Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - James 3:1 - 3:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Caution against the Judaistic bias to fanatical activity of teaching.
Jam_3:1-2. The exhortation progresses from Judaistic visionariness (James 1) and from Judaistic particularism and exclusiveness (James 2) to Judaistic, fanatical activity of teaching, to the evil, exciting and pernicious tongue-sins of bitter emulation, cursing, envying and party-strife exhibited in a false, devilish wisdom in contrast with true and heavenly wisdom. That this section is an essential point peculiar to the entire Epistle, is evident from the fact that it has been announced already in Jam_1:17; Jam_1:26. The fanatical, proselyting and polemical mania for teaching, which is here described by James, had previously been delineated by the Lord Himself, Matthew 23., and by Paul the Apostle in Rom_2:17; it is here and there illuminated in Acts (James 15) and in the Pauline Epistles (2Co_11:13; Php_3:2; Galatians 2.), and it is finally condemned in Rev_2:9. Wiesinger heads this chapter “against the itch of teaching” and adds the observation—that “the author passes on to the ready-tongued teaching and finding fault with others, because this is the false actualization of the ðßóôéò of his readers, whereby they think themselves warranted to dispense with genuine actualization [i. e. the practical exhibition of living faith by good works.—M.]. Nothing is nearer to a faith which consists in knowledge only than conceit of teaching and dogmatical-ness (cf. Rom_2:17 etc.). Thus James 3. is the carrying out of the censure James had already passed on his readers in Jam_1:19-20 and similarly as in Jam_1:26-27, where the author had indicated inability to bridle the tongue as the characteristic of a purely imaginary religion and the exhibition of compassionating love as the characteristic of true religion, he now returns to [we ought to say: he now takes up in earnest] this subject, and represents to his readers that the human inability, so strongly developed in them, of taming the tongue, ought to cure them effectually of the desire to teach others.” Huther: “Words had taken the place of works.”
Jam_3:1. Do not become many teachers.—The exposition of Huther (and of de Wette, Wiesinger) “be not teachers in great numbers,” gives hardly a satisfactory sense. For if reference were made to ecclesiastically ordained offices of teaching (as Wiesinger maintains with reference to 2Ti_4:5), the language of the Apostle would hardly convey the rebuke he intends to administer. It is evidently his purpose to censure the false mania for teaching, the dogmatizing contentiousness, which is thoroughly characteristic of the Judaizing Christian. We therefore connect (with Gebser and Schneckenburger) ðïëëïὶ with ãßíåóèáé and so that ðïëëïὶ and äéäÜóêáëïé form one idea. Do not end with being a great host of teachers. Luther: “Let not every one dare to be a teacher.” The expression has consequently an ironical colouring and even stronger than the ìὴ ðÜíôåò of Grotius.
Knowing that we.—They know it and they ought to be conscious of it. [Huther remarks that åἰäüôåò , being closely joined in the Imperative, is itself hortatory: “knowing, that ye might know.” James says here “we shall receive” and in Jam_3:2 “we all offend” and thus forcibly practises his precepts Jam_3:2; Jam_3:17-18. Cf. 1Co_6:12.—M.].
A greater condemnation.—Although êñἱìá cannot signify “responsibility” only (so Hottinger and Augusti) the ordinary N. T. usage does not necessitate us to insist with Wiesinger (who remarks however that a sententia damnatoria is out of the question) and Huther on the meaning “punitory sentence.” The fact that James includes himself is certainly against the latter construction. “The humility of love” (Wiesinger) surely could not cause him to assert something, which was inapplicable to Himself, and Huther’s observation that the punitory sentence might be postponed, does not by any means settle the difficulty. êñßìá denotes primarily judgment, then more definitely a Judicial sentence and it generally becomes a punitory sentence by the connection, just as the connection here does not make it so. Moreover, how were the readers of the Epistle to know that all teachers as such have to expect heavy punishment (German, punitory sentences). The increased measure of the sentence may be gathered from various sayings of our Lord (Mat_23:13 and elsewhere). The increased measure, to be sure, indicates that the severer sentence agreeably to nature may easily turn into a punitive sentence.
Jam_3:2. For manifoldly we offend all ( ἅðáíôåò ).—This assertion is absolutely valid. The Apostle includes himself without any qualification, just as Peter (Act_15:11), Paul (Php_3:12) and John (1Jn_1:8) include themselves in similar assertions. Although ðôáßåéí does not bear directly on the errores, qui docentibus obvenire possint (Grotius), but comprehends moral offences in the widest sense (Huther), the word is so chosen as forthwith to point to moral errors and offences and these occur for the most part in the sphere of teaching (Lehrrede=didactic utterance).
If a man offendeth not in word.—The asyndeton indicates that James progresses in the same sphere of thought and hence aims not at an antithesis, as Wiesinger rightly observes. Although the ἐí ëüãῳ may not have to be limited to ἐí äéäáóêáëßᾳ (cf. Jam_1:19), as Pott maintains, the context requires us to think of didactic offences which were the soul of Judaizing proceedings.
