maintaining (Spener) is not contained in éyew. — ἁγνίζει ἑαυτὸν καθὼς K.7..] ayvifew (comp. on 1 Pet. 1. 22), not “ to keep oneself pure” (ἃ Mons, Bengel, Russmeyer, etc.), but “to purify oneself, 1.6. to make oneself free of everything that is unholy ;” in Jas. iv. 8 it is used synonymously with καθα- pif. This self-purification necessarily follows from the Christian’s hope, because the object of this is to be like God, and therefore also to be holy. — In reference to the opinion that this purification is described as an act of man, Augustine says: videte quemadmodum non abstulit liberum arbitrium, ut diceret : castificat semetipsum. Quis nos castificat nisi Deus ? Sed Deus te nolentem non castificat. Castificas te, non de te; sed de illo, qui venit, ut habitet in te. The active impulse of this ayvitew ἑαυτόν does not lie in the natural liberum arbitrium of man, but in the hope, which the salvation work of God presupposes in man. — This purification takes place after the pattern (καθώς) of Christ (ἐκεῖνος, ver. 4), who is dyvos, 1.0. “pure from every sinful stain.” The want of harmony which exists in the juxtaposition of the ayviGew ἑαυτόν of the Chris- tian and the ἁγνὸν εἶναι of Christ, must not induce us to take καθώς here otherwise than in ver. 7, 11. 6, iv. 17, namely = quandoquidem, so that this clause would add a second motive for the dyvifew ἑαυτόν, as Ebrard thinks; tho sense rather is, that the purity of Christ is the pattern for Christians, which the Christian by self-purification strives to copy in his life also. — ἐστί: “the ἁγνότης is a quality inherent in Christ” (Liicke) ; the present is not put for the preterite, but signifies the unbroken permanent state; chap. ii. 29. Ver. 4. The believer is so much the more bound to holi- ness, as all sin is ἀνομία. ---- πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν K.7.d.| corresponding to the beginning of ver. 3, πᾶς ὁ ἔχων «.7.r. The apostle is anxious to emphasize the truth of the thought as being with- out exception. ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, as the antithesis of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, chap. ii. 29, is contrasted with ayvifew ἑαυτόν, ver. 3; as the apostle “wants to contrast with the positive sentence ver. 3 its negative counterpart,” “he begins Meryer.—1 Joun. 28 386 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. with the antithesis of that idea which formed the predicate in ver. 3, and makes it the subject” (Ebrard). The definite article shows that the idea, according to its complete extent, is intended as definite, as forming the concrete antithesis to 7 δικαιοσύνη ;* both the interpretation of Socinus: “ to remain in sin,” and that of Baumgarten-Crusius: “ to receive sin into oneself, to let it exist in oneself,’ are alike arbitrary; even the very common definition: “to sin knowingly and wilfully,” is out of place here, as the subject here is not the way in which sin is done, but the actual doing of sin itself. According to Briickner? by ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν “an actual moral tendency of life” is indicated; this explanation is apparently justified by vv. 6, 8, 9, but even in these passages the apostle’s meaning goes beyond the restricted idea of “ tendency of life,” inasmuch as he certainly has sinning in view. — καὶ τὴν apap- τίαν ποιεῖ] “καί accentuates the idea that the very doing of ἁμαρτία is as such equally the doing of ἀνομία" (Diisterdieck) ; by ἀνομία we are to understand, according to the constant usus loquendi, never the mere non-possession of the law (dif- ferently ἄνομος, 1 Cor. ix. 21), but always the violation of the law, namely, of the divine law, of the divine order according to which man should regulate his life,—lawlessness (Liicke).° The sense therefore is: he who practises sin (in whatever way it may be) thereby makes himself guilty of the violation of divine order, he acts contrary to the θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, chap. ii. 17. According to Ebrard, τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖν expresses the antithesis of ἔχειν τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην, ver. 3; but it is more correct to perceive in that sentence—instead of a con- clusion—the introduction of a new element, by which the sharp contrast with τὴν δικαιοσύνην (ii. 29) is indicated. — The following words: καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία, are added, 1 Braune, however, rightly observes that too strong an emphasis is not to be laid here, either upon the article or on rasiv, for in ver. 9 it is put ἁμαρείαν σοιεῖν, and then, as synonymous with it, simply ἁμαρτάνειν ; nevertheless, it is to be noticed that ‘‘the fuller idea σοιεῖν σὴν ἅμ. at the beginning includes and determines the others, σοιεῖν au. and ἁμαρτάνειν " (Ebrard). 2 Briickner rightly rejects the interpretation of de Wette : ἁμαρτία appears to be the broader idea, ἀνομία the narrower, more definite and stronger, including particular offences, vices, etc. 3 ἀνομία ig distinguished from ἀδικία (i. 9, v. 17) in this way, that the former idea is contrasted with abstract right (δίκη), the latter with the concrete form of right (νόμος) (Briickner). CHAP. IIL δ. 387 partly to confirm the previous thought, partly to mark empha- tically the identity of ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία which is expressed in it. The apostle does not want to give an exact definition of the idea ἁμαρτία (contrary to Sander), but to indicate its nature from the side “on which its absolute antagonism to any fellowship with God appears most unrestrictedly” (Briickner). The apostle could not more sharply express the antithesis between the character of the believer, who 5 a τέκνον Θεοῦ, and will be ὅμοιος Θεῷ, and the ἁμαρτία, than by showing ἁμαρτία to be ἀνομία, whereby he most distinctly opposes the moral indifferentism, against which the first section of the Epistle is also directed. Violence is done to the thought, both by limiting the idea ἁμαρτία to a particular kind of sin (a Lapide: loquitur proprie de peccato perfecto, puta mortifero), and by making ἀνομία the subject and ἁμαρτία the predicate; so also by mixing up references which are foreign to the context.’ The καί by which the two sentences are connected with one another, Bengel translates and explains by: immo (so also Briickner by “ nay”), with the remark: non solum conjwncta est notio peccati et iniquitatis, sed eadem ; this is incorrect, for even the first sentence expresses, not a mere connection, but identity. The apostle could have written instead of καί the confirmatory particle ὅτι, or the like, but by means of καί the thought of the second clause obtains a more independent position (so also Braune). Ver. 5 contains a new proof of the incompatibility of the Christian life with sin ; this exists in Christ, to whose example the apostle has already pointed in ver. 3. Of Christ John states two things, while he appeals to the consciousness of his readers (οἴδατε ; the same is the case with the reading of w: oidawev)—(1) that His manifestation (ἐφανερώθη, an expres- ’ 1 Kostlin (p. 246) appeals in behalf of this construction to John i. 1: καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὃ λόγος, assuming that καὶ ἁμωρτία x.7.2. is to be read; see, however, the critical notes. Against this construction there is, besides, the fact that ἁμαρτία would have to be taken ina different sense here from that in which it is pre- viously used, namely, as Kostlin says: ‘* The first time ἁμαρτία means sinful action, the second time guilt in the sight of God.” * This is the case, for example, in Hilgenfeld’s explanation: ‘‘ Not every one who deviates from the ceremonial laws, but only the sinner, falls under the cate- gory of ἀνομία ;” not less in the remark of Calvin: ‘‘the sum of the thought is that the life of those who give themselves to sin is hateful to God, and cannot be tolerated by God.” 388 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. sion which refers to the previously unrevealed existence of Christ in heaven) had this purpose: ἵνα tas ἁμαρτίας apn; and (2) that He is without sin.— τὰς ἁμαρτίας αἴρειν may, of course, mean in itself “ to bear our sins,’ 1.6. as the atoning sacrifice, in order thereby to procure their forgiveness, but here it means “to take away, to remove our sins;” for even although the Hebrew expression ἣν 8¥2 signifies both, yet the LXX. translates this in the second sense only by αἴρειν, but in the first sense by φέρειν (comp. Meyer on John i. 29, and my comm. on 1 Pet. ii. 24); moreover, αἴρειν with John con- stantly means “ to take away ;” comp. xi. 48, xv. 2, xvii. 15, xix. 31, 38; and the context is also decisive in favour of this meaning, for even though in the thought that Christ bore our sins, inasmuch as He suffered for them, there lies a mighty impulse to avoid sins, yet the antagonism of the Christian life to sin appears more directly and more strongly if the taking away of sins is described as the purpose of the manifestation of Christ. Kostlin (p. 180) rightly says: “the expression signifies to take away the sins themselves, but not their guilt or their punishment, for it is added: καὶ ἅμ. ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν, and in ver. 8: ἔργα tod διαβόλου. This interpretation in Calvin, Luther, Russmeyer, Paulus, Baumgarten - Crusius, Neander, Frommann (p. 449), Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, ete., contrary to which Liicke, de Wette, Erdmann, etc., explain αἴρειν =“ to bear ;” Liicke: “ the object of the manifes- tation of Christ is the bearing of sins as a holy offering in His death ;” while others, as Bede (“tollit et dimittendo quae facta sunt et adjuvando ne fiant et perducendo ad vitam, ubi fieri omnino non possint ”), Socinus, a Lapide, Spener, Sander, Besser (also Liicke in his 1st ed.’), combine both meanings. Weiss, it is true, interprets aipew correctly, but thinks that the plural ἁμαρτίας “ can only signify actually existing sins ” which Christ takes away, “inasmuch as His blood cleanses us from their guilt ;” but in the whole context the subject is not the guilt of sins, but the sins themselves. The plural, how- ever, by no means renders that interpretation compulsory. — 1“ Αὔρειν σ᾿. ἅμ. ἡμῶν corresponds to the xabapiley ἀπὸ πάσης ἄμ., i. 7, and signi- fies the whole extent of the redemptive activity of Christ, His office of taking away sin, both in the ideal sense by the act of forgiving sin, and also in the real sense by the act of sanctifying the saved.” CHAP. III. 6. 389 The pronoun ἡμῶν after τὰς ἁμαρτίας (see the critical notes) is regarded by Liicke and de Wette as genuine; Liicke: “ be- cause John would otherwise have written τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ;” de Wette: “because its omission appears to be occasioned by the interpretation of αἴρειν =to remove ;” Diisterdieck remarks against ἡμῶν, that in the whole section vv. 4-10 there is no direct application expressed ; from internal grounds it cannot be decided, inasmuch as τὰς ἅμαρτ. ἡμῶν can be taken quite as generally as the simple tas ἁμαρτίας. In regard to the plural tas ἁμαρτίας, Diisterdieck rightly says that “thereby the form of representation is made so much the more vivid, as the whole mass of all individual sins is taken into view.” It is to be observed that John does not regard Christ, accord- ing to the Pelagian mode of thought, only as the motive for the free self-determination of man, but as the active living cause of sanctification determining the will of man. It is His crucifixion especially from which proceeds, not only the for- giveness of sins, but also (in and with this) the new life, in which the believer purifies himself (ayvifev), even as He is pure (ayvés).— The second thing which John states of Christ is: καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστι. The meaning of these words is not that in those who are in Christ there is no sin (Calvin, Paulus), but that Christ Himself is without sin ; comp. ver. 3, ii, 29. This clause is not meant to confirm the preceding one (a Lapide: ideo Christus potens fuit tollere peccatum, quia carebat omni peccato, imo potestate peccandi ; so also Oecumenius, Lorinus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Neander) ; but it is co-ordinate with it (Liicke, de Wette- Briickner, Diisterdieck, Braune), in order to serve as a basis for the following statement. — The present ἐστί is not used instead of the preterite (Grotius), nor is it to be explained in this way, with Winer (p. 239, VII. 251), that “the sinlessness of Jesus is considered as still present in faith ;” but it rather denotes, as in ver. 3, the character of Christ in its eternal existence. Ver. 6. πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτᾷ (ie. Χριστῷ) μένων] refers back to the exhortation in ii. 27; μένειν, not merely =inesse, ex- presses close fellowship. — οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει] John hereby states the abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable opposites ; still it is not his meaning that the believing Christian does not sin any more at all, or that he who still sins is not in 390 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Christ, for in 1. 8-10, 11. 1, 2, ui. 3, he clearly enough ex- presses that sin still clings to the Christian, and that he therefore needs constantly both the forgiving and saving grace of God and the intercession of Christ, as well as self- purification. The solution of the apparent contradiction must not be sought by giving the word ἁμαρτάνειν here a meaning different from what it has elsewhere (¢g.— persistere in pec- cato; or with Capellus—sceleratum esse, or—=to commit peccata mortalia) ; nor even by appealing to the apostle’s zdeal mode of conception (de Wette, Diisterdieck ; substantially also Weiss and Briickner’), for “ John has here to do with veal cases, and wants to indicate to us the marks by which it may be known whether a man loves the Lord or not, whether he is a child of God or of the wicked one” (Sander), as is clear from φανερά ἐστι, ver. 10 ; but only in the fact that the Christian, who is a τέκνον Θεοῦ, bears the contradiction in himself that he, on the one hand, it is true, still actually sins, but, on the other hand, is also actually free from sin—so free from it that he cannot sin (ver. 9); he has actually broken with sin, so that in his most inner nature he is in the most decided opposition to it; yet at the same time he finds it in himself, and indeed in such a way that he still actually sins (chap. i. 10), but inasmuch as he confesses it, and experiences the forgiving and saving love of the faithful God towards him (chap. 1. 9), and with all earnestness practises the ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτόν, it ever loses more and more its power over him, and thus it results that 1015 no longer sin, but opposition to it (as something foreign to his nature), that determines his conduct of life; and hence the apostle may with perfect justice say, that he who abides in Christ does not sin (so also Braune”*), which is quite the same as when Paul says: εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις" τὰ ἀρχαῖα 1 When Weiss (and Briickner agreeing with him) says ‘‘ that John here repre- sents the Christian life as according to its nature it is and ought to be,” the expression of the apostle is explained by him also from its idealism. 2 Besser appropriately says: ‘‘ Every one who abides in Christ, to whom He once belongs, does not sin, but says ‘No’ to sin, which belongs to the old man, and resists its alien power. A Christian does not do sin, but he suffers it. His will, his Christian Ego, is not at one with sin. Hatred of sin is the common mark of the children of God ; love of sin the common property of the children of the devil.” Augustine’s explanation: ‘‘ in quantum in Christo manet, in tantum non peccat,” is unsatisfactory, because it would thereby appear as if the inner CHAP. III. 6. 9591 παρῆλθεν, ἰδού, γέγονε καινὰ τὰ πάντα (2 Cor. ν. 17). --- The antithesis expressed in the first clause is even more sharply brought out in the second, inasmuch as John does not say: n € e / > / > > an 3 Εὐ πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων... οὐ μένει ἐν αὐτῷ, but: οὐχ ἑώρακεν ‘ , -“ . αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.- -πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων is every one who leads a life in ἁμαρτία, and therefore has not come out of the κόσμος into the number of God’s children ;! such an one, says John, hath not seen, neither known αὐτόν, ie. Christ. Liicke takes the perfects ἑώρακεν and ἔγνωκεν in present signification, the former in the meaning of “the pre- sent possession of the experience,” the latter in the meaning of “the present possession of previously obtained knowledge ;” but this is not rendered necessary by the context, and hence the perfects are to be retained as such, although it must be admitted that John is considering the result as one that con- tinues into the present. The meaning of the two verbs in their relation to one another is very differently explained ; according to some commentators, ἑώρακεν signifies something inferior (Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke in his 1st ed.), according to others, something superior (Socinus, Neander, Frommann, Ὁ. 223), to ἔγνωκεν ; with the former view οὐδέ is taken as=“ and still less,’ with the latter as=“and not as much as;” both are incorrect, for a difference of degree is in no way suggested; yet the two expressions are not to be regarded as synonymous, so that ἔγνωκε would only be added to bring out the spiritual meaning of ἑώρακεν (Diisterdieck), for although οὐδέ can neither be necessarily “ disjunctive ” (Liicke, 1st ed.) nor “conjunctive” (Liicke, 2d ed.), yet the form of the clauses shows, inasmuch as the object is put along with each verb, that οὐδέ here has a stronger emphasis, and that John wanted to express by the two verbs two distinct ideas. In order to determine these, the original signification life of the Christian was something divided in itself ; but it is more correct when he says: ‘‘ Etsi infirmitate labitur, peccato tamen non consentit, quia potius gemendo luctatur.” 1 Kbrard says this explanation is opposed to the context, because ‘‘ even from ver. 4 the subject is such as are Christians, but are lacking in holiness, and it is only in ver. 6 that it is stated how far such Christians cannot be regarded as truly regenerate ;” but (1) do not the wnregenerate Christians still belong to the κόσμος ἢ and (2) does not that explanation refer precisely to the close of the 6th verse ? 392 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. of the words must be retained ; ὁρᾷν signifies neither “the mere historical knowledge of Christ” (Liicke), nor the perseverantia communionis cum Christo (Erdmann), and γινώσκειν signifies neither “the experience of the heart,’ nor even “ love,” but even here ὁρᾷν means to see, and γινώσκειν to know ; but the seeing of Christ takes place when the immediate consciousness of the glory of Christ has dawned upon us, so that the eye of our soul beholds Him as He is in the totality of His nature ; the knowing of Him when by means of inquiring considera- tion the right understanding of Him has come to us, so that we are clearly conscious not only of His nature, but also of His relation to us." Ver. 7. While the apostle would reduce the specified anti- thesis to the last cause, and thereby bring it out in all its sharpness, he begins the new train of thought, connected, however, with the preceding, after the impressive address texvia (or παιδία), with the warning directed against moral indifferentism: μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς, which, as Diisterdieck rightly observes, is not necessarily founded on a polemic against false teachers (Antinomians, for instance) ; comp. chap. i. 8,--- ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, δίκαιός ἐστι καθὼς K.7.2.] With ποιεῖν τὴν δικ., comp. chap. ii. 29. From the connection with the foregoing we would expect as predicate either: ἑώρα- κεν αὐτὸν κιτιλ. (ver. 6), or ἐν αὐτῷ μένει (ver. 5); but it is peculiar to John to introduce new thoughts and references in 1 With this interpretation that of Sander, who interprets ἑώρακεν of *‘ spiritual intuition or beholding,” and ἔγνωκεν of the ‘‘ knowledge obtained more ly reflec- tion along the lines of dialectic and inquiry,” as well as that of Myrberg, accord- ing to which the former signifies the ‘‘immediata perceptio Christi spirituali modo homini se manifestantis,” the latter the ‘‘ perdurans cognitio atque intelli- centia,” are in substantial agreement. Braune, it is true, assents to this view, but he erroneously thus defines the thought of the apostle: ‘‘ Every one who sins, and inasmuch as he sins, is one in whom the seeing and knowing of Christ is a thing of the past, but does not continue and operate into the present,” for John plainly says of him who sins that he has not seen or known Christ. When Hrdmann defines ἔγνωκεν as the cognitio Christi, quae et intuitu et intellectu non solum personae Christi verum etiam totius ejus operis indolem complectitur, this is in so far unsuitable, as the intuitu belongs precisely to the ἑώρακεν. Very unsatisfactory is Ebrard’s explanation, that ὁρᾷν is ‘‘ the seeing of Christ as the light, γινώσκειν the loving knowledge.” The difference between ὁρᾷν and γινώσκειν appears also in this, that in the former the operating activity is represented rather on the side of the object, which presents itself to the eye of the soul ; in the latter, rather on the side of the subject, which this verb makes the subject of consideration, CHAP, III. 8. 393 antithetical sentences. By the subordinate clause καθὼς ἐκεῖνος (i.e. Χριστὸς) δίκαιός ἐστι he puts the idea δίκαιος in direct reference to Christ, so that the thought of this verse includes in it this, that only he who practises δικαιοσύνη has known Christ and abides in Him; for he only can be exactly καθὼς Χριστός (i.e. in a way corresponding to the pattern of Christ) who stands in a real fellowship of life with Him. It is incorrect, both to interpret, with Baumgarten-Crusius: “he who is righteous follows the example of Christ,’ and also to take δίκαιος =“ justified,” and to define the meaning of the verse thus: “only he who has been justified by Christ does righteousness.” 1— There is this difference between the two ideas: ποιεῖν τὴν Six. and δέκαιον εἶναι, that the first signifies the action, the second the state. The reality of the latter is proved in the former. He who does not do righteousness shows thereby that he 7s not righteous.” Ver. 8. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν] forms the diametrical oppo- site of ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, inasmuch as it signifies the man whose life is a service of sin, “ who lives in sin as his element” (Sander). While the former belongs to Christ, and is ἃ τέκνον Θεοῦ, the latter is ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου; ἐκ does not signify here either merely connection (de Wette), or similarity (Paulus), or imitation (Semler), but, as the expres- sion τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου (ver. 10) shows, origin (so also Ebrard): the life that animates the sinner emanates from the devil; “ not as if the devil created him, but that he intro- duced the evil into him” (Russmeyer). The apostle confirms the truth of this statement by the following words: ὅτε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. The words ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς are put first, because the chief emphasis rests on them, inasmuch as those who commit sin are ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου, not because he sins, but because it is he who sinneth ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. From this expression it must not, with Frommann and Hilgenfeld, be 1 As there is no reference here at all to justification, there is no ground what- ever for the assertion of a Lapide, that the thought of this verse forms a contra- diction to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. — The interpretation of Lorinus, that ὁ ποιῶν czy dx. is=qui habet in se justitiam i. e. opus gratiae, videlicet virtutem infusam, is also plainly erroneous. 2 Braune rightly proves, against Roman Catholics and Rationalists, that ‘‘ the predicate is not first attained after what is expressed in the subjective clause has taken place,” and that rather ‘‘ the predicate is immanent in the subject.” 394 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. inferred that John was considering the devil as an originally evil being—in dualistic fashion (comp. Késtlin, p. 127, and Weiss, p. 132 ff.)—for John is not here speaking of the being, but of the action of the devil. In order not to accuse John of the Manichaean dualism, the attempt has been made to define am’ ἀρχῆς more particularly, either by referring it to the creation of the world (Calvin, 8. G. Lange; also Hofmann, Schriftbew, 2d ed. 1. 429: “since the beginning of the world,” or: “from the beginning of history, in the course of which the sin of men has begun”), or to res humanae (Semler), or to the time of the devil’s fall (Bengel: ex quo diabolus est diabolus); but all these supplements are purely arbitrary. Many modern commentators take the expression in reference to the sin of man, and find this idea expressed in it, that “the devil is related to all the sins of men as the first and seduc- tive originator” (Nitzsch, Syst. der christlichen Lehre, 6th ed. p. 244 f.); thus Liicke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Weiss, Braune, and previously in this commentary; but this thought, while it no doubt lies in the preceding ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου and in the following τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου, and hence in the thesis to be established, does not lie in this confirmatory clause, apart from the fact that in am ἀρχῆς ἁμαρτάνει no reference is indicated to the sin of man. It is otherwise in John vii. 44, where the more particular definition of the relation of the devil to men is supplied with ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς from the context (“since he has put himself in connection with men”); here, on the contrary, John does not say: “what the devil is to men, but what is his relationship to God” (Hofmann as above); but as he describes his relationship by ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἁμαρτάνει, as a sinning which has continued from the begin- ning, this can only mean that the devil’s first action was sin, and that he has remained and remains in that action. Like- wise in the interpretation which Briickner gives of ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς : “de. so long as there is sin,” adm ἀρχῆς does not receive its full foree1— The present ἁμαρτάνει describes the sinning of 1The idea that the devil, before he sinned, was for a time without sin, is nowhere expressed in Scripture ; neither in John viii. 44 nor in the deutero- canonical passages Jude 6 and 2 Pet. ii. 4 (see my comm. on these passages).— The view of Frommann, that John’s statements do not justify the representa- tion of a personal existence of the devil, that ‘‘ he is nothing further than the CHAP. III. 9. 395 the devil as uninterruptedly continuous. — εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανε- ρώθη «.7.r.] As vv. 6, 7 refer to the second part of ver. 5, these words refer to the first part of that verse; they not only express the antithesis between Christ and the devil, but they bring out the fact that the appearance of Christ has for its object the destruction of the ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου, 1... of the ἁμαρτίαι which are wrought by him (not “ the reward of sin,” Calov, Spener ; nor “ the agency that seduces to sin,” de Wette). λύειν is used here as in John 11. 19 (similarly 2 Pet. iii. 10-12), in the meaning of “to destroy ;” less naturally some commentators (a Lapide, Lorinus, Spener, Besser, etc.) main- tain the meaning “to undo,” sins being regarded as the snares of the devil. Ver. 9. Antithesis of the preceding verse; yet what was there the subject is here—in its opposite—the predicate, and what was there the predicate is here the subject. πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ] Antithesis to him who is ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου (ver. 8); “by πᾶς the general signification of the clause is indicated” (Braune); ἁμαρτίαν ov ποιεῖ] is used in the same sense as οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, ver. 6. To be born of God and to commit sin are mutually exclusive contraries ; for ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι, Kal σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία, chap. 1. 