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 .

In this verse James proceeds to give an example of what he means when he says that the Law must be considered a unity, an indivisible whole. The individual commandments are all part of the unified whole, reflecting the will of one and the same God. Therefore no matter which commandment is broken, God’s will is violated.

For …: the particle indicates that James is continuing his explanation. It is causal and therefore may be rendered as “Because….” The construction he who said … said also shows that both commandments came from the same person, thus supporting the unity of the Law explained in the previous verse. The pronoun he refers to God. This may have to be made clearer in some languages; for example, “For the same God who said…” or “The same God who told us…” (Contemporary English Version).

The command Do not commit adultery (Exo 20.14) means basically “do not have intercourse with another man’s wife.” But in the New Testament context a more general term is needed that covers illicit sexual relations between people who are married to someone else; for example, “Do not have intercourse with another person’s spouse.” Most languages have euphemistic ways of talking about adultery: for example, “sleep with another person’s spouse,” “be with…,” “stay and eat with…,” and so on. And in some languages adultery may be translated as “be unfaithful to your spouse.”

Do not kill (Exo 20.13) forbids an Israelite to murder a fellow Jew. Here again a more inclusive rendering is preferable, such as simply “Do not commit murder” (Good News Translation). The expression chosen by translators for the word kill or “murder” should refer to deliberate or premeditated killing that is not condoned by society. So killing in warfare or defending tribal or clan rights, or even executions, should not be included in the term used for “murder.”

What James goes on to say is literally “but if you do not commit adultery, but kill.” The meaning of the argument is clear. In some translations the force of the first “but” is sometimes taken as a “now” (so Goodspeed, New Revised Standard Version), as a form of argument. But it is perhaps best to leave it untranslated. More important, however, is the force of If. It is best taken here in the sense of “Although” or “Even if” (so Good News Translation, New American Bible). The rendering of Good News Bible is the most natural structure in English. In some other languages, however, the order of the clauses in the Greek original, reflected in Revised Standard Version, is more natural; thus “Although you do not commit adultery, if you commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.”

Possible alternative translation models for this verse include:
• For the same God who said, “Do not commit adultery [or, have intercourse] with another person’s spouse,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” So even if you do not commit adultery, but commit murder, you have still disobeyed God’s Law.
• The same God who commanded us to be faithful to our spouses also commanded us not to murder. So even if you are faithful to your spouse, but murder someone, you still have broken God’s Law.

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 .

In verse 15 James has explained what non-heavenly wisdom is. He now goes on to describe what heavenly wisdom is. He introduces the contrast by a contrasting word But and then uses a series of seven adjectives to explain what heavenly wisdom is. These adjectives are skillfully and artistically arranged. In Greek, after the first adjective pure, the next four begin with the letter “e”, thus creating an alliteration, that is, beginning every word with the same sound. The last two adjectives begin with the letter “a” and have the same ending -kritos. When reading aloud in Greek the rhythm is obvious.

Two observations may be made at this point about the seven adjectives. First, although they all describe what true wisdom is, the focus appears to be on the effects that wisdom should produce. And so we may say that these adjectives describe what true wisdom does rather what it is. Secondly, these adjectives are not meant to refer to intellectual qualities and attitudes that each believer should have, but rather they refer to the qualities the Christian community that claims to have true wisdom should have. In other words these adjectives all refer in this context, not to private attitudes, but to qualities of group life. This understanding will affect how we translate these terms. In a number of languages translators may have to say, for example, “But the wisdom that God gives causes us [inclusive] [or, us Christians] to be pure….”

The wisdom from above is that from heaven and therefore from God. The true wisdom is a gift from God and so may be translated as “But the wisdom that God gives.” As already indicated, in biblical usage wisdom has little to do with intellectual capacity. Rather it is a practical ability to discern the will of God, that is, “spiritual discernment.”

The first characteristic of such a wisdom is that it is pure. Purity is the nature of God. Therefore to be pure means to share in the character of God. To be pure is to be free from self-interest and to serve God single-mindedly. It requires sincerity and moral integrity, being free from moral imperfection (compare 1 Peter 3.2, “chaste”); thus we may express it as “having a heart that is free from moral stain.”

The second characteristic of true wisdom is that it is peaceable. Peace is obviously the keyword in verses 17 and 18, since after the first word pure it begins and ends the list of the moral qualities that are the result of divine wisdom. The word peaceable is used only here and Heb 12.11. In biblical usage the word “peace” means primarily not absence of war or strife, but more positively the Hebrew idea of total well-being. The rendering peaceable or “peaceful” sounds too passive. It is also more than simply “friendly” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Contemporary English Version); rather it is “peace-loving” (Phillips, New English Bible/Revised English Bible), “peace-making” (compare Matt 5.9); as paraphrased by Barclay it is something that “produces harmony between man and man.” It is a quality incompatible with jealousy and ambition and is very appropriate to the church situation James was in. In verse 18 James refers positively to “those who make peace.” So we may translate in this verse “be people who help others to make peace,” “help others to settle their grievances,” or “… to forgive each other.”

The true wisdom is also gentle. Besides the Revised Standard Version gentle, this adjective is rendered in a variety of ways; for example, “courteous” (Knox), “considerate” (Goodspeed, New English Bible/Revised English Bible), “forbearing” (Moffatt, Japanese colloquial version, Japanese Franciscan Translation). Following more or less its use in classical Greek in the sense of “strict justice,” Barclay paraphrases the meaning of this adjective as an attitude that “never stands on the letter of the law.” In the New Testament the word is placed side by side with “meekness” (2 Cor 10.1) and “not quarrelsome” (1 Tim 3.3; Titus 3.2). This indicates that the meanings of these expressions are related and parallel. The adjective may therefore be describing the kind of attitude that is tolerant and accepting of other people’s different ways, not easily aroused and annoyed at what other people do and say. In some languages the idea of being “tolerant” will be a good way to express gentle.

The next characteristic is open to reason. In Greek this is a single word and it is used only here in the New Testament. Its meaning is very close to gentle. This is seen in the fact that the word “considerate” has been used to translate both gentle (so Goodspeed and Revised English Bible) and open to reason (so New Jerusalem Bible). That the word has a wide range of meaning is seen in the various translations: “easy to be entreated” (King James Version), “reasonable” (New American Standard Bible, Translator’s New Testament), “sensible” (Contemporary English Version), “never obstinate” (Barclay), “willing to yield” (Goodspeed, New Revised Standard Version), “compliant” (New American Bible), “open-minded” (Revised English Bible), “friendly” (Good News Translation), “conciliatory” (Moffatt). No doubt every rendering brings out part of the total meaning of the word. In general it describes someone whose mind is not closed, who is not insistent but always willing to listen to other people’s views and ready to be persuaded.

True wisdom is also full of mercy and good fruits. The fact that the expression includes an and indicates that the two parts are to be taken together. Indeed it is possible to take this as a hendiadys, indicating that the whole statement should be understood as expressing one idea. If so it may be understood as “full of mercy that brings about good fruits.” Mercy means showing compassion to those in trouble and in need. It is one of the distinct qualities of God himself. In Jesus’ teaching it is something God requires of people (Matt 9.13), and indeed something commanded by Jesus himself (Luke 10.37). James has his own definition of what mercy is: it is the love of your neighbor shown in practical deeds (2.8-13). For the meaning of mercy see the discussion in 2.13. To have true wisdom a person has to be compassionate and has to produce kind deeds to show it. To keep the image of good fruits, we may render it as “produces a good harvest of good deeds” (Good News Translation), or “produces a rich crop of kindly acts” (Barclay).

James completes his list of qualities with two negative adjectives. The first one is without uncertainty. This word is used only here in the New Testament, and its exact meaning is very difficult to define. This is reflected in a number of different renderings: “without partiality” (King James Version), “free from prejudice” (Good News Translation), “whole hearted” (Goodspeed), “unambiguous” (Moffatt), “without inconstancy” (New American Bible), “unwavering” (New American Standard Bible), “straightforward” (Revised English Bible), “genuine” (Contemporary English Version), “free from doubts and hesitations” (Barclay). Here again all of these components are interrelated and overlapping, and therefore context and general use in a given language will be deciding factors in determining the meaning. In this context “impartial” or “without prejudice” appears to be the best. This is in accord with James’ concern about impartiality expressed in 2.8-13. And we note that in that context he also mentions the importance of “mercy.” This meaning is also closely related to the next adjective without … insincerity. It reflects James’ tendency to pile up similar or related concepts, as seen also in the use of gentle and open to reason (“friendly” Good News Translation) observed above.