He is a perfect man.—Supply ἐóôß . Every word is here significant; ïὖôïò denotes the rarity of such a man, ἀíÞñ indicates that the Apostle refers in particular to a sphere of males and their doings, ôÝëåéïò describes once more the N. T. maturity of faith, principial completion. The proposition may easily be generalized and made to denote the ideal of the Christian life which none can attain here on earth (see de Wette); but James manifestly refers to something attainable, which is evident from what follows.
Able even to bridle the whole body.—This inference is founded on the thought that the tongue is that member of the body over which man finds it most difficult to establish the mastery and that he who does not offend in word, shows that he has established that mastery. Consequently: he who offendeth in no word and thereby shows himself to be the master of his tongue, has obtained the mastery over his whole body. But just as the inference is here not to the physical tongue as such but only as the organ and symbol of readiness of speech, so James does not “set the body as such in opposition to man” as a relative independent power which offers moral resistance to the will of the “Ego” (Wiesinger, Huther), but the body denotes here the organ and symbol of all human action with the exception of speech. The sense in brief is therefore as follows: he who truly masters his words, will also master his works. Life under the law of liberty is most difficult to be evidenced in the mastery of one’s speech. Huther also afterwards acknowledges the figurative in the language of James: “The êáñäßá indeed is the fountain of evil deeds (Mat_15:19), but the lust which is rooted therein, has so thoroughly appropriated the members of man and as it were fixed its dwelling in them, that they appear as lusting subjects and may be represented as such in living-concrete language.” But the figures of the horse and the ship, which follow, prove that the reference is not only to opposing sinfulness (the seeming law in the members Rom_7:23), but also to the naturalness itself which is subordinated to the spirit and needs guiding; for the horse does not resist its rider, and the ship its helmsman, as the old man resists the new. Huther moreover sets here aside several explanations (“the whole connection of the acts and changes of man” Baumgarten, etc.), which are more or less well suited to define the idea on which the “as it were,” in connection with the body needing to be guided, is based. But the organic concretion and membering (Gliederung=articulating) of the lusts of
the heart in the sinfully untuned corporealness must be held fast.
The power of the tongue, Jam_3:3-4.
James illustrates the power and import, of the tongue by two comparisons. In Jam_3:2 he had set it forth as being relatively the most mighty member among the members of the body, he now develops the thought that it is the ruling member, the control of which involves the control of the whole body. He takes for granted that it is only the spirit which can control the body; but the organ of its rule, the instrument to be controlled for the control of the body, is just the tongue. The word is the disposer of acts. “This whole discussion of the wild power of the tongue is not ‘bombast’ (Schleiermacher), but designed to make clear to his readers their perverseness.” Wiesinger. Right, but James knows also a power of the tongue in a good sense.
First figure. Jam_3:3. But if we put the bit into the mouths of horses.—The Apostle introduces first the figure of horses, because he had already before borrowed therefrom the figurative expression ÷áëéíáãùãῆóáé (Jam_3:2; Jam_1:25). Hence the Genitive ôῶí ἵððùí should probably be joined with ôïὺò ÷áëéíïὺò (Theile), and not with ôὰ óôüìáôá (Oecumenius and al. Huther). [ ôῶí ἵððùí appears to stand first for the sake of emphasis. Translating literally “But if of horses we put the bits into the mouth” is not English. (Alford). We have therefore expressed the idea in idiomatic English; the distinction of Lange to connect ôῶí ἵððùí with ôïὺæ ÷áëéíïὺæ instead of joining it with ôὰ óôüìáôá is really a distinction without a difference. We put bits into the mouths of horses, that is real, material bits; of course, such bits we do not put into the mouths of men. The sense is really the same on either construction. The similitude contains the application.—M.]. The bits [Lange throughout uses the word Zaum=bridle, but ÷áëéíüæ is not the bridle, but its metal mouthpiece. I have therefore uniformly rendered Zaum=bit.—M.] of horses as literal bits are contrasted with the figurative. But both kinds belong to the respective mouths: the horse-bit belongs to a horse’s mouth, the man-bit to a man’s mouth. Thus the principal accent lies certainly on ôὰ óôüìáôá . These constitute the tertium comparationis, not “the smallness of the ÷áëéíïé ̇, as the majority of commentators suppose” Huther. The apodosis begins with êáὶ ὅëïí (Wiesinger, Huther); it is not contained in Jam_3:5 (Theile); nor does it require us to supply something in thought (de Wette). ìåôÜãåéí occurs in the N. T. only here and Jam_3:4—
Second figure.
