Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

vate or in public, and yet to curse a member of God’s family, whenever,
wherever and however. The tongue should not simultaneously be used for
holy and vile purposes (See also 1 Tim. 5:13 and Tit. 1:11). Both the inconsistency
and the impropriety of this double use of the tongue are clearly
stated. In fact, these two uses are self-contradictory as well as mutually exclusive
on the face of it.
The shift from the tongue to the mouth ought to be noted. The focus here
is upon what comes out of the mouth. So James is concerned about the product
rather than the process (See also Zodhiates, II, 131). This is analogous to
Matthew 15:11, 20 (Martin, 120) and lays the foundation for what follows,
exposing the anomaly, and therefore impossibility, of having a dual, contradictory,
outcome of the same origin, a dual, contradictory, outflow from the
same source. One commentator, as I already indicated, interprets James 3:10
as something like a golfer’s hole. Yes, the situation sounds impossibly bad,
but the sky is not totally grey. There is some blue sky and therefore some
“daylight.” After all, the “should not” implies the “can do” (Motyer, 124,
126). A second interpreter follows suit. “The sharpness of the denunciation
(of James 3:2-9), despite the attempt in the examples of bit and rudder to suggest
that the tongue might be controlled, is remarkable.” However, this is “in
the verses to follow (starting with James 3:10) somewhat ameliorated” (Brosend,
91). Candidly, nothing could be farther from the truth. The “should not”
does not imply the “can do.” It never did, never does, and never will do so.
Rather, the “should not” makes it absolutely imperative for James’ readers to
embrace the “above” at any cost, and to stay away from the “below” at any
price, as outlined in James 3:13-18. The recognition of the “I must,” and the
“I cannot” in combination, does this to a person!
(2) Impossibility of Compromise (3:11-12)
James takes the next step when he reasons from “what it is impossible in nature
to what is absurd in conduct” (Manton, 298). He informs his readers by
means of three metaphors (Dibelius, 203-206), the three illustrations of the
fountain, the tree (Mt. 7:16ff; Lk. 6:43ff) and the vine that it is not just less
than fitting, but positively impossible for the mouth to have both the ongoing
habit of blessing and of cursing. The “ought not” is complemented by the
“cannot.” This is now explained by two basic illustrations in four statements.
This explanation is partly chiastic. The first and fourth statements correspond
with each other. So do the second and the third statements. At the same time
the first three statements come in the form of questions, while the fourth propositional
statement, which makes a negative point, constitutes their conclusion.
The basic premise is that “springs, like plants, produce according to
their natures (cf. Gen. 1:11)” (PHDavids, 148; PDavids, 86-87). Therefore
609