What James goes on to say is that, in contrast to the “poor,” the rich person should boast in his humiliation. Just as the poor often signifies low status and powerlessness in society, so the rich often has the sense of high position and power in society (compare “the rich and mighty,” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

Scholars do not agree as to whether or not the rich is a Christian. Some maintain that the rich is not a Christian for the following reasons: (1) If the rich were a Christian, our author would have used the word “brother” here as in the previous clause. (2) Elsewhere in this letter (2.6-8; 5.1-6) the rich are always depicted as bad people outside the Christian community. (3) If the rich were a Christian, the humiliation would have to be understood in a literal sense, namely a loss of wealth, as the following verses appear to confirm. However, the “exaltation” that the poor Christian enjoys can only be a spiritual blessing. It is most unlikely, it is argued, that our author would use a spiritual sense (“exaltation”) and a literal sense (humiliation) together in a single sentence. (4) It would be strange for James to speak of a Christian brother “passing away” and “fading away.”

On the other hand, the main reasons for interpreting the rich as a Christian are: (1) The structure of the sentence demands that “brother,” appearing before the modifier “lowly” in verse 9, is most naturally taken as governing “the rich” in verse 10 also. (2) Since verse 10a does not have a verb, structurally the natural one to supply is “boast” of verse 9. If so, it is reasonable to assume that it will have the same sense. The train of thought of verse 10 is then “and let the rich brother boast in his humiliation.” (3) It is unlikely and strained for our author to be giving exhortation to rich non-Christians. If that were the case, what our author says here will make sense only if he gives the meaning of “boast” a forced and ironic twist.

Here we have a case where there is no complete agreement among scholars and translators, and therefore individual interpreters and translators have to make their own decisions. It is possible to remain neutral by rendering the saying more literally, such as “The lowly brother should take pride in … and the rich in…,” leaving it to the teacher or preacher to explain what it should mean here. If, however, we decide on the first interpretation, the translation will most likely come out something like Knox: “(9) Is one of the brethren in humble circumstances? Let him be proud of it; it exalts him, (10) whereas the rich man takes pride in what in truth abases him.” Notice two interesting shifts: First there is a shift from an imperative “let him be proud of” to an indicative “… takes pride in.” This is the ironic twist mentioned above. Incidentally, in Knox‘s translation the irony is also seen in the expression “in truth.” Secondly, there is a shift from “one of the brethren in humble circumstances” to “the rich man.”

If, however, we accept the second interpretation, which appears to fit the context and the tone of the letter better, then we understand that the author is simply instructing the rich Christian to take no pride in worldly possessions or position, but to humble himself before God. The only adjustment needed in translation then is to make it clear that the rich is a Christian. This can be done in various ways; for example, “the rich Christians” (Good News Translation), “the wealthy [church] member” (Revised English Bible), or “the rich brother” (Bible en français courant). This second interpretation is the more likely one, and is recommended for translators.

The question remains as to what the author means by humiliation. Some take it in a literal sense to mean that by becoming a Christian the rich person has had to suffer loss of property through persecution, or to lose business connections and therefore incomes, as the rendering “being reduced in circumstances” (Goodspeed) appears to show. Others interpret it to mean loss of social standing or position in the general community, being treated as a social outcast by the person’s former peers; for example, “low position” (New International Version). Still others, taking it as a parallel in usage but opposite in meaning to exaltation, understand it to mean “humility” in a spiritual sense, in identifying with the humbling and self-emptying Christ (compare Phil 2.8). Translations that follow this understanding usually recognize God as the one who creates the attitude of humility; for example, “when God brings them down” (Good News Translation; similarly Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Bible en français courant), or “God has shown him his spiritual poverty” (Phillips). This interpretation seems the more likely one. Other ways to express in his humiliation may be “The rich Christian boasts only that he has been humbled [or, that God has humbled him],” or “The rich person boasts when God shows him that in his heart he is humble.” Another way of rendering this first sentence may be “But any Christian who is rich should be glad when God humbles him.” In languages where inclusive language is preferred, the subject may be changed to the plural, as Good News Translation has done: “Those Christians … they….”