Jam_3:4. Behold even the ships.—The organ of guiding, probably connected with the natural unruliness of the horse to be guided, was the principal idea of the first figure: the mouth, the tongue; in the second figure it is the contrast between the smallness of the organ, the fine touch required to influence it and the greatness as well as the storm-tossed condition of the ship to be turned. The small ruder on which the will of man with almost the stillness of spirits, exerts its impulse, governs the whole great ship with all the fearful reaction of the wind and the waves, which like infuriated elementary spirits oppose the firm spirit of the steersman. Hence the first êáὶ , as well as ἰäïὺ , denotes intensification. The participial sentence ὅíôá brings out the immense weight which the rudder has to overcome; which are so great, or though so great.— ἐëáýíåéí to drive on, set in motion, is used elsewhere in the N. T. of navigating proper [cf. Mar_6:48; Joh_6:19, LXX., for ùַׁéִè Isa_33:21.—M.], but then also of restless agitation 2Pe_2:17. Fierce winds are the wild navigators of the ship whom the human navigator opposes with his rudder. They have doubtless a symbolical import, as Bede did think, not however as the appetitus mentium originating within, but as the great temptations ( ðåéñáóìïü ) of the world, coming from without, the place of whose nativity, to be sure, is within (see Jam_1:6). The little rudder is here obviously the antitype of the little tongue. [Bede’s exposition may be found useful in point of application, although it is hardly sound in point of exegesis. “Naves magnæ in mari, mentes sunt hominum in hac vita, sive bonorum sive malorum. Venti validi, a quibus minantur, ipsi appetitus sunt mentium, quibus naturaliter coguntur aliquid agere etc.”—M.].
Whithersoever the direction.—Although ὁñìÞ hardly denotes the impulsus externus, the steerman’s pressure on the rudder (Erasmus and many others), the translation “eager will, desire of something” (Bede, Calvin, Huther etc.) is hardly sufficient; ὁñìÞ always indicates active will developed into an effort or onset; hence here the direction, the course of the navigator, kept in action by the rudder. On similar comparisons among the classics see Gebser, Theile. [ ὁñìÞ signifies primarily any violent pressure onwards ( ὅñíõìé ), then the first stir or move towards a thing, then impulse, eager desire in the sense of will. I render “will,” because the will of the steersman directs the impulse given to the rudder and thereby to the ship.—M.].—“The two similitudes of the bit and navigation have often been connected by the ancients in a similar manner, so that Pricæus even thought that James might have borrowed them from Plato or some other Greek writer.” Gebser. Huther further calls attention to the circumstance that the reference here is to the actual åὐèýíùí , not to the technical or official åὐèõíôÞñ .
Jam_3:5. Thus also the tongue.—A little member like the little rudder.
And boasteth great things.—Since ìåãáëáõ÷åῑ describes absolutely haughty and overbearing conduct, the reading ìåãÜëá áὐ÷å ͂ é seems to be preferable (see note in Appar. Crit. above). For James had spoken of a great and praiseworthy doing; he could not with ïὕôùæ pass at once from the figure of the rudder to the pernicious doing of the tongue. The ἰäïý moreover separates the thought under notice from the contemplation of the pernicious operation of the tongue, which follows. The selection of the term simply intimates that the tongue not only does great things, but boasts of the great things. Bede: “Magna exaltat.” The explanation “accomplishes great things” Luther (similarly Oecumenius, Calvin and al.), gives tone to the fundamental idea without preserving the shading [i.e. the gradual shading off—M.]. Persevering to the idea ìåãáëáõ÷åῖ (Huther, similarly Wiesinger) is not based on the context.
The pernicious doing of the tongue.
Jam_3:3 (second half), Jam_3:6. Behold how small a fire.— ἡëéêïí gives prominence to the quantity according to the construction, either in point of greatness or smallness; here in point of smallness (Cajetanus, Huther). de Wette understands it as denoting a great fire; but the Apostle’s design was not so much the aesthetic contemplation of a forest-conflagration, as to point to the wicked origin thereof in a little spark; against this Wiesinger justly lays stress on ἀíÜðôåé [which is not=consumed, but=lighteth up, kindleth. Seneca (Cont. v, 5) employs very similar language “quam lenibus initiis quanta incendia oriantur.”—M.].—Huther, adverting to corresponding descriptions in Homer, Pindar, Philo etc., points out that the concrete sense of ὕëç =forest, is preferable to the vaguer materia=combustible etc. [The classical descriptions are found in Homer, ll. xi. 115; Plutarch, Sympos. viii. p. 730; Pindar, Pyth. iii. 66; Virgil, Georg. ii. 303.—M.].
Jam_3:6. The tongue also is a fire.—The figure of a spark or a very small fire producing the conflagration of a forest, is now applied to the incendiary ravages of the tongue. The tongue is fiery as to its nature in general, i. e. the organ of speech, easily inflamed by spiritual fire, by passionate, vehement and consuming impulse. James here passes over the fact that the tongue is destined to become an organ of heavenly fire, Acts 2, for his eye is fixed on the pernicious fire of fanaticism which begins to inflame the Judaistic spirits throughout the world.
It, the world of unrighteousness [that world of iniquity].—Not an elliptical clause, requiring ὕëç to complete it in the sense “the tongue is the fire, the world is the forest.”—Morus and al. This cosmos then is a further designation of the tongue. According to Wiesinger êüóìïæ in general, denotes the sum-total of what is created (Mat_13:35; Eph_1:4), “the cosmos of unrighteousness,” hence here “the sum-total of unrighteousness.” So Huther citing ὅëïæ ὁ êüóìïæ ôῶí ÷ñçìÜôùí LXX. Pro_17:8. Calvin: “Acsi vocaret mare et abyssum.” Olshausen and al., “it is as it were the unrighteous world itself, which has its seat in the tongue.” See the interpretations of Theile, Estius, Herder, Gebser, Clericus (who with others holds the words to be spurious), in Huther. Oecumenius and many others read êüóìïæ =adornment of unrighteousness: the tongue adorns unrighteousness by rhetorical arts. Wiesinger objects 1. that êüóìïæ is a passive idea, 2. that the sense would be too feeble. The word need not be taken in the sense of “adornment,” but we may nevertheless suppose that James here, as frequently, returns to the original signification of the Greek word. In point of fact it is the tongue which sophistically, rhetorically, poetically, parenthetically and imperatively gives to unrighteousness its worldly, apparently respectable and even splendid form. We therefore suppose that James wanted to say that “the tongue is the form of the world, worldliness, worldly culture, the seemingly beautiful world of unrighteousness.” At all events he could have described it as the sum-total of unrighteousness only in a highly figurative sense. We therefore hold with Tischendorf and Neander against Huther and the majority of commentators, that ὁ êüóìïæ ôῆæ ἀäéêßáæ does not belong appositionally to what goes before, but belongs to what follows. The addition “the sum-total of unrighteousness” would not explain the proposition “the tongue is a fire.” But it is to be understood that the tongue is prominent among the members as the world of unrighteousness. It is however matter of inquiry what is the meaning of êáèßóôáôáé ? The following interpretations are idle, to say nothing of their incorrectness: it stands, it is placed, it is set; that of Huther also is inadequate; it sets itself, appears in connection with what follows, as that which polluteth the whole body. In agreement with the full meaning of êáèéóôÜíáé and with the context, the word according to the analogy of Heb_8:3 and other passages, taken absolutely, denotes the presidency, the domination of the tongue among the members. In virtue of its worldly culture, which understands even how to beautify unrighteousness, the tongue rules among the members. But what a contrast between its works and its position! And it is just it, which from its prominence pollutes the whole body.—Before the world it washes all unrighteousness clean, before God or truth it stains and pollutes the whole body, i. e. the tongue, by the preceding, sinful word paves the way to all the sinful acts of all the members. Although óðéëïῦí does not suit ðῦñ (notwithstanding Bengel’s explanation “ut ignis perfumum”), it suits the saying “the tongue is the êüóìïæ ” as its perfect antithesis. Apparent comeliness is the most essential deformity of life. How it pollutes the life is apparent from what follows. [But there seems really to be no objection to the rendering “makes itself,” which is preferable to Lange’s, because it is founded on better grammar than his and gives a good, clear and unforced sense. êáèßóôáôáé is used here as in Jam_4:4. Huther. “The tongue by acting in and upon the members, makes itself to be the defiler of the whole body. It is so made ἐí ôïῖæ ìÝëåóéí ἡìῶí , which, as their name intimates, ought to move in harmonious melody and amicable concert with each other; and so glorify their maker. But the tongue mars their music by its discord. It is even like an intestine volcano; and sends forth a dark stream of lava, and a murky shower of ashes and smoke, and is thus a source of pollution, sullying and staining as with foul blots ( óðéëïῦóá ) the beauty of all around it; and also like a volcano, it emits a flood of fire.” Wordsworth.—M.].
And inflameth.—Wiesinger takes êáὶ , êáὶ in the sense “as well as,” and sets both in the relation of logical subordination to ἡ óðéëïῦóá . We object with Huther, because the following words are not only explanatory but intensive. The tongue inflames
The wheel of the development of life.—That ôñï÷üæ denotes a wheel requires no further proof (see 1Ki_7:30 etc.; Eze_1:15; Eze_1:19-20). But the question is what is the meaning of ãÝíåóéæ and what is therefore the meaning of ôñï÷ὸæ ãåíÝóåùæ ? According to Huther ãÝíåóéæ denotes here “as in Jam_1:23” (see the passage), birth, the wheel of birth; that is: the wheel revolving from our birth, i. e. life. Similarly Oecumenius. Taking the separate features differently, Calvin and al. reach the same idea: the wheel is the cursus, the genesis is the natura; the two united—life.—Wiesinger (after Kern) passes from the interpretation “it inflameth the revolving wheel,” the spherical course of being (Pott, Schneckenburger), to another: “it inflameth the circumference of our corporeal being” (literally “of that which has become”). As the axis or centre of the circle it diffuses its fire over the whole circumference. However, genesis, taken in the sense of birth, is not life itself but itself only the first revolution of the wheel. Although we need not think (with de Wette following more ancient commentators) of the orb of creation absolutely, or of the cycle of the self-renovation of mankind ( úּåֹìְãåֹú âִּìְâַּì , Wolf and al.); it does not follow that genesis here should be taken as birth only, and life only as individual life. The genesis of man rather progresses in an ethical sense through the whole of his earthly existence, and if it is said that the tongue setteth on fire the wheel or the revolution of the development of life, the word in this generality applies not only to individual life, but also to the life of humanity, primarily of course, to the life of the Jewish people, but in its widest sense even to the development of the life of this (earthly) cosmos. The fanatical fire, which at first made the development of the life of individual Jews a continuously growing fire of a burning and revolving wheel, at last seized the development of the life of the whole Jewish nation (for chiliastic worldliness lay at the bottom of the crucifixion of Christ and of the Jewish War) and imperceptibly communicates itself to all mankind and to the earthly êüóìïæ as the causality of the fiery day, the last day—immanent in the world. James is fully right in saying that it is the tongue which changes the wheel of the human development of life into a burning fire-wheel; or we might say: a ship on fire entering the port. Perhaps every man may find in his course of life a proportionate quantity of this feverish fire-impulse (see Psalms 90) “This verb öëïãßæåéí is ἅðáî ëåã , in N. T.; it occurs in the LXX. Exo_9:24. Huther, with whom we should interpret the word of the fire of passion and not with Morus “de damnis quæ lingua dat,” although the self-consumption of this sin of burning passion is also alluded to, and the reference is not to a mere kindling (Michælis). [Alford renders “the orb of creation,” and Wordsworth “the wheel of nature.” The idea in both is really the same. The note of the latter will doubtless be prized; “The ôñï÷ὸò ãåíÝóåùò is the wheel of nature, the orbis terrarum, the world itself in its various revolutions; in which one generation follows another, and one season succeeds another; and so ôñï÷ὸò ãåíÝóåùò is used by Simplicius in Epict. p. 94, and other like expressions in authors quoted here by Wetstein, p. 670.—In a secondary sense, this ôñï÷ὸò ãåíÝóåùò is the wheel of human nature, of human life, of human society, which is compared to a wheel by Solomon Ecc_12:6; and so Greg. Naz. (in Sentent. ap. a Lapide), and Silius Ital. 3, 6, “rota volvitur ævi,” and Bœthius (de Consol. 2, Proverbs 1), “hæc nostra vita est rotam volubili orbe versamus.” This wheel is ever rolling round, ever turning apace, whirling about, never continuing in one stay, seeking rest and finding none. So these words of the Apostle are explained by Oecumen., Bede, and Bp. Andrewes, 1, 361; 2, 294, 319.—The functions of a wheel, set on fire by the internal friction of its own axis, are deranged, and so the organization of human society is disturbed and destroyed by the intestine fire of the human tongue; a fire which diffuses itself from the centre and radiates forth to the circumference by all the spokes of slander and detraction, and involves the social framework in combustion and conflagration.—M.].
And itself is inflamed.—Not only once, but habitually ( öëïãéæïìÝíç Part. Pres.). It is as unwarrantable to change the participle into the preterite as to explain it of the future, as a prophecy of hell-fire (Grotius and al.).
By hell. Gehenna itself uniformly and throughout to be distinguished from Sheol (besides the synoptical gospel found here only), as a symbolically described fire-region ( ãÝåííá ôïῦ ðõñüò ) will not be wholly completed before the end of the world. The positive primitive fire of Gehenna is brought about by the immanent heat of devilish passions which proceed from the devil through his kingdom. This devilish heat, therefore, is here described as the causality of that fanatical heat of men (cf. Jam_3:15). That fiery heat of fanaticism the origin of which the Judaists wanted to refer to God (Jam_1:13). James refers directly to the devil. And in this manner it exhibited itself by hatred, lying and death and particularly by frenzy. The strongest utterance concerning the evil tongue excepting the sayings of our Lord of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost and the apocalyptic saying of the blasphemies of the beast (Daniel 7, 8 ReJames Jam_3:13)! Approximating descriptions are produced by Huther, Psa_52:4; Psa_120:3-4; Pro_16:26; Sir_5:15. Wiesinger in addition to the specification of sin according to the members of the body, as here indicated, cites also Rom_3:13; Col_3:5. But the latter passage belongs to another chapter; the seeming members (Scheinglieder) of the old man.—But Rom_6:13; Rom_6:19 belongs hither.
The untamableness of the tongue, Jam_3:7-8.
