Here again My brethren serves as a transition to a new topic and indicates the beginning of an exhortation or injunction. It is meant to be general and inclusive and therefore can be rendered “my brothers and sisters” (New Revised Standard Version) or “my friends” (Revised English Bible, Good News Translation). See 1.2 and elsewhere for other ways to translate brethren.

Show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory: this statement presents a number of problems, as reflected in different translations. It is literally “do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory in [or, with] partiality.” There are two main grammatical ambiguities. The first has to do with the understanding of the force of the verb translated hold, literally “to have” or “to possess.” Two interpretations have been proposed.
(1) The first interpretation is to take it as an imperative. There are two ways to handle the imperative. One is very straightforward, close to the original Greek structure; for example, “have not the faith of … with respect of persons” (King James Version), or “do not hold your faith in … with an attitude of personal favoritism” (New American Standard Bible). The other way is to shift the focus from faith to partiality, with the force of the imperative hold shifted to the prepositional phrase “with partiality” by supplying a verb like show or some other verb that goes with “partiality” or “favoritism.” This is essentially what Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have done. Other examples are “you are men who believe in … and you must not show favouritism” (Translator’s New Testament) or “do not let class distinction enter into your faith in…” (New Jerusalem Bible).
(2) The other interpretation is to take the verb hold as an indicative “to have.” Here again it may be taken in two ways. One is a simple statement such as “you cannot at one and the same time believe in … and be a snob” (Barclay). The other way is to express the statement with an interrogative force; for example, “do you try to combine faith in … with acts of partiality?” (Goodspeed), “do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in…?” (New Revised Standard Version). In this case, though dropping the negative, the answer expected to the question is “No, you really don’t.”

On the whole the first interpretation is to be preferred. First of all, this is dictated by grammar, as the form of the negative adverb rendered as “no” is normally not used with the indicative mood. Further, it appears to fit the context better. It is more natural to take the verb “to have” as an imperative, since our author is beginning a new section with a new topic, introducing a subject matter important to his thinking. In fact, if the saying is taken as a question, it would be difficult to connect it with the explanation James goes on to give with the particle “For” in the next verse. We may observe that the imperative is in the present tense, indicating that something is happening and continuing. In order to bring out this force, we can, for example, render it like “Do not try to hold…,” “Don’t ever attempt to combine…” (Phillips), or “Stop holding….”

The second ambiguity has to do with the interpretation of a string of genitive constructions, literally “the faith of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ of glory.” The second “of” construction is not a real problem, as it can only mean our Lord, a title ascribed to Jesus Christ.

The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ can be understood in various ways. It can be taken as a subjective genitive, meaning “the faith that our Lord Jesus Christ had.” For an ordinary reader this understanding of the literal rendering may be the first to come to mind. However, this interpretation is rejected by most commentators. A second possibility, with the support of similar expressions in Mark 11.22, Rom 3.22, Gal 2.16, and the one adopted by most scholars and translators, is to take the expression as an objective genitive, meaning “to have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

It is more difficult to determine how the next genitive construction of glory is to be understood. There are two related questions that yield different answers: How is the genitive to be taken? With which noun is of glory to be connected? It has been suggested that of glory is to be connected with the word partiality. But the two expressions are too far apart for this to be likely. It has also been suggested that it is to be connected with the word faith, making an objective genitive, thus giving the meaning “faith in the glory of our Lord…” or “… glorious faith in our Lord….” Here again the order of words is unnatural and forced, and therefore this interpretation has not been widely accepted.

The most likely connection is with the group of words our Lord Jesus Christ. There are a number of possibilities. For example, one can connect of glory only to Christ, thus “our Lord Jesus, the Christ of glory,” or to Jesus Christ, thus “our Lord, Jesus Christ of glory”, or to our Lord, thus “our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ” (La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée; compare “Jesus Christ, our Lord of glory,” Luther 1984; “Jesus Christ, our glorified Lord,” New Jerusalem Bible). It is probably best to take of glory with the whole of the expression our Lord Jesus Christ. In this case again, there are several possibilities.
(1) We can take glory as a supplementary expression or title for the first expression, thus “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.” This is what Moffatt has done, “the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory.” A variation of this is seen in renderings such as “our Lord Jesus Christ who reigns in glory” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible), “our Lord Jesus Christ, who is full of glory” (Japanese New Interconfessional Translation).
(2) We can take of glory with “the Lord” understood, and make it a title attached to “our Lord Jesus Christ,” as Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have done: “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (so also King James Version, American Standard Version). The expression “the Lord of glory” does find support in 1 Cor 2.8.
(3) By far the majority of commentators and translators choose to interpret what we have here as a qualitative genitive, with of glory used as an adjective modifying “the Lord Jesus Christ,” thus “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.” This interpretation probably has the least difficulty and is therefore the one that is most acceptable.

