Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 5:12 - 5:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_5:12. The warning contained in this verse against swearing is in no other connection with the preceding than what lay in the conduct of the readers. The Epistle of James was occasioned by manifold faults in the churches, and therefore he could not conclude without referring to the inconsiderate swearing prevalent among them. It is as little indicated that he refers to the warning against abuse of the tongue (chap. 3; Hornejus) as that this swearing arose from impatience, against which the preceding verses are directed (against Gataker, Wiesinger). How important this warning was to the author the words πρὸ πάντων δέ show, by which it is indicated that it of all other exhortations is to be specially taken to heart. James assigns the reason of this in the words ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε .
The warning μὴ ὀμνύετε is more exactly stated in the words μήτε τὸν οὐρανόν , μήτε τὴν γῆν , μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον . It is to be noticed that swearing by the name of God is not mentioned. This is not, as Rauch along with others maintains, to be considered as included in the last member of the clause, but James with μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον has in view only similar formulae as the above, of which several are mentioned in Mat_5:35-36. Had James intended to forbid swearing by the name of God, he would most certainly have expressly mentioned it; for not only is it commanded in the O. T. law, in contradistinction to other oaths (Deu_6:13; Deu_10:20; Psa_63:1-2), but also in the prophets it is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God (Isa_65:16; Jer_12:16; Jer_23:7-8). The omission of this oath shows that James in this warning has in view only the abuse, common among the Jews generally and also among his readers, of introducing in the common every-day affairs of life, instead of the simple yea or nay, such asseverations as those here mentioned; so that we are not justified in deducing from his words an absolute prohibition of swearing in general,[236] as has been done by many expositors of our Epistle, and especially by Oecumenius, Bede, Erasmus, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile, de Wette, Neander (comp. also Meyer on Mat_5:33 ff.); whereas Calvin, Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, Pott, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Schneckenburger, Kern, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange,[237] and others, refer James’ prohibition to light and trifling oaths. The use of oaths by heaven etc., arises, on the one hand, from forgetting that every oath, in its deeper significance, is a swearing by God; and, on the other hand, from a depreciation of the simple word, thus from a frivolity which is in direct contrast to the earnestness of the Christian disposition. The construction of ὀμνύειν with the accusative τὸν οὐρανόν , etc., is in accordance with classical usage, whereas the construction with ἐν and εἴς (in Matt.) is according to Hebraistic usage.
To the prohibition James opposes the command with the words ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ , which do not express a new exhortation (Schneckenburger), but the contrast to ὀμνύειν τὸν οὐρανόν , etc. Most expositors (Theophylact, Oecumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Kern, Stier, and others) find here a command to truthfulness expressed; but incorrectly, as in the foregoing μὴ ὀμνύετε a reference to the contrast between truth and falsehood is not in question at all. De Wette correctly explains it: “let your yea be (a simple) yea, and your nay (a simple) nay” (so also Estius, Piscator, Hottinger, Neander, Wiesinger, and others; comp. Al. Buttmann, p. 142 [E. T. 163]).[238] Not the sentiment itself, but its form only is different from Mat_5:37 (see Tholuck and Meyer in loco).
The form ἤτω (1Co_16:22; Psa_104:31, LXX.) instead of ἔστω is found in classical Greek only once in Plato, Rep. ii. p. 361 (see Buttmann, Ausführl. Gr. § 108, Remark 15 [E. T. 49]; Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 95]).
ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε ] assigns the reason why one should not swear, but should be satisfied with the simple yea or nay. According to its meaning, the expression is equivalent to ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε , Jam_5:9. There is nothing strange in πίπτειν ὑπό ]; comp. 2Sa_22:39; Psa_18:39. By κρίσις is to be understood judicium condemnatorium. The swearing forbidden by James subjects to the judgment, because it is founded on and in every instance promotes frivolity.
[236] Rauch says: “One should give honour to the truth, and freely and without prejudice recognise that according to the clear words of the text here, as in Mat_5:34 ff., a general and unconditional prohibition of all oaths is expressed.” To this it is replied that honour is given to the truth when one is not taken by appearance, but seeks without prejudice to comprehend the actual meaning. In opposition to the view that Christ by the prohibition of oaths, in Mat_5:33 ff., has in view the ideal condition of the church, Wiesinger with justice observes: “It can no longer be said, in reference to our passage, that only an ideal requirement is expressed calculated for entirely different circumstances than those which were in reality, for there can be no doubt that James demands for his requirement complete practice under the actual and not the ideal circumstances of his readers.”
[237] Lange by this understands more exactly: “conspiracy, which is a swearing accompanied by hypothetical imprecations or the giving of a pledge.” Moreover, his view of the design of the Epistle misled him to find the reason of this prohibition in Jewish zeal to enter into conspiracies.
[238] Lange would unite the two points together; and he is so far not in the wrong, as James presupposes truthfulness.