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 .

This verse serves as a transition that links verses 12-15 and verses 17-18. It is sometimes taken as the conclusion of the previous paragraph, as Phillips and New Revised Standard Version have done, but most commentators and translations have taken it as a transition introducing a new argument.

Do not be deceived: it is not the tempter but God who is the giver of all good gifts. James does not want his readers to have any mistake about this. The expression Do not be deceived is often used as a rhetorical device in an argument (compare 1 Cor 6.9; 15.33; Gal 6.7) and can be rendered idiomatically as “Make no mistake about this” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “Do not be fooled” (the Good News Translation rendering of the same expression in 1 Cor 15.33). We may also translate this expression as “I want you to be very sure of this.” The word “this,” of course, will refer to the information in the following verses.

James often addresses the people who will receive the letter as brethren, and occasionally adds an adjective “beloved,” as here and at 1.19 and 2.5. Here brethren is obviously general and inclusive, and therefore may be rendered as “my dear friends” (Revised English Bible), or even better, “my dear brothers and sisters.”

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 .

The first character taken as an example from the Old Testament is Abraham our father. Abraham, one of the most respected personalities in Jewish history, is considered the standard example of faith by the New Testament writers (Acts 7.2-8; Rom 4.11, 12, 16; Gal 3.7-14; Heb 11.8). Here our father is to be understood as “our ancestor” (Good News Translation; so also Contemporary English Version, New International Version, and New Revised Standard Version) or “our forefather” (Goodspeed). Father or “ancestor” may be variously translated as “our [inclusive] great father,” “our great father of long ago,” “our grandfather in ancient times,” “our big grandfather,” and so on. The pronoun our includes all believers.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works…?: the whole verse is interrogative, expecting an affirmative answer “Yes.” It is possible, in fact preferable in many languages, to conclude the question at the end of the first clause, making the rest of the sentence an affirmative answer, as Good News Translation has done: “How was our ancestor Abraham put right with God? It was through his actions….”

In Greek the verb justified may be used in the law-court sense of “be forgiven” or “be declared innocent.” In this context, however, it should be observed that Abraham is not considered as a “justified sinner” in the Pauline sense, but as a righteous person approved and rewarded by God. Since Abraham offered his son Isaac upon the altar, God found him to be faithful and approved him as a righteous person in the light of his deeds. The focus is not on its legal sense but its moral sense. The word justified may have a different meaning in modern English usage and is therefore not the best rendering. The verb is best translated in the passive as “was considered righteous” (New International Version), “was declared acceptable,” or “was approved”; or, making God the agent of the action, “was accepted by God” (Barclay), “was recognized as being righteous by God” (Bible en français courant); or, in the active, it can be translated “God has accepted him as just” (so Biblia Dios Habla Hoy).

It seems awkward to use the plural by works when only one work of offering Isaac is mentioned. Two explanations have been suggested. First, it may have been used simply as a formula meaning “by his conduct.” If this explanation is adopted we may render the expression as “by his action” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible; similarly Barclay), “by what he did” (Moffatt), or “for what he did” (New International Version). Secondly, it has been suggested that by using the plural by works James is recollecting the customary Jewish list of ten tests of Abraham, with the offering of Isaac as the final one. If this interpretation is adopted we will need to keep the plural, such as by works, “through his actions” (Good News Translation), or “for his good deeds” (Goodspeed). However, the idea of “conduct” still applies, and we may express justified by works as “God approved of [or, was pleased with] his conduct.”

When he offered his son Isaac upon the altar: there are two problems in this clause; both relate to the aorist participle rendered when he offered. First, the participle can be understood in two ways. It can mean “having offered,” indicating that the act of offering Isaac on the part of Abraham took place before God’s declaration of his approval. In other words, the two are successive events: the offering first, and then the approval. This apparently is the meaning intended by King James Version when it renders the clause as “when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar.” The majority of translators, however, understand the participle to mean a simultaneous act, thus when he offered …, or as the extension of the same act, thus “in that he offered up…” (American Standard Version), “for offering his son…” (Goodspeed), or “in offering his son…” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible).