In some languages the word “glorious” will be expressed as “great” or “wonderful.” A possible alternative rendering of the phrase “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” may be: “our [inclusive] wonderful [or, great] Lord Jesus Christ.” There will be some languages where the expression our Lord will give the impression that we own Jesus. In such cases we may say, for example, “the wonderful Lord Jesus Christ whom we follow [or, believe in].” For Lord see the comment on 1.1.

The word partiality, literally “face taking” or “lifting up face,” is probably coined on the basis of the Semitic idiom “receive the face.” It is rendered in old versions as “respect of persons” (King James Version, American Standard Version). The literal expression means a great deal in cultures where great weight is placed on “face saving.” To lift up someone’s face is to regard that person with favor, to make a judgment on the basis of the person’s outward appearance or social status. In many languages there will be suitable idiomatic expressions to convey this idea; for example, “look at the face,” or more elegantly, “lift up the face and raise the eyes” (Thai). Originally the Greek term translated as show … partiality was a neutral one, but later on it acquired a bad sense, referring almost always to a prejudiced attitude, an improper class distinction, judging a person on the basis of wealth or social status. This attitude is condemned both in the Old Testament (Lev 19.15; Deut 1.17) and the New Testament (Eph 6.9; 1 Peter 1.17). What James wants to say here is that favoritism or discrimination is incompatible with Christian faith. The expression used here is in plural form, likely referring to particular actions, and therefore may be rendered as “acts of partiality” (Goodspeed) or “acts of favoritism” (New Revised Standard Version). Another way to render show no partiality may be “Do not treat some people better than others because of their appearance.” But in some languages it will be possible to simply say “Do not treat some people better than others,” it being understood from the context that “appearance” is in focus (compare Contemporary English Version, “you won’t treat some people better…”).

The faith here, as in chapter 1 verses 3 and 6, is more than simply an intellectual assent to a statement about the Lord Jesus Christ. It means rather a personal trust in and commitment to him. In a number of languages the clause as you hold the faith will be expressed as “as you believe in.” Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version and other translations put this clause at the beginning of the verse. In some languages other ways of expressing this clause may have to be used, such as “since you believe…” or “because you believe….”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• My dear fellow Christians, since [or, because] you believe in our [inclusive] wonderful [or, great] Lord Jesus Christ, you must never treat people differently according to their outward appearance.

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 .

After describing the great destructive potential of the tongue, James now takes up another of its qualities, namely that it is uncontrollable. His point is that the tongue, that is, a person’s speech, defies control and therefore can be extremely evil.

For every kind of …: the particle For ties what is being said in verses 7-8 to the previous statement in verse 6. In some languages this explanatory particle is best retained to keep the argument clear. In others, however, the connection is clear enough without it. The word kind in every kind basically means “nature,” but in this context the sense is determined by the fourfold list of creatures, and so it has the narrower meaning of “species” (so New Revised Standard Version). For languages where a term like “species” is lacking, a more general term like kind, or “all other creatures” (Good News Translation) may be used.

Beast and bird … reptile and sea creature: in Greek the reference to all these creatures is in the plural. This classification reflects the characteristic biblical convention of dividing all the creatures into four classes (see Gen 1.26; 9.2; Deut 4.17-18). The word beast probably refers to undomesticated animals and therefore is rendered as “wild animals” by Good News Translation. Other ways to express this are “jungle [or forest, bush] animals.” The word reptile refers to crawling animals and so may be rendered as “creatures that crawl on the ground” (Revised English Bible). The word sea creature, used only here in the New Testament, is literally “[the things or creatures] in the sea,” and refers to “fish” (Good News Translation); it may also be rendered as “creatures that swim in the sea” (Revised English Bible), or even “creatures that swim in the water.” The context is referring to water creatures as opposed to land and air creatures. In places where seas or oceans are unknown, we may say, for example, “creatures that swim in the big rivers [or, large lakes].” It is important for translators to use the classification for creatures or animals that is meaningful in their own cultures.