Jam_3:7. For every nature of the wild beasts.— ãὰñ creates difficulty. Huther thinks that it substantiates, especially with reference to Jam_3:8, the foregoing judgment expressed concerning the tongue. But the assertion concerning the untamableness of the tongue does not substantiate the assertion concerning the depravity of the tongue. Wiesinger makes ãὰñ substantiate even the preceding ìåãáëáõ÷åῖ , while Pott holds that it simply indicates the transition. In our opinion the ãὰñ substantiates the words immediately preceding: “itself is imflamed by hell.” Whereby will he prove that assertion? By the untamableness of the tongue. If the nature of the tongue were only animal, man, the power of human nature could tame it as well as every thing animal. But the untamableness of the tongue shows that there is something devilish in its excitement, over which human nature left to itself has no power. Only by the wisdom which is from above Jam_3:15, can be conquered the wisdom which is from beneath, i. e. devilish wisdom, Jam_3:15, and that not in the form of taming, breaking in and enslaving, but in the form of free transformation by regeneration. James first specifies what can be tamed,—universal animal nature, then what can tame it—human nature. Man as man is a match for a beast, but if the animal element in man is strengthened by the devils, he can acquire the superiority of the ἀíὴñ ôÝëåéïò only by Divine grace. James divides the animal world into four classes. He first mentions together quadrupeds (not beasts in general, Pott, or wild beasts in particular, Erasmus etc.) and birds, that is the higher and more noble species of beasts. Then the dismal creeping beasts (not “animalia terrestria” in general [Pott], not only serpents in particular [Luther, Calvin], but amphibia and worms as in Gen_24:25), and the stupid sea-animals (not only fishes in the literal sense [Huther], nor sea-wonders [Luther], nor sea-monsters [Stier]). Huther: “The classification is here the same as in Gen_9:2, which passage may have been before the Apostle’s mind.” James doubtless thought of serpents as the representatives of creeping beasts, with reference to the conjurers of serpents, of trained fishes, dolphins or the like as the representatives of sea-animals. We see here, moreover, that even menageries or the art of taming beasts have some reference to apostolical truth. The opinion of the Apostle really amounts to this: all öýóéò , every öýóéò , as further specified is subjected to human öýóéò ; the condition only, that man understand the natures, which are subjected to him and seize them at the right spot of want, docility or dependence. Huther rightly observes that James does not describe the relation of man the individual to individual beasts, but the relation of human nature to animal nature in general.
By human nature—So we must take the Dative [it is the Dative of the agent—M.], not as a dativus commodi. Human nature is here the whole power of mankind, as it is made to depend on itself in dependence upon God, Genesis 1; hence not only the “ingenii solertia” (Hottinger), but that ingenuity regarded as the most proper characteristic of human äýíáìéò in its superiority to animal power.
Is tamed and hath been tamed.—For this is a process which beginning with the most remote past continues to the most distant future. The beasts are more and more subjected to human nature, while the diabolically excited tongue (to which in the modern world must also be reckoned the pen, so that Satan now speaks more to men by the goose-quill [or the steel-pen—M.] than by the mouth of the serpent) becomes increasingly untamable (see Rev_13:6). äÜìáæåóèáé äýíáôáé is by this process illustrated as a fact, and consequently assumed in the two tenses of the verb, and not limited to the present only (Schneckenburger and al.); äáìÜòåéí moreover denotes not the conquest of our resistance (Huther) which also takes place in conversion, but the translation into a coerced-psychico-physical dependence by the use of appropriate means. If it is said therefore that the tongue cannot be tamed by human nature, this implies also that it cannot be tamed in the form of taming. This expression may also affirm with reference to the animal world that man’s original relation to the beasts has not altogether remained the same (see Gen_9:2; cf. Gen_1:28; Gen_2:20). Wiesinger: “In the opinion of James also man’s dominion over the creatures is not lost (cf. Psa_8:7; Psa_8:9) but it has been modified like his relation to the earth itself.” Jam_3:9 also furnishes a parallel to this verse.
Jam_3:8. But the tongue no one of men.—Estius and al.: the tongue of others; Huther, one’s own tongue. Doubtless primarily one’s own tongue, for the taming of the tongue must proceed from the heart; but the more general sense must not be lost sight of. Before the human tongue diabolically grown wild natural humanity stands as before a dragon, for whom there is not found a Knight St. George among men as they are. Bengel, who interprets: “nemo alius, vix ipse quisque,” overlooks that the antithesis between the natural power of man and a higher power is here postulated. But that which still causes James to utter an expression of indignation, is the pernicious working of the tongue in the Judaistic world of his time.
The turbulent evil.—We interpret êáêüí in the positive ethical sense as wickedness or evil and the adjective ἀêáôÜóôáôïí (see App. Crit.) with reference to Jam_1:8 and ἀêáôáóôáóßá Jam_3:16 according to the meaning of the word in Luk_21:9; 1Co_14:33; 2Co_6:5; 2Co_12:20. The revolutionary conduct of the Judaistic tongues became at that time more and more inflamed in order to prepare for the Jewish people nothing but evil, death and ruin. [Alford thinks that the figure here seems to correspond nearly to what is related of Proteus, that he eluded the grasp of Menelaus under many various shapes. Cf. Hermas, Pastor 2, 3, ðïíçñὸí ðíåῦìÜ ἐóôéí ἡ êáôáëáëßá , êáὶ ἀêáôÜóôáôïí äáéìüíéïí .—M.].
