James now shifts the discussion to the marks of true and genuine religion, as a general conclusion of the chapter. In spite of some abruptness in the shift, we still can detect some thread of connection between verses 26-27 and the earlier paragraphs. First, there is an advance from the general principle of “not mere hearing but also doing” to a particular application, “not mere religion but doing good” (Ropes). Secondly, there is again a warning of the need to control our speech (linking back to verses 19-21).

If any one thinks he is religious: the use of a hypothetical introductory formula beginning with If … is the sign of a change in theme. This has already been used in 1.5. The Greek clause may be rendered “If any man … seem to be religious” (King James Version). In this case the meaning is “If anyone seems to others to be religious.” Most scholars, however, take the Greek to mean “If anyone thinks himself to be religious.” The adjective religious that occurs only here in the New Testament refers to an outward expression of pious and careful observance of ritual or liturgical practices. Since the “if” sentence here is not a real condition, Good News Translation has rendered it as a question: “Do any of you think that you are…?” Other ways to render this clause are “If you think you are being religious” or “Do you think that you are a religious person? Then….” In many languages the idea of religious must be expressed more precisely; for example, “worship [or, pray to] God correctly.” But taking into consideration the intent of the previous verses, the meaning of religious here is probably “Do you think that you follow [or, serve] God properly?”—in other words, “… do the correct things.”

This religious person has a problem if he does not bridle his tongue. The verb bridle, which James uses again in 3.2, does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament. It is used here metaphorically; the tongue is like a horse or wild animal, that can be controlled only by putting headgear on it. Most translators, apparently sensing that the word is not in general use, have expressed the meaning without using a metaphor by rendering it as “control.” Tongue stands for speech. In some languages bridle his tongue will be expressed as “control what he says.”

But deceives his heart: this is what happens to the person who does not know how to control his tongue. This phrase is a bit awkward in two respects. First, the author uses an adversative but, where we would normally expect “and” to be more natural. Two things can be done here. We may take it in the sense of “only”; thus, for example, “The one who does not control his tongue is only deceiving himself.” Or we may reverse the order of this phrase and the next phrase, as Good News Translation has done, separating the two and thus, in effect, providing emphasis. Secondly, “deceiving one’s heart” is somewhat unnatural as an English expression. In the Bible the heart is considered not only the seat of emotions, but also of will and thoughts. In many cases it can stand for the whole person. Here it is probably best to take it as equivalent to the pronoun “himself”; for example, “he is only deceiving himself.”

By hearing the word without putting it into practice, this man’s religion is vain. This man in Greek is a relative pronoun that can be rendered inclusively as “this person.” The true test of religion or piety is practice, without which it is “worthless” (Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version), “futile” (Barclay, New English Bible), or “useless” (Phillips).

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• If you think you serve God correctly, but you can’t control what you say, you are deceiving [or, fooling] yourself, and everything you do is useless.
• Do you think that you really serve God properly? If you don’t control your tongue, you are deceiving yourself, and everything you are doing is worthless.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

James concludes the comparison of the bit and the rudder. The bit and the rudder, though small in size, achieve big results. So it is with the tongue; though small it is extremely powerful.

So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things: the verse may be punctuated in different ways. What Revised Standard Version has done is one possibility. The other possibility is the rendering of Good News Translation: “So it is with the tongue; small as it is, it can boast about great things” (similarly Revised English Bible). Stylistically the latter is preferable, as it is a more natural way to introduce an application. The adverb So in Greek is actually “So also” (New Revised Standard Version); so it has the force of “In the same way” (New American Bible) and “So it is” (Good News Translation), drawing a comparison. The expression little member refers to the tongue as a small part of the body. Contemporary English Version translates “our tongues are small too.” The conjunction and has the force of “yet” (New Revised Standard Version) or “nevertheless.”