Can be tamed and has been tamed is literally “is tamed and has been tamed.” The verb “to tame” appears elsewhere in the New Testament only in Mark 5.4, where it means “to subdue,” referring to the inability of people to subdue the demon-driven man. Here it obviously means “to domesticate,” “to subdue” (so New English Bible, Revised English Bible), “to bring under control” all species of animals. The first verb is in the present tense, which may point to the continual possibility of taming and therefore have the force of “is being tamed from time to time.” The second verb is in the perfect, indicating a completed action that continues to have present significance. It is therefore taken by some interpreters to mean that humankind’s dominion over the animal species was given at the very beginning of creation, and that the present situation of “taming” was established at that time in the past. It is not certain, however, that our author intends to make these fine points. Most commentators regard the double use of the same verb as simply to create a rhetorical effect, and have therefore rendered it as “can be tamed and has been tamed” (so Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version), “can be subdued and have been subdued” (so New English Bible, Revised English Bible), or “can be, and has been, brought under control” (Barclay).

By humankind is a construction that can be taken as a dative of advantage in the sense of “for humankind.” The majority of commentators take it to be a dative of agent or instrument and render the phrase as “by humankind” or, in line with the use of the same word earlier in the verse, “by the human species” (so New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version). Good News Translation has rendered the saying in a positive form with mankind as the subject, thus “We humans are able to tame and have tamed all other creatures” (so also Bible en français courant). The word for humankind, sometimes rendered “man,” does not mean a male person, but human beings in contrast with other created animal species.

In languages that do not have the passive, the Good News Translation model is useful. In some languages it will be helpful to break this long sentence up into shorter sentences; for example:
• Human beings are able to tame all other creatures. This includes forest [or, wild] animals, birds, crawling creatures, and creatures that swim in the sea. They have in fact tamed them.

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 have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure: this is James’ third charge against the rich people. It has to do with their luxurious life style. Reflecting more closely the structure of the original, which has two verbs, what James says here is “You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure” (New American Standard Bible). This is in sharp contrast to the hardship and exploitation they have imposed on the poor. They enjoy luxurious life at the expense of the poor. James does not directly condemn the life style of the rich as evil, but in the context his charge clearly is that the rich engage in self-indulgence without caring for others, especially the poor.

The first verb, have lived … in luxury, is used only here in the New Testament, but a related form is used in 2 Peter 2.13 to describe the false teachers seeking pleasure in broad daylight. Barclay paraphrases it as “the luxury which saps a man’s moral fiber.” Because of the reference to fattened your hearts in the final sentence of this verse, it is possible that luxury may refer to rich and expensive foods. This idea is expressed in the Contemporary English Version rendering, “you have thought only of filling your own stomachs.”

The second verb, have lived … in pleasure, means literally “to give yourself to pleasure” and is used elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Tim 5.6, where it describes the self-indulgent widow who “lives for pleasure” as being dead even though she is alive. It definitely has a negative sense and therefore may be rendered as “have lived in wanton pleasure” (similarly New American Standard Bible, Barclay) or “have lived in self-indulgence” (similarly New International Version). Other possible renderings are “lost yourselves in pleasures” or “wasted your time engaging in pleasurable activities.” If we feel that the two verbs have almost the same meaning, it is possible to take them together as referring to a single action, as New English Bible and Revised English Bible have done, thus “have lived … in wanton luxury.”

Alternative translation models for the first part of verse 5 are:
• While you have lived in this world you have thought only of enjoying the most expensive things and having a good time.
• … you have thought only of filling your own stomachs and having a good time (Contemporary English Version).

The expression on the earth may be understood as the actual piece of land the rich owned and perhaps lived on (compare “You have lived off the land,” R. P. Martin, and “you have lived on the land,” Revised English Bible). But it is perhaps best understood in the sense of “in this world” (Barclay) or “here on earth” (Good News Translation) in contrast to the world to come, similar to the contrast of “then” and “now” as well as “here” and “there” in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16.19-31, especially verse 25). Understood in this sense James may here be giving the rich a warning that their luxurious life style here on earth is storing up misery for them there in eternity.

You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter: this reinforces the line of understanding James has just given. The meaning of the expression “to fatten your heart” can be taken to mean “to indulge your passion,” as the heart is the seat of a person’s emotions, pleasures, and passions (compare Isa 6.10; Psa 104.15). However, it seems simpler to take “heart” as part of a person, but in this case representing the whole person. The reason for using the heart instead of some other part of the body seems to be that it is considered the seat of feelings and emotions, relating to the satisfaction of feasting and fattening. And so “to fatten your heart” is simply “to make yourself fat” (compare Good News Translation). What James does here is to accuse the rich people of having fattened themselves up by living lavishly every day.