Because like the flower of the grass he will pass away: what James goes on to say next is best taken not as an explanation of the meaning of humiliation but as the reason for the rich Christian to be glad or boast in humiliation. It is quite possible that James is here alluding to the proverbial saying in Isa 40.6-8, and the similar thought that appears in Psa 103.15, 16. In both passages there is a contrast between the brief life span of humankind and the permanence of God. It is idle to debate whether flower of the grass is a correct rendering of the Hebrew original that should have been translated “flower of the field.” Most likely they mean the same thing, both referring to an uncultivated flower growing in the wild. At least this would be the case in some languages. In translation something like “wild flower” (New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible), or “flower of the field” (New English Bible, New American Bible), or “the flower of a weed” will do. In many languages there will be no difference between “wild” flowers or “cultivated” flowers. In such cases flower of the grass will simply be translated as “flowers”; for example, “like flowers he will fade and pass away.”

He will pass away is normally taken to refer to the rich person in the first part of the sentence, even though it is possible also for the word to be translated “it will pass away,” referring to that person’s wealth. A number of commentators and translators, however, while understanding the rich person to be a Christian, have apparently taken he as referring to rich people in general. Note the subtle shift in 1.9-10a: “The brother … the wealthy brother … the rich man” (New English Bible, Bible en français courant), “the [Christian] wealthy member … the rich man” (Revised English Bible), or “But if any of you are rich… Rich people…” (Contemporary English Version). This is possible, and in this case it is the richness of the rich that will pass away, no matter whether the rich is Christian or not. The rich person does not need to be reminded of the certainty of death, but he needs to be made aware of the passing nature of wealth. It is recommended that translators follow the interpretation that James is talking about rich Christians in general. Another way to translate this final sentence is “For the possessions of the rich person will disappear just like the flower of a wild plant.”

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 goes on to illustrate that the kind of faith which expresses itself only in words, without demonstrable actions, is useless.

If a brother or sister is ill-clad is sometimes understood to be referring to an actual situation in the church. If this is the case we may wish to keep the conditional particle as If. However, it can also be taken as referring entirely to a hypothetical situation, as in 2.2-4. In this case we may render the particle in English as “Suppose” (Good News Translation, New International Version). The words brother or sister can be used loosely of any man and woman, but more likely it is a reference to a fellow Christian (compare “a fellow-Christian, whether man or woman,” Revised English Bible).

It is possible that James still has the “poor” in view (see 2.6). This person is ill-clad and in lack of daily food. The adjective ill-clad in Greek can mean “naked” (New Revised Standard Version) or “has no clothes to wear” (Phillips, Barclay; similarly New American Bible). It is unlikely that James is here talking about this person as totally “naked.” So it is best taken to mean “inadequately dressed” or “insufficiently clothed,” referring possibly to the poor wearing only the under garment without the outer garment. It is therefore ill-clad, “in rags” (Revised English Bible), or more generally “need clothes” (Good News Translation). The expression in lack of here does not necessarily mean “has nothing to eat” (Phillips) or “no food for the day” (New American Bible), but more “don’t have enough to eat” (Good News Translation) or “has not enough food to live on” (New Jerusalem Bible). The word daily in daily food appears only here in the New Testament. It can mean “the food supply day by day,” meaning daily food (Revised Standard Version; so also New International Version, New Revised Standard Version), or simply the day’s supply of food, namely “food for the day” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible). Basically the two adjectives describe someone who is so poor that even the very basic needs of life, such as clothing and food, cannot be satisfied; they present a picture of someone who is cold and hungry. If so the following may well be an alternative translation model:
• Suppose there are fellow Christians who are always cold and hungry.

This translation would fit in well with the next verse, which has the words “be warmed.”

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 .

You ask and do not receive: this statement may be misunderstood, since the literal translation may suggest that it is contradictory to what James has just said, that is, “you do not ask” (verse 2). To avoid this possible misunderstanding, two solutions are possible.

The first solution is that there are some who do not ask, and there are others who do ask, but ask wrongly. In this case we may render You ask as “Some of you do ask….”

The second solution is to take the author as wishing to say that those who sometimes do not pray to God at other times do pray, but they ask in the wrong spirit. In this case it is necessary to provide some connective such as the temporal conjunction “when”; for example, “And when you ask” (Good News Translation; so also New International Version), or “And when you do ask” (Phillips, Barclay). Another way to express this is “Or, if you do, …” (New American Bible, Revised English Bible), or even “Yet even when you do, …” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

Do not receive means “do not get what you ask for” (Barclay), or “your requests are not granted” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible), or “God does not give you what you ask for.”