The second problem is minor, as it does not affect the translation. The verb offered is a technical term for offering sacrifices. Here the “offering” ends only in “binding.” According to the Genesis account (22.1-14), Isaac was not killed as a sacrifice on the altar; but Abraham showed that he was ready to do so by binding him. What is meant here without being stated is the faith of Abraham; he believed in the promises and faithfulness of God. This is made clear in the next verse. In order to bring this point out, as well as to smooth out the fact that Isaac was not actually killed, some translators have resorted to expanded renderings; for example, “when his faith led him to offer…” (Phillips), “when he was willing to obey God, even if it meant offering his son Isaac to die on the altar” (Living Bible), or “by putting his son Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him” (Contemporary English Version).

The Hebrew altar was a stone structure on which animals were sacrificed or food was offered to God. Many modern cultures have similar elevated structures for sacrificing animals or for offering gifts to a deity. Sometimes this is a stone or wood platform or table. Such terms may be used here if it is clear that this altar is dedicated to God.

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• God accepted Abraham our [inclusive] ancestor as a good person, didn’t he? He accepted his conduct when he put his son Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him.

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 .

Be wretched and mourn and weep: the command to readers to cleanse themselves is followed by a call for their repentance. This, and what James goes on to say, is reflective of prophetic language. The three imperatives used here are virtually the same in their meaning. The verb Be wretched is used only here in the New Testament. The King James Version rendering “Be afflicted” may not be the intended meaning, in that what James wants his readers to do is not to inflict hardships on themselves as a sign of repentance, but to have a sense of sorrow. The noun form of this verb is used in Rom 7.24, where Paul describes himself as a double-minded person who sees what is right and tries to put it into action, only to find that he is not able to do it. Being in this sort of situation, he characterizes himself as “Wretched man that I am!” A wretched person is therefore someone who feels miserable and sorrowful realizing that he is in a sad situation and condition. The wide area of meaning of this verb is seen in various translations trying to express some part of its meaning; for example, “Be miserable” (Goodspeed), “Be sorrowful” (Good News Translation; so also New English Bible, Revised English Bible), “Lament” (Moffatt, New Revised Standard Version), “Grieve” (New International Version), “You should be deeply sorry” (Phillips). In many languages this idea will be expressed idiomatically, referring to the heart or liver; for example, “Your heart [or, liver] should be very unhappy” or “Let your heart [or, liver] fall.”

Mourn and weep: the inner sense of wretchedness should be matched by outward expression of sorrow. The combination of terms also appears in Luke 6.25, where woe is pronounced on “you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.” In the light of the sinful condition the Christians are in, and in view of the impending judgment, they should in fact be mourning and wailing. So mourning and wailing here are signs of repentance, not substitutes for it. Other possible ways to translate mourn are “cry in sadness” or “feel very sorry.” And if a translator must identify the reason for the sorrow, we may say, for example, “feel very sorry for your sins.” The word weep is a kind of “weep aloud” (Goodspeed) and so may be rendered as “wail” (New International Version). An alternative rendering for the first sentence can be:
• Be very unhappy, feel great sadness for your sins, and cry [or, weep] aloud.

Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to dejection: this statement expands what has just been said, and is to be considered as having essentially the same meaning. In the Bible laughter is sometimes considered a desirable thing (Psa 126.2), but often it describes the shallow laughter of the fool (Pro 29.9; Eccl 7.6)—the person who has no fear of God. Laughter is condemned because people are ignorant of their own sad condition and status before God. Therefore, when Christians accept the call to turn laughter … to mourning and joy to dejection, they will be able to enjoy true blessedness. Turning from one state to another is again the true sign of repentance. Since the joy mentioned here is obviously not the healthy kind desired, it may be rendered as “gaiety” (Revised English Bible). Translators should try to find a term that describes a negative or inappropriate type of joy. Other English terms are “frivolity” and “mirth.” The word dejection is used only here in the New Testament. Rendered as “heaviness” by King James Version, it means “gloom” (Good News Translation; so also Translator’s New Testament, Revised English Bible) and describes a downcast look, being the outward expression of a heavy heart due to remorse and shame. It gives a picture of the kind of attitude and posture the tax collector had in prayer, as recorded in Luke 18.13: “But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ” The passive imperative statement, Let your laughter be turned to mourning …, is best restructured into an active form in many languages; for example, “Turn your laughter into mourning…” (Revised English Bible) or “You must change your laughter into mourning….” (Contemporary English Version) has a helpful alternative model for the last two sentences of this verse:
• Stop laughing and start crying. Be gloomy instead of glad.

