Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of James 4:2

Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

2. Ye lust and have not ] The genesis of evil is traced somewhat in the same way as in ch. Jas 1:15. The germ is found in desire for what we have not, as e. g. in the sins of David (2Sa 11:1) and Ahab (1Ki 21:2-4). That desire becomes the master-passion of a man’s soul, and hurries him on to crimes from which he would, at first, have shrunk.

ye kill, and desire to have ] The order strikes us as inverted, putting the last and deadliest sin at the beginning. The marginal alternative of “envy” would doubtless give an easier sense, but this cannot possibly be the meaning of the Greek word as it stands, and comes from a conjectural reading, suggested, without any MS. authority, by Erasmus and Beza. If we remember, however, the state of Jewish society, the bands of robber-outlaws of whom Barabbas was a type (Mar 15:7; Joh 18:39), the “four thousand men that were murderers” of Act 21:38, the bands of Zealots and Sicarii who were prominent in the tumults that preceded the final war with Rome, it will not seem so startling that St James should emphasise his warning by beginning with the words “ Ye murder.” In such a state of society, murder is often the first thing that a man thinks of as a means to gratify his desires, not, as with us, a last resource when other means have failed. Comp. the picture of a like social condition in which “men make haste to shed blood” in Pro 1:16. There was, perhaps, a grim truth in the picture which St James draws. It was after the deed was done that the murderers began to quarrel over the division of the spoil, and found themselves as unsatisfied as before, still not able to obtain that on which they had set their hearts, and so plunging into fresh quarrels, ending as they began, in bloodshed. There seems, at first, something almost incredible in the thought, that the believers to whom St James wrote could be guilty of such crimes, but Jewish society was at that time rife with atrocities of like nature, and men, nominally disciples of Christ, might then, as in later times, sink to its level. See note on next verse.

ye have not, because ye ask not ] This then was the secret of the restless cravings and the ever-returning disappointments. They had never once made their wants the subject of a true and earnest prayer. Here again we note the fundamental unity of teaching in St James and St Paul. Comp. Php 4:6. Prayer is with each of them the condition of content or joy.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Ye lust, and have not – That is, you wish to have something which you do not now possess, and to which you have no just claim, and this prompts to the effort to obtain it by force. You desire extension of territory, fame, booty, the means of luxurious indulgence, or of magnificence and grandeur, and this leads to contest and bloodshed. These are the causes of wars on the large scale among nations and of the contentions and strifes of individuals. The general reason is, that others have that which we have not, and which we desire to have; and not content with endeavoring to obtain it, if we can, in a peaceful and honest manner, and not willing to content ourselves without its possession, we resolve to secure it by force. Socrates is reported by Plato to have said on the day of his death, nothing else but the body and its desires cause wars, seditions, and contests of every kind; for all wars arise through the possession of wealth.

Phaedo of Plato, by Taylor, London, 1793, p. 158. The system of wars in general, therefore, has been a system of great robberies, no more honest or honorable than the purposes of the foot-pad, and more dignified only because it involves greater skill and talent. It has been said that to kill one man makes a murderer, to kill many makes a hero. So it may be said, that to steal a horse, or to rob a house, makes a man a thief or burglar; to fire a dwelling subjects him to the punishment of arson; but to plunder kingdoms and provinces, and to cause cities, towns, and hamlets to be wrapped in flames, makes an illustrious conqueror, and gives a title to what is deemed a bright page in history. The one enrolls the name among felons, and consigns the perpetrator to the dungeon or the gibbet; the other, accompanied with no more justice, and with the same spirit, sends the name down to future times as immortal. Yet in the two the all-discerning eye of God may see no difference except in the magnitude of the crime, and in the extent of the injury which has been inflicted. In his way, and according to the measure of his ability, the felon who ends his life in a dungeon, or on the gibbet, is as worthy of grateful and honored remembrance as the conqueror triumphing in the spoils of desolated empires.

Ye kill – Margin, or envy. The marginal reading envy has been introduced from some doubt as to the correct reading of the text, whether it should be phoneute, ye kill, or phthoneite, ye envy. The latter reading has been adopted by Erasmus, Schmidius, Luther, Beza, and some others, though merely from conjecture. There is no authority from the manuscripts for the change. The correct reading undoubtedly is, ye kill. This expression is probably to be taken in the sense of having a murderous disposition, or fostering a brutal and murderous spirit. It is not exactly that they killed or committed murder previous to desiring to have, but that they had such a covetous desire of the possessions of others as to produce a murderous and bloody temper. The spirit of murder was at the bottom of the whole; or there was such a desire of the possessions of others as to lead to the commission of this crime. Of what aggressive wars which have ever existed is not this true?

Desire to have – That is, what is in the possession of others.

And cannot obtain – By any fair and honest means; by purchase or negotiation: and this leads to bloody conquest. All wars might have been avoided if men had been content with what they had, or could rightfully obtain, and had not desired to have what was in the possession of others, which they could not obtain by honest and honorable means. Every war might have been avoided by fair and honorable negociation.

Ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not – Notwithstanding you engage in contentions and strifes, you do not obtain what you seek after. If you sought that from God which you truly need, you would obtain it, for he would bestow upon you all that is really necessary. But you seek it by contention and strife, and you have no security of obtaining it. He who seeks to gain anything by war seeks it in an unjust manner, and cannot depend on the divine help and blessing. The true way of obtaining anything which we really need is to seek it from God by prayer, and then to make use of just and fair means of obtaining it, by industry and honesty, and by a due regard for the rights of others. Thus sought, we shall obtain it if it would be for our good; if it is withheld, it will be because it is best for us that it should not be ours. In all the wars which have been waged on the earth, whether for the settlement of disputed questions, for the adjustment of boundaries, for the vindication of violated rights, or for the permanent extension of empire, how rare has it been that the object which prompted to the war has been secured! The course of events has shown that indisposed as men are to do justice, there is much more probability of obtaining the object by patient negotiation than there is by going to war.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 2. Ye lust, and have not] Ye are ever covetous, and ever poor.

Ye kill, and, desire to have] Ye are constantly engaged in insurrections and predatory wars, and never gain any advantage.

Ye have not, because ye ask not.] Ye get no especial blessing from God as your fathers did, because ye do not pray. Worldly good is your god; ye leave no stone unturned in order to get it; and as ye ask nothing from God but to consume it upon your evil desires and propensities, your prayers are not heard.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Ye lust; passionately and greedily desire.

And have not; either soon lose, or rather cannot get, what ye so lust after.

Ye kill; some copies have it, ye envy, and many suppose that to be the better reading, as agreeing with the context, and with Jam 3:14; envy being the cause of strife there, and joined with emulation, or a desire of having, here. We read it according to other copies, ye kill, which, if he speaketh of wars in a proper sense, Jam 4:1, was, no doubt, the effect of them; and if he speak only of strife and contentions, yet they might proceed so far, that the death of some (though not intended) might be the consequent of them, and occasioned by them. Or, he may mean their murderous desires, killing men in their hearts, wishing for and gaping after their death, that they might gain by it; and this agrees with what he speaks of the frustration of their greedy desires, none being more frequently disappointed of their hopes than they that hope to be gainers by other mens deaths.

And disire to have; or, emulate, i.e. ambitiously affect to have what ye see others have, grieving that they should have more than you.

And cannot obtain; viz; that which ye envy others having.

Ye fight and war: you wrangle and quarrel with your neighbours for what they have, that ye may get it for yourselves.

Yet ye have not; ye are still needy, though still craving; your lusts are infinite and insatiable in themselves, and no way helpful to you.

