For judgment is without mercy: James adds a warning emphasizing that God will judge and condemn those who show no mercy. The verse is meant apparently to serve as a connection to verse 12 and a transition to verse 14. We can see a chiasmus (X structure) in this verse:

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 argument is that the source of infighting lies in the pursuit of passions. James makes his argument very forcefully and effectively by using rhetorical questions, repeating the interrogative adverb “where … where…,” and arranging the keywords in the first two verses in a chiastic pattern: “wars … fightings … fight … war.”

What causes wars, and what causes fightings among you?: this is a short sentence without a verb in the Greek text, literally “From where wars, and from where fightings among you.” A number of translations take the interrogative adverb in its primary sense of source by supplying the verb “come”; for example, “From whence come…?” (King James Version) or “Where do … come from?” (Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version). It is also possible to take the adverb in the sense of reason by rendering it as “Why do you fight and…?” (Contemporary English Version), or in the sense of cause by translating it as What causes…? as Revised Standard Version and others have done (so Goodspeed, New English Bible, New International Version). This rhetorical question need not be answered, as James will try to provide his own answer later. Another possible way to render this question is to make it a causative, “Why do you fight and…?” (similarly Contemporary English Version), and the following sentence then gives the reason or cause for these aggressive actions.

There are several things to be said about the terms wars and fightings (New Jerusalem Bible “wars and battles”). First, they are often used of military encounters between nations and groups, but they can also be used to describe arguments or conflicts between individuals, families, or groups. Although some scholars do not rule out the possibility of taking these terms literally as referring to physical conflicts, it is more likely that the other sense is intended here. James is simply using the terms metaphorically to describe the conflicts within the Christian community occasioned by internal rivalries and factions (3.13-18).

Secondly, the two words are meant to be a pair of terms that mean the same thing. This is reflected in translating the pair interchangeably; for example, “fightings and quarrels” (similarly Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible), or “quarrels and conflicts” (New American Standard Bible).

Finally, the word wars will be understood in some languages to mean only military conflicts, and therefore it will be unsuitable in this context. It may be for this reason that many translations choose to render it as “fights” (Good News Translation, New International Version), “conflicts” (New English Bible, New Revised Standard Version), or “feuds” (Barclay, Phillips). The same problem exists for the word fightings. In some languages therefore it is best to use terms that tend more to suggest arguments or feuds between persons; for example, “conflicts and disputes” (New Revised Standard Version, Today’s Chinese Version). The phrase among you is not to be taken in the sense of within individual persons but among members of the community.

Other ways to translate this first sentence are:
• Why do you fight and argue with each other?
• What causes you to fight and quarrel with each other?

In languages that do not normally use rhetorical questions, this may be expressed as:
• There’s a good reason why you fight and quarrel with each other. It’s because of….

Is it not your passions that are at war in your members?: this rhetorical question is expressed in such a way as to expect an affirmative answer. It is possible therefore to restructure the sentence as an emphatic positive statement in languages that do not use a rhetorical question here; for example, “It is your passions that are at war in your members!” (similarly Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) or “It is because you are full of selfish desires that fight to control your body!” (similarly Contemporary English Version). Conflicts in the community come from your passions. The Greek word that Revised Standard Version renders as passions is usually translated as “pleasures” (so American Standard Version) and can have a neutral meaning in Greek, but it is used in the New Testament only in the negative sense of sinful passions or self-indulgent desires. It is used of “the pleasures of life” that choke the good seed (Luke 8.14), “pleasures” that enslave a person (Titus 3.3), and of “pleasure” that revels in daytime (2 Peter 2.13). In this context it may be rendered “lusts” (King James Version), “bodily desires” (New English Bible), “desires for pleasure” (Phillips, Good News Translation), or more generally “selfish desires” (Translator’s New Testament, Contemporary English Version).

James again uses a military metaphor at war to describe the conflict. The verb is in the present tense and so may be rendered as “are constantly fighting” (Good News Translation) or “are always fighting…” (Translator’s New Testament). The phrase in your members may be understood in two ways. The first possibility is to take it as referring to the Christian community, where individuals are “members.” In this case the fighting is between the individual members of the community (so New American Bible). The second possibility is to take it as internal conflict within individuals. Now if we take passions in the sense of bodily desires or desires for pleasure, and if we understand “member” as “part of the body” as in 3.5, 6, then it is consistent to interpret in your members as referring to the personal life of individuals. In this case the fighting is between a person’s different desires. This understanding is reflected in translations like “inside your own selves” (New Jerusalem Bible), “in your bodies” (Revised English Bible), or “within you” (Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version). Either interpretation is possible.