5 ; comp. also chap. 11. 29; the child is of the same nature with him of whom he is born. For confirmation of the thought, John adds: ὅτε σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει. Both the deeper context and the expression itself are opposed to the interpretation of these words, according to which σπέρμα is explained = τέκνον, and ἐν αὐτῷ = ἐν Θεῷ (Bengel, Lange, Sander, Steinhofer); for if the apostle meant to say that “a child of God remains in God,” he would certainly not have exchanged the word τέκνον, which so naturally would suggest itself just here, for another word, unusual in this sense. By σπέρμα Θεοῦ is rather to be understood the divine element of which the new man is produced’ (comp. Gospel of John i. 13), and which, as the essence of his being, keeps him from Ὁ’ world-spirit that tempts man, considered in concrete personality,” is to be rejected as arbitrary. 1 Frommann (p. 170) incorrectly interprets σπέρμα of the divine light origin- ally dwelling in man, by which he is distinguished from the rest of creation ; for the subject here is not men as such, but the τέκνα σοῦ Θεοῦ. 396 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. sin. According to many commentators (Clemens Al., Augustin, Bede, Luther 1... Spener, Grotius, Besser, Weiss, Ewald, etc.), this is the word of God, in favour of which appeal is made not only to the parable of the ‘sower (Matt. xiii.), but also to 1 Pet. 1. 25 and Jas.i.18. But that parable can here so much the less be adduced, as in it the reference is to the seed of plants; but here, as the allusion to the idea γεγεννημένος shows, “the comparison is made to the seed of human birth, as in John 1, 13” (Neander); and in the two other passages the word is not represented so much as the seed, but as the means of producing the new life.” It is scarcely to be doubted that the apostle was here thinking of the Holy Spirit; the only question is whether he means the Spirit Himself, the πνεῦμ. ἅγιον in His divine personality (so Beza: sic vocatur Spiritus sanctus, quod ejus virtute tanquam ex semine quodam novi homines efficiamur ; Diisterdieck, and Myrberg ; also, per- haps, Liicke and de Wette), or the Spirit infused by Him into the heart of man, the germ of life communicated to his nature (Hornejus: nativitatis novae indoles; Semler: nova quaedam et sanctior natura; so also Ebrard, Braune, and others). The figurative expression is more in favour of the second view than of the first, only this germ of life must not, on the one hand, be regarded as something separate from the Holy Spirit Himself,’ nor, on the other hand, as love (a Lapide, Lorinus), for this is the life which has proceeded from the σπέρμα, but not the σπέρμα itself.— The thought that he who is born of God does not commit sin is still further emphasized by the words καὶ ov δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, whereby, of course, not the physical, but no doubt the moral impossibility of sinning is described; both ideas, ἁμαρτάνειν as well as ov δύναται, are to be retained in their proper meaning, and not to be arbi- 1 In his 2d edition Luther says: ‘‘ He calls the cause of our change a seed, not a full ear of corn, but what is cast into the ground, and must first die there ; from thence there now results true repentance, so that it is accordingly said: he cannot sin.” 2 Weiss appeals to chap. ii. 14; but from the fact that John there says: ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, it does not follow that σπέρμα is here =6 λόγος +. Θ.; so much the less as there is no reference there to being born of God. It is more appropriate in connection with cxépua to refer to chap. ii. 27. 3 Briickner inversely first interprets σπέρμα as the πνεῦμα ¢, @., but then adds: “ἐ and, indeed, in this way, that the principle of life which operates on man is at the same time regarded as the germ of life planted in man,” CHAP, III. 10, 397 trarily perverted; ἁμαρτάνειν must here, just as little as in ver. 6, be restricted to mortal sins (a Lapide, Gagnejus), or to “sinning in the way in which they who are of the devil sin” (Besser), or “ to sinning knowingly and wilfully ” (Ebrard), or even merely to the violatio charitatis (Augustin, Bede); but just as little is the pointedness and definiteness of ov δύναται to be weakened and to be explained = aegre, difficulter potest, or similarly,’ for the apostle here wants to bring out the absolute antagonism which exists in general between being born of God and committing sin (so also Braune); comp. on ver. 6. With regard to the question as to the relationship of the thought expressed here to Heb. vi. 4 ff., comp. the remark. on chap. 11. 19. — As in the case of the first thought of this verse, so here to this second one a confirmatory clause is added, namely: ὅτε ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται; it is true, the idea of the subject seems to be here repeated (similarly John 111. 31: ὃ ὧν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, ἐκ THs γῆς ἐστι), but here ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ is put first, whereas in the subject it follows γεγεννημένος, by which that idea is strongly accentuated ; Bengel: priora verba : ez Deo, majorem habent in pronunciando accentum, quod ubi observatur, patet, non idem per idem probari, collato initio verso. The sense therefore is: Because he is born of God (comp. chap. i. 5), he who is born of God, wc. the believer, cannot sin. Ver. 10a concludes the development of the thought with the sharp antithesis of the children of God and the children of the devil. — ἐν τούτῳ is by most commentators justly re- ferred to the preceding, inasmuch as in ver. 9 the characteristic sion of the τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and in ver. 8 that of the τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, are stated. Some commentators, however (a Lapide, Grotius, 8. Schmidt, Spener, Episcopius, Ebrard, etc.), refer it to what follows; but asin this only the one part of the antithesis is resumed, this reference is found to necessitate an arbitrary supplement ; the explanation of a Lapide is clearly quite erro- neous : hae sunt duae tesserae et quasi duo symbola filiorum et militum Dei, sc. justitia et caritas.— φανερά ἐστι] The εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and equally the εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου, are in their principle internal, and therefore concealed: it is by 1 Grotius explains: res de qua agitur aliena est ab ejusmodi ingenio ; Paulus : ‘*not absolutely impossible, but: his whole spirituality and habit (!) are opposed Cire} to li. 398 TIKE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. the different ποιεῖν that the different nature is disclosed ; comp. Matt. vii. 16.— The expression: ta τέκνα τοῦ δια- βόλου, nowhere else in the N. T. except in Acts xiii. 10: υἱὸς διαβόλου, is easily explained from ver. 8; comp. also John villi. 44. Sander supposes a distinction between these and the children of wrath, Eph. 11. 3; while the latter name signifies all who are not born again, the latter only signifies those among them “ who despise the grace offered to them in Christ, and wantonly set themselves against it.” This is, however, incor- rect; as the whole conduct of men falls under the contrast of ἁμαρτάνειν and οὐχ ἁμαρτάνειν, so the distinction of τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ and τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, that is based on it, equally embraces the whole of humanity (see also Braune). Socinus accordingly with justice says: Ex Apostoli verbis satis aperte colligi potest, quod inter filios Dei et filios Diaboli nulli sint homines medi. Vv. 100-22. This seetion treats of brotherly love as the substance of δικαιοσύνη, and is therefore most closely con- nected with the foregoing; it is the commandment of Christ (ver. 11), instead of which hatred reigns in the world (vv. 12, 13); with love, life is connected; with hatred, death (vv. 14, 15); in Christ we possess the ideal and example of love (ver. 16). True love consists not in word, but in deed (vv. 17, 18); it produces firm confidence towards God, and obtains an answer to prayer (vv. 19-22). Ver. 100. Transition to the section on brotherly love. — πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην] refers to ver. 7, and further to chap. ii. 29; the meaning of ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην is here the same as there; only that the idea δικαιοσύνη is indicated by the article as definite and restricted; comp. ver. 8 : τὴν ἅμαρ- tiav; ver. 9: ἁμαρτίαν. ----οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ] -- οὐκ ἔστιν τέκνον τοῦ Θεοῦ. ----καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ] Calvin correctly says: hoc membrum vice exposi- tionis additum est. The ἀγάπη is nota part of the δικαιοσύνη (Bengel, Spener, Lange, Neander, Gerlach), still less some- thing different from the δικαιοσύνη, which must be connected with it (Rickli), or even forms an antithesis to it (Socinus’); 1 While Socinus understands by δικαιοσύνην ποιεῖν juste vivere ex praescriptione Mosaicae legis et ipsius humanae rationis, he explains ἀγάπη as the transcendent Christian virtue of sacrifice for the brethren. CHAP. III. 11. 399 put it is the essence and nature of the δικαιοσύνη (so also Braune’), or rather the δικαιοσύνη itself in reference to the brethren; comp. Rom. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14; Col. ui. 14; 1 Tim. 1.5; John xiv. 15. Besser: “brotherly love is the essence of all righteous life;” it is related to δικαιοσύνη just as to the περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε, chap. ii. 6. Ebrard erroneously tries to prove from the αὑτοῦ which is added that ἀδελφός = ὁ πλησίον, Luke x. 36, and is therefore used differently from 11. 9, 10, 11, iv. 20, 21, for that John in this relative sentence passes on to the love of Christians towards one another is quite clear from ver. 11; the αὑτοῦ only shows that, though in the foregoing the antithesis between the regenerate and the unregenerate is quite generally stated, this is for the special consideration of Christians. It is in- comprehensible that the view, according to which John in this section speaks of Christian brotherly love (6. the love of Christians towards one another), is in antagonism with Matt. y. 44; 1 Cor.iv. 12 (according to Ebrard). The co-ordinating καί is epexegetical = “ namely ;” it is unnecessary to supply οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τ. Θ. Ver. 11. ὅτε confirms the thought expressed in the fore- going, that he who does not love his brother is not of God. — αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία] αὕτη refers to the following ἵνα, with a retrospective allusion to ἀγαπῶν τ. ad. αὑτοῦ. The word ἀγγελία = “ message,’ is here to be taken in the meaning of “ commission,’ “ commandment.” With the reading ἐπαγγελία, comp. i. 5. By the words ἣν... am ἀρχῆς, which do not refer to the Old Testament period (Grotius: etiam sub lege), or to “the beginning of history” (Ebrard), the commandment of brotherly love is characterized as the ἀγγελία which is necessarily connected with the preaching of the gospel; comp. chap. ii. 7. — ἵνα x«.7.X.] states, not the purpose for which the ἀγγελία is given, but the import of it, as frequently with words of wishing, commanding, etc.; comp. Buttm. p. 203 ff” The ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους shows that the apostle is in this * Ebrard and Myrberg object to this, that it may be true of love to God only, but not of love to the brethren ; but Christian brotherly love is, according to John, certainly identical with love to God, for the Christian loves his brother as one who is born of God. * Braune would have the idea of purpose retained ; but in his interpretation : ‘*it is not merely the substance of a commandment that is treated of, but a 400 TUE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. section treating of the love of Christians towards one another; it is self-evident that the Christian has to fulfil the general commandment of love even to those who are not Christians. Yet John does not here enter on that, as it would be inappropriate, for he has here to do with the ethical anti- thesis between Christians as children of God and those who are opposed to them as children of the devil; it is only on the ground of this antithesis that it can be said: μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, ii. 15. Ver. 12. The converse of Christian brotherly love is the hatred of the world, which has its example in Cain. — ov καθὼς Kaiv x.7.X.] Contrary to the opinion of Grotius, with which Liicke agrees, that before καθώς we must supply “ οὐκ ὦμεν ἐκ TOD πονηροῦ " dependent on ἵνα, de Wette has shown the clumsiness of speech that would result with this construc- tion ; it is unjustifiable, however, on the side of the thought also, for it is impossible that John would say that to Chris- tians the commandment has been given from the beginning, not to be ἐκ τοῦ wovnpot. Most commentators supply after ov the thought “ we should be disposed,” and after Κάϊν the relative ὅς. Thus there certainly results a good sense; but if the apostle had thought thus, he would also have expressed himself thus ; at least he would not have left out the ὅς. De Wette rightly finds here “an inexact comparison of contrast, as John vi. 58, only still more difficult to supply, and just on that account not to be supplied,” ze. by a definitely formulated sentence (so also Braune). Christians are (and therefore should also show themselves as) the opposite of Cain; they are ἐκ Tov Θεοῦ, Cain was ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ; Tov πονηροῦ is not neuter, but masculine; ὁ πονηρός = ὁ διάβολος ; comp. especially Matt. xiii. 38.‘ — καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ] commandment which is contained as a task in the gift of the message,” he quite overlooks the fact that if ἵνα — in order that (and only thus is the original idea of purpose retained), it cannot refer to αὕτη. 1 The strange Rabbinical view of the devilish nature of Cain in Zohar on Gen. iv. 1: Rabbi Eleazar dixit : Cum projecisset serpens ille immunditiem suam in Evam eaque illam suscepisset, remque cum Adam habuisset, peperit duos filios, unum ex Jatere illo immundo et unum ex latere Adami; fuitque Cain similis imagine superiorum h. e. Angelorum et Abel imagine inferiorum h. 6. hominum, ac propterea diverse fuerunt viae istius ab illius viis. Equidem Cain fuit filius spiritus immundi, qui est serpens malus ; Abel vero fuit filius Adami ; et prop- terea quod Cain venit de parte Angeli mortis, ideo interfecit fratrem suum, CHAP. III. 13. 401 This murder of his brother is the evidence that Cain was ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. The verb σφάξζειν (besides here, only in the Apocalypse), strictly used of slaughter, indicates the violence of the action ;* the diabolical character of it is brought out by the following: καὶ χάριν τίνος «.t..; the form of the sen- tence in question and answer serves to bring out emphatically the thought contained in it, that the hatred of Cain towards his brother was founded in his hatred towards the good, 16. that which is of God, for it is just in this that the hatred of the world towards believing Christians is also founded.” The correspondence between ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ and τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά, which J. Lange and Diisterdieck have already noticed, is to be observed. Ver. 13. If Cain is the type of the world, it is not to be wondered at that the children of God are hated by it; accordingly the apostle says: μὴ θαυμάζετε «.7..; comp. ver. 1; not exactly to comfort his readers about it, but rather to bring out the antithesis clearly; Neander: “it must not surprise Christians if they are hated by the world; this is to them the stamp of the divine life, in the possession of which they form the contrast to the world.”-— The particle εἰ expresses here neither a doubt nor even merely possibility ; for that the world hates the children of God is not merely possible, but in the nature of the case necessary ; it is only the form of the sentence, and not the thought of it, that is hypothetical ;* comp. John xv. 18, also Mark xv. 44. 1 From the fact that σφάζειν is used in the Revelation of ‘‘ slaying in a holy service, as the martyrs are slain, even though by the godless” (which is never quite appropriate, comp. Rev. vi. 4), it cannot be concluded that John here used the expresssion in order ‘‘to mark the death of Abel as a martyrdom by the hand of a godless man, or asa sacrifice which Cain offered to his god, the devil.” 2 That Cain slew his brother because his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous, does not seem to correspond to the Mosaic narrative, for σὰ ἔργα are not the offering, but the works in general (Spener: ‘‘the whole manner of life”) ; but there is no real contradiction, for the narrative in Genesis does not exclude the idea that the piety of Abel had already excited in Cain hatred towards his brother, and that, when God despised his offering, but had respect unto his brother’s, this hatred went so far that he became guilty of murder. Cain with this hatred, and Abel in his suffering on account of his δικαιοσύνη, serve the apostle as prototypes of the world and of the children of God. On the similar view in Philo and in the Clementine Homilies, see Liicke on this passage. 3 Ebrard explains εἰ incorrectly : ‘‘ whenever the case occurs,” for the hatred Meyer.—1 ΦΟΗΝ. 2C 402 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIIN. Ver. 14. The contrast of love and hatred is at the same time one of life and death. — ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν] ἡμεῖς forms the antithesis of ὁ κόσμος Though the world hate us and persecute us to death, as Cain killed his brother, we know, ete. — ὅτε μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ Tod θανάτου eis τὴν ζωήν] comp. Gospel of John v. 24; the perfect shows that the subject is a present and not merely a future state; moreover, the apostle does not say that the Christian has received the title to eternal life (Grotius: juri ad rem saepe datur nomen rei ipsius), but that the believer has already passed from death into life, and therefore no longer is in a state of death, but in life. By ζωή is to be understood not merely the knowledge of God (Weiss), but holy life in truth and mghteousness; by θάνατος, not merely the want of the knowledge of God (Weiss), but unholy life in lying and sin. The natural man is fallen in lies and unrighteousness, and hence wretched ἐν θανάτῳ: by the salvation of Christ he enters from this state into the other, the essence of which is happiness in truth and righteous- ness. That the Christian, as such, is in a state of ζωή, he knows from the fact that he loves the brethren; brotherly love is the sign of the ζωή ; therefore the apostle continues : ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς. --- ὅτι refers, as most com- mentators rightly interpret, to οἴδαμεν and not to μετα- βεβήκαμεν (Baumegarten-Crusius, Késtlin); the relation between ζωή and ἀγάπη is, namely, not this, that the latter is the originating cause of the former (Lyra: opera ex caritate facta sunt meritoria), but both are one in their cause, and are only distinguished in this way, that ζωή is the state, ἀγάπη the action of the believer: out of the happy life, love grows, and love again produces happiness; therefore John says: ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν (sc. τὸν ἀδελφόν, see the critical notes) μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, by which the identity of not loving and of abiding in death is directly brought out?—It is not which is here spoken of is not a frequently occurring case, but a necessary relationship. Braune unintelligibly says: ‘‘ by εἰ John signifies that his readers as a whole or as individuals have after all at present no hatred to endure.” 1 By this expression: μεταβεβήκαμεν x.7.2., the apostle describes Christians as having been, previously to their believing, ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, hence also not yet σέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ ; contrary to the assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the author of the Epistle shared the Gnostic view of the original metaphysical difference in men. 2 Besser: ‘* Where hatred is, there is death ; where love is, there is life ; nay, CHAP, III. 15. 403 without a purpose that the apostle contents himself here, where he has only to do with the simple antithesis to the preceding, with the negative idea: μὴ ἀγαπᾷν, with which the ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ μένει also corresponds; it is only in the following verse that the negation reaches the form of a positive antithesis. — μένει expresses here also the firm, sure being (so also Myrberg); it is therefore used neither merely in reference to the past, nor merely in reference to the future. Ver. 15. πᾶς ὁ μισῶν] instead of the preceding: μὴ ἀγαπῶν ; not loving and hating are one and the same thing :’ for pure indifference is not possible to the /wing human soul. — avOpwroxtévos ἐστί] This word (except only in John vii. 44, used of the devil) does not signify the murderer of the soul, whether one’s own or one’s brother’s, but the murderer in the strict sense. Every one who hates his brother is a murderer, not merely inasmuch as hatred some- times leads to murder, but because by his nature he is inclined to the destruction of his brother, and if he does not attain this object 1s only hindered from it by other opposing forces. As in the moral life it is not the outward act in itself, but the intention, that is of consequence, every one who lives in hatred towards his brother must by the moral con- sciousness (or by God, Drusius, Hornejus) be regarded as a murderer; comp. Matt. v. 21 ff, 27, 28.— Hence it is clear that the real thought of the apostle is missed when μισεῖν is here limited to the odium perfectum (Hornejus). Baumgarten-Crusius erroneously denies that ἀνθρωποκτόνος refers to Cain, ver. 12 ; this reference is clearly patent. — καὶ οἴδατε] de Wette: “whence? from the Christian consciousness in general.” -- ὅτε πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος κιτ.λ.}] He who takes his brother’s life cannot and must not retain life himself, his life decays in death; that is the order appointed by God; comp. Gen. ix. 6. Accordingly he who in his heart murders his brother, cannot be in possession of the life which dwells love itself is life.” Weiss erroneously maintains that here, ‘‘instead of the strict converse in the form of a progressive parallelism, just that is mentioned which is the result of the non-transition from death to life, namely, the abiding in death,” for John did not need to say actually that he who has not passed from death to life is in death. 1 Wrongly Nicol. de Lyra: odisse pejus quam non diligere. 404 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. in the heart, ac. of “eternal life.” By ζωὴ αἰώνιος we are to understand the same thing as in ver. 14 was described by the simple word ζωή; and ἔχεν is to be retained as the actual present ; erroneously a Lapide: non habebit gloriam vitae. — The adjective μένουσαν Liicke, with whom Sander agrees, appealing to the parable of the unmerciful servant, explains by the fact that John is speaking to Christians who already had some part in eternal life. But the expression πᾶς ὁ μισῶν shows that John is here speaking quite generally, and, indeed, in order to confirm the preceding thought: ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ; it must therefore be the con- dition of those who form the κόσμος (to whom also the mere nominal Christians belong), of those accordingly who have no part in the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, that is stated. By μένουσαν is therefore not suggested the loss of a previously possessed good ; just as little as in the corresponding passage, Gospel of John v. 38: τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα, where also the meaning is not that those addressed have previously had the word of God, for this is distinctly denied in ver. 37. The μένουσαν is rather explained by the fact that he alone really has the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in whom it abides (comp. chap. ii. 19); μένειν expresses here also, according to John’s usus loquendi, the idea of being in a strengthened degree, and may accordingly be used quite apart from any reference to the previous state; μένουσαν is to be connected with ἐν αὐτῷ; he has not the life abiding, ze surely and firmly existing, in him." Vy. 16-18. Description of true love. 1 Τὸ is incorrect to say, with Braune: ‘‘ by μένουσαν the existence of eternal life from baptism, etc., is indicated,” since in the context there is no reference whatever to baptism, instruction, etc., and the advantage resulting therefrom. Weiss artificially explains: ‘‘ John supposes the case of a person having eternal life, and now goes so far as to say that even such an one may not have it permanently at least, but may be in the condition of losing it if by hating his brother he becomes a murderer ;”’ such a case John would not and could not at allassume. Very strange is Ebrard’s interpretation: ‘‘ supposing that the murderer had at the time the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in him (which, however, according to ver. 9, is not possible in the full (!) sense), yet this would not remain in him, he would again fall away from the ζωή (which just for this reason could not be genuine),” as well as his assertion that ζωὴν αἰών. is here used without the article, because John could not ascribe to him who is not a true child of God “* the eternal life,” but ‘‘ eternal life,” z.e. powers of the future world. Comp. against this, v. 13. CHAP. III. 16. 405 Ver. 16. Whilst he who belongs to the world hates his brother and is therefore an ἀνθρωποκτόνος, Christians, on the contrary, are by the example of Christ to lay down their life for their brethren. — ἐν τούτῳ refers to the following ὅτι. ---- ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην] “we have known the love, i.e. the character or the nature of the love” (Bengel, de Wette, Baum- garten-Crusius, Liicke, Sander); some commentators (Carpzov, Paulus, etc.) erroneously supply with τὴν ἀγάπην as a more particular definition: τοῦ Χριστοῦ; others (Grotius, Spener, etc.) : tod Θεοῦ. In Christ’s self-devotion to death, love itself became concrete. Without adequate reason Ebrard supplies with ἐν τούτῳ an οὖσαν, so that ἐν τούτῳ forms the predicate of τὴν ἀγάπην; thus: “we have known love as consisting in this ;” and ἐγνώκαμεν is only used as an accessory. — OTe ἐκεῖνος) 1.0. Christ; comp. ver. 7, chap. ii. 6. “He, says the apostle, without mentioning him by name, for He is to every believer the well-known,” Ricklii— The phrase: τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι, besides here and frequently in the Gospel of John, never appears elsewhere either in the N. T. or in the classics. Meyer on John x. 11 explains it by the “representation of the sacrificial death as a ransom paid: to lay down, to pay ; according to the classical usage of τιθέναι, according to which it is used of payment ;” Hengstenberg (cn the same passage) explains it by Isa. lii. 10; but it is unsuitable to supply the idea “ransom” or “an offering for sin,” for the τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν is not merely ascribed to Christ, but is also made the duty of Christians; besides, in that case ὑπέρ could not be wanting, as is the case in the Gospel of John x. 17, 18. The derivation of it from the Hebrew 422 52 Ὁ (Ebrard) is equally unsuitable, because “ here the 422 is essential” (Meyer). According to John xiii. 4, τίθημι may in this phrase also be interpreted = deponere (so most commentators), which is so much the more appropriate as in John x. ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν is conjoined with τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, just as in chap. xiii. 12 it runs: καὶ ἔλαβεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ; “ comp. animam ponere in Propert. II. 10, 43, and animam deponere in Corn. Nep. vita Hannib. I. 3” (Briickner). Perhaps τέθημι might also be taken in the meaning of “to give up” (7|. xxiii. 