Because ye ask not; viz. of God by prayer, who hath promised to give to them that ask, Mat 7:7, not to them that war and fight. Instead of humble seeking to God for what ye want, ye would extort it by force or fraud from one another.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. Ye lustA different Greekword from that in Jas 4:1. “Yedesire”; literally, “ye set your mind (or heart) on“an object.

have notThe lust ofdesire does not ensure the actual possession. Hence “ye kill”(not as Margin, without any old authority, “envy”)to ensure possession. Not probably in the case of professingChristians of that day in a literal sense, but “kill and envy”(as the Greek for “desire to have” should betranslated), that is, harass and oppress through envy [DRUSIUS].Compare Zec 11:5, “slay”;through envy, hate, and desire to get out of your way, and soare “murderers” in God’s eyes [ESTIUS].If literal murder [ALFORD]were meant, I do not think it would occur so early in the series; norhad Christians then as yet reached so open criminality. In theSpirit’s application of the passage to all ages, literal killingis included, flowing from the desire to possess so David and Ahab.There is a climax: “Ye desire,” the individual lust for anobject; “ye kill and envy,” the feeling and action ofindividuals against individuals; “ye fight and war,” theaction of many against many.

ye have not, because ye asknotGod promises to those who pray, not to those who fight. Thepetition of the lustful, murderous, and contentious is not recognizedby God as prayer. If ye prayed, there would be no “warsand fightings.” Thus this last clause is an answer to thequestion, Jas 4:1, “Whencecome wars and fightings?”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Ye lust, and have not,…. The apostle proceeds to show the unsuccessfulness of many in their desires and pursuits after worldly things; some might be like the sluggard, whose soul desireth all good things, and yet he has nothing, Pr 13:4 because he does not make use of any means, even of such as are proper and necessary, and ought to be used:

ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain; some, instead of kill, which seems not so agreeable, read envy; and then the sense is, they envy at the good and happiness of others, and covet after another’s property, but cannot enjoy it; all such envy and covetousness are fruitless, as well as sinful:

ye fight and war, yet ye have not; go to law one with another about each other’s property; or rather, make a great stir and hustle to get the things of the world; rise early, and sit up late; strive who should get most, and quarrel about what is gotten, and seek to get all advantages of one another; and yet still have not, what at least is desired and strove for:

because ye ask not; of God, whose blessing only makes rich: instead of all this worldly stir and bustle, and these strivings and quarrellings with one another, it would be much more advisable, and, in the issue, be found to turn to more account, to pray to God for a blessing on your endeavours; and to ask of him the good and necessary things of life, in submission to his will, and with thankfulness for what he has bestowed.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ye lust (). Present active indicative of , old word (from , , yearning passion for), not necessarily evil as clearly not in Lu 22:15 of Christ, but usually so in the N.T., as here. Coveting what a man or nation does not have is the cause of war according to James.

Ye kill and covet ( ). Present active indicatives of (old verb from , murderer) and , to desire hotly to possess (1Co 12:31). It is possible (perhaps probable) that a full stop should come after (ye kill) as the result of lusting and not having. Then we have the second situation: “Ye covet and cannot obtain (, second aorist active infinitive of ), and (as a result) ye fight and war.” This punctuation makes better sense than any other and is in harmony with verse 1. Thus also the anticlimax in and is avoided. Mayor makes the words a hendiadys, “ye murderously envy.”

Ye have not, because ye ask not ( ). James refers again to (ye do not have) in verse 2. Such sinful lusting will not obtain. “Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in answer to your prayer” (Ropes). Cf. Mt 6:31-33. The reason here is expressed by and the accusative of the articular present middle infinitive of , used here of prayer to God as in Mt 7:7f. H (you) is the accusative of general reference. Note the middle voice here as in in 3. Mayor argues that the middle here, in contrast with the active, carries more the spirit of prayer, but Moulton (Prol., p. 160) regards the distinction between and often “an extinct subtlety.”

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Ye lust. See on desire, 1Pe 1:12; Mr 4:19.

Desire to have [] . Rev., covet, and are jealous, in margin. See on ch. Jas 3:14.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) Brethren were charged with covetous flesh lusts, killing and murdering, chronic quarreling and clashes among themselves without obtaining the object of their covetous, lustful desires.

2) He concluded that their in-fighting among themselves, hating and despising brethren, was of the nature of murder, yet they had not the things they desired because they had not requested or earnestly petitioned God in their own behalf according to Jas 1:5; Luk 11:9.

3) Covetous lusts for power and prestige had often caused Israel to murder, while campaigning as religious zealots, as David and Ahab did, without sincere recourse to prayer for Divine intervention and guidance.

SELFISHNESS BLIGHTS

“Selfishness seeks more than its own. It cheats, it robs, it murders, to get what belongs to others. How desolate and desolating is a selfish life! It blights and ruins wherever it rules.”

– Selected

CHRISTIAN’S FOE

There is a foe whose hidden power

The Christian well may fear,

More subtle far than inbred sin,

And to the heart more dear;

It is the power of selfishness,

It is the willful 1:

And ere my Lord can live in me,

My very self must die.

– Selected

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2 Ye lust, or covet, and have not. He seems to intimate that the soul of man is insatiable, when he indulges wicked lusts; and truly it is so; for he who suffers his sinful propensities to rule uncontrolled, will know no end to his lust. Were even the world given to him, he would wish other worlds to be created for him. It thus happens, that men seek torments which exceed the cruelty of all executioners. For that saying of Horace is true:

The tyrants of Sicily found no torment greater than envy. (129)

Some copies have φονεύετε, “ye kill;” but I doubt not but that we ought to read, φθονεῖτε, “ye envy,” as I have rendered it; for the verb, to kill, does in no way suit the context. (130) Ye fight: he does not mean those wars and fightings, which men engage in with drawn swords, but the violent contentions which prevailed among them. They derived no benefit from contentions of this kind, for he affirms that they received the punishment of their own wickedness. God, indeed, whom they owned not as the author of blessings, justly disappointed them. For when they contended in ways so unlawful, they sought to be enriched through the favor of Satan rather than through the favor of God. One by fraud, another by violence, one by calumnies, and all by some evil or wicked arts, strove for happiness. They then sought to be happy, but not through God. It was therefore no wonder that they were frustrated in their efforts, since no success can be expected except through the blessings of God alone.

(129) Invidia Siculi non invenere tyranni Majus tormentum. — EPIST. Lib. I. 2:58.

(130) There is no MS. nor version in favor of φθονεῖτε. When it is said, “ye kill,” the meaning is, that they did so as to the hatred or envy they entertained, for hatred is the root of murder, and arises often from envy. What has evidently led Calvin and others to conjecture a mistake here, has been the difficulty arising from the order of the words, “Ye kill and ye envy;” but this order is wholly consonant with the style of Scripture, where often the greater evil or good is mentioned first, and then that which precedes or leads to it. It is the same here as though the copulative, and, were rendered causatively, “ye kill because ye envy.” Envy is murder in the sight of God.

The language of the whole passage is highly metaphorical. He calls their contentions “wars and fightings;” for the whole tenor of the passage is opposed to the supposition that he refers to actual wars. He adopts a military term as to inward lusts or ambitious desires, that they “carried on war” in their members; the expedition for their contests was prepared within, mustered in their hearts. Then the character of this war is more plainly defined, “Ye covet,” not, ye lust; “ye kill,” or commit murder, for “ye envy;” when ye cannot attain your objects, “ye wage war and fight,” that is, ye wrangle and quarrel. Avarice and ambition were the two prevailing evils, but especially avarice; and avarice too for the purpose of gratifying the lusts and propensities of their sinful nature, as it appears from the third verse.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

WAR IS HELL

Jas 4:2.

PRESIDENT WILSON, in his official day, in answer to the agonizing cry of Armenia, once proclaimed October 23rd as a day of opportunity for our land. He advised that people assemble in the churches throughout the length and breadth of the states and give audience to what might be said about Armenias need, and unite their hearts in endeavor to raise $5,000,000 to send to the relief of the wounded, starving, outraged Armenians. It was a request that no preacher who knew anything of the facts, felt even disposed to debate, much less to deny.

This nation was at that time neutral, so far as taking up arms against the Austro-Germans on the one side or the Franco-English Allies on the other; but it dared not be negative, and could not be indifferent. Since the day when Cain, with bludgeon in hand, beat the life out of his own brother, the world had never seen such brutality and such beastliness as that war brought about; never heard such pitiful moans as made earth hell; and never looked upon such scenes of ruthless slaughter as characterized and cursed one-half of its people. One had only begun to consider the facts when he found his mind reeling before them, his heart sickened by them, and his whole spirit as much discouraged as disgusted.

From the day Adam first broke the Law of the Lord, man has played the fool and erred exceedingly; but the acme of his folly remained to mark and forever mar the boastful twentieth century, and when final histories are written, the period of that war will be made up of pages over which human blood was spilled so thickly as to blot out all else and forever blacken the same.

And yet, since there are people who justify war, I want to make my first point tonight in their behalf and speak to you on

THE DEFENSE OF WAR

That finished, you will be willing to hear me for a while on The Deviltry of War, and then, not to leave you in discouragement, I propose to finish my theme with a discussion of Redemption from War.

In defense of war, three or four things have been said and are being said:

It is to prove the survival of the fittest. When Charles Darwin wrote his book, The Origin of Species and made his contention for the survival of the fittest, he little dreamed what he was doing for the world. By that contention he was driving God from His throne; by that contention he was seeking to exalt man to the place from which his theories if accepted would push God.

Germany, already materialistic, accepted Darwins theories more greedily than did England, his own land; and Germany applied them not alone to plant and animal life, but to problems social and political, and boosted their military system upon them steadily, but, surely. In the face of all peace conferences and efforts of diplomatic adjustments, she went on strengthening army and navy alike, until she had a million of the best trained soldiers in the world, and a navy second only to that of England, and supposed by reason of the invention of the submarine, to exceed it. With such power at command, a German publicist declared that the inevitable policy of Germany must be not only unchallenged preparation for war, but the unhesitating policy of relentless war wherever it was necessary to increase her power and extend her dominion. She had never had a doubt of Darwins theory, regarding herself the fittest, nor at first any question of her survival.