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 .

Obviously James is not interested in giving a full explanation of what constitutes true piety; yet he goes on to mention two things that are important, namely social concern and moral purity. True religion or piety is defined as pure and undefiled before God and the Father. The pair of adjectives pure and undefiled are often found together; they have essentially the same meaning, one representing the positive and one the negative aspect of the same requirement. In the present context these are not external or ritual requirements but ethical qualities that must be expressed in action. The pair can be rendered “pure and faultless” (Revised English Bible), or both positively “pure and genuine” (Good News Translation, Phillips), or with an intensifier “completely pure.” As in the previous verse religion in many languages must be translated in a more precise way; for example, “The deeds that God the Father considers to be…,” “What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine behavior is….”

The purity required is not to be judged according to human standards but before God and the Father, that is, in God the Father’s sight and judgment. For this reason Good News Translation has made “God” the subject of this sentence; thus “What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this….” The Contemporary English Version rendering, “Religion that pleases God the Father,” can also be used as a translation model. We may also translate this as “Behavior that pleases God….”

The expression God and the Father is actually “the God and Father,” with one article governing two nouns, and therefore can be taken as a hendiadys (expressing a single idea using two independent words or phrases connected by “and”). A literal translation might give people the idea that the Father is different from God. This obviously is not what the author wanted. It is therefore best to take it as “God the Father,” with “Father” defining the character of “God,” as most modern translations have done. In the biblical concept “Father” does not simply convey the sense of authority but also love, trust, care, and sustenance. It is quite possible that the author purposely uses Father here to highlight one particular aspect of God’s nature as the one who takes special care of the fatherless and widows (Psa 68.5). Father in some cultures must always be possessed; for example, “his father,” “their father,” or in this case “our Father” (New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version). In this context it will then be helpful to translate “God our [inclusive] Father.”

To visit orphans and widows in their affliction: the first expression of the true piety acceptable to God. The verb to visit is used in Matt 25.36, 43 of visiting the sick. In the present context it can be taken in the sense of “to look after” (Revised English Bible), “to provide help for,” or “to take care of” (Good News Translation). Care for orphans and widows is considered to be an obligation in the Old Testament (Deut 27.19; Isa 1.17), and this tradition continues in the New Testament (Acts 6.1; 1 Tim 5.3-16). Orphans in the Hebrew culture referred to children who had lost at least a father; thus they were “fatherless” or “children without a father.” In many languages the term used for “orphan” refers to a child who has lost both parents. Translators should seek a term that is the most natural in this context. Widows in some languages will be expressed as “women whose husbands have died.” Orphans and widows are often grouped together because they constitute the two social classes most open to exploitation and therefore most needing help and concern. The exact cause of their affliction is not clear. The word affliction can be rendered in general as “suffering” (Good News Translation), “trouble” (Moffatt, Revised English Bible), “hardship” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “distress” (Phillips, Barclay).

To keep oneself unstained from the world: the second expression of true piety. This saying is based on the view that the world is the source of stain and evil and is therefore opposed to God (compare 4.4). The ethical concept of the world as opposed to God is found also in other parts of the New Testament (John 15.18-19; Rom 12.2; 1 Cor 2.12; 1 John 2.15-17). To be truly religious a person has to steer himself away from being “corrupted by the world” (Good News Translation) or “contaminated by the world” (Barclay). The phrase may also be rendered “keeping oneself free from the world’s evil” (Translator’s New Testament) or “must … not let this world make you evil” (Contemporary English Version).