704: θεῖναι εἰς μέσσον, τιθέναι εἰς τὸ κοινόν, in Pape see τίθημι). ---- ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν is: “for our good,” ie. to save us 406 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. from destruction; for the idea, comp. chap. ii. 2.— καὶ ἡμεῖς κιτ.λ.] comp. chap. ii. 6. By this the climax is stated (John xv. 13); but even every self-denying sacrifice for our brethren belongs to the τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν, to which we are bound by the example of Christ by virtue of our fellowship with Him. — The reading θεῖναι is just as conformable to the N. T. usus loquendi as the Rec. τιθέναι, for ὀφείλειν is some- times connected with the pres. inf., and sometimes with the aor. inf. For the idea, comp. Rom. xvi. 4.1 Ver. 17. As the apostle wants to bring out that love must show itself by action, he turns his attention to the most direct evidence of it, namely, compassion towards the needy brother. “ By the adversative connection (δέ) with ver. 16, John marks the progress from the greater, which is justly demanded, to the less, the non-performance of which seems, therefore, a grosser transgression of the rule just stated” (Diisterdieck). According to Ebrard, the δέ is meant to express the opposition to the delusion “ that love can only show itself in great actions and sacrifices ;” but there is no suggestion in the context of anything like this. — τὸν Biov τοῦ κόσμου : “the life of the world,” i.c. that which serves to support the earthly, worldly life ; comp. Luke viii. 43, xv. 12, xxi. 4.5 The expression forms here a significant contrast to ζωὴ αἰώνιος (ver. 15). — θεωρεῖν, stronger than ὁρᾶν, strictly “to be a spectator,” hence = to look at; “it expresses the active beholding” (Ebrard, similarly Myrberg: oculis immotis). — With χρεῖαν ἔχειν, comp. Mark ii, 25; Eph. iv. 28. — The expression: κλείειν τὰ σπλάγχνα, is only found here; τὰ σπλάγχνα as a translation of DYN 1 The thought of this verse is, according to Ebrard, the surest proof that John in this section is not treating of the ‘‘ general and vague (!) idea of brotherly love,” but of ‘‘ the relation of the σέκνα Θεοῦ to those who are not σέκνα Θεοῦ," because the apostle cannot possibly ‘‘ limit the duty of loving sacrifice of life to the relationship of the regenerate to one another.” But (1) the idea of Christian brotherly love is very far from being a vague idea; (2) when Chris- tians are exhorted so to love one another as to lay down their lives for one another, that is not a limitation of the commandment of love; (3) those who are not σέκνα Θεοῦ, and are therefore τέκνα σοῦ διαβόλου, John cannot possibly call ἀδελφοί without any further statement ; (4) the whole section is an explication of ἀγαπῶμεν ὠλλήλους, ver. 11; but by ἀλλήλους cannot be understood the children of God and the children of the devil in their relation to one another ; comp. besides, iv. 2-11. * Comp. the Greek proverb : Bios βίου δεόμενος οὐκ ἔστι βίος. CHAP. III. 18. 407 appears both in the LXX. as well as often in the N. T. = καρδία; “to close the heart,’ is as much as: “to forbid to compassion towards the needy brother entrance into one’s heart ;” the additional ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ is used in pregnant sense= “turning away from him” (Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck). The first two clauses might have had (not, as Baumgarten-Crusius says, “must have had”) the form of subordinate clauses; but by the fact that the form of principal clauses is given to them, the statement gains in vividness. The conclusion, which according to the sense is negative, appears as a question with πῶς (comp. chap. iv. 20), whereby the negation is emphatically brought out. ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ is love to God, not the love of God to us (Calov)." Here also μένειν has the meaning noticed on ver. 15 (Myrberg); incorrectly Liicke: “as John is speaking of the probable absence of the previously-existing Christian life, it is put μένει and not ἐστί" The apostle does not want to say that the pitiless person loses again his love to God, but that it never is really in him at all. Pitilessness cannot be combined with love to God; the reason of this John states in chap. iv. 20. Ver. 18. Zrue love proves itself by deed. The exhortation contained in this verse is, on the one hand, a deduction from the foregoing (especially from vy. 16 and 17); but, on the other hand, it forms the basis of the further development. — texvia| Impressive address before the exhortation. — μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ TH γλώσσῃ] 1.6. “let us not so love that the proof of our love is the outward word or the tongue ;” μηδὲ Τῇ γλώσσῃ is epexegetically added, in order to mark the externality of the love indicated by λόγῳ ἀγαπᾷν, inasmuch as it points out that by λόγος here only the outward word is meant; it is erroneous to regard γλῶσσα as a climax in so far as “one may love with words (without deeds), but in such a way that the words are nevertheless really and sincerely meant” (Ebrard), for John would not in the very least con- sider as truly and sincerely meant words of love which remain without corresponding deed. The article serves “ to vivify the expression ” (Liicke): te tongue as the particular member for expression of the word. It is unnecessary, nay, “contrary to 1 Ebrard explains 4 ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ: “‘ the love which in its essential being took substantial form after Christ and in Christ’s loving deed ” (!). 408 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOIN. the text” (Diisterdieck), with Beza, Lange, Sander, ete., to “ce / »” . > lal > a / supply “μόνον " with ἀγαπῶμεν κ.τ.λ.; for ἀγαπᾷν λόγῳ K.T.X. in itself expresses the mere apparent love. — ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθεία] Instead of the Rec. ἔργῳ, we must read ἐν ἔργῳ; according to de Wette, the two readings are synonymous ; according to Liicke, ἐν ἔργῳ «x. ad. has more of “adverbial nature” than ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ; “in τῷ λόγῳ the apostle is considering more the way in which love expresses itself, in ἐν ἔργῳ κ. aX. he is considering more the form and fashion of it;” tle preposition suggested itself to the apostle because the work, as being the realization of love, stands in an inner relationship to it, “is the element in which love moves” (Diisterdieck).' λόγος and ἔργον are frequently in the N. T. connected with one another, so Luke xxiv. 19; Acts vii. 22, and many other passages ; in order to bring out the insuf- ficiency of λόγος in 1 Cor. iv. 19, 20,1 Thess. i. 5, δύναμις is contrasted with it. By καὶ ἀληθείᾳ the apostle does not mean to add a second element of love, but to characterize the ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἔργῳ as the true love (so also Myrberg) ; a love which does not show itself ἐν ἔργῳ is only an apparent love.” The relationship of (ἐν) ἀληθείᾳ to ἐν ἔργῳ is just the same as that of τῇ γλώσσῃ to λόγῳ. The two words of each clause express together one idea, and these two ideas are contrasted with one another, so that it is not to be asked whether λόγῳ < ” , 2 > / , corresponds with ἔργῳ, and γλώσσῃ with ἀληθείᾳ, or γλώσσῃ with ἔργῳ, and λόγῳ with ἀληθείᾳ (against Diisterdieck and Braune). With the thought of this verse compare especially Jas. 11, 15, 16; only here the thought is more comprehen- sive than there.” Vv. 19, 20. Blessed result of true love. — καὶ ἐν τούτῳ] καί: simple copula. — ἐν τούτῳ does not refer here, as in 1 Braune: ‘‘It is to be observed that the first pair in the dative only states the means by which love operates ; the preposition ἐν states the element in which it moves.” 2 Comp. John iv. 24, where also ‘‘xai ἀληθείᾳ" is added to iv πνεύματι, not to bring out a second element of true worship (contrary to Meyer on this passage), but to describe the προσκυνεῖν ἐν πνεύματι as true worship in contrast to every apparent worship. 3 Wolf quotes the corresponding statement of Picke, Avoth, chap. v.: omnis dilectio, quae dependet a verbo, verbo cessante, ipsa quoque cessat: at quae non dependet a verbo, nunquam cessat.—In Theognis 979 it is put thus: μή wo ἀνὴρ tin γλώσσῃ φίλος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργῳ. CHAP. III. 19, 20. 409 chap. 11. 3, iii. 16, 24, iv. 2, to the following thought, but to the foregoing ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἔργῳ x. dd. The future γνωσόμεθα, which, according to the authorities, is to be read instead of γινώσκομεν (see the critical notes), “is used as in John vii. 17, vill. 31, 32, xiii, 35, where the subject is the possibility of an event which may with justice be expected” (Braune): it is the more natural here, as the form of thought is the cohorta- tive; the sense is: If we love ev ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, we shall thereby know that, etc. — ὅτε ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν] weakening and partly erroneous explanations of the phrase: ἐκ τῆς aX, εἶναι, are those of Socinus: vere talem esse ut quis se esse profitetur ; of Grotius : congruere evangelio ; of Semler: ἀληθεύειν ἐν ἀγάπῃ ; of Baumgarten-Crusius: “to be as we ought to be;” of de Wette: “to belong to the truth; to live in 10. Bengel, on the other hand, rightly interprets the pre- position ἐκ of the principium or ortus; so also Liicke, Diister- dieck, Braune, etc.; comp. John xvii. 57, and Meyer on this passage. The truth is the source of life in love. It is indeed in its deepest nature God Himself; but ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ must not be put instead of ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας, for the apostle here, with reference to the preceding ἀληθείᾳ, arrives at the idea of truth. Love ἐν ἀληθείᾳ is the evidence of being born ἐκ τῆς ὠληθείας. — καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν Tas καρδίας ἡμῶν] This sentence is not governed by ὅτι, but it is independently connected with the preceding, either depending or not depend- ing on ἐν τούτῳ ; if the former is the case, “we must take ἐν τούτῳ combined with πείσομεν somewhat differently than when connected with γινώσκομεν (γνωσόμεθα) ; with the latter it would be more therein, with the former more thereby” (Liicke ; so also Braune); if the latter be the case, the thought : ἐν τούτῳ γνωσόμεθα ὅτι K.T.r., serves as the presupposition of the follow- ing ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ x.7.d. in this sense: if we truly love our brethren, we shall therein know, etc., and thus (in this conscious- ness of being of the truth) we shall assure our hearts, etc.’ The 1 Liicke : ‘‘Even if it be unadvisable to connect xai ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ x.7.2. directly with ἐν rovew, so that it appears better, with Lachmann and the old com- mentators, to put a comma after ἐσμέν, every one must at least admit the connec- tion in the direct succession of the sentences. But then it must also be per- mitted to take the logical connection thus: In this (vv. 16-18) do we know that we are of the truth. And thus (if we m living love have the assurance that we are of the truth) we shall, etc.” 410 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. idea that with καὶ ἔμπροσθεν an entirely new thought appears, which stands in no intimate connection with the preceding (Ebrard), is contradicted by the καί, which closely connects the two thoughts with one another. What, then, is the meaning of πείσομεν Tas καρδίας ἡμῶν: Plainly πείσομεν expresses a truth which we (the subject contained in πείσομεν) impress upon our hearts, so that they are thereby determined to something, which presupposes at least a relative contrast between ws and owr hearts. The verb πείθειν means either to persuade a person to something, so that he thinks or acts as we wish, or to convince him of something so that he agrees with our opinion. Some ancient commentators have interpreted in accordance with the first signification: suadebimus corda nostra, ut studeant proficere in melius; the more particular definition which is added is here clearly quite arbitrary ; it is not much better with the explanation of Fritzsche (Comment. 111. de nonnullis Pauli ad Gal. ep. locis): animos nostros flectemus, nempe ad amorem vita factisque ostendendum, or even with the more recent one: anim. n. flectemus 50. ut veram Christi doctrinam tueamur (see Erdmann, p. 129 ff’). It is very common to explain πείθειν here by placare, to calm, to compose; this, it is true, is in so far inaccurate as πείθειν has not this meaning in itself, but certainly the verb is sometimes used in such a connection that the purpose of the persuasion is the calming of anger or of a similar passion ; ἢ hence the original meaning of the word passes into the above. This may be the case here also, for the following καταγινώσκῃ shows that the apostle regards our heart as affected with a passion directed against us; then the following ὅτι, ver. 20 (at least the second, for the first may also be the pronoun 6 τι), is the causal particle =“ because, since.” Taking this view, the sense is: Jn the consciousness that we are of the 1 This interpretation is based on the erroneous view that εἶναι ix τῆς ἀληθείας is = veram doctrinam tenere ; the former interpretation is contradicted by the fact that if we already know from our love to the brethren that we are of the truth, we do not need for the first time to move our hearts to love. 2 In favour of this we may appeal to the passages cited by Liicke, Matt. xxviii. 14; Joseph. Arch. vi. 5, 6 (Samuel), ὑπισχνεῖται καὶ παρακαλέσειν τὸν Θεὸν συγγνῶναι περὶ τούτων αὐτοῖς, καὶ πείσειν, and the passage in Plutarch, where to ἀπολοίμην, εἰ μή σε τιμωρησαίμην the reply runs: ἀπολοίμην, εἰ μή σε πείσαιμι, although πείθειν has not in them exactly the meaning of “ to calm.” CHAP. III. 19, 20. 411 truth, we shall silence the accusation which our heart makes against us, because God is greater than our heart.— If, on the other hand, we take πείθειν in the meaning of to convince, ὅτι (at least the second) is=“that;” and the sentence μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν is the object belonging to πείσομεν; so that the sense is: If owr heart accuses us, we shall bring it to the conviction that God is greater than it. — The words ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, 1... τοῦ Θεοῦ, do not point to the “future judgment” (Liicke, de Wette), but to the representa- tion of God in the devotion of the soul, which is peculiar to the Christian. By putting them first, it is brought out that the πείσομεν only occurs in this representation of God (Diister- dieck, Ewald, Briickner, Braune). — Ver. 20. By far the most of the commentators take the ὅτι with which this verse begins as the particle, either =“ because” or “ that,’ and explain the second ὅτε as epanalepsis of the first. The supposition of the epanalepsis of a particle has, considered in itself, nothing against it, although it very seldom appears in the N. T., but it is only suitable if ὅτι is the objective particle (comp. Eph. ii. 11, 12) ;* from this it follows that if πείθομεν has the meaning “ ¢o calm,” the first ὅτι is not to be regarded as the particle. Sander, it is true, translates: “ we can calm our heart, that—God is greater,’ etc., but this has only sense if before “that” is supplied “ with this,” or “ inasmuch as we reflect ;” such a supplement, however, is arbitrary. Several commentators (Hoogewen, Bengel, Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald) regard the first ὅτι as the pronoun, as also Lachmann (in his large ed.) reads 6 τὸ ἐάν. Diisterdieck erroneously asserts (as even Bertheau in the 3d ed. of Liicke’s Comm. p. 539, Ebrard, and now even Briickner and Braune, have acknowledged) that this form is never found in the N. Τ᾿; 1 Liicke himself admits that the passages adduced by him in favour of the epanalepsis ‘‘have only value for those who take ὅσι both times not as causal particle, but as conjunction, belonging to πείσομεν ;”” but thinks that the context makes it necessary to assume the epanalepsis here even for the causal particle ; similarly Braune, although without even showing the grammatical justification in any way. Besides, in this construction it is quite overlooked that if the intermediate clause ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ x.7.2. is connected with the preceding, the first ὅτι comes in disturbingly ; and if it is connected with the following, the second ὅσι does so. As in accordance with the thought only the former connec- tion can be the correct one, it is incomprehensible how John should have here interrupted it by ὅτι. 412 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. it is true that in Col. iii. 23 it is probably not 6, τι ἐών, but ὃ but in Acts iii. 23 Tisch. reads ἥτις ἐάν (so also 8), and in Col. iii. 17, according to the overwhelming authorities, it is not 6 τι ἄν, but 6 τι ἐάν, that must be read (which is admitted by Lachm. Tisch. and Buttm.), and similarly in Gal. v. 10, not ὅστις ἄν, but dates ἐάν (also accepted by Lachm. Tisch. 7, and Buttm.); moreover, there is nothing syntactically against reading here 0, τὸ ἐάν, for καταγινώσκειν is frequently con- strued with the accusative of the thing. Ebrard, however, thinks that this view is “improbable,” nay, “ absolutely im- possible ;” “improbable,” because in ver. 22 ὃ ἐάν is used, but in the 1st ed. of this comm. it was shown that ὃ ἐάν is by no means the constant form with John, but that in the Gospel, ii. 5, xiv. 13, xv. 16, 6, τε ἄν also appears,’ and that the sudden change of forms is found elsewhere also in the N. T., as in Matt. v. 19, first ὃς ἐάν, and afterwards ὃς δ᾽ ἄν is used, and in Matt. xvi. 19, in some codd. (Lachm.), first ὃ ἄν, and then ὃ ἐάν is read; “absolutely impossible,” “on account of the mutual relationship of the two conditional clauses, ver. 20 and ver. 21;” certainly the ἐών in ver. 21 seems to form a sharp antithesis to the ἐάν in ver. 20, but it must not be unnoticed that, similar though the two clauses are to one another, they nevertheless have not the pure form of antithesis, inasmuch as in ver. 21 there is no antithetical patticle, in the clauses the succession of the particular words is different, and the first conditional clause only forms an inserted intermediate clause.” In favour of the explanation: “ before Him shall we calm our heart, whatever it may accuse us of, because,’ etc. (or convince .. . that, etc.), is the fact that not only is the idea καταγινώσκῃ thereby more closely connected with πείσομεν, but also the certainly strange epanalepsis of the ὅτι is avoided.* — The verb καταγινώσκειν, according to Τὴν has in chap. 11. 5: ὃ ἄν; xiv. 13: ὅ σι ἄν; xv. 16: ὅ σι ἐάν, “If it was the apostle’s intention to contrast sharply two different cases, he could do this more definitely if he constructed the first period thus: ἐὰν xaray. ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία, ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ “πείσομεν 7. κι) ὅτι μείζων x.7.a., and the second: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ καταγ. ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία. From the fact that he did not do so, it may be concluded that such a sharp contrast was not in his purpose. 3. That the supposition of an epanalepsis for the causal particle is improper, has been already noticed above ; and for the passage before us it is further clear CHAP. III. 19, 20. 413 Liicke, does not signify condemnation, but only accusation ; in the inner life of the heart, however, the two are not dis- tinctly separated from one another, but the accusation of conscience rather includes the condemnation; the special κατάκρισις is certainly the work of God.' The object of the καταγινώσκειν of the heart is variously defined by the com- mentators, some understanding by it, with reference to the preceding thought, the “ want of love,” others more generally the sinfulness which still adheres to believers even with all the consciousness of loving the brethren (chap. i. 8). The decision as to which is the correct interpretation depends on the explanation of the following sentence: ὅτε μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν Kal γινώσκει πάντα. ---- Theold controversy is, whether God is called greater than our heart as forging or as judging ; the former is the view of Thomas Angl., Luther, Bengel, Morus, Russmeyer, Spener, Noesselt, Steinhofer, Rickli, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Diister- dieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, Briickner, Braune, etc. ; the latter is the view of Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Grotius, a Lapide, Castalio, Hornejus, Estius, Calovius, Semler, Liicke, Neander, Gerlach, de Wette, Ebrard, etc. —If πείθειν 15 =“ to calm,” then μείζων must refer to the forgiving love of God; Liicke, indeed, gives the following explanation: “after John has said that only if we are, in active brotherly love, conscious that we are of the truth, shall we calm our hearts in the judgment he adds: for if the contrary is the case, if our conscience accuses us of the want of genuine love, then God is greater than our from the fact that if ὅτι is the causal particle, the clause μείζων ἐστὶν x.7.4. forms, according to the thought, the conclusion of ἐὰν xaraywaexn, as plainly appears in Liicke when he explains: ‘‘ Then, if. .. our conscience accuses us, God is greater than our heart,” etc.—But even the epanalepsis of ὅσι as objective par- ticle may be doubted ; for as the thought ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ does not form the presupposition for μείζων ἐσαὶν x.7.a., but for πείσομεν, it is unsuitable to place it in the objective clause dependent on πείσομεν, instead of connecting it with σείσομεν. 1 Diisterdieck, with whom also Braune agrees, appropriately remarks that καταγινώσκειν occupies a middle place between κατηγορεῖν, along with which an ἀπολογεῖν further occurs, and κατακρίνειν, which includes the judicial decree of punishment ; comp. Deut. xxv. 1, 2.—Diisterdieck suitably quotes on this pas- sage, Sir. xiv. 2, comp. xix. 5, and Zest. Gad. 5; J. A. Fabricius, Cod. pseudep. V. T. p. 681.---καταγινώσκειν Means: to pronounce against a person that he is guilty; κατακρίνειν, on the other hand: to pronounce the merited punishment on a person. 414 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. heart, and before His holiness and omniscience there is no calm for the accusing conscience.” But the assumption of such a declaratio e contrario, which is in no way hinted at, is only an artificial expedient for reconciling contraries. μείζων can only be referred to God as judging, if πείθειν has the meaning “to persuade.’ As Ebrard regards this as the right view, and would begin “a perfectly independent new sentence” with καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, he states the meaning as follows: “In the sight of God we shall convince our hearts of this, that if (even) our heart (so prone to self-deception and self- excuse, and therefore small) accuses us (namely, of not practising love), God, the all-knowing, is greater than our heart, and we shall therefore so much the less be able to stand before Him.” This interpretation is contradicted, in the first place, by the fact that it separates the second part of the 19th verse from the first, nay, even places it in antithesis to it,’ whereas such an independence is not only not suggested as belonging to it, but is refuted by the connecting καί, and in the second place, by the fact that the thought is in itself inadmissible. According to the representation of the apostle, we and our heart are regarded as contrasted with one another, inasmuch as our heart brings a condemning accusation against us, which plainly refers to the fact that we by our sins have made ourselves liable to the judgment of God; it is not we therefore that hold out to owr heart, but our heart that holds out to us, the judgment of God; how, then, shall we after this bring our heart to the conviction that God will condemn us, nay, will condemn us even more than our heart does already ? From this it follows that—whatever be the meaning of πείθειν -- μείζων cannot refer to the judicial activity of God. As God is called μείζων in comparison with our heart that con- demns us, the comparison expresses an opposition; Erdmann: Notioni cordis condemnantis magnitudo Dei comparatur et opponitur ; the heart, inasmuch as it condemns us, is like the “ hostis, qui nos aggreditur, sed Deus μείζων h. 6. fortior est, ut hostem illum devincere possit” (comp. iv. 4). As this greatness of God, which surpasses the heart, proves itself in this, that in those who are ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας it overcomes the 1 The conviction, namely, that we cannot stand before God, plainly forms an antithesis to the conviction that we are of the truth, CHAP. III. 19, 20. 415 accusations of the heart, those commentators are right who assign to this verse a comforting tendency, and therefore refer μείζων to the forgiving love; no doubt, it is objected that the thought of God’s omniscience (γινώσκει wavta*) is not able to comfort the man whom conscience accuses, but this can only hold good in reference to those who are not yet ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας, and not in reference to those of whom John is here speaking, namely, those who in their sincere love to the brethren have the evidence that they are ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας. If this is the right interpretation, then it is clear that xata- γινώσκειν does not refer to the want of love, but to sin in general, from which even the τέκνον τοῦ Θεοῦ is not yet free (i. 8 ff.) ; and this is also indicated by the apostle’s very form of expression, if πείσομεν is directly connected with καταγινώσκει, and if, accordingly, 0, τι ἐάν is to be read (see above), in which case ὅτι μείζων ἐστι x.7.r. states the objective ground of the πείθειν: “because God is greater than our heart, we therefore (in the consciousness that we are of the truth) shall calm our hearts before God, however much our heart may accuse us.” This interpretation deserves the preference before that, accord- ing to which πείσομεν is =“ to convince,’ and ὅτι μείζων K.7.r. the object governed by it, because not only does the purpose of the verse thereby appear more clearly, but it is not easy to perceive how the conviction of the greatness of God which overcomes the heart should result from the consciousness ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν ὃ ---Τῦ is further to be observed that 1 Several commentators find in the words καὶ γινώσκει πάντα the explanation of the idea μείζων, so Oecumenius, Augustine, Bede, Socinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, de Wette, etc. ; even Ebrard says that God is called μείζων, ‘because He cannot be deceived,” but its position gives no justification for that ; we can at the most say that the apostle by those words brings specially out one element which is included in μείζων. ? Luther rightly says: ‘‘Though our conscience makes us despondent, and represents God to us as angry, yet God is greater than our heart. Conscience is a single drop, but the reconciled God is a sea full of comfort... . When con- science punishes and condemns a man, he becomes alarmed ; but against this darkness of the heart it is said: God knows all things. Conscience is always in fear and closes its eyes; but God is deeper and higher than thy heart, and more exactly searches the innermost parts of it.”—Besser: ‘‘ Our heart knows some things, and decides against us; God knows all things, and does not decide against us, but for us, because before His eyes the seed of truth, of which we have been born, is not concealed.” 