James 3:9

Jam_3:9; Jam_3:12

Therewith bless we God

The moral contradictions in the reckless talker

In these concluding sentences of the paragraph respecting sins of the tongue St.

James does two things--he shows the moral chaos to which the Christian who fails to control his tongue is reduced, and he thereby shows such a man how vain it is for him to hope that the worship which he offers to Almighty God can be pure and acceptable. He has made himself the channel of hellish influences. He cannot at pleasure make himself the channel of heavenly influences, or become the offerer of holy sacrifices. A man who curses his fellow-men, and then blesses God, is like one who professes the profoundest respect for his sovereign, while he insults the royal family, throws mud at the royal portraits, and ostentatiously disregards the royal wishes. It is further proof of the evil character of the tongue that it is capable of lending itself to such chaotic activity. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father, i.e., God in His might and in His love; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God. The heathen fable tells us the apparent contradiction of being able to blow both hot and cold with the same breath; and the son of Sirach points out that if thou blow the spark, it shall burn; if thou Spit upon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of thy mouth (Sir_28:12). St. James, who may have had this passage in his mind, shows us that there is a real and a moral contradiction which goes far beyond either of these: Out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness, My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Assuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has been, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think themselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in which persons professing to have a desire to serve God are more ready to invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce those who differ from themselves, and are supposed to be therefore under the ban of Heaven. There are many questions which have to be carefully considered and answered before a Christian mouth, which has been consecrated to the praise of our Lord and Father, ought to venture to utter denunciations against others who worship the same God and are also His offspring and His image. Is it quite certain that the supposed evil is something which God abhors; that those whom we would denounce are responsible for it; that denunciation of them will do any good; that this is the proper time for such denunciation; that we are the proper persons to utter it? The illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the touches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with Palestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of this Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are not rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern slope of the hill-country of Judaea are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and the olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and St. James, if he looked out of the window as he was writing, would be likely enough to see all three. It is not improbable that in one or more of the illustrations he is following some ancient saying or proverb. Thus, Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a century later, asks, How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It is impossible, inconceivable. It is possible that our Lord Himself, when He used a similar illustration in connection with the worst of all sins of the tongue, was adapting a proverb already in use (Mat_12:33-36). And previously, in the Sermon on the Mount, where He is speaking of deeds rather than of Mat_7:16-18). Can it be the case that while physical contradictions are not permitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral contradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of all earthly creatures? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his doubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is judged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one or the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is prayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no prayer--no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other case: if God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no cursing of His children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot acceptably be blessed; the very words of praise, coming from such lips, will be an offence to Him. But it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of strong denunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes and Pharisees; and again, St. Paul cursed Hymensaeus and Alexander (1Ti_1:20), the incestuous person at Corinth (1Co_5:5), and Elymas the sorcerer Act_13:10). Most true. But firstly, these curses were uttered by those who could not err in such things. Christ knew what was in man, and could read the hearts of all; and the fact that St. Pauls curses were supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was acting under Divine guidance in what he said. And secondly, these stern utterances had their source in love; not, as human curses commonly have, in hate. And let us remember the proportion which such things bear to the rest of Christs words and of St. Pauls words, so far as they have been preserved for us. All this applies with much force to those who believe themselves to be called upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to them to be enemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force to those who in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on their own account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems to them to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves! That such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer acceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral contradiction of the most startling kind. The writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has been urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty of that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the case is over-stated, and that the highly-coloured picture is a caricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that can honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief may be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado; what confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood; what suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements; what careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy jests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single utterance in each case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years. One reckless word may blight whole life. And there are persons who habitually pour forth such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or false, or impure. (A. Plummer, D. D.)

The tongue--its blessing and cursing

I. THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE TONGUE.

1. Its blessing of God. This is the great end for which the human tongue exists--this the highest employment in which it can be engaged. We do this in various ways. We thus bless Him in our praises. These are sung either more privately in our own dwellings or more publicly in the sanctuary. He requires, above everything, the soul, but He will have the body also; the members and organs of the one, not less than the faculties and affections of the other. We thus bless God also in our prayers, whether these be secret, domestic, or public. In them adoring and thankful praises constitute no small or subordinate element. We extol the Lord for His infinite perfections, we give Him the glory due unto His great and holy name. We testify our obligations to Him for His mercies without number, and lay offerings of grateful homage on His altar.

2. Its cursing of men. Even the most orthodox and charitable Christians are not wholly exempt from this tendency. We are far too ready to pass sentence on our brethren, and in effect, if not in form, to curse such as do not happen to agree with us in some respects, and these, it may be, of quite secondary importance. Everything of this sort is of the nature of cursing--it partakes in one degree or another of that character. And mark the aggravating circumstance, that which involves the frightful inconsistency charged against the tongue--men, which are made after the similitude of God. We were at first created in His image, stamped with His moral lineaments in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. And in a sense too, as the, language here obviously implies, we still bear that likeness. Such cursing is in reality a cursing of God Himself whom we yet bless--a cursing of Him in man, who is not only His workmanship, but His reflection, His image--not merely a being formed by His hand, but formed after His likeness. We cannot keep the first table of the law, and at the same time set at nought the second. The strangely, outrageously inconsistent nature of the whole proceeding is still more forcibly exhibited by bringing the two contrary things together, placing them side by side, presenting them in sharpest contrast (Jam_3:10). There it is that the flagrant, shocking contradiction appears.