The last quality listed is without … insincerity, literally “without hypocrisy” (King James Version, New American Standard Bible). It describes something that is genuine, without pretense, being truthful to others. In the New Testament it is often used in the sense of “genuine” or “sincere” to modify some important qualities such as “love” (Rom 12.9; 2 Cor 6.6; 1 Peter 1.22) and “faith” (1 Tim 1.5; 2 Tim 1.5). The double negative without … insincerity is best rendered in the positive form “sincerity” (so Contemporary English Version). Another possible rendering, equivalent to “sincere” in this context, is “straightforward” (Moffatt, Goodspeed, Revised English Bible). As it has been observed, an “impartial” person is “sincere”; impartiality and sincerity go hand in hand.

In many languages it will be necessary to use verbal expressions all the way through this verse. The following may serve as an alternative translation model:
• But Christians who have this wisdom that God gives, first of all have hearts unstained by sin. They are also peacemakers, tolerant toward others, and friendly. Their hearts are full of love for other people, and this produces a good crop of merciful [or, kindly] deeds. They also have no prejudice toward others and are sincere.

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 .

We note that James’ main concern here is “prayer.” This is seen in his statement that healing comes in response to the prayer of faith. The word prayer is not the usual word for “prayer” used in the New Testament. This prayer represents a fervent wish or strong petition. The genitive construction the prayer of faith here means “the prayer offered in faith” (New International Version, Revised English Bible) or “This prayer made in faith” (Good News Translation). See the discussion in 1.3 and 6. Faith here means the faith of the elders, not of the person who is sick. Perhaps it is for this reason that the definite article the has been rendered as “this” (Good News Translation) or “such” (Barclay), referring back to the elders’ prayer. Other ways to express this are “When the elders pray like this, believing in the power of God” or “If the church leaders believe strongly in the power of God when they pray.” For the meaning of faith see the discussion in 1.6.

Will save the sick man: this is one of the results of the fervent prayer made in faith. The word save, as used elsewhere in the New Testament, often refers to deliverance from sin and spiritual death. For this reason some scholars feel that it is to be understood in the same sense even in this context. However, the word is sometimes used in the sense of the restoration of physical health (translated “made well” in Mark 6.56; Matt 9.21-22). In the present context it obviously refers to the physical healing. The phrase will save the sick man is therefore best rendered as “will heal the sick” (Good News Translation), “will make the sick person well” (New International Version), or “the sickness will leave his body” (Contemporary English Version).

The Lord will raise him up is another result of the fervent prayer in faith. Here again we have a problem with the meaning of the verb raise up. It is sometimes used in connection with the resurrection of the dead; but this can not be the meaning intended here, for the elders are called to pray for someone who is in bed sick, still alive. Most likely, therefore, it is referring to raising the sick person up from the bed, that is, restoring that person to health. The Lord here obviously refers to God. It will be observed that the prayer for healing is made in the authority of the Lord Jesus, but the one who does the healing is the Lord God.

And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven: James appears to accept that sometimes sin is a cause of sickness. This is a reflection of a concept found elsewhere in the New Testament (Mark 2.5; John 5.14; 1 Cor 11.30). What James is saying here, then, is that if the sickness is related to sin, asking for forgiveness will lead to healing. From the way this statement is phrased, using a particle combining “and if,” it can be seen that James is simply saying that there is a possible, but not inevitable, connection between sin and sickness. For this reason the conditional clause may be rendered as “if he should have committed sins” or “any sins he may have committed” (New English Bible). The clause he will be forgiven means that the healing the sick person can expect is total, including physical and spiritual. The subject of forgiving is God, and this may be brought out, thus “God will forgive him.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• If the elders believe strongly in God as they pray, the sickness will leave the person’s body. The Lord God will make the person completely well, and if he has sinned God will forgive 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 .