Prayers are not answered because you ask wrongly. This is the exact opposite of 1 John 5.14, where it says “… if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.” Ask wrongly may mean “ask for the wrong things” or, to judge from what James goes on to say, “ask from wrong motives.” This is reflected in some translations; for example, “because your motives are bad” (Good News Translation), “you ask for the wrong reasons” (Barclay), “you pray from wrong motives” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible), or “you pray just for selfish reasons” (Contemporary English Version). The verb ask is used three times in verses 2 and 3, first in the middle voice, then the active, and finally the middle again. Some scholars try to distinguish between the two forms and show different shades of meaning, but it is difficult to detect any real difference.

The prayers will be granted only if they are in accordance with the will of God. The reason why some prayer is wrong is that people ask in order to spend it on your passions. In Greek this is a purpose clause, indicating that the intention for asking is to satisfy a desire for pleasure. This is brought out clearly in some translations; for example, “so that you may spend it on your pleasures” (New American Standard Bible), “All you want to do with what you get is to spend it on your own pleasure” (Barclay), and “in order to squander what you get on your pleasures” (Revised English Bible). The verb spend can have a neutral meaning, but in Luke 15.14 it is used of the prodigal son wasting and squandering all he had. This obviously is the meaning intended here, as the gift is spent to satisfy personal desires. If this is so, the verb may be rendered as “indulge” (Translator’s New Testament, New Jerusalem Bible) or “squander” (Revised English Bible). Here again an object of the verb spend, though not in the Greek, may be required. Revised Standard Version has supplied it, and others “what you get” (Barclay, Revised English Bible). On the word passions see the discussion in 4.1.

A possible alternative translation model for this verse is:
• But even when you do ask God for something, he doesn’t give it to you because you pray to him for selfish reasons. You plan to spend what you get on your own personal pleasures.

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 is now drawing the letter to a close. He does so by addressing his readers again as My brethren, indicating a shift in topic, and by making a general appeal to refrain from error.

My brethren: this final address is again inclusive and may be rendered “My friends” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible), “My brothers and sisters” (New Revised Standard Version), or “My fellow believers.”

If any one among you wanders from the truth: the conditional clause immediately suggests that James is concerned about some members of the Christian community slipping away in their faith. The verb rendered “to wander” should not suggest that slipping away from the truth is accidental. It is a metaphor, comparing life to a road that the believer follows. To “wander away” is to go astray from the road. It is not an unconscious departure from the truth but a rejection of the will of God. It is to “err from the truth” (American Standard Version). Since the verb is passive in form, some translations in English render it in the passive with an uncertain agent, “If any one of you is led astray from the truth” (Goodspeed). But most translations interpret the verb to mean “wander away.” In languages that do not use that figure of speech, we may say something like “If any of you stops listening to the true word of the gospel.” See 2 Tim 4.4 for the similar idea, “will turn away from listening to the truth.” The word truth here does not refer to Christian doctrine but more likely to the truth of the gospel; see the discussion in 1.18 and 3.14. With the concern that James has about right living, truth here has to do with truthfulness in Christian conduct, not the correctness of Christian belief. The focus is more moral than intellectual.

And some one brings him back: James does not leave the person who has gone astray to care for himself or herself. It is the responsibility of the Christian community to bring him or her back. Notice the emphasis on responsibility for one another: If any one among you wanders … and some one (among you) brings him back. The verb “to bring back” basically means “to turn around.” It is “turning back a sinner from the error of his ways,” as explained in the next verse, and bringing that person back to the faith and truth from which he or she has gone astray. Another way to express this is “and another Christian [or, believer] helps [or, causes] him [or, them] to believe in the gospel again, ….”

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 .

Some commentators consider the particle Therefore as introducing a new theme (so Phillips, Living Bible [Living Bible]). More likely, however, is the view of most, that it is to be taken as a conclusion to the subsection (1.19-21); in this case it can be rendered as “So then” (Barclay), “In conclusion,” or even “So, keeping in mind what I have just said….”

The words put away are a participle in Greek, but this has an imperative force because it is related to the imperative receive, and so is rendered as an imperative by most translators. The Greek word can be used of removing dirt from one’s body, but in the New Testament the most commonly used sense is that of stripping off or laying aside clothing (Acts 7.58). It is often used metaphorically of putting off a person’s old self and pattern of behavior (Rom 13.12; Col 3.8; 1 Peter 2.1). It expresses the idea of turning away from evil and turning to God, a complete change of lifestyle. Because of this some scholars believe that the saying has its origin in a conversion or baptismal context. There are a variety of ways to translate this expression; for example, “stop [or, quit] doing…,” “don’t practice … any more,” “give up,” “put aside,” or “leave behind.”