Go back three thousand years and you will find Absalom acting upon the same supposition; and his ambition to be supreme in governing power was the thing that shook the foundations of the government over which God Himself had set his father, David.

There are some of us who believe that those who are fittest to survive are not the first in war, but rather, the first in peace; and that if there were any interpretations of Darwins evolution other than a physical one, it would affirm that as a fact. The savagery of war will pass when the Son of Man prevails and men begin to make real progress and the ages to mark an evolution that is worthy of the name.

But there are others who say, Self-preservation is the first law of life. It has long been a maxim of the world; it has never been the maxim of the Church. Of Christ they said truly, He saved others; Himself He cannot save.

In the second, third and fourth centuries, when the slaughter of Christians was well nigh as common in the world as it has recently become in Russia, the Church never resorted to the spear and sword. To the best of their ability they cared for the weak, nursed the sick, sympathized with the sorrowing. They saved others; themselves they did not save. Thousands of them laid their heads on the block and like the lamb, went to a silent slaughter; thousands other of them bared their breasts to the bayonets and let them drink deeply of their hearts blood; thousands of them wandered in sheep skins and goat skins, dwelt in caves, starved and died, not only without resistance, but apparently without resentment, solely because they had caught the spirit of their Lord.

When I was a lad growing up in Kentucky, our family physician killed a man. He did it in self-defense: the court .justified him and speedily dismissed him from all charge, but he went to his grave in regret. As a lad I remember to have heard him express to my father the wish that he had died rather than shed the other mans blood. In other words, he could not believe that self-preservation was the first law of life.

I challenge any Christian man to bring me from the Scriptures a defense of this world maxim. The blood of brothers may mark the trail of progress for the politician, but the blood of the martyrs has forever been the seed of the Church.

The third defense of warand in my judgment the only one that is worthy of mentionis phrased after this manner:

We should battle in the interest of abused brothers. If a big nation proposes to pounce upon a little one, kill its people, take its territory, then nations of equal power with this bully must resent it even unto blood. I confess frankly that with this defense I have the deepest personal sympathy, although I search my Scriptures somewhat in vain to justify even that.

When we went to war in Cuba I felt and said that our nation did right. Cuba had been oppressed long enough; enough innocent blood had been shed and the time had arrived to call a halt; and we were capable of accomplishing it, and did so with little loss. But when we conquered in the Philippines and refused to let the natives share with us in the honors of the hour, I protested, and of my country I was ashamed; and after all the intervening years, I have never changed my judgment one whit.

The fight of the big brother in defense of the little fellow, pounced upon by bullies, has always received the worlds applause, and right or wrong it always will.

When the World War broke out there were two million Armenians, mainly Christian in profession. Over half of them perished. Thousands upon thousands of them were put on board vessels, under pretense of shipping them away, carried out to sea, and the guns of the Turkish nation leveled on them and not a man left alive.

Then thousands of them were shut up in compounds, starved for days, hundreds of thousands of them were deported, and as they walked their way across the deserts and climbed their way over mountains, Turkish bands set upon them, killed the men, ruthlessly slew the children, seized their beautiful women and made them the instant subjects of their insatiable lust. Mothers, in the very moment of childbirth, were refused the right to lie down at the roadside and rest until the hemorrhage was stanched, and later, with the babe in arms, were compelled to keep pace with the others until they dropped dead in their tracks. Hundreds of them fell by the roadside, refused alike bread and water, until the piteous moan was no more. One of our Americans, traveling at that time a distance of twenty-five miles along the line of march, saw corpses of five hundred of our Christian brothers and sisters. Such brutality is the shame of the centuries, and the nation that wipes it from the earth may be Gods instrument of righteousness.

But all of that, even, in no wise detracts from the

DEVILTRY OF WAR

The text is true; wars and fightings come from lust; killings and envying from the same source; and Sherman was right when he said, War is hell! I want you to think with me tonight about

The waste of war. This subject has been discussed with reference to previous conflicts, but never had its full interpretation until the war of 19141918.

Slavery was never the will of God. It ought to have been blotted from our civilization; but did you ever stop to think of the, wasteful way we accomplished it? The Civil War is said to have cost the North and South eight billion of dollars a sum equal to one-half the entire wealth of the nation at the time of the hostilities. With this amount we could have bought the freedom of every slave on the earth and set him free, and left enough over to pay all the expenses of the Federal Government for fifty years.

When the late war was finished, Europe and those portions of Asia that were involved, were in practical bankruptcy, and under the most favorable circumstances the next hundred years will be a time of tremendous taxation, and will not be long enough to recover these countries from their money bankruptcy, not to speak of the bankruptcy of men. We fight and war for territory, commercial advantage, monetary consideration, but when we have finished we have not. Why? Because we went to war, and war is waste.

But that is only a minor consideration:

The wickedness of war is a major one. A soldier, after fifty years of military experience, said, War is devilish and I want to see no more of it. And he was none other than the uncle of the Czar of Russia, Grand Duke Michael, who, at seventy-two years of age, was still active in endeavoring to keep Russia at peace; and who, looking back over history, was compelled to say: No words can describe the awful sufferings and agonies of this man-made hell of war. The soldiers who have seen real war are the least anxious for it. We ought to take the emphasis off the glory of war and place it where it belongson its hellishness.

In fact, you may consult whom you will, and you will find that aside from those folks who are running armor plate factories, or engaged in munition making materials, patriotic (?) magnates indeed, shrieking with preparedness in the interest of personal profits, few favor war.

But why not let the disinterested speak? Why not listen to men and women who do not care to make their money out of the blood of their fellows, whether that blood is to be shed by citizens or opponents? I doubt if there is a company of people in all America who represent more clear and consistent thinking on this one subject than the teachers of America; and the National Educational Association, in its fifty-fourth Annual Convention, held in New York City, voiced itself upon this subject after having listened to both sides of the question, presented, the one by William Jennings Bryan, and the other by Major-General Leonard Wood. The leader among them said, Military training in the schools is absurd from a military point of view * * and worse than absurd from an educators point of view. While a year before, the whole Association had put itself on record in the following resolution: The Association deplores any attempt to militarize this country. It declares against the establishment of compulsory military training in the schools, on the ground that it is inconsistent with American ideals and standards. In a later session it declared again: While the Association recognizes that the community or state may introduce such elements of military training into the schools as may seem wise and prudent, yet it believes that such training should be strictly educational in its aim and organization, and that military ends should not be permitted to pervert the educational purposes and practices of the land. With the educators of the world, men of letters, worthy of the description, have been in perfect line. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, Universal peace is as sure as the prevalence of civilization over barbarism, of liberal governments over feudal forms.

Sir David Brewster said, I feel confident that the time is not far distant when war will be as impossible among civilized nations as dueling is among civilized men.

Dr. John Clifford, sturdy non-conformist that he was, long at the head of the battle line for religious liberty in Great Britain, voiced himself upon war of the physical sort when his own country was carrying on what is known as the Boer War, saying: Is it treason to speak out of ones heart on this great subject? Will you let the old Quaker speak? The war! I hate it! I hate it! It is this war I hate; hate it! I tell you it is not of God.

And in that judgment millions of his fellow-citizens concurred. Robert W. Hall was the clearest thinker his century produced and he said: In war, death reigns without a rival and without control. War is the work, the element, the sport and triumph of death, who glories not only in the extent of his conquest, but in the richness of his spoil.

But somebody says, These are all men who know nothing on the subject.

Then let those who know the most speak, and put your puny opinion against them if you will. I confess I havent the effrontery to do it.

Benjamin Franklin declared: There never was a good war, or a bad peace.

General Sherman said, The glory of war is all moonshine. War is hell!

Secretary John Hay said: War is the most futile and ferocious of all human follies!

Thomas Jefferson said: I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind!

George Washington said: My first wish is to see this plague to mankind banished from the earth.

General Grant said: There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not have been found of preventing the drawing of the sword.

But its moral wickedness exceeds even the brutality of its butchery. It has never had but one effect on human life, and that was to lower it at every point. It lowers the moral tone of men; it has always resulted in the willing or forced destruction of womens morality. Liquor and lust have forever walked in its wake, and they have almost rivaled the bullets of the enemy in their victims. The very men who live and come back from scenes of conflict, find evil habits have so deeply fastened their fangs that they have been unable to shake them in a lifetime. Think of the moral wrecks of the last war, in illustration. If there is a good word that can be spoken for this moral monster, which was repugnant enough when he first appeared and incited conflict between Cain and Abel, but which has grown more hellish still, we have never heard it spoken.

But we pass on to the wrath of war. Walter Rauschenbusch was of German birth, and yet he was an American citizen of high order. He doubtless sympathized with the fatherland, in part at least, in the late awful conflict; but Walter Rauschenbusch affirmed that one of the awfulest things that came out of the late conflict is the hatred engendereda hatred that will never be buried until the age ends.

