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 .