What should be stripped off is all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness. There are several possible ways of understanding this expression. First, we can take the two phrases connected by and as two distinctive parts. In this case the force of all can go with both filthiness and wickedness. The expression can then be rendered as “all filthiness and all rank growth of wickedness.” This understanding is reflected in the following translations: “everything … every…” (Goodspeed, Revised English Bible), “everything … all…” (Barclay), “all … all…” (Knox), and “every … all…” (Good News Translation).

Secondly, it is possible to take filthiness and rank growth of wickedness as expressing a single idea, meaning “all filthiness caused by rank growth of wickedness,” or “all filthiness caused by overflowing wickedness.”

Thirdly, it is also possible to take rank growth of wickedness as an explanation of filthiness. In this case the expression may be rendered as “all filthiness, that is rank growth of wickedness.” This is apparently the way Knox understood it: “… of all defilement, of all the ill will that remains in you.”

These are all possible interpretations, but on the whole the first is the easiest one to follow and translate.

The word filthiness is used only here in the New Testament. Its adjective form is used in 2.2 to refer to the shabby clothing of a poor man. In the context of “stripping off,” it seems obvious that the author intends to continue the clothing metaphor. The intent is clear; it describes any moral defilement, anything that makes a person unclean and therefore unacceptable to God. It refers to a person’s “filthy habit” (Good News Translation), “moral filth” (New International Version), something that “would soil life” (Barclay), or even “indecent behavior.”

The meaning of the expression rank growth of wickedness is understood in various ways.
(1) Some take rank growth, which is one word in Greek, in the sense of “excess” or “surplus” and translate the phrase as “superfluity of naughtiness” (King James Version), “the malice that hurries to excess” (New English Bible), or “wicked excess” (Revised English Bible). This interpretation has the danger of allowing the misunderstanding that wickedness that is not excessive may be tolerated.
(2) A related interpretation is to take rank growth as something both extra and offensive, a kind of cancerous growth. This apparently is the sense favored by Barclay when he renders the expression as “malice that is like an alien growth on life.”
(3) The word is sometimes taken to mean “that which survives,” or “that which is left over.” On this understanding the exhortation is to take off every trace of wickedness that remains, and this is reflected in some translations; for example, “the remains of wickedness” (New American Standard Bible), “of all the ill-will that remains in you” (Knox), and “remnants of evil” (New Jerusalem Bible). This makes some sense, but the meaning is a bit forced.
(4) More scholars and translators have therefore taken rank growth in its basic sense of “abundance,” “profusion,” or “overflowing,” and rendered the phrase as “overflowing of wickedness” (American Standard Version), “every other evil that overflows…” (Phillips), “the malice which is so abundant” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy), “the evil that is so prevalent” (New International Version), or “all wicked conduct” (Good News Translation). Translators are advised to follow this interpretation.

The word wickedness is rendered in various ways. The rendering “naughtiness” (King James Version) as used nowadays is a bit too weak and even misleading, since it often refers to the mischievous behavior of children. The word can also have the general sense of “evil” (so Goodspeed, Translator’s New Testament, New Jerusalem Bible), although in the present context, where there is an admonition to avoid “anger,” the more precise meaning of “ill-will” (so Knox) or “malice” (Barclay, New English Bible) may be desirable.

An alternative translation model for the first part of this verse may be:
• So, keeping in mind what I have just said, you must stop [or, quit] all your indecent [or, filthy] behavior and all the wicked things you do.

Receive with meekness the implanted word: the exhortation now switches from a negative to a positive tone. In the UBS Greek text the phrase with meekness goes with the previous clause, modifying put away. Although there is at least one version that follows the Greek text and renders it “… put away with meekness…,” the majority take it as qualifying the verb receive. The metaphor is now shifted from that of clothing to one of planting. The attitude required is meekness, the kind of disposition needed in hearing and doing the word. Here the contrast is most likely not with “wickedness” or “malice” as some scholars have suggested, but with “anger,” especially if the anger mentioned in the previous verses is understood to be an arrogant and hostile temper against others as the result of overconfidence in the word of God. Meekness is a very difficult word to render, as shown by the different renderings in various translations; for example, “a teachable spirit” (Barclay), “be patient” (Knox), “in a humble spirit” (Goodspeed), “be humble” (Contemporary English Version), “submit to God” (Good News Translation). It is that kind of disposition or temper always under perfect control, a combination of being gentle, modest, humble, patient, submissive, and having a teachable spirit. In some languages it will be good to render this term with a negative expression; for example, “As you receive … don’t do it in a proud way” or “As you receive … don’t act as if you are somebody big.”