An alternative translation model for verses 26 and 27 may be:
• If you think that you are serving God properly, but don’t control what you say, everything you do is useless [or, worthless]. Behavior that pleases God the [or, our] Father must be completely pure. You must take care of orphans and widows who are suffering, and don’t let the evil in the world contaminate you.

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 .

The tongue is a fire: the potential destructive power of the tongue has already been suggested in verse 5, but now it is clearly identified. That the tongue is a fire is a familiar analogy used in the Bible; for example, “Scoundrels concoct evil, and their speech is like a scorching fire” (Pro 16.27, NRSV). Fire is often used in the Bible as a symbol of judgment, but here it is used as a symbol of destruction. The tongue is potentially dangerous; it has destructive power similar to that of fire. In languages that will not use a metaphor here, it may be necessary to make this a simile; for example, “the tongue is like a fire” (Good News Translation). Or we may make it a descriptive sentence; for example, “Fire destroys things; the tongue is like that.”

The use of the tongue here refers to a person’s speech, but in many languages people may use some other bodily organ such as “lips” or “mouth,” and say, for example, “the lips are like a fire.” In this case translators must use the alternative term throughout the entire passage. In the case of a language that would not normally use figurative language in this context (but this is rather unlikely), we may say “our speech is like a fire.”

Up to this point the meaning is clear. What James says next, however, is extremely ambiguous and difficult to understand. There are several problems. First, there are five expressions in the nominative case but only one main verb. The problem is how to combine these words and phrases. Secondly, the meaning of several words and phrases is obscure. The fact that there are a number of textual variants shows the ambiguity in the text. (However, none of the variants is meaningful and significant enough to be included in the critical apparatus of the fourth edition of the Greek New Testament published by UBS.) To solve these problems a number of scholars consider the text to be corrupt and suggest various changes. But here again none of the changes proposed is convincing enough to win wide acceptance. The best thing therefore is to take the text as it is and try to make the best sense of it.

There is no problem in the meaning of the first sentence. James defines the tongue as an unrighteous world, literally “the world of unrighteousness [or, wickedness].” The difficulty lies in the meaning of the term world. It has sometimes been taken in the sense of “ornament” or “adornment” (compare 1 Peter 3.3)—it has been suggested that James is here saying that the tongue adorns wickedness by using flowery language to make it attractive. It has also been suggested that world here means the “sum total,” and thus the phrase means “the totality of wickedness.” This appears to be the meaning when the phrase is rendered as an unrighteous world, “a world of iniquity” (New Revised Standard Version), or “the whole wicked world” (Revised English Bible). It should be observed that the word world appears four other times in this book (1.27; 2.5; 4.4 twice), and in each instance it means the fallen and rebellious world. If the word “unrighteousness” acts as an adjective in the Greek construction “the world of unrighteousness,” this gives the meaning “the unrighteous world.” This interpretation also has the advantage of taking the definite article in “the unrighteous world” seriously. It is this sense, then, that appears to fit the context best and is therefore the one to be preferred.

In some languages, however, to talk about the tongue or “speech” being “the unrighteous [or, evil] world,” or “an evil world” will be difficult for readers to understand. For one thing, in many languages the idea of “the world” refers only to a concrete object in the universe. In such cases we may use a simile for this phrase; for example, “like a world full of evil,” or we may equate the world with an evil influence or power as Contemporary English Version does, and say “It is an evil power that….” Many translators will find this latter rendering more meaningful.