Scholars debate about the exact meaning of boasts of great things. The verb rendered boasts is “to stretch the neck and hold up the head in pride, and hence to speak with proud confidence” (Hort). It is sometimes argued that the boast refers not so much to arrogance or empty boasting, but to a justifiable sense of importance and pride. However, James obviously sees the tongue as something that is dangerous and that therefore has to be controlled. It is therefore difficult not to take “boasting” in this context as having a negative sense. For this reason some translators have tried to bring this aspect of the meaning out; for example, “but it [tongue] is a great braggart” (Translator’s New Testament) or “and yet they [our tongues] brag about big things” (Contemporary English Version). In some languages the tone can be brought out adequately by saying simply, “the tongue, though so small, can say [or, brag] big things” (similarly Today’s Chinese Version). Notice that James is making an obvious attempt to contrast little member with great things.

Some scholars have observed that this last analogy is a bit rough, as it does not follow consistently the pattern of the previous two analogies. Human tongues do not control human bodies as bits and rudders control horses and ships. But there is no need to look for exact correspondence in the analogy, since this does not seem to be James’ concern. He is simply interested in showing that a small object can control or determine the direction of a large body.

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!: beginning at this point James warns about the potentially destructive power of the tongue. It seems quite possible that he is here quoting a proverb; this can be seen not only from the content itself but also from its terseness and balanced structure, with a double use of the same adjective modifying both fire and forest. It is interesting that the same adjective, which means literally “of what size,” can mean both “how great” or “how large” and “how small” depending on the object it modifies. It “expresses magnitude in either direction” (Hort). Here fire is the small element as compared to forest, and so the adjective can mean “a tiny flame” (Good News Translation), “a little spark of fire” (Moffatt), or even “the tiniest spark” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible). The meaning of the word rendered forest is understood in several ways. In addition to forest, the rendering favored by many translators, it has been suggested that the word basically means “wood,” and therefore is best translated as “timber” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible). It has also been suggested that the word means “thicket” or “bush.” However, for most translators “forest” or “jungle” will be the most natural rendering here.

When it comes to translation there are a number of things to consider. First, since this is a proverbial saying, there is no need to translate the form of the saying literally. If possible the translation should be a functionally equivalent proverb in the translator’s language, but having the same meaning as the Greek. For example, a Chinese saying expresses the idea very well: “A single spark can start a prairie fire [or, can burn out a prairie].” Secondly, it is interesting that, in translating this saying, the order of the elements may be reversed without altering the meaning; that is, we can say either “a big forest is set ablaze by a small spark” or “a small spark sets ablaze a big forest.” Translators should therefore decide which order is more natural in their language. Thirdly, in the original Greek this proverbial saying is introduced by a demonstrative particle often used to call attention to something or to introduce something new. This particle, though left untranslated by Revised Standard Version, may be desirable in some languages and may be rendered, for example, “Just think…” (Good News Translation) or “Consider…” (New American Bible, New International Version). Finally, to make a better connection to what James is going to say in verse 6, it may be very effective in some languages to make the statement into a rhetorical question. In so doing the first sentence of verse 6 serves as a sort of answer: “Just think. Isn’t a single spark capable of starting a prairie fire? (6) The tongue is a fire!” (so Today’s Chinese Version).

A possible alternative rendering of the last sentence may be:
• Just think: Such a small spark can burn down such a big forest!

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Notice a progressive heightening of thoughts through verses 2-4: “faith” in withstanding the “test” produces “steadfastness,” which in turn makes the higher goals of “perfection” and “completeness” possible.

Verse 4 consists of two clauses in Greek; the first is an imperative, and the second a final purpose clause that is grammatically dependent on the imperative clause, but in thought parallel to it. The meaning of the phrase full effect can be understood as letting “endurance” develop fully and completely until it produces “full and perfect steadfastness.” It is best, however, to take it in the sense of letting steadfastness lead on to its “proper and full effect.” This is the sense favored by most modern translations; for example, “steadfastness must have full play” (Goodspeed), “until that endurance is fully developed” (Phillips [Phillips]), “this ability must go right on to the end” (Barclay), “perseverance must complete its work” (New Jerusalem Bible). In English let … have does not convey the imperative force that is in the Greek original. The New English Bible rendering that is cast in the conditional mood (“and if you give fortitude full play”) has certainly missed the force. And so most translators prefer to use the word “must.” The Good News Translation restructuring brings out the force most effectively, “Make sure that your endurance carries you all the way,” adding “without failing.” Other alternative translation models may be “Make sure that your ability to endure does not stop [or, does not become weak],” “Make sure that your heart [or, liver] endures without ever giving up,” or “Make sure that your heart endures and gets as strong as possible.” We may also follow the Contemporary English Version rendering, “But you must learn to endure everything.”