It is with this kind of spirit that a person should receive … the implanted word. The verb receive is an aorist imperative, indicating that the action is not progressive but one-time and decisive, pointing perhaps to the first reception. The fact that readers are advised to receive means that what is to be received is a gift, something that comes from God. There is a problem in the logical consequence here: How can someone receive what has been inborn or implanted? To resolve this problem some suggest that the word receive is best understood in the sense of “obey.” Others, however, render it as “welcome [what has been given]” (so New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version).

The adjective implanted has two meanings. It can have the sense of “innate,” “inborn,” and therefore “natural,” as opposed to what is acquired from outside. In this case word is often understood to be referring to the inborn reason or principle in every human being, the faculty that makes it possible for a person to understand and be receptive to a revelation. There are some difficulties with this understanding. For one thing, as already mentioned above, it is odd for people to be urged to accept what is already within them. For another, in a context where James places such an emphasis on the word as the gospel message, on hearing it and practicing it, it is unlikely that he would introduce a Stoic understanding of the word as inborn reason.

For these reasons most scholars prefer the second sense of implanted, that is, like a seed that is planted in the soil. In this case the gifts cannot be inborn and natural, but they are given or planted: “which roots itself inwardly” (Moffatt). Here we recall the parable of the sower (Matt 13.1-23), which tells how the seed (word, gospel) is sown into the hearts of people. In this sense the verb receive is best understood as meaning “welcome” or “accept in” (in Japanese translations), that is, first taking in what the person accepts and then turning it into action. The place where the word is planted is not stated in the text, but some translations have identified it as “in you” (Luther 1984, La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “in your hearts” (Translator’s New Testament, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). The latter appears to be more common and appropriate, in that the “heart” is considered in many cultures to be the seat of the emotions and the will, where actions are initiated. The agent who plants is God, and this can be made clear (so Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). The object or thing that is planted is the word, which most scholars agree to be the same as “the word of truth” in verse 18, meaning “the message of the Gospel,” and which is sometimes rendered as “the message” (Goodspeed, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Revised English Bible).

Alternative translation models for this sentence are:
• You must be humble and accept the message that God has planted [or, placed] in your hearts.
• Don’t be proud, but accept [or, welcome] the message [or, the true word] that God has planted in your hearts.
• When you accept the message that God has planted in your hearts, don’t act as if you are somebody big.

The message that is planted deep in the hearts of Christians is able to save your souls. The “sowing” of the “seed,” that is, the gospel message, will yield as its fruit “salvation.” The reference to “salvation” appears elsewhere in the letter at 2.14; 4.12; and 5.20. It is most likely that it is a reference to future salvation at the last judgment. The souls here should not be interpreted as a reference to a higher part of a person, as against the body, but to the whole person. The phrase is best rendered “is able to save you” (Good News Translation), “has the power to save you” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch; similarly Revised English Bible), or “is capable of saving your life” (Bible en français courant). In a number of languages it will be helpful to begin a new sentence here and say “This word [or, message] has the power to save you” or “… is capable of saving your life.”

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 .

At this point James tries to bring his argument to a close. He repeats the thoughts of his theme stated in verse 17, that faith apart from works is dead, but adds an analogy to make it plain. In many languages it will be helpful to begin a new paragraph here to show that this verse is a summary of James’ argument in the whole chapter (so Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version).

For as …: the particle For can be taken to mean that with this concluding analogy James wants to explain the Rahab example. However, it may also be taken as a conclusion of the whole argument. Good News Translation has apparently adopted this understanding by rendering the particle as “So then,” and in addition has made the verse as a separate paragraph (so also Phillips, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

James compares faith without works to a body without breath. It is interesting to observe that, in the structure of this sentence, faith is parallel to the body, and works to the spirit. This is perhaps not what we would have expected; however, there does not seem to be any need to press the exact details of the comparison. James is not interested in this; rather he is concerned to show that one thing cannot exist without the other.

