Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 4:11 - 4:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_4:11. Without any indication of a connection with the preceding, James passes to a new exhortation, which, however, is so far closely attached to the preceding, inasmuch as humiliation before God carries with itself humility toward our brethren. From the fact that this exhortation, although decidedly earnest, has yet undeniably a milder character than the former, and that James uses here the address ἀδελφοί , whereas before it was μοιχαλίδες , ἁμαρτωλοί , δίψυχοι ,[201] it is to be inferred that James now addresses, at least primarily, those who by the worldly ways of others felt induced to do those things against which he here exhorts them.
μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων ] καταλαλεῖν only here and in 1Pe_2:12; 1Pe_3:16 (the substantive in 2Co_12:20; the adjective in Rom_1:30; 1Pe_2:1), to speak in a hostile manner against one; Luther, “to slander:” ἀλλήλων ] against each other. Estius, Semler, Pott, Gebser, Hottinger incorrectly restrict the exhortation to teachers.[202]
ὁ καταλαλῶν κ . τ . λ . assigns the reason of the exhortation. The two ideas καταλαλῶν and κρίνων are indeed closely connected, but are not equivalent, since καταλαλεῖν presupposes κρίνειν ; they are here indicated as distinct ideas by ἤ .
By the addition ἀδελφοῦ not only is the reprehensibleness of καταλαλεῖν emphasized (Schneckenburger: jam hoc vocabulo, quantum peccatur καταλαλιαῖς , submonet), but also the reason is given for the sentiment here expressed καταλαλεῖ νόμου . By αὐτοῦ added to τὸν ἀδελφόν this is brought out more strongly, whilst also the brotherly union is more distinctly marked than by the simple ἀδελφοῦ ; incorrectly Bengel: fraterna aequalitas laeditur obtrectando; sed magis judicando.
καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον ] By νόμος the same law is here meant as in chap. Jam_1:25, Jam_2:9, etc.: the law of Christian life, which according to its contents is none other than the law of love, to which ἀδελφοῦ and τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ already point. By reviling and condemning one’s brother, the law of love itself is reviled and condemned, whilst it is thereby disclaimed as not lawfully existing, and, as may be added, its tendency to save and not to destroy is condemned (Lange). The explanation of de Wette, that there is here a kind of play of words, in which is contained only the idea of contempt and disregard of the law, is unsatisfactory.[203] Grotius, Baumgarten, Hottinger quite erroneously understand by νόμος the Christian doctrine, and find therein expressed the sentiment, that whosoever imposes upon his neighbour arbitrary commandments designates the Christian doctrine as defective, and in so far sets himself up as its judge.[204]
With the following words: εἰ δὲ νόμον κρίνεις κ . τ . λ ., the further consequence is added: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, out a judge.
The particle δέ serves to carry on the thought: ΟὐΚ ΕἾ ΠΟΙΗΤῊς ΝΌΜΟΥ , i.e. thou thereby departest from the attitude which becomes thee; for the law is given to man that he might do it, but whosoever thinks he has right against the law, cannot be a doer of it, and consequently assumes a position which does not belong to him (Wiesinger), which position is, as the sequel says, ἀλλὰ κριτής . Baumgarten, Gebser, Neander, Wiesinger, Lange, and others supply the genitive ΝΌΜΟΥ to ΚΡΙΤΉς ; incorrectly, for (1) this would make this sentence and the one preceding it tautological; (2) it dilutes the idea ΚΡΙΤΉς in its contrast to ΠΟΙΗΤῊς ΝΌΜΟΥ ; and (3) the sequel which is added to this idea ΚΡΊΤΗς , adverts not to the judging of the law, but to the judging of the man. The meaning is: Whosoever judges the law constitutes himself a judge, giving a law according to which he judges or pronounces sentence upon his neighbour. But this is not the province of man. The following verse tells the reason why it is not so.
[201] Lange incorrectly observes that there is no reason to see here a transition from one class to another. But it is not here maintained that James has in view a sharply exclusive distinction of different classes of his readers.
[202] Wiesinger correctly says that we are not here to think of a contest between Jewish and Gentile Christians; Lange incorrectly asserts that the primary reference here is to the internal divisions of Judaism.
[203] The opinion of Stier is mistaken: “Whoever improperly and officiously notes and deals with the sins of other men, throws blame thereby upon the law of God, as if it were not sufficient; for he acts as if he supposed it necessary to come to the help of the law.”
[204] Lange, in accordance with his view, supposes the reference to be to the Jewish ceremonial law, although he does not explain νόμος as equivalent to doctrine. Also Bouman thinks that James has here in view the judicia de aliena conscientia; but James does not indicate that among his readers disputes took place de sabbati veneratione, de licito vel illicito ciborum usu, etc. Augustine here arbitrarily assumes an attack upon the Gentile Christians. Correctly Laurentius: Is qui detrahit proximo, detrahit legi, quia lex prohibet omnem detractionem, sed et judicat idem legem, quia hoc ipso quod contra prohibitionem legis detrahit, judicat quasi, legem non recte prohibuisse.