It is more difficult to determine what James means by in a day of slaughter. It may be taken in various ways.
(1) It is sometimes taken literally in the sense that “you rich people have made yourselves fat by eating sumptuously on the day of slaughtering the animal”—when there is a plentiful supply of meat. What is slaughtered here is the animal.
(2) The phrase is sometimes understood as referring to the time when the poor suffer, because they have been defrauded of their wages and left to starve (verse 4) and condemned to death (verse 6). What is slaughtered here is the poor (understood as “the righteous poor”). This is apparently the interpretation intended in the New Jerusalem Bible rendering.
(3) The phrase is also understood to mean the time of the judgment, which is coming very soon. In the Old Testament the day of God’s judgment is often spoken of as a day of the slaughter of his enemies (compare Isa 34.6; Jer 46.10; Ezek 21.15). On this interpretation James is saying that the rich are like calves and sheep continuing to feed and get fat even to the very day of their slaughter—the day of judgment (compare Jer 25.34). In this case what is to be slaughtered is the rich people, and the day of slaughter is in the future, although in the biblical understanding it is very close. For this reason the expression in a day of slaughter is often rendered as “for the day of slaughter” (so Good News Translation, New American Bible). The Revised English Bible rendering also favors this interpretation: “… gorging yourselves—and that on the day appointed for your slaughter.”

On the whole this last understanding fits the context best and therefore is to be preferred. In some languages translators must make the metaphor clearer by saying, for example, “you have made yourselves fat and you will be punished just as fat cattle are led to be slaughtered” or “But now you are like fat cattle who are being led to be slaughtered [or, for people to slaughter them].”

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 .

Prayer for wisdom must be a prayer made with faith. James now turns from the nature of God’s giving to the nature of a person’s asking. He signals the shift by using an adversative But.

The imperative force of let him ask is best rendered here as “he must ask” (so New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Translator’s New Testament). Faith in this context is again a basic religious attitude; it is a matter of trusting in God and relying on his promises. It is not simply a general belief in the proposition that prayer will be answered. It is a confidence in God as one who gives generously. Since faith is an action or event word, it is often best rendered as a verb. In this case it may be desirable to shift the imperative force to the word “believe,” thus “when he asks, he must believe…” (New International Version), “… he must believe [or, have confidence in] God,” or “when you pray, you must believe God.” Faith or “believe” will be expressed idiomatically in many languages that use terms for speaking about “emotional centers” such as the heart, the liver, and so on. This is essentially because faith involves an intensive psychological experience. Here are some examples: “place heart in” (Thai), or “lean heart on.” A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (pages 38-39) provides many other illustrations; for example, “to arrive on the inside” (Trique), “to join the word to the body” (Uduk), “to make the mind big for something” (Putu), “to hear and take into the insides” (Karré), and so on.

With no doubting is a negative way of saying in faith or “believe.” The verb “to doubt” basically means “to differentiate,” “to be divided against yourself,” and “to waver between two alternatives.” This means that the person who doubts is torn between his allegiance to God and his distrust of God. The two clauses may be rendered as “But when you pray, you must have confidence in God. You must not doubt at all.”

The author continues with an explanatory particle meaning for or “because” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). He explains that the doubter is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. The Greek word translated here as wave occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Luke 8.24. It is a word for dashing or surging waves of the sea. The focus seems to be on the size rather than the movement of the wave. The metaphor of the sea is emphasized by means of two participles with identical endings and similar meaning, literally “being wind-driven and fanned.” The two words convey essentially the same idea, and so they are sometimes rendered as one motion; for example, “like a heaving sea ruffled by the wind” (Revised English Bible) or “like the waves thrown up in the sea by the buffeting of the wind” (New Jerusalem Bible). Other possible ways of rendering this are “like waves that the wind tosses around” or “like large waves that the wind drives along.” In some languages, especially those spoken on small islands in the Pacific Ocean, the expression wave of the sea will be redundant. It will be understood that “waves” are always present in large bodies of water such as “seas,” “oceans,” or “lakes,” unless indicated otherwise in the context. It may be noted that this metaphor of a rough sea may convey feelings of joy and excitement to some sea-loving people, but to the Hebrew people it is symbolic of evil and uncertainty. The point that James tries to convey is that the doubter is uncertain and unstable.

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• But when you pray to God, you must believe [or, have confidence in] him, and not doubt at all. For the person who doubts is like a large wave that the wind tosses about.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

James now proceeds to draw a conclusion by shifting from the example of the Law of Moses back to the Law of Christ (verses 8 and 9). However, continuity with the two previous verses is maintained, as can be seen from the reference to judgment, which is an important element in the idea of “guilty” or “liability” in verse 10.