II. THE UNNATURALNESS OF THIS INCONSISTENCY (Jam_3:11-12). Doth a fountain send forth at the same place--the same hole, chink, or fissure, as in the rock whence it issues--sweet water and bitter? No--nothing of this kind is ever witnessed. The water which flows from the spring may have either, but it cannot have both of these qualities. It may indeed afterwards undergo a change, it may lose its original properties, and be turned into the opposite of what it was, by reason of the soil through which it runs, or the purposes to which it is applied. What was sweet may by certain mixtures become bitter. But at first, in its own nature, and apart from all foreign ingredients, it is wholly the one or the other. There is no inconsistency in the material region. He passes to a higher department, the vegetable kingdom, and shows that there too plants and trees bring forth a single kind of fruit, and that which is suited to the order, the species to which they belong. Can the fig-tree, my brethren, bear olive-berries, either a vine figs? Of course it cannot. Any such thing would be a monstrosity. Titan, returning to the spring, not without reference to the internal, hidden source from which all our words proceed, be adds, So can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. He wishes to fix attention on the inconsistency manifested in the use of the tongue, and lead them to the right explanation of its origin. This anomaly does seem to be exhibited in the moral world, if not in the material. But it is so more in appearance than in reality. That water is often the same which looks different. What to some tastes and tests is fresh, when thoroughly examined, is found to be salt as the ocean. Much that to our earthly senses is sweet, to the spiritually-discerning is bitter indeed. Thus the blessing of many is formal, if not even false, having nothing gracious in it, no love or homage of the heart, no element or quality fitted to render it acceptable to the great object of worship. In its origin and essence it is not opposed to, nor, indeed, different from the cursing of man, with which it is associated. The latter reveals the true nature of the common source, or there may be two fountains where only one is perceptible. The former supposition applies to nominal and hypocritical Christians--this latter to living, genuine believers. They have an old man and a new, corruption and grace both existing and working within them; and as the one or the other gains the ascendancy, and, for the time, governs the tongue, the stream of discourse that issues from it is wholesome or deleterious--fresh as that of the bubbling spring, or salt as that of the briny deep. (John Adam.)

The evil tongue

St. James uses three special arguments to restrain Christians from the unruly use of the tongue: the first is the inconsistency of the thing--that the heart touched by the Holy Spirit should do the works of the flesh--that the fountain which hath been purified should again flow with bitter waters and the servants of Christ should serve Belial We have promised to study the strains of angels, and become familiar with and adopt them as our own; so that instead of being now a Babel of confusion, the Church may utter but one language in the presence of the Lamb; and how very inconsistent that from such lips cursing should proceed--how very inconsistent if any of you who have been now repeating Davids psalms, the notes of heaven, should to-morrow be found uttering an oath, or even using a passionate expression. It is bad enough for one who only professes Christianity to use the language of the devil, but it is a greater inconsistency when out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing--when you, the same person, bless God, yet curse His image. Let the wicked do it; the heathen who is without God, and without Christ, if it must be. He that is unjust, &c. But a Christian man--a man who has been baptized into the Holy Trinity; a man who readsthe Bible, and comes into Gods house and worships there: a man who joins himself to the company of the saints, dead and living, and takes into his mouth the same words, the same prayers, the same Scripture passages with them;--nay, the man who perhaps approaches the awful mystery of the Body and Blood of His Lord;-that from such a mouth should proceed the gibes and imprecations of lost spirits, is it not shockingly inconsistent? Next, St. James reminds us of the consequences both to others and ourselves. Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth, awed the tongue is a fire. How far may a single spark dropped among stubble reach! Bow does it steal along the floor, creep up the wall, envelop the roof, spread from house to house, and seize churches and noble buildings, till it wrap a whole city in conflagration! So does a single word dropped unadvisedly. If a soft answer turneth away wrath, on the other hand grievous words stir up anger. If you reply quietly to a provocation, or refuse to answer, the quarrel dies; but one word draws on another, and wrath kindleth wrath; and that is made eternal which might have been extinguished if only one had been a Christian. You see, then, how great a matter a little fire kindleth. Is it surprising if of every idle word we shall give an account at the judgment? But again, you say something injurious of your neighbour. There is a little truth in it, but much more falsehood. It has been added to, and enlarged, and swollen into a crime. But you repeat it. The story spreads. It is told everywhere, and though it wounds your neighbour to death, and from the calumny he loses all acquaintances and friends, yet you cannot recall it now. See how great a matter a little fire kindleth. Again, you utter impure words before a child, the child treasures them up all through his life; though he lives sixty or seventy years, unhappy being, his thoughts and language take their complexion from your words; but besides, to how many has lie communicated what he first heard from you! Mark again, how great a little fire kindleth. Surely the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity, and setteth on fire the course of nature. To conclude: if we will not restrain our members by the aid of Gods Spirit, and especially that member which St. Peter calls an unruly evil, full of deadly poison; if we will, in the indulgence of a wilful spirit, scatter firebrands about, unkind, malicious, polluting, or injurious words, wide-spread as the evil may be, will it stop short with others? No, it will return upon ourselves; which setteth on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire of hell. The fire which hath gone forth spreading and consuming, at the judgment hour is stopped in its course, and rolling back again is concentrated on the tongue which gave it existence. You who uttered the word, which has done such mischief to thousands, and ruined so many souls, now feel its burning effects in your own person. Ought not this to make you careful of your words, those winged words, which once launched forth take a flight you know not whither? (J. M. Chaunter, M. A.)

Made after the similitude of God

Man made after Gods image

This image of God consisteth in three things--

1. In His nature, which was intellectual. God gave him a rational soul, spiritual, simple, immortal, free in its choice; yea, in the body there were some rays and strictures of the Divine glory and majesty.