Full of death-bringing poison.—The diabolical nature, the death-bringing serpent-virulence of the strife of tongues; contains substantially the same idea, as the opinion expressed in the preceding verse; “inflamed by hell,” Psa_58:5; Psa_140:4.
The duplicity of the (fanatically excited) tongue, Jam_3:9-12. The new element which is introduced (but not noticed by Huther and Wiesinger) in Jam_3:9, is the falseness, the duplicity, the self-contradiction and consequently the self-judgment (i. e. self-condemnation) of the tongue. The serpent-like nature of the tongue, Jam_3:8, forms an apt transition to the duplicity of the same, inasmuch as it is simultaneously deceitful and venemous.
Jam_3:9. Therewith bless we the Lord.—(See Appar. Crit.) ἐí is instrumental. Blessing and cursing constitute a familiar antithesis; the blessing, åὐëïãåῖí , áָּøַêְ as applied to God, denotes however praising Him. The unusual connection “the Lord and Father” appears to have been stated not without design. Although the Lord here does not directly designate Christ, yet it describes God as the God of revelation, who has finally revealed Himself in Christ as Father. In Him even the Jew praises unconsciously and reluctantly the revelation of God in Christ. (Rom_9:5).
And therewith curse we men which.—A difficulty, insufficiently noticed by many commentators, arises from the circumstance that the Apostle includes himself in we. In order to escape it, Benson, Gebser and al. suppose that the reference is solely to those who set themselves up as teachers. To be sure the reference is primarily to them, but then also in general to the Judaistic element as a whole. Is the proposition a general confession of sins concerning the abuse of the tongue? or a hypothetical judgment; if we curse men, we do so with the same tongue wherewith we praise God? The design of a particular reproof forbids the former, and the premising of the fact the latter. The difficulty may be solved either by taking the second clause as a question expressive of surprise or by hearing James speak as the representative of his people in the name of his guilty people. [Alford recommends the retention of which instead of who, which would personally designate certain men thus made, while which is generic. This distinction, he continues, which some modern philologists are striving to obliterate, is very important in the rendering of Scripture, and has been accurately observed by our English translators.—M.]. The latter is probably the most natural solution.
Have been created after the likeness of God.—That is, the subjects of this Lord, the children of this Father according to their destination, or also the images representing this Lord and Father. This is the glaring contradiction. Wiesinger and Huther (the latter with reference to Bengel’s “remanet nobilitas indelebilis”) here observe that sinful man also remains created in the likeness of God (Gen_1:26). Without detracting from the general application of the proposition the Apostle may be thinking of such men, in whom the likeness of God ( ὁìïßùóéò ) i. e. the actuality and visibility of the image, has reappeared [Germ. “has become again,” wieder geworden—M.], i. e. Christians, and particularly according to their majority, Gentile Christians. With regard to them, the contradiction of the cursing Judaists, was perfect; they praised the Father of revelation, they cursed the children of revelation.
Jam_3:10. Out of the same mouth goeth forth.—It is the sinful mouth as to its fanactical excitement in general, but the mouth of Judaism in particular as at that time it continued traditionally to praise God in the Old Testament and began with talmudical rancor (the source of the later Talmud) to curse the Gospel and its adherents.
It shall not be thus. [ ïὐ ÷ñÞ , ἀäåëöïß ìïõ , ôáῦôá ïὕôùò ãßíåóèáé . These things, my brethren, ought not so to be.”—M.]. This address to the brethren hardly means only: it is not right that these things (denoting the substance) are done thus (denoting the form). ÷ñÞ has its full weight and denotes at once that the thing must not be done according to the oracle [here of course with reference to the revealed will of God—M.] and that the thing itself is unprofitable (with reference to ÷ñÜïìáé ) Moreover the Plural ôáῦôá and the emphatic ïὕôùò are to be noticed. [ ÷ñÞ is ἅðáî ëåã . in N. T.—M.].
Jam_3:11. Doth a fountain perchance out of the same chink send forth the sweet and the bitter?— âñýåéí , ἅðáî ëåã ., to bubble over, overflow [Lange renders “bubble” with an evident attempt to find a word as nearly intransitive as possible, âñýåéí is generally intransitive, but it is used transitively by Anacreon, 37, 2 ἵäå ðῶò , ἕáñïò öáíÝíôïò , ÷Üñéôåò ῥüäá âñýïõóéí . It means therefore “to cause to burst forth,” and this is the reason why I render “send forth.”—M.], ὀðὴ , the opening of the fountain [ ὀðὴ is probably connected with ὅø , ὅðôïìáé , to see; Wordsworth adds that so the word Ænon (the place of springs) is derived from the Hebrew òַéִï (ayin), an eye, Joh_3:23.—M.]; the sweet and the bitter describe the heterogeneous waters applied to blessing and cursing. Such an occurrence is unknown in nature, hence in the moral world also it only appears as something monstrously unnatural. The fountain is not exactly man, but the disposition, the heart. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth (the chink of the fountain) speaketh (Germ: Whereof the heart is full, the mouth overfloweth.—M.]. However here again the reference is not to the moral unnaturalness of this duplicity in general but the concrete bearing of the reproof on Judaism becomes increasingly apparent. It is not the Divine purpose and law that the fountain of Judaism in its historical going forth for the world should send forth such a contradiction between praising God and cursing the children of God. The application to the end of the Christian Middle Ages lies near.