3 Ewald construes correctly, but in his explanation: ‘‘If we earnestly seek in 416 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. de Wette makes the first τε as causal particle dependent on πείσομεν (=to calm), the second, on the other hand, on καταγινώσκῃ:: “for, if our heart accuses us because God is greater than our heart, He also knows all things;” but this construction is opposed not only by the fact that the καί is more naturally taken as copula (Baumgarten-Crusius), but also by the fact that the thought, that our heart condemns us because God is greater than our heart, is incorrect.1 — Without adequate ground, Erdmann thinks that καρδία in ver. 19 is used in a wider sense than in ver. 20 (“vertimus πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας : nobis ipsis persuadebimus”), because there the plural, and here the singular, is used; this change of the number has no influence on the meaning of the word, but the apostle speaks of the καρδία as the object of πείθειν, and as the subject of καταγινώσκειν, inasmuch as the heart is the seat or the union of the affections; the Greek commentators explain καρδία here as synonymous with συνείδησις. Ver. 21. In this verse the apostle states the case of our heart not accusing (or condemning) us. We can understand it thus, that what he previously observed has happened, namely, that in the consciousness that we are of the truth, we have induced our heart to refrain from its accusation against us. Then this thought does not stand to the preceding one in the relation of antithesis (as if in this verse a different case was contrasted with the case stated in ver. 20), but in that of continuation ;* but it is more correct to suppose that the apostle is here speaking of a relationship which is dif- His sight whether we really love... we shall be able, even if we must some- times accuse ourselves before God, nevertheless by the penitent (?) acknowledg- ment of the truth, to convince our conscience that we are men and God is God, that we may therefore sometimes fail and must be admonished by Him,”—he introduces references into the thought which are not contained in it. 1 Briickner, it is true, defends de Wette’s interpretation, but he substantially perverts it ; for whilst de Wette refers the whole verse to the accusation of God (therein agreeing with Liicke), Briickner takes the ὅτι γινώσκει πάντα in comfort- ing sense ; but it then becomes still more untenable, for it is plainly unjustifiable to refer the omniscience of God in the subordinate clause to condemnation (for both explain μείζων by: ‘‘looking more deeply, examining all the recesses of the heart”), but in the principal clause to forgiveness. * The objection of Ebrard to this interpretation, that ἐάν cannot serve the purpose of introducing a deduction from a premiss which is presupposed as already having actually occurred, is inappropriate, for ἐών is not in this view at all taken as ‘if, then, therefore,” but is retained in its own proper meaning. CHAP. III. 22. 417 ferent from that indicated in ver. 20, and that he is not regarding the question whether the non-condemnation has never taken place at all, or has been only brought about by persuasion. That two sentences may stand to one another in the relation of antithesis even without the antithetical par- ticle, is proved by chap. i. 8 and 9.— παῤῥησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς tov Θεόν] states what occurs when the case exists which is mentioned by ἐάν ; it is erroneous to explain παῤῥησίαν ἔχο- μεν = πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν ; the same expression in chap. ii, 28 and iv. 17, and construed with πρός, chap. v. 14; the same construction in Rom. vy. 1: εἰρήνην ἔχ. πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. As the calming of the heart, so also confidence toward God, which is the subject here, is based on the fact that God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Ver. 22. By καί the following is closely connected with the preceding, inasmuch as it states what further happens when, in consequence of non-condemnation on the part of the heart, the παῤῥησία πρὸς τὸν Θεόν exists; it is not merely the consciousness of the hearing of our prayers, but it is this hearing itself.— ὃ ἐὰν aitdpev] is to be taken quite generally, and must not be spoiled by arbitrary limita- tions ; the necessary limitation lies, on the one hand, in the subject itself: the child of God asks for nothing which is con- trary to his Father’s will, comp. v. 14; and, on the other hand, in the παῤῥησία with which he prays; comp. Matt. xxi. 22; the contrary in Jas. i. 6, 7. ---- λαμβάνομεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] i.c. τοῦ Θεοῦ. The present is not used instead of the future (Grotius) ; the subject is here not something future, but what constantly occurs in the life of believers. Augustine suitably says: Charitas ipsa gemit, charitas ipsa orat, contra hanc aures claudere non novit, qui illam dedit.——Cre tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ x.T.r.] ὅτι is connected with the immediately preceding λαμβάνομεν, and states the ground of God’s mani- festation of love in the hearing of prayer; this ground, which, however, is not to be regarded as the causa meritoria, is the childlike obedience of him who prays, wherein God recognises him as His child; the idea of obedience is expressed in two Contrary to Braune’s opinion, that with this interpretation not μή, but μηκέτι would have to be used, it is to be observed that it was not necessary to bring out the element which is contained in μηκέτι. Mtyer.—1 Joun. IND, 418 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. mutually co-ordinate sentences (similar to the Hebrew paral- lelism): τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ and Ta ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ are synonymous ;' by ποιεῖν the obedience is specified as active ; the second clause indicates that it consists, not in a slavish subjection to the commandment, but in a childlike fulfilment of that which is pleasing toGod. In John viii. 29, ἀρεστόν is construed with the dative; only in Acts vi. 2, xii. 3 is the word besides found; similar is the expression: ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (1 Tim. v. 4). Ver. 23. With this verse, which—as the statement of the substance of God’s commandments—is most closely connected with the preceding, begins a new leading section, indeed the last in the Epistle, inasmuch as in ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν τῷ ὀνό- ματι x.T.r. a new element of the development of ideas appears, by which the sequel is not merely “prepared for” (Ebrard), but is dominated. — καί is not explicative, but simply copu- lative. — αὕτη refers to the following ἵνα, which here also does not merely state the purpose (Braune), but the substance. —1 ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ] The singular is used, because the mani- fold commandments in their inner nature form one unity: this is especially true of the two commandments of faith and love, here mentioned. From the fact that faith is described as an ἐντολή, it must not be inferred that it is not a work of God in man, but it certainly follows that neither can it be accomplished without the self-activity of man.—The phrase πιστεύειν TH ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ κιτίλ. Only appears here; in chap. v. 13 the preposition εἰς is used instead of the dative; so also in John i. 12, 11. 23, iii, 18, etce.; by the dative the ὄνομα of Christ is indicated as the object of devoted, beliey- ing trust;” “to believe on the name of Christ” is, however, identical with “to believe on Christ,’ inasmuch as in the 1 Meyer actually thinks that by ἀρεστά are meant the so-called consilia evangelica, by which ordinary Christians are not bound, but which are volun- tarily undertaken by Christians who are specially holy! * Weiss has been at pains to show that σιστεύειν in John does not include the element of trust ; in this, however, he is wrong, because even where the element of conviction prevails in the use of the word, this must not be identified with the theoretical belief, which is a mere act of the understanding, but it includes as an essential element the immediate trust of the words or of the person to which the πισσεύειν refers ; inthe phrase: πιστεύειν τῶ ὀνόματι I. Xp., the ethical meaning of the verb is so much the more to be recognised, as the denial of it necessitates also a weakening of the idea ὄνορεα, CHAP. III. 24. 419 name the nature of Him who is spoken of is expressed ; comp. Meyer on John i. 12. Grotius quite erroneously: propter Christum sive Christo auctore Deo credere. — While faith is the fundamental condition of the Christian life, brotherly love is the active proof of the living character of the faith; the two things cannot be separated from one another; hence it follows here: καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, which as the effect is distinguished from πιστεύειν as the cause; κωΐ is therefore copulative and not epexegetical (as Frommann thinks, p. 591). — The subordinate clause: καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν nuiv,is best referred to ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, inasmuch as it is not God (Estius, Bengel, Sander) but Christ that is to be regarded as the subject; by καθώς (“in proportion as”) the quality of love is indicated: it must correspond to the commandment of Christ ; Myrberg: Non modo amandum est, sed etiam vere et recte amandum. Ver. 24. After the apostle has mentioned the substance of the divine commandment, he describes the keeping of it as the condition of fellowship with God, and states the mark whereby the Christian knows that God is in him. — xa/ is the simple copula, not = itaque; Tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ is a resump- tion of the ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ of ver. 23; the plural is used because the commandment is described as containing two elements ; αὐτοῦ = τοῦ Θεοῦ, not Χριστοῦ (Sander, Neander, Besser). — ἐν αὐτῷ μένει x.7.A.] The mention of fellowship with God, which consists in this, that we abide in God and God abides in us,” is explained by the purpose of the Epistle. — καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν] ἐν τούτῳ is referred by Liicke and Ebrard to the preceding, namely to τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ but thus there results a superfluous thought, for with the connection which according to the apostle exists between 1 Frommann (p. 200) wrongly concludes from this passage and iv. 7, 19, in which the obligation to love is expressed, that being born of God is conditioned by love, as the free act of man, ‘‘ by which He keeps His independent personality and freedom towards God” (!), nay, even is produced by it (p. 205). * When Weiss defines the abiding or being of God in him who keeps His com- mandments, in this way, that God who is known, or the knowledge of God, is the determining principle of his spiritual life, this seems ‘‘ to weaken the power- ful realism of John’s conception ;” yet Weiss guards himself against this when he says that he does not in any way diminish the divine causality in the act of regeneration, but only means thereby that God accomplishes this act by means of His revelation in Christ, which must be accepted into knowledge. 420 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. the keeping of God’s commandments and God’s abiding in us, and which he has expressed in the first half of the verse, it is plainly superfluous to say once more that we know the latter by the former; it is, besides, contradicted by the following ἐκ Tov πνεύματος, Which has induced Liicke to assume a combina- tion of two trains of thought and an ambiguity of ἐν τούτῳ, and Ebrard arbitrarily to supply with ἐκ τ. πνεύματος the words “ we know ;” Diisterdieck, de Wette, Erdmann, Braune, etc., refer ἐν τούτῳ to ἐκ TOD πνεύματος, so that according to the apostle it is from the πνεῦμα which is given to us that we know that God is in us if we keep His commandments ; comp. iv. 12, 13, where the same connection of ideas occurs. The change of the prepositions ἐν and ἐκ is certainly strange, but does not render this interpretation “ ampossible” (Ebrard) ; for, on the one hand, the form: “ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν, is too familiar to the apostle not to have suggested itself to him here; and, on the other hand, by ἐκ the πνεῦμα is indicated as the source from which that γινώσκειν flows; besides, the construction with ἐκ appears also in chap. iv. 6. — By πνεῦμα is here to be under- stood, just as by χρῖσμα in chap. 11. 20, “ the Holy Ghost,” who lives and works in the believer, but not, with Socinus, the disposition or the love produced by Him; or, with de Wette, “first of all the true knowledge and doctrine of the person of Jesus.” With this verse the apostle makes the transition to the following section, in which, with reference to the false teachers, the distinction is made between the πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ and the πνεῦμα which is not ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 1 The two thoughts which Liicke considers as combined here are—(1) that we in the keeping of God’s commandments know that we are in fellowship with Him, and (2) that the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς is nothing else than the expression and operation of the Divine Spirit.—It is plainly quite mistaken for Paulus to regard ix τοῦ πνεύματος as the subject belonging to μένειν CHAP. IV. 421 CHAPTER WV. Ver. 2. Instead of the Rec. γινώσκετε, found in K, several min. vss. and Fathers have γινώσκεται ; In R* : γινώσκομεν (N's γινώσκετε) ; the Lee. is to be regarded as genuine. — The reading in B: ἐληλυθέναι, Instead of the Rec. ἐληλυθότα, 15. a correction. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Rec. ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα (Κ, ete., and G, though with the article τόν prefixed), A B, etc., have the simple τὸν Ἰησοῦν (Lachm. Tisch.). This is probably the original reading (Brickner), and is confirmed by the preceding (contrary to Reiche, etc.). S reads: ᾿Ιησοῦν κύριον ἐν o. ἐληλυθότα. — According to Socrates, vil. chap. 32, 6 Aver is found in old manuscripts instead of ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ; the same reading in Iren. 111. 18: quisolvit Jesum Christum; similarly the Vulg. (Lucif.: destruit) and in Fulg.— Tertullian also prefers this reading, though in connection with the common one; Adv. Mare. v. 16: negantes Christum in carne venisse ... hic antichristus est; the same connection in Tychonius and Augustine: qui solvit Jesum et negat in carne venisse. Semler’s view is a strange one, that ὃ Ave: has arisen oculorum vitio ; the reading is prob- ably to be explained by the polemic against the Gnostics (Grotius, Liicke, de Wette), in favour of which is the Scholion in Matthael, p. 225: προώδευσαν γὰρ αὐτοῦ (rod ἀντιχριστοῦ) αἱ αἱρέσεις, ὧν χαρακχτεριστιχὸν τὸ διὰ ψευδοπροφητῶν καὶ πνευμάτων λύειν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐν τῷ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν αὐτὸν ἐν σαρκ. ἐληλυθέναι. ---- The reading in N: ὅτι (6 τι) ἀκηκόαμεν, instead of 6 ἀκηκόατε, is singular. — Ver. 6. In his small edition Lachm., after A, Vulg. etc., reads ἐν τούτῳ instead of ἐκ τούτου; in his large edition he has accepted the latter reading. — Ver. 7. To ἀγαπῶν is wrongly added in A: τὸν Θεόν. ---- Ver. 8. Instead of ἔγνω, 8* has ἔγνωκεν ; in the original text of 8 thewhole sentence: ὁ μὴ ay.... Θεόν, is wanting. — Ver. 9. S has ζῶμεν for ζήσωμεν. --- Ver. 10. To ἡ ἀγάπη is added in 8: τοῦ Θεοῦ, plainly a correction. For ἠγαπήσαμεν, Bhas ἠγαπήκαμεν (Buttm.).— For ἀπέστειλεν, δὲ has ἀπέσταλκεν. --- Ver. 12. The order of words varies: the Rec. is τετελειωμένη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν, following G, K, ete. (Tisch.); A, etc, Vulg. etc, have ἐν ἡμῦ before τεσελειωμένη (Lachm.); B and δὲ : ἐν ji between sere. and ἐστίν (Buttm.).— Ver. 15. B reads ὃς ἐάν instead of ὃς ἄν, and ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός instead of the simple ᾿Ιησοῦς. ---- Ver. 16. At the end of the verse Β G Καὶ καὶ, etc., several vss. etc., read μένει 429 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. (bracketed by Lachm.) ; in A, ete, Vulg., several Fathers, μένει is wanting (Tisch.) ; according to the authorities it is to be re- garded as genuine, being probably omitted to correspond with the end of the 15th verse (Reiche). — Ver. 17. 8 has after μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν the further words: ἐν 747%, and instead of ἐσμέν the future ἐσόμεθα. ---- Ver. 19. The Rec. ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτός 15 found in G K, ete.; in A is found: ἡμεῖς οὖν ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι ὁ Θεός (Lachm.) ; in B ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτός (Tisch.);® has qu. ay σὸν Θεόν, ὅτι αὐτός. The αὐτός after ὅτι is sufficiently attested by the authorities ; the αὐτόν after ἀγωπῶμεν, οα΄ the other hand, appears to be a later addition, added for explanation of the thought. Reiche, however, regards it as genuine ; Liicke thinks that if ἀγαπῶμεν is without an object, 6 Θεός is necessary ; this, however, according to John’s wsus loquendi, is not the case. — Ver. 20. δὲ omits the ὅτι. In reference to the reading ἑόρακεν in Tisch. 7, see on chap. i. 1. — Instead of the Ree. (Tisch.) πῶς, 8, B, ete., Theb. ete., read οὐ (Lachm.). The interrogative is, how- ever, more expressive than the negative. Vy. 1—6. Resumption of the warning against the false teachers; comp. chap. ii. 18 ff. The connecting link is © formed by ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, chap. 111. 24; the object is to distinguish between the πνεῦμα which is of God and the πνεῦμα which is not of God (vv. 2, 3), between the av. τῆς ἀληθείας and the πν. τῆς πλάνης : the distinguishing mark is the con- fession; the former confesses, the latter denies Jesus; the former is mightier than the latter ; therefore the believers have overcome the ψευδοπροφήτας ; the words of the former spring ἐκ Tov κόσμου, and are pleasing to the κόσμος ; the words of the latter are accepted by him who is ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ver. 1. The apostle first exhorts them not to believe παντὶ πνεύματι. The idea πνεῦμα is in closest connection with ψευδοπροφῆται. The true prophets spoke, as we read in 2 Pet. 1. 21: ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ; the source of the revelations which they proclaim (πρόφημι) is the πνεῦμα ἅγιον or mv, τοῦ Θεοῦ, by which is meant not an affection of their mind, but the power of God, distinct from their own personality, animating and determining them (δύναμις ὑψίστου, synonymous with πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Luke 1. 35). This πνεῦμα speaks through the prophet, penetrating into his πνεῦμα and communicating to him the truth to be revealed; thus the πνεῦμα of the prophet himself becomes a πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. As every prophet has his own πνεῦμα, there exists, though the CHAP. IY. 1. 428 πνεῦμα ἅγιον is a single being, a plurality of prophetic spirits. The same relationship holds good, on the other hand, in the case of the false prophets. These also are under the influence of a spirit, namely, of the πνεῦμα which ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι, of the πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης ; this similarly is a single being, but inasmuch as with its lie it penetrates the πνεύματα of the false prophets and makes them lke itself, it is true of the πνεῦμα of every individual prophet that it is not of God, not a πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, but a πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης. As John speaks here of a plurality of spirits (παντὶ πνεύματι, τὰ πνεύ- pata), we are to understand by πνεῦμα in this passage not the higher spirit different from the human spirit, but this spirit itself, penetrated, however, and filled with the former’ (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 32, and Meyer on this passage). This spirit, however, may be spoken of, not merely in plurality, but also in unity, that is, in collective sense, for on each of the two sides all πνεύματα, being animated by one and the same spirit, —whether the divine or that which is against God,—are of one nature, and so form together one unity. It is incorrect to understand by πνεῦμα here by metonymy, “the prophets” themselves (=Aadodvtes ἐν πνεύματι, Liicke, de Wette, Calvin: pro eo, qui spiritus dono se praeditum esse jactat ad obeundum prophetae munus ; so also Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.), or “ their inspiration ” (Socinus, Paulus), or even “ the teach- ing of the prophet, his inspired word” (Lorinus, Cyril, Didymus, etc.). — ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα] The appear- ance of the ψευδοπροφῆται, 1.6. such teachers as, moved by the ungodly spirit, proclaimed instead of the truth the anti- christian lie, under the pretext of speaking by divine inspira- tion, necessitated in the Christian Church a trial of the spirits (a διάκρισις of them, 1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 29); comp. 1 Thess. v. 20, 21; in order to know εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, 1... (if ἐκ is to be retained in its exact meaning), if they originate in and proceed from God. — This trial is to be exercised by all (comp. 1 Diisterdieck considers the expression as describing ‘‘ the superhuman prin- ciple animating the man who prophesies,” and explains the plural in this way, that ‘‘ those different principles reveal themselves differently in their different instruments ;” but with this interpretation the plural would be used in a very figurative signification. Braune correctly: ‘‘ The question is not about a dual, but about a plural ; we must therefore understand the spirits of men, to whom the Spirit bears witness.” 424 TIE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Rom. xii. 2; Eph.v.10; 1 Cor. x. 15, xi. 13), for “ alloquitur (apostolus) non modo totum ecclesiae corpus, sed etiam singulos fideles ” (Calvin) ; against which Lorinus arbitrarily says : non omnium est probare ; unuin oportet in ecclesia summum judicem quaestionum de fide moribusque; is est sine dubio Pontifex Maximus. — The necessity of the trial John establishes by the words: ὅτε πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται K.T.r. These ψευδοπροφῆται are the same as in chap. 11. 18 are called ἀντιχρίστοι ; comp vy. 2,3. The name ψευδοπροφῆται indicates that the teachers proclaimed their doctrine, not as the result of human specula- tion, but as a revelation communicated to them by the πνεῦμα of God. The expression : ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, does not merely signify their public appearance (Socinus: existere et publice munus aliquod aggredi; Grotius: apparere populo), nor is “ἐξ οἰκῶν αὐτῶν to be mentally supplied” (Ebrard), but it is to be explained by the fact that the prophets, as such, were sent (comp. John xvii. 18), and therefore go out from Him who sends them. It is He, however, that sends them, who through His πνεῦμα makes them prophets. The idea of ἐξέρχεσθαι is accordingly different here from what it is in chap. ii. 19 (contrary to Lorinus, Spener, etc.) ; a going out of the false prophets from the Church of the Lord is not here alluded to. With εἰς τὸν κόσμον, compare John vi. 14, x. 36. Ver. 2. Statement of the token by which the πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ is to be recognised. — ἐν τούτῳ refers to the following sentence: πᾶν πνεῦμα K.T.v. — γινώσκετε is imperative, comp. πιστεύετε, δοκιμάζετε, ver. 1.— πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα)] It is arbitrary not only to change the participle ἐληλυθότα into the infinitive ἐληλυθέναι, but also to change ἐν into εἰς (so Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander); by ἐν σαρκί the flesh, 6. the earthly human nature, is stated as the form of being in which Christ appeared. The form of the object is explained by the polemic against Docetism; it is to be translated either: “ Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, ete.) ; or: “Jesus, as Christ come in the flesh;” the last interpretation has this advantage, that it not only brings out more clearly the reference to the Cerinthian Docetism,' but it In the first interpretation the antithesis to the Cerinthian Docetism lies not merely in the combination of Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν as one name (Ebrard), but also in CHAP. IV. 2. 425 makes it more easy to explain how the apostle in ver. 3 can designate the object simply by τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. It might, how- ever, be still more suitable to take ᾿Ιησοῦν.. . ἐληλυθότα as one object = “ the Jesus Christ who came in the flesh,’ so that in this expression the individual elements on which John here relied in opposition to Docetism have been gathered into one ; so perhaps Braune, when he says: “the form is that of a substantive objective sentence,” and “in ἐν o. ἔλ. it is not a predicate, but an attributive clause that is added.” That the apostle has in view not only the Cerinthian, but also the later Docetism, which attributed to the Saviour only a seeming body, cannot be proved from the form of expression used here. The commentators who deny the reference of the apostle to Docetism find themselves driven to artificial explanations ; thus Socinus, who expands the participle by quamvis, and Grotius, according to whom ἐν σαρκί refers to the status humilis in which Christ appeared, in contrast to the regia pompa in which the Jews expected the Messiah." To exact unbelievers there can here be no reference, as, according to chap. ii. 2, the false prophets had previously belonged to the Church itself? That John brings out as the token of the Spirit, that is, of God, just the confession of this particular truth, has its ground in the circumstances that have been mentioned; while it is also so very much the fundamental truth, that, as Liicke on ch. 11. 22 with justice says: “every ψεῦδος is contained in this and amounts to this, the denial of that truth in any sense.”® this, that this subject so described, which contains in it the idea Χριστός, is more particularly defined as having come in the flesh. 1 Socinus : Qui confitetur Jesum Christum i. e. eum pro suo servatore ac domino et denique vero Christo habet, guamvis is in carne venerit h. e. homo fuerit, non modo mortalis, sed infinitis malis obnoxius. Without any ground, Baumgarten-Crusius asserts: ‘‘If any force were to be assigned to the predicate : come in the flesh, the infinitive would have been used.”—Briickner thinks that if in ver. 8 the shorter reading (without the apposition) be the correct one, the reference to Docetism is here uncertain and unnecessary ; but the uncertain expression is plainly to be interpreted in accordance with the more certain, and not, contrariwise, the latter in accordance with the former. 2 Comp. with this passage Polycarp, ep. ud Philipp.: πᾶς γὰρ és av wh ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, ἀντίχριστός tors καὶ ὃς μὴ ὁμολογῇ πὸ μαρτύριον σοῦ σταυροῦ ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστί. % Augustine peculiarly turns this sentence against the Donatists, whom he reproaches with a denial of their love, on account of their separation from the Catholic Church, when he says that John speaks here of a denial of Christ not - 426 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Ver. 8. In the reading: ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, the article (which is not, with Liicke, to be deleted) must not be overlooked, for it indicates Jesus as the historical person who is Christ. The false teachers did not confess Jesus when they ascribed the work of healing, not to Jesus, but to the Aeon Christ. The particle μή indicates the contradiction of the true confession, whilst ov would only express the simple nega- tion. At the words: καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ TOD ἀντιχρίστου, almost all commentators (even Briickner and Braune) supply with τό the word πνεῦμα; but Valla (with whom Zegerus agrees) interprets: et hic est antichristi spiritus, vel potius: et hoc est antichristi i. e. proprium antichristi; if this latter interpretation be correct, then τοῦτο refers to μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, and τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου is “ the antichristian nature.” As it is not easy to see why John should have left out πνεῦμα, this interpretation is to be preferred to the usual one (so also Myrberg; Ewald similarly interprets: “the work of Anti- christ ;” the same form of expression in Matt. xxi. 21; 1 Cor. . x. 24; 2 Pet. ii, 22; Jas. ἰν. 1 4). ---- ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται] compare chap. i. 18. Stephanus, groundlessly, would read “ ὅν " instead of 6; the relative does not refer to ἀντιχρίστου, but to τὸ τ. avtuyp. — καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη] 1... in the false prophets; comp. ver. 1. John does not say here that Antichrist, but only that the antichristian nature (or the spirit of Antichrist) is already in the world ; ἤδη is doubtless added, not merely to intensify the νῦν, but to poit to the future time of the appearing of Antichrist, which is already being prepared for. According to Ebrard, the last sentence depends on @; this, however, is not likely, as ὅ is the accusa- tive ; it is rather connected, as an independent sentence, with the preceding one. Ver. 4. After the apostle has characterized the twofold πνεῦμα, he directs the attention of his readers to the relation- ship in which they stand to the false prophets. — ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ merely by word, but also by deed: quisquis non habet charitatem negat Christum in carne venisse ; so Bede : ipse est Spiritus Dei, qui dicit Jesum Chris- tum in carne yenisse, qui dicit non lingua, sed factis, non sonando, sed amando. ‘ Braune thinks that in these passages it was of importance to form a sub- stantive conception, but that here the simple genitive would have been sufficient ; it is plain, however, that the substantive idea +3 cod ἀντίχρ. is here also more significant than a mere genitive connected with ἐστίν, CHAP. IV. 5. 