2. In those qualities of knowledge (Col_3:10); righteousness Ecc_7:29); and true holiness (Eph_4:24).

3. In his state, in a happy confluence of all inward and outward blessings, as the enjoyment of God, power over the creatures, &c. But now this image is in a great part defaced and lost, and can only be restored in Christ. Well, then, this was the g, eat privilege of our creation, to be made like God: the more we resemble Him the more happy. Oh! remember the height of your original. We press men to walk worthy of their extraction. Those potters that were of a servile spirit disgraced the kingly family and line of which they came (1Ch_4:22). Plutarch saith of Alexander, that he was wont to heighten his courage by remembering he came of the gods. Remember you were made after the image of God; do not deface it in yourselves, or render it liable to contempt, by giving others occasion to revile you. (T. Manton.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 3:9-10. Therewith bless we God — That is, therewith mankind bless God; for the apostle, as appears from the next clause, did not speak of himself particularly, or of his fellow-apostles, or even of true private Christians, who certainly do not curse men. Perhaps in this last clause he glanced at the unconverted Jews, who often cursed the Christians bitterly in their synagogues. Made after the similitude of God — Which we have indeed now lost, but yet there remains from thence an indelible nobleness, which we ought to reverence, both in ourselves and others. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing — And the same tongue is often the instrument of expressing both; and “too frequently,” says Doddridge, “when the act of devotion is over, the act of slander, or outrage and insult, commences.” My brethren, these things ought not so to be — At least among those who profess Christianity; it is a shame that any such thing should be found in human nature; and it is a still greater shame that any thing of the kind should be practised by any that profess to be the disciples of Him who was manifested to destroy the works of the devil.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. This wildness of the tongue is now (9-12) shown by the contrariety of its moral uses. We—In Jas_3:9-10 our apostle passes beyond the limits of the Christian synagogue into the length and breadth of the twelve tribes. And his we includes himself, by courtesy, even among the profane users of the tongue.

Bless we God—Applicable to all Jews, and indicating that his address does go little beyond the monotheistic twelve tribes. A preferred reading is Lord for God.

Even the Father—Creator of man in his own image. The twelve tribes did not fully recognise the Son.

Curse…men—Especially at these times did the tribes curse their Roman conquerors and despots.

Similitude of God—And so to curse as well as to murder (Gen_1:26; Gen_9:6) is aggravated by that similitude.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 15

THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER.

Jam_3:9-12

IN these concluding sentences of the paragraph respecting sins of the tongue St. James does two things-he shows the moral chaos to which the Christian who fails to control his tongue is reduced, and he thereby shows such a man how vain it is for him to hope that the worship which he offers to Almighty God can be pure and acceptable. He has made himself the channel of hellish influences. He cannot at pleasure make himself the channel of heavenly influences, or become the offerer of holy sacrifices. The fires of Pentecost will not rest where the fires of Gehenna are working, nor can one who has become the minister of Satan at the same time be a minister to offer praise to God.

When those who would have excused themselves for their lack of good works pleaded the correctness of their faith, St. James told them that such faith was barren and dead, and incapable of saving them from condemnation. Similarly, the man who thinks himself to be religious, and does not bridle his tongue, was told that his religion is vain. {Jam_1:26} And in the passage before us St. James explains how that is. His religion or religious worship (θρησκεια) is a mockery and a contradiction. The offering is tainted; it comes from a polluted altar and a polluted priest. A man who curses his fellow-men and then blesses God, is like one who professes the profoundest respect for his sovereign, while he insults the royal family, throws mud at the royal portraits, and ostentatiously disregards the royal wishes. It is further proof of the evil character of the tongue that it is capable of lending itself to such chaotic activity. "Therewith bless we the Lord and Father," i.e., God in His might and in His love"; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God." The heathen fable tells us the apparent contradiction of being able to blow both hot and cold with the same breath; and the son of Sirach points out that "if thou blow the spark, it shall burn; if thou spit upon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of thy mouth" (Ecclus. 28:12). St. James, who may have had this passage in his mind, shows us that there is a real and a moral contradiction which goes far beyond either of these: "Out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing." Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness, "My brethren, these things ought not so be."

Assuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has been, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think themselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in which persons professing to have a desire to serve God are more ready to invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce those who differ from themselves, and are supposed to be, therefore, under the ban of Heaven. "They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they do not subject themselves to the righteousness of God". {Rom_10:2-3} Hence they rashly and intemperately "curse whom the Lord hath not cursed, and defy whom the Lord hath not defied". {Num_23:8} There are still many who believe that not only in the psalms and hymns in which they bless the Lord, but also in the sermons and pamphlets in which they fulminate against their fellow-Christians, they are offering service to. {Joh_16:2} There are many questions which have to be carefully considered and answered before a Christian mouth, which has been consecrated to the praise of our Lord and Father, ought to venture to utter denunciations against others who worship the same God and are also His offspring and His image. Is it quite certain that the supposed evil is something which God abhors; that those whom we would denounce are responsible for it; that denunciation of them will do any good; that this is the proper time for such denunciation; that we are the proper persons to utter it? About every one of these questions the most fatal mistakes are constantly being made. The singing of Te Deums after massacres and dragonnades is perhaps no longer possible; but alternations between religious services and religious prosecutions, between writing pious books and publishing exasperating articles, are by no means extinct. For one case in which harm has been done because no one has come forward to denounce a wrongdoer, there are ten cases in which harm has been done because someone has been indiscreetly, or inopportunely, or uncharitably, or unjustly denounced. "Praise is not seasonable (ωραιος) in the mouth of a sinner" (Ecclus. 15:9); and whatever may have been the writers meaning in the difficult passage in which it occurs, we may give it a meaning that will bring it into harmony with what St. James says here. The praise of God is not seasonable in the mouth of one who is ever sinning in reviling Gods children.

The illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the touches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with Palestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of this Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are not rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern slope of the hill-country of Judea are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and the olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and St. James, if he looked out of the window as he was writing, would be likely enough to see all three. It is not improbable that in one or more of the illustrations he is following some ancient saying or proverb. Thus, Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a century later, asks, "How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It is impossible, inconceivable." It is possible that our Lord Himself, when He used a similar illustration in connection with the worst of all sins of the tongue, was adapting a proverb already in use. In speaking of "the blasphemy against the Spirit," He says, "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things; and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. And I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment". {Mat_12:33-36} And previously, in the Sermon on the Mount, where He was speaking of deeds rather than of words, "By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit". {Mat_7:16-18}

Can it be the case that while physical contradictions are not permitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral contradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of all earthly creatures? The "double-minded man," who prays and doubts, receives nothing from the Lord, because his petition is only in form a prayer; it lacks the essential characteristic of prayer, which is faith. But the double-tongued man, who blesses God and curses men, what does he receive? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his doubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is judged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one or the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is prayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no prayer-no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other case: if God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no cursing of His children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot acceptably be blessed; the very words of praise, coming from such lips, will be an offense to Him.