The next problem is punctuation and the structure of the whole verse. It has to do basically with the relationship between the first statement “and the tongue [is] fire” and the following clauses. In the Greek order and punctuation, the next clause is “the unrighteous world the tongue is presented [or, presents itself] among our members.” There are several possibilities:
(1) We can place a comma after “fire”; thus “And the tongue is a fire, the unrighteous world….” In this case “the unrighteous world” is in apposition to “fire,” meaning that it defines further what “tongue” is. This is the interpretation favored by some translations; for example, “And the tongue is a fire, representing in our body the whole wicked world” (Revised English Bible), and “The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body” (New International Version). It will be noted that both New International Version and Revised English Bible have left the second occurrence of “the tongue” untranslated, and that both place a period after the second statement.
(2) We can also place a comma after “fire” and a period right after “the unrighteous world” instead of taking the whole clause as a unit; thus “And the tongue is a fire, the unrighteous world” (similarly Luther 1984 and Translator’s New Testament). Instead of a period, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible has a semicolon, and La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée a colon; and then each has “the tongue” as the subject of the next clause. In both cases the effect is equivalent to a period.
(3) Most commentators and translators prefer to place a period right after “fire,” making And the tongue is a fire an independent sentence. This way the statement is seen as a comment by James on the image of the forest fire in verse 5. This understanding has the advantage of explaining that the second occurrence of “the tongue” is not redundant, and that the feminine participle, rendered as staining by Revised Standard Version, goes well as the modifier of “the tongue” (feminine gender). The series of three expressions that follow then can all be taken as modifying the tongue. The resultant translation would look something like this: “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is presented [or, presents itself] among our members as the unrighteous world; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell.” This is essentially what New Revised Standard Version has done.
(4) From the point of view of links between words, another arrangement of the clauses is possible. We note that there is a link between “unrighteousness [or, wickedness]” and “staining [or, polluting],” as well as between “set on fire” and “being set on fire.” The clauses may be arranged in these pairs; for example, “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue [it] is presented [or, presents itself] among our members as the unrighteous world, staining the whole body. It sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell.” The Good News Translation rendering reflects this understanding.

Option 3 makes the best sense from the point of view of the Greek structure, even though there is no real difference of meaning between options 3 and 4. In fact there is little difference among all the choices, but either 3 or 4 is preferable to 1 or 2.

It remains to explain some of the meanings of various terms and expressions. The Revised Standard Version rendering of the Greek verb rendered as is (in is an unrighteous world) is less than adequate. If it is taken as a passive, it means “is constituted,” “is set,” “is placed” (New Revised Standard Version), or “is installed” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). If it is taken as middle voice, it means “presents itself as,” “represents” (New English Bible), “occupies its place in” (compare Good News Translation), or “acts the part of.” The word rendered members refers to “parts of the body” (Barclay, New International Version) or “organs of the body” (Japanese New Interconfessional Translation).

Staining the whole body: the verb from which the participle staining is formed has the meaning of “to defile” (so New American Bible), “to corrupt” (so New International Version), or “to pollute” (so Revised English Bible). The word body is rendered as “being” by Good News Translation and Revised English Bible. This is a correct rendering, since what James intends to communicate is that the tongue can defile the whole person. In typical Jewish understanding the “body” always means the “whole person.” However, the word “being” may sound too philosophical and therefore be difficult to translate in some languages. If so “the whole person,” or even “the whole personality” (Wand), may be better. Here again, though, if we favor the interpretation that the author has individual members of the congregation and the church (as the body) in mind, it is all right to keep the literal renderings “member” and “body.” Staining the whole body (Good News Translation “spreading evil through our whole body”) may also be expressed as “dirties the rest of the body” (Contemporary English Version).

Setting on fire the cycle of nature: the potential evil influence of the tongue is not limited to the individual. The participle setting on fire continues the metaphor of “fire” and in fact completes the application of the danger of the tongue as “fire.” Setting on fire is not literal; the language is figurative, picturing the power of destruction. The meaning of the cycle of nature is debated. Literally it means “the wheel of beginning, origin, or birth” and was originally used in the mystery religions and philosophical circles to express the idea that our existence is nothing but an unending cycle of reincarnations from which we seek deliverance—a fatalistic belief. But it is quite possible that James’ use of the expression lacks this technical sense; it reflects rather a common and popular use of the expression to refer to the whole course of human life. James’ intention is to show the extent of the tongue’s destructive potential. The cycle of nature is therefore rendered as “the whole course of our existence” (Good News Translation; similarly Revised English Bible), “the entire course of our lives” (New American Bible).

The tongue that is described as “fire” is itself set on fire by hell. There are two kinds of fire: one is the fire that is from above, namely the Holy Spirit that purifies and illuminates (Acts 2.2, 3); the other fire comes from below, namely from the devil, and it sets human passions on fire. The word rendered hell is originally a transliteration of the Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom” into the Greek form geennēs (“Gehenna,” so New American Bible). It is a place located outside of Jerusalem, which was used as a garbage dump where refuse was being burned constantly. It was known as the valley of slaughter and the place of divine punishment (Jeremiah 19). In the New Testament it is the place of punishment of the wicked after the final judgment (Mark 9.45; Matt 5.22, 29). It will be noted that, just as “heaven” is sometimes substituted for God, hell is here intended to mean “the devil.” Whatever term translators use here, it must be made clear that hell is a place of fire. Other possible ways to express set on fire by hell are “set … by the flames that come from hell itself” (Contemporary English Version), “set on fire by the flames that come from the place of fiery punishment for dead people,” or “… the place of the fire that cannot be put out.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• And the tongue [or mouth, lips] is like a fire. It is a world full of evil that lives in our bodies and spreads evil through our whole lives. It sets our whole life on fire using flames that come right from hell.
• And the tongue is a fire. It is an evil power that dirties the rest of the body with its evil. It as it were sets a person’s whole life on fire with flames that come from the place where dead people are punished with fire.

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 .

The poverty of hired laborers is reflected in the Bible, and there are humane regulations protecting their rights. Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20.1-16) is told against this general background, and in it we see that the workers expect their pay at the end of the day. In the Old Testament the importance of paying laborers at the end of the day’s work is emphasized (Lev 19.13; Deut 24.14, 15), and employers who exploit their workers are often rebuked (Jer 22.13; Mal 3.5; Amos 8.4). The purpose of the regulations was to protect the rights of the poor laborers; they needed the wage to meet the immediate needs of their families every day; there is no way to feed the family the next day without it. There is an additional reason why immediate payment is to the advantage of the workers. If the payment is not made immediately, it becomes easy for employers to defraud the workers, as poor workers dare not demand justice for fear that doing so may deprive them of the opportunity to work. It is against this background that we can begin to appreciate the significance of James’ charge against the rich landowners. In this verse James levels his second charge against the rich: they withhold wages from the laborers. The rich are obviously the wealthy farmers who own much land.

Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields … cry out: James is fond of using the rhetorical interjection Behold to call attention to important sayings and examples (3.4, “Look,” 5, “[See] how great”; 5.4, 7, 9, 11). As a device to call attention, this interjection, though sometimes left untranslated, may also be rendered as “Why” (Goodspeed), “Listen” (New Revised Standard Version), “Look” (New International Version), or “Pay attention.” In a number of Asian and African languages, where particles such as this are an essential part of discourse, translators should use an appropriate particle here as an attention-getter.

The subject of the long sentence is the wages, and the verb is cry out. James obviously uses this picturesque language not only for dramatic effect, but also to highlight the plight of the exploited laborers. The verb cry out is used of Abel’s blood crying out to God from the ground for justice and vengeance (Gen 4.10; compare also Exo 2.23; Rev 6.9-10). To cry out is to cry aloud against someone or something, often in protest against injustice. It means “to complain loudly” (compare “complaints,” Good News Translation). The verb is in the present tense here and can be taken as a continual crying out. A number of translations (including New International Version and Revised English Bible) have chosen to render it as a present progressive, “are crying out.” Wages may be expressed as “daily pay” or “money for a day’s work.” In some languages it is impossible to say the wages … cry out. If so translators may have to say simply “the workers … cry out”; so Good News Translation has “Listen to their complaints!”

The laborers are hired farm workers; they are defined as the ones who mowed your fields. The word mowed is used only here in the New Testament and can mean “to reap” (similarly Goodspeed, Barclay) or “to harvest” (similarly New American Bible). In many languages a term with a more general meaning such as “work in your fields” will be an adequate translation. The word rendered fields refers to a large area of farmland and so may be rendered as “farms” or “ranches.” The crying aloud is against the rich, and this may be brought out; for example, “cry out against you” (New International Version) or “complain against you.”

Which you have kept back by fraud: what the rich did with the wages was that they held them back. There is a textual problem related to the compound verb rendered as kept back by fraud. The text adopted by the UBS Greek Testament, more widely attested, means “to rob” or “to defraud,” that is to take something from someone by means of deception. In addition to the Revised Standard Version rendering (so also New Revised Standard Version), some translations have tried to bring out the sense by emphasizing one component of the meaning; for example, “you have cheated of their pay” (Living Bible), “The wages you have fraudulently withheld” (Jewish New Testament). We can even render it more forcefully as “you have fraudulently robbed of their wages.” An alternative text, favored by some, is weaker in meaning. It means simply “to withhold” (similarly Goodspeed, New American Standard Bible) or “to keep back” (similarly New Jerusalem Bible). The renderings like “have not paid” (Good News Translation) and “failed to pay” (New International Version) appear also to have followed this reading. The rich landowners have not simply delayed the payment, but have actually not paid at all. On the whole the first option is preferable. An alternative translation model for the first part of verse 4 is:
• You have deceived the men who work in your fields by refusing to pay them their daily wage [or, money]. Pay attention to their loud complaints.

The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts: the cries of the poor have not gone unheard. The Greek noun translated cries is used only here in the New Testament. This second use of “cries” (though a different word than the verb used in the previous clause) serves to again highlight the plight of the exploited laborers and to bring home the fact that the rich people hoarded their wealth and fraudulently stole what was due to the poor laborers. Here again the cries are loud protests (compare “The clamorous protests,” Barclay). In translation it is desirable to retain “cries” if we have rendered the verb in the previous statement as “cry out.” This will make the translation more forceful, as it is obviously intended to be. It is possible to render the pair of words in English as “cry out … outcry” (similarly Revised English Bible). We may also express this as “loud cries of complaint” if the word “complaints” has been used in the previous sentence. The cries are those of the harvesters, the people who gather in crops for the landowners, and therefore there is no excuse not to give them the wages due them.

The cries … have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts: this expression is a human way of saying that God has heard the cries, and the intended sense is that he will listen and respond to his people (compare the Contemporary English Version rendering: “… has surely heard”). God’s ears are always open to the poor, and this means that his judgment will be on those who oppress them (Psa 17.1-6; 18.6). The title the Lord of hosts is a common Old Testament expression but is used in the New Testament only here and in Rom 9.29. It is rendered as “the Lord of sabaoth” by King James Version, the word “sabaoth” being a transliteration of a Hebrew word that means “armies.” The word “armies” can refer to earthly armies (compare 1 Sam 17.45), but more often it refers to heavenly armies, namely angels and stars (Psa 103.19-22). The title depicts God as the powerful commander of the great army. Reflecting the translation in the Septuagint, it may be rendered as “the Lord Almighty” (so Good News Translation, New International Version). Most likely James picks up this title from Isaiah 5, where it is used four times, and where it is related to God’s judgment upon Israelites for their oppression of the poor. James’ intention here is to convey the fact that for God to hear the outcry of the poor is for him to bring judgment to their rich exploiters. The Lord of hosts is a title for God, and so this may be expressed as Good News Translation has done “God, the Lord Almighty”; or if the use of Lord will confuse readers who normally associate this title with Christ, we may translate, for example, “God who is all powerful,” or “God who is the strongest of all.”

In some languages translators will run into difficulty translating a long sentence with several relative clauses like the ones we have here. It may be necessary therefore to restructure the verse into several shorter sentences; for example:
• You have fraudulently stolen the wages of the laborers who harvested your farms. Listen! They are crying out with complaints. The outcries of the harvesters have reached the ears of God the Lord Almighty.

It may be desirable in some languages to break down the first sentence into two: “The laborers harvested your farms. You have cheated them by stealing their daily wages.” The last sentence may be also rendered “God who is all powerful has heard the outcries of those who harvest your crops [or, grain].”

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 .

Starting at verse 5 we enter a subsection on the wisdom that is obtainable only through prayer in faith. A structural link with the previous verse is made by using a pair of catchwords, “lacking” in verse 4 and “lacks” in verse 5.

In Greek there is a particle that functions either as a connective “And” or as an adversative “But,” depending on context. Good News Translation chooses to render it as an adversative “But,” thus connecting this verse with what is said in the previous verse (so also the French common language version [Bible en français courant]). Most other translations, however, take it simply as a transition marker and therefore leave it untranslated; this appears to be the more likely interpretation.

For translating this verse the relative clause who gives to all men … presents some problems. The question is where to place this explanatory relative clause. It may be treated as a parenthetical statement; for example, “and if, in the process, any of you does not know how to meet any particular problem he has only to ask God—who gives generously to all men without making them feel guilty—and he may be quite sure that the necessary wisdom will be given him” (Phillips). This is essentially what is done by translations that follow more or less the structure of the Greek original, such as King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version. It is also possible to make the relative clause a separate statement, as a sort of an introduction to the other three clauses in the sentence: for example, “It is characteristic of God to give generously and ungrudgingly to all. So then, if anyone is lacking in wisdom…” (Barclay). A third possibility, the one that appears to be the most acceptable, is to link the relative clause to the other three with an explanatory particle “for” or “because,” as Good News Translation has done: “But if any of you lack wisdom, you should pray to God, who will give it to you; because God gives generously and graciously to all.”

The word wisdom is one of the important terms in this letter. It occurs again in 3.13, 15, and 17. The Greek concept of wisdom centers around “knowledge,” “cleverness,” and “learnedness.” In biblical usage, however, especially in the Old Testament, it is basically a practical, moral, and spiritual insight given by God (1 Kgs 3.7-9; Pro 2.3-6, 10-19; 9.1-6). It is the ability to discern right from wrong and good from evil. It is the power that enables a person to do and say the right thing at the right time. The practical nature of wisdom in the present context is brought out vividly by Phillips when he renders the conditional clause as “and if, in the process, any of you does not know how to meet any particular problem…” (similarly the German common language version [Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch]). We may also say “But if any of you do not know how to deal with these problems [or, difficulties]” or “But if any of you do not have the insight to solve these problems.”

According to James wisdom is a gift from God, something God gives, and therefore a person must ask for it and it will be given to him. This saying is reminiscent of Jesus’ teaching in Matt 7.11. “God’s readiness to give is a motive to prayer” Ropes). The imperative let him ask is best rendered as “he should ask” (New American Bible, New English Bible, Revised English Bible), or “you should pray” (Good News Translation), or generally “ask God” (New Revised Standard Version), or “you should ask God” (Contemporary English Version). Notice that God gives to all men. It is best to render all men inclusively; for example, “all” (Good News Translation, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version), or even “all people.” Here James is speaking of the gift of wisdom given in response to prayer, and so all refers most likely to “all who ask from God,” rather than the all-inclusive “everyone” (Translator’s New Testament).

The adverb rendered generously is found only here in the New Testament. It means literally “simply” or “single-heartedly,” that is, “without hesitation,” “without condition,” or “without reservation.” This is obviously the meaning taken by Moffatt when he renders it as “without question” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). However, considering the fact that this adverb is used in connection with “giving,” most modern translations favor the rendering generously (similarly Goodspeed, Phillips, New American Bible, Revised English Bible). The focus here appears to be on the extent of giving, but it may be noted that generosity in some languages also refers to the manner of giving. In certain languages it will be rendered in an idiomatic way; for example, “give with a wide heart.”

Without reproaching can be taken in the sense of “without making them feel guilty” (Phillips) or “without scolding” (New Jerusalem Bible); or it can be understood in the sense of “ungrudgingly” (Knox, New American Bible, Translator’s New Testament, Barclay, New Revised Standard Version). The former goes better with “without condition” or “without question,” while the latter pairs better with “generously.” The Good News Translation rendering “graciously,” expressed positively, is more general than other translations. “Graciously” may also be rendered as “in a kind way,” or “in a way that shows his love and care.”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• If any of you need wisdom, you should ask God and he will give it to you. God is generous and will give wisdom to all who ask him, in a way that shows his love and care.

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 .