427 Θεοῦ éore] A contrast to those who are ἐκ τοῦ κύσμου: believers are of God, because the πνεῦμα which animates them is the πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. ---- καὶ νενικήκατε αὐτούς] αὐτούς is not = antichristum et mundum (Erasmus), but τοὺς ψεῦυδο- προφήτας, in whom the antichristian nature dwells. — vew- κήκατε is to be retained as perfect, comp. chap. 11. 13 ; Calvin inaccurately interprets: in media pugna jam extra periculum sunt, quia futuri sunt superiores. John could say to his readers: vevixyxate, not only inasmuch as in them was mighty the strength of Him who had said: θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα Tov κόσμον, and inasmuch as they in Him were sure of ultimate success (Neander, Diisterdieck), but also inasmuch as their opponents with their seductive arts must have been put to shame by their faithfulness, and must have been repulsed by them (Ebrard, Braune). The cause of this victory, however, did not and does not lie in the human power of believers, but in the fact ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ; —o ἐν ὑμῖν, 1.0. ὁ Θεός (according to Grotius, Erdmann, and others: ὁ Χριστός); as the believer is of God, God remains in him as the soul of his life; ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, 1... ὁ διάβολος, “whose children the antichrists are” (Liicke). Instead of the more particular ἐν αὐτοῖς, John uses the more general ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, in order thereby to signify that they, although they were for a while in the Church, belong nevertheless to the κόσμος, which the following words expressively bring out. Ver. 5. In chap. 11. 19, John had said of the false teachers : οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν; now he states from what source they spring; this is the κόσμος : the antichristian nature in them belonged to the world, quatenus Satanas est ejus princeps (Calvin). The manifestation of life corresponds with the source of it; because they are of the world, διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσι; ἐκ τ. κόσμου λαλεῖν means: to speak that which the κόσμος supplies, to take the burden of their speech from the κόσμος, ex mundi vita ac sensu sermones suos promere (Bengel). This is not identical with ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖν (John iii. 31), for ἡ γῇ is not an ethical idea like ὁ Koopos.— Kal ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν ἀκούει] The false prophets had gone out from the Church into the world, to which they inwardly belonged, and proclaimed to it a wisdom which originated in it; therefore the world heard them, ie. gave to 428 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. their words applause and assent: τῷ yap ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον προστρέχει (Oecumenius); in contrast to which believers were hated and persecuted by the world. Ver. 6. ἡμεῖς] Antithesis of αὐτοί, ver. 5; either specially John and the other apostles (Storr, Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune, etc.) as the true teachers, or believers generally (Calvin, Spener, Liicke, de Wette, etc.); in favour of the ' former interpretation is the fact that believers are addressed in this section in the second person, together with the follow- ing ἀκούει ἡμῶν, as also the antithesis to ψευδοπροφῆται indicates teachers. — With ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν we are to supply, according to ver. 5, the thought διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ λαλοῦμεν ; the following words: ὁ γινώσκων τὸν Θεὸν ἀκούει ἡμῶν, contain the proof of the thought just expressed. —o yw. τὸν Θεόν forms the antithesis of ὁ κόσμος, and is synonymous with ὅς ἐστιν ἐκ τ. Θεοῦ, for it is only he who is a child of God that possesses the true knowledge of God. According to Liicke and others, the apostle means by this those to whom belongs the “general ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι, 1... the divine impress and instinct, which is the condition of child- hood of God in Christ ;” but the expression itself is opposed to this, fer the knowledge of God is necessarily conditioned by faith in Christ.——In the second clause: ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν... οὐκ ἀκ. ἡμῶν, ds... Θεοῦ forms the antithesis to ὁ γινώσκων τ. Θεόν. This is the antithesis between “world” and “church of the children of God.”—In the concluding clause: ἐκ τούτου... τῆς πλάνης, it is to the immediately preceding thought that ἐκ τούτου refers. According to the usual view, with which Diisterdieck agrees, the sense of this passage is: He who hears the apostles shows thereby that the πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is in him; he who, on the contrary, does not hear them, shows that the av. τῆς πλάνης is in him; it is in his relation to the apostolic teaching that any one shows of what spirit he is the child.’ But, according to the train of thought in this section, it is not the spirit of the hearers, but that of the teachers that is the subject (so also Myrberg and Braune) ; the sense therefore is: That the πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης prevails in the false prophets, may be known by this, that the world 1 Luther: “If we hear God’s true messengers, that is a plain token of true religion ; if, however, we despise and mock them, that is a plain token of error.’ CHAP. ΠΥ. Ἢ 3 429 hears them; that in us, on the contrary, the πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας dwells, may be perceived by this, that those who know God, ae. the children of God, hear us. The mv. τῆς ἀληθείας cannot be in him whom the world hears, nor can the wv. τῆς πλάνης be in him whom the children of God hear; Braune: “the av. τῆς πλάνης is certainly in him whom the world hears, and the πν. τῆς ἀληθείας in him whom the children of God hear.” —70 πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας - comp. John xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13; a description of the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He not only produces a knowledge of the truth, but “makes the truth His very nature” (Weiss).' τὸ πν. τῆς πλάνης, the spirit that emanates from the devil, which seduces men to falsehood and error; comp. chap. i. 8 ; ie thess.20.03) 3) Limeiv.e 1, Vv. 7-21. After the apostle, induced by the appearance of the antichristian nature, has characterized the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, he passes on directly to a detailed account of the elements of faith and love alluded to in chap. ὙΠ 2 3. Vy. 7, 8. Exhortation to mutual love, and the establishing of this. — The address ἀγαπητοί emphatically introduces the command: ἀγαπῶμεν. ---- The object ἀλλήλους shows that here also it is not human love in general, but Christian brotherly love that is the subject. Mutual love is the holiest calling of Christians who are τέκνα tod Θεοῦ, for ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι," 1.6. love proceeds from God; Calovius: originem habet a Deo. Unsatisfactory is the explanation of Grotius: Deo maxime placet bonitas. ἡ ἀγάπη is used without a determining object, because it is love in its fwll extent that is meant. —- καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται κ.τ.λ.] Inference from what immediately precedes. If love is of God, then he who lives in love must also be born of God 1 The thought of this passage corresponds with that of John x. 3-5, where Christ appeals for a proof that He is the Good Shepherd to the fact that the sheep know and hear His voice, whilst they do not know the voice of the stranger, and flee from it. * Neander: ‘‘The apostle does not here lay down a commandment of love ; he does not want to impress on believers new motives for love, but to convince them that as sure as they are God’s children, this fact must be manifested by mutual love. — As proof he adduces that love is of God, and therefore every one who loves is born of God.” 430 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, and know Him. The relation of ἀγαπᾷν and ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι is not to be defined thus, that the former is the condition of the latter (de Wette), but thus, that the former is to be regarded as the criterion of the latter; to be born ot God does not follow from love, but love follows from being born of God. The same relationship exists also between ἀγαπᾷν and γινώσκειν τὸν Ocov;* what sort of a knowledge of God is meant, however, is seen from the close connection of γινώσκει with ἐκ Tod Θεοῦ γεγέννηται. ---- Ver. 8. From the foregoing it follows further: ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν Θεόν: οὐκ ἔγνω, 1... “has not known.” The reason is: ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν. ---- Ῥγ this thought the preceding ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί receives its full comprehension. — ἀγάπη is without the article, because it is considered as a general definition of the nature of God; so ver. 16, comp. 1. 5: ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστί “Love is not so much a quality which God has, as rather the all-embracing total of what He is” (Besser). Luther: Deus nihil est quam mera caritas; Grotius tamely: plenus est dilectione. Ver. 9. The manifestation of the love of God is the sending of His Son.— ἐν τούτῳ refers to the following ὅτι. --- ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν] ἐφανερώθη expresses the objective fact, not the subjective knowledge; the apostle does not mean that the love of God is known by us through the sending of His Son (comp. ver. 16), but that it has by that means come forth from its concealment, has manifested itself in act. ἐν ἡμῖν is therefore neither “7m” nor “among” us; neither must it be explained =e/s ἡμᾶς ; ἐν is here, as in ver. 16 and John ix. 3=“to;” either connected with ἐφανερώθη or with ἡ ἀγάπη τ. O.; hence either: “it has been manifested to us” (Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune, etc.), or: “the love of God to us” (Ewald) has been manifested. 1 Τὸ was previously stated in this commentary: ‘‘John does not here say that love flows from the knowledge of God, but that love, because it is of divine nature, necessarily brings with it the knowledge of God.” This is incorrect, since γινώσκει τὸν Θεόν stands in the same relationship to ἀγαπῶν as tx σοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται does, even though it is in itself true also that only he who himself loves can really know God, who is love. For the correct explanation, see Liicke, Braune, Weiss. It has already been observed, however, that the last-named does not correctly state the connection between being born of God and the knowledge of God, as he makes the latter the condition of the former. CHAP. IY. 9. 431 With the first interpretation the sentence: O71... εἰς τὸν κόσμον, makes a difficulty which has been overlooked by the commentators;* with regard to the second, the article ἡ is wanting before ἐν ἡμῖν; but a direct connection of an attri- butive clause with a substantive, without a connecting article, is very often found in the N. T., and is therefore not “unerammatical” (as Diisterdieck thinks); the idea is here, then, the same as that which John in ver. 16 expresses by: ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν ἔχει ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν The difference between εἰς ἡμᾶς and ἐν ἡμῖν is this, that the former indicates only the tendency towards the goal, the latter the abiding at the goal. By ἡμῖν we are to understand not mankind in general, but believers in particular, so also ver. 10 in the case of ἡμεῖς «.T.\.—In the following sentence: ὅτε τὸν υἱὸν avTov... iva ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ, the special emphasis rests on the last words, for the love which God has towards us is manifested in the fact that He sent His Son into the world for this purpose, that we might live through Him, «ec. become par- takers through Him of the life of blessedness. It is especially in its purpose that the sending of His Son is the manifesta- tion of God’s love to us. The more particular description of the Son of God as ὁ μονογενής, which is frequently found in the Gospel of John, appears only here in his Epistles. In Luke (vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38) and in the Epistle to the 1 Even Ebrard has not perceived the difficulty. It lies in this, that by ὅτι x.¢.a, something is mentioned which happened for us, but not which happened to us; differently in John ix. 8. Briickner thinks that the difficulty is removed by the fact that ‘‘in the purpose of the sending of Christ there also lies some- thing which happened ¢o us ;” incorrectly, since even if the purpose of that is our life (iva ζήσωμεν), yet it cannot be said that the love shown in the sending of Christ has manifested itself to us ; the result is then that ἐφανερώθη is taken = ‘has operated,” and that an emphasis is laid on ἐν ἡμῖν which it does not receive from the context. 2 Liicke incorrectly observes that with this connection there is in ἐν piv “something superfluous and unsuitable.” This is so far from being the case, that it is just in this that the apostle arrives at the consideration of the relationship between God and the believer. True, the love of God relates to the whole world, John iii. 16: ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, and to all, without exception, He has given, by sending His Son, the possibility of not being lost, but obtaining eternal life, but the loving purpose of God is accomplished only in them that believe ; the unbelieving remain ἐν ὀργῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ ; hence the love of God to the world is more narrowly limited than His love to believers, who are His τέκνα, 432 TIE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. Hebrews (xi. 17), μονογενής denotes the only child of his parents. So the expression is used by John also to denote Christ as the only Son of God, “besides whom His Father has none.” This predicate is suitable to Him, inasmuch as He is the λόγος who is ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Θεός. Lorinus arbitrarily explains μονογενής = ἀγαπητός ; comp. Meyer on John i. 14, Calvin rightly remarks: “quod unigenitum appellat, ad auxesin valet.’ How great the love of God, in that He sent His only-begotten Son in order that we might live! Baumgarten-Crusius: “ μονογενής and ἕήσομεν are the principal words: the most glorious ... for our salvation !” Ver. 10. ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη] 1.0. “herein consists love,” love is in its nature οἵ ¢his kind. Oecumenius inaccurately : ἐν τούτῳ, δείκνυται, ὅτι ἀγάπη ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός ; for ἐστί is not = δείκνυται; nor is τοῦ Θεοῦ to be supplied with ἡ ἀγάπη (with Liicke, de Wette, Briickner, etc.), but the expression means love in general, as in ver. 7 in the words: ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί (Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune). — ody ote ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήσαμεν τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι «.7.r.] Grotius and Lange arbitrarily render οὐχ ὅτι here = ὅτε οὐχ. Several com-~ mentators take the first part as, according to its sense, a subordinate clause = ἡμῶν μὴ ἀγαπησάντων ; Meyer: “ Herein consists love, in that, although we had not previously loved God, He nevertheless loved us;”? this, however, is incorrect ; as John in ver. 7 has said that love is ἐκ tod Θεοῦ, so here also he would emphasize the fact that love has its origin not in man, but in God; it is originally in God, and not first called forth in Him by the love of men; the latter is rather first the outcome of the divine love ;” the words οὐχ ὅτι there- fore serve to specify love as something divine, not, however, as Diisterdieck (who otherwise interprets correctly) thinks, to emphasize the fact that “the love of God to us is entirely undeserved ;” this is a thought which is only to be derived 1 Similarly a Lapide: Hic caritatem Dei ponderat et exaggerat ex eo, quod Deus nulla dilectione, nullo obsequio nostro provocatus, imo multis injuriis et sceleribus nostris offensus, prior dilexit nos. 2 With this interpretation it is not at all necessary, as Baumgarten-Crusius thinks, to give a different meaning to the ὅτι in each case: ‘‘notasif.. . but in the fact that ;”’ but ὅτε has the same meaning both times, as the sense is: ‘* this is not the nature of the love that we were the first to love, but that God was the first to love.” CHAP. IV. 11, 12. 433 from the statement of the apostle (Braune).— ἡμεῖς and αὐτός are emphatically contrasted with one another. — καὶ ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ x.7.r.| states the actual proof of αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς ; here also the special emphasis rests, not on ἀπέστειλε, but on ἱλασμὸν x«.7.r., which corresponds to the ἵνα ζήσωμεν of ver. 9, inasmuch as it states the basis of the ζωή; with ἱλασμόν, comp. chap. ii. 2. The aorists ἠγαπήσαμεν, ἠγάπεσε, ἀπέστειλεν, are to be retained as his- torical tenses (de Wette); by the perfect ἀπέσταλκεν, ver. 9, the sending of Christ is merely stated, whereas the aorist employed here narratively depicts the loving act of God in the sending of His Son (Liicke). Ver. 11. Conclusion from vv. 9 and 10, giving the motive for the exhortation in ver. 7.— The love of God (previously described: οὕτως) to us obliges us, believers, to love one another. The obligatory force lies not merely in the example given by God’s act of love, but also in this, that we by means of it have become the children of God, and as such Jove as He loves (Liicke). At the same time, however, the correspond- ence between ἡμᾶς and ἀλλήλους is to be observed; the Christian, namely, as a child of God, feels himself bound to love his brother because he knows that God loves him, and him whom God loves God’s child cannot hate. Ver. 12. The blessing of brotherly love is perfect fellow- ship with God. — Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται] comp. ver. 20 and Gospel of John 1. 18. In opposition to Rickli’s view, that these words were spoken in polemic reference to the false teachers who pretended to see God, ze. to know Him fully, Liicke rightly asserts that in that case the apostle would have more definitely expressed the polemic element ; τεθέαται does not here at all denote spiritual seeing or know- ledge (Hornejus, Neander, Sander, Erdmann), but seeing in the strict sense of the word (de Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune). John, however, does not here emphasize this invisibility of God (in which He is infinitely exalted above man; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16) in order to suggest that we can reciprocate the love of God, not directly, but only through love to our visible brethren (Liicke, Ebrard; similarly Hornejus, Lange, etc.), but in order thereby to emphasize still more the follow- ing: ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει x.7r. as the Scholiast in Matthiae MeyER.—1 JouN. 28 434 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. indicates by paraphrasing: ὁ ἀόρατος Θεὸς καὶ ἀνέφικτος διὰ τῆς εἰς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπης ἐν ἡμῖν μένει; a Lapide correctly interprets: licet eum non videamus, tamen, si proximum diligamus, ipse invisibilis erit nobis praesentissimus (so also de Wette, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune). The πώποτε Which is added shows that τεθέαται is regarded as the simple perfect, and does not “include past and present” (Liicke) ; nevertheless with the thought: “no one has seen God at any time,” the further thought: “no one can see Him,” is tacitly combined. That the apostle had in view the passage Ex. xxxiii, 20 (Sander), is the more improbable, as both thought and expression are different. In reference to the appearances of God which the O. T. in Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, and elsewhere, relates, Spener rightly remarks: “All such was not the seeing of the Divine Being Himself, but of an assumed form in which His being manifested itself.” — ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει] In these words the blessing of brotherly love is stated: With brotherly love fellowship with God is associated, because, indeed, love is of God. The explanation of several commentators: “if we love one another, then zt may thereby be known that God is in us,” weakens the thought of the apostle." God’s dwelling in us is certainly not meant to be represented here as a result or fruit of our love to one another (as Frommann, p. 109, interprets) ; and just as little is it the converse relation; but it is the inseparable co-dependence of the two elements, which mutually condition each other (so also Braune).—xal ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ τετελειωμένη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν] ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ is not here “the love which God has to us” (Calovius, Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Erdmann, etc.), for the idea τετελειωμένη ἐστίν does not agree with this, comp. ver. 18, but the love which the believer has; αὐτοῦ may, however, be either the objective genitive (so most commentators) or the subjective genitive ; 1 Weiss insists on this interpretation, because ‘‘it is meant to be shown how we have in brotherly love the visible evidence of an existence of God who is in Himself invisible ;” incorrectly, for (1) Christians need no visible proof of the existence of the invisible God, and, besides, it is not the existence of God, but God’s dwelling in us, etc., that is the subject here; (2) the conjunction ἐάν shows that the subordinate clause states the condition under which what is stated in the principal clause takes place ; (3) the supplement of a γινώσκομεν is purely arbitrary. CHAP, IV. 13—15. 435 but in the latter case we must not interpret, with Socinus: “ea dilectio, quam ipse Deus nobis praescripsit,” nor, as Calvin thinks probable: “caritas, quam Deus nobis inspirat,’ but “the love which is inherent in God” (which is His nature and ᾿ ἐξ αὐτοῦ) ; this, however, considered as dwelling in believers (ἐν ἡμῖν) as the soul of their life (so also Briickner and Braune). This explanation, in which no object which would restrict the general idea of love has to be supplied (comp. vy. 7, 8, 16, 18), deserves the preference, because the specific love to God is first mentioned in ver.19. Quite unjustifiably Ebrard asserts that ἡ day. αὐτοῦ denotes “the mutual loving relationship between God and us; comp. ii. 5.” Ver. 13. The token of our fellowship with God (ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν corresponds to the preceding: ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ... ἐν ἡμῖν) is: ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ; comp. iii, 24. The expression: ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (instead of τὸ πνεῦμα), is explained by the fact that the πνεῦμα of God is the entire fulness of the life of God operating in believers, of which his share is given to each individual. The expression is not to be connected with the διαίρεσις τῶν χαρισμάτων, of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. xii. 4,11. Compare Acts ii. 17 ; in reference to Christ it is said: οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσι τὸ πνεῦμα, Gospel of John 11. 34.. Against the view that by πνεῦμα here “love” or a similar quality is to be understood, Spener says: “it is the Spirit Himself, and not His gifts only, that we receive.”*—-67z does not mean “if” (Baum- garten - Crusius), for John supposes that his readers are believers, and as such are certainly partakers of the Spirit. Vv. 14, 15. That love brings with it fellowship with God, is caused by the fact that God is love and love springs from God. But God’s love was made manifest by the sending of His Son, and this is testified by the apostles, who themselves have seen Him. The last thought which ver. 14 expresses serves as an introduction to the thought that follows in ver. 15, in which the believing confession (and therefore 1 Weiss incorrectly uses this passage as a proof that, whilst Jesus considered the Holy Ghost as a personal being, John had not yet perfectly taken hold of this conception ; for even if it be admitted that the expression used here does not specify the personality of the Spirit, yet it is in no way contradictory to it. Besides, Weiss himself admits that the passage: +d πνεῦμά toow a ἀλήθεια (chap. v. 6), points to the personality of the Spirit. 436 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. faith) is described as the condition of fellowship with God, and hence also of true love.—xat ἡμεῖς] By ἡμεῖς John means here himself and his fellow-apostles; comp. ver. 6. — τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν, comp. chap. i. 1, 2. τεθεάμεθα expresses the direct seeing (Gospel of John i. 14), not know-_ ledge through the medium of others. The apostles saw that the Father sent the Son, inasmuch as they saw the Son Him- self—and not after the flesh merely, but also as the μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρός. With τεθεάμεθα corresponds the closely-con- nected idea μαρτυροῦμεν, which presupposes one’s own direct experience ; comp. Gospel of John 1. 34. — The subject of this testimony is: ὅτε ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκε τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου, comp. vv. 9,10; σωτῆρα τ. x. states the purpose of the sending, which does not refer to particular elect ones, but to the whole number of sinners (comp. chap. 11. 2 and Gospel of John iii. 16).— Ver. 15. With ὁμολογήσῃ, comp. ver. 2. The subject of the confession is: ore ᾿[ησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ; this is precisely what the antichrists deny ; comp. vv. 2 and 3.— Weiss erroneously interprets: “ Whoso- ever abides in this confession, in him zt is seen that God is in him;” the words “in him it is seen” are a mere interpolation. Ver. 16. The beginning of this verse: καὶ ἡμεῖς, is indeed of the same import as the beginning of ver. 14; but ἡμεῖς here does not merely mean the apostles (Myrberg), for otherwise ἐν ἡμῖν also would have to be referred to them, and a contvrast, here inappropriate, would be drawn between the apostles and the readers, but it is used in its more general sense (as most commentators take it), which is also indicated by the connec- tion of this verse with the preceding one. — With ἐγνώκαμεν Kal πεπιστεύκαμεν, comp. John vi. 69. As the object of faith must have been previously made known to us, and hence made the subject of knowledge before we can take hold of it in faith, and as, on the other hand, it is only through faith that knowledge becomes the determining principle of our life, and these two elements mutually condition each other continually in the Christian life, knowledge, therefore, can be put before faith, as here, and faith can also be put before knowledge, as in John vi. 69.!— τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣν ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν] is not, 1 Τλῖοκο : ‘True faith is, according to John, intelligent and experienced ; true knowledge is a believing knowledge. Both together form the complete Christian CHAP. IV. 17. 437 with Wilke (Hermeneutik des N. T. II. 64), to be interpreted : “the love which God has in us, 1.6. as a love dwelling in us,” or, with Ebrard: “ God’s love which He has kindled in us, by means of which, as by His own nature, He works in us,” for the verbs ἐγνώκαμεν and πεπιστεύκαμεν show that the subject here is not something subjective, and therefore not our love (which only in so far as it is the outcome of the divine love is described as the love which God has in us), but something objective, and therefore the love of God, which has manifested itself in the sending of His Son for the propitiation for our sins. ἐν is used here just as inver.9. The following words: ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστὶ «.7.r., which are closely connected with what immediately precedes, form the keystone of the fore- going, inasmuch as the particular ideas of the previous context are all embraced in them. — On ὁ Θεὸς ay. ἐστί, see ver. 8. — καὶ ὁ μένων x.T.r. is the inference from the thought that God is love, in this way, namely, that all true love springs from Him. The idea of love here is not to be restricted to brotherly love (ver. 12, ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους), but (as also Diister- dieck, Braune, and Weiss remark)’ is to be understood quite generally.” The idea of fellowship with God is here expressed just as in ver. 15. If John makes it at one time dependent on knowledge, and at another dependent on love, this is ex- plained by the fact that to him both knowledge and love are the radiations of that faith by means of which the new birth operates. Ver. 17. After the apostle has said in ver. 16 that he that dwelleth in love (and therefore no one else) has fellowship with God, he now indicates wherein love shows itself as perfected ; the thought of this verse is accordingly connected with the conviction, so that John, when he wants to express this very strongly, puts them both together, in which case it is indifferent whether the one or the other comes first.” Comp. also Neander on this passage, and Kostlin, der Lehrbegr. des Hv. etc., pp. 63, 215 ff. 1 Weiss further erroneously observes that ‘‘ here also being in God is not to be made dependent on love, but love on being in God.” * Ebrard introduces a reference foreign to the passage when he includes in μένειν ἐν σῇ ἀγάπῃ also the ‘‘dwelling in the love of God to us, in faith in God’s love ;” Erdmann also incorrectly interprets : ‘‘ rg μένειν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπη eadem animi nostri ad caritatem Dei relatio denotatur, quae verbis ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύ- καμεν Significatur.” Had the apostle meant this, he would have added to ἀγάπῃ, as a more particular definition, rod Θεοῦ. Comp. Gospel of John xv. 10, 438 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. preceding: ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. ----ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] Several commentators, Luther, Calvin, Spener, Grotius, Hornejus, Calovius, Semler, Sander, Besser, Ewald, ete., understand by ἡ ἀγάπη “the love of God to us,” interpreting μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν = εἰς ἡμᾶς, and τετελείωται as referring to the perfect manifestation of the love of God; Grotius: hic est summus gradus delectionis Dei erga nos.’ This interpre- tation, however, has the context against it, for in ver. 16: 6 / 5 Ἐπ) ἊΝ J 5 ς , 2 ” μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, as well as in ver. 18: ὁ φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, by ἀγάπη is meant the love of man, the love that dwells in us; comp. also ver. 12. Here also, therefore, ἀγάπη must be understood of this love, with Estius, Socinus, Lange, Liicke, de Wette, Neander, Gerlach, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.; τετελείωται is used in the same sense as τετελείιωμένη ἐστιν, ver. 12; comp. also ver. 18: ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη. ---- It is not the object of the love that is described by μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, for μετά is not = εἰς, but it means “in;”? it either belongs to the verb: “therein is love made perfect in us” (Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.; Erdmann, who explains μετά = ἐν), or to ἀγάπη : “the love which exists (prevails) in us is,” ete. With the first construction, the addition appears rather super- fluous; besides, its position would then be more natural before ἡ ἀγάπη. The underlying idea is that the love which has come from God (for all love is ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ) has made its abode 1Sander: ‘* That it is made perfect must only mean: this love of God which was manifested in the sending of His Son is manifested in its might and glory in this, that, as overcoming everything, it brings us so far that we,” ete.— Calovius: Perficitur dilectio Dei in nobis, non ratione sui, sie enim absolute perfecta est, sed ratione nostri, non quoad existentiam, sed quoad experientiam, 2 Hence 4 ay. μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν is neither=% dy. (τοῦ Θεοῦ) εἰς ἡμᾶς, ΠΟΥ = ἡ ἀγάπη (ἡμῶν) εἰς ἀλλήλους, as Liicke in his 1st ed. interprets (“ our love among ourselves, i.e. our mutual love’); still less justifiable is the interpretation of Rickli: ‘‘ the mutual love between God and the believer ;” for John never includes God and men in ἡμεῖς. When Ebrard, admitting this, nevertheless accepts the interpretation of Rickli as far as the sense is concerned, explaining ‘‘the love of God with us” by <¢the love which exists between God and us,” this is purely arbitrary, for even though μετά is frequently used to denote a reciprocal action (see Winer, p. 336 ; VII. p. 352 ff.), yet this reference is here unsuitable, for it is not God and we, but love and we, that are placed together. Moreover, to supply τοῦ Θεοῦ with ἡ ἀγάπη is at the best only defensible if in μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν the subject to which the love refers is stated; but this is grammatically impossible. If, as Ebrard thinks, ἡ ἀγάπη denotes not love, but the love-7elationship, then ἡ ἀγάπη ust ἡμῶν May only mean ‘‘the loving-relationship that exists among us ;” this idea, however, as Ebrard with justice says, does not suit the context, ΄- CHAP. IV. 17. 439 with believers. Here, also, ἡ ἀγάπη is used without more particular definition, as in ver. 16, and is therefore not to be limited to a specific object (so also de Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune); it is therefore neither merely “love to the brethren” (Socinus, Liicke,’ etc.), nor merely “love to God” (Lange, Erd- mann); Baumgarten-Crusius not incorrectly explains the idea by “the sentiment of love ;” only it must not be forgotten that true love is not merely sentiment, but action also; comp. chap. iii. 18. ---ἐν τούτῳ does not refer to the preceding, nor to dwelling in love, nor to fellowship with God, but to what follows; not, however, to ὅτι, as Beza,” Grotius, etc., assuming an attraction, think, but to ἵνα παῤῥησίαν ἔχωμεν ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως. From ver. 18 it is clear that the chief aim of the apostle is to emphasize the fact that perfect love (ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη, ver. 18) is free from fear, or that he who is perfect in love (τετελειωμένος ἐν TH ἀγάπη) experiences no fear, but has confident boldness (παῤῥησία). The thought of this verse is no other than this, that love has its perfection in the fact that it fills us with such παῤῥησία; the clause beginning with iva therefore contains the leading thought, to which the following ὅτε is subordinated. It is true, the combination ἐν τούτῳ... wa (instead of ὅτι, vv. 9, 10, and frequently) is strange, but it is quite John’s custom to use the particle of purpose, ἵνα, not seldom as objective particle; the same combination is found in the Gospel of John xv. 8 (Meyer, indeed, differently on this passage); comp. chap. 11, 10, 23: αὕτη... wa (Gospel of John xvii. 3); by ἵνα, παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν is indicated as the goal, not “which God has in view in the perfecting of love in us” (Braune), but which the ἀγάπη in its perfection attains (Diisterdieck). With παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν, comp. chap. 11. 28. -- The ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως is the 1 According to Bertheau’s note in the 84 ed. οἵ Liicke’s Commentary (p. 364), Liicke has, however, in the edition of 1851 interpreted ἡ ἀγάπη : ‘‘ brotherly love combined with love to God.” * Beza’s interpretation runs: Charitas adimpletur in nobis per hoe quod qualis ille est, tales et nos simus in hoc mundo, ut fiduciam habeamus in die judicii. 3 In Luther’s version, παῤῥησία is here, as elsewhere frequently, translated by “ Fyeudigkeit ;” this is not a word derived from ‘‘Treude” (joy), but the old German word ‘‘Freidikeit” (from ‘‘freidic, fraidig’’)=haughtiness, boldness, confidence (comp. Vilmar’s pastoral-theol. Bldtter, 1861, vols. I. and II. 7. 110 ff.); in the older editions it is written sometimes ‘‘freydickeyt” 440 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. day ὅταν φανερωθῇ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ii. 2.8. The preposition is not to be interpreted=eis, and ἔχωμεν 8 not to be taken as a future (Ewald: “that we shall have”) the difficulty that anything future (behaviour on the judgment-day) should be taken as the evidence of perfect love in the present (τετελεί- wtat is not to be taken as future complete, but as perfect: “has been made perfect,’ or “has become perfect” = “is perfected”), is removed if we take it that in ἐν the παῤῥησία, which the believer will have at the judgment-day, and which he already has when he thinks of the judgment, is included, which could the more easily occur in John, as in his view the judgment-day did not lie in far-off distance, but was already conceived as begun (chap. ii. 18). The future παῤῥησία is to him in his love already present; similarly de Wette, Sander, Besser.’ — The following words: ὅτε καθὼς ες τούτῳ, serve to establish the foregoing thought. By ἐκεῖνος we are not to understand, with Augustine, Bede, Estius, Lyranus, Castalio, etc., God, but, with most com- mentators, Christ, who is also suggested by the idea: ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως. ---- The comparison (καθώς) does not refer to εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, so that the sense would be: “as Christ is in this world, so are we also in this world,” for (1) Christ is no longer in this world (comp. Gospel of John xvii. 11), and (2) in the fact that we are in this world lies no reason for παῤῥησία at the day of judgment. By καθὼς... καί it is rather the similarity of character that is brought out, as in ii. 16, where καθώς does not refer to the idea of περιπατεῖν in itself, but to the character of the walk, so that it is to be (Wittenb. ed. 1525), sometimes freydigkeit (Niirnberg ed. 1524), but in 1537 (in a Strasburg ed.) ‘‘freudigkeit.” In what sense Luther understood the word is clearly seen from a sermon on 1 John iv. 16-21 (see Plochmann’s ed. XIX. 383), in which he says: ‘‘he means that faith should thus show itself, so that when the last day comes, you may have boldness and stand firm.” It is to be observed also that such Hebrew and Greek words as contain the idea of joy Luther never translates by that word (‘‘boldness”), but by ‘‘joyous,” “joy.” 1 Braune, though he explains correctly the particular thought, denies that these two elements are here to be regarded as combined ; but without entering into the difficulty which lies in the expression. Ebrard states the meaning of the words incorrectly thus: ‘In the fact that the will of God, that we should have boldness in the day of judgment, is internally revealed to us, and manifests itself as a power (of confidence) in us (even now), the loving relationship of God with us is shown to be perfect.” How many elements foreign to the context are here introduced ! CHAP, IV. 17. 441 interpreted: “as the character of Christ is, so is our character also ;” in the second clause οὕτως is to be supplied, as in 1 Cor. viii. 2; Eph. iv. 17, 21. What sort of character is meant must be inferred from the context; it is entirely arbitrary to find the similarity in the temptation (Rickli) or in the sufferings of Christ (Grotius), or in the fact that Christ was in the world but not of it (Sander), for there is no such reference in the context. But it is also inadmissible to regard as the more particular definition of καθώς the δικαιοσύνη (Diisterdieck), or the Sonship of God (Liicke: “as Christ is the Son of God, so are we also children of God”), for neither do these ideas appear in the context. We are rather to go back to ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, and accordingly to refer καθώς to love (so Lorinus: “reddit nos charitas Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei;” Bengel, de Wette, Ewald, Myrberg, Braune, etc.*), so that the sense is: “if we live in love, then we do not fear the judgment of Christ, because then we are like Him, and He therefore cannot condemn us.” The present ἐστί is to be retained as a present, and not to be turned into the preterite (Oecumenius: ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἣν ἐν TO κόσμῳ ἄμωμος Kal καθαρός). Love is the eternal nature of Christ, comp. iii. 7: καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν. In the concluding words: ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, which belong, not to ἐστι, but only to ἐσμεν, it is brought out that we are still in the earthly world (κόσμος οὗτος is not ‘The reference of καθώς to love is the only one demanded by the context, so that it is not suitable to regard love only as a single element in the likeness of believers to Christ which is here spoken of, as is the case with Liicke, for instance. Erdmann lays the chief emphasis not so much on love as on fellow- ship with God, which exists in love; but by καθὼς... ἐστι it is not a relation- ship, but a quality that is indicated. ? Ebrard in his interpretation arrives at no definite result ; as, on his supposi- tion that the centre of the tertii comparationis lies in the words ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ σούτῳ, the present ἐστί is objectionable to him, he would prefer to conjecture ἐς gurus’? instead of teri; but ‘‘as a faithful attention to the requirements of Biblical exegesis would scarcely permit such a conjecture,” he thinks that nothing else remains but either to suppose that ἐστί (in the sense of a historical present) ‘‘is added as an indifferent, colourless word,” or to refer καθὼς ἐκ. ἔστιν to the fact that Christ even now ‘‘still exists in the wicked world to ὦ certain extent, namely, in the Church, which is His body.” Ebrard regards the second conjecture as the more correct, and in accordance with it thus states the sense : “ΕἾ 6 look forward to the judgment with boldness, for, as He (in His Church) is still persecuted by the wicked world (even at the present day), so are we also in this world (as lambs among wolves)” (!). Ebrard groundlessly maintains, 442 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. an ethical idea), whereas Christ has already ascended from it into heaven, Ver. 18 serves to establish the preceding thought, tha love has its perfection in παῤῥησία. ----- φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ] The thought is quite general in its character: “ where love is, there is no fear” (Ebrard); φόβος is therefore not specially the fear of God, and by ἀγάπη we are not to under- stand specially love to God, but at the same time this general thought is certainly expressed here in reference to the relation- ship to God. It is quite erroneous to explain ἀγάπη here, with Calvin, Calovius, Flacius, Spener, etc., as “the love of God to us;”? but it is also incorrect, with Liicke and others, to understand by it, specially, brotherly love.? — The preposi- tion ἐν is not = with (ἃ Mons: ne se trouve avec la charité) ; Luther correctly: “Fear is not in love;” ze. it is not an element in love, it is something utterly foreign to it, which only exists outside it. By the following words: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον, the preceding thought is confirmed and expanded: love not only has no fear in it, but it does not even endure it; where it enters, there must fear completely vanish. Beza inadequately paraphrases the adjective τελεία by: sincera, opposita simulationi; it is not love in its first beginnings, love which is still feeble, but love in its perfection, that completely casts out fear. The reason why love does not suffer fear to be along with it is: ὅτε ὁ against the explanation given in the text, ‘‘that with it an οὕτως could not be omitted, nay, that even this would not suffice, but that it would have to read: Ors οἷος ἐκεῖνός ἐστι, πτοιοῦποι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἔσμεν, and that even then the passage remains obscure enough ;” and “that with this acceptation iv « 2. σ᾿ almost appears quite superfluous and foreign.” Against the statement that ‘‘our confidence in view of the judgment could not possibly be founded on our likeness to Christ, but only on the love of God as manifested in Christ,” it is a decisive answer that John in other passages as well makes the παῤῥησία dependent upon owr character, comp. ii. 28, iii. 21. 1 Calovius interprets: charitas divina, quae apprehensa per fidem, omnem servilem timorem expellit, whereby a reference foreign to the context is plainly introduced. * For justification of this interpretation Liicke refers to the words: ἔξω βάλλε τὸν φόβον, and remarks: ‘‘it cannot be said of the love of God in its perfection, that it casts out fear of God, for it has not got any.’’ But John does not say that love casts out fear out of itself; the idea rather is: it drives fear out of the heart in which it dwells before it (love) obtains its entrance. If ἀγάπη and φόβος ere meant to have different references, the apostle would certainly have indicated this, CHAP. IV. 18. 443 φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει. The word κόλασις (besides here, only in Matt. xxv. 46; comp. Wisd. xi. 14, xvi. 2, 24, xix. 4) has always the meaning of “punishment” (also LXX. Ezek. xiv. 3, 4, 7, xviii. 30, xliv. 32, as incorrect translation of Divan) ; if we adhere to this meaning, that expression can only mean: fear has punishment, in which case that which it has to expect is regarded as inherent in it, just as on the other hand it could be said: ἡ ἀγάπη ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (this being considered as future happiness, as in Matt. xxv. 46); this idea has nothing against it, for fear, as rooted in unbelief, is in itself deserving of punishment, and therein lies the reason (ὅτι) why perfect love casteth out fear.’ Several commentators, however, explain κόλασις by “ pain,” thinking that “here causa is put pro effectu” (Ebrard), or, in more correspondence with the thought, by “pain of punishment” (Besser, Braune, so also previously in this comm.) ; similarly Liicke explains κόλασις = “consciousness of punishment.” The thought that then results is indeed right in itself, for “certainly this having of κόλασις does actually show itself in the consciousness or the pain of the expectation of punishment” (Briickner); but such a change in the meaning of the idea κόλασις cannot be grammatically justified. The following sentence: ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, which is not connected with the subordinate clause ὅτε ὁ φόβος «.7.r., but with the preceding principal clause, does not contain a conclusion from this (δέ is not=odv), but (as Braune also thinks) expresses the same thought in negative form (hence the connection by δέ) ; only with this difference, that what was there expressed in an objective way, here receives a subjective aspect. It needs no proof that the apostle has In view in this verse no other fear than that of which Paul says, Rom. viii. 15: οὐκ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον, and therefore not the childlike awe of God arising from the consciousness of God’s glory, which forms an essential element of love to God.? The conjectures of Grotius, 1 It is unnecessary to take the abstract (ὁ φόβος) for the concrete (ὁ φοβούμενος), as de Wette and Diisterdieck do; de Wette incorrectly interprets ἔχε by ‘‘receives,” and Baumgarten-Crusius by ‘‘keeps, tenet, thinks of... punish- ment” (so that the sense is: ‘‘ Fear knows nothing of mercy, of love”). 2 That the fear which the apostle means has its necessary place also in the development of the spiritual life, Augustine strikingly expresses thus: Timor 444 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. instead of κόλασιν: κόλουσιν (i.e. mutilationem; so that the sense is: “metus amorem mutilat atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat”), and instead of φοβούμενος: κολουόμενος (“ qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione, is in ea perfectus non est”); and that of Lamb. Bos: instead of κόλασιν, κώλυσιν, are not merely useless, but even rob the thought of the apostle of its peculiar force. Ver. 19. ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν] According to this reading (omit αὐτόν), ἀγαπᾷν is here to be taken in the same comprehensive way as ἀγάπη in ver. 16 (Diisterdieck, Myrberg,’ Ebrard), and must not be restricted to “ brotherly love” (Liicke). — ἀγαπῶμεν, in analogy with ἀγαπῶμεν in ver. 7, and with ὀφείλομεν, ver. 11, is taken by Hornejus, Grotius, Lorinus, Lange, Liicke, de Wette-Briickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, etc., as imperative subjunctive ; but it might be more correct to regard this verse, just as ver. 17, as an expression of the actual character of true Christians, with whom, in ver. 20, by ἐάν τις εἴπῃ the false Christian is contrasted, and therefore to take ἀγαπῶμεν, with Beza, Socinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli, Neander, Ebrard, Hot- mann (Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 338), Braune, ete., as indicative, in favour of which is also the prefixed 2uets. — The reason of ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν is stated in ὅτε αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, in which the chief emphasis rests on πρῶτος ; comp. vv. 9,10. Ver. 20—chap. v. 1. Proof of the necessary co-existence of love to God and love to the brethren. The absence of the latter is evidence of the absence of the former; where love to God is, brotherly love also cannot be wanting. Ver. 20. This verse divides itself into two parts, the second part confirming the thought of the first. — ἐάν τις εἴπῃ] The same form of thought as in chap. 1. 6 ff. — ὅτε ἀγαπῶ τὸν Θεόν] ὅτι is used, as frequently, at the commencement of the quasi locum praeparat charitati. Si autem nullus timor, non est qua intret charitas. Timor Dei sic vulnerat quomodo medici ferramentum. Timor medi- camentum, charitas sanitas. Timor servus est charitatis. Timor est custos et paedagogus legis, donec veniat charitas.—The different steps are thus stated by Bengel: varius hominum status : sine timore et amore ; cum timore sine amore ; cum timore et amore ; sine timore cum amore. 1 Myrberg remarks: totum genus amoris hic proponitur; sed ubi totum genus amoris nuncupatur, ibi mens ante omnia fertur ad considerationem amoris erga Deum. CHAP. IV. 20. 445 direct oration. — καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ μισῇ) With μισῇ corresponds the subsequent ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν, comp. chap. iii. 14,15. Spener: “not only with actual hatred towards him, but even not loving him in perfect truth.” To hate is the positive expression for “not to love” (so also Braune). — ψεύστης ἐστίν] see chap.i. 6. The truth that he who hates (or, does not love) his brother, also does not love God, the apostle confirms by the contrast between ὃν éwpaxe and ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν, in which the visibility of the brother is con- trasted with the invisibility of God. The perfect indicates the permanent state ; comp. ver. 12, Gospel of John i. 18. Liicke: ἑωρακέναι --- “ to have before one’s eyes ;” a Lapide: “ vidit et assidue videt.” Socinus incorrectly lays a certain emphasis on the preterite when he says: quandoquidem satis est ad amorem per cognitionem alicujus erga illum excitandum, quod quis ipsum aliquando viderit ; nec necesse est, ut etiam nunc illum videat. The premiss for the conclusion of the apostle is, that the visible—as the object directly presented to the sight—is more easily loved than the invisible. Even the natural man turns with love to the visible, whereas love to God, as the Unseen, requires an elevation of the heart of which only the saved are capable. Hence brotherly love is the easier, love to God is the more difficult. In him who rejects the former, the latter has certainly no place. The truth that love to God is the condition of Christian brotherly love, is not in contradiction with this; for that love, as the glorification of natural love, has its necessary basis in the natural inclination which we have to our visible brother, who is like us. It is therefore unnecessary to attach any import- ance to elements which the apostle here leaves quite untouched, as is the case with Calvin (with whom Sander, Ebrard, etc., agree) when he says: Apostolus hic pro confesso sumit, Deum se nobis in hominibus offerre, qui insculptam gerunt eus imaginem; Joannes nil aliud voluit, quam fallacem esse jactan- tiam, si quis Deum se amare dicat, et ejus imaginem, quae 1 Oecumenius: ἐφελκυσσικὸν γὰρ ὅρασις ἀγάπην. Hornejus: Sicut omnis cognitio nostra communiter a sensu incipit, ita amor quoque, unde facilius et prius amatur, quod facilius et promptius cognoscitur. Similarly Luther, Calovius, ete. Compare also the statement of Gregory (Homil. XJ. in Hvang.): Oculi sunt in amore duces ; and Philo (ad Decalog.): ἀμήχανον εὐσεβεῖσθαι τὸν ἀόρατον «ε ΕὟ ~ > Ν > ~ aaa ἣν > , ὕπο τῶν εἰς TOUS ἐμφανεῖς καὶ ἐγγὺς ἀσεβούντων, 446 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ante oculos est, negligat ;* and with de Wette in his inter- pretation: “the brother is the visible empiric object of love ; whereas God, the ideal invisible object, can really be loved only in him.” By the interrogative: πῶς δύναται ἀγαπᾷν (comp. chap. iii 17), and by placing the object τὸν Θεόν first, the expression gains in vivacity and point. — πῶς δύναται must not be taken: “ how can he attain to that ?” but: “how can we suppose that he loves?” (Baumgarten- Crusius). Bengel: sermo modalis: impossibile est, ut talis sit amans Dei, in praesenti. Ver. 21. Alterum argumentum cur amare proximum (or, more correctly: fratrem) debeamus: quia Deus id praecepit (Grotius). — καί] not=and yet (Paulus) ; for this verse does not contain an antithesis, but an expansion of the preceding thought. — ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν K.7.r.] Lange interprets ἐντολή here by: “teaching;” and Grotius paraphrases ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν Θεόν by: qui a Deo pro amante ipsius haberi vult ; both false and unnecessary; for although brotherly love is the natural fruit and activity of love to God, yet at the same time the practice of it is the habitual task which he who loves God has to perform, as one appointed him by God. It is doubtful whether we are to understand by αὐτοῦ God (Baumgarten- Crusius, de Wette, Diisterdieck, etc.) or Christ; that in the latter case ἐκείνου must be read is unfounded; because τὸν Θεόν follows, the second view seems to be the more correct; but as in the context there is no reference here at all to Christ, it might be safer to understand by αὐτοῦ God. — By iva referring back to ταύτην, it is here, as frequently after verbs of wishing and commanding, not so much the purpose as the purport of the commandment (the realization of which is certainly the aim and object of the commandment) that is stated, which Braune here also incorrectly disputes. 