But it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of strong denunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes and Pharisees; and again, St. Paul cursed Hymenaeus and Alexander, {1Ti_1:20} the incestuous person at Corinth, {1Co_5:5} and Elymas the sorcerer. {Act_13:10} Most true. But firstly, these curses were uttered by those who could not err in such things. Christ "knew what was in man," and could read the hearts of all; and the fact that St. Pauls curses were supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was acting under Divine guidance in what he said. And secondly, these stern utterances had their source in love; not, as human curses commonly have, in hate. It was in order that those on whom they were pronounced might be warned, and schooled to better things, that they were uttered; and we know that in the case of the sinner at Corinth the severe remedy had this effect; the curse was really a blessing. When we have infallible guidance, and when we are able by supernatural results to prove that we possess it, it will be time enough to begin to deal in curses. And let us remember the proportion which such things bear to the rest of Christs words and of St. Pauls words, so far as they have been preserved for us. Christ wrought numberless miracles of mercy: besides those which are recorded in detail, we are frequently told that "He healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils"; {Mar_1:34} that "He had healed"; {Mar_3:10} that "wheresoever He entered, into villages or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the market-places, and besought Him that they might touch if it were but the border of His garment; and as many as touched Him were made whole"; {Mar_6:56} and so forth. {Joh_21:25} But he wrought only one miracle of judgment, and that was upon a tree, which could teach the necessary lesson without feeling the punishment. {Mar_11:12-23} All this applies with much force to those who believe themselves to be called upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to them to be enemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force to those who in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on their own account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems to them to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves! That such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer acceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral contradiction of the most startling kind. And are such cases rare? Is it so uncommon a thing for a man to attend Church regularly, and join with apparent devotion in the services, and yet think little of the grievous words which he allows himself to utter when his temper is severely tried? How amazed and offended he would be if he were invited to eat at a table which had been used for some disgusting purpose, and had never since been cleansed! And yet he does not hesitate to "defile his whole body" with his unbridled tongue, and then offer praise to God from this polluted source!

Nor is this the only contradiction in which such a one is involved. How strange that the being who is lord and master of all the animal creation should be unable to govern himself! How strange that mans chief mark of superiority over the brutes should be the power of speech, and that he should use this power in such a way as to make it the instrument of his own degradation, until he becomes lower than the brutes! They, whether tamed or untamed, unconsciously declare the glory of God; while he with his noble powers of consciously and loyally praising Him, by his untamed tongue reviles those who are made after the image of God, and thus turns his own praises into blasphemies. Thus does mans rebellion reverse the order of nature and frustrate the will of God.

The writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has been urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty of that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the case is overstated, and that the highly-colored picture is a caricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that can honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief may be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado; what confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood; what suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements; what careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy jests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single utterance in this case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years. One reckless word may blight a whole life. "Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue" (Ecclus. 28:18). And there are persons who habitually pour forth such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or false, or impure. When we look around us and see the moral ruin which in every class of society can be traced to reckless language-lives embittered, and blighted, and brutalized by words spoken and heard-can we wonder at the severe words of St. James, whose experience was not very different from our own? Violent and uncharitable language had become one of the besetting sins of the Jews, and no doubt Jewish Christians were by no means free from it. "Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued," says the son of Sirach, "for such have destroyed many that were at peace" (Ecclus. 28:13). To which the Syriac Version adds a clause not given in the Greek, nor in our Bibles: "Also the third tongue, let it be cursed; for it has laid low many corpses." This expression, "third tongue," seems to have come into use among the Jews in the period between the Old and New Testament. It means a slanderous tongue, and it is called "third" because it is fatal to three sets of people-to the person who utters the slander, to those who listen to it, and to those about whom it is uttered. "A third tongue hath tossed many to and fro, and driven them from nation to nation; and strong cities hath it pulled down, and houses of great men hath it overthrown" (Ecclus. 28:14); where not only the Syriac, but the Greek, has the interesting expression "third tongue," a fact obscured in our version.

The "third tongue" is as common and as destructive now as when the son of Sirach denounced it, or St. James wrote against it with still greater authority; and we all of us can do a great deal to check the mischief, not merely by taking care that we keep our own tongues from originating evil, but by refusing to repeat, or if possible even to listen to, what the third tongue says. Our unwillingness to hear may be a discouragement to the speaker, and our refusal to repeat will at least lessen the evil of his tale. We shall have saved ourselves from becoming links in the chain of destruction.

There is one kind of sinful language to which the severe sayings of St. James specially apply, although the context seems to show that it was not specially in his mind-impure language. The foul tongue is indeed a "world of iniquity, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell." In no other case is the self-pollution of the speaker so manifest, or the injury to the listener so probable, so all but inevitable. Foul stories and impure jests and innuendoes, even more clearly than oaths and curses, befoul the souls of those who utter them, while they lead the hearers into sin. Such things rob all who are concerned in them, either as speakers or listeners, of two things which are the chief safeguards of virtue-the fear of God, and the fear of sin. They create an atmosphere in which men sin with a light heart, because the grossest sins are made to look not only attractive and easy, but amusing. What can be made to seem laughable is supposed to be not very serious. There is no more devilish act that a human being can perform than that of inducing others to believe that what is morally hideous and deadly is "pleasant to the eye and good for food." And this devils work is sometimes done merely to raise a laugh, merely for something to say. Does any one seriously maintain that the language of St. James is at all too strong for such these things as these? We hardly need his authority for the belief that a filthy tongue pollutes a mans whole being, and owes its inspiration to the Evil One.