It is of little use for one of my dearest brethren, a man I ardently love, to have come over from Canada and say, You know we do not hate our enemies.

History tells a different tale. I was brought up in the South. I have lived forty years in the North. I was born when the Civil War was on and I have lived sixty-five years since it ended, but I have not lived long enough to see the hate that contest created wiped entirely away; and I have little hope of so doing.

How much greater the bitterness when men who are not brothers fight; when men who had no acquaintance come to contest; and when, especially, the fight is characterized by such unspeakable and hideous methods as converted the late war into a burning hell! I have seen the end of family feuds, and it has only come when the last member of the house involved was under ground. It is folly for any man to set himself forth as a prophet and at the same time attempt to declare the non-bitterness of war. Once more I say, Sherman was right: War is hell!

But I do not propose to conclude this talk with so poor a prospect; but rather, to finish by holding before you.

REDEMPTION FROM WAR

Will it come? Yes. When? No man knows. How? If it comes at all, it must come along certain lines.

First of all, from some regard for the precepts of Jesus. It would be difficult for any man who attempted to follow the plain teachings of Jesus Christ to approve war. His acceptance of the Old Testament as the very Word of God is beyond debate, and in that Old Testament it is written: Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed; and the reason given is, for in the image of God made He man (Gen 9:6).

The Sermon on the Mount is universally accepted as a sort of climax of Christs clear teachings, and it cannot be forgotten that in the very heart of that dissertation, Christ wrote, Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God. The law of passive resistance is also clearly the teaching of Christ. It is in the same Sermon on the Mount that He said:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mat 5:38-39).

To be sure, the world does not recognize the voice of Christ as final on subjects of legal, national, and international interest. But the Church of God should, at least, regard His speech as final on all subjects, and its influence is great. Already it has mollified the methods of war, and, if faithful to the Prince of Peace, it can prove effective for world-tranquility.

The recognition of human brotherhood would aid. To accept the Scriptures at their face value, God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, would profoundly affect the whole peace problem.

That great Paris newspaper, LUniverse, never said a saner thing than when some years ago it declared: The spirit of peace has fled the earth, because evolution has taken possession of it. The plea for peace, in past years, has been inspired by faith in the Divine nature and in Divine origin of man. Men were looked upon as children of one Father, and war, therefore, was fratricide. But now that men are looked upon as children of apes, what matters it whether they be slaughtered or not?

It is one of those illogical products that often follow false reasoners, that the heartiest propagandists of peace today are also ardent advocates of the evolutionary hypothesis, the same utterly failing to see that the logical outworking of the theory of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest is war. It so comes about, therefore, that those who have parted from Christ on the question of His authority, produce by their own godless philosophy a pandemonium that eats through into their own hearts and flings them back on the very Lord they have rejected, as their one and only adequate defender.

Finally, peace will come with the coming of the Prince of Peace. When He shall stand with one foot upon the earth and one upon the seas, the Ruler over both, then, and not until then, shall the Prophets vision be fulfilled:

And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall hot lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war my more.

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it (Mic 4:3-4).

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

(2, 3) Ye lust, and have not . . .Better thus: Ye desire, and have not; ye kill, and envy, and cannot obtain; ye fight and make war; ye have not, because ye ask not; ye ask and receive not, because ye ask that ye may spend it on your lusts. It is interesting to notice the sharp crisp sentences, recollecting at the same time that St. James himself fell a victim to the passions he thus assails, probably at the hands of a zealot mob. The marginal note to the second of the above paragraphs gives envy as an alternative reading for kill: but this is an error. Ye kill and play the zealot would be still nearer the original: for, as with Jedburgh justice in the old Border wars, hanging preceded the trial, so with these factions in Jerusalem death went first, almost before the desire to deal it. Lust, envy, strife, and murder:like the tale of human passion in all ages, the dreadful end draws on. It is written in every national epic; its elements abound in the life of each individual: the slaughter in Etzels halls overshadows the first lines of the Nibelungen-lied; the curse of Medea hangs like a gathering cloud around Jason and his Argonauts. Is it objected (Jas. 4:3) that prayer is made but not answered? The reply is obvious; Ye ask not in the true sense; when ye do ask ye receive not, because God is too loving, even in His anger. Nevertheless, remember, He gave the Israelites their desire, and sent leanness withal into their soul (Psa. 106:15). I, said He by Ezekiel (Eze. 14:4), will answer him that cometh to Me, according to his idols. What greater curse could fall than an eternity of avarice to the miser, of pollution to the sensual, of murder to the violent? Many a man of quiet Christian life will thank God by-and-by, when he knows even as he is known (1Co. 13:12), that not a few of his prayers were unanswered, or at least that they were not granted in the way which he had desired. Safety is only to be found in our Lords own manner of petition, Not my will, but Thine be done (Luk. 22:42). Alas! in shameful contrast to this we read of many an evil-hearted prayer offered up to the Lord our Righteousness; invocations of saints for help in unholy deeds; of angels, for acts rather befitting devils of the pit; and can hardly have the conscience to reproach the heathen for supplicating their gods in no worse a manner for no better cause.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2. Ye lust Ye desire, crave. The objects of most of the verbs in the passage are to be supplied, the apostle leaving our minds to conceive how varied they are.

Have not In spite of your craving and violent efforts to obtain. They desired wealth, but poverty was the order of the day. They desired domination, but were enslaved by the Romans. They desired emancipation, but every bloody effort led to a bloodier destruction.

Kill In predatory assaults and political insurrections.

Desire to have It is a great puzzle with even such commentators as Huther and Alford to tell why St. James should commit such an anticlimax as to place so feeble a term as desire after kill. Alford discusses four solutions of previous commentators, rejecting them all, and gives a fifth little better than the four. The true solution is very simple. The three verbs, kill, desire, cannot obtain, are to be taken in close connexion: Ye kill and desire to have, (namely, the avails of your killing,) and cannot obtain, (those avails;) so that your bloodshed is bootless. You obtain neither wealth, nor emancipation, nor domination.

Ask not They were monotheists, hereditary covenant people of God, went through rituals, and yet their prayer was no prayer. For, as the next verse shows, they were lustful ejaculations.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘You desire, and have not. You kill, and envy, and cannot obtain. You fight and war; you have not, because you ask not.’

He then builds up a picture which reveals how they go about obtaining what they want, for it is clear that they will do anything rather than ask God for it and fulfil His conditions. And yet in the end they desire in vain because they do not get what they want. They will even ‘kill’, with the mind even if not in reality, because they are green with envy, with their covetous eyes on what others have, or on other people’s positions, but they still do not really find what they are looking for, for they are never satisfied. So then they fight and ‘go to war’ in order to obtain what they think their enemies have. But all the time what they are looking for is elusive. They do not find it because they do not ask God for it. Notice the parallels, ‘you are at war — and you desire, you kill and you covet’. The picture is of a continual activity. The need for pleasure leads on to squabbling, leads on to desire, leads on to murder, leads on to further coveting, leads on to further war, and so on in an endless sequence.

It should be clear by now that James is depicting this in deliberately strong language (note the fact that there is war in their members, hardly something intended literally). Most do not literally ‘go to war’ for what they want, they simply ‘battle’ with one another, or with those on another strata of their group. Most do not literally kill, although in the volatile world of the Middle East at that time some probably did. Rather they are murderers at heart. They hate and they threaten and they plot and they purpose harm (see Mat 5:22; 1Jn 3:15). After Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount most Christians would see hating and revealing contempt as being the equivalent of murder. (Recognising this takes away the difficulty of coveting following murder, even for those who find it a difficulty. For hatred and coveting go hand in hand).

Some find it difficult to have the envying following the killing and therefore punctuate differently (there is no punctuation in the Greek).

You desire and do not have, you kill.

And you envy and cannot obtain, so you wage war,

You have not because you ask not.’

This is not so obvious a translation in view of where the conjunctions lie (although it is a possibility), but whichever way we take it the end result is the same, the endless cycle of pleasure, ‘war’, desire, ‘killing’, envying, ‘war’. And this goes on from the top downwards, whether it be by a would be ‘Caesar’ desirous of great position, or by a slave desirous of a more favoured position or a sinecure.