The purpose of letting the quality of steadfastness have its full effect is to grow and produce higher qualities, that you may be perfect and complete. The Greek word for perfect is a favorite term in this letter. It appears again in 1.17, 25; 2.22 (“completed”); and 3.2. The word generally means “that which is perfect” when referring to things, or “full-grown” or “mature” when used of persons. It can also mean “perfect,” or “fully developed,” or “complete goodness” in the moral sense. It always points to an end or goal. In the New Testament it often means a maturity of character that God wants Christians to attain (compare 1 Cor 2.6; Eph 4.13; Phil 3.15). The word complete means literally “whole in all its parts.” It occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Thes 5.23, where RSV renders it “kept sound,” and Good News Translation “whole being.” Since the word is often used in pairing with the word perfect, it naturally acquires a moral or ethical sense of “blameless.” It is clear from the context that both terms are related to moral integrity (for example, “men of mature character, men of integrity” (Phillips). The focus of perfect may be on attaining maturity of character, while the focus of complete is on being free from defect. It is, however, unnecessary to separate the significance of the two words. Some translations have therefore understood this “and” construction as referring to a single idea of perfection; for example, “go on to complete a balanced character” (New English Bible), “so that you may be fully mature” (New American Bible [New American Bible] 1970), and “so that you may be completely mature” (Contemporary English Version). In many languages this will be the more natural way to render these two terms; for example, “that you may be good in every way,” or “that you may become a completely good person.”

The phrase lacking in nothing is best taken as an added explanation of the quality just mentioned, not as another quality to be attained. The word lacking is used of the defeat of an army, giving up without a struggle. It means falling short of a standard. Taken with the previous expression it can be rendered in various ways; for example, “… men of integrity with no weak spots” (Phillips), “… a balanced character that will fall short of nothing” (New English Bible), “… complete, and not fail in any way” (Translator’s New Testament), “… complete, not deficient in any way” (New Jerusalem Bible).

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• Make sure that your ability to endure grows as strong as possible, so that you may become a completely good person with no defects at all.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For whoever …: James now goes on to explain the concept that whoever is guilty of one commandment is guilty of all. He elaborates on what he has said in the previous verse with an explanatory For, even though he will not draw a conclusion of what he has been saying now until verse 12. This connective particle is sometimes left untranslated. However, to show the connection between the two verses and to maintain a general train of thought, it may be desirable in some languages to keep this link by having a “For,” “Because,” “It follows that,” or even “That is why” in the sense of “the reason is” (similarly the Japanese colloquial version).

Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it: this statement is meant to explain a well-known Jewish teaching that the Law should be observed in its entirety, as there is no distinction between important and less important commandments—the Law is indivisible. Therefore to break one commandment is to be guilty of breaking all. Here the whole law obviously refers to the Law of God handed down through Moses, and may also be expressed as “everything that God has commanded us [inclusive] through Moses” or “all the commandments that God has given to us through Moses.”

The verb fails is literally “trips” or “stumbles” (so New International Version), in the sense of making a mistake or a slip (Goodspeed, Moffatt: “makes one single slip”). In this context it refers to the breaking of the Law. In many languages a literal translation of the phrase keeps the whole law but fails in one point can create a problem, for it is difficult to think and say that someone keeps the whole law and yet fails in one point—since the “whole” obviously means all, and consequently there should be no exception. It is possibly for this reason that Revised English Bible has rendered the phrase as “… breaks just one commandment and keeps all the others.” A simpler rendering is found in Contemporary English Version: “If you obey every law except one.” Another way of saying the same thing without the apparent contradiction is to render simply “breaks one commandment,” leaving the phrase keeps the whole law to be understood from the context without actually mentioning it, as Good News Translation has done (so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). In many translations this can be done without losing any significant component of the meaning of the phrase.

The word guilty is a legal term that can mean “liable for punishment,” or “guilty of crime,” or “guilty in respect of the law that a person has broken.” The first two meanings seem unlikely, in that the person who breaks one law is said to be liable for all the punishments or guilty of crimes listed for all transgressions. The last meaning mentioned appears to fit the context better and is probably the one intended by the author.