It is of angry, ill-tempered, unkind words that we do not believe this so readily. Words that are not false or calumnious, not running out into blasphemies and curses, and certainly not tainted with anything like impurity, do not always strike us as being as harmful as they really are, not only to others, whom they irritate or sadden, but to ourselves, who allow our characters to be darkened by them. The captious word, that makes everything a subject for blame; the discontented word, that would show that the speaker is always being ill-treated; the biting word, that is meant to inflict pain; the sullen word, that throws a gloom over all who hear it; the provoking word, that seeks to stir up strife-of all these we are most of us apt to think too lightly, and need the stern warnings of St. James to remind us of their true nature and of their certain consequences. As regards others, such things wound tender hearts, add needlessly and enormously to the unhappiness of mankind, turn sweet affections sour, stifle good impulses, create and foster bad feelings, embitter in its smallest details the whole round of daily life. As regards ourselves, indulgence in such language weakens and warps our characters, blunts our sympathies, deadens our love for man, and therefore our love for God. "In particular it makes prayer either impossible or half useless. Whether we know it or not, the prayer that comes from a heart indulging in evil temper is hardly a prayer at all. We cannot really be face to face with God; we cannot really approach God as a Father; we cannot really feel like children kneeling at His feet; we cannot really be simply affectionate and truthful in what we say to Him, if irritation, discontent, or gloom, or anger, is busy at our breasts. An undisciplined temper shuts out the face of God from us. We may see His holy Law, but we cannot see Himself. We may think of Him as our Creator, our Judge, our Ruler, but we cannot think of Him as our Father, nor approach Him with love." "Salt water cannot yield sweet."

It was once pleaded on behalf of a man who had been criticized and condemned as unsatisfactory, that he was "a good man, all but his temper." "All but his temper!" was the not unreasonable reply"; as if temper were not nine-tenths of religion." "If any man stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

3:9 praises . . . curses: Praising our Lord and Father is the best activity of the tongue, whereas cursing those made in his image is one of the worst, because it is an implicit curse on God himself (Gen 1:26-27; 9:6).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Jas 3:9. Ἐν αὐτῇ—καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ, with this itself—and with this itself) A very expressive phrase.—Θεὸν) God. Κύριον, Lord[39]) is the reading of the Alexandrian, Colbertinus 7, and Syriac texts. Baumgarten acknowledges the error; for God and Father is a common title, but not Lord and Father; but he adds the ancient Vulgate or Italian Version. In the Reutling. M.S. it is so read; for the copyists frequently use the name of God and Lord, without distinction; but the other Latin Manuscripts, with one consent, read God (wherefore many of them also omit the particle et, which immediately follows), and thus Cassioderus, in his Conplexiones, and more fully in the preface to his Commentary on the Psalms.—καὶ πατέρα) Baumgarten remarks, on the authority of Mill, δὲ is wanting in the Arabic and Æthiopic Versions.—γεγονότας) The Alexandrian and Colbertinus 7, read γεγεννημένους;[40] and, in addition, notice that ΔῈ is to be read for ΚΑῚ. Mill also reads καὶ: Kuster, δὲ. The latter also reads ΓΕΓΕΝΗΜΈΝΟΥς with a single Ν.—ΚΑΘ ̓ ὉΜΟΊΩΣΙΝ ΘΕΟῦ, after the likeness of God) We have lost the likeness of God: there remains however from that source a nobleness which cannot be destroyed, and this we ought to reverence both in ourselves and in others. Moreover, we have remained men, capable, by the Divine blessing, of being formed again after that likeness, to which the likeness of man ought to be conformed. They who curse, hinder that effect. Absalom has fallen from the favour of his father, but the people still recognise him to be the king’s son.

[39] ABC Vulg. Syr. Memph. read Κύριον. Rec. Text reads θεὸν with MSS. of Vulg. and later Syr., but no other very old authority.—E.

[40] But BC read γεγονότας.—E.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 בֵּרֵךְ, 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] Semlers 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 3:9 . ἐν αὐτῇ : this is Hebrew usage, cf. εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρῃ , Luk 22:49 ; ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ , Rev 6:8 . εὐλογοῦμεν : this use is Hellenistic. Both in speaking and writing the Jews always added the words ברו־ הוא (“Blessed [be] He”) after the name of God; cf. Mar 14:61 , where ὁ εὐλογητός is used in reference to God. τὸν Κύριον καὶ πατέρα : the reading Κύριον can scarcely be right; Θεόν is not, it is true, well attested (see critical note), but it is required on account of the καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ ; neither the combination τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα nor τὸν Κύριον καὶ πατέρα is in accordance with ordinary Jewish usage; the exact phrase does not occur in the Bible elsewhere, the nearest approach being Tob 13:4 , … καὶ Θεὸς αὐτὸς πατὴρ ἡμῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας . Cf. Isa 63:16 , σὺ Κύριε πατὴρ ἡμῶν , and 1Ch 29:10 , εὐλογητὸς εἶ , Κύριε , ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραὴλ , ὁ Πατὴρ ἡμῶν . Although the Jews frequently speak of God as “Father,” it is usually in a different combination, probably the most usual being “Our Father” alone, or “Our Father and King”; in the great prayer called the “Shemôneh ‘Esreh” (“Eighteen” [Nineteen] Blessings), which was formulated in its final form about the year 110 A.D., each of the forty-four petitions which it contains begins with the words: Abinu Malkênu [58] (“Our Father, our King”). Πατήρ is always used in reference to God in order to emphasise the divine love; and in the passage before us a contrast is undoubtedly implied between the love of the Father towards all His children, and the mutual hatred among these latter. f1καταρώμεθα : this word shows that the special sin of the tongue which is here referred to is not slander or backbiting or lying, but personal abuse, such as results from loss of temper in heated controversy. Cf. Rom 12:13 , εὐλογεῖτε καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε , and see the very appropriate passage in the Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs , Benj. 6:5, ἡ ἀγαθὴ διάνοια οὐκ ἔχει δύο γλώσσας εὐλογίας καὶ κατάρας . τοὺς καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ γεγονότας : quoted, apparently from memory, from Gen 1:26 , where the Septuagint reads, κατʼ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν ; the Hebrew דמות ( ὁμοίωσις ) is synonymous with צלם ( εἰκών ). The belief that men are made in the material likeness of God is taught both in Biblical and post-Biblical Jewish literature; philosophers like Philo would naturally seek to modify this. An interesting passage which reminds one of this verse is quoted by Knowling from Bereshith , R. xxiv., Rabbi Akiba (born in the middle of the first century A.D.), in commenting on Gen 9:6 , said: “Whoso sheddeth blood, it is reckoned to him as if he diminished the likeness ”; then referring presently to Lev 19:18 ( Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself ), he continues, “Do not say: ‘after that I am despised, let my neighbour also be despised’. R. Tanchuma said, ‘If you do so, understand that you despise him of whom it was written, in the likeness of God made He him ’.” The lesson is that he who curses him who was made in the image of God implicitly curses the prototype as well.