‘You have not, because you ask not.’ And all the time they fail to obtain their hearts desire because they do not go to the One Who alone can satisfy the heart. They do not ask God for it (contrast Jas 1:5), or if they do it is with the wrong aims and the wrong motives. All their thoughts are on pleasure and desire and warring among themselves, and not on pleasing God. Here in practical terms is the working out of Jas 1:13-15. Those who fall, having failed to be spiritually strengthened by the testings and trials that they have faced, are tempted by their own desires, are enticed and allured, and this gives birth to sin which finally results in death.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jam 4:2. Ye kill, and desire to have, We must take the word , ye kill, in a softer sense than the common meaning of the word. As wars and fightings, in the first verse, are interpreted quarrels and contentions; so here, ye kill, and desire to have, may be interpreted, “Ye are ready to murder and use violence, like the Jewish zealots, that you may satisfy your covetous desires.” The thought or inclination to murder, may possibly here be called murder; in the same sense as St. John says, Whoever hateth his brother, is a murderer, 1Jn 3:15. And in this sense Dr. Heylin understands and renders the verse, You are full of desires, but you have not what you desire: you destroy with hatred and envy, but cannot get what you would have: you contend and strive, but without success, because you ask not.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Jas 4:2 describes in a lively manner the origin of these external strifes. The stages are ; the second succeeds the first because it is without result, and the third the second for the same reason.

] here in a bad sense referring to , Jas 4:1 . 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. Jas 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 affluent 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 Jews, and was the source of factions among them.

By ] the uselessness of is expressed, and also the motive to is assigned; it is unnecessary here, with Gebser, Hottinger, de Wette, to explain = to receive; it rather means: to have , to possess. The meaning is: from the desire follows not the possession, namely, of what is desired.

] As here the external action is not yet described, but the internal disposition, cannot here be taken in its literal meaning, as Winer (p. 417 [E. T. 589]), Lange, Bouman think. Many expositors, as Carpzov, Pott, Morus, Augusti, Gebser, Schneckenburger, and others explain it adverbially: “even to murder and killing;” but the position of the words contradicts this explanation; if the idea was to be strengthened by , 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 ; but this reading has not the slightest support in authorities. Nothing remains, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, than to explain here, with Estius, Calovius, also de Wette (who, however, wavers), according to 1Jn 3:15 , of internal hatred, [189] and “to justify this word by the boldness of the expression prevailing in this passage; comp. , , (more correctly ),” Wiesinger. It is true that then an anti-climax would seem to occur; but this is only in appearance, as in point of fact (hostile zeal already ready to break out in word and action) presupposes internal . [190]

] namely, that for which you hate and envy. What follows on this are , therefore James closes with , in which likewise the answer to the question , is contained (Wiesinger). With , which does not stand in the same relation to . . . as . does to . . ., [191] James resumes the foregoing and , in order to assign the reason of this “not having,” etc.; the reason is , thus the want of prayer. [192] 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 ; see the following verse.

[189] 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.

[190] The explanation of Oecumenius is peculiar, but not to be justified: , ; .

[191] Accordingly, not a comma is to be put after , 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.”

[192] In this passage the exposition of Lange reaches almost the climax of arbitrariness. 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.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Ver. 2. Ye lust and have not ] viz. To the satisfying of your lusts; for that is an endless piece of work. Lust still cries Give, give; and is ever sick of a spiritual dropsy; the barren womb, the horseleech’s daughter, the grave, is nothing to this gulf, to this curse of unsatisfiableness.

Because ye ask not ] He must be of a sedate spirit that prays to purpose. How shall we think God will hear us when we hardly hear ourselves? Married couples must agree, that their prayers be not hindered, 1Pe 3:7 . There is no sowing in a storm; no taking medicine in a hot fit, as said before.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2. The sense of the words themselves, , is very variously given. . is by some referred back to , . : “An putatis, quod scriptura in vanum loquatur adversus invidiam? Spiritus desideria excitat , sed meliora desideriis carnis:” so Du Mont, in Huther. But this “ desideria excitare ” is an unexampled sense of . Gebser takes this connexion, and renders, “Think ye, that the Scripture speaks in vain, and enviously?” And nearly so cumenius, , ; . . . But, as Huther remarks, this necessity for sufficiently condemns this view: and thus would be left here without any qualifying adverb to fill out its sense. . Taking then with , we have the following various views taken:

. as the subject . And herein

A. . = the human spirit, in its natural condition. So Hottinger, “Animus hominis natura fertur ad invidendum aliis:” so also Beza, Laurentius, Grot., al., and E.V.

B. . = the Spirit of God, whom God hath caused to take up His dwelling in us: and then

a. . = “ ad invidiam :” in which case the clause is interrogative: “Num ad invidiam proclivis est Spiritus, qui nobis inest? minime:” similarly Bed [12] (“Numquid spiritus grati, quo significati estis in die redemptions, hoc concupiscit ut invideatis alterutrum”), Witsius, Calv., Wolf, al.

[12] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

b. . = “ contra invidiam :” so Luther, der Geist. gelstet wider den hass, Pareus, Bengel, al.

c. . = “ invidiose :” so De Wette, much as the interp. given above, neidisch lieht (uns) der Geist: so Schneckenburger, and in substance many old Commentators (see Pol. Synops. v. p. 1459, Col 1 ), rendering it “ usque ad invidiam :” e. g. Tirinus, Menochius, Cajetan, al.

II. as the object , supplying as the subject, understanding . the human spirit, and taking . adverbially. So Wiesinger, “The Love of God jealously desires as an object your love:” so Theile, supplying however as the subject, as also does cumenius, continuing from the words cited above, : and below, .

In judging of the above interpretations (the classification of which I have mainly taken from Huther), we may notice, that to interpret , as if it were , see Gal 5:17 , is to do violence to the construction and meaning of the words: besides which, there is no mention here of envy, as a human passion, the discourse being of the enmity to God incurred by those who would be friends to the world; of God’s enmity to the proud and upholding of the humble. So that God must be the subject of this clause, as expressed by . This being so, our only rendering of will be as above, adverbially, as so very frequently, e. g. , , , , , , , &c. &c. See Palm and Rost’s Lex. under , vol. ii. p. 1138, Col 2 , where many examples are given, e. g. , Lucian: , &c. With regard to the sense above given, as fitting into the context, Theile well says, with an accusative, “desiderio alicujus teneri,” to love eagerly, as reff. 2 Cor., Phil., introduces us into the same figurative realm of thought in which placed us before. The Apostle is speaking of the eager and jealous love of God towards those whom He has united as it were in the bond of marriage with Himself.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Jas 4:2-3 . : It must be confessed that these verses are very difficult to understand; we have, on the one hand, lusting and coveting, murdering and fighting; and, on the other hand, praying. Murdering and fighting are the means used in order to obtain that which is coveted; yet in the same breath it is said that the reason why the coveted things are not obtained is because they are not asked for! Is it intended to be understood that this lust (in the sense, of course, of desiring) and covetousness are not gratified only because they had not been prayed for, or not properly prayed for? This is what the words mean as they stand; but can it ever be justifiable to pray for what is evil? There is something extraordinarily incongruous in the whole passage, which defies explanation if the words are to be taken in their obvious meaning. Only one thing seems clear, and that is a moral condition which is hopelessly chaotic. Carr says that “these two verses are among the examples of poetical form in this Epistle”; perhaps this gives the key to the solution of the problem. It may be that we have in the whole of these Jas 4:1-10 a string of quotations, not very skilfully strung together a kind of “Stromateis” taken from a variety of authorities, in order to make this protest against a disgraceful state of affairs more emphatic and authoritative. : the reading cannot be entertained if any regard is to be paid to MS. authority; even if accepted it would not really simplify matters much. : refers rather to persons, to things.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

desire to have = covet earnestly. Greek. zeloo. See Act 7:9.

cannot = are not (App-105) able to.

obtain. See Rom 11:7.

fight. Greek. machomai. See Act 7:26.

war. Greek. polemeo. Only here and Rev 2:16; Rev 12:7; Rev 13:4; Rev 17:14; Rev 19:11. Note the different words for war in these two verses.

because, &c. = on account of (App-104. Jam 4:2) your not asking.

ask. App-134.

not. App-105.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2. The sense of the words themselves, , is very variously given. . is by some referred back to ,- . : An putatis, quod scriptura in vanum loquatur adversus invidiam? Spiritus desideria excitat, sed meliora desideriis carnis: so Du Mont, in Huther. But this desideria excitare is an unexampled sense of . Gebser takes this connexion, and renders, Think ye, that the Scripture speaks in vain, and enviously? And nearly so cumenius, , ; … But, as Huther remarks, this necessity for sufficiently condemns this view: and thus would be left here without any qualifying adverb to fill out its sense. . Taking then with , we have the following various views taken:

. as the subject. And herein

A. . = the human spirit, in its natural condition. So Hottinger, Animus hominis natura fertur ad invidendum aliis: so also Beza, Laurentius, Grot., al., and E.V.

B. . = the Spirit of God, whom God hath caused to take up His dwelling in us: and then

a. . = ad invidiam: in which case the clause is interrogative: Num ad invidiam proclivis est Spiritus, qui nobis inest? minime: similarly Bed[12] (Numquid spiritus grati, quo significati estis in die redemptions, hoc concupiscit ut invideatis alterutrum), Witsius, Calv., Wolf, al.