So speak and so act: obviously the author wishes to press his point with a strong conclusion. He does so by repeating the same adverb So and a pair of imperatives. The word So here has the force of “in every respect” or “in such a way.” The imperatives speak and act are both in the present tense, suggesting continual or habitual action; thus “You must keep on speaking and acting in every respect as….” This will be a helpful model in some languages, but in others one of the following models may be used: “What you say and what you do must be just like the words and actions of people who…” or “The words you speak and the things you do must show that you know that you are people who….”

The readers should speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. In Greek are to be is a participle that can mean something about to happen, focusing on its nearness; or it can mean something that is bound to happen, emphasizing the certainty of it. Perhaps we may translate “like those people who know that they will be judged” or “… that God will judge them.” The two components, however, do not have to be mutually exclusive. Here it means the future judgment, which is sure to happen, with focus more on the certainty. The verb to be judged is a present infinitive, but it is clear that there is both an instrument and the agent of judgment. The instrument of judgment is the law, and the agent who exercises judgment is God. God judges according to the law of liberty, the gospel (or, “the law that sets us free”).

To be judged means that God will decide whether people are guilty or innocent under the law of liberty. An alternative way to express this sentence, then, is “Speak and act like people for whom God will use the law of liberty to decide whether they are guilty or innocent,” or “God will decide whether we are guilty or innocent on the basis of the law of liberty [or, the law that sets us free], so we should speak and act accordingly [or, according to that law].” In some languages, though, there will be colorful expressions for the idea of “judge”; for example, “cut the affairs [or, words],” and we may express this sentence as “Speak and act like people whose affairs [or, words] will be cut by God using the law that sets us free.”

The expression the law of liberty has already appeared and been discussed in 1.25, and so the meaning is clear. One observation may be added, however, even if it does not make any difference in some languages. Even though no definite article is used, there is no need to render the expression indefinitely as “a law of freedom” (Knox) or “a law which makes them free” (Revised English Bible). The law of liberty may sound too abstract and even ambiguous in some languages. Here the form of the phrase “A of B” is to be understood as “A does B,” and therefore it may best be rendered as “the law that sets us free” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “the law that makes people free.”

The exact meaning of the preposition under is debated. Some have interpreted it as the atmosphere or context of the law of liberty within which someone is judged. Others take the preposition to mean “according to” (so Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), indicating that the law of liberty is the norm or standard by which a person’s actions are measured and judged. A closely related interpretation is the rendering of the preposition as under (so also Revised English Bible). The majority of translations, however, noting the same usage in Rom 2.12, render it as “by.” In this case the law of liberty is liable to be understood as the agent rather than the instrument of judgment. For this reason it is better to take as a translation model something like “God will use the law [or, the words of the law] that sets people free, to decide whether they are guilty or innocent.” In some languages, however, these distinctions are of no real concern, since no clear and fast distinction can be made between the senses “according to” and “by.”

This final sentence, as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty, will be extremely difficult to translate meaningfully in many languages. Many translators will need to restructure the sentence drastically; for example, “just like people who will be judged by what is written in the Law that sets people free,” or in languages that do not use the passive voice, “just like people who know that God will judge them [or, decide their guilt or innocence] using the Law that frees people.”

Alternative translation models for this verse include:
• You must speak and act like people who know that God is judging them on the basis of the Law that frees people.
• Your words and actions must be like the words and actions of people who are aware that God will decide whether they are guilty or innocent by using the Law [or, the words of the Law] that frees people.

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 harvest of righteousness is sown in peace: James finishes the chapter by reemphasizing the importance of peace. Apparently he is very much concerned about discord and rivalry in the Christian community created by those who do not have the wisdom from above. And so, in concluding the discussion of true wisdom, he wants to deal with the chaotic and quarrelsome situation by emphasizing the need for peace and harmony. Some scholars feel that this verse fits awkwardly in the present position, and that it could very well be an independent proverbial saying quoted to sum up the heavenly qualities. Be that as it may, it still serves well as an emphatic conclusion of the section.

This verse presents a number of problems in interpretation as well as in translation. The first problem is the expression the harvest of righteousness, literally “the fruit of righteousness.” This is a familiar expression in the Septuagint (Isa 32.16-18; Pro 11.30; Amos 6.12) and the New Testament (Phil 1.11; compare also 2 Cor 9.10). How should we understand the construction “A of B” here? It may be taken in two different ways.
(1) It is possible to take it as a subjective genitive or genitive of origin, namely “B is the source of A.” In this case it means “the fruit that grows out of righteousness,” or “the fruit that righteousness produces,” indicating that righteousness is the seed that bears the fruit. This understanding is reflected in a translation like “the harvest uprightness yields” (Goodspeed).
(2) It is also possible to take the expression as a genitive of definition, namely “A consists of B.” In this case the meaning is “the fruit that is, or consists of, righteousness.” This understanding, favored by most commentators and translators, appears to fit the context better and is recommended by this Handbook.