Possible alternative translation models for this verse are:
• What causes you to fight and quarrel with each other? It’s because your own bodily desires are constantly fighting to control your body.
• There’s a good reason why you fight and quarrel with each other. It’s because your own bodily desires….

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 .

Elijah was …: as an example of the effectiveness of fervent prayer, James singles out Elijah (see 1 Kgs 17.1; 18.1, 42-45). The first thing he mentions about Elijah is that he was a man of like nature with ourselves. The phrase like nature with ourselves is literally “like feelings with us” or “similar suffering with us,” in the sense that he shared the “same limitations as us.” The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts 14.15 in adjectival form. There Paul and Barnabas told the crowds at Lystra not to consider them as gods, but as fellow human beings like them. The phrase may be rendered, then, as “a man with human frailties like our own” (New English Bible), “a human being like us” (New Revised Standard Version), “a man every bit as human as we are” (Barclay), “was the same kind of person as we are” (Good News Translation), and “was just as human as we are” (Contemporary English Version); or we may translate “was just like we are; he was a human being.” James is here emphasizing the common nature and therefore the common bond between ordinary Christians and Elijah; Elijah was not superhuman but a man with limitations and weaknesses like all of us. The intended meaning is that any Christian can have the same power if he or she is that kind of “righteous person.”

He prayed fervently that it might not rain: this is what Elijah had done. The clause he prayed fervently is literally “in prayer he prayed.” This usage reflects the influence of the Hebrew idiom, and its function is to intensify the force of the statement. In addition to the Revised Standard Version rendering, the force of the clause may be rendered “He prayed earnestly” (Goodspeed, Good News Translation), “He prayed and prayed” (Laws), “he prayed constantly,” or “he prayed again and again.”

And for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth: God answered the fervent prayer of Elijah. The same length of time is mentioned in Luke 4.25, where the example of Elijah is cited. In 1 Kgs 18.1 it only says, “in the third year.” It is not known how this figure was calculated. It is quite possible that this is taken from a stock phrase that had symbolic associations with a period of judgment (Dan 7.25; 12.7; compare also Rev 11.2, 3). In any case the uncertainty of the origin and of the meaning of the phrase will not in any way affect the translation. The expression on the earth can mean “in the land of Israel.” But it does not seem necessary to give a location like this. It is quite possible that the expression is simply meant to fill up or to complete the idea of did not rain. If so, it is all right to leave the phrase on the earth untranslated in some languages, as it would sound awkward and redundant (so Japanese Franciscan Translation, Today’s Chinese Version). Even in English it is good style to omit it; Contemporary English Version has “kept the rain from falling.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• Elijah was just like we are; he was a human being. He prayed constantly that no rain would fall. And so for three years and six months no rain fell at all.
• … For three and a half years his constant praying kept the rain from falling.

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 .

Know this, my beloved brethren: some translators and commentators (for example, Moffatt) have taken these words with the previous paragraph as its conclusion. However, most other translations have taken them to be an introduction to the new paragraph and have therefore placed a colon after them.

Instead of Know this King James Version has “Wherefore,” following a variant reading of late date. The more reliable manuscripts have a word that is a form of the verb “to know,” and this is followed by most modern commentators and translations. This verb presents a linguistic difficulty. It is sometimes taken as an indicative; for example, “This you know” (New American Standard Bible) and “All this you know” (Translator’s New Testament). Both New English Bible and Revised English Bible have apparently followed this interpretation by rendering “Of that you may be certain.” In this case the clause is often taken as the conclusion to what is said in verse 18. The majority of translations, however, have taken the verb as an imperative; for example, “You must understand this” (New Revised Standard Version), “Take note of this” (New International Version), and “Remember this” (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible). In this case the expression serves as an introductory formula for what the author goes on to say next. From the formal parallel with 2.5, where we again see a combination of an imperative and a vocative, the latter understanding is preferable.