Jam_3:12. Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives?—The figurative statement of the preceding verse is continued in the figures taken from nature, i. e. the idea that nature does not bring forth that which is contradictory and inconsistent. But if the former figure was meant to say: “your duplicity [double-tonguedness] is like a fountain which sends forth at the same time sweet water and bitter, if it were possible to find such a fountain,” the figures which now follow set forth with still greater distinctness the impossibility of such a contradiction in nature. And this certainly brings out not only the reprehensible and morally unnatural character of duplicity, but it also expresses the idea that one of the two must be false, either the cursing or the blessing; so that if their cursing the images of God be true, their praising God must be lying and hypocrisy (Huther). To this must be added that in the metaphors which follow the reference is to the character itself, as is the case in the saying of our Lord Mat_7:16.—Thus we infer their double-mindedness of character which is false on the side of godliness ( äßøõ÷ïò ) from their duplicity of speech. It may however seem strange that James should use several examples in order to corroborate the thought that as nature is always at unity with itself, true and consistent, so also ought man to be true and consistent. The multiplying of examples has primarily the effect of illustrating more forcibly the general application of the law of life, which the Apostle had laid down. But the supposition might occur that the examples may have also a symbolical import. The fig-tree, the symbol of a luxurious natural life cannot bring forth olives, the symbols of spiritual life. The vine, the symbol of theocracy and ultimately of Christianity, cannot produces figs, happiness [i.e. outward], the fulness of the Jewish natural life. The meaning whereof would be as follows: if you want to be natural Jews you cannot bring forth the fruits of the children of the Spirit; but if on the other hand, you want to be Christians, you must not cherish Jewish ideals, sit under the fig-tree of outward prosperity and expect to enjoy its fruit. This would explain the last figure after this manner: as the salt-spring or the salt-current is a mixture which cannot yield pure and drinkable refreshment of life, so a mixture of Jewish severity and hardness and Christian vitality cannot produce the pure water of life of the New Covenant. We leave this symbolism undecided as a whole, but maintain at all events that the salt water is designed to denote a mixture, in which the two elements pure by themselves, have been stained and corrupted. Salt water cannot be drunk. This would give a train of thought which beginning with duplicity in speech passed on to double-mindedness and thence again to its final cause, doubleness of belief, the mixture of legalism and evangelical vitality. On similar biblical figurative modes of speech among the ancients, see Gebser, p. 290; Theile, p. 196.
The contrast of false and true wisdom in speech as to their origin, character and opposite operations. Jam_3:13-18.
Ver 13. Who is wise and intelligent among you?—The same words occur in LXX. Deu_1:13; Deu_4:6. Heb. çָëָñ åְðָáåֹï . Wisdom is the knowledge of ends acquired by enlightenment; intelligence (or understanding, German, Einsicht—M.), the knowledge of relations acquired by experience and practice [Wisdom is the gift of God, intelligence and knowledge are the results of education.—M.]. The Apostle’s question sounds like an exclamation of the greatest anxiety; it characterizes the desperately bad spiritual situation of Israel. Their few wise and experienced men are to rise and conjure the storm by the wisdom of gentleness.
Let him show out of a good conversation.—James is here more explicit and definite in describing the works to which he had referred as evidences of faith in James 2. Such as flow from a good or beautiful life, in which it develops itself. And in order to remove all doubt concerning the main object he has at heart, he adds emphatically: in meekness of wisdom. We refer this clause to the whole proposition which precedes it: all the works of this good conversation are to culminate in meekness of wisdom.—The deviating construction of Neander: let him show it by his good conduct; “his works in meekness of wisdom” is recommended by a certain vivacity and pregnancy, but requires the verb to be mentally repeated; the áὐôïῦ also would be rather in the way while the demand of the exhibition of works, so common to James, would be rather obscured, áὐôïῦ is based on ôßò , who wants to advance true claims to being wise. Every weakening of the expression ἐí ðñáàôçôé óïößáò either by reading “meek wisdom” (Bede and al.), or “wise meekness” (Laurentius), affects the full sense of the words: the meekness wherein wisdom evidences itself (Wiesinger somewhat different: which is proper to wisdom and proceeds therefrom), see Jam_1:19-20. [Alford: “in that meekness which is the proper attribute of wisdom”—M.]. Wiesinger thinks that it describes the disposition attending the doing; but James obviously calls for the activity of meekness, for meekness itself in corresponding acts. It alone was able to deliver the Jewish Christians as well as the Jews from fanaticism, conjure the storm and save the hope of Israel. See the promise Mat_5:5.
Jam_3:14. But if ye have bitter zeal [emulation].—This was the real situation of affairs and on this account James addresses them