The second problem has to do with the meaning of the words harvest and righteousness. Strictly speaking what is sown is seed, not fruit or harvest; the harvest is what is gathered later. The same expression used in Pro 11.30 (Septuagint) also has this problem: “the fruit of righteousness grows the tree of life.” Here we would expect that the correct word to use would be “seed.” The word “fruit” then should be taken to mean “fruit seed” and is so understood by a number of translations; for example, “the seed whose fruit is righteousness” (New American Standard Bible; so also Japanese Franciscan Translation), “the seed-bed of righteousness” (Revised English Bible). If we want to keep the word “fruit” or harvest, we may have to use the verb “to produce” with it; for example, “goodness is the harvest that is produced from the seeds…” (Good News Translation).

The meaning of righteousness has been taken in various ways. It is sometimes understood to mean a right relationship with God, especially by those scholars who understand the “fruit of righteousness” as a subjective genitive, meaning that righteousness is the seed that bears the fruit. The reason is that to bear the right kind of fruit a person has to have the right relationship with God. It is, however, a bit awkward to say that a right relationship with God is sown in peace. Two possibilities remain. One is to take the word to mean, as in 1.20, the Christian character and conduct that is acceptable and pleasing to God. This is a rendering suitable to the context, and the word can be referring to the good qualities mentioned in verse 17. If so it may be rendered “goodness” (Good News Translation, Barclay) or “uprightness” (Goodspeed). The second possibility that commends itself in this context is to take righteousness as a term that has to do with interpersonal relationship, namely “justice.” In the Bible the word righteousness is often used side by side with the word peace (Psa 72.7; 85.10; Isa 32.17; Heb 12.11). This indicates two things. First, the two words are closely related in meaning; in fact they may even be considered the same in some contexts. For this reason some scholars propose that the “fruit of righteousness” is “peace.” Secondly, the two words are both relational terms. In this context peace means harmony and unity within the Christian community; and in this case righteousness is best taken as integrity and fairness, or as using those right and correct principles in dealing with other members of the community which make peace and harmony possible. Therefore the most suitable rendering appears to be “justice” in this context (so New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Contemporary English Version).

The next problem has to do with the expression in peace. Is it to be taken with righteousness or with the verb is sown? In Greek in peace follows right after righteousness, and so, it has been argued, it should be taken with the previous expression “the fruit of righteousness,” with the resultant rendering “the fruit of righteousness in peace” or “the fruit of righteousness that consists of peace.” The meaning of the first rendering is uncertain, and the Greek words would have to be forced to produce the second rendering. Most scholars and translators therefore take in peace with the verb is sown. The expression in peace may be understood in various ways; for example, “for peaceful purposes,” describing the purpose of sowing; “with peaceful means,” emphasizing the means; “in a peaceful atmosphere,” “in the spirit of peace” (New English Bible) or “peaceably” (Translator’s New Testament), showing the manner. The phrase is sown in peace may be rendered actively as “plant seeds of peace” (Contemporary English Version) or “spread peace as if planting seeds.”

By those who make peace: in Greek this phrase is in the dative case. Is it to be taken as a dative of agency rendered as “by those who make peace” (so Good News Translation, New English Bible, La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée), or a dative of advantage translated as “for those who make peace” (so New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible)? Grammatically it is more natural to take the phrase as a dative of advantage. In this instance the fruit of righteousness is promised as a reward “for those who make peace.” There are a number of examples of the dative of agent in the New Testament, although this construction is often not recognized (compare Matt 6.18; James 3.7, 18). The argument for taking it as dative of agent is made stronger by the fact that the phrase comes right after the passive verb is sown. Another problem with this interpretation is that the expressions sown in peace and by those who make peace sound repetitious. However, we may explain this as a device that the author uses to create a rhetorical effect for emphasis. In spite of some oddities this interpretation appears to fit the context better on the whole. It suggests that the fruit (or, seed) of righteousness is produced (or, sown) by those who make peace. Those who make peace are people who actively promote unity, harmony, and the total well-being of the Christian community.

In interpreting this saying it is not necessary to press for precise equivalence in all the details. We need only to take the total meaning into consideration. While not abandoning other possibilities, the interpretation and therefore the resultant translation that appears to fit the context best is this:
• And harvest [or, seed] of justice is produced [or, sown] in a spirit of peace by those who promote peace.

