Jam_1:8 contains neither the subject to
λήμψεται
(Baumgarten), nor is it to be understood as an exclamation = vae homini inconstanti (Pott). Many expositors consider
ἀνὴρ
δίψυχος
as the subject and
ἀκατάστατος
the predicate, wanting the copula (Luther: “a doubter is unstable;” so Calvin, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Lange, and others); but according to this construction the idea
δίψυχος
falls too much into the background, and also the train of thought would be too unconnected. It is better to take both
ἀνὴρ
δίψυχος
and
ἀκατάστατος
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. as in apposition to
ὁ
ἄνθρωπος
ἐκεῖνος
. It is true that the character of the doubter has already been given in Jam_1:6 by
ἔοικε
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., but, on the one hand, only figuratively, and, on the other hand, without giving prominence to his ethical character, which James now introduces in order strongly to confirm the thought expressed in Jam_1:7; which exposition is far from being “a feeble tautology” (Lange). Less stress is to be put on the want of the article (Schneckenburger, de Wette), as it would be here hardly suitable. Correctly Winer, p. 497 [E. T. 670]: “he, a double-minded man;” so also Wiesinger, Brückner, Bouman, and others. Only according to this construction is the full meaning given to the idea
δίψυχος
. The word is not to be taken merely as another expression for
διακρινόμενος
(Luther, Beza, Grotius, Cremer, and others; Luther directly renders it “a doubter”), but it characterizes the inward nature of the doubter. According to the mode in which
δισώματος
,
δικάρδιος
,
δίγλωσσος
, and similar words are formed,
δίψυχος
(which occurs neither in the classics nor in the LXX. and the Apocrypha, but besides here only in chap. Jam_4:8, and the Church Fathers) properly denotes having two souls; it thus describes the doubter as a man who has, as it were, two souls contending against each other: one of which is turned to God, and one of which is turned away from God (thus to the world); who, accordingly, will be at the same time
φίλος
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
and
φίλος
τοῦ
κόσμου
, although
φιλία
τοῦ
κόσμου
is
ἔχθρα
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
(chap. Jam_4:6).[54] This double-mindedness (or what is the same thing, division of soul) expresses the wavering to and fro, between
ΠΊΣΤΙς
and
ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ
generally, so particularly also in prayer; therefore it is called, Constitut. Ap. vii. 11:
μὴ
γίνου
δίψυχος
ἐν
προσευχῇ
εἰ
ἔσται
,
ἢ
οὐ
, and Clemens Romanus:
ταλαίπωροι
οἱ
δίψυχοι
,
οἱ
διστάζοντες
τὴν
ψυχήν
; comp. Sir_1:28 :
μὴ
προσέλθῃς
αὐτῷ
(
κυρίῳ
)
ἐκ
καρδίᾳ
δίσσῃ
.
δίψυχον
εἶναι
is to be understood neither as the reason (Wiesinger) nor as the result (Lange), but as the characteristic nature of
διακρίνεσθαι
.
The word
ἀνήρ
is here as in Mat_7:24; Psa_32:2, LXX. Lange thinks that James used it because the dangers of which he warns them are more especially the dangers which threaten the men among the Jews.
As a second apposition James adds:
ἈΚΑΤΆΣΤΑΤΟς
ἘΝ
ΠΑΣΑῖς
ΤΑῖς
ὍΔΟΙς
ΑὙΤΟῦ
] for where there is a want of unity in the internal life, it is also wanting in the external conduct. The
ΔΊΨΥΧΟς
, being actuated sometimes by one impulse and sometimes by another, is unsteady and inconstant in his intentions and actions (
ἘΝ
ΤΑῖς
ὍΔΟΙς
ΑὙΤΟῦ
; comp. Psa_91:11; Jer_16:17; Pro_3:6, etc.); he walks not on one path, but as it is said in Sir_2:12 :
ἐπιβαίνει
ἐπὶ
δύο
τρίβους
.[55] The word
ἀκατάστατος
is found only again in chap. Jam_3:8 and in the LXX. Isa_54:11 as the translation of
ñÉòÅø
; the substantive
ἀκαταστασία
occurs in chap. Jam_3:16, besides in Luke and in the Epistles to the Corinthians.
The reason why the doubter is not heard is accordingly the disunion in which he is with himself, both in his internal and in his external life; God gives the heavenly gift of wisdom, which according to its nature is
ἁγνή
, only to him who
ἐν
ὅλῃ
τῇ
ψυχῇ
(Mat_22:37), has given to God an undivided disposition.
[54] Oecumenius limits the idea too specifically to a care divided about the present and the future:
δίψυχον
ἄνδρα
τὸν
ἀνεπέρειστον
,
τὸν
ἀστήρικτον
λέγει
,
τὸν
μήτε
πρὸς
τὰ
μέλλοντα
παγίως
,
μήτε
πρὸς
τὰ
πάροντα
ἀσφαλῶς
ἡδρασμένον
,
ἀλλὰ
τῇδε
κακεῖσε
ἀγόμενον
καὶ
περιφερόμενον
,
καὶ
ποτὲ
μὲν
τῶν
μελλόντων
,
ποτὲ
δὲ
τῶν
παρόντων
ἀντεχόμενον
. In the classics related ideas are
διάνδιχα
μερμερίζειν
, Hom. Il. i. 189, and frequently:
διάνδιχα
θυμὸν
ἔχειν
, Hesiod, O. 13;
ψυχὴ
ἀνάρμοστος
, Phaed. 93 c (opp.
ψυχὴ
ὁμονοητική
, Pl. Resp. viii. 554), etc. In the Hebrew,
áÌÀìÅá
åÈìÅá
, so in 1Ch_12:33, where
áÌÀìÉàÎìÅá
åÈìÅá
is equivalent to
áÌÀìÅáÈá
ùÑÈìÅí
, ver. 38; that expression has another meaning in Psa_12:3.
[55] Schneckenburger incorrectly explains
ἀποκατάστατος
here of the fate of the doubter: parum constautiae experitur in omnibus, quae ipsi contingunt, sua culpa sorte varia conflictatur, and
ὄδος
= fortuna; also Heisen at least includes this idea: omnia vitae consilia ac facta quin et fata. This certainly is a possible explanation in itself, but it does not suit the context. The meaning attached to the word by Lange, “seditious disturber,” cannot be proved to be correct by Jam_3:16.