The address my beloved brethren, as it is used in this letter, generally indicates that a new topic is being introduced. Here again the word brethren is generally understood to be an inclusive term and so is reflected in renderings like “my beloved” (New Revised Standard Version) or “my dear friends” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible; see the comments at James 1.2).

The author then proceeds to give a threefold admonition or warning, using three keywords whose themes are further developed: to hear in verses 22-25, to speak in 26-27, and to anger in 20-21. The admonition is proverbial, and the teaching is very common in the Wisdom literature (compare Pro 10.19; 13.3; 15.1; 17.27-28). This has led some to conclude that what James says here is a quotation of a proverbial saying. Whether this is so or not will not affect the translation (however, for readers of the Greek it can explain why an adversative particle meaning “but” [often left untranslated] is in the Greek text after the verb “let him be”—the suggestion is that it is part of the text of the original proverb).

The first piece of advice is Let every man be quick to hear. What the author says here is not “all men” but every man, emphasizing individuality. Here again the word man is to be understood inclusively, and it is therefore rendered by most translations as “everyone.” In some languages it will even be expressed as “each one of you.” The word quick is in contrast to slow, and this contrast is best kept in translation as far as possible. However, in languages where this sort of imagery is difficult to understand, we may render be quick to hear as “always be attentive and ready to listen” (compare Knox, “be ready listeners”).

There is a problem in that the verb “to hear” does not have an object. What is the object to be supplied? Is “to hear” to listen to something or to someone? Some scholars, referring to the origin of the admonition as a proverbial saying, claim that the saying is to be understood as general advice, meaning “listen to anyone or anything good” or “be ready to listen to arguments and explanations put forward by others, whether good or not.” Others, however, insist that the intended object is “the word of truth” in verse 18, or “the implanted word” in verse 21. While recognizing that the saying is most likely of proverbial origin with a general application, in this context the obvious great emphasis placed on the word word almost certainly suggests that the author is interested in some way to connect this advice with being ready listeners to the word—that is, the preached word of the Gospel. In some languages it will be necessary to supply this information and say “always be attentive and ready to listen to God’s message.”

In contrast, the second piece of advice says, the Christian must be slow to speak. This is a warning against an attitude of being too ready and eager to have something to say without due care and thought. The sort of person who acts like this is worse than a fool: “There is more hope for a stupid fool than for someone who speaks without thinking” (Pro 29.20, TEV). Here again the advice can be calling for restraint from giving general wisdom and instruction too eagerly, or in particular from being too eager to preach the word of God. The theme of the danger of speech is picked up again by James in 3.1-12. It is desirable here, as in the first advice, not to give this verb, speak, an object unless it is required in a particular language. In languages where a literal rendering of slow to speak will suggest “to speak slowly,” it is desirable to render this phrase as “do not speak rashly” or “do not rush hastily to speak.”

The third piece of advice is to be slow to anger, again a theme frequently mentioned in the Wisdom literature (Pro 15.1) and the New Testament (Col 3.8; Eph 4.26, 31). Since it seems somewhat unnatural that the author should bring up the theme of anger here, some scholars interpret this admonition as a saying added to intensify the meaning of what has been said. On this understanding the meaning is something like this: whoever is not able to master his own tongue also cannot control his temper. However, this interpretation doesn’t seem necessary, as the use of three-part sayings to aid memory is quite common. Obviously anger here does not mean a righteous indignation against wrongdoing or evil. It refers, more likely, to constant ill temper or hostility to other people. Some take this to mean hostility against God, but the context does not lend itself to this meaning. Here again, the saying may be taken as a prohibition against a general attitude, which is applicable to everyone. Or, if we understand the previous admonition as against preachers who are too eager to preach the word of God, the anger mentioned here could conceivably be understood as a sort of contempt against or hostility to others, arising out of a person’s arrogance and zeal for the word of God. In any case, if we give a more literal rendering, or try to stay close to the terse form of the original in translation, we will be on safe ground. Slow to anger may be expressed in a variety of ways; for example, “knows how to control his anger” or “does not get a hot heart [or, liver] quickly.”

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 see: James now summarizes his argument but turns from the imaginary opponent to his Christian readers. The return to letter style rather than dialogue is seen in the use of You in the plural. The verb see may be taken as indicative (“You see”) or imperative (“You must understand”), or even interrogative (“Do you see, then?”). Most take it as indicative. In this case James is simply trying to draw a conclusion, and therefore the words may be rendered as “You see, then” (Good News Translation; so also Revised English Bible), “So you see now” (Luther 1984), or “You can now see” (Contemporary English Version).

The statement that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone has excited a host of scholars to debate whether or not James stands against Paul, or whether he is dependent on Paul, and so on. But we do not need to join the debate here, as the meaning of the statement is perfectly clear, and it does not affect the translation. A man in Greek is general and so is best rendered as “a person” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version), or “we are” (Good News Translation). The verb is justified is best rendered as “is declared righteous,” “is approved as righteous,” “God accepts as righteous,” “God considers [or, regards as] a good person,” or even “God considers to be a friend.” The phrase faith alone is significant. It allows that faith is a necessary component for being put right with God, but the point is that alone it is inadequate. He is not contrasting faith and works; rather he is concerned to see that faith must show itself in good deeds.

Both faith and works are event or action words. Therefore the statement may be rendered as “A person is declared righteous by what that person does, not simply by what that person believes.” To make God the agent of the action, we may render the statement as “God declares a person righteous by what that person does…” or “… on the basis of the good things that person does….”

Alternative translation models for this verse may be:
• You see, then, that God declares a person righteous by what that person does, and not simply by what he believes.
• So you see now that we please God by what we do and not only by what we believe [similar to Contemporary English Version].

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 .

There is one lawgiver and judge: this lawgiver and judge is God. That God is judge is a common teaching in the Bible (Gen 18.25; Psa 82.1, 8; Rom 3.6; Heb 12.23). The Bible also says that God is the lawgiver (Psa 9.21 in the Septuagint; compare also Jer 9.13). The statement in Greek is literally “one there is the lawgiver and judge,” with focus and emphasis on the oneness of God. God alone is the lawgiver. He alone is not under any law. He alone is judge. In translation it may be desirable to make it clear that God is the lawgiver and judge, and at the same time to place emphasis on the oneness of God; for example, “God is the only lawgiver and judge” (Good News Translation) or “There is only one lawgiver and judge—God.”

James is obviously not saying that there should not be any lawgiver or judge in the world. He is emphasizing that God the lawgiver is the one and only true judge who can carry out his verdict, and that his verdict counts. In order to bring out this point clearly, we may say, for example, “God is the one who gave this law of love, and he is the one who judges us according to it.”

As the Lord of life and death, God is able to save and to destroy. That God can kill and make alive is a recurring theme in the Bible (Deut 32.39; 1 Sam 2.6; Matt 10.28) In saying this James may be suggesting that those who judge others condemn themselves. We are reminded of Paul’s rebuke of the “superior” Jews seeking to pass judgment on the Gentiles: “… for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” (Rom 2.1; NRSV). Here James is talking about God’s absolute power to determine a person’s eternal destiny, either salvation or condemnation. The verb is able refers to God’s power and so may be rendered as “… has power to…” (Goodspeed). In some languages to save and to destroy may be too abstract, and therefore the translator may have to supply objects to make the actions more concrete; for example, “to save life [or, people] or destroy it [or, them]” (Revised English Bible), or even “to save us or destroy us,” or “to save our lives or kill us.” In some languages the construction to save and to destroy is more naturally rendered as “both to save and to destroy,” while in others it may be better to express the construction as showing an alternative relationship, “either to save or to destroy” (so Translator’s New Testament).

In translating this sentence translators may wish to follow the Good News Translation rendering for the following reasons. First, it makes clear the information that is not stated directly, namely that God is the lawgiver and judge. Secondly, it makes the participial expression “he who is…” a separate sentence, making it easier to understand and to translate into languages not accustomed to using this type of construction. Thirdly, it uses the word “alone” in the second sentence, in addition to the word “only” in the first sentence, to bring out the force of the Greek word “one” that appears as the first word in the sentence for emphasis.