[58] To be distinguished from the “Abinu Malkênu” prayer used in the penitential portion of the Jewish Liturgy.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Amongst other faults of the tongue, the Apostle chiefly reproveth backbiting and speaking evil of our neighbors, even in them especially which otherwise will seem godly and religious.

He denieth by two reasons, that God can be praised by that man, that useth cursed speaking, or to backbite: first because man is the image of God, which whosoever reverenceth not doth not honor God himself.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

God--The oldest authorities read, "Lord." "Him who is Lord and Father." The uncommonness of the application of "Lord" to the Father, doubtless caused the change in modern texts to "God" (Jam 1:27). But as Messiah is called "Father," Isa 9:6, so God the Father is called by the Son's title, "Lord": showing the unity of the Godhead. "Father" implies His paternal love; "Lord," His dominion.

men, which--not "men who"; for what is meant is not particular men, but men genetically [ALFORD].

are made after . . . similitude of God--Though in a great measure man has lost the likeness of God in which he was originally made, yet enough of it still remains to show what once it was, and what in regenerated and restored man it shall be. We ought to reverence this remnant and earnest of what man shall be in ourselves and in others. "Absalom has fallen from his father's favor, but the people still recognize him to be the king's son" [BENGEL]. Man resembles in humanity the Son of man, "the express image of His person" (Heb 1:3), compare Gen 1:26; Jo1 4:20. In the passage, Gen 1:26, "image" and "likeness" are distinct: "image," according to the Alexandrians, was something in which men were created, being common to all, and continuing to man after the fall, while the "likeness" was something toward which man was created, to strive after and attain it: the former marks man's physical and intellectual, the latter his moral pre-eminence.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 9. Therewith bless we God] The tongue is capable of rehearsing the praises, and setting forth the glories, of the eternal King: what a pity that it should ever be employed in a contrary work! It can proclaim and vindicate the truth of God, and publish the Gospel of peace and good will among men: what a pity that it should ever be employed in falsehoods, calumny, or in the cause of infidelity!

And therewith curse we men] In the true Satanic spirit, many pray to God, the Father, to destroy those who are objects of their displeasure! These are the common swearers, whose mouths are generally full of direful imprecations against those with whom they are offended.

The consideration that man is made after the image of God should restrain the tongue of the swearer; but there are many who, while they pretend to sing the high praises of God, are ready to wish the direst imprecations either on those who offend them, or with whom they choose to be offended.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9 Therewith, or, by it, bless we God. It is a clear instance of its deadly poison, that it can thus through a monstrous levity transform itself; for when it pretends to bless God, it immediately curses him in his own image, even by cursing men. For since God ought to be blessed in all his works, he ought to be so especially as to men, in whom his image and glory peculiarly shine forth. It is then a hypocrisy not to be borne, when man employs the same tongue in blessing God and in cursing men. There can be then no calling on God, and his praises must necessarily cease, when evil-speaking prevails; for it is impious profanation of God’s name, which the tongue is virulent towards our brethren and pretends to praise him. That he may therefore rightly praise God, the view of evil speaking as to our neighbor must especially be corrected.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(9) Therewith bless we God, even the Father.—A strange reading of this verse in the more ancient manuscripts makes it, Therewith bless we the Lord and Father. And it may serve to remind us of the oneness of our God, that thus He may be termed Lord and Saviour. His worship and praise are, as explained under Jas_3:6, the right use of the tongue; but, most inconsistently, therewith curse we men which have been made in the image, after the similitude, of God. See Ps. 1. 16-23, with its final words of warning to the wicked, and praise “to him that ordereth his conversation right.”

The “likeness of God” assuredly remains in the most abandoned and fallen; and to curse it is to invoke the wrath of its Creator. What then can be urged in defence of anathemas and fulminations of councils, or the mutual execrations of sects and schisms, in the light of these solemn words? “Though they curse, yet bless thou . . . and let them cover themselves with their own confusion” (Psa_109:28-29).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. Therewith bless we God, even the Father …] Many of the better MSS. give “the Lord” instead of “God”. The fact dwelt on comes in to illustrate the strange inconsistency, even of men who professed faith in God, in their use of speech. General as the words are, they pointed, we may believe, especially to the feelings of Jews towards Christians, or of the more bigoted section of Jewish Christians towards the Gentiles. Such men were loud in their benedictions of the Eternal, the Blessed One, yet they had not learnt to reverence humanity as such, as made after the likeness of God. They cursed those who worshipped or believed after a different manner from their own. The annals of Christendom shew that the necessity for the warning has not passed away. Councils formulating the faith, and uttering their curses on heretics; Te Deums chanted at an Auto da Fè, or after a Massacre of St Bartholomew, the railings of religious parties who are restrained from other modes of warfare, present the same melancholy inconsistency.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therewith bless we God, even, the Father,.... Of Jesus Christ, and of spirits, and of mercies: this is the instrument that is used in blessing God daily every meal that is eaten; and in joining with the saints, though only verbally and outwardly, in blessing God for all spiritual blessings in Christ, both in prayer, and in singing psalms:

and therewith curse we men: make imprecations, and wish evils upon them:

which are made after the similitude of God as man was originally, Gen 1:26 and though sin has greatly defaced it, yet there are still some remains of it: and now, what an absurd and monstrous thing is this, that one and the same instrument should be used in blessing God, the Father of all creatures, and in cursing his children, his offering, as all men are by creation, and bear some resemblance to him.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Ver. 9. Therewith bless we God] And so make our tongues our glory.