[12] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.

b. . = contra invidiam: so Luther, der Geist. gelstet wider den hass,-Pareus, Bengel, al.

c. . = invidiose: so De Wette, much as the interp. given above, neidisch lieht (uns) der Geist: so Schneckenburger, and in substance many old Commentators (see Pol. Synops. v. p. 1459, Colossians 1), rendering it usque ad invidiam: e. g. Tirinus, Menochius, Cajetan, al.

II. as the object, supplying as the subject, understanding . the human spirit, and taking . adverbially. So Wiesinger, The Love of God jealously desires as an object your love: so Theile, supplying however as the subject, as also does cumenius, continuing from the words cited above, : and below, .

In judging of the above interpretations (the classification of which I have mainly taken from Huther), we may notice, that to interpret , as if it were , see Gal 5:17, is to do violence to the construction and meaning of the words: besides which, there is no mention here of envy, as a human passion, the discourse being of the enmity to God incurred by those who would be friends to the world; of Gods enmity to the proud and upholding of the humble. So that God must be the subject of this clause, as expressed by . This being so, our only rendering of will be as above, adverbially, as so very frequently, e. g. , , , , , , , &c. &c. See Palm and Rosts Lex. under , vol. ii. p. 1138, Colossians 2, where many examples are given, e. g. , Lucian: , &c. With regard to the sense above given, as fitting into the context, Theile well says, with an accusative, desiderio alicujus teneri, to love eagerly, as reff. 2 Cor., Phil., introduces us into the same figurative realm of thought in which placed us before. The Apostle is speaking of the eager and jealous love of God towards those whom He has united as it were in the bond of marriage with Himself.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Jam 4:2. , ye desire) A kind of Anaphora[47] whereby the sentiment is repeated with increased force. Ye desire, with disposition towards an object; ye kill and envy, with the action and disposition of individuals against individuals; ye fight and war, with the action of many against many.- , ye kill and envy) Ye kill through hatred and envy. One sentiment is expressed by two words. The same verb occurs, ch. Jam 5:6. He who covets any object, desires that the former possessor may be removed out of the way. He speaks of murderers, as in Jam 4:4 of adulterers. Comp. 1Jn 3:15. Thus, , do ye murder? Psa 62:3 (Septuagint), for this Hebrew reading, holding a middle place between the others, is[48] well supported by the Halle reviewers. And the tenor of the whole Epistle of James has a very close resemblance to the whole of this Psalm. See notes at Jam 4:7; Jam 4:12; Jam 4:14; Jam 1:3; Jam 3:10. See also Psa 10:8.- ) See App. Crit., Ed. ii., on this passage.[49]-, on account of) This agrees (coheres) with the threefold clause, and ye have not; and ye cannot obtain; but ye have not.- , your not asking) For the lustful, the murderer, and the contentious man, cannot pray.

[47] See Append. on ANAPHORA.

[48] See note on chapter Jam 2:23.

[49] AB Vulg. omit . Rec. Text retains it without any very old authority.-E.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jas 4:2-3

UNASKED AND UNANSWERED PRAYER

Jas 4:2-3

2 Ye lust, and have not:—The word “lust,” (epithumeite, present active indicative of epithumeo, from epi and thumos, to have a strong passion for), denotes the intensity of feeling characteristic of those to whom James wrote, and explains why “wars” and “fightings” alluded to in verse 1 often arose among them. Coveting what another has, whether on an individual, national or international level, is the basic cause of war, whether such warfare be literal or figurative; and Jam es thus traces to its source the evil which results from such unlawful desire. This lust for what one does not have has led to the gravest of crimes, examples of which may be seen in David, in the matter of Bathsheba (2Sa 11:1), and Ahab, in the matter of Naboth’s vineyard (1Ki 21:2-4). When desire of this character is entertained and encouraged, it becomes overpowering and the dominant feature in one’s life. In such a case, desire is the master of the soul; and the individual thus possessed is enslaved and helplessly propelled to the very vortex of sin. Here, indeed. is the test by which all of us may easily and accurately determine the principle by which our lives are governed. May we truly say, “Thy will be done;” or, “My desires be satisfied ?” It should be remembered that the rich man of Luke 16, was not charged with serious crimes against man or God; it is not affirmed of him that he engaged in bad things; he is said to have had hi:; good things here; yet, he was rejected because fleshly gratification and the love of things material were the dominant factors of his life. He who wottld gain heaven must sacrifice the things of the world. We must choose whether to have our good things here, or hereafter ; we cannot have them both here and hereafter!

These particularly in the mind of James when he wrote, despite their burning desire, did not obtain the things which they coveted. And why did they not? The answer is that they did not seek for the things for which they might properly ask God. Here, we meet with another vital test in the realm of religion. When (aced with the necessity of deciding whether any given act is open to participation for the faithful Christian, one need only ask, Will God approve? Seldom is it difficult to find the answer to this question. And, where any doubt whatever exists, it is the part of prudence to refrain. The devoted disciple will not attempt to force the Scripture into support of his position; he will seek only to be sure that his position is on the side of Scripture! These of whom James wrote, notwithstanding their intense desires, and the efforts expended to realize them, were without that upon which they had set their hearts.

ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain:—This statement, insofar as it refers to murder would best be construed as figurative; it is most unlikely that James intended to charge wholesale murder upon the people to whom he wrote. If the word “kill” is to be interpreted literally, then the writer was describing the situation which normally follows when men are influenced by evil desire. What James appears to mean here is that the motive which urged them on was murderous in its nature, and the disposition which leads men to murder. A further difficulty arises in the order of words here which, on the surface, would appear to be transposed, inasmuch as killing is regarded as a more serious crime than coveting. Why “kill and covet,” rather than “Covet and kill?” A simple solution is to be found in the rearrangement of the punctuation of the passage, thus making it to read,

“Ye lust, and have not!

Ye kill;

Ye covet and cannot obtain. “

In which case, killing whether literal or figurative, is thus shown to be the result of improper desire and the failure to obtain that thus coveted; and avoided is the inversion which the punctuation of the ASV (uninspired, of course), creates.

“Ye kill,” (phoneuete, present active indicative of phoneuo, to murder), is literally, “You engage continuously in killing,” and thus indicates that such was the constant practice of this people. But, even this did not secure for them that which they so passionately wanted. “Ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain.”

ye fight and war;—A constant state of conflict prevailed from their efforts to satisfy desire, yet this failed to accomplish their aims. James thus vividly and impressively describes the vicious circles into which these people were caught. They passionately desire things they ought not; to satisfy the desire, they maintain a constant state of strife and warfare; but, this does not obtain for them their wants. Verse 2, is thus in close connection with verse 1, and denotes the relationship obtaining between desire and confiict. The latter is the result of the former, and its inevitable fruit. Where improper desire obtains, there will be strife. Thus shown is the certain consequence of choosing pleasure to the neglect of God. The Bible abounds with illustrations indicating the fatal consequence of such a choice. Among them are Cain, Baalam, and the Israelites in the wilderness.

ye have not, because ye ask not.-From this section we learn that there are not only unanswered prayers, there are also unaskrd prayers! It is evident that proper desire may be experienced and satisfied by praying to God who alone can supply the soul’s innermost need. There are some things it is entirely proper for us to have; God wants us to have them; and he freely bestows them upon those who ask. Some seek to secure to themselves the things they want and perhaps need by methods which avoid God; and thus often fail to have such, not because they are forbidden to them, but because they simply do not go to the right source for them. We must, of course, (a) desire the right things; (b) we must ask God for the things which he graciously has for us (Jas 1:5); (c) and we must have confidence that he will hear and answer our petitions (1Jn 4:14-15). God will answer the prayer of the penitent (Luk 18:14), the cry of the righteous (Psalms 34 : lS), and those who keep on asking for their needs (Mat 7:7). Here, indeed, is indisputable evidence of the efficacy of prayer. In its effectiveness James believed implicitly, and was, by the Holy Spirit, led to pen one of the strongest statements in Scripture regarding it: “The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working.” (Jas 5:16.) “Ye ask not,” in our text, is in a construction where the action is performed in behalf of one’s own self; and thus indicates a disregard for that which would be for their good were they to follow the Lord’s way. They would not pray for legitimate needs; therefore, God would not give them such; and they could not obtain them in other ways. Men who disregard God and seek by shortcuts, as did Esau, to obtain that which God will, under proper circumstances, bestow, must always find the satisfaction for which the heart sighs just beyond reach. Thus, the right way to obtain anything we need is to ask God for it; and, when we have so done, and the petition is not granted, we should conclude that God does not regard the object as necessary for our need; or, that he intends to give us something far better late.