But who are you that you judge your neighbor?: in closing the section James uses a rhetorical question to express scorn with some element of sarcasm. The purpose of this question is to bring shame to those guilty of passing judgment on their neighbors, for to pass judgment on a neighbor is to overstep due bounds; it steals God’s authority. The force of who are you…? may be rendered “Who do you think you are…?” (Good News Translation), “How can you…?” (Phillips), or “What right do you have to…?” (Contemporary English Version). If we wish to bring out the aspect of scorn more clearly, we may try to render the rhetorical question as an emphatic statement; for example, “You certainly have no right to…!” The word neighbor can be taken in the general sense of “fellow man” (so Barclay) or in the more restricted sense of “fellow believer.” See the discussion in 2.8.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• God is the one who gave this law, and he will judge us according to it. He alone has the power to save us or destroy us. So you certainly have no right to condemn your fellow Christians.

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 pay attention to the one …: the verb pay attention in Greek, meaning literally “to look upon” or “to direct one’s attention to,” is used only here and in Luke 1.48 and 9.38. In this context it is used in the sense of “to look upon with favor” and therefore “pay special attention to” (New American Standard Bible, Barclay, Revised English Bible) or “show more respect to” (Good News Translation). The wealthy man who wears the fine clothing is singled out for special treatment. The main verbs of this verse are all in the plural, agreeing with the opening address of verse 1, “My brethren.” James is obviously concerned to give a general warning to his readers against partiality. Presumably it is the one who has some kind of authority in the congregation who is directing the visitors. In some languages it may be desirable in this kind of situation to use the singular “you” rather than the plural.

Have a seat here, please: the words to the visitors, in both cases, are introduced by a pronoun in an emphatic position—“You sit here … You stand there.” The wealthy Christian is directed to his place with a polite clause that can be taken as meaning “Do sit here, if you will” or “Please take this seat” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible) as a gesture of courtesy. However, the Greek adverb rendered please here can be taken as modifying seat, as a number of translations have done; for example, “You sit here in a good place” (New American Standard Bible), “Sit here; this is a good place!” (Goodspeed), “Have this best seat here” (Good News Translation), or even “Sit in this place of honor here.” Here probably is an invitation to take the best seat in the meeting, possibly the seat of honor referred to in Matt 23.6. This latter interpretation is the most likely one and is recommended by this Handbook. In a number of languages it will be more natural to introduce the verse with “If” as Good News Translation has done, but in others it will be better style to begin the verse in a similar way to Contemporary English Version: “You must not give the best seat….” Also in some languages it will be more natural style to use direct speech as in the Greek. A number of modern translations have done this (compare Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). But in other languages indirect speech will be quite natural style; for example, “If you show more respect to the well-dressed man by giving him the best seat….”

The treatment of the poor man by contrast is rather rude; he is told to Stand there or Sit at my feet. We encounter two problems here; one is a textual problem and the other a problem of interpreting the directions given to the poor visitor. The textual problem has to do with several alternative forms of the Greek text. It may be either “you stand there, or sit here under my footstool,” or “you stand, or sit there under my footstool,” or as adopted by the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament and accepted by the majority of translations, “You stand there, or sit under my footstool.” The problem in interpretation is whether to take the words of direction as giving the poor visitor a choice of two possible places, or as directing him to one place or the other. If we follow the former, we may render it as “You can stand over there if you like, or else sit on the floor” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “You stand over there, or if you must sit, sit on the floor by my feet” (Phillips). This is essentially what New English Bible, Revised English Bible, and Good News Translation have done also. If on the other hand we favor the second interpretation, we may render it as “ ‘Stand there!’ or, ‘Squat on the floor at my feet!’ ” (Barclay). This is the option favored by other translations like Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible. On the whole the first option seems more likely. For comments on the translation of “rich” and “poor” see 1.9-10.

The imperative statement “Sit under my footstool” may be taken to mean “Sit on the floor by my footstool” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible), or more generally “Sit here on the floor by my feet” (Good News Translation). We cannot fail to see the sharp contrast in the treatment; one person is conducted to a high and comfortable seat, possibly even with a footstool on which to rest his feet; and the other is unceremoniously told to squat on the floor. The word my in my feet shows that the poor visitor is not only treated worse than the rich man, but worse even than the host himself. The host has at least a seat for himself.

In cultures where chairs or stools are not used at all, but people always sit on the floor, it will be best for translators to make some adjustments and indicate that the rich man is invited to “sit in the place of honor.” In some instances that may be next to the host or leader of the meeting. The poor man is asked to “stand to the side over there,” meaning out of the way, or “sit down here,” indicating a place of less honor. In some languages certain honorific particles indicating respect will be used for the rich man, while the commands to the poor man will be sharp, lacking polite address.