Therewith curse we men] Yea, the best of men; as Korah and his accomplices fear not to object to Moses the meek, with one breath, pride, ambition, and usurpation of authority. So Shimei cursed David, the pope curseth the Reformed Churches. But cursing men are cursed men; those detestable God-damn-mes especially, with their fearful self-damning imprecations, and innominate soul-damning oaths, God justly may, and doubtlessly doth, take many of them at their words, as he did those who wished they might die in the wilderness, Num 14:28-29.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therewith bless we God - We men do this; that is, all this is done by the tongue. The apostle does not mean that the same man does this, but that all this is done by the same organ - the tongue.

Even the Father - Who sustains to us the relation of a father. The point in the remark of the apostle is, the absurdity of employing the tongue in such contradictory uses as to bless one who has to us the relation of a father, and to curse any being, especially those who are made in his image. The word bless here is used in the sense of praise, thank, worship.

And therewith curse we men - That is, it is done by the same organ by which God is praised and honored.

Which are made after the similitude of God - After his image, Gen 1:26-27. As we bless God, we ought with the same organ to bless those who are like him. There is an absurdity in cursing men who are thus made, like what there would be in both blessing and cursing the Creator himself.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

By it we bless God, &c. Such different effects from the same cause, as of blessing God, and cursing men, created to the likeness of God, seem contrary to the ordinary course of nature; from a fountain from the same source doth not send forth both sweet and bitter streams. --- Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? &c. This seems to be connected with the admonition given at the beginning of the chapter, be not many masters; let none pretend to this but who have wisdom and knowledge, which also may be known by their prudent and mild conversation.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Therewith bless we God; pray, and speak well of God.

Even the Father; of Christ, and in him of all true believers.

And therewith curse we men; rail on, revile, speak evil of, as well as wish evil to.

Which are made after the similitude of God; either:

1. Saints in whom God’s image is anew restored; or rather:

2. Men more generally, who, though they have lost that spiritual knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness in which that image of God, after which man was created, principally consists; yet still have some relics of his image continuing in them.

This is added to aggravate the sin; speaking evil of men made after God’s image, is speaking evil of God obliquely, and by reflection.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 9, 10. Examples of the restless character of the tongue: "With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it too we curse men who are made in his image." In the first clause we should read Kurion (a, A, B, C, Coptic, Syriac, ff, and some manuscripts of the Vulgate) for Qeon (Receptus, with K, L, and Vulgate). Made after the similitude of God; better, likeness (oJmoiwsiv). The words, which are taken from Gen_1:26 (kai ei=pen oJ Qeoswmen anqrwpon kat eijkona hJmeteran kaisin) are added to show the greatness of the sin. Theologically they are important, as showing that the "likeness of God" in man (in whatever it may consist) was not entirely obliterated by the Fall. St. James"s words would be meaningless if only Adam had been created in the image and likeness of God. So St. Paul speaks of fallen man as still "the image (eijkwn) and glory of God" 1Co_11:7; and cf. Gen_9:6)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Men made after the likeness of God - Indeed we have now lost this likeness; yet there remains from thence an indelible nobleness, which we ought to reverence both in ourselves and others.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Observe here, 1. Our apostle informs us what is the proper use of the tongue: namely, to bless and praise God; speech being the most excellent faculty, is to be consecrated to divine uses: it is both a good man’s work and his recreation to bless and praise God.

Observe, 2. The sinful use which some men put the tongue unto, and that is, to curse with it, to curse men that have the natural image of God upon them, yea, holy and good men, that have the divine image of God instamped upon them; this is the abuse of some men’s tongues, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

Observe, 3. The same tongue cannot, should not bless God and curse men; to pray and brawl with the same tongue, is shameful hypocrisy; to go from worshipping to railing and reviling, to speak to the God of heaven with a tongue set on fire of hell, is a monstrous impiety.

Observe, 4. How the apostle discovers the mighty absurdity of blessing and cursing with one and the same tongue, and of putting the best member to the worst use; the good aggravates the evil, and the evil disparageth, yea, disproveth the good; to suppose that the same tongue should acceptably bless God, and at the same time sinfully curse men, is as irrational and absurd as to imagine that the same fountain should send forth salt water and fresh, sweet water and bitter; and, as if a fig tree should bring forth olives, or a vine bear figs: our apostle argues and reasons from what is impossible in nature, to what is absurd in manners; contrary effects from the same cause is against the order of nature; in like manner grace is uniform, and always acts like itself; to bless and curse, to pray and revile, is wholly inconsistent with grace: nature abhors contradictions, and so does the grace of God: though a Christian has a double principle in him, the flesh and the spirit, yet he has not a double heart; his spirit is single and sincere in what he does, in all he does both for God and man.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9–12. Therewith bless we God. Its opposite uses are shown. We use it to pray and to bless God, and, sometimes, the same tongue will be used to curse his creatures. James rebuked evils that he had observed.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

With it we

"We use the tongue to say words that"

we curse men

"we ask God to harm men"

who have been made in God's likeness

This can be stated in active form. AT: "whom God made in his likeness" (See: Active or Passive)

Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing

The nouns "blessing" and "cursing" can be translated with a verbal phrase. AT: "With the same mouth, a person blesses people and curses people" (See: Abstract Nouns)

My brothers

"Fellow Christians"

these things should not happen

"these things are wrong"

translationWords

praise

lord

God the Father

curse

image of God

bless

brother

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

9. κύριον with אABCP, Old Latin and other versions; KL and a majority of later authorities have θεόν. But it is more probable that θεὸν should have been substituted for κύριον, than that the reverse should have happened.

9. ἐν αὐτῇ. The instrumental use of ἐν in N. T. is generally to be attributed to a Hebraism, introduced from the LXX., or due to the writer’s familiarity with the Semitic idiom: e.g. εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρῃ; Luk 22:49: ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου, Rom 10:9: ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ, Rev 6:8. But in many instances this use of ἐν may be explained on classical principles: comp. ἐν τίνι ἀλισθήσεται; (in what, &c.) Mat 5:13, and ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρης ἀπέθανον (in slaughter of the sword) Heb 11:37, with δῆσαι ἐν πέδαις Xen. An. IV. 3. 8, καθικόμενον ἐν τῇ ῥάβδῳ Lucian Dial. Mort. 23. 3. See Winer 485, and specially Dr Moulton’s note 3.

τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα. κύριον has here the O.T. sense of Jehovah. The collocation is unusual. God is regarded in His power and in His love (Beyschlag).

τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας Comp. ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατʼ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν, Gen 1:26. This designation conveys the gravity of the sin of cursing; it is a sin against God Himself. “Remanet nobilitas” Bengel; the image of God is not lost even through sin.

εὐλογοῦμεν … καταρώμεθα. Comp. Philo de Decal. p. 196 οὐ γὰρ ὅσιον διʼ οὗ στόματος τὸ ἱερώτατον ὄνομα προφέρεται διὰ τούτον φθέγγεσθαί τι τῶν αἰσχορῶν.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9.] Therewith (there could not be a word more accurately expressing the instrumental sense, as it is called, of ἐν: it is as clad in, and working in the realm and sphere of, that this use is found, as we say ‘a man in armour,’ ‘in a helmet:’ ἐν ῥάβδω ἔλθω πρὸς ὑμᾶς) bless we (i. e. as applied to God, ‘praise we:’ cf. Ps. 144:21 LXX. The first person is used of mankind in general, considered as one agent) the Lord and Father (an unusual connexion to designate God: cf. ch. 1:27, where we have the more usual one, found also here in the rec. Both terms are to be taken of the Father: the former, on the side of His Power: the latter, on that of His Love), and therewith curse we men (generic), which (not, who, which would personally designate certain men thus made; but which, generic. This distinction, 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) have been created (and are still, as the perf. part. shews. See below) after the likeness of God (which remains in us, marred indeed, but not, as is sometimes carelessly said, destroyed. This likeness we ought to revere, in ourselves and in others: and he who curses, despises it. Not man’s original state, but man’s present state is here under consideration: and on that consideration depends the force of the Apostle’s argument).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. Continues thought of v. 8. Even good use of the tongue now gives no security against misuse later.

ἐν αὐτῇ, “by it,” cf. Rom 15:6. This might be the Hebraistic instrumental ἐν (see Blass, § 41. 1, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 11 f., 61 f., 104), but is more probably an extension of Hellenistic usage for which good parallels are found only in very late, Byzantine, writers (see Stephanus, Thesaurus, ed. Hase and Dindorf, s. v., coll. 963 f.).

This twofold use of the tongue is frequently mentioned. Philo, De decal. xix, p. 196 οὐ γὰρ ὅσιον, διʼ οὗ στόματος τὸ ἱερώτατον ὄνομα προφέρεταί τις, διὰ τούτου φθέγγεσθαί τι τῶν αἰσχρῶν.

Plutarch, De garrulitate, 8, p. 506 C ὅθεν ὁ Πιττακὸς οὐ κακῶς, τοῦ Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέως πέμψαντος ἱερεῖον αὐτῷ, καὶ κελεύσαντος τὸ κάλλιστον καὶ τὸ χείριστον ἐξελεῖν κρέας, ἔπεμψεν ἐξελὼν τὴν γλῶτταν, ὡς ὄργανον μὲν ἀγαθῶν, ὄργανον δὲ τῶν κακῶν τῶν μεγίστων οὖσαν. Substantially the same story is told in Levit. rabba, 33 pr. on Pro 18:21 (Schöttgen, Horae heb. i, p. 1024) of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who sent his servant to market to buy first good and then bad food, and found himself both times supplied with tongues. See other references in Mayor and Windisch, and cf. the passages in which δίγλωσσος occurs, Pro 11:13, Ecclus. 5:9, 14, 6:1, 28:13, Orac. Sib. iii, 37.

εὐλογοῦμεν. Doubtless with reference both to the Jewish custom of adding “Blessed be He,” whenever the name of God was mentioned (cf. Rom 1:25, Rom 1:9:5, 2Co 11:31), and to other liturgical ascriptions of praise. For the latter, cf. 2Co 1:3, Eph 1:3, 1Pe 1:3, Psa 145:21, and the Shemone Esre (Schürer, GJV, § 27, Anhang).

τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα. Both words refer to God. See on 2:1; cf. 1:27. The expression has no complete parallel; cf. 1Ch 29:10, Isa 63:16, Mat 11:25, Ecclus. 23:1, 4.

καταρώμεθα, cf. Job 31:30, Psa 10:7, Psa 62:4, Psa 109:28, Luk 6:28, Rom 12:14.

Test. XII Patr. Benj. 6 ἡ ἀγαθὴ διάνοια οὐκ ἔχει δύο γλώσσας εὐλογίας καὶ κατάρας.

τοὺς καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας. Cf. Gen 1:26, Gen 9:6, Ecclus. 17:3, Wisd. 2:23. Cf. Bereshith r. 24 (Wetstein), quoted by Hort.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

God, even the Father [τον θεον και πατερα] . The proper reading, is ton Kurion, the Lord, and the kai, and, is simply connective. Read, therefore, as Rev., the Lord and Father. This combination of terms for God is uncommon. See ch. Jas 1:27.

Which. Not who, which would designate personally certain men; whereas James designates them generically.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.