We learn here, (1) those of whom James wrote were guilty of lust, murder, covetousness, fighting and strife. Though continuously torn by overwhelming desires, they failed to obtain that which they wanted; though they coveted that which others possessed, they did not obtain; and (2) their lives were consequently barren and prayerless. It should be observed that each of the clauses of verse 2 is closely related in meaning: They wish for that which they do not have; they seek to obtain it improperly and by force and this results in strife and war. The desire to possess those things which they did not have led to sin, even as it does today. There are two reasons assigned why they did not have the things which they needed: (I) they sought for them in sinful fashion; (2) they did not ask God to give them needed blessing. Jesus has promised us such things as we need, when we ask for them in the right manner (Mat 7:7; Mat 21:22) ; and if these results do not follow our prayers, it is because (a) we do not pray properly; or (b) because, as in this case, we do not pray at all. Let us remember that some prayers are unanswered; others are unasked. We should, of course, want only the things God wants us to have, and to ask him for no others. In this manner alone may the heart’s deepest needs be realized.

3 Ye ask, and receive not,—Some, among those of whom Jam es wrote did not recieve, because they did not ask; others asked but did not receive. If we are disposed to be shocked by the suggestion that men may be lustful, covetous, murderers (at heart) and constant wranglers and, at the same time, be given to prayer, we need only to recall that it is not unusual for men to invoke the blessings of God upon them, though engaged in the most highhanded wickedness. In medieval times particularly, multitudes of people were slaughtered in the name of religion; and campaigns were launched on the pretense of doing God’s will. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye offspring oi vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell? Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah the son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.” (Mat 23:29-35.) “They shall put you out of the synagogues : yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God.” (Joh 16:2.)

Our Lord said, “For where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.” (Mat 6:21.) If our interests are largely centered in the things of the earth, we will be disposed chiefly to seek for such things; and, if we pray at all, to pray for them. These of whom James wrote were motivated by the desire for material things; and jealousy, envy and strife characterized them in the search. From this we learn that it is quite possible for those who have obeyed the gospel to give attention to the wrong things in their quest for happiness. Jesus said, “But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Mat 6:33.) The word “added,” in this passage is, from the Greek word prostithemi, the meaning of which is very near our Southern provincialism, to boot, something thrown in extra to make the bargain more attractive. Jesus thus promises us that if we put his affairs first he will give us our material needs to boot, in addition to our salvation! Ve are assured that God will answer the prayers of his people. Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you; for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth ; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Mat 7:7-8.) We must, however, understand that these promises are conditioned on (a) asking for the right things, (b) in the right way, and (c) from right motives. The verb aiteite, “ye ask,” means to request, to beg; and is the usual word where one, consciously inferior, makes a petition to one regarded as superior. (Act 12:20; Mat 7:9; 1Jn 3:22.) It is of significance that our Lord never used this term in his petitions to the Father in behalf of the disciples; his approach was on the basis of a Son before his Father.

One may, however, ask for the right things, and the prayer still be improper because of wrong motives. These of whom James wrote asked, but in the wrong fashion.

because ye ask amiss,—(dioti kakos aiteisthe, because ye ask evilly.) Here, the verb aiteo, to ask, is in the middle voice, to ask for one’s self. We thus learn that where selfishness is involved petitions to God are fruitless. God will not grant a request the purpose of which is to satisfy selfish desire. “Amiss,” (kakos) designates that which is base or mean. To ask amiss is, therefore, to be influenced by low, mean, selfish considerations. This is a general statement explaining why those of whom James wrote did not receive that for which they prayed; in the statement which follows in the text the reason why their petitions were regarded as improper is indicated.

that ye may spend it in your pleasures.—(Hina en tais hedonais humon dapanesete, a purpose clause, introduced with hina, the verb of which is dapanesete, aorist subjunctive, signifying to consume wastefully, to squander.) Thus, that which is to be used by us for purely selfish gratification is, by our Lord, regarded as squandered, wasted; and, obviously, God is not going to give us that which is to be wasted! “Pleasures,” here is the same word as that occurring in verse 1, and means desires of a fleshly, sensual nature, satisfied. Whether, therefore, God grants a petition for health, wealth, the ability to serve, depends on the motive which prompts such a petition. It is possible for one to pray for ability to serve others when the chief reason for the desire is not the welfare of man, but lust for power, fame, notoriety, etc. God will not answer such prayers, because they are evilly motivated. Those who thus ask, ask amiss.

It is vitally important that we be impressed with the realization that God will not hear and answer a prayer which has, as its chief motive, the gratification of fleshly desire. Such appears to have been the design of those to whom James refers in our text. This does not mean that God will never hear and answer a prayer involvig material matters. The inspired writer does not rebuke his readers for asking God to prosper them materially. It is the motive which determines whether such a prayer is proper or not. If we ask in order that we may consume the blessings upon our lusts, he will not hear. If it is for our welfare, or the welfare of others and the cause of Christ it is in order for us so to pray. John prayed that his friend Gaius “in all things” would “prosper and be in health,” even as his “soul prospereth.” (3Jn 1:2.) We are thus encouraged to bring our temporal needs to the Lord, with the assurance that if such are for our good he will bestow them freely and graciously.

We must, however, examine our motives with extreme care, for it is difficult for us to separate our needs from our desires, and to feel that the design is the former, when it is, in reality, the latter. Prayer is a marvelous privilege of every faithful child of God, and ought to be utilized regularly. We must always remember that there are well defined conditions with which we are to comply, if we may properly expect an answer. Those of whom James wrote did not obtain an answer to their petitions because they asked “amiss,” (evilly, from wrong motives.) When petitions are conceived in greed, and expressed hypocritically, God always turns a deaf ear. Only those prayers which have as their aim the glory of God, the advancement of his cause, and the genuine well being of his followers, ascend to the throne of grace, and bring a blessing. Our prayers reveal, in striking detail, and great accuracy, the character of our hearts to ourselves, to others, and to God.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

lust: Jam 5:1-5, Pro 1:19, Ecc 4:8, Hab 2:5, 1Ti 6:9, 1Ti 6:10

kill: or, envy

because: Jam 1:5, Isa 7:12, Mat 7:7, Mat 7:8, Luk 11:9-13, Joh 4:10, Joh 16:24

Reciprocal: Gen 8:21 – the imagination Jdg 12:1 – we will burn 1Ki 3:11 – hast not 1Ki 12:14 – My father made 1Ki 21:6 – Because 2Ch 10:14 – My father Psa 78:18 – by asking meat Isa 43:22 – thou hast not Eze 36:37 – I will yet Luk 11:1 – teach Act 23:10 – fearing 1Co 1:11 – that there 1Co 3:3 – for whereas Eph 4:31 – wrath 1Ti 6:4 – words 2Ti 2:24 – strive Jam 1:14 – when 1Jo 3:15 – hateth Rev 18:14 – thy soul

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jas 4:2. Lust and have not. They had the unholy desires but were not always able to obtain what they craved, and that caused them to kill (have murderous thoughts, 1Jn 3:15) those who resisted their unrighteous desires. Fight and war is the same as wars and fightings in the first verse. In some cases they might have obtained things they had asked for had they asked for them in a lawful manner.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jas 4:2. Ye lust and have not. This verse further describes the origin or genesis of these external strifes. First, then, is the evil desire; then this desire, being ungratified, leads to hatred and envy; and hatred and envy lead to wars and fightings (comp. Jas 1:15). The objects of desire are worldly blessingsthe gratification of our sinful interests. This spirit of restless desire was also at this time the national character of the Jews; they were restless under the government of the Romans, and eagerly desired national liberty and the lordship over other nations. These desires were especially fostered by their belief in an earthly Messiah, who should bestow worldly blessings on His followers. This Jewish vice was prevalent among the Jewish Christians, and perhaps the false notion of an earthly Messiah was not eradicated from among them.

ye kill; expressive of the bitterness of the hatred that prevailed. If this Epistle were addressed to the Jews generally, these words would receive a literal meaning; but we can hardly suppose that the contentions among the Jewish Christians led to actual bloodshed, although such has often been their result in the history of the Church. The words, then, are to be understood in a modified sense, denoting that bitter hatred which, according to the spirit of the Gospel, is equivalent to murder: Ye kill in spirit. He that hateth his brother is a murderer (1Jn 3:15). Compare with this the words of our Lord: Ye have heard that it has been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment (Mat 5:21-22). Not the external act, but the internal disposition, the bitter hatred, is described. Strong and vehement expressions are characteristic of the style of St. James.

and desire to have; or rather, and envyindulge in a resentful and envious spirit toward others.

and cannot obtain, namely, that on account of which you indulge in hatred and envy.

ye fight and war; the third stage in the genesis of contention.

yet; this word is not in the Greek. It is best to put a full stop after war, and begin a new clause, showing the reason why their desires were not gratified, either because they asked not, or asked wrongfully.

ye have not, because ye asked not. There seems here a reference to our Lords declaration: Ask, and it shall be given you. And it is also here implied that we are permitted to ask for temporal blessings, only we must not ask wrongly.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The Jews, at the writing of this epistle to them, did vehemently lust after liberty, and freedom from the Roman yoke, and for dominion and government over other nations; believing that their Messiah was to be a temporal prince, who should enable them to lord it over the Heathen world: “Now, says our apostle, though you lust for liberty and dominion, yet you have it not: and though, in an eager pursuit after these things, ye kill and slay, yet you do but lose your blood and labour, for ye cannot obtain what you thus inordinately seek, and irregularly covet; you should go to God in prayer for what you desire: but if at any time you do pray, it is not in a right manner, with a right intention and for a right end. It is to consume it upon your lusts; namely, that having the liberty you desire, you may possess the good things of this world you lust after, and may lord it over the Heathen world.”