The following alternative translation models for this verse may be used:
• If you show more respect to the well-dressed man and say to him, “Please sit in this place of honor here,” but say to the poor man, “You must stand over there, or sit here on the floor by my feet.”
• You must not give the best [or, honored] seat to the well-dressed man and tell the poor man to stand to the side, or tell him to sit on the floor.

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 .

With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men: James now departs from his use of metaphors and turns to an example of how the tongue is used inconsistently. The two actions bless and curse are incompatible. Blessing God is something all Jews understood. Whenever the name of God was mentioned, they had to respond by saying “Blessed be he!” Every day in the synagogue devout Jews had to repeat the so-called Standing Prayer, in which each thanksgiving closes with the words “Blessed art thou….” And the continuing use of this formula by early Christians is seen in the thanksgiving prayer “Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1.3; 1 Peter 1.3, Good News Bible).

To bless in this context is “to worship,” “to praise,” and “to give thanks” rather than “to bestow goodness and favor.” The latter is done by God to human beings. The subject of blessing is we. It is unlikely that we should limit the we to the “teachers” as in 3.2. Also it does not seem appropriate to understand the we simply as the author’s modesty in including himself among those being rebuked. It is perhaps best to take it as an all-inclusive we, stressing general human weakness in the conflicting use of the tongue. The object of blessing is the Lord and Father. This combination is unique; the more common combination is “God and Father,” and this explains the attempt to change the text to this form, as reflected in the King James Version rendering “God, even the Father” (similarly Knox). Elsewhere in James the title Lord is applied to Christ, but here it obviously refers to God. In the Greek both titles share one article, and they therefore refer to the same person. Here the connective and has the force of a predicate, thus “the Lord who is Father.” This rendering is desirable for languages where the connective and may be misunderstood as distinguishing Lord and Father, referring to two separate persons. Since the subject of the blessing is we, the relationship between we and the Lord and Father may be brought out clearly as “our Lord and Father,” as Good News Translation has done (so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, and others), or as “the Lord our Father” (Goodspeed). For the meaning of the words Lord and Father, see the discussions in 1.1 and 1.27 respectively. In some languages the word for “Lord” is also the word for “chief,” and so the word “God” is added to make the reference clear; thus “the Lord [Chief] God as Father.”

And with it we curse men: praising God is the highest form of activity for a person’s tongue, but it can also engage in the lowest form of activity, cursing. The connective and does not mean that the tongue can do the combination of blessing and cursing at the same time. In order to avoid this possible misunderstanding, a number of connective particles may be provided; for example, “… and also to curse…” (Good News Translation), “we use it to praise…; then we use it to invoke curses…” (Revised English Bible) To curse in this context is to “invoke harm, misfortune, or injury to a person,” not just to “insult” or “say bad things about” a person. It is an attitude and expression of enmity. As such, cursing is forbidden in the New Testament. Jesus taught his disciples to “bless those who curse you” (Luke 6.28, TEV), and Paul echoed the teaching: “Ask God to bless those who persecute you—yes, ask him to bless, not to curse” (Rom 12.14, TEV). The word men here is meant to be general and inclusive and therefore may be rendered “other human beings.”

The fault of invoking curses on fellow human beings is deplorable because they are made in the likeness of God. This is obviously a reference to Gen 1.26-27. In the Genesis passage two words are used; one is “image” and the other is “likeness.” It is not clear why James chose the second word rather than the first one. In any case there seems to be no need to press for a different sense between the two, as they are obviously meant to have the same meaning. What James wants to communicate here is simply that acting against people who resemble God is the same as acting against God, who created those people. It is logically inconsistent to pretend to bless God and then to curse the representation of God (human beings). In other words, cursing other human beings is in effect cursing God, who created them. In languages where there is a difference in meaning between made and “created,” it may be desirable to use the latter, as Good News Translation has done. In some languages it is desirable to supply “God” as the agent of the verb and shift the construction to the active voice; thus “… whom God created in his likeness.”

The following may be used as an alternative translation model for this verse:
• We [inclusive] use our tongues to give thanks to [or, praise] our Lord and Father and also to invoke harm to happen to [or, call down curses on] our fellow humans whom God created to be like himself.

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 .