The phrase all of it in Greek is one word “all.” It can be understood in two ways. First, it can be understood as in contrast to “one.” In this case if we render the “one” as “one point [or, commandment],” the “all” here means “all points [or, commandments].” This is apparently the understanding of Good News Translation when it renders the phrase as “breaking them all” (compare also Revised English Bible “breaking all of them”). Other ways of expressing this are “breaking all the commandments” (meaning the Ten Commandments), “guilty of disobeying all God’s prohibitions,” or even “guilty of doing all the things that God prohibited.” However, all can also be taken as an equivalent of “entirety” or “whole,” as in the whole law. In this instance the phrase may be rendered guilty of all of it, or “guilty in respect to all of it” (New American Bible), or “guilty of breaking the whole Law” (as in Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• For whoever follows [or, obeys] all God’s commandments except for one is guilty of disobeying all of them.
• If you only disobey one of God’s commandments, it is the same as disobeying the whole Law [or, all of God’s words in the Law that he gave through Moses].

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist: James now goes on to explain the evil consequences of false wisdom. Those who make a false claim to wisdom are people with jealousy and selfish ambition, as described in verse 14. Their wisdom is non-heavenly, unspiritual, and ungodly, contributing nothing to the building up of the Christian community. In fact it is the contrary. In many languages it will be necessary to use verbal expressions in place of the nouns jealousy and selfish ambition: for example, “Whenever people are jealous and selfish” (Contemporary English Version), “Whenever people have hearts that desire greatly to have what others have and to be better than other people.”

These negative attitudes inevitably lead to disorder and every vile practice. The adjectival form of the noun disorder has appeared in 1.8, where James speaks of the double-minded person as “unstable,” and in 3.8, where the tongue is said to be a “restless” evil. In 1 Cor 14.33 Paul uses this word in the sense of “confusion,” setting it in contrast to “peace.” The word is also used in Luke 21.9 of the commotions, or “tumults,” of war. As used to describe the troubled situation in the community, it can mean “confusion” (King James Version, Goodspeed), “chaos” (Translator’s New Testament), and “disharmony” (Phillips, New Jerusalem Bible). Again it will be better in some languages to say, for example, “such people are always causing trouble” or “such people are always fighting [or, having disagreements] with others.” The word rendered vile generally means something “bad,” “base,” “worthless,” “foul” (New American Bible), “wickedness” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version), or “cruel things” (Contemporary English Version). It is often used in the New Testament in contrast to the word “good” (John 5.29, “evil”; Rom 9.11, “bad”; 2 Cor 5.10, “evil”) and therefore is rendered as “evil” by Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible, and others. The word practice means things that are done, and therefore may also be rendered as “action” (Goodspeed) or “deed” (American Standard Version).

An alternative rendering for this verse may be:
• Whenever people are jealous and selfish, they are always causing trouble and doing every kind of evil.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

James mentions a third circumstance needing prayer, namely sickness. The theme of sickness is most likely suggested by the theme of suffering in verse 13. The verb “to be sick” in Greek can include any kind of weakness (compare Rom 14.2; 2 Cor 12.10). However, the obvious contrast with “to be suffering,” calling on the elders to pray and to anoint, and the verb “to save” in the sense of “to heal” (verse 15), all suggest that in this context “to be sick” is the intended meaning.

Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him: this is the proper response of the person who is sick. Here we can see glimpses of first-century congregational life and structure. The person who is sick is encouraged to call for the elders of the church to help. The verb call for means “to summon.” The use of the term suggests that the sick person cannot go to the elders and therefore has to summon the elders to the bedside. Maybe for this reason some translations render the verb as “send for” (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). However, in certain languages the idea of “summon” or “send for” will seem impolite and thus inappropriate. In such cases we may say “ask the church leaders to come” (similarly Contemporary English Version). The elders originally referred to people of advanced age. The word was sometimes used of older members of a Christian community and later came to be used for respected Christian leaders in a local congregation, and finally of church leaders holding official position in a local congregation. In this letter the usage apparently reflects the latest development, referring to the church officers or leaders exercising general oversight over church affairs.