We can restructure the sentence as:
• Justice is the harvest reaped by peacemakers from seeds sown in a spirit of peace (similarly New English Bible).

We can also restate this in an active form; for example:
• Peacemakers who sow peace in a spirit of peace will harvest justice.

If translators in certain languages cannot use the metaphor of “planting peace,” they may express this verse as:
• When peacemakers bring about peace between people, the result is that justice is done.

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse continues the themes of prayer and healing. In verse 15 it is the elders who are to pray for the sick, and here in verse 16 it is the members of the community who are encouraged to pray for each other and confess to each other.

Therefore: the conjunction connects the thought of verse 16 with that of verse 15. It suggests that the discussion of the restoration of physical health and the forgiveness of sin that started in verse 15 is continued in verse 16. This particle may also be rendered “So then…” (Good News Translation). Its function is to provide a formal link between what the author has said and what he is going to say. This link may also be rendered as “Consequently….” As far as the theme is concerned, the link is in the power of prayer. If we wish to express this link, we may render the conjunction as “Since prayer has such power…” or “Because God answers prayer….” Following an inferior text, King James Version does not have this connective. The adopted text, which has the connective, makes better sense as it is drawing out an important consequence here.

Confess your sins to one another: the imperative confess is in the present tense, suggesting that continual or habitual practice may be meant. If so, it may be rendered “You should get into the habit of admitting your sins to each other” (Phillips). It is not exactly clear what kind of sins are to be confessed. It is equally unclear who the confession of sin is to be made to. The end of the sentence, where the reference is to healing, makes it probable that the sins may be related to those that have caused the sickness. The phrase to one another certainly does not suggest that the confession is to be addressed to the elders, as the role of the elders is not mentioned in this verse. It may be a confession made to the person against whom sin has been committed. It is perhaps best understood as a confession addressed to God in the presence of other Christians in the Christian community, as this is a practice known to the early church (compare Mark 1.5; Matt 3.6; Acts 19.18). In any case it is unlikely to affect the translation in any significant way if we stay close to the literal rendering.

James also encourages his readers to pray for one another. We note again that the church members, not only the elders, are encouraged to take part in the ministry of intercession. The object of mutual confession and intercession is that you may be healed. The verb “to heal” is most often used in the sense of physical healing, and that may be understood to be the primary meaning intended here. Yet in the present context, where confession of sins is encouraged, the sense of restoring the spiritual health of the Christian community cannot be ruled out. The one who does the healing is God, and it may be desirable to make this clear in some languages; for example, “so that God may heal you.”

The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effect: James emphasizes the power of prayer. This sentence can be taken as a final comment on the prayer of intercession in the first part of this verse. In this case we may wish to link it to the previous statement; for example, “… and pray for one another to be cured; the heartfelt prayer of someone upright works very powerfully” (New Jerusalem Bible). However, most other translations see this sentence as introducing a new line of thought about the power of prayer, as seen in the example of Elijah, and have therefore structured the relationship differently. They place a full stop at the end of the previous sentence, making a complete break. The new sentence then serves as a transition to what is to follow. The French Jerusalem Bible (La Bible de Jérusalem) and Phillips have in fact chosen to make the new sentence the beginning of a new paragraph. In any case it is desirable to show a break between verse 16a and the new sentence.

In Greek the word for prayer used here is from a different root than that of the verb “to pray” used in the previous sentence, but it is difficult to see if any difference in meaning is intended. A righteous man is not to be understood as a special type of person whose prayer is more effective than others. Rather, this person is someone who is faithful to God and living in harmony with God’s will, and therefore his prayer is indeed effective. See the discussion in 5.6. In this context the phrase may simply be rendered as “an upright person” (similarly Goodspeed, New Jerusalem Bible), “a good person” (Good News Translation; similarly Barclay, Revised English Bible), or “an innocent person” (Contemporary English Version).

To underline the power of prayer, James uses two qualifiers to modify the verb has … power, which is literally “is strong” or “is powerful.” The first qualifier is “much” and the second “working” or “being effective.” The second is a participle that can be taken as passive or as middle voice. If it is passive we can translate the sentence as “the prayer is powerful when it is put into effect.” Making it clear that God is the one who puts prayer into effect, Translator’s New Testament has rendered the sentence as “The good man’s prayer is very powerful because God is at work in it.” If the qualifier is a middle, the sentence is normally rendered as “the prayer is powerful when it is exercised” or “the prayer is powerful in its effect.” More scholars and translations appear to favor the second possibility. Yet another possibility is to take the participle as an adjective modifying prayer, resulting in renderings like “Tremendous power is made available through a good man’s earnest prayer” (Phillips) or “The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful” (New American Bible). On the whole it is probably best to follow the majority of scholars. The meaning of this sentence, then, may be most effectively brought out by rendering it as:
• The prayer of a good person is very [or, most] powerful and effective.
• The prayer of a good person has a [very] powerful effect (Good News Translation).
• The prayer of an innocent person is powerful, and it can help a lot (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 .