When he says the body apart from the spirit is dead, it is possible that James is referring to the concept behind Gen 2.7, where a person is believed to consist of body and breath (spirit). (In both Hebrew and Greek the word for “spirit” can mean breath as well as spirit.) There is an organic relationship between the two; the separation of the two can only result in death. Here spirit is probably best taken as the life-giving breath; for example, “The body is dead without breath” (Translator’s New Testament), or “As the body is dead when there is no breath left in it” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible; similarly Barclay and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), and “Anyone who doesn’t breathe is dead” (Contemporary English Version). Apart from may be taken as “separated from” or “without.” Just as a body without breath is a corpse, so also faith apart from works is dead. This final sentence may be alternatively rendered as “So if a person doesn’t do good deeds, that person’s faith is useless” or “So if a person says, ‘I believe in God,’ but doesn’t do kind deeds, he doesn’t really believe 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 .

Whereas you do not know about tomorrow: the confidence of the business people is unfounded. They make plans only in reference to this world. They do not know anything about the future, which starts tomorrow.

There are two problems in this verse. The first is the exact sense of the indefinite relative pronoun rendered as whereas by Revised Standard Version. The Revised Standard Version rendering obviously takes it adverbially, with the force of bringing out a contrary argument. This is the understanding of those translations that render the relative as “why” (New International Version) or “yet” (so Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version). Others suggest that it should be taken in the classical sense of “you are those who…,” referring back to “you who say…” in 4.13. In this case we can identify those who know nothing about what will happen in the future as the same ones who make plans to do something. Those translations favoring this interpretation normally place a dash before “you”; for example, “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow … and making money’—you who know nothing about tomorrow!” (Moffatt; similarly New American Bible). Either understanding is possible. Actually, if the exact relationship of this verse with the previous one is not marked, that is, if the indefinite relative whereas is left untranslated, the next statement is in fact saying something contrary to the previous verse. Note, for example, the Good News Translation rendering: “You don’t even know what your life tomorrow will be!” One way to overcome this problem is to say “You people who talk like this don’t know…” or “You people who say such things don’t know….”

The next problem has to do with the structure of the first part of the sentence, which to some extent is compounded by variants in the Greek text. The UBS Greek New Testament takes the first half of the verse as a single sentence; that is, there is no punctuation between “you do not know the thing [with the singular article] tomorrow” and “what is your life.” If these two clauses are joined together, the resultant rendering will be something like what Good News Translation has done: “You don’t even know what your life tomorrow will be!” (so also La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Bible en français courant; similarly New American Standard Bible and Barclay). On this interpretation James can be understood as saying that these business people are ignorant of what the conditions of their life will be tomorrow.

The other alternative is to separate this part of the verse into two sentences. In this case translators usually adopt in the first statement a form of the text with either the singular article (“the thing [or, course] of tomorrow”) or the plural (“the things [or, affairs] of tomorrow”). The resultant rendering is reflected in the Revised Standard Version rendering, you do not know about tomorrow. What is your life? The answer to this question is then given in the second half of this verse. This is essentially the interpretation adopted by New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version. On this interpretation James appears to be emphasizing the uncertainty and shortness of life. It may be noted that some translations have rendered the first sentence also as a question; for example, “What do you know about tomorrow? How can you be so sure about your life?” (Contemporary English Version; so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

There appears to be a stronger case for the second interpretation for the following reasons. First, what James goes on to say about the readers’ life as a mist or a “puff of smoke” shows that he seems to have the uncertainty of life in mind. Secondly, if the first half of the verse is taken as one sentence, we would have to take “what” as the object of the verb “know.” Normally we would expect “what” to follow closely after the verb “know” when it is the object of that verb. But in this instance the two are separated by a phrase, “the thing of tomorrow.” It seems more natural, then, to take “what” as introducing a separate question relating to “your life.”

Tomorrow in certain languages will be expressed as “when the sun rises again” or “when a new day comes.” So we may translate you do not know about tomorrow as “You people who say this don’t even know what will happen after the sun rises again” or “You people who talk like this don’t even know what will happen when a new day comes.”

For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes: what is sure about life, according to James, is its uncertainty. You are a mist is of course referring to “your life” (“Your life is like a mist,” Barclay). The word mist can also mean “smoke,” and so it has been rendered as “a puff of smoke” by a number of translations (Good News Translation, Translator’s New Testament, New American Bible). It is used here as a metaphor indicating the uncertainty and shortness of life. It is like a mist that evaporates quickly under the sun, or like smoke blown away by the wind. The metaphor you are a mist is best rendered in some languages as a simile; for example, “you are like a mist” or “you are like a puff of smoke” (Good News Translation). Observe a play on words here; in the Greek appears and vanishes are both participles, literally “appearing” and “disappearing.” Life appears just for a little while, but like a mist or a puff of smoke it disappears quickly before anyone notices it. No one can be certain when death will come.

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 .