1 The objection of Ebrard, that ‘‘it isnot easier to love a person who stands visibly before me, and has, for instance, injured me, than a person whom I have not seen at all,” is overthrown by the fact that the apostle does not here make the slightest reference to the conduct of persons standing in visible opposition to us, by whom the natural feeling of love towards our equals is destroyed and turned into hate, As the apostle is contrasting the elements of visibility and invisibility, it is so much the more arbitrary to introduce here a reference to the imago Dei, as this is not something visible, but something invisible,—the object, not of sight, but of faith. CHAP, V. 447 CHAPTER V. Ver. 1. Lachm. has bracketed the καί before τὸν γεγεννημένον, because it is wanting in B, some min. Vulg. Hil. etc. Instead of τὸν γεγεννημένον, ἐξ reads rd yey. as it runs in ver. 4. — Ver. 2. Instead of τηρῶμεν, Rec. in A G Καὶ 8, etc., Lachm. and Tisch. read: rordiuey, according to B, several min. Vulg. Syr. Thph. etc. The authorities, however, decide in favour of τηρῶμεν, even A; in which the following words: αὕτη yap . . . τηρῶμεν, are wanting, perhaps through a mistake. Still it remains likely that τηρῶμεν has been inserted as John’s usual expression (with ἐντολάς) instead of ποιῶμεν. ---- Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. τίς ἐστιν (A G, al. pl., Vulg. etc., Lachm. Tisch.), is found in B K, several min. etc.: τίς ἐστιν δέ ; τίς δέ ἐστιν; in δὲ the δέ is inserted, perhaps for closer connection of the clauses. — Ver. 6. Instead of αἵματος, πυεύματος 15 found in some min. etc.; in Α δῇ, some min. etc., is found the addition: καὶ πνεύματος; others read: συεύματος καὶ aiwaros, and αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος 15. also found; πνεύματος is evidently a later addition. — The Rec. has before Χριστός the article 6; it is wanting in A G&S (Κ : Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς) and, according to the statement of Tisch. 7, in B; according to Tisch. 2, it is found in B (namely, e silentio collatorum); Buttmann has retained it, as well as Lachmann and Tisch. 2; Tisch. 7 has, however, rejected it.— Instead of μόνον, B reads μόνῳ; 8. correction right according to the sense.— καὶ τῷ αἵματι] According to A B G, and many others, Syr. Copt. (with Lachm. and Tisch.), καὶ ἐν τῷ aiw. is probably to be substituted. Other variations, as σνεύματι instead of αἵματι, etc., do not call for observation; the reading ὅτι Χριστός instead of ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα need only be mentioned, which, because it is found in the Vulgate, is the basis of several old interpretations, although it 15 supported by scarcely any other authorities. — Ver. 7. Before τρεῖς, 8 has the article of; but in this it is alone. — The words that follow of μαρτυροῦντες in the Rec: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἶσι. (Ver. 8) Καὶ τρεῖς εἶσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, are rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. etc, and are considered spurious by almost all modern commentators (except Sander, Besser, Mayer). — They are wanting in all the 448 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. “Greek Codices, except in 173** (of the 16th cent.), 34, and 162; in the two latter, however, which also belong only to the 16th cent., the words: χαὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὺ ἕν εἰσιν, and the articles : ὁ, 6, τό, are omitted. They are wanting, further, in almost all the versions. With regard to the Latin Codices, they are only found in these after the 8th cent.; the Codex Amiatinus (circa 541), Harlei- anus (of the 7th cent.), and others do not contain them ; the Codex Demidovianus has transposed them, thus: quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus.— Of the Greek Fathers not a single one mentions them, although reference to them would have been very convenient in the Arian controversies ; just as little is there any reference to them in most of the older Latin Fathers, as Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Faustinus, Jerome, Augustine, etc. An allusion to them has incorrectly been believed to exist in Tertullian in the passages: ὁ. Prax. 25, and de Pudicit. 21; on the other hand, Cyprian (de wnitate ecclesiae) seems to refer to them in the words: Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spinitu Sancto scriptum est: Et tres unum sunt. The passage in Phoebadius (4th cent.), contra Arianos, c. 45, refers rather to Tertullian than to John;' and in Eucherius (5th cent.), ld. formularum, c. 11, they are only found in interpolated hand- writing. They are first certainly quoted by Vigilius (towards the end of the 5th cent.) in the books written under the name of Idacius, contra Varimadum, by Fulgentius, Cassiodorus (of the 6th cent.), and in many later ones since the 9th cent. — The peculiar quotation in Cyprian finds its explanation in the symbolical interpretation of the words : τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ ὕδωρ, and τὸ αἷμα of the Trinity, which is also found in the Schol. in Matthael: of τρεῖς δὲ εἶπεν ἀρσενικῶς, ὅτι σύμβολα ταῦτα τῆς τριάδος ; and in the Schol.: τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ 6 πατὴρ καὶ αὐτὸς ξαυτοῦ (and on ἕν εἰσιν: τουτέστι μία θεότης, εἷς Θεός), and which Facundus (6th cent.) has rightly recognised when he says, pro defens. trium capit. L. 1. c. 3: tres sunt qui testimonium dant (in terra?) Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt 1The passages in Tertullian run thus: the first: Ceterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est. Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem ; the second: Et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. The passage in Phoebadius: Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut alius a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda Persona: unus tamen Deus omnia, quia tres unum sunt. CHAP. V. 449 . . . quod Joannis apostoli testimonium Cyprianus ... ‘de Patre, Filio et Spiritu s. intelligit." — As at first the three persons of the Trinity were substituted for the former words, as was the case with Cyprian, the idea arose afterwards that they were named by the apostle in addition to them, and some Fathers then quoted the passage as it had taken shape in accordance with this idea. — The weight of the evidence against the genuineness of the disputed words is so strong, that it 1s opposed to the fundamental principles of a sound and unprejudiced criticism to regard them as genuine. — In the 16th cent. the words are found in most of the Latin transla- tions, as well as in some of the German translations which were made in accordance with the Vulgate. With regard to the editions of the Greek text, the Complutensian (1504-1514), following the Vulgate, accepted them; on the other hand, Erasmus in his earliest editions rejected them, as well as Aldus Manutius in the Venetian edition (1518); in his translation of 1521 and in the 3d edition of 1522, Erasmus, however, accepted them, adducing Cod. 34; Stephanus and Beza did the same ; “the fee. sanctioned the claim of this reading” (Braune). Luther jever admitted them into his translation.” They are first found in the translations which appeared in Switzerland without Luther’s name ; thus in the Zirich edition of Froschover 1529 ; the edition of 1531 also has them, but with the omission of “in earth,” and in small print ; in that of 1533 they are printed in ordinary letters, whilst they are bracketed in later editions of 1540, 1545, 1549. The Basel edition of Bryllinger, 1552, has them without brackets; the Ziirich edition of Gessner, 1555, on the other hand, has them bracketed.— With regard to the editions published in Frankfurt on the Main, these words, according to the usual statement, are first found in the edition of 1593 ; this, however, is incorrect, for they previously occur in the quarto edition of 1582, though they are wanting in the octavoof Feyera- bendt, 1582.4 Among the editions printed in Wittenberg, the 1 Ebrard, indeed, also holds these words to be spurious, but thinks it probable that they existed in the MSS. which were available to Cyprian ; this, however, is the less to be inferred from the fact that Vigilius had the passage in his N.T., since he quotes it in a corrupt sense. * It is strange that the words are found explained in Luther’s second Com- mentary on the Epistle (Walch) without the slightest reference to their spuriousness, whilst in Luther’s first Commentary they are distinctly specified as spurious. This is no doubt explained by the fact that he based his second edition on the later text of Erasmus. 3 According to Rickli, these brackets were first omitted in 1597; Ebrard, on the other hand, says that they were already omitted in the edition of 1561 which was in his possession. 4 For these and the following notices I have to thank my friend Dr. Klose of Meryer,—1 Joun, eh 450 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. quarto edition of Zach. Lehmann, 1596, is probably the first that admitted the words; but again they are wanting in many later editions ; the last which does not contain them is the quarto of 1620, which was published by Zach. Schiirer at Joh. Richteris. —In the 17th cent. their genuineness was defended — cer- tainly on insufficient and false grounds. After Richard Simon had declared himself against them, they were opposed in the 18th cent., especially by Thomas Emlyn (1715), Clarke (1738), Wetstein, Michaelis, Semler, Hezel, Griesbach, Matthaei. Bengel, on the contrary, defended them, but with the arbitrary assumption that the text originally ran: “ ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν of μαρτυρ- οὗντες ἐν τῇ γῇ τὸ TVA χ.τ.}.. εἰς τὸ εν εἶσιν. Ver. 8. καὶ τρεῖς εἶσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν" Compare especially: Bengel, Apparat. eriticus; Griesbach, diatribe im loc. 1 Johann. v. 7, 8, as ap- pendix of the 2d part of his edition; Semler in his hist. u. krit. Sammlungen diber die sog. Beweissteilen in d. Dogm. St. I.; Rickli in his notes on this passage; Knittel, Weue Kritiken tiber 1 Joh. v.'7,8.— Ver. 9. Instead of ἥν, accord- ing to G K, etc, Thph. Oecum., A B δὲ; etc., Vulg. etc., Cyr. read ὅτι, which is recommended by Griesbach and ac- cepted by Lachm. and Tisch.; ἦν seems to have arisen from ver. 10; Reiche, however, holds ἥν to be the original. — Ver. 10. ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν] Rec. according to B G K δὲ, very many min. and vss. Thph. ete. (Tisch.) ; Lachm. (following A, Vulg.) adds τοῦ Θεοῦ, which, however, seems to be an explanatory gloss. — Instead of ἑαυτῷ, Tisch. reads: αὐτῷ, following A G K; only aclerical variation. τῷ Θεῷ, Rec. after BG Kx, Syr. etc., Thph. (Tisch.). Against this A and the Vulg. have τῷ vig (Lachm.). This reading has arisen from the idea that this negative sentence must exactly correspond to the preceding: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν σοῦ Θεοῦ. ---- Ver. 13. The Rec. runs: ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον καὶ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ ὄνομω τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. In A BY, οἴο., Vulg. Copt. Theb. etc., Cassiod. Bede, the addition: τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. .. τοῦ Θεοῦ, 15 wanting after i; instead of the concluding zai ἵνα κιτιλ., the Hamburg, who has personally examined these editions in the Hamburg Library. According to Panzer (Hist. αἰ. Bibeliibers. p. 492 ff.) and Ménckeberg (Beitr. 5. Feststellung, etc., p. 152), the words are said to occur as early as in the Frankfurt edition of 1574, edited by Reffeler (published by John Feyerabendt) ; but this statement is incorrect. According to a written communication from Professor Dr. Keil, who has compared the edition in the Leipzig University Library, the passage referred to runs: ‘‘ And it is the Spirit that bears witness that the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record on earth, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one. If we receive the witness of men,” ete. The folio edition of Weyg. Hanen, 1574, also does not contain the words, CHAP. V. 451 reading in A, οἷο, almost all the vss. Cassiod. Bede is: of σισ- revoures εἰς τὸ ov. %.7.A.; In B, however, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν; so also N*; in N', however: οἱ πιστεύοντες. ---- Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have accepted the reading as it is in A, Buttmann as it is in B. Even if the common reading is to be justified according to the sense (de Wette, Sander, Reiche), yet its correctness does not therefore follow, as it has too little support from external authorities, and as ive πιστεύητε seems to owe its origin to the passage, Gospel of John xx. 31. The reading of B might, how- ever, be preferable to the reading of A, since the former is not only the more difficult, but by it the origin of the Rec. can be more easily explained; so also Briickner; Braune prefers the reading of A, “as difficilior,’ but the addition is more easily connected with ἔχετε than with the preceding ὑμῖν. ---- ΤΌ is doubtful whether αἰώνιον had its original position before or after ἔχετε; the former is attested by G K 8, several min. Thph. Oec.; the latter by A B, etc. Vulg. etc. (Lachm. Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of ὅτι ἐάν τι, Lachm., following A, reads: ὅ, τι ἄν, which, however, has too little support. — Ver. 15. Lachmann’s reading: zai ἄν, instead of καὶ εάν, has too little evidence in B. A omits entirely the words: καὶ... ἡμῶν; so also 8*; &' reads: καὶ ἐὰν ἴδωμεν x7.A.— ὃ ἄν] Lec. according to A K, ete, Oec. (Lachm.); instead of which BG δὲ, and many others, Thph., have ὃ ἐάν (Tisch.). The reading in &*: ὅτι ἐὰν ἔχωμεν, is merely a mistake. — Instead of παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ (A G K and several others), Bw read az’ αὐτοῦ (Lachm. Tisch.).— Ver. 16. Instead of ἤδη, Ree. according to A BG K 8, etc., Clem. Thph. Oec., Lach- mann has accepted the reading εἰδῇ, presented only by the Vulg. and Latin Fathers. δὲ has αὐτήσεις καὶ δώσεις instead of the third person. — Ver. 18. Instead of ἀλλ᾽, Tisch. and Buttm., fol- lowing B, read ἀλλά. The reading αὐτόν in A* B, instead of ἑαυτόν, is only a clerical variation of the word. — Ver. 20. καὶ οἴδαμεν] Rec. according to A, several min. etc. (Lachm. Buttm.); Ks, ete. (according to Tisch, also B; contrary to which Buttm. states that καὶ οἵδ. isfoundin B) have: οἴδαμεν δέ (Tisch.) ; G reads merely o/édauev.— Tisch. 7, following A B* Gx, ete., reads γινώσκομεν, Whilst the fec., according to B** K, etc., is ψινώσκωμεν (Tisch. 2, Lachm. Buttm.); the latter is probably a correction. — To τὸν ἀληθινόν, A, several min. vss. and Fathers add: Θεόν, which, though approved of by Liicke, de Wette, Reiche, is with justice not accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., since it may easily be recognised to be an interpolation. %* has τὸ ἀληθ.; δὰ however, rév.— ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος] According to A BX, many min. etc., the article ἡ, which is only supported by a few min., is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, inasmuch as it is either ζωὴ αἰώνιος, or ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, or ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή (John xvii. 3), 452 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. that always appears in John, but never ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. The grounds which Frommann (p. 91 ff.) adduces for the retention of the article are not adequate. — Ver. 21. Instead of ἑαυτούς (Ree. according to A K, etc., Tisch.), B G δ (81: ἑαυτούς) read ἑαυτά (Lachm.); this is probably a correction with reference to rexvia. Ver. 1 shows that the believer, as born of God, necessarily loves his brother. The two elements of the Christian life, faith and love, are represented in their real unity. —7dGs ὁ / Ὁ 9 a 2 e , πιστεύων ὅτι Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς] refers back to chap. iv. 15; comp. ii. 22, iv. 2; instead of ὁ Χριστός, the apostle in ver. 5 puts: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ; comp. iii. 23, from which, however, it does not follow that 6 Χριστός and ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ are to the apostle exactly identical ideas, but cer- tainly that he only is Christ to him, who is also Son of God. ‘That John says here ὁ Χριστός, is occasioned by the anti- thesis to the false teachers; comp. on this Weiss, p. 105 ff. Grotius erroneously explains: qui credere se ostendit: it is not the manifestation of faith, but faith itself, that is the subject. ᾿] a“ r / - . . . —— ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται] for faith is not a human, but a divine work in us.’ This first sentence forms the premiss from which the apostle draws his conclusion. He does not specially emphasize the self-evident intermediate thought: πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν, but presupposing it,” he says: καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα, ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ] ὁ γεγενν. ἐξ αὐτοῦ is not “Christ” (Augustine, Hilarius, a Lapide, etc.), but “the be- liever ;” Calvin correctly: Sub numero singulari omnes fideles Ap. designat. Est autem argumentum ex communi naturae ordine sumptum. By the last thought Calvin rightly indicates why the apostle here says “τὸν γεννήσαντα᾽᾽ instead of \ ' SS / ᾽ > Ax»: \ τὸν Θεόν, and “τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ instead of τὸν ‘The relationship between being born of God and faith is not to be ex- pressed thus, that first the latter and then the former follows ; but neither is it first the former and then the latter, but being born of God happens in this way, that God works faith in man; “the new birth is,” as it runs in the Mecklenburg Catechism, ‘‘the working and gift of faith.” The σισσεύξιν, which begins with the gift of σίστις, is therefore the result, and hence also the token, of being born of God, as the ποιεῖν σὴν δικαιοσύνην (chap. ii. 29) and the ἀγαπᾷν (chap. iil. 7). That this thought is presupposed by John, which Ebrard and Braune erroneously deny, is proved by the fact that John does not say here: ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγεννημένες, but instead of it: ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὲν γεννήσαντα. CHAP. V. 2. 453 ἀδελφόν. ---- ἀγαπᾷ is not subjunctive “let him love,” but indicative: “he loves;” John is here expressing not an ex- hortation, but a fact. Ver. 2 states how love to the “children of God” is to be recognised. The sign of it is: ὅταν τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν Kal τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν (ποιῶμεν). The difficulty, that whereas elsewhere the keeping of the commandments or brotherly love is mentioned as the evidence of love to God (or of knowing God), comp. 11. ὃ, iv. 20, 21, here the converse relationship is represented, so that, as de Wette says, “the apostle here makes the cause (love to God) the token of the effect (love to the brethren),” cannot be solved by the arbitrary assumption of an attraction, which Oecumenius supposes when he interprets: δεῖγμα τῆς eis Θεὸν ἀγάπης τὴν εἰς τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀγάπην τίθεται, and which Grotius distinctly expresses when he paraphrases: ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅταν ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν; nor even with de Wette by the view “that τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν is the principal clause, and τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν only the anticipated confirmation of it, so that the one result of love to God is put for a token of the other;” but the explana- tion lies in this, that these two elements, “love to God” and “Jove to the brethren as children of God,” in reality mutually prove one another.’ By the addition of the words: καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν, it is brought out that love to God necessarily shows itself in the obedient keeping of His com- mandments. This obedience, rooted in love to God, is equally with the former the token of true brotherly love, because the commandments of God include the duties which we owe to the brethren. He therefore who regards it as incumbent on him to fulfil God’s commandments, possesses therein the evi- dence that he loves his brethren, the τέκνα tod Θεοῦ, that his love to them is not mere appearance, but reality; similarly Liicke, Sander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Diisterdieck, Braune, interpret ; Calvin, on the other hand, gives the thought an erroneous direction when he says: “nune docet, recte et ' He who loves God has therein an evidence that he loves the brethren also— as τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, because brotherly love is the necessary result of love to God; but it is also quite as true that he who loves the brethren has therein an evi- dence of love to God, because the latter is the necessary cause of the former. 454 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ordine amari homines, quum Deus priores obtinet; vult sic mutuam coli inter nos caritatem, ut Deus praeferatur.” — It is further to be observed that the first ἀγαπῶμεν is neither sub- junctive nor used instead of the future (Carpzov, Lange), but is simple indicative; and that ὅταν is not = quamdiu (Carpzov, Lange), but conditional particle, as éav, chap. ii. 3. Ver. 3 refers to the last two ideas, which were simply mentioned co-ordinatively, and expresses their unity: αὕτη yap ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ] αὕτη is explained by the following iva. — ἐστίν is to be kept in its proper meaning, though ἵνα follows; the paraphrase: “it brings this with it, it imeludes the endeavour” (de Wette), weakens the thought; ἵνα states the import of the ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ, to the realization of which it is directed. Quite incorrectly Grotius takes ἡ ἀγάπη metony- mically for: ostensio dilectionis.—xai αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν is connected with the preceding as a new idea; βαρεῖαι -- “ heavy, as an oppressive burden;”* comp. Luke xi. 46: φορτία δυσβάστακτα, and Matt. xi. 30: φορτίον ἐλαφρόν. It is grammatically incorrect to explain βαρεῖαι: “ difficult to fulfil” (Ebrard). The idea is, indeed, expressed absolutely, but from the confirmation that follows in ver. 4 it is evident that the apostle meant it in special reference to those who are born of God. Ver. 4. Confirmation of the preceding thought. — πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ] The neuter is used here as in Gospel of John iii. 6, vi. 37, xvii. 2; it serves “to bring out the general category ;” see Meyer on John ii. 6 ; comp. Winer, p. 160; according to the sense = πάντες οἱ «.7.0.; it is not the disposition, but persons that are meant. Quite erroneous is the remark of Baumgarten-Crusius: “the yeyevy. ἐκ τ. 0. has here only an external signification: whatever has the position of God’s children.” — νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον] for: μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, chap. iv. 4. — νικᾷ is the simple pre- 1 Spener: ‘‘ We are to understand the heaviness of a burden that is so oppres- sive that one cannot bear it, that is, painful.” Calovius : ‘‘ dicit ea non esse gravia, quia non aggravant, aut instar molis onerosae praemunt renatum.” The com- mandments of God, as the demands of His love on man who is made after His own image, cannot be grievous to the latter ; if, however, they are so, that is because man has departed from his original relationship to God ; to the believer they are not grievous, because as the child of God he has gone back to the original relationship of love to God. CHAP. V. δ. 455 sent; in the conflict between the κόσμος and him who is born of God, the latter is constantly gaining the victory. Baumgarten- Crusius unsatisfactorily explains νικᾷν by “to keep oneself innocent ;” this does not exhaust the idea of victory ; that is not obtained when we take our stand against the enemy, but only when the enemy is overcome. The completion of the victory in its full sense certainly only takes place with the second coming of Christ. — Rickli and de Wette explain κόσμος by “love of the world and of self;” better Liicke, Calvin, Sander, Diister- dieck, Briickner, οἷο : “all that strives against the will cf God within and without man;” but even this is too abstract. It is the kingdom of the wicked one which, under its prince the devil, striving against the kingdom of God, seeks to tempt the believer to unbelief and disobedience to the divine com- mands. — As the apostle wants to show how he that is born of God overcomes the world, he continues: καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ νίκη ἡ νικήσασα TOV κόσμον ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν. The pronoun αὕτη refers to ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν, which in its import is no other than the πίστις, ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ver. 5. The expression is peculiar, inasmuch as faith is deseribed as the νίκη itself, and the νικᾷν is ascribed to it. Lorinus rightly remarks: victoria proprie non vincit, sed comparatur pugnando, sed energiam continet ea formula, denotans in quo sita sit vincendi ratio, unde victoria parta.’ The aorist νικήσασα is not to be turned into the present (a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, etc.) ; even though the victory is a continuous one, in which every believer is constantly taking part, the aorist nevertheless indicates that faith from the beginning overcame the world. The explanation of Baum- garten-Crusius: “it is already victory won that ye have become believers” (similarly Neander), is incorrect; it is not here intended to commend faith as the result of a fight, but as that which fights, and which has won the victory ; hence the active ἡ νικήσασα (so also Braune). Ver. 5. Confirmation of the preceding thought by an appeal to the experience of the readers (Liicke). — τίς ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν κιτ.λ.1 The same form of speech as in chap. ii. 22. The thought is: “Credens omnis et solus vincit” (Bengel). 1 Ebrard opposes this explanation with the arbitrary statement that ἡ νίκη “‘is the action which conquers the world” (1), 456 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. With ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστὶν «7.4. comp. ver. 1, chap. ii. 22, iii. 23.— The believer is victorious because he is born of God; vv. 1 and 4 (Diisterdieck). Vy. 6-12. That Jesus is the Son of God, is confirmed by divine testimony. Ver. 6. In order to arrive at an understanding of this verse we must first of all look at the expression: ἔρχεσθαι dv ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος. The question, what is to be understood by ὕδωρ and αἷμα, has been answered in very different ways. The explanations worthy of notice are these:—1. That the apostle means thereby the blood and water which flowed from Christ’s side on the cross, John xix. 34; this explanation is found in Augustine, Vatablus, and many of the old commen- tators; but some of them consider that the apostle here mentions this water and blood as the proof of the actual occurrence of the death of Christ, others that he uses them as symbols of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 2. That by ὕδωρ and αἷμα are to be understood the sacraments appointed by Christ ; this is the explanation of Wolf (who, however, under- stands an allusion to the incident recorded in John xix. 34), S. Schmid, Carpzovius, Baur, Sander, Besser, and others." 3. That by ὕδωρ John means the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist, and by aiwa the atoning death which He suffered. This is the explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact, Cappellus, Heumann, Semler, Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgen- feld, Neander, Ewald,’ Briickner, Liicke (3d ed. Introd. p. 160 ; 1 To this class belongs also Luther’s interpretation (in the 1st ed. of Walch), which, however, differs in this, that according to it water and blood together con- stitute the sacrament of baptism ; he says: ‘‘ Most commentators consider both sacraments . . .; I do not object, indeed, to this explanation, but I understand the phrase of baptism merely. ... Christ comes not by water only, but by water which is mixed with blood, that is, by baptism, which is coloured with blood.” So also in the interpretation of the following verse: ‘‘If you are baptized with water, the blood of Christ is sprinkled by the Word. If you are baptized in blood, you are at the same time washed by the Holy Spirit through the Word.” In his 2d ed., on the other hand, Luther understands water and blood, with reference to John xix. 34, of the two sacraments: ‘‘ This brief summary has been kept in the Church, that out of the side of Jesus the two sacraments flowed.” * Ewald understands by them, however, not merely the baptism and the death, but by ὕδωρ the baptism ‘‘ with everything special which besides occurred in His case,” and by αἷμα ‘the bloody death on the cross with everything still more wonderful that was connected with it.” CHAP. V. 6. 