Continuing the theme of the generous goodness of God, the author links it now with the gift of new birth for believers. Of his own will is a participle in Greek, literally “Having made his decision.” It emphasizes that God acted freely according to his gracious purpose. This can be rendered in various ways; for example, “Of his set purpose” (New English Bible), “By his own choice” (New Jerusalem Bible), “In fulfillment of his own purpose” (New Revised Standard Version), or “God made a decision and brought….”

The pronoun us in he brought us forth is inclusive. This clause, rendered as “gave us birth” by New Revised Standard Version, can be understood in three different ways:
(1) First, it is sometimes taken to mean the birth of Israel as God’s special son (Hos 11.1) and as having a special place over other nations (Deut 7.6).
(2) The second interpretation takes it as a reference to the creation of the human race in general. The references in verse 17 and the use of the term “creatures” (meaning the whole creation) in this verse lend support to this understanding. However, there are some problems with this view. For one thing it is most unlikely that the Divine will is simply to create human beings. This would be too self-evident to be meaningful. The will of God is to bring about salvation of believers. Secondly and more importantly, the verb used here, “to give birth,” is never used for creation.
(3) The majority of scholars therefore prefer a third interpretation, understanding “brought us forth” to mean the new birth of Christians (compare John 3.3-8; Titus 3.5; 1 Peter 1.23). The verb “to give birth” is normally used of a mother giving birth to a child. It is interesting to observe that here God takes on a feminine role by giving new birth to Christians. The verb here is the same as the one used in verse 15 and is meant to contrast with that use: there sin gives birth to death, and here God gives birth to spiritual life for Christians. This interpretation receives further support from the two phrases that follow, the word of truth and first fruits. Other ways to render he brought us forth may be “he caused us to be born anew” or “he caused us to have new life.”

The word of truth is the means by which God brought about the new birth. Those supporting the second interpretation above naturally take the word of truth to mean the creative word of God in Genesis 1. However, it is more likely that the phrase refers to the gospel, as this is the common New Testament usage (Eph 1.13; Col 1.5; 2 Tim 2.15). If this is so, in many languages it will be helpful to render word of truth as “the true message” (Contemporary English Version) or “his true message.”

The concept of first fruits comes from the Old Testament regulation that requires the presentation of the first crop to God at the beginning of harvest. It has to be the best of the harvest and be presented annually as a reminder of God’s faithfulness (compare Exo 23.16, 19; Lev 23.10-14; Deut 18.4). As used in this context, it can mean humanity as the crown of creation, having a special place as the representative of the creation before God. But here again it is best interpreted by taking Christians as the first fruits. They are first in time and order as well as in importance; that is, those people were the first to become Christians (compare 1 Cor 16.15; 2 Thes 2.13), and more importantly, as the focus of the context shows, they had a special place of honor in God’s new creation. This is clearly brought out by some translations; for example, “first place among…” (Good News Translation), “the first and highest place” (Barclay), “his own special place” (Contemporary English Version).

That translates a preposition plus an infinitive in Greek, expressing a goal or purpose (thus “so that” [Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version]). The purpose of God’s bringing us to rebirth is to make us a kind of first fruits of his creatures. The expression a kind of indicates that what is said here is to be understood figuratively. It can be rendered as “so to speak” (Phillips), or “as it were” (Knox). The word creatures in Greek is often used of God’s creation in general and the creatures in it (compare Rom 8.18-25; 1 Tim 4.4; Rev 5.13). Since God’s creation includes the creatures, it is possible to use the more inclusive term, “all his creation” (Knox), “in all creation” (Barclay), “all he created” (New International Version), or “all things that he has created.” That we should have the first place in all his creation means that the whole creation is included in the process of rebirth or re-creation. The new birth of Christians then is to be seen as the prelude to the new creation of the whole world. The clause may be rendered as “so that we should receive the greatest honor of all things that he has created” or “so that God should give us more honor than anything else he has created.”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• God willed [or, made a decision] and he caused us [inclusive] to receive new life through his true word [or, message]. He did this so that we [inclusive] should receive the greatest honor of all the things that he has created.

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 .