The term church is often used of an assembly or a general meeting. In its Old Testament equivalent it was used for the gathering of the community of Israel (Deut 4.10). In the New Testament it is sometimes used to denote the universal church, the Body of Christ (compare Matt 16.18; Gal 1.13; Eph 1.22). It is also used of the local congregation in a particular place (Acts 5.11; Rom 16.5; Phil 4.15). In this context the church most likely refers to a local group and therefore is sometimes rendered as “congregation” (so Barclay, New English Bible), or even “group of believers [or, Christians].”

Let them pray over him: the verb to pray over suggests that the elders are standing beside the bedside of the sick person. Some scholars note that this is the only place in the New Testament where the verb “to pray” is followed by the preposition meaning “over” or “upon,” suggesting that it may involve laying hands on the sick person (compare Matt 19.13). In the early church, in addition to special gifts of prophecy and teaching, the elders were to visit the sick, not only for providing spiritual comfort, but as possessing “gifts of healing” (1 Cor 12.9). It is obvious then that the purpose of the prayer here is for healing.

The prayer is accompanied by anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. The phrase anointing him with oil may be understood in several ways. The aorist participle anointing is sometimes taken as referring to an earlier time; that is, anointing takes place before praying. This understanding is reflected in the New Jerusalem Bible translation: “and they must anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him.” It is also possible to take it as happening at the same time, that is anointing and praying take place at the same time. This understanding is seen in more literal translations that take “to pray” as the primary action and “the anointing” as the accompanying action; for example, “let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (Revised Standard Version; similarly Phillips, New Revised Standard Version). Still another possibility is to take the participle with an imperative force, to go with the imperative “must pray”; for example, “they must pray over him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord” (Barclay; similarly Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). This will in effect make “to pray” and “to anoint” two separate actions.

As to the function of anointing, it is well known that olive oil was often used in the ancient world for medical purposes; for example, in cleansing, soothing, and healing wounds (Isa 1.6; Mark 6.13; Luke 10.34). While not ruling out the possibility that the anointing here is for medical purposes, there are certainly other factors involved. Most probably it also has religious and symbolic purposes, reminding the sick person of God’s concern for his faithful people in time of distress, and stimulating as well as awakening faith. This is confirmed by the fact that the anointing is performed in the name of the Lord. In any case these interpretations will not in any way affect the outcome of translation. The anointing involves pouring or rubbing olive oil on the body of a person (compare Good News Translation, “and rub olive oil on him”). In cultures where olive oil is unknown, it will be better to use a more general term for vegetable oil and translate in a way similar to anointing him with oil, or “put oil on you [or, him],” or even “rub oil on you [or, him].”

The phrase in the name of the Lord is somewhat ambiguous and may be understood in various ways. There are several problems. First, there is the problem of identity. Who is the Lord here? In verses 10 and 11, the Lord is clearly God. But here the title is used in the context of healing. And in the New Testament time, the practice of healing is most often done in the name of Jesus Christ (Mark 16.17; Luke 10.17; Acts 3.6, 16; 4.10, 18). Therefore it is natural and safe to assume that the Lord here refers to Jesus Christ as well, and in some languages this will be stated clearly.

The phrase in the name of the Lord has already been used in 5.10, where it means acting as the representative of and with the authority of God. Here, however, the meaning is not so clear. One possibility is to take it as calling out the name “Jesus,” as at the time of baptism (Acts 2.38; 8.16) or in the rite of exorcism (driving out evil spirits; see Mark 9.38; Acts 16.18). This is possible, but the phrase is perhaps best taken in the sense of “by the authority of the Lord” as someone commissioned by him. This is then similar to the use of the phrase in verse 10. The only difference is that in verse 10 the title Lord refers to God, but here it is Jesus Christ as the risen Lord. The phrase then is not meant to indicate the form of words to be used in the anointing, but to provide the grounds on which the healing is to be effected. Another way to express this is “using Jesus’ authority.” For the translation of Lord referring to Christ, see 1.1 and elsewhere.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• If one of you is sick, you should ask the church leaders to come and pray for you. Also ask them to rub [or, put] oil on you, using the authority of the Lord [or, Jesus].

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .