Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 3:9 - 3:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
are closely connected with the foregoing; but not as if “the unstedfastness of the tongue is further described” (de Wette), nor as if the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the purpose of prominently showing how the tongue, although it praises God, yet proves itself to be an ἀκατάστατον κάκον , μεστὴ τοῦ θανατ
Jam_3:9-10 are closely connected with the foregoing; but not as if “the unstedfastness of the tongue is further described” (de Wette), nor as if the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the purpose of prominently showing how the tongue, although it praises God, yet proves itself to be an ἀκατάστατον κάκον , μεστὴ τοῦ θανατ . It is to be observed that this expression, as the first person plural shows, refers to Christians among whom the εὐλογεῖν τὸν κύριον occurs. James does not hesitate to include himself, knowing that naturally he was entirely the same as others.[177] James first places beside each other, by a simple copulative conjunction, the two contradictory acts which man performs by the tongue, namely, the εὐλογεῖν τὸν κύριον and the καταρᾶσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους . The preposition ἐν is instrumental, as in Luk_22:29 and elsewhere. By the repetition of ἐν αὐτῇ in the second clause, the antithesis is yet more strongly marked. εὐλογεῖν and καταρᾶσθαι are correlate expressions, since the former, as the translation of the Hebrew áÌÅøÅêÀ , has properly the meaning “to bless;” in reference to God, as here, it means laudibus celebrare, to praise; comp. Psa_145:21, and other passages.
The combination of τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα (instead of the Rec. ΤῸΝ ΘΕῸΝ Κ . Π .) as a designation of God (for by ΚΎΡΙΟς is not here to be understood Christ) is unusual; comp. chap. Jam_1:27. This twofold name designates God on the side of His power and on the side of His love (comp. Mat_11:25).
In the second clause the important description: ΤΟῪς ΚΑΘʼ ὉΜΟΊΩΣΙΝ ΘΕΟῦ ΓΕΓΟΝΌΤΑς , is annexed to ΤΟῪς ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥς , by which the contradiction of the action described still more pointedly appears. The thought and expression agree with Gen_1:26. Also, according to this, sinful man is still a being created after the image of God. Were the expression merely to be referred to what man originally was, but which he has ceased to be, the point of James’ saying would be broken. Bengel correctly observes: remanet nobilitas indelebilis. Benson, Pott, Gebser, and Semler arbitrarily restrict the contents of this verse to the conduct of those who set themselves up as teachers.[178]
[177] Lange finds a difficulty in James including himself, “which is to be solved either by taking the second clause as a question expressive of surprise, or by hearing James speak as the representative of his people in the name of the guilty people.” But both suppositions are equally impossible; the context contradicts the first, and the fact that James could have no reason to consider himself as the representative of the Jewish people contradicts the second.
[178] Semler’s view is very strange: hi inter publicas Dei laudes, etiam exsecrationes et tristia omnia praeibant in Romanis! It is equally a mistake when Lange refers the expression chiefly to Christians, and specially to Jewish Christians, “in whom the likeness of God, that is, the actuality and visibility of the image, has reappeared.”