457 comp. Bertheau’s note on this passage, p. 581), Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss, Braune, etc. Not a few commentators, how- ever, divide the explanation, understanding ὕδωρ of the baptism appointed by Christ, and αἷμα of His own death; so Hornejus, Knapp, Liicke (in the comm. on this passage; also in the 3d ed., Introd. p. 110; differently, Introd. p. 160), de Wette, Rickli, Gerlach, Frommann (p. 596), Diisterdieck, etc.’ — By many commentators (as Bede, a Lapide, Russmeyer, Spener, Bengel, etc.) different interpretations are connected together in one or the other of these ways.” To these interpretations may be added others, the arbitrari- ness of which is evident at the first glance. To this class the following belong :—1. That by ὕδωρ and αἵμα John denotes the two elements of the physical life of Jesus; this is the view of Schulthess. Wetstein adds even the following πνεῦμα, and says that the apostle wants to prove that Christ was a verus homo, who was formed ex spiritu, sanguine et aqua sive humore.® 2. That by both words, or at least by ὕδωρ, the ethical nature of Christ is indicated; thus Grotius interprets δι’ ὕδατος = per vitam purissimam, quae per aquam significari solet. Socinus understands by ὕδωρ: ipsa doctrina pura cum vitae puritate conjuncta. 3. That in ὕδωρ and αἷμα it is not so much the baptism and death of Christ themselves that are to be thought 1 To this class Ebrard also belongs, but he differs from the other commentators in this respect, that he understands by ὕδωρ Christian baptism indeed, but ‘‘ not the entire sacrament of baptism (consisting of symbol and thing signified), but only the symbol in the sacrament ;” hence only that side of Christian baptism in which it is identical with the baptism of John. Clearly an unjustifiable division of the sacrament! The same view is no doubt that of Hofmann, who says (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 76): ‘‘ αἷκα is, in contrast with ὕδωρ, the blood shed by Jesus for the remission of sins, differing from the water of baptism, which John also performed ;”’ then on p. 470 he asserts that ὕδωρ is not the baptism which Jesus received, but that which He introduced—hence it denotes that which Jesus had in common with the Baptist ; and in II. 2, p. 221, he describes ὕδωρ precisely as ‘‘the baptism with water originated by John.” But how strange it is to say, nevertheless, that the baptism which Jesus introduced is the baptism of water originated by John! * Bengel: Aqua dicit baptismum, quem primum administravit Johannes ; ideo in aqua baptizare missus, ut Jesus manifestaretur tanquam Filius Dei. Porro baptismus etiam per discipulos Jesu administratus est. Sanguis est utique sanguis—Jesu Christi, qui effusus in passione, in coena dominica bibitur. Tertullian says: Venerat per aquam et sanguinem, sicut Joh. scripsit, ut aqua tingeretur, sanguine glorificaretur. Proinde ut nos aqua faceret vocatos, sanguine electos, hos duos baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit. 5 Similarly Paulus in reference to αἷμα ; ὕδωρ he understands of the baptism of John. 458 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. of, as rather the testimonies that were given in connection with them ; in ὕδωρ the testimony of the divine voice in the baptism (Wahl); in αἷμα either the testimony of the good centurion (Stroth), or the events that followed the death of Jesus, namely His resurrection and ascension (Wahl, Ziegler, Lange), or even the testimony of God in John xii. 28 (Oecumenius). 4. That in these two expressions we are to consider the operations brought into exercise by Christ; in ὕδωρ, regeneratio et fides (Clemens Al.), or purgatio (Cameron); in αἷμα, cognitio (Clemens Al.), or expiatio (Cameron), or redemptio (Bullinger). ‘To this class belongs also Calvin’s explanation: ego existimo Joannem hic fructum et effectum exprimere ejus rei, quam in historia evangelica narrat. Christi latus sanguinis et aquae fons erat, ut scirent fideles, veram munditiem (cujus figurae erant veteres baptismi) in eo sibi constare: ut scirent etiam completum, quod omnes sanguinis aspersiones olim promiserant. 5. That those expressions and πνεῦμα are descriptive of the threefold redemp- tive office of Christ: that ὕδωρ (=coelestis doctrini; Bullinger) represents Him as prophet, αἴμα as priest, and πνεῦμα as king. Here may be added the strange explanation of ὕδωρ as the tears which Jesus shed on various occasions, and of αἶμα as the blood which He shed at His circumcision. Again, some of the old commentators understood by αἷμα the blood of the martyrs. It is at all events incorrect to permit ourselves, in the interpretation of ὕδωρ and αἷμα, to be led by the question as to the nature of their testimony (Sander: “It must be main- tained as the chief difficulty in the passage before us, what are the three witnesses on earth”), for that is not the subject in this verse, in which the πνεῦμα only is mentioned as bear- ing witness.” By the words: οὗτός ἐστιν «.7.d., the apostle simply states who Jesus the Son of God is.— With regard to the expression: ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ «.7.., most commentators 1 Oecumenius: διὰ σοῦ ὕδατος, τουτέστιν, ἐν τῷ δι᾽ ὕδατος βαπτίσματι ἐξεφάνθη υἱὸς Θεοῦ ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς διὰ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς μαρτυρίας" διὰ δὲ σοῦ αἵματος" ὅτι μέλλων σταυροῦσθεωι ἔλεγε, δοξασόν με σὺ πάτερ, καὶ ἠνέχθῃ ἡ φωνή, καὶ ἐδόξασα, καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω" διὰ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅτι ὡς Θεὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν. 2'This is usually too little noticed by commentators. Even Liicke—who remarks on the following words: καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα x.7.2., that “it was not said of the water and blood that they bear witness,” and then “‘it is only through the πνεῦμα that both of them, which in themselves give no testimony, likewise become witnesses ”—has in his discussion of the meaning of ὕδωρ and αἷμα all along regarded them as ‘‘ witnesses” for the Messiahship of Jesus. Briickner also, in his interpretation of the ideas ὕδωρ and αἷμα, has all along included the element of testimony, whereby the clearness of his statement is only too much diminished. CHAP. V. 6. 459 interpret as if it were: “ οὗτος Epyeras,” or: “οὗτός ἐστιν ἐρχόμενος. Others, it is true, have not overlooked the aorist, but they interpret it as if it expressed something present; thus Sander = “has come and comes,” against which Bengel rightly says: non dicit: ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Praesenti, sed ὁ ἐλθών Aoristo tempore, Praeteriti vim habenti. It is true, it is further correct when, in opposition to de Wette, who takes ἐλθών as synonymous with ἐληλυθώς, chap. iv. 2, Briickner objects that by the aorist as a purely historic tense nothing continuous or permanent is expressed; but even then the expression does not obtain complete justice. It is to be observed that John did not write “ἦλθε, or “ ἐστὶν ἐλθών, but ἐστὶν ὁ ἐλθών. By the participle with the definite article, it is not a verbal, but a nominal, and, if it is not in apposition to a preceding substantive (as in John 1. 18, 29, 11. 13, vi. 44, and passim), a substantive idea that is ex- pressed; comp. John 1. 15, 33, i. 31, 36, and many other passages. It therefore does not mean “this came,” or “this is one who came,” but “this is he that came;” by this pre- dicate it is not merely stated what the subject which is here spoken of (namely, οὗτος) has done, but the subject is thereby characterized as the particular person to whom this predicate is suitable as a specific characteristic; according to the analogy of John i. 33 (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ), iii, 13 (ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς), and other passages, the expression therefore serves to state something character- istic of the Messianic office of Christ. If this is taken into consideration, the incorrectness of Augustine’s interpretation (see above) follows; for even if the flowing of the blood and water from the side of Jesug was intended by John not so much as a proof of the actual occurrence of Christ’s death (Liicke), but as a wonder proving the Messiahship of Jesus (Meyer on John xix. 34), yet this would be only a very subordinate proof, which by no means states a characteristic sign of the Messiah as such. — In the life of Jesus there are two points which correspond with the expressions ὕδωρ and aiwa, namely, His baptism at the beginning of His Messianic work, and His bloody death at the end of it; by His baptism Jesus entered on His mediatorial work; it formed the initiatio (Erdmann, Myrberg) of it, but this did not take 460 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, place only by means of what happened at the baptism, but by the act of baptism itself; by His death he effected the atonement itself, inasmuch as by His blood he blotted out the guilt of the sinful world, for χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις (Heb. ix. 22). John may with justice there- fore describe Christ as the Mediator by calling Him the one who came δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος. Against the view that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are to be understood of the sacraments insti- tuted by Christ, is not only the circumstance that these are only the means for the appropriation of the atonement effected by Him, whereas the subject here is the accomplishment of the atonement itself, but also the use of the aorist ἐλθών, instead of which, in that case, the present would have to be used, and also the expression αἷμα, which by itself alone never in the N. T. signifies the Lord’s Supper; even in 1 Cor. xii. 19 ἐποτίσθησαν is not an allusion to the Lord’s Supper, but to the communication of the Spirit in baptism. In opposition to the idea that αἷμα indeed signifies the death which Christ suffered, but that ὕδωρ does not denote the baptism which He received, but the baptism which He instituted, are— (1) that the close connection of the two words (without repe- tition of διά before αἵματος) is only suitable if the ideas correspond with one another, which is not the case if by δε ὕδατος we understand an institution of Christ, but by αἵματος, on the other hand, the blood shed by Christ ;? (2) that the simple expression ὕδωρ is little suited for a description of Christian baptism ;* (3) that as the institution of baptism 1 That ‘‘ Jesus in both cases proved His obedience to His Father’s will, and that His obedience proved Him to be the Son of God, the holy and innocent One” (Braune), are ideas which John here in no way suggests. * This inconsistency is only apparently removed by Diisterdieck’s observation that ‘‘John regards the blood of the Lord shed at His death as something which has a substantial existence ;” for even if this be correct, yet there remains the difference that the water of Christian baptism is something at present ex- isting, but the blood which Christ shed is only regarded as such by John. It is no better with the interpretation of Hofmann, who at one time describes αἷμα as **the blood of Christ shed for remission,” and at another time as ‘‘ the sprinkling of blood which Christ bestows.” 3 It is indeed just this very fact that distinguishes Christian baptism from that of John, that the former in its nature is not ὕδωρ as the latter is, as John the Baptist himself, marking his difference from Christ, said: ἐγὼ βαστίζω ἐν ὕδασι (John i. 26), whereas Jesus was described by him as ὁ βαπείζων ἐν πνεύματι ayiv (John 1. 33), CHAP. V. 6. 461 took place after the death of Christ, and necessarily pre- supposes it, John, if he had understood by ὕδωρ Christian baptism, would certainly have put ὕδατος, not before, but after αἵματος. Hilgenfeld and Neander have rightly shown that if ἔρχεσθαι δι’ αἵματος signifies something pertaining to the Messiah personally, the same must be the case with ἔρχεσθαι δ ὕδατος. The connection must be the same in both expressions. If by αἷμα is meant the death which Christ underwent, then by ὕδωρ can therefore only be meant the baptism which He likewise underwent. The objection of Knapp (with whom Liicke and Sander agree), that ἐλθὼν 6? ὕδατος in this sense is much more appropri- ately said of John the Baptist than of Christ, is untenable, for that expression may at least just as well be used of him who allowed himself to be baptized as of him who baptized ; Erdmann: sane id non alius momenti, ac si quis objiceret, ἔρχεσθοι δι αἵματος non posse dici de Christi sanguine et morte, sed potius de lis, qui cruentam mortem ei paraverint. There is just as little in the objection of Liicke, that Christ allowed Himself to be baptized, not in order to purify Himself, but to fulfil all righteousness; since two ideas are here placed in antagonism to one another, which are by no means mutually exclusive, as Jesus underwent the baptism of purification just for the very purpose of fulfilling all righteousness. With regard to the expression ἐλθὼν διά, dua is not to be separated from ἐλθών, so that ὁ ἐλθών in itself would denote “the Saviour who came,” and 6¢ «.7.X. would state “in what way Jesus is the Saviour. who came” (Hofmann in the Schriftbew. 2d ed. p. 469); for that Christ is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Matt. x1. 4; Luke vil. 19, 20) does not confirm, but contra- dicts this interpretation ; besides, John does not here want to bring out how Jesus is the Messiah, but that He is so. The preposition διά has been differently explained ; usually it is here taken simply in the sense of accompaniment, which, however, is unjustifiable; in this commentary, with reference to Heb. ix. 12 (where it is indicated by διά that the high priest entered into the holy place by means of the blood which he had with him), the idea of instrumentality is combined with that of accompaniment, inasmuch as Jesus operated as mediator by means of ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα ; similarly Brickner 462 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. explains διά as a preposition of instrumentality, namely, in the passive sense, as “by which he was proved ;” διά, how- ever, is here connected neither with an idea of operation nor of verification, but with ἐλθών. Weiss takes the preposi- tion in this way, that ὕδωρ κ. αἷμα are thereby “ introduced as historical elements of the life of Christ through which His career passed ;” but it might be more suitable to interpret δι᾿ U6. κιτιλ. in this way, that thereby the elements are brought out by which the ἐλθών was specially characterized; just as in 2 Cor. v. 7 by διὰ πίστεως the feature is mentioned by which our present περιπατεῖν is characterized; comp. also tom. viii. 24: δι’ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, and Heb. xii. 1; Braune simply abides by the idea of instrumentality, without further explaining himself on the subject. The question, whether οὗτος refers to ᾿Ιησοῦς or to ὁ υἱὸς tod Θεοῦ, is to be answered in this way, that it refers to the whole idea: ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ: Jesus, the Son of God, is the sub- ject of Christian faith; it is He who came by water and blood. In favour of this reference is the addition ’Inaods 6 Χριστός, which, as ᾿Ιησοῦς shows, is not an explanatory apposition of the predicate (“He who came by water and blood,” ae. Christ), but is in apposition to the subject οὗτος, which is more particularly defined by the predicate ; the pre- ceding ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is thereby resumed, but in this way, that in consequence of ὁ ἐλθὼν x.7.X. the idea ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ is changed into ὁ Χριστός. ---- The import of the pre- ceding lies, as cannot be doubted, simply in the statement which is therein contained; Ebrard, indeed, thinks that the apostle wants thereby to express “ that in the loving and merciful act of the devotion of Jesus to death lies the power by which He has overcome the world;” but although in the preceding the victory over the world is ascribed to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, yet it is not to be inferred from this that it is Christ’s victory over the world that is the subject here, as John does not make the most remote suggestion of that. — By the words: οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι, the apostle brings out with special emphasis the fact that Jesus did not come by water only, but by both water and blood; as the latter ἔσο, in their combination, are contrasted with the former one, the CHAP. V. 6. 463 principal emphasis plainly falls on the blood, as that by which the Mediator as such has operated. This emphasis is not intended for the purpose of indicating the difference between Jesus and John the Baptist (Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrard) ; for, on the one hand, it is self-evident to Christians that Jesus would not be the mediator if He had not acted differently from John; and, on the other hand, the feature which distinguishes Jesus from John in regard to baptism is this, that the latter baptized with water, but the former baptizes with the Holy Ghost.’ The addition has a polemic import (not against “disciples of John,” Ewald, but) against the Docetans, who in a certain sense indeed taught that Christ came δι’ ὕδατος, but denied that He came δ αἵματος, inas- much as, according to their heresy, Christ united Himself with Jesus at His baptism, but separated from Him again before His death (Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss, Braune) ; indeed, it is only by the reference to these heretics, against whom the apostle frequently directs a polemic in the Epistle, that the whole section from ver. 6 to ver. 12 can be explained. — With regard to grammar, it is to be observed that μόνον is not connected with ov, but with ὕδατι, and therefore there can be no καί after ἀλλά, which is not observed by A. Buttmann (p. 317). The preposition ἐν simply expresses the idea of accompaniment without bringing out the acces- sory notion which lies in διά ; comp. Heb. ix. 12 and 25.— The definite article before ὕδατε and αἵματι is explained by the fact that both have been already mentioned. Bengel correctly: Articulus habet vim relativam. — καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν) Just as in regard to ὕδωρ and αἷμα, so in regard to πνεῦμα the views of commentators vary very much. The following opinions are to be rejected as utterly arbitrary :—(1) that it denotes the psychical element, which, with αἷμα and ὕδωρ as the physical elements, consti- Erdmann has rightly pointed out that the view, according to which ὕδωρ is understood of the baptism instituted by Christ, is opposed to the idea that the addition refers to John the Baptist ; this antagonism can only be removed if we explain the idea ὕδωρ in the principal clause differently from its meaning in this subordinate clause, in the former of a baptism which was not merely a baptism of water, but also of the Spirit, but in the latter of a baptism which is only a baptism of water ; but that would be an interpretation which condemns itself. 464 TIE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOUN, tuted the human nature of Christ (Wetstein); (2) that it is the spirit which Christ at His death committed into His Father's hands (Augustine, etc.); (3) that it means “ the teaching ot Jesus” (Carpzovius); (4) that τὸ πνεῦμα 15 -- ὁ πνευματικός, Whereby John means himself (Ziegler, Stroth). By τὸ πνεῦμα can only be understood either the Holy Ghost Himself or the spiritual life produced by Him in believers. Against the latter view there are, however, two reasons :— (1) that τὸ πνεῦμα never has this meaning without a more particular definition indicating it; and (2) that the τὸ μαρ- τυροῦν, which is added, here defines the πνεῦμα as something specifically different from the subjective life of man. We must therefore understand by it the objective Spirit of God, yet not, however, inasmuch as He descended on Christ at His baptism, and testified to Him as the Messiah, nor inasmuch as He was in Christ as the divine power which manifested itself in His miracles,’ but (as most commentators correctly interpret) the Holy Ghost, whom Christ sent to His disciples at Pentecost, and who is the permanent possession of His Church. The predicate ἐστὶ τὸ μαρτυροῦν is not put for μαρτυρεῖ or for ἐστὶ μαρτυροῦν ; here also the article must not be overlooked ; τὸ μαρτυροῦν is a nominal idea, and, more- over, not adjectival, but substantive: “the Spirit is the wit- ness” (Liicke). The office of witnessing belongs essentially to the Holy Ghost; comp. John xv. 26.3— As the apostle continues: ὅτε τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια, he seems thereby to state the object of μαρτυρεῖν ;* but this view is opposed to 1 Sander is very uncertain in his explanation of τὸ πνεῦμα ; first he explains it by : ‘‘the conversion of man accomplished by the communication of the Holy Ghost,” but then he puts instead of this, without further explanation: ‘‘ those who are born of the Spirit” (ἢ). 5 Grotius understands by τὸ πνεῦμα even the miracles themselves : admiranda ejus opera a virtute divina manifeste procedentia. 3 The assertion of Ebrard, that John in these words shows ‘‘ how and how far our faith in Christ, in consequence of the fact that Christ bears in Himself the power that overcomes the world, is itself an overcoming power,” and that μαρτυρεῖν therefore ‘must denote an act which is in substance identical with the act of overcoming the world,” is simply to be rejected. 4In connection with this view, Luther takes τὸ πνεῦμα in a different sense from that in the principal sentence, namely, as ‘‘ the word which has saved us by baptism and by blood,” and of which the Spirit bears witness that it proceeds from the Spirit of truth, and is the truth itself; Besser distinguishes τὸ +». in the principal clause from the +». in the subordinate clause, in that he under- CHAP. V. 7. 465 the whole context, according to which the apostle does not want to bring out that the Spirit is truth, but: “ that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.” Therefore ὅτε here must, with Gerhard, Calovius, and most modern commentators (de Wette, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune), be taken as causal particle, so that the subordinate clause serves to strengthen the preceding thought. It is because the Spirit is the truth that the Spirit is the witness in the fullest sense of the word. — To interpret ἡ ἀλήθεια = ἀληθές (Grotius) is to weaken the thought; by the definite article the idea ἀλήθεια is indicated in its full concrete vividness ; comp. John xiv. 6, where Christ calls Himself ἡ ἀλήθεια. Weiss calls attention to the way in which this designation proves the personality of the Spirit, inasmuch as “the truth is the nature of God Himself made manifest.” — The object which is to be supplied with τὸ μαρτυροῦν can be no other than the thought which John has previously expressed in the first half of the verse. Ver. 7. By means of the witness of the Spirit, water and blood also attain to the position of witnesses. As such John now adduces them in connection with the Spirit, in order by the weight of this threefold witness to confirm the truth that the Son of God, who is identical with Jesus, is the Messiah. — The ὅτι which begins the verse means neither: “jam vero” (Grotius, Calov), nor: “ hence” (Meyer), nor: “ consequently ” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but: “for.” This connection with the foregoing is explained by the fact that the truth of the testi- mony of the Holy Ghost (who is the truth itself) is strength- ened by the circumstance that it is not He alone that bears witness, but that with Him the water and the blood bear witness also, as the two elements by means of which the atonement took place (similarly Liicke) ;' de Wette unneces- sarily supplies: “and, humanly considered, the witness is also stands by the former ‘‘ the Spirit bearing witness to the heart of believers,” and by the latter ‘‘the Spirit dominating in the sacraments and in the word.” Ebrard interprets: ‘‘the Spirit evidences itself... by its power ;” clearly the words ‘‘ by its power” are a pure importation. 1 “Τὴ ver. 6 it was said that the witnessing Spirit is the truth, and hence it is implied that, to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Spirit unites with the water and blood, as the testimony of the truth. As John now assumes this con- clusion from ver. 6, he adds, passing on to another subordinate confirmatory proof: for,” etc. MeEYER.—1 JOHN. 2G 466 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, true, for.” Paulus connects ver. 9, as consequent, with this verse as antecedent: “ because there are three, etc., then, if, ete., the witness of God is much greater.” This construction, which is contrary to the style of John, is the more to be rejected as an erroneous idea arises from it. — τρεῖς εἰσεν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες) The masculine is used because the three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Liicke, etc.), but not because they are “types of men representing these three” (Bengel),’ or symbols of the Trinity (as they are inter- preted in the Scholion of Matthaei, p. 138, mentioned in the critical notes). It is uncertain whether John brings out this triplcity of witnesses with reference to the well-known legal rule, Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15, Matt. xvii. 16, etc., as several commentators suppose. It is not to be deduced from the present that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments, for by means of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of Christ is permanently pre- sent, so that the baptism and death of Jesus — although belonging to the past——prove Him constantly to be the Messiah who makes atonement for the world (so also Braune). The participle οὗ μαρτυροῦντες, instead of the substantive οἱ μάρτυρες, emphasizes more strongly the activity of the witnessing. — τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ Kal τὸ αἷμα] All these three expressions have here, of course, the same meaning as previously.” — καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν} Luther inaccurately : 1Tropum... Ap. adhibet. .. ut hoc dicat: tria sunt genera hominum, qui ministerio testandi in terra funguntur: (1) illud... genus ‘testium, quod prae- conio evangelii vacat; (2) illud gen. test., quod baptismum administrat, ut Johannes baptista et caeteri; (3) illud gen. test., quod passionem et mortem Domini spectavit et celebrat. 2 Weiss erroneously refers the witness of the baptism here to that which was given at the baptism of Christ, and the witness of the death to that which was given at the outflowing of His blood. — It is not by what happened in connec- tion with them, but in themselves, that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are the μαρτυροῦντες. --- According to Ebrard, ὕδωρ here ‘‘is the baptism of water instituted by Christ, as an external institution . . . as the representation of every means of grace to be administered by men, above all in its connection with the preaching of the word ;” and αἷμα is ‘‘ the blood of Christ, i.e. His atoning death, .. . not, however, the blood of Christ alone, but also the power of the blood of the testimony, which is shed from time to time by His disciples for the sake of confessing Jesus.” To this Ebrard further adds: ‘‘ we may say that in the water of baptism is em- bodied the confession which by its firmness overcomes the lie, and in the blood of testimony that love which by patience overcomes the power of the flesh.” This interpretation needs no refutation. CHAP, V. 7. 467 ? “and these three are one;” τὸ ἕν is the one specific object of the witness; “the three are directed to this one,’ namely, in their thus unanimous witness. Storr inaccurately: “they serve one cause, they promote one and the same object, namely, the object previously mentioned (v. 1, δ). REMARK.—