Learn hence, that we pray amiss, when our aims and ends are not right in prayer.

Learn, 2. That then our aims and ends are not right in a prayer, when we ask blessings for the use and encouragement of our lusts.

Learn, 3. That prayers so framed are usually successless; what we ask amiss we are sure to miss, if the Almighty has any kindness for us. In prayer we must consider three things, the object, the manner, and the end: We must not only guard our affections, but secure our intentions; for prayers that want a good aim, do also want a good issue; Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Seeking To Please Self

“Lust” is a strong desire for a thing. Certainly, it has caused others to do wicked things. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband, Uriah, killed to satisfy his lust. Jezebel had Naboth killed to fulfill her husband’s desire to have his vineyard ( 2Sa 11:1-27 ; 1Ki 21:1-16 ). The sad part is that strong desire is never fulfilled. Instead, obtaining what it wants only makes it want more. James told his readers they did not receive what they wanted because they did not direct their wants in the direction of God’s will. Lust controlled their will. Coffman suggests their willful seeking for personal gratification dried up their prayers so they did not even ask God ( Jas 4:2 ).

Woods notes that it is not unusual for men to be very wicked and yet ask God’s blessing on their deeds ( Mat 23:29-35 ; Joh 16:2 ). They do not receive the things for which they ask because they ask for wicked purposes. They simply want to satisfy their desire. God hears the prayers of the righteous and provides for all the needs of those who seek his kingdom first ( Jas 4:3 ; Psa 34:15 ; Mat 6:33 ).

When the church is full of lust, she seeks the love of the world and becomes a spiritual adulteress ( Jas 4:4 ). Paul told the Corinthian brethren, “For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” ( 2Co 11:2 ). The church is Christ’s bride and should remain faithful to his wishes ( Rom 7:1-4 ; Eph 5:23-24 ; Rev 19:6-8 ). It should be plain to all that one cannot love God and the world at the same time. Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” ( Mat 6:19-24 ; Php 1:9-11 ; 1Jn 2:15-17 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Jas 4:2-3. Ye lust , ye covet, or eagerly desire; and have not What you desire; you are, some way or other, hindered from attaining that of which you are so greedy; ye kill In your heart; for he that hateth his brother is a murderer. Or he speaks of the actual murders which the carnal Jews, called zealots, committed of the heathen, and even those of their own nation who opposed them. Accordingly, he says, ye kill, , and are zealous, thereby showing, evidently, that the persons to whom he spake were zealots. Ye fight and war, yet ye have not What ye so eagerly desire; because ye ask not And no marvel; for a man full of evil desire, of malice, envy, hatred, cannot pray. Since, as appears by this, the persons to whom the apostle is speaking failed of their purpose, because they did not pray to God, it shows, says Macknight, that some of their purposes, at least, were laudable, and might have been accomplished with the blessing of God. Now this will not apply to the Judaizing teachers in the church, who strongly desired to subject the converted Gentiles to the law of Moses. As little will it apply to those who coveted riches. The apostles declaration agrees only to such of the unconverted Jews as endeavoured to bring the heathen to the knowledge and worship of the true God. So far their attempt was commendable, because, by converting the Gentiles to Judaism, they prepared them for receiving the gospel; and if for this they had asked the blessing of God sincerely, they might have been successful in their purpose. Ye ask, &c. But if ye do ask, ye receive not, because ye ask amiss , ye ask wickedly, from sinful motives. Some understand this of the Jews praying for the goods of this life: But though, says Macknight, such a prayer had been allowable, the apostle scarcely would have spoken of it here, as it had no connection with his subject. His meaning, in my opinion, is, that they prayed for success in converting the heathen, not from any regard to the glory of God and the salvation of the heathen, but from a desire to draw money from them whom they converted, to spend on their own lusts.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 2

Because ye ask not; that is, of God. The meaning is, that they do not obtain the happiness which they desire, because they seek to effect their ends by contention and violence, instead of relying upon the providence and goodness of God.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

We lust for things but have not those things. We kill and desire but can’t obtain. “Desire” is that word for zeal again. You are zealous to have your desires fulfilled.

We fight and war but have not because we ask not. Not that God will give us things if we ask, but this most likely refers back to asking for wisdom – Godly wisdom from above. We have not wisdom because we don’t ask for it; we’d rather do it on our own in our own way with the wisdom of the world.

All church problems are right here. They are caused by people not asking God for HIS wisdom, instead they replace the void with what the world calls wisdom – you know – humanism, I should be satisfied. If it is okay with me then it is okay for me. I am the center of the universe and all surrounds and bows to me and my desires.

The phrase, “ye kill” is somewhat out of place in this context, in that James is talking about church problems that arise from the tongue and worldly wisdom. This is actually the word for committing murder. It can be used of one putting a gun to someone’s head and taking their life. Drastic terminology Mr. James uses.

How can he use “kill” in the same phrase with “desire?” What is he getting at?

Barnes suggests that some say it should read “envy” since there is the possibility of a misreading of the text. The two words are very similar in spelling in the Greek. Barnes dismisses this possibility and suggests that it is a murderous attitude, rather than murder in the literal sense. He does not give a basis for this other than the same “conjecture” with which he dismisses the thoughts of those that suggest “envy.”

Robertson suggests that the phrase might be better translated “murderous envy” or envy that could drive to murder, not that murder had occurred. Others simply include the term in their commentary on envy without dealing with it.

It might be possible that James is using hyperbole here, by using a drastic term for the way they are treating one another due to their envy. Constable also suggests this interpretation of hyperbole.

It might also be suggested that their envy, if not controlled, will lead to murder, which is a truth in our own society.

Personally the only line of thought I am comfortable with would be the hyperbole, or possibly it should be taken literally. It is possible that James knew that some had died from this terrible envy. In that day, life had little value to one living in the mind-set of the world. Indeed, this is true in our own day. People that are bent on owning your belongings seldom stop at just taking the things, but often kill you if you get in their way, if not just kill you for the fun of it.

The best of the possibles in my mind would be that he was exaggerating for effect. You envy so deeply that you may well be murderers in your work. This might work into the “murderous envy” suggested by Robertson, and would be fitting in the context, rather than an actual taking of life.

Some contemplation on 1Jn 3:22; 1Jn 5:14 might bring further light to the subject for you. 22. “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” 5:14 “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:”

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, {2} because ye ask not.

(2) He reprehends them by name, who are not ashamed to make God the minister and helper of their lusts and pleasures, in asking things which are either in themselves unlawful or being lawful, ask for them out of wicked motives and uses.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

2. The explanation of the conflict 4:2-3

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The ultimate end of lust, desire that a person may or may not satisfy, is murder. We can see this through human history all the way from Cain down to the present (cf. the case of Naboth; 1 Kings 21). James was probably not accusing his readers of murder, though at least one scholar believed he was. [Note: Martin, p. 146.] He was probably reminding them of the serious ultimate consequences of living merely to satisfy personal desires.

"In the context of forceful words such as polemoi (’wars’) and machai (’battles’), it seems better to take phoneuete (’you kill’) as hyperbole for hatred. This also resolves the problem of seeming anticlimactic word order. To say ’You hate and covet’ is a much more natural order than to say ’You murder and covet.’ Furthermore, Mat 5:21-22 and 1Jn 3:15 show that hatred is equal to murder." [Note: Burdick, p. 193. Cf. Motyer, pp. 140,164-65.]

Likewise fights and arguments follow when we do not obtain our desires.

"There are indeed few evils in human life that cannot be traced to covetousness and envy in the sense in which we find these words used in this verse. Covetousness does not always lead to possession, envy does not always attain to the position of its rivals-and the inevitable result is conflict and strife." [Note: Tasker, p. 87.]

 

"This is the condition to which lust consigns it votaries; it disappoints them, and makes them mutual tormentors." [Note: Edwin T. Winkler, "Commentary on the Epistle of James," in An American Commentary on the New Testament, p. 54.]

 

"Unsatisfied desire leads to murder . . .; disappointed ambition leads to quarrelling and fighting." [Note: Mayor, p. 136.]

The only way to obtain satisfaction is to ask God to give it. We do not have what God wants us to have because we do not ask Him for these things. [Note: Cf. Fanning, pp. 432-33.] This is one of the most important verses in the Bible concerning prayer. There are some things we can have from God that